PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BENJAMIN PETELUNA AND ABUNDIO BINONDO, Accused-Appellants.
FACTS
The prosecution’s case, primarily through eyewitness Romeo Pialago, established that on April 30, 1996, appellants Benjamin Peteluna and Abundio Binondo attacked Pablo Estomo on a road in Barili, Cebu. Romeo, who was walking behind them, saw the appellants whispering, place their arms on Pablo’s shoulders, and then strike him with fist-sized stones. Despite Pablo’s pleas, the assault continued until he fell, after which Benjamin smashed his head with a larger stone. The appellants then dragged the victim downhill. The autopsy by Dr. Dympna Aguilar confirmed the victim sustained eleven wounds from a blunt instrument like a stone, with death caused by cerebral hemorrhage.
The appellants presented separate defenses. Benjamin admitted witnessing a fight between Abundio and Pablo but denied participation, claiming he went home afterward. Abundio, corroborated by his father Teofilo, raised alibi, asserting he was working on a farm approximately one kilometer away at the time of the crime. The Regional Trial Court convicted both of Murder, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the appellants’ conviction for Murder, specifically regarding the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the credibility of the prosecution witness against their defenses of denial and alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court sustained the conviction for Murder. The killing was qualified by treachery. The legal logic requires that for treachery to exist, the means of execution must be deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant from any defense the victim might make. Here, the attack was sudden and unexpected. The appellants, by initially placing their arms on the victim’s shoulders in a seemingly friendly manner, employed a ruse that effectively deprived the elderly Pablo of any opportunity to defend himself against the subsequent stoning. This method ensured the execution of the attack without any risk to them, squarely meeting the definition of treachery.
The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Romeo Pialago credible and consistent. His account was corroborated by the physical evidence. In contrast, the defenses of denial and alibi must fail. Denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification. Alibi requires proof of the accused’s physical impossibility to be at the crime scene, which appellants failed to establish, as the farm was merely one kilometer away. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, with modifications to the awarded damages.
