G.R. No. 107938 December 4, 1995
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Abulkhair Patamama alias Catiya, et al., accused. Abulkhair Patamama alias Catiya, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On an evening in October 1989, Hadji Salic Sultan Sarip and his uncle Malik Comolang went to check their farm. They heard gunshots from their house’s direction and returned to find accused-appellant Abulkhair Patamama and five other men shooting the prostrate body of another uncle, Pangcatan Comolang. The assailants warned the witnesses before fleeing. The victim’s son and the police were informed. A rural health inspector issued the death certificate, citing gunshot wounds as the cause. An information for murder was filed. Only Patamama was apprehended and tried.
The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Hadji Salic and Malik, who positively identified Patamama, claiming a bright moon illuminated the scene. The defense presented alibi, asserting Patamama was residing in Marawi City and had not returned to Maguing. It also presented a PAGASA certification stating there was no moon in the sky at the time of the incident to discredit the eyewitness account. The trial court convicted Patamama of murder qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant based on the eyewitness identification and in appreciating the qualifying circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the legal qualification. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is generally binding. The relationship of the witnesses to the victim does not automatically impair credibility, and their positive identification prevails over the defense of alibi. The PAGASA certification did not conclusively disprove the witnesses’ ability to identify the appellant, as visibility could have been provided by other light sources. The alibi was weak, as Marawi City was easily accessible from the crime scene.
However, the Court found treachery was not proven with the same clarity as the crime itself, as the prosecution failed to detail how the attack began. Nevertheless, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was properly appreciated. The appellant, with five others, used high-powered firearms against an unarmed victim, employing a combination of numerical and weapon superiority to ensure the killing without risk to themselves. This circumstance qualifies the killing to murder. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.