GR 112279; (July, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112279 July 3, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERT ALBAN, DEMETRIO ALBAN y PANINGBATAN @ “TING ALBAN,” BING ALBAN and ARTHUR DOE, accused. ROBERT ALBAN and DEMETRIO ALBAN y. PANINGBATAN @ “TING ALBAN,” appellants.
FACTS
The appellants, brothers Robert and Demetrio Alban, were convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court for the killing of Roberto Salinas. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of Joseph Salinas, the 13-year-old son of the victim. Joseph testified that on July 31, 1991, he saw his father being attacked by four men near a sari-sari store. He positively identified appellants Robert and Demetrio as two of the assailants who stabbed his father while two others restrained the victim’s hands. After the stabbing, an unidentified person shot the already slumped victim. The defense of the appellants was alibi, with Robert claiming he was fishing and Demetrio asserting he was in another city. They also presented witnesses to challenge Joseph’s credibility, alleging he did not reside with his father and was not present at the scene.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) the credibility of the child eyewitness, Joseph Salinas; (2) the presence of treachery to qualify the killing as murder; and (3) the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence to sustain a conviction.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but deleted the finding of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. On credibility, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment, emphasizing that the competence of a child witness rests primarily with the trial judge who observes the witness’s demeanor and intelligence. Joseph’s testimony was found to be clear, consistent, and credible. His relationship to the victim did not automatically impair his credibility, and his natural reaction of fear and hiding during the attack was deemed reasonable. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing proof of physical impossibility to be at the crime scene.
Regarding treachery, the Court ruled it was present. The attack was sudden and deliberate, executed by a group who employed means that deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself. The act of two assailants holding the victim’s hands while the others stabbed him directly ensured the execution without risk to the attackers. This method constituted alevosia. However, the Court found the aggravating circumstance of cruelty was not proven, as the prosecution failed to establish that the appellants deliberately and inhumanly increased the victim’s suffering. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was thus correctly imposed, there being no other modifying circumstances.