G.R. No. 104500 May 6, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMERVITO REGOROZA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of April 28, 1987, in Barangay Poblacion, Iligan City, barangay tanod Pablo Balando witnessed the killing of Alejandro Unabia. Balando saw six men approach; one of them, later identified as Emervito Regoroza, suddenly stabbed Unabia, who was seated on the pavement. As Unabia fled, four other men pursued and took turns stabbing him, while a sixth man restrained Balando by pointing a knife at his abdomen. Balando observed the incident under the light of a mercury lamp and a fluorescent tube and had used his flashlight on the men as they passed. Unabia sustained twelve stab wounds, six fatal ones at the back. During police investigation, Balando initially stated the suspect in custody was not the assailant, describing the assailant differently, but later identified Regoroza at the station and during trial. The prosecution presented Juanita Closas, Unabia’s stepmother, who testified that on the evening before the killing, Regoroza had an altercation with his wife at the Unabia residence. Regoroza denied involvement, claiming he was sleeping at the house of Guillerma Cagula at the time and that Balando failed to identify him initially. The defense presented Cpl. Antonio Lubang, who testified that Balando could not identify Regoroza in an investigation on May 2, 1987, and security guard Guillermo Barimbad, who claimed the area was dark. The Cagulas were not presented to corroborate Regoroza’s alibi. The Regional Trial Court found Regoroza guilty of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Emervito Regoroza of murder based on the eyewitness identification by Pablo Balando, despite challenges to the visibility at the crime scene and the credibility of the identification.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the positive identification by eyewitness Pablo Balando, who had a clear view of the incident under adequate lighting and used his flashlight on the assailants, was credible and convincing. The defense’s argument about darkness inadvertently admitted that Balando used his flashlight to see Regoroza’s face. The threat to Balando occurred after the stabbing, so it did not impair his observation of the crime. Regoroza’s defense of denial and alibi, uncorroborated by the absent Cagulas, could not prevail over Balando’s positive testimony, which was not shown to be motivated by improper pressure or ill will. The fact that the judge who penned the decision did not preside at the trial was not reversible error, as he had the full record and transcript for review. The killing was qualified as murder by treachery (alevosia), as Unabia was sitting and stabbed from behind without opportunity to defend himself, with abuse of superior strength absorbed in treachery. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and an indemnity of P50,000.00 to the victim’s heirs were upheld.