G.R. No. 183567 January 19, 2009
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Avelino Dela Peña, Jr., Appellant.

FACTS

On March 8, 1997, around 7:00 p.m., Danilo Sareño and his wife Maria were having dinner at their residence in Barbaza, Antique, illuminated by a torch and kerosene lamp. Danilo stood up to get rice from a pot about one and a half meters away. Maria then saw appellant Avelino Dela Peña, Jr., their neighbor and Danilo’s uncle, standing outside the house behind a window with bamboo grills near the stove. Appellant aimed and fired a gun at Danilo’s back while he was scooping rice. Danilo died from the gunshot wound, which caused cardiorespiratory arrest. The autopsy recovered a slug, and the wound indicated the gun’s muzzle was near the victim. Maria reported the crime. Appellant was charged with Murder. At trial, appellant denied the accusation, claiming he was at a friend’s house four kilometers away at the time and that his brother, Eldred, was the shooter. Eddie Limod corroborated the alibi, and Gonzalo Sareño, the victim’s father, testified he saw Eldred running away after the gunshot. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of Murder and sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua, ordering him to pay indemnity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final review.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was the perpetrator of the murder of Danilo Sareño.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution established appellant’s identity as the assailant through the positive, clear, and credible testimony of eyewitness Maria Sareño, the victim’s wife. She categorically identified appellant, whom she had known for seven years as a neighbor, as the shooter. The crime scene was sufficiently illuminated by a kerosene lamp and torch, and she saw appellant’s face. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Maria’s credibility, noting that findings of trial courts on witness credibility are generally respected. Appellant’s defenses of alibi and denial were rejected as they were not substantiated by clear and convincing proof and he failed to show it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The Court also found the qualifying circumstance of treachery present, as the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals were affirmed.