GR 214453; (June, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 214453 , June 17, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Bernabe P. Palanas alias “Abe”, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
An Information was filed charging Bernabe P. Palanas (Palanas) with Murder for the killing of SPO2 Ramon Borre y Orio on March 26, 2006, in Pasig City. The prosecution’s version, based on eyewitness PO3 Leopoldo Zapanta, stated that at around 6:40 a.m., four gunshots were heard. PO3 Zapanta saw two armed men standing near SPO2 Borre and identified Palanas as the one who delivered the fourth shot. The assailants fled on a motorcycle. The wounded SPO2 Borre, while being transported to the hospital, identified his assailant as “Abe,” “Aspog,” or “Abe Palanas” to his stepson Ramil Ranola and PO3 Zapanta, a statement he later repeated to his wife at the hospital. SPO2 Borre died from gunshot wounds to the head and trunk. Palanas interposed the defense of alibi and denial, claiming he was in Parañaque City and later in Tondo, Manila, on the day of the incident.
ISSUE
Whether or not Palanas’s conviction for the crime of Murder should be upheld.
RULING
Yes, the conviction is upheld. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals finding Palanas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder qualified by treachery. The Court found that the prosecution adequately proved Palanas’s guilt through the positive identification by an eyewitness and, significantly, through the dying declaration and res gestae statement of the victim, SPO2 Borre, who identified Palanas as his assailant while conscious of his impending death and immediately after the startling occurrence. The Court ruled that these statements were admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present as the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim unable to defend himself. Palanas’s defense of alibi was rejected as inherently weak and not physically impossible, given the proximity between the locations he claimed to be in and the crime scene. The penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, and he was ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and actual damages to the victim’s heirs.