GR 100460; (June, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 100460-61 June 5, 1996
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MOISES PANO y BAYLOSIS, MARIANO FUENTES y BAYLOSIS, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Moises Pano and Mariano Fuentes were charged with two counts of Murder for the killings of Sisenando and Nestor Limbaga on November 20, 1985. The prosecution presented Gregorio Malabon, who testified that on November 13, 1985, during a gathering, the appellants decided to kill the victims. Malabon further stated that on the evening of the crime, Pano returned to a house with Fuentes, who was wearing a bloody shirt, and declared that the victims were dead. Eyewitness Iluminada Limbaga testified that she saw Pano shoot her father, Sisenando, and then turn to shoot at Nestor, who dodged. She then saw Fuentes, aided by an unidentified person, subdue and repeatedly stab Nestor before Pano shot the victim multiple times.
The appellants pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of Murder in both cases, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of each victim P30,000. They appealed, arguing the trial court erred in crediting the prosecution’s evidence and in finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing alleged inconsistencies and implausibilities in the testimonies.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of Murder based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded the highest respect, as it is in the best position to observe demeanor and conduct. The alleged inconsistencies in Iluminada Limbaga’s testimony were minor and did not affect her core narrative of witnessing the killings. Her testimony was clear, positive, and credible. The defense of alibi presented by the appellants was weak and could not prevail over this positive identification. The Court found that the prosecution successfully established the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, as the attack was sudden and rendered the victims unable to defend themselves. However, the Court modified the civil liability, increasing the indemnity to P50,000 for the heirs of each victim, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. The decision of the trial court was affirmed with this modification.