G.R. No. L-28482. January 30, 1971.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN BRIOSO and MARIANO TAEZA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of December 23, 1966, in Barrio Tiker, Tayum, Abra, Silvino Daria was fatally shot while making rope inside his house. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of Cecilia Bernal, a neighbor. She testified that she saw appellants Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza pass by her house, with Brioso carrying a long gun, heading toward the victim’s house located six meters away. From behind a fence, she witnessed each appellant point a firearm at the bamboo wall of Daria’s house and fire shots. The victim’s wife, Susana Tumalip, also testified that her dying husband identified Brioso and Taeza as his assailants. The motive established was the disapproval by the victim and his wife of Taeza’s courtship of their daughter.
The appellants were convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Abra and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, they assailed the credibility of Cecilia Bernal, citing alleged inconsistencies in her testimony and the existence of an affidavit from the victim’s son that purportedly cleared Mariano Taeza.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of murder based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Cecilia Bernal, and in finding the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Cecilia Bernal’s credibility. It found no material discrepancies in her testimony, noting that her failure to initially see a gun on Taeza did not negate his possession of a concealed short firearm, which she later observed him firing. The Court emphasized that Bernal had a clear view of the appellants under a moonlit night, had known them for a long time, and had no motive to falsely testify. The trial judge’s firsthand observation of the witness’s demeanor was given great weight. The dying declaration of the victim to his wife corroborated Bernal’s account.
The Court rejected the exculpatory affidavit of the victim’s son, Antonio Daria, as it was deemed unreliable. The trial court found that Antonio had an interest in favoring the accused Juan Brioso, who was his compadre, thereby impairing the affidavit’s credibility. The defense of alibi presented by both appellants was also dismissed for being weak and unsubstantiated, as they failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to have been at the crime scene.
On the legal qualification, the Court affirmed the finding of treachery (alevosia). The victim was attacked suddenly and unexpectedly while engaged in a peaceful activity inside his own home, with no opportunity to defend himself. This circumstance qualified the killing as murder. The commission of the crime in the victim’s dwelling was separately considered as an aggravating circumstance. With no mitigating circumstance to offset it, the prescribed penalty was death, but due to lack of sufficient votes, it was reduced to life imprisonment. The indemnity to the heirs was increased to P12,000.00.