G.R. No. 149560; June 10, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. QUIRICO DAGPIN y ESMADE, appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Quirico Dagpin, was convicted of murder for the killing of Nilo Caermare. The prosecution established that on March 20, 1996, at around 1:00 a.m., the victim was walking home with his nieces and nephew, Randy, Rona, and Rena Labisig, along a narrow trail. An armed man inserted himself behind the victim and, from a distance of about one foot, shot him in the back. Randy was threatened by the assailant with a flashlight, allowing him to clearly see and recognize the appellant’s face. Rona and Rena also witnessed the shooting and later saw the appellant under the light of flashlights held by companions. The appellant had a prior altercation with the victim, having punched him months earlier and attempted to shoot him on a separate occasion.
The appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at a neighbor’s house two kilometers away, butchering a pig for a graduation party from the evening of March 19 until the morning of March 20. He asserted he could not have been at the crime scene. The trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible and convicted the appellant of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded. The Court found the positive identification by the eyewitnesses, particularly Randy Labisig who saw the appellant’s face at close range, to be credible and convincing. Their testimonies were consistent and detailed, establishing the appellant as the perpetrator. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as it was not physically impossible for the appellant to have been at the crime scene, given the proximity of the locations. The Court upheld the finding of treachery, as the mode of attack—shooting the unsuspecting victim in the back at close range—ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the appellant.
However, the Court ruled that the use of an unlicensed firearm cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance because it was not alleged in the Information. Applying Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure retroactively, as it is favorable to the accused, such circumstance must be specifically pleaded. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was thus affirmed. The Court awarded civil indemnity of ₱50,000, moral damages of ₱50,000, and exemplary damages of ₱25,000 due to the presence of treachery. The award for loss of earning capacity was deleted for lack of evidentiary basis.