GR 144331; (August, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 144331 ; August 19, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. CRISTITO LATASA, Appellant.
FACTS
In the early morning of August 11, 1996, Atty. Dominador “Nenen” Calamba V was shot and killed inside his home in Digos, Davao del Sur. His wife, Joyce Calamba, witnessed the event. She testified that her husband was investigating a noise when an intruder, who had been hiding inside their living room, emerged and shot Nenen at close range in the back of the head. Joyce positively identified the gunman. Investigation revealed that a suspicious person had been seen observing the victim’s house days before the shooting. This search led to the municipal jail, where Joyce, along with other witnesses, identified detainee Cristito Latasa as the shooter and his companion as the man seen following the patrol car that transported the dying victim.
An Information for Murder was filed against Latasa. The Regional Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Latasa appealed, challenging the credibility of the eyewitness identification and the appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly the positive identification by the eyewitness and the presence of treachery to qualify the killing as murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to death. The Court found the testimony of Joyce Calamba credible, convincing, and consistent. As the victim’s wife who was present at the scene, she had a direct and clear view of the gunman under sufficient illumination from a fluorescent lamp, enabling a positive identification. Her testimony was corroborated by other witnesses who placed Latasa near the victim’s house prior to the crime.
The Court upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia). The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed from behind at close range while the victim was unarmed and in the act of checking his property. The victim had no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. This manner of attack squarely qualifies the killing as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court modified the penalty to death as the crime was committed before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346 , which prohibits the death penalty, and affirmed the award of civil indemnity while adjusting other damages.