GR 170193; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170193; April 4, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARIEL PAOYO, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
On the night of March 28, 1992, Margarito Carelo was fatally shot outside his house in Lopez, Quezon. The prosecution established that accused-appellant Ariel Paoyo and an unidentified companion (John Doe) first went to a nearby store before proceeding to the victim’s residence. Paoyo called for the victim, prompting him to come out and open his gate. As the victim was opening the gate, John Doe shot him in the neck. Paoyo and his companion immediately fled. The victim’s wife, Eugenia Carelo, and son, Jose Crizaldy Carelo, witnessed the incident. Paoyo was charged with Murder, with the Information alleging conspiracy and the attendance of treachery.
In his defense, Paoyo interposed alibi, claiming he was on duty as a CAFGU member at a military camp approximately five kilometers away on the night of the incident. His claim was corroborated by a Staff Sergeant who stated personnel on duty were not allowed to leave the camp. The Regional Trial Court convicted Paoyo of Murder, finding conspiracy and treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for the crime of Murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution evidence, particularly the positive identification by eyewitnesses Eugenia and Crizaldy Carelo, to be credible and sufficient to establish Paoyo’s presence and participation beyond reasonable doubt. Their testimonies were consistent and detailed, describing how Paoyo summoned the victim, setting the stage for the fatal shooting by his companion. The Court ruled that alibi, being inherently weak, cannot prevail over positive identification. Furthermore, the elements of conspiracy were present as Paoyo’s act of calling the victim was a deliberate and indispensable step that facilitated the attack, demonstrating a community of criminal purpose with John Doe.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed while the unarmed victim was in the act of opening his gate, giving him no opportunity to defend himself. The mode of attack was consciously adopted, as evidenced by Paoyo luring the victim out. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awarded damages were thus upheld. The Court emphasized that the delay in filing the case, attributed to the family’s fear, did not impair the witnesses’ credibility.