G.R. No. 120641 October 7, 1999
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIE FLORO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rogelie Floro was charged with Murder for the killing of Tornino Salacop on the evening of April 7, 1993, in Sitio Sirawak, Pagadian City. The information alleged he shot and subsequently struck the victim on the head with treachery. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s main witness was Carlito Bawan, who testified that he and the victim were walking on a trail through accused-appellant’s cassava plantation when accused-appellant suddenly appeared and shot the victim. Carlito, who was three meters behind, ran but stumbled; looking back, he saw accused-appellant strike the victim’s head several times with the gun. He identified the weapon as a 12-gauge homemade shotgun and recognized accused-appellant due to moonlight and their five-year neighborhood. He reported the incident two days later to his uncle Wilton Bawan and barangay kagawad Benjamin Vidal. The prosecution also presented Wilton Bawan and Benjamin Vidal, who corroborated the report and the discovery of the victim’s body with wounds. The defense presented an alibi: accused-appellant claimed he was at his in-laws’ house from April 4 to 8, 1993, assisting with the harvest and asleep by 7:00 p.m. on April 7. Defense witnesses Rodrigo Babao and Ernesto Lagnason testified about the body’s discovery and claimed Carlito and Wilton initially did not know the assailant. On rebuttal, Barangay Captain Charlie Babayson testified it was moonlit and not raining on the night of the crime and that Carlito had named accused-appellant as the killer. The Regional Trial Court found accused-appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Rogelie Floro for the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Carlito Bawan credible, positive, and consistent. His identification of accused-appellant was reliable given the moonlight and his familiarity with accused-appellant as a long-time neighbor. The delay in reporting the crime for two days was sufficiently explained by his fear. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present because the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. The Court modified the civil indemnity, increasing it to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.