GR 139616; (February, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 139616-17; February 6, 2002
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NATHANIEL PONSARAN and ARIEL PONSARAN (At large), accused. NATHANIEL PONSARAN, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Nathaniel Ponsaran, along with his brother Ariel (at large), was charged with Murder for the killing of Balerio Padernal Jr. and Attempted Murder against the victim’s wife, Rose Padernal. The prosecution evidence established that on May 15, 1997, Rose was waiting for her husband at their gate in Iloilo City. As Balerio approached, Nathaniel suddenly emerged from behind a bamboo fence, shouted at the victim, and immediately shot him in the face. When Rose rushed to her husband and confronted Nathaniel, he pointed his gun at her and pulled the trigger, but it failed to fire. Ariel then appeared and fired a shotgun at the fallen victim’s head at close range. The brothers then kicked the body before fleeing. Balerio died from his wounds.
Nathaniel Ponsaran denied the charges, interposing alibi and claiming he merely heard explosions, went to investigate, and saw an unidentified assailant fleeing. He testified he was at home playing with his children at the time of the incident. The trial court convicted him of both charges, finding the testimony of eyewitness Rose Padernal credible and the defense of alibi weak.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the qualifying circumstance of treachery for the murder charge.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, emphasizing that the straightforward and consistent testimony of Rose Padernal, who witnessed the entire attack on her family, prevailed over the accused’s bare denial and inherently weak alibi. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene, which the appellant failed to do.
On the element of treachery, the Court found it duly established. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself. Nathaniel Ponsaran hid and lay in wait, emerging only to ambush the unsuspecting victim who was merely approaching his home. This method of attack, which included shooting the victim from the front and, subsequently, his brother shooting the prone victim in the head from behind, ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants. The medico-legal findings corroborated the eyewitness account, confirming wounds consistent with an attack from behind. Thus, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated, elevating the killing to Murder. The appealed decision was affirmed in toto.