G.R. No. 206291 , January 18, 2016. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ZALDY SALAHUDDIN and Three (3) other UNIDENTIFIED COMPANIONS, Appellants.
FACTS

On February 10, 2004, Atty. Segundo Sotto, Jr. and his niece, Liezel Mae Java, were driving home in Zamboanga City. As their jeep slowed down near Farmer’s Drive, they were fired upon. Java was wounded, and Atty. Sotto was fatally shot. Eyewitness Juanchito Delos Reyes, a security guard, saw a motorcycle approach the jeep. The motorcycle’s backrider shot the victim multiple times at close range. The assailant, later identified as appellant Zaldy Salahuddin, even gestured to Delos Reyes not to interfere. Atty. Sotto’s son arrived shortly after and found his father slumped on the steering wheel.
The prosecution presented multiple witnesses, including Delos Reyes and Java, who identified Salahuddin as the gunman. The defense presented alibi, claiming Salahuddin was elsewhere. The Regional Trial Court convicted Salahuddin of Murder qualified by treachery and the use of an unlicensed firearm. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Salahuddin appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the credibility of the eyewitness identification and the appreciation of the qualifying circumstance.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Zaldy Salahuddin is guilty of Murder, qualified by treachery, and whether the aggravating circumstance of using an unlicensed firearm was correctly applied.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Delos Reyes, who had a clear and unobstructed view of the shooting, prevails over the weak defense of alibi. The Court found his testimony credible, detailed, and consistent. Treachery was correctly appreciated because the attack was sudden and deliberate, executed in a manner that ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The assailants used a motorcycle to swiftly approach and depart, and the victim was shot at close range while unarmed and trapped in his vehicle.
Regarding the firearm, the prosecution established that the .45 caliber pistol used was unlicensed. Following prevailing jurisprudence, the use of an unlicensed firearm is not a qualifying circumstance for Murder but a special aggravating circumstance under Republic Act No. 10591 . However, since the crime was committed in 2004 under the old law (Presidential Decree No. 1866), the use of an unlicensed firearm served as an aggravating circumstance, warranting the imposition of the maximum penalty. Thus, the Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were also awarded to the victim’s heirs.