G.R. No. 121683 March 26, 1998
CORNELIO B. BAUTISTA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS; and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

On the night of March 6, 1987, police officers Lt. Franklin Garfin and Cpl. Cesar Garcia were pursuing a suspect, Joseph Williamson Dizon, in Pasay City. They cornered Dizon near the Lopa Compound. Petitioner Cornelio Bautista, a security guard on duty at the compound, emerged holding a shotgun. Despite Lt. Garfin identifying himself as a policeman, petitioner retorted, “E, ano kung pulis ka!” and fired from about twenty meters, hitting and killing Lt. Garfin. Petitioner then fired at Cpl. Garcia, who ducked and used Dizon as a shield. Dizon was also shot by petitioner, sustaining injuries, before escaping. Cpl. Garcia identified petitioner as the assailant, leading to his arrest and the confiscation of his shotgun. An autopsy confirmed Lt. Garfin died from shotgun wounds. Ballistics tests matched pellets from the victim’s body to petitioner’s firearm, and a paraffin test showed petitioner was positive for nitrates. Petitioner denied the charges, claiming he never left the compound and that the positive paraffin result was due to him cleaning firearms that day. The trial court convicted petitioner of murder but acquitted him of frustrated murder charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification to the damages. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for murder based on the eyewitness account and physical evidence, despite his denial and the affidavit of desistance from the victim’s widow.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification to restore the indemnity. The Court held that the positive, categorical, and consistent identification by eyewitness Cpl. Garcia, who was a victim himself, prevails over petitioner’s bare denial and unsubstantiated alibi. The physical evidence, including the ballistics match and paraffin test, corroborated Garcia’s testimony. The prosecution’s failure to present more witnesses was not fatal, as the quality of the single eyewitness testimony, sufficiently corroborated, can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The affidavit of desistance executed by the victim’s widow does not extinguish the criminal liability, as murder is a public crime. The Court found that the killing was attended by treachery, as Lt. Garfin was suddenly shot without provocation while performing his duties and after identifying himself, with no opportunity to defend himself.