G.R. No. 131805; September 7, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GREGORIO HERMOSA and GABRIEL ABELINDE, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Gregorio Hermosa and Gabriel Abelinde were convicted of Murder and sentenced to death by the trial court for the killing of Eleanor Conde Malipot. The prosecution evidence established that on the night of January 10, 1995, the victim was operating a makeshift store near a birthday celebration. The appellants, who were drinking at the party, asked to buy liquor on credit but were refused by the victim as Hermosa had an existing debt. This refusal caused visible resentment. Later, around 1:00 a.m. on January 11, the victim’s eight-year-old daughter, Macuibelle, was awakened by screams. Peering through a hole in their wall, she saw Hermosa standing before her mother at their doorstep and Abelinde in the yard clubbing their carabao. She witnessed Hermosa stab the victim, after which both accused dragged her towards a nearby creek where her lifeless body was later found with multiple hack wounds.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of child witness Macuibelle credible and sufficient to establish the appellants’ guilt. Her account was detailed, consistent, and corroborated by the medico-legal findings and the testimonies of her siblings regarding the motive stemming from the credit refusal. The Court applied the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, noting that a child’s testimony is admissible if she possesses sufficient intelligence and can perceive and narrate facts truthfully, which Macuibelle demonstrated. The defense of denial and alibi was rightly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated, especially as the appellants failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. The Court upheld the presence of treachery, qualifying the killing as Murder, as the attack was sudden and deliberate, rendering the victim defenseless. However, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua because the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not alleged with specificity in the Information. The Information merely stated “with evident premeditation, use of superior strength and nocturnity (sic) as cover, treachery,” which constituted a generic allegation insufficient for imposing the death penalty under the prevailing rules. The appellants were also ordered to pay civil indemnity and moral damages.