GR 148123; (June, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148123; June 30, 2008
RENE SORIANO @ “RENATO,” petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rene Soriano was charged with the complex crime of homicide with frustrated homicide for the death of Ernesto Amarillo and the wounding of Soledad Ferrer. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Benjamin Cabansag, testified that on the evening of December 29, 1994, in San Carlos City, Pangasinan, petitioner, armed with an armalite rifle, fired shots and subsequently shot at a passing motorcycle, hitting Amarillo and Ferrer. Amarillo died instantly, while Ferrer survived but sustained serious injuries. The defense presented an alibi, asserting that petitioner, a Philippine Army officer, was on duty at Camp Boloan, Kalinga Apayao, on the date of the incident. Defense witnesses, including fellow army officers, corroborated his presence at the military camp and presented official documents listing him on duty. The defense also sought to impeach Cabansag’s credibility by alleging his presence at a different location and animosity between their families.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction of petitioner for the complex crime of homicide with frustrated homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, giving great weight to the assessment of the eyewitness’s credibility. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as it was not physically impossible for petitioner to have been at the crime scene. The military documents presented were deemed insufficient to conclusively prove his presence at the camp, as they did not account for his whereabouts during the specific time of the shooting. The Court found the alibi weak and unsubstantiated, especially when juxtaposed with the positive identification by the prosecution witness. The alleged ill motive of the witness was insufficient to overturn his credible testimony. The complex crime was properly appreciated as the acts constituted a single criminal impulse resulting in multiple consequences. The Court modified the damages, awarding moral damages to the victims’ heirs.