G.R. No. 173309; January 23, 2007
The People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Ferdinand Pascual y Bautista, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Ferdinand Pascual was charged with Frustrated Murder and Murder for the shooting of spouses Adelaida and Manuel Perlaoan on April 15, 2000. The prosecution evidence established that around 11:00 PM, Adelaida and her granddaughter were alighting from a jeepney driven by Manuel when she heard gunshots. She saw her husband slumped on the steering wheel and then saw appellant, whom she recognized under the illumination of the jeepney’s headlights and a streetlight, walking away carrying a long firearm. Adelaida realized she was also wounded. Her son, Noel, corroborated hearing gunshots and his mother’s shouts identifying Pascual as the assailant. SPO1 Jeremias Fernandez testified on the police investigation, noting Adelaida’s immediate identification of Pascual.
The defense consisted solely of Pascual’s testimony, presenting an alibi that he was in Lucena City at the time of the incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted Pascual of Attempted Murder for the injury to Adelaida and Murder for the killing of Manuel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties and awarded damages.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Pascual’s guilt for Murder and Attempted Murder beyond reasonable doubt, particularly challenging the credibility of Adelaida’s eyewitness identification and the viability of his alibi defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. The Court upheld the credibility of Adelaida Perlaoan’s positive identification of the appellant. She had a clear view of the assailant from a distance of about seven meters under sufficient light from the vehicle’s headlights and a nearby street post, and she knew Pascual prior to the incident. This positive identification prevails over the appellant’s weak alibi, which was not corroborated and failed to prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene. For the killing of Manuel, the Court affirmed the finding of Murder qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and from behind, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. For the shooting of Adelaida, the Court agreed with the modification to Attempted Murder, as the prosecution did not sufficiently prove that the wound inflicted would have been fatal without medical intervention, thus the execution stage did not reach the frustrated phase. The awarded damages were sustained as proper civil liabilities arising from the crimes.