G.R. No. 140217 ; February 21, 2003
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINGO PATOC, alias “DOMING” and JOHN DOE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Domingo Patoc was charged with murder for the killing of Basilio Malabago on August 24, 1996, in Moalboal, Cebu. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Rufina Malabago, the victim’s wife, and their grandson, Christopher. They testified that as they were walking home with Basilio from the marketplace, Patoc and an unidentified companion, who were hiding among banana plants, approached. After a brief exchange, the assailants suddenly and repeatedly shot Basilio at close range. Rufina shouted at them before fleeing to seek help. The medico-legal expert confirmed the victim sustained multiple gunshot wounds fired from a distance of about one foot, indicating a deliberate and close-range attack.
The defense interposed alibi. Patoc claimed he was in Opon, Cebu, applying for a job and playing dama with a friend at the time of the incident. His testimony was corroborated by his friend, Buenaventura Robo. A barangay tanod, Isabelo Barredo, also testified that when he met Rufina immediately after the shooting, she stated she did not know the identity of the killer because it was dark, contradicting her later courtroom identification of Patoc.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses credible and sufficient to establish guilt. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected by the trial court as it was not physically impossible for Patoc to have been at the crime scene. The corroborating testimony of the defense witness, Robo, was deemed unreliable due to his relationship with the appellant. The testimony of Barredo, the barangay tanod, regarding Rufina’s initial alleged failure to identify the killer, did not destroy her credibility. The Court explained that initial reluctance or fear in immediately naming a known assailant, especially in a small community, is not uncommon and does not negate positive identification made in court.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed from close range while the assailants were concealed, depriving the unarmed victim of any chance to defend himself. However, the Court ruled that the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and use of an unlicensed firearm were not proven with the same degree of certainty. With treachery as the sole qualifying circumstance and no other modifying circumstances present, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court affirmed the award of P50,000 as civil indemnity and added P50,000 as moral damages.