G.R. No. 226145 February 13, 2017
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Romeo D. Calinawan a.k.a “Meo”, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Romeo Calinawan was charged with the murder of Janice Nevado Silan. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of the victim’s seven-year-old daughter, Marigor Silan, who testified that she saw Calinawan, identifiable by his amputated fingers, stab her mother in their kitchen at midnight. The victim’s brother, Jonathan Nevado, corroborated this, testifying that the victim, in a dying declaration, identified Calinawan as her assailant both to him and later to her husband at the hospital before she succumbed to her wounds days later.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Calinawan claimed he was at his mother’s house drinking with his brother from 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM on the night of the incident and was asleep until police awakened him around 2:00 AM. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of murder, finding the killing attended by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages. Calinawan appealed, questioning the eyewitness identification and the presence of treachery.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether Calinawan was positively identified as the assailant, and (2) whether the killing was attended by treachery to qualify the crime as murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from Murder to Homicide. On the first issue, the Court upheld the positive identification. It ruled that the defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by an eyewitness. Marigor’s identification was deemed credible and reliable; her familiarity with Calinawan as a neighbor allowed her to recognize him despite a hooded jacket, specifically noting his distinctive amputated fingers. This testimony was strongly corroborated by the victim’s dying declaration, which possessed all required elements for admissibility.
On the second issue, the Court found that treachery was not sufficiently established. The prosecution failed to prove how the attack was commenced. There was no evidence detailing the manner of assault to show that the accused consciously adopted a method to ensure the execution without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. The lower courts’ finding of treachery, based merely on the nighttime attack and the victim being defenseless, was a general assumption insufficient to prove this qualifying circumstance. Absent treachery, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of 11 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and adjusted the awarded damages accordingly.