G.R. No. 106234 March 2, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE DAYSON, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jose Dayson was charged with murder for the killing of Pedro Trilles on May 18, 1990, in Tinapian, Manito, Albay. The information alleged that Dayson, together with two other unidentified persons, with treachery and evident premeditation, attacked and shot Trilles with a high-powered firearm, inflicting a fatal gunshot wound to the head. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Dayson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay indemnity and burial expenses. Dayson appealed, insisting on his innocence.
The prosecution’s evidence consisted primarily of the eyewitness testimony of Nieves Trilles, the victim’s widow. She testified that at about 9:00 p.m. on May 18, 1990, she and her husband were in their well-lit hut when Dayson, whom she knew as a CAFGU member, entered through the doorless kitchen and immediately shot her husband, who was slouching and very drunk, at close range. She positively identified Dayson, whom she had known for almost ten years. After the shooting, she saw Dayson join two other persons outside. She reported the incident the next day. The defense relied on alibi, claiming Dayson was on guard duty at a CAFGU detachment about three kilometers away from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. that evening, and was relieved at 10:00 p.m. The defense presented corroborating witnesses.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Jose Dayson of murder based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the appreciation of aggravating circumstances. The defense of alibi failed because the accused did not prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, given the proximity (a 20-minute travel via paved highway) and the nature of his roving guard duty. The positive identification by the eyewitness, Nieves Trilles, who knew the accused well and gave straightforward and convincing testimony, prevailed over the alibi. The failure of the prosecution to establish motive was immaterial since the accused was positively identified. The killing was attended by treachery, as the victim was drunk, almost unconscious, and had no opportunity to defend himself against the sudden attack. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling was also present, as the crime was committed in the victim’s house without provocation. However, the Court held that the trial court erroneously appreciated the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and by a band, as nocturnity was not specially sought or taken advantage of, and “by a band” requires more than three armed malefactors. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.