G.R. No. 203066 , August 05, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Rodelio Llobera y Ofiza, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rodelio Llobera y Ofiza was charged with the murder of Cristituto Biona, Jr. The Information alleged that on March 22, 2005, in San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan, accused-appellant, armed with an improvised shotgun (sumpak), with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked, assaulted, and shot Cristituto Biona, Jr., hitting him on the abdomen, inflicting a mortal wound that caused his death. Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Betty dela Cruz, an aunt by affinity of the victim, and Rosebert Biona, the victim’s cousin. Betty testified that around 11:00 p.m. on March 22, 2005, after a commotion involving stone-throwing near her house, she, the victim, and others went outside. Accused-appellant suddenly emerged from a nearby house armed with an improvised shotgun and shot the victim on the left side of his body. She identified accused-appellant as a barangaymate familiar to her. Rosebert corroborated this, testifying he was beside the victim talking when accused-appellant suddenly appeared and shot the victim. He stated the area was illuminated by the moon, neighbors’ lights, and a lamp gasera, enabling positive identification.
The defense presented accused-appellant and his cousin, Roderick Soriano. Accused-appellant claimed he was at his house in Barangay Mojon, planning a swimming event with family and visitors until about 11:15 p.m., after which they slept. He asserted it took one and a half hours to travel from his house to the crime scene, making his presence there impossible. Roderick corroborated the alibi.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused-appellant guilty of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, his defense was disregarded, and treachery was erroneously appreciated.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution proved accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction.
1. On the proof of guilt: The Court held that the prosecution proved accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The positive, clear, and categorical testimonies of eyewitnesses Betty dela Cruz and Rosebert Biona, who identified accused-appellant as the shooter, prevailed over his denial and alibi. The witnesses had no ill motive to falsely testify. The Court found no merit in accused-appellant’s claim of misidentification, noting Betty’s familiarity with him as a barangaymate and Rosebert’s opportunity to see him clearly under adequate illumination. The defense of alibi was rejected as accused-appellant failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene; evidence indicated the travel time could be as short as fifteen minutes by private vehicle.
2. On treachery: The Court ruled that treachery was duly proven. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself. Accused-appellant emerged suddenly and shot the victim without any warning, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to himself. The mode of attack directly and specially ensured the killing without the victim being able to put up a defense.
The Court affirmed accused-appellant’s conviction for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole was imposed. The awards of damages were modified: civil indemnity increased to ₱75,000.00, moral damages increased to ₱75,000.00, exemplary damages set at ₱30,000.00, and temperate damages maintained at ₱25,000.00.