G.R. No. 132030 ; October 18, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pericelito Vallespin alias “Boboy,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Information dated April 18, 1995, charged accused-appellant Pericelito Vallespin with Murder for hacking Rico Quiñanola several times with an axe while the latter was sleeping on January 25, 1995, in Consolacion, Cebu. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented three witnesses: Juditha Bartolabac Mogote (shop owner), Dr. Nestor Sator (medico-legal officer), and Leonarda Quiñanola (victim’s mother). The defense presented the accused-appellant and Salvador Mogote (as a hostile witness). The evidence established that on the night before the incident, the victim, the accused-appellant, and another co-worker were drinking at the Mogotes’ ironworks shop. An altercation occurred where the accused-appellant strangled the victim after the victim fell while urinating, but they were separated. The accused-appellant left after being punched. Later, at around 2:30 a.m., Juditha Mogote, from a distance of five meters, saw the accused-appellant hack the sleeping victim three times with a small axe. The accused-appellant fled. The defense interposed denial and alibi, claiming he was at his aunt’s house in Cebu City at the time and had stopped working days prior. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite alleged insufficient evidence.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding the crime qualified by treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. On the first issue, the Court held that the positive, categorical, and consistent eyewitness identification by Juditha Mogote, who had a clear and well-illuminated view from five meters away, prevails over the accused-appellant’s weak defense of denial and alibi. His alibi failed as he did not prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, given the short distance between locations and the lack of corroborating witnesses. The medico-legal findings corroborated the eyewitness account. On the second issue, the Court ruled that treachery was present. The attack was sudden and unexpected, directed at a drunk victim who was lying on his back and asleep, depriving him of any opportunity to defend himself. The means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the killing without risk. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court modified the damages, ordering the accused-appellant to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000 as civil indemnity and an additional P50,000 as moral damages.