GR 133739; (May, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133739 May 29, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TOMAS COCA JR., RICARDO COCA and RAMIL COCA, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Tomas Coca Jr., Ricardo Coca, and Ramil Coca were charged with the murder of Edilberto Banate. The prosecution alleged that on March 20, 1996, at around 7:00 PM, while the victim was having supper with his family inside their kitchen, a burst of gunfire came from underneath their house. The victim’s wife, Merolina Banate, peeped through slits in the bamboo floor and, illuminated by a fluorescent lamp in her kitchen and a bulb from a neighboring house, clearly saw the three accused underneath. She identified Tomas Coca aiming a gun at her husband. The victim sustained a fatal gunshot wound to the chest, leading to his death months later. Merolina initially withheld the identities of the assailants out of fear, disclosing them only after nearly five months.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. The accused claimed they were attending a birthday party at a neighbor’s house at the time of the shooting. They asserted it was impossible for Merolina to have identified them through the floor slits in the darkness. Defense witnesses also testified that Merolina had initially told them she could not recognize the shooter.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding their identities as the perpetrators of the crime.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Merolina Banate to be credible and sufficient for positive identification. The Court ruled that the conditions of visibility were adequate, as the kitchen was illuminated by a fluorescent lamp and light from a nearby house, enabling Merolina to recognize the accused, whom she knew well as relatives. Her initial delay in revealing their identities was satisfactorily explained by a genuine fear for her and her children’s safety, which does not undermine her credibility but instead reflects a natural reaction.
The defense of alibi was rejected as weak and unsubstantiated. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification by a credible eyewitness. The Court also found the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be present. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed from beneath the house while the victim was peacefully eating, depriving him of any chance to defend himself. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court modified the civil liability, ordering the accused to jointly pay an additional P50,000.00 as moral damages to the victim’s heirs.