GR 130589; (June, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 130589 . June 29, 2000.
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pepe Lozada, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On July 7, 1993, at around 8:30 p.m. in Purok Talaba, Bacolod City, Danilo Morin was shot to death. The prosecution’s primary eyewitness, Enrique Alisbo, testified that he and the victim were walking when he noticed accused-appellant Pepe Lozada following them. Suddenly, a gunshot rang out, and Morin fell. Alisbo turned and saw Lozada pointing a gun at them, prompting Alisbo to flee while hearing more gunshots. The following day, Alisbo reported the incident and identified Lozada as the assailant to the police.
The defense presented a different narrative. Accused-appellant claimed he was at home during the incident and only learned of the shooting later. Defense witnesses suggested the killing might have been related to a separate incident involving the arrest of another individual for illegal possession of a firearm. The trial court, however, found the prosecution’s evidence credible and convicted Lozada of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of murder based primarily on the testimony of a single eyewitness, and in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of eyewitness Enrique Alisbo. His initial hesitation in reporting the crime, out of fear, was deemed understandable and did not diminish his credibility. The Court reiterated the well-established doctrine that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction. Corroboration is not a mandatory requirement, as witnesses are weighed, not numbered.
On the qualifying circumstance, the Court found treachery to be present. The attack was sudden, from behind, and directed at an unarmed and unsuspecting victim. This manner of execution ensured the offender’s safety from any defensive or retaliatory act, satisfying the legal definition of treachery. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, there being no modifying circumstances. The civil liabilities awarded by the trial court were likewise sustained.