G.R. No. 104869 February 23, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NICASIO GORNES, RAUL VILAR and JOHN DOES, accused. NICASIO GORNES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Nicasio Gornes, Raul Vilar, and several John Does were charged with the murder of Eugenia Lastimoso. The information alleged that on November 19, 1988, in Sitio Naga, Pamplona, Negros Oriental, the accused, conspiring and with abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation, assaulted, stabbed, and shot the victim, causing her death. Only Nicasio Gornes was arrested and arraigned; he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented two eyewitnesses: Pacita Veriña and Teresita Lastimoso, twin daughters of the victim and first cousins of the appellant. They testified that at about 5:00 a.m., the appellant, Raul Vilar, and about twenty others came to their house. After a brief conversation, the appellant suddenly stabbed their mother multiple times in the chest with a hunting knife. The victim ran downstairs and, when about ten to eleven meters away, was shot in the back by the appellant. Raul Vilar then approached and shot her in the head. The witnesses claimed the killing was motivated by suspicion that their mother was a military informer and that they delayed reporting the crime due to threats from the appellant and his companions. The defense presented an alibi, with the appellant claiming he was doing farm work in another sitio at the time of the killing, a distance of five to eleven hours away on foot. The trial court convicted Nicasio Gornes of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify the heirs in the amount of P40,000.00.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, despite alleged inconsistencies and the defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. The Court found no merit in the appeal, upholding the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility. The positive identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses, who were his first cousins and had no ill motive to falsely testify, was deemed credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the witnesses’ account—that the victim, a 42-year-old woman with no physical disability, could run after being stabbed—to be natural and not contrary to human experience, given her instinct for self-preservation. The delay in reporting the crime was justified by the witnesses’ fear, as the appellant and his companions were suspected NPA members who had threatened them. The defense of alibi was rejected as inherently weak and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, especially in light of the positive identification. The Court modified the decision by increasing the civil indemnity from P40,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.