GR 188975; (July, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188975 ; July 5, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ALBERT TEÑOSO Y LOPEZ alias “Paking” and EDGARDO COCOTAN alias “Paot,” Appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Albert Teñoso and Edgardo Cocotan were charged with Murder for the shooting death of Rosito “Jongjong” Sambrano. The prosecution evidence, primarily from the testimony of the six-year-old boy, Leoncio Saldivar IV, who was riding with the victim, established that while on a motorcycle, they were shot at. Both appellants then approached, held the victim by his arms, mauled him, and subsequently shot him. The defense presented a different narrative. Cocotan claimed he acted in self-defense, grappling with the victim over a gun after sensing the victim was about to draw it, during which he was shot in the toe. Teñoso denied participation, stating he merely witnessed the struggle, heard shots, picked up a gun from the pavement afterwards, and later surrendered it to the police.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the appellants for the crime of Murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. On the core issue of credibility, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment, which found the testimony of the young eyewitness, Leoncio Saldivar IV, to be clear, candid, and consistent on material points, thereby prevailing over the defenses of denial and self-defense. The Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven. The attack was sudden and unexpected, as the initial shot caused the victim and the child to fall from the motorcycle, rendering the victim defenseless. The appellants then consciously and deliberately employed means by first holding the victim’s arms before shooting him, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to themselves. This method directly and specifically ensured the victim’s inability to retaliate.
The Court further clarified that the use of an unlicensed firearm is not a qualifying circumstance for Murder under the relevant law but is merely a special aggravating circumstance. However, since the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, the maximum under the law, no further increase was warranted. The awards for damages were modified in line with prevailing jurisprudence, granting civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages due to the presence of treachery. The appealed decision was affirmed with these modifications to the damages awarded.