GR 203121; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 203121 , November 29, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. GOLEM SOTA and AMIDAL GADJADLI, Accused-Appellants
FACTS
Accused-appellants Golem Sota and Amidal Gadjadli were charged with Murder and Arson. The prosecution alleged that on November 19, 1999, in Labason, Zamboanga del Norte, the appellants, armed with a handgun and a hunting knife, conspired to attack Artemio Eba. The victim’s daughter, Jocelyn, testified that she witnessed the incident through a hole in their wall, identifying the appellants under bright moonlight. The group demanded food, and when Artemio refused to open the door, they set the house on fire. Gadjadli fired the first shot at Artemio, after which Jocelyn fled. Artemio’s body was later found with gunshot and stab wounds, and his house was totally burned.
The defense presented alibi and denial. Sota claimed he was at home ill with chicken pox on the night of the incident. Gadjadli alleged that the victim’s son, Eusebio, had previously solicited his help to have Artemio killed over a property dispute, and that he had gone to Artemio’s house to warn him about this plot.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellants for Murder and Arson beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Jocelyn credible, positive, and consistent. Her identification of the appellants was reliable, given the bright moonlight and her familiarity with them as her father’s friends and neighbors. The defense of alibi and denial cannot prevail over this positive identification. For the crime of Murder, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly established. Artemio was inside his house, unarmed, and pleading for his life when he was suddenly shot, ensuring the execution of the attack without risk to the assailants. The Court modified the penalty for Murder to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. For the crime of Arson, the Court sustained the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. The burning of the inhabited dwelling house constituted Arson under Presidential Decree No. 1613. The awards for damages were also modified in line with current policy, granting civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for Murder, and the value of the burned property for Arson.