GR 119971; (March, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 119971 March 26, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ORLANDO PALLARCO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Orlando Pallarco was charged with Murder for the killing of Jesus Jerusalem on July 30, 1993, in Barangay Pan-ay, Clarin, Misamis Occidental. The Information alleged that he shot the victim with a handgun, with evident premeditation and treachery. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Apolonio Enomar Jr. and Diogenes Salazar, who were drinking beer with the victim in Enomar’s kitchen when the accused suddenly appeared at the door and shot Jerusalem three times in the head. Enomar positively identified Pallarco, a neighbor for ten years, as the assailant. The victim’s widow, Evangelista Jerusalem, testified about a prior altercation between the accused and the victim over unpaid cockfight winnings. The defense presented alibi, with appellant claiming he was at a friend’s house drinking tuba and eating dog meat at the time of the shooting. Defense witnesses, including Barangay Captain Vicente Siao, alleged that the eyewitnesses initially stated they could not identify the assailant due to darkness. The trial court convicted Pallarco of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court gravely erred in finding the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime charged established beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the positive identification of the appellant by credible eyewitness Apolonio Enomar Jr. prevails over the defense of alibi, which is inherently weak. The Court found no reason to overturn the trial court’s assessment of Enomar’s credibility, noting his straightforward and candid testimony, the adequate illumination at the crime scene (a gas lamp and a fluorescent light), and the lack of ill motive to falsely testify. The Court ruled that treachery was present as the attack was sudden, from behind, and gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself, qualifying the killing as Murder. The Court modified the award of civil indemnity to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.