GR 147231; (February, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147231; February 18, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RONNIE ABOLIDOR, CLAUDIO BARCIMO, JR. and FRANCISCO COMODA, accused. CLAUDIO BARCIMO, JR., appellant.
FACTS
The victim, Thelma Subosa, was killed in her home in New Lucena, Iloilo, in the early morning of June 14, 1993. Four men forcibly entered the house, declared a “hold up,” and shot her multiple times. Prosecution witnesses Ellyn and Roselyn Subosa, daughters of the victim who were sleeping beside her, positively identified appellant Claudio Barcimo, Jr. as the shooter and Ronnie Abolidor as the one who gagged the victim. They testified they recognized Barcimo because he was a friend of their deceased stepfather, Warlito Huesca, and a kerosene lamp illuminated the scene. Roselyn further testified that two days prior, the victim had told her that Barcimo was responsible for killing Huesca.
For his defense, Barcimo interposed an alibi, claiming he was at a gathering in a different barangay from 4:00 p.m. on June 13 until 6:00 a.m. on June 14, sleeping on a sofa near a mahjong game. The Regional Trial Court convicted Barcimo and his co-accused of Murder qualified by treachery, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua. Only Barcimo appealed.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant based on the eyewitness identification and in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the issue of identification, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility. The direct, categorical, and consistent testimonies of Ellyn and Roselyn, who had a clear view of the appellant under the illumination of a kerosene lamp, were found credible and sufficient for positive identification. The Court emphasized that the trial court’s factual findings, especially on witness credibility, are accorded great weight. Appellant’s alibi was rightly rejected for being weak and uncorroborated by credible evidence, and he failed to prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene.
Regarding the qualifying circumstance, the Court affirmed the presence of treachery. The attack was sudden and deliberate, executed in a manner that ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend herself. The armed men’s forcible entry, immediate declaration of a holdup, and the immediate gagging and shooting of the victim while she pleaded for her life constituted alevosia. The Court modified the damages awarded, deleting the unsubstantiated moral damages but increasing the civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and awarding P25,000.00 as exemplary damages due to the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery. Actual damages were also adjusted to P19,000.00 based on receipts.