G.R. No. 145371; September 28, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BEN AQUINO and ROMEO AQUINO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Ben Aquino and Romeo Aquino were charged with the murder of Geminiano Belo. The prosecution alleged that on November 25, 1980, the appellants, armed with guns, shot the victim while he was sleeping in a house in Lemery, Batangas. Prosecution witnesses Rogelio Belo (the victim’s brother) and Maria Garcia (their mother) positively identified the appellants as the assailants. Rogelio testified he saw the appellants fire at the sleeping victim under the illumination of house lights, after which Romeo pointed his gun at him before both fled. Maria, who was in a nearby house, corroborated this account, stating she ran to the scene upon hearing gunshots and witnessed the shooting. The victim died from multiple gunshot wounds.
The defense interposed alibi and denial. The appellants claimed they were at their father’s house in a different barangay, attending a gathering from the evening of November 25 until the early morning of November 26. Their testimony was corroborated by a defense witness. The trial court convicted the appellants of murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but, as the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, certified the case to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of the appellants for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, finding no ill motive for them to falsely testify against the appellants. Their positive identification, made under sufficient illumination and at close range, was deemed credible and categorical. This positive identification prevailed over the defense of alibi, which the Court found inherently weak. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only their presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. The appellants failed to establish this impossibility, as the distance between the crime scene and their father’s house was not insurmountable and could be negotiated within a short time.
The Court agreed with the finding of treachery (alevosia). The attack was sudden and deliberate, directed at a victim who was asleep and utterly defenseless, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants. This manner of attack qualified the killing to murder. The Court, however, found that evident premeditation was not sufficiently established, as the prosecution failed to prove the elements of planning and a sufficient lapse of time for reflection. The Court modified the civil liability by increasing the indemnity for death to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.