G.R. No. 123094 . January 31, 2000.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LUISITO PAGLINAWAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Luisito Paglinawan was charged with the murder of seven-year-old Jerry Senados. The prosecution alleged that on March 20, 1989, Paglinawan strafed the Senados family’s house with an M16 rifle while the family was about to sleep on the second floor. The initial gunshot destroyed their light source, plunging the area into darkness, followed by several bursts of gunfire. The victim was killed, and his mother and sibling were injured. The victim’s parents, Segundino and Millianita Senados, testified that after the shooting, they peeped through a hole in their wall and clearly saw Paglinawan holding a rifle, illuminated by a light from their ground floor. They identified him as the assailant. Prosecution witness Paquito Garcia also testified that he saw Paglinawan, appearing agitated and holding an M16, near the scene shortly after hearing the gunshots.
The defense presented Paglinawan and Nestor Patombon, a CHDF commander. Paglinawan denied the accusation and claimed he was elsewhere. Patombon testified he heard the gunshots and later saw armed men fleeing, but he did not see Paglinawan. The defense also challenged the credibility of the eyewitness identification and highlighted the parents’ delay in reporting to the police.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Paglinawan’s guilt for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by the eyewitnesses, the victim’s parents, was found credible and sufficient to establish Paglinawan’s guilt. The Court held that their testimony was clear, consistent, and credible. They had a good opportunity to recognize Paglinawan as they were familiar with him, and their view was aided by the ground-floor light. Their delay in formally reporting to the police was satisfactorily explained by their immediate concern for their family’s safety and medical treatment, and their fear that the assailant might flee. This delay did not impair their credibility.
The Court rejected the alleged extrajudicial confession of Paglinawan to police officers as inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. It upheld the trial court’s finding that treachery attended the killing. The attack was sudden, directed at a houseful of sleeping and defenseless victims, deliberately ensuring the assailant’s safety from any retaliation. However, the circumstance of evident premeditation was not proven, as the prosecution failed to show clear evidence of Paglinawan’s prior planning and reflection. The Court also noted that Paglinawan could not be held liable for the injuries to other family members, as he was charged only for the murder of Jerry Senados. Conviction must be based solely on the crime charged to uphold the constitutional right to be informed of the accusation.