GR 133224; (January, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133224; January 25, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLITO BULAN, ROLLY VERINO and JERRY IBABAO a.k.a. “ALIAS” IBABAO, accused. ROLLY VERINO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On March 18, 1997, Reynal Bravo was watching television at a neighbor’s house when he was fatally shot. Prosecution witness Danilo Sause, upon hearing gunshots, rushed back to his house and saw the victim lying wounded. He also saw accused-appellant Rolly Verino standing under a light, holding a gun, before fleeing. The victim’s wife, Virginia, testified that while being transported to the hospital, the dying Reynal identified his assailants as Rolly Verino, Carlito Bulan, and Jerry Ibabao. She also stated these same men had previously threatened her husband to prevent him from testifying in another murder case. The defense presented alibi witnesses who claimed Verino was elsewhere at the time, and the testimony of a child eyewitness who claimed the assailants were masked and of a different build than the accused.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant Rolly Verino beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide. The Court found the combination of circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish Verino’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The proven circumstances—Verino being seen at the crime scene holding a gun immediately after the shooting, his flight, and the victim’s dying declaration identifying him as one of the assailants—constitute an unbroken chain leading to the fair and reasonable conclusion that he participated in the killing. The defense of alibi was properly rejected as it was not physically impossible for Verino to have been at the crime scene. However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently proven. The prosecution failed to establish how the attack was commenced, as the lone eyewitness for the prosecution did not see the actual commencement of the assault. Without clear proof of the mode of attack, treachery cannot be appreciated. Consequently, the crime is homicide, not murder. Verino was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and two months of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to pay indemnity and damages.