G.R. No. 111313 -14 January 16, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JULIE VILLAMOR, a.k.a. “JULITO VILLAMOR” and “JULIO VILLAMOR”, ARMANDO ESCALANTE and JOSEPITO “LOCLOC” GAMIL, accused, JULIE VILLAMOR, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Two separate amended Informations charged Appellant Julie Villamor and his co-accused Armando Escalante and Josepito “Locloc” Gamil with two counts of murder for the killings of Benigno Tenajeros and Lito Edo on January 8, 1987, in Surigao City. Only appellant was apprehended and arraigned, pleading not guilty. The prosecution’s version, based largely on the eyewitness account of Eduardo Escalante, established that on the evening of January 8, 1987, Eduardo met appellant and his two cousins at a highway. They boarded a tricycle driven by Benigno Tenajeros, with Lito Edo as a passenger. During the ride, appellant suddenly drew a revolver and fired. Josepito Gamil then cut Tenajeros’ neck with a knife. After the tricycle fell into a canal, Eduardo saw Armando Escalante and appellant take turns shooting Lito Edo as he ran towards a ricefield. The medico-legal reports confirmed the victims died from gunshot and stab wounds. The eyewitness was warned not to report the incident. Appellant interposed alibi, claiming he was drinking tuba at Jesus Tesaluna’s house the entire night. The trial court convicted appellant of two counts of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each, also ordering him to pay indemnity, moral damages, loss of earning capacity, and funeral expenses to the victims’ heirs.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Julie Villamor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the conviction with MODIFICATIONS to the damages awarded. The Court reiterated the doctrines that: (1) the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility deserves great respect; (2) delay in reporting a crime, when explained, does not necessarily discredit an eyewitness account; and (3) awards of damages must be justified by adequate proof. The Court found the eyewitness testimony of Eduardo Escalante to be credible, detailed, and consistent, and corroborated by the medico-legal findings. Appellant’s alibi was weak and could not prevail over positive identification. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present as the attacks were sudden and unexpected, rendering the victims defenseless. However, the award of moral damages and funeral expenses was deleted for lack of factual basis. The civil indemnity for each victim was increased to P50,000.00. The awards for loss of earning capacity were recomputed: for Benigno Tenajeros, P688,000.00; for Lito Edo, P69,600.00. Appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count of murder and ordered to pay the modified amounts.