G.R. No. 113795 March 28, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JESUS ESPINOSA, JR. and RODNEY ESPINOSA, accused. JESUS ESPINOSA, JR., accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused Jesus Espinosa, Jr. and Rodney Espinosa were charged with murder for the killing of Agusto Elon on February 13, 1993, in Iloilo City. The Information alleged that Jesus Espinosa, Jr., armed with a handgun, conspiring with Rodney Espinosa, with evident premeditation and treachery, shot and killed Agusto Elon. The trial court convicted Jesus Espinosa, Jr. as principal for murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, while acquitting Rodney Espinosa due to insufficient evidence. Jesus Espinosa, Jr. appealed, insisting on his alibi and questioning the prosecution’s identification of him as the perpetrator.
The prosecution evidence, as summarized by the trial court, established that at about 11:40 p.m. on February 13, 1993, the victim, a deaf mute, was urinating near the gate of his sister’s house on Zamora Extension Street when accused-appellant Jesus Espinosa, Jr. shot him three times at the back of the head, causing his death. Rodney Espinosa was standing about four feet away during the shooting. The incident was witnessed by the victim’s father, Juan Elon, who was sleeping in his daughter’s house nearby, and by Romualdo Robles, who was on his way home. Both witnesses positively identified accused-appellant as the shooter, testifying that the area was well-lighted and they had a clear view. Juan Elon incurred funeral and burial expenses totaling P4,450.00. The defense of alibi was not substantiated, as the place where accused-appellant claimed to be was not physically impossible to reach from the crime scene.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the prosecution positively identified accused-appellant Jesus Espinosa, Jr. as the perpetrator of the crime. A subsidiary issue is whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be considered in imposing the penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. It held that the prosecution positively identified accused-appellant through the credible and consistent testimonies of two eyewitnesses, Juan Elon and Romualdo Robles, who had no ill motive to testify falsely. The defense of alibi was rejected as the required element of physical impossibility was not present. The Court agreed with the trial court that the killing was attended by treachery, as the victim was shot from behind while urinating and defenseless, qualifying the crime as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
However, the Court found that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be considered, as it was part of the record and could be taken judicial notice of. With one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstances, the prescribed penalty for murder (reclusion temporal maximum to death) should be imposed in its minimum period (17 years, 4 months, 1 day to 20 years). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper penalty is the next lower degree (prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium). Thus, accused-appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The award of civil indemnity and damages was affirmed.