G.R. No. 128617 ; June 20, 2001
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESAR BACUS Y VILLAHERMOSA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Cesar Bacus was charged with Murder for the killing of Roel Sabejon on March 19, 1995, in Cebu City. The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses: Fe Claros (the victim’s sister), Giovanni Mantalaba (the victim’s 12-year-old nephew), and Francisca Sabejon (the victim’s mother). Their testimonies consistently stated that at around 6:45 PM, accused-appellant went to a billiard hall and shot the victim three times. Fe Claros specifically saw accused-appellant shoot the victim from behind and continue pulling the trigger. She later accompanied policemen to the house of accused-appellant’s mother-in-law, where they found him coming out of a toilet carrying plastic bags he claimed contained waste, but which were found to contain clothes. Dr. Nestor Sator, the medico-legal officer, testified that the victim sustained two fatal gunshot wounds: one to the head (fired from a distance of two feet or less) and one to the back. The defense, anchored on alibi, presented accused-appellant, his common-law wife Belinda Bacus, and his mother-in-law Andrea Gabayan, who claimed he was at home cooking and cleaning at the time of the incident. Defense eyewitness Emelita Lequigan testified she heard a shot and saw the victim fall but did not recognize the assailant, though she claimed accused-appellant had already gone home. NBI chemist Cesar Cagalawan testified that a paraffin test on accused-appellant yielded a negative result. The Regional Trial Court found accused-appellant guilty of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in convicting accused-appellant of Murder based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by three credible eyewitnesses, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, prevailed over the defense of alibi and denial. The testimonies were consistent on material points: the identity of accused-appellant as the shooter, the time, place, and manner of the attack. The Court found the defense of alibi weak and unsubstantiated, as accused-appellant failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The negative paraffin test result was not exculpatory, as it does not conclusively prove that a person did not fire a gun. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven because the attack was sudden and from behind, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing the civil indemnity to P50,000.00, awarding moral damages of P50,000.00, and actual damages of P6,000.00 (based on receipts), while deleting the award for exemplary damages due to lack of basis. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.