G.R. No. 215319 October 21, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. APOLONIO BABOR @ “JULITO”, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Apolonio “Julito” Babor was charged with Murder for hacking to death his father-in-law, Bartolome Amahit, on the night of January 25, 2005, in Sitio Mologpolog, Bindoy, Negros Oriental. The Information alleged the killing was attended by treachery and evident premeditation. The prosecution’s main witness was the accused’s wife, Marife Babor. She testified that on the night of the incident, she was sleeping in her parents’ house with her parents and son when she was awakened by noise. She lit a kerosene lamp and saw her husband, armed with a bolo. He first hacked her left foot and then proceeded to hack her sleeping father, Bartolome, on the head. While Bartolome was lying down, accused-appellant continued hacking him. Dr. Leah Brun-Salvatierra, who conducted the post-mortem examination, confirmed the victim sustained multiple fatal hacking wounds. The defense consisted solely of accused-appellant’s denial. He claimed that he was also a victim, having been hacked by an unknown assailant at the door of the house, after which he jumped out the window, was stoned, and hid in a sugarcane field until morning. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision but modified the civil liabilities. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellant for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found all elements of Murder present: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by treachery; and (4) the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide. The positive and categorical testimony of Marife Babor, who witnessed the crime and positively identified her husband as the assailant under the illumination of a kerosene lamp, was given full credence. Her testimony was consistent with the medical findings. The Court rejected accused-appellant’s defense of denial, which was uncorroborated and self-serving. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated because the attack was sudden and unexpected, directed at a victim who was asleep and thus rendered defenseless. The Court modified the awarded damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages, all with interest at 6% per annum from finality of the decision until fully paid.