G.R. No. 125867 . May 31, 2000.
BENJAMIN RIVERA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Benjamin Rivera was convicted of murder for the shooting death of Renato Camacho. The prosecution evidence established that on the evening of January 18, 1989, the victim was playing mahjong in Natividad, Pangasinan. Witness Jenny Camacho, the victim’s wife, testified she saw petitioner aim a short gun from a window of his mother’s house, located about fifteen meters away, at the group of players before a gunshot rang out, instantly killing her husband. Other witnesses corroborated that petitioner had earlier confronted the victim, accusing him of stealing a goat. The medico-legal report confirmed a fatal gunshot wound to the head.
Petitioner interposed alibi, claiming he was in a different barangay that evening tending to his sick daughter. The trial court convicted him of murder qualified by treachery, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction despite a recommendation for acquittal from the Solicitor General, who found the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies improbable.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for murder despite alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and the Solicitor General’s recommendation for acquittal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that the assessment of witness credibility is best undertaken by the trial court. It found no compelling reason to deviate from these findings, as the alleged inconsistencies raised by the petitioner—such as the wife’s reaction, the bullet’s trajectory, and the positioning of players—were minor and did not undermine the core narrative of Jenny Camacho positively identifying petitioner as the shooter from a vantage point under sufficient illumination.
The Court ruled that treachery was duly proven, as the attack was sudden and from behind, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was correctly appreciated. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the penalty for murder prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659 , the imposed penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum, was affirmed. The awards of civil indemnity, moral, and actual damages were also sustained.