G.R. No. 128126; June 25, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAFAEL M. CATAPANG, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On July 2, 1994, in Candelaria, Quezon, Rictorino Aventurado boarded a tricycle driven by Jonathan Garcia. Garcia heard gunshots from the passenger side and saw a man pointing a .45 caliber gun at Aventurado. The area was illuminated by a nearby Meralco post. Garcia ran but looked back from about six meters away and saw the gunman shoot the victim successively. The assailant fled. Garcia brought the victim to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Security guards Joselito Conyado and Pedrito Mandigma, stationed nearby, heard gunshots and saw a man carrying a handgun running past a light. That night, police conducted an identification procedure where the hidden guards identified accused Rafael Catapang as the man they saw. The next day, Garcia identified Catapang from a line-up as the gunman. A paraffin test on Catapang was positive for gunpowder residue. The post-mortem examination revealed the victim sustained 11 entry and 9 exit wounds, with the assailant positioned higher and at the right side of the victim. The accused pleaded not guilty and presented a defense of alibi, claiming he was sleeping at home at the time of the incident, which was about 150 meters from the crime scene. He admitted firing a .38 caliber gun earlier that day at a baptismal party, which he claimed explained the positive paraffin result. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by nighttime, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages to the victim’s heirs.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Rafael M. Catapang of murder based on the credibility of the prosecution witness and in rejecting his defense of alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimony of eyewitness Jonathan Garcia. The witness had a clear view of the assailant due to sufficient illumination from a nearby electric post, and there was no evidence of any ill motive to falsely accuse the appellant. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great weight. The medico-legal findings corroborated the eyewitness account regarding the assailant’s position. The defense of alibi failed because the appellant did not prove it was impossible for him to be at the crime scene, as he admitted his house was only about 150 meters away. Positive identification prevails over alibi. The crime was murder qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. However, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was not appreciated as it was not shown to have been deliberately sought to facilitate the crime. The Court modified the award of damages, increasing the death indemnity to P50,000.00, awarding P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,440.00 as actual damages (based on the receipt for the coffin), and deleting the award for unrealized income for lack of sufficient basis. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.