GR 115693; (March, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115693 March 17, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SILVERIANO BOTONA, NICOLAS BOTONA, JUNICA LINGATONG, alias “TIKI” (at large) and SOFRONIO BOTONA, accused-appellants.
FACTS
The accused-appellants, Silveriano Botona, Nicolas Botona, and Sofronio Botona, were convicted of Murder for the killing of Bienvenido Oliver, their brother-in-law, by the Regional Trial Court of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. The prosecution’s case, primarily through the testimony of the victim’s 16-year-old son, Julieto Oliver, established that on the night of June 27, 1988, the accused, together with their cousin Junica Lingatong (at large), conspired to attack the victim. After the victim left a card game at Silveriano’s house, Silveriano initially accosted him on the road. Subsequently, Nicolas, Junica, and Sofronio emerged and collectively subdued the victim, pushing him to the ground. Julieto fled but later witnessed the accused washing themselves at a pumpwell. The victim was found dead with multiple stab and incised wounds.
The defense presented alibi and denial. Silveriano and Nicolas claimed they were sleeping at home, while Sofronio, who was detained separately from his bonded brother, testified he was at a different location. They alleged the testimony of Julieto was coached and inconsistent. The trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible and convicted the appellants, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found no reason to deviate from the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution’s eyewitness, Julieto Oliver. The alleged inconsistencies in his testimony were minor and pertained to collateral matters, which did not affect the core narrative of the crime. His positive identification of the appellants, who were his uncles and cousin, was deemed credible and sufficient to establish their participation. The defense of alibi was rightly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, especially since the appellants failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene.
Regarding the qualifying circumstance, the Court upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia). The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The collective act of hugging and subduing the victim before the infliction of the fatal wounds ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the appellants. The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing the civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and awarding moral damages of P50,000.00, but sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua.