GR 122109; (June, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122109; June 25, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JESUS TORIO, Appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Jesus Torio was charged with Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearm for the shooting death of Barangay Captain Ramon Paulo on August 12, 1994. The prosecution’s eyewitness, John Paulo, testified that around 11:00 p.m., while he and a companion were walking on a dike, they saw the victim on a motorcycle pass by. Appellant, positioned on the side of the dike, suddenly stood up and shot the victim multiple times with a long firearm from behind. John Paulo positively identified appellant, illuminated by the motorcycle’s headlight, and saw him flee. The defense presented alibi, claiming appellant was playing cards elsewhere at the time, and questioned the witness’s credibility, alleging improper motive due to a land dispute.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for Murder beyond reasonable doubt, and (2) the propriety of the conviction for Illegal Possession of Firearm under Presidential Decree No. 1866.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Murder conviction but dismissed the charge for Illegal Possession of Firearm. On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, finding no reason to deviate from its conclusion. John Paulo’s positive identification was deemed credible and reliable, as the illumination from the motorcycle headlight provided sufficient visibility. His relationship to the victim did not impair his credibility; rather, it lent more weight to his testimony as he would not accuse an innocent person. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated. Treachery was properly appreciated as the attack was sudden and from behind, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself.
Regarding the second issue, the Court applied the ruling in People vs. Valdez, which held that a conviction for Murder or Homicide absorbs the crime of Illegal Possession of a Firearm used in its commission. Thus, the separate conviction under P.D. No. 1866 could not be sustained. The Court modified the damages awarded, computing indemnity for loss of earning capacity based on the victim’s age and income, and awarding moral and exemplary damages. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was affirmed with modifications to the damages and the dismissal of the illegal possession charge.