G.R. No. 204896 . December 07, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. SAMSON BERK Y BAYOGAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Samson Berk y Bayogan was charged with Murder for the killing of Clarita Disu. The prosecution established that on December 16, 2007, the victim and her daughter Marbie were tending their store in Sual, Pangasinan. Two men on a motorcycle arrived; one dismounted, bought a cigarette, then suddenly drew a gun and shot Clarita multiple times, resulting in her instantaneous death. The assailant, wearing a yellow shirt, then fled with his companion. Marbie noted the motorcycle’s plate number. Later, during a police line-up, both Marbie and her cousin Loreto positively identified appellant as the gunman, and they reaffirmed this identification in open court.
The appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was on a fishing boat at the time of the incident. He alleged he was later arrested for illegal possession of a firearm and that the eyewitness was prompted by police to identify him. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for Murder based on the credibility of the eyewitness identifications and the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, emphasizing the rule that assessments of witness credibility by the trial court are accorded great weight and respect, as the trial judge has the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor. The positive, categorical, and consistent identifications by two eyewitnesses, who had a clear view of the assailant during the crime, prevailed over the weak defense of alibi, which was not corroborated by clear and convincing evidence.
Regarding the qualifying circumstance, the Court found that treachery was duly established. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend herself or retaliate. The assailant, under the guise of a customer, initiated a close-range shooting without any provocation, thereby employing means that deliberately and consciously ensured the execution of the crime without risk to himself. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing exemplary damages to P75,000 and temperate damages to P50,000, with interest on all damages at 6% per annum from finality until fully paid.