G.R. No. 130636 July 14, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLITO QUIBOYEN alias JUN QUIBOYEN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case established that on the evening of January 9, 1992, in Barangay Kangkong, Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat, accused-appellant Carlito Quiboyen, together with Felipe Tabuga (at large), shot and killed Edwin Valdez inside a cottage. Eyewitnesses Larry Consolacion and his mother Virginia, who were with the victim, positively identified Quiboyen as the assailant. They testified that the cottage was illuminated by a kerosene torch, enabling clear identification. Further, prosecution witness Danilo Consolacion testified that earlier that evening, an apparently drunk Quiboyen, armed with a handgun, declared his intent to kill Valdez. After hearing the gunshot, witnesses saw Quiboyen and Tabuga fleeing from the scene. The defense consisted of alibi and denial, with Quiboyen claiming he was at a different barangay attending a wake and later at a police station. The trial court convicted Quiboyen of Homicide, but the Court of Appeals, on automatic review, found him guilty of Murder, qualifying the killing with treachery.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder, specifically the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision finding Quiboyen guilty of Murder, modified only as to the penalty. The Court upheld the credibility of the prosecution eyewitnesses, noting their relationship to the victim did not impair their credibility and that the well-lighted cottage allowed for positive identification. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as it was not physically impossible for Quiboyen to have been at the crime scene. The Court agreed that treachery attended the killing. The attack was sudden and unexpected, as the victim was merely playing cards inside the cottage when he was shot without any provocation or opportunity to defend himself. This manner of execution ensured the assailant’s safety from any retaliatory act. Consequently, the crime is Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying prevailing jurisprudence post-People vs. Muñoz, and with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court affirmed the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.