G.R. No. 134245; December 1, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERRY CIRILO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case, primarily through eyewitness Lorna Panes, established that on the evening of November 30, 1990, in Barangay Bitaogan, Passi, Iloilo, appellant Gerry Cirilo suddenly appeared in a squatting position while aiming a shotgun at Panes, Alicia Diaz, and the victim Efren Dableo. Panes, who was holding a kerosene torch, had a clear view of Cirilo’s face from a distance of about 1.5 to 2 meters. Cirilo warned them not to shout, attempted to enter a house, and then shot Dableo, who died from the gunshot wound. Panes did not immediately reveal the assailant’s identity to initial investigators due to fear, disclosing it only to her father-in-law and later in a sworn statement two weeks after the incident.
For his defense, Cirilo presented an alibi, testifying that he was guarding a bodega near Felipe Pacino’s house from 5:30 PM on November 30 until the morning of December 1. His employer, Pacino, corroborated this, stating he saw Cirilo at the bodega and that Cirilo even had dinner with his family around 7:30 PM on the night of the killing. The Regional Trial Court convicted Cirilo of murder, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting this final appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant Gerry Cirilo’s conviction for the crime of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitness Lorna Panes to be credible, convincing, and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Her testimony was clear and detailed, noting her proximity to the appellant, the illumination provided by her kerosene torch, and her unobstructed view of his face. The delay in her formal disclosure of the appellant’s identity was satisfactorily explained by her genuine fear for her life, which did not impair her credibility. This positive testimony prevailed over the weak defense of alibi, which could not prevail as the appellant failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene.
On the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the Court ruled it was duly proven. The evidence showed the appellant employed means of execution that ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The attack was sudden and unexpected, with the appellant appearing in an ambushing position at night. The Court clarified that nocturnity, under these circumstances, was not a separate aggravating circumstance but was absorbed by treachery, as it formed part of the deliberate manner adopted to ensure the crime’s execution. The crime was committed in 1990, prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659. With treachery as the sole qualifying circumstance and no other modifying circumstances, the proper penalty was reclusion perpetua. The appealed decision was affirmed in toto.