G.R. No. 118771 , January 18, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Maximo Abrenica y Tejana, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Maximo Abrenica was charged with Murder for the killing of Reynaldo Mabisa y Ebonia and with Frustrated Murder for the gunshot wounds inflicted upon Ramiro Garcia, both occurring on September 11, 1991. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty on both counts. The prosecution’s principal witness was the surviving victim, Ramiro Garcia, a stevedore. He testified that in the early morning of September 11, 1991, while working on the barge “Martam III” docked in Binondo, Manila, accused-appellant Maximo Abrenica suddenly pointed a gun at him and shot him, hitting his left chest. After Garcia fell, Abrenica approached and shot him again, hitting his left hand and upper lip. Abrenica then pushed Garcia into the water and continued firing at him. Garcia also saw Abrenica shoot his co-stevedore, “Yoyong” (Reynaldo Mabisa), who was hit in the face and died. Garcia positively identified Abrenica in court as the assailant. The accused-appellant raised the defense of alibi, claiming he was asleep in a nearby parked truck, and assailed Garcia’s credibility by pointing to alleged inconsistencies in his testimony regarding the victim’s nickname and work schedule.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant based on the positive identification and credible testimony of the surviving witness, Ramiro Garcia, despite the alleged inconsistencies in his testimony.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that Ramiro Garcia’s testimony provided a positive, categorical, and unequivocal identification of accused-appellant as the gunman who shot both him and Reynaldo Mabisa. The alleged inconsistencies in Garcia’s testimony—such as using different nicknames for the deceased victim (“Yoyong” and “Rene”) and his description of the work period—were deemed trivial, referring only to collateral matters that did not detract from the core narrative of the shooting. The Court ruled that discrepancies between an affidavit and court testimony do not necessarily discredit a witness, and any delay in reporting the crime was satisfactorily explained by Garcia’s natural hesitation, given the accused’s violent act. The defense of denial and alibi could not prevail over Garcia’s positive identification. The Court further found that the crimes were committed with treachery (alevosia), as the attack was sudden and unexpected on unarmed victims who had no opportunity to defend themselves, thereby qualifying the killing as Murder and the wounding as Frustrated Murder. Applying Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 7659 , and with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua for Murder was proper. The appealed decision was affirmed.