G.R. No. 191256; September 18, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GARY ALINAO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Gary Alinao, together with his son Jocel (at large), was charged with Murder for the killing of Antonio Ardet on February 27, 2006, in Kabugao, Apayao. The prosecution alleged that Alinao set fire to the victim’s house and, when Ardet attempted to escape, shot him with an illegally possessed shotgun, causing his instantaneous death. Key eyewitnesses included Nestor Ardet, the victim’s half-brother, who testified he saw Alinao point a gun at the burning house’s door and shoot the victim as he emerged. Boyet Tamot and Edison Beltran, both nephews of the victim, testified they saw Alinao pour a flammable substance on the house and set it ablaze, and later flee the scene with a firearm.
The defense presented an alibi, with witness Manuel Morta claiming Alinao was at a wake from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on the night of the incident. Alinao himself denied the charges, claiming the witnesses were motivated by a family grudge over land. The Regional Trial Court convicted Alinao of Murder, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the ruling by deleting the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation for lack of conclusive proof.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant Gary Alinao’s conviction for the crime of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and consistent on material points, establishing Alinao’s presence at the crime scene and his direct participation in setting the house on fire and shooting the victim. The defense of alibi was properly rejected as it was not physically impossible for Alinao to have been at the crime scene, given that the wake and the victim’s house were within the same barangay. The Court upheld the finding of treachery, as the means of attack—burning the house and then shooting the unarmed victim as he fled the inferno—ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant and deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself. The Court also affirmed the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim’s heirs, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. The positive identification by credible eyewitnesses prevailed over the weak denial and alibi presented by the defense.