G.R. No. 194068 , July 9, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Benjie Consorte y Franco, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Benjie Consorte y Franco, was a former conductor for the victim Elizabeth Palmar’s jeepney. Elizabeth had filed a robbery case against him after her house was robbed and her TV set was found pawned by him. A hearing for this case was scheduled for January 23, 2001. On the night of January 22, 2001, Elizabeth, her daughter Myrna, and her nephew were with driver Rolando Visbe in a jeepney. Rolando saw appellant wearing a hat on the road, veered to avoid him, and the jeepney fell into a ditch. While struggling with the vehicle, Rolando heard a gunshot, looked around, and saw appellant standing near the jeepney’s left rear holding a handgun before fleeing. Elizabeth had been fatally shot in the forehead. Prosecution witness Aneline Mendoza testified that earlier that evening, she saw a stranger (whom she later identified as appellant) carrying something wrapped in black that looked like a gun. After entering her house, she heard a gunshot, looked out her window, and saw the same stranger standing by the jeepney before running towards Elizabeth’s house. Appellant was arrested the next day while attending the hearing for the robbery case. He interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at his brother’s house in Antipolo during the incident, which was corroborated by his sister-in-law. A paraffin test on appellant yielded a negative result for gunpowder nitrates.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision finding accused-appellant Benjie Consorte y Franco guilty of Murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction for Murder with modifications to the damages. The Court held that the positive identification by eyewitnesses Rolando Visbe and Aneline Mendoza, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, prevailed over the defense of alibi and the negative paraffin test. The circumstantial evidence—including appellant’s motive due to the pending robbery case, his presence at the scene holding a gun-like object before the shooting, and his position holding a gun immediately after the gunshot—unerringly pointed to his guilt. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present as the attack was sudden, from behind, while the victim was defenseless and cuddling a child, giving her no opportunity to defend herself. The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of ₱50,000.00 each, and actual damages of ₱29,500.00, with interest on all damages awarded at 6% per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.