G.R. No. 146100 ; November 13, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Johnny Loterono @ “Jun”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Johnny Loterono, along with Eric Cacho, Esmar Dato-on, Jonel Daprinal, Larry Anota, and Roie Babagonio, were stay-in construction workers at the Sarabia Manor Hotel in Iloilo City. In the early dawn of August 26, 1998, Roie Babagonio was repeatedly stabbed in the chest. His cries for help awakened Eric Cacho, who slept in the same room. Cacho saw the attacker, whom he recognized as Johnny Loterono, stabbing Babagonio. When Loterono turned on him, Cacho fled. Dato-on and Anota, awakened by noises, later found Babagonio dead on the stairway with multiple stab wounds. Loterono was charged with Murder. Initially, he pleaded not guilty but later, during pre-trial, admitted to the killing in self-defense. Subsequently, he sought to withdraw his not guilty plea and enter a plea bargain to the lesser offense of Homicide, which the prosecution and the victim’s parents initially conformed to. However, on the eve of sentencing, Loterono filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty and re-entered a plea of not guilty to Murder. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Loterono of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving full weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (Eric Cacho, Jonel Daprinal, Larry Anota, and Esmar Dato-on).
2. Whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to the testimony of the defense witness, Oscar Jaro.
3. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of Murder and sentencing him to death.
4. Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting the accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the penalty. The Court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible and consistent. Eyewitness Eric Cacho positively identified Loterono as the assailant, and his delay in reporting the incident was sufficiently explained by fear. The relationship of the other witnesses to the victim did not impair their credibility, as no improper motive was shown. The defense of denial and alibi presented by Loterono, supported only by the testimony of Oscar Jaro, was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. The Court found that treachery attended the killing, as the attack was sudden and from behind while the victim was asleep, ensuring the execution without risk to the assailant. However, the Court ruled that evident premeditation was not proven with certainty. The qualifying circumstance of treachery justified the conviction for Murder. Regarding the penalty, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty could not be imposed because the Information alleged the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation in a generic manner without specifying the factual bases, which violated the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Court also affirmed the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and actual damages to the victim’s heirs.