G.R. No. 147836 December 17, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Philip Hammer and Rodolfo Hammer (at Large), accused. Philip Hammer, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Philip Hammer and his brother Rodolfo Hammer were charged with Murder for the killing of Romeo Castillo on December 25, 1993, in Manila. The information alleged the killing was committed with treachery and evident premeditation. Philip pleaded not guilty; Rodolfo remained at large. The prosecution evidence established that on the afternoon of December 25, 1993, the victim, Romeo Castillo, was asleep inside his house after coming home drunk. Accused-appellant Philip Hammer entered the house while Rodolfo stood guard outside. Philip stabbed the sleeping victim about nine times with a hunting knife. The victim’s wife, Teresita Castillo, witnessed the attack and cried for help. Prosecution witness Luz Benero, a neighbor, saw Philip barge into the house and later leave holding a bloodied knife. The victim died on arrival at the hospital. The accused-appellant denied the charge, claiming he was in Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, on the day of the incident and only came to Manila on January 4, 1994. The Regional Trial Court convicted Philip Hammer of Murder, initially imposing the death penalty but later amending it to reclusion perpetua upon realizing the death penalty was not in effect at the time of the crime. The court also ordered him to pay damages.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether treachery was present to qualify the killing as Murder.
3. Whether the awards of moral and nominal damages were proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction with MODIFICATION to the damages awarded.
1. On the proof of guilt: The Court upheld the conviction, finding no reason to depart from the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. The positive identification of the accused-appellant by prosecution witnesses Teresita Castillo and Luz Benero, who knew him and witnessed the crime in broad daylight, prevailed over his defense of alibi and denial. The defense failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, as travel from Cabanatuan to Manila took only a few hours. No ill motive was shown on the part of the prosecution witnesses.
2. On treachery: The Court affirmed the presence of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, directed at a victim who was asleep and in no position to defend himself or retaliate, satisfying the elements of treachery.
3. On damages: The Court modified the awards. The civil indemnity of P50,000.00 was affirmed. The moral damages were reduced from P250,000.00 to P50,000.00, as the original award was excessive. The nominal damages of P100,000.00 were set aside, and in its place, an award of P10,000.00 as nominal damages was granted in recognition of the funeral expenses incurred, though not substantiated by receipts. The Court also noted that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling could not be appreciated as it was not alleged in the information. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, as the crime was committed before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659, and no aggravating or mitigating circumstances attended the crime.