GR 219614; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 219614 July 10, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Ponciano Espina y Balasantos, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
Accused-appellant Ponciano Espina was charged with Murder for the shooting death of Ernando Reyes, Jr. The prosecution evidence established that on May 26, 2005, in Taguig City, the appellant, the victim, and others were engaged in a drinking session. Appellant briefly left, returned with a .45-caliber gun, and after letting others hold it, tucked it in his waist. Without prior altercation, he suddenly pointed the gun at the victim’s chest, uttered “Ano gusto? Patay buhay?” and shot him. The victim died from the gunshot wound. The defense presented a denial and alibi, claiming he did not know the victim or the witnesses and was residing in Las Piñas at the time of the incident, only learning of the murder charge when arrested for a separate case in Pasig over a year later.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for Murder qualified by treachery.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The core issue of the appellant’s identity as the perpetrator was resolved against him. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitness Russel Michael, who was present during the drinking session and the shooting, to be categorical and credible. This positive testimony prevails over the appellant’s bare denial and unsubstantiated alibi. Regarding the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the Court held it was sufficiently proven. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed at close range with a deadly weapon against an unarmed victim who was given no opportunity to defend himself. The manner of attack—directly pointing the gun at the chest and shooting after a provocative question—specially ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the appellant. The Court also upheld the admissibility of the victim’s Death Certificate as a public document, which is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The award of damages was modified in line with prevailing jurisprudence, increasing civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages, and imposing legal interest. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, with the clarification that it carries no eligibility for parole.