G.R. No. 188710 , June 2, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Matimanay Watamama a.k.a. Akmad Salipada, Accused-Appellant, Teng Midtimbang (at large), Accused.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Matimanay Watamama, also known as Akmad Salipada, and his co-accused Teng Midtimbang (at large) were charged with Murder for the killing of Aoubakar Calim. The prosecution evidence established that around 8:00 a.m. on October 26, 1998, Francisco Arobo, Jr. and Calim, along with other farmers, were plowing a farm in Sitio Matingao, Carmen, Cotabato. Arobo, who was five meters ahead of Calim, heard gunfire from behind, turned, and saw Midtimbang and appellant firing guns at Calim, who was slumped near his plow. The assailants were positioned ten meters apart and five meters obliquely behind Calim. Due to the gunshots, Arobo and others scampered for cover. The farm owner, Ali Samad, also witnessed the incident and was fired upon but not hit. The postmortem examination revealed Calim sustained multiple gunshot wounds. The defense presented an alibi and a claim of mistaken identity, asserting appellant was not at the scene and was mistaken for Midtimbang due to physical resemblance. Defense witness Zaid Tayuan, a detention prisoner, testified he witnessed the Midtimbang brothers kill Calim and that appellant was not present, though he admitted on cross-examination that his farm was about five kilometers away from the crime scene.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, or a lesser offense.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the lower courts’ decisions. It found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not of Murder, but of Homicide. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the trial court, which were upheld by the Court of Appeals, regarding the positive identification of appellant as one of the assailants by eyewitnesses Arobo and Samad, rejecting the defense of mistaken identity and alibi as weak and uncorroborated. However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently established. The prosecution witnesses did not see the commencement of the attack; their attention was drawn only after the shooting had started. Therefore, the manner of attack could not be determined to have been deliberately adopted to ensure execution without risk to the assailants. Consequently, the crime is Homicide, not Murder. The Court sentenced appellant to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The award of civil indemnity and moral damages to the heirs of the victim was sustained.