GR 137604; (July, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137604 ; July 3, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERT ARANETA a.k.a. GILBERT ARANETA alias GILBERT, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Robert Araneta, together with Gerry Silva and Alexander Gulane, was charged with Murder for the killing of Leo Latoja on December 21, 1995, in Navotas, Metro Manila. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Estelita Latoja (the victim’s mother), testified that at around 5:00 a.m., after giving her son transportation money, she heard a gunshot. She turned and saw Silva, Gulane, and Araneta shooting Leo. She was about a meter away, shouted for them to stop, and even approached Silva, who hit her before they continued firing. The three assailants then fled. The Regional Trial Court convicted Araneta of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
On appeal, Araneta raised the defense of mistaken identity and alibi, arguing that the lone eyewitness, Estelita, was not credible and that he was not the same “Gilbert Araneta” identified at the scene. He contended that the trial court erred in fully crediting her testimony.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Robert Araneta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from Murder to Homicide. The Court upheld the credibility of eyewitness Estelita Latoja. Her positive identification of Araneta as one of the assailants was clear, consistent, and given without any ill motive. The defense of mistaken identity and alibi, being weak, could not prevail over her straightforward testimony. However, the Court found that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently established. The prosecution failed to prove how the attack commenced, as the eyewitness only saw the shooting after hearing the first gunshot. Without proof of the mode of attack ensuring the victim’s defenselessness, treachery cannot be appreciated.
Nevertheless, the killing was aggravated by abuse of superior strength, as three armed men attacked the unarmed and defenseless victim. Absent treachery, the crime is Homicide, not Murder. With the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and no mitigating circumstances, the penalty was imposed in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of six years, four months, and ten days of prision mayor minimum as minimum, to eighteen years, two months, and twenty days of reclusion temporal maximum as maximum.