G.R. No. 105361 June 25, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BONIFACIO ENCISO alias “BONING”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Bonifacio Enciso was charged with murder for the fatal shooting of Rodolfo Jeminez on June 25, 1987, in Magdugo, Toledo City. After multiple unserved warrants, he was arrested on May 19, 1988. He pleaded not guilty. Prior to trial, he filed a Motion to Dismiss based on an affidavit from Cesario Benoya, Jr., a co-detainee, confessing to the crime. The court ordered a reinvestigation, which revealed that Benoya’s confession was procured by the accused’s parents for P10,000. The motion was denied. An Amended Information was filed. At trial, prosecution witnesses Bibiano Purisima and Francisco Abarquez positively identified Enciso as the shooter. Purisima testified he was with Enciso on a bicycle when Enciso shot the victim. Abarquez, the victim’s nephew, witnessed the shooting while walking home with the victim. The defense presented alibi, claiming Enciso was repairing radios in Amislag at the time, a place 5 minutes by tricycle from the crime scene. Evidence also showed Enciso wrote a letter to Purisima asking him not to testify and attempted to fabricate evidence via Benoya’s paid confession. The trial court convicted Enciso of murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment and damages. He appealed, questioning witness credibility and the conviction.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of murder based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence presented, despite the defense of alibi and challenges to the identification.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction with modification on the penalty designation. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings on witness credibility, noting no reason to deviate as the trial judge observed the witnesses’ deportment. The positive identification by two eyewitnesses (Purisima and Abarquez) was clear and consistent. The defense of alibi was weak and unpersuasive given the proximity of the locations. The appellant’s flight (evading arrest via five warrants), his attempt to dissuade a witness (Exhibit “D” letter), and his fabrication of evidence (procuring Benoya’s paid confession) were all indicative of guilt. The crime was qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no chance to defend himself. The penalty was properly imposed as reclusion perpetua, but the trial court’s designation of “life imprisonment” was corrected to the proper legal term. The appealed decision was affirmed subject to this modification.