G.R. No. 144383. January 16, 2004.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RESTY HORMINA, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Resty Hormina was charged with murder for the shooting death of Ricardo Felipe. The prosecution presented eyewitness Maritess Villanueva, who testified that in the early morning of June 13, 1995, she and her husband were passengers on a trisikad driven by the victim. Kevin Lozada blocked the vehicle, and immediately thereafter, Hormina, standing behind the trisikad, shot Felipe. The victim attempted to flee but was chased and shot again by Hormina, causing him to fall. The medico-legal officer confirmed the fatal nature of a gunshot wound to the victim’s back, consistent with the eyewitness account.
The defense consisted solely of Hormina’s testimony, wherein he denied the charges and presented an alibi. He claimed he and Lozada were passengers on the same trisikad, an argument ensued with another passenger, and they all disembarked before the shooting occurred. He asserted he was elsewhere when the crime happened. The trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible and convicted Hormina of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the appellant for the crime of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, giving great weight to the positive identification made by eyewitness Maritess Villanueva. Her testimony was found to be clear, consistent, and credible, outweighing the appellant’s bare denial and unsubstantiated alibi. The Court ruled that treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was sudden and from behind, giving the unarmed victim, who was merely driving his trisikad, no opportunity to defend himself or repel the assault. This method of execution directly and specifically ensured the commission of the crime without risk to the assailant.
Regarding the penalty, with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending the crime, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court, however, modified the awarded damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The civil indemnity was reduced to P50,000.00, and moral damages were also set at P50,000.00. The award of P20,700.00 as actual damages for funeral expenses, being duly receipted, was sustained. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was thus affirmed with modifications to the civil liabilities.