G.R. No. 103211 February 28, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Mario Barte y Cabusas, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On September 18, 1989, at about 6:30 PM, Sonny Capua was shot dead at his canteen in Tebag, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan. The lone bullet entered behind his right ear and exited below his left neck. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of the victim’s widow, Jovita Capua. She testified that she and her husband were at their canteen attending to customers, including the accused-appellant Mario Barte, a barangay councilman. After being served beer, Barte left. Later, while her husband was resting with his back against a grilled window, she was standing in front of him and saw Barte outside the window shoot her husband from behind. She immediately recognized Barte as the assailant because the area was illuminated by a 25-watt bulb outside and a 50-watt bulb inside, and she knew him well as a childhood barangaymate. Three days later, she executed a sworn statement identifying Barte as the killer. The prosecution also presented evidence that Barte was not a licensed firearm holder and the autopsy report confirming the cause of death.
The defense presented an alibi. Barte claimed he was at the canteen until about 6:00 PM, then went home and stayed there until midnight. Defense witness Municipal Councilor Onofre Palaganas corroborated that Barte left the canteen at 6:00 PM and that he heard a gunshot at about 7:25 PM, but did not see the assailant. Palaganas also testified that when he asked Jovita who shot her husband, she said, “I don’t know, Kuya.” Police officers Cpl. Ernesto Parayno and Pat. Jaime Tamayo testified that upon arriving at the scene, Jovita was hysterical and could not name the assailant. A paraffin test on Barte yielded negative results for nitrates.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Mario Barte of Murder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm under P.D. 1866 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the guilt of accused-appellant Mario Barte for the murder of Sonny Capua has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of Jovita Capua to be credible, straightforward, detailed, and consistent even under extensive cross-examination. Her positive identification of Barte as the assailant, made under good lighting conditions and from a short distance, was deemed sufficient to convict. The Court held that the testimony of a single credible and positive witness is enough for conviction.
The defense of alibi was rejected. The Court ruled that for alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate it was physically impossible to be at the crime scene. Barte failed to do this, as his house was only 50 meters away from the canteen, making it easy for him to return. His alibi was also uncorroborated and weak. The positive identification by Jovita Capua completely demolished the alibi defense.
The Court addressed the defense claim that Jovita initially could not name the killer. It noted the testimony of Cpl. Parayno that Jovita was hysterical and could not be questioned at the scene. Furthermore, Jovita, as a rebuttal witness, categorically denied having told Councilor Palaganas or Pat. Tamayo that she did not know who shot her husband.
Regarding the paraffin test, the Court cited precedent that a negative result does not prove the accused did not fire a gun, as nitrates can be removed.
The Court, however, modified the legal qualification of the crime. It ruled that the use of an unlicensed firearm is not a qualifying circumstance for murder but an aggravating circumstance. Since P.D. 1866, which prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for homicide or murder committed with an unlicensed firearm, was deemed unconstitutional for violating the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation, the case should be governed by the Revised Penal Code. The crime is therefore simple Murder, qualified by treachery (the victim was shot from behind without risk to the assailant). The penalty for Murder is reclusion perpetua to death. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s sentence of reclusion perpetua and the award of P50,000.00 civil indemnity. It additionally awarded P20,000.00 for moral damages and P10,000.00 for death and burial expenses.