G.R. No. 133918 ; September 13, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TIBOY ALBACIN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On December 31, 1993, Florencio Navarro, his wife Teresita, and their daughters were walking to church along a narrow, muddy path in Lasang, Davao City. Florencio was ahead of Teresita, who carried a torch. Suddenly, Florencio heard a gunshot from behind and saw his wife fall. He then saw his neighbor of twenty years, Tiboy Albacin, approaching him from the direction of his fallen wife. Albacin, accompanied by another man, pointed a gun at Florencio’s forehead and fired twice, hitting his right hand and grazing his chest. Florencio fled and reported the incident to the police, initially withholding the assailant’s identity due to shock. Teresita was found dead at the scene.
Florencio was treated for non-fatal wounds. During his wife’s wake, he revealed to his daughter that Albacin was the assailant. Albacin was subsequently charged with murder for Teresita’s death and frustrated murder for the attack on Florencio. The trial court convicted Albacin on both counts, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for murder and an indeterminate penalty for frustrated murder. Albacin appealed, questioning his identification and the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved Albacin’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly the eyewitness identification; and (2) whether treachery attended the commission of the crimes to qualify the killing as murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. On the first issue, the Court found Florencio’s positive identification of Albacin credible and reliable. The moonlight and the light from the fallen torch provided adequate illumination. Florencio had known Albacin as a neighbor for over two decades, making his recognition instantaneous and trustworthy. His initial failure to name the assailant to the police was satisfactorily explained by his state of shock and did not impair his credibility. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification.
Regarding the second issue, the Court ruled that treachery was present in both crimes. The attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the unarmed victims no opportunity to defend themselves or repel the assault. Teresita was shot from behind without any warning. Florencio was similarly ambushed, with Albacin appearing suddenly and firing at close range. The manner of execution deliberately ensured the execution of the crimes without risk to the assailants. For frustrated murder, the Court clarified that the nature of the victim’s wounds is immaterial to the crime’s stage; what matters is the intent to kill as shown by the means employed. The non-fatal nature of Florencio’s wounds, due to timely medical aid, did not negate the criminal intent, thus sustaining the conviction for frustrated murder. The penalties imposed by the trial court were affirmed.