G.R. No. 113799 June 17, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BIENVENIDO BAYDO y ARCAMO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Bienvenido Baydo y Arcamo was charged with Murder for the killing of Leonardo Punongbayan, Jr. on June 14, 1992, in Manila. The Information alleged he conspired with George Navarro, who had already pleaded guilty to Homicide. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Rosito Punongbayan (the victim’s nephew) and Evelyn Punongbayan (the victim’s widow). Rosito testified he saw appellant and Navarro shoot the victim, with appellant firing the second and third shots to the chest. Evelyn testified she saw the shooting from across the road, heard appellant tell Navarro to finish the victim, and stated appellant had a grudge against the Punongbayan family. Appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at his house 15-20 meters away when he heard shots, went out to look, and later fled to Laguna out of fear. His co-accused, George Navarro, testified that he and another person, Lino Salandanan, shot the victim, and that he did not know appellant. The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty of Murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay indemnity and moral damages.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting appellant’s defense of alibi and giving probative value to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of Murder despite the alleged failure to prove the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but DELETED the award of moral damages.
1. On the first issue, the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive, clear, and unbiased identification by the prosecution eyewitnesses. The appellant’s claim of being 15-20 meters away from the crime scene did not constitute physical impossibility of being present. The Court found the testimonies of Rosito and Evelyn Punongbayan credible and sufficient to establish appellant’s participation. The testimony of George Navarro exculpating appellant was deemed inadmissible as a declaration against penal interest, as Navarro had already been convicted, and his testimony in appellant’s trial would not expose him to further criminal liability.
2. On the second issue, the Court agreed with appellant that evident premeditation was not proven, as there was no evidence of the time when the appellant determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that clinging to the determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution. However, the Court found that treachery (alevosia) was duly proven. The attack was sudden and unexpected, with the victim first being shot while seated on a bench and then shot again while kneeling and pleading for his life, rendering him unable to defend himself. This qualified the killing to Murder. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed as the proper penalty for Murder absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the victim’s death was sustained. The award of P70,000.00 as moral damages was deleted for lack of factual basis, as the widow’s testimony did not detail the requisite mental anguish, fright, or similar injury.