GR 26662; (October, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26662 October 30, 1971
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO KIPTE, ET AL., defendants. ERNESTO KIPTE, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Ernesto Kipte, along with Juanito Bailon and two others, was charged with murder for the killing of Nemesio Gundayao. The prosecution’s evidence established that on the afternoon of March 7, 1965, at sitio Mabanaybanay, Masbate, the victim was shot. Eyewitness Beotico Calimotan testified that he saw Kipte, armed with a .22 caliber rifle, shoot Gundayao while the latter was running away, chased by Bailon and another. The victim sustained multiple gunshot wounds, with four entrance wounds located at his back, as per the medical certificate of Dr. Alfonso Aliño. The dying declarations of the victim to his wife, Crisanta Villegas, and to witness Apolinario Cañete, identified Kipte and Bailon as the assailants. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Kipte and Bailon were at a cockpit in the poblacion during the incident.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting Ernesto Kipte of murder, qualified by treachery, based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the positive identification by eyewitness Calimotan and the consistent dying declarations, to be credible and sufficient to establish Kipte’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated, especially in the face of positive identification. The legal logic for qualifying the killing as murder hinges on the presence of treachery (alevosia). The Court ruled that the manner of attack—where Kipte shot the victim multiple times in the back as he was running away, defenseless and unable to retaliate—clearly constituted treachery. This method of execution ensured the assailant’s safety from any risk that might arise from the victim’s defense, thereby qualifying the crime as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was upheld, but the civil indemnity was increased to P12,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.