G.R. No. 233319 , July 07, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus Pedro Atamosa, Rene P. Alcala, Renato Martizano alias Bobong and Teddy Benedicto, Accused, Rene P. Alcala, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed on August 29, 2008, charging Rene P. Alcala (Alcala), Pedro E. Atamosa (Atamosa), Renato Martizano (Martizano), and Teddy A. Benedicto (Benedicto) with the murder of Richard Tomaquin (Richard) on November 24, 2007, in Brgy. Aundanao, Samal District, Island Garden City of Samal. The accused were alleged to have conspired, armed with a knife and handgun, and attacked Richard with evident premeditation, treachery, and for a price or reward. Martizano remained at-large. Alcala, Atamosa, and Benedicto pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented witnesses: Benito Daluno testified that on November 22, 2007, he overheard Atamosa, his brother Carlos, Alcala, and Benedicto planning to kill Richard, with Atamosa offering ₱5,000.00 for Daluno to participate; Daluno refused. Heber Omandam, a driver, testified that on November 24, 2007, he saw Richard on a motorcycle with Martizano as a passenger heading towards Aundanao. Myrna Lipusan, a neighbor to the crime scene, testified that around 4:00 p.m. on November 24, 2007, she saw two men (later identified as Alcala and Benedicto) arrive on a motorcycle and wait under a mango tree. Later, around 6:30 p.m., a second motorcycle arrived with Richard as driver and Martizano as passenger; she witnessed Martizano stab Richard, Alcala and Benedicto help club him, and Alcala shoot him. Dr. Ma. Zarex Amasol testified on the victim’s multiple gunshot and incise wounds. Alcala was presented as a rebuttal witness, testifying that Atamosa hired him to drive, that Benedicto was the passenger on Richard’s motorcycle, and that Atamosa shot Richard while Carlos stabbed him, with Alcala claiming he was merely present under threat.
The defense presented Atamosa and Benedicto, who both denied involvement and offered alibis. Atamosa claimed he was at home tending to his fighting cock with his laborer, Simproson Navaja, and denied knowing Martizano or having visitors that day. Benedicto claimed he was at home all day. Navaja corroborated Atamosa but admitted he was often away at a piggery. Jesus Avila, Benedicto’s neighbor, supported his alibi but inconsistently claimed they watched “TV Patrol” on a Saturday (when it does not air on weekends).
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Alcala and Benedicto of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay ₱75,000.00 as death indemnity and ₱75,000.00 as moral damages. Atamosa was acquitted due to insufficient evidence of his participation. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision but modified the damages, adding ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Alcala appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Alcala’s conviction for murder based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed Alcala’s conviction with modifications to the damages. The Court held that the prosecution proved Alcala’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Lipusan’s positive identification of Alcala as one of the assailants—who clubbed and shot the victim—was credible, reliable, and consistent, outweighing Alcala’s denial and his attempt to shift blame to Atamosa. The Court found that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, as the attack was sudden and rendered the victim defenseless. However, the circumstances of evident premeditation and reward were not sufficiently proven.
Regarding damages, the Court applied prevailing jurisprudence (People v. Jugueta) and modified the awards: death indemnity was increased to ₱100,000.00; moral damages to ₱100,000.00; exemplary damages to ₱100,000.00; and temperate damages of ₱50,000.00 were awarded in lieu of actual damages due to lack of documentary evidence. Interest at 6% per annum was imposed on all monetary awards from finality until fully paid. Since only Alcala appealed, the modified damages apply only to him pursuant to Rule 122 of the Rules of Court. The Court affirmed the CA decision with these modifications.