G.R. No. 139622 ; July 31, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO PERRERAS @ PEPOT and BOY FERNANDEZ (at large), accused. PEDRO PERRERAS @ PEPOT, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Pedro Perreras alias “Pepot” was convicted of murder for the killing of Estanislao Salo and sentenced to death. On the night of 21 July 1998 in Bacayao Norte, Dagupan City, accused-appellant and his nephew Boy Fernandez approached Leonardo Salazar at a waiting shed. Accused-appellant asked for directions to Manoling Pastoral’s house. Leonardo later walked to the front of Estanislao Salo’s house, about ten meters away. Accused-appellant and Boy followed, each holding a bottle of beer, and also asked the victim’s son, Joel, for directions. Accused-appellant then stopped by the window of Estanislao’s house, which was adjacent to Manoling’s house and was illuminated by a mercury lamp about twelve meters away. Upon seeing Estanislao sitting on a chair watching TV, accused-appellant rolled up his sleeves, drew a gun from his waist, and fired at Estanislao, hitting him on the head. Leonardo Salazar, who was about ten meters away, had a clear view and hid behind a chair out of fear. The victim’s wife, Leonora Salo, heard the gunshot, rushed to the living room, saw her husband slumped, and looked out the window to see accused-appellant holding a gun and staring at the body before fleeing with Boy. Estanislao was rushed to the hospital but died the next morning. The autopsy confirmed a close-range gunshot wound to the head. Accused-appellant was arrested on 22 August 1998 in Echague, Isabela. He denied the charges, claiming he was in Isabela since 11 July 1998, that his alleged companion Boy Fernandez had been dead for three years, and that he was forced to sign the warrant of arrest. The prosecution presented rebuttal witnesses to testify that Boy Fernandez was still alive. On appeal, accused-appellant challenged the credibility of eyewitness Leonardo Salazar, pointing to alleged inconsistencies regarding the locations and directions of the shed, the victim’s house, and the electric post, and arguing it was improbable for him to ask for directions to a house he knew.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of murder based on the testimony of prosecution witness Leonardo Salazar, despite alleged inconsistencies, and in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The alleged inconsistencies in Leonardo Salazar’s testimony were minor and pertained to collateral details, such as the relative positions of the shed, road, and electric post, which did not affect his credibility or his clear and positive identification of accused-appellant as the shooter. The Court found that the witness’s account of the principal occurrence was consistent and credible. The claim that accused-appellant would not need to ask for directions was not persuasive, as he had been away from the barangay for many years. The killing was attended by treachery (alevosia) because the victim was unarmed, seated, and watching TV when he was suddenly and unexpectedly shot at close range without any opportunity to defend himself. However, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua because the information failed to allege the qualifying circumstance of treachery with sufficient specificity, as it merely used the generic term “treacherously” without stating the ultimate facts constituting treachery. The award of damages was also modified: civil indemnity was increased to P75,000.00, moral damages to P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P25,000.00 were awarded due to the presence of treachery; the award for lost earnings was deleted for lack of sufficient basis.