G.R. No. 108616 June 19, 1997
The PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO PATAWARAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rodolfo Patawaran, a former member of the Civilian Home Defence Force (CHDF) of Tarlac, was charged with Murder for the killing of Martin Panlican on January 3, 1986. The prosecution presented eyewitness Jose Ortiz, who testified that while on his way home, he saw Patawaran, carrying an armalite rifle, argue with the deceased near railroad tracks. When Panlican refused to alight from his motorcycle and tried to restart it, Patawaran hit him on the shoulder with the rifle and then shot him. Another man emerged from the tall grass and also shot the deceased. The testimonies of Engracio Dingle and Alberto Arellano corroborated Ortiz’s account by placing Patawaran near the crime scene at the relevant time. For his defense, Patawaran interposed alibi, claiming he was at Camp Makabulos in Tarlac the entire day of January 3, 1986, attending to his detained father. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Patawaran appealed, assailing the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the rejection of his alibi.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Rodolfo Patawaran of Murder based on the prosecution’s evidence and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the ruling by finding that only treachery, not evident premeditation, qualified the killing. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of prosecution witness Jose Ortiz, whose eyewitness account was straightforward, consistent on material points, and corroborated by other witnesses. Minor inconsistencies in his testimony did not impair his credibility. The defense of alibi was properly rejected as it was inherently weak and riddled with gross inconsistencies in the testimonies of Patawaran and his father. Furthermore, alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused. The Court found that the killing was attended by treachery, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, ensuring the victim’s defenselessness. However, evident premeditation was not sufficiently established, as the prosecution’s evidence on this point was based on hearsay and did not show the accused’s deliberate plan. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awarded indemnities and damages were affirmed.