G.R. No. 63396 November 15, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARNULFO LISTON alias “Dodong” and HENRY “Boy” BEBANCO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of February 8, 1982, in San Isidro, San Francisco, Cebu, Cloteldo Batidor was having supper with his family inside their home, which was illuminated by three kerosene lamps. Two armed men, later identified as Arnulfo Liston and Henry Bebanco, barged in after the door was flung open. Liston shouted, “This is a robbery!” and, without provocation, shot Cloteldo point-blank in the chest, killing him instantly. Liston then kicked a lamp, plunging the area into darkness, and both accused fled. The crime was immediately reported, and the appellants were identified by eyewitnesses Lorenzo Batidor (the victim’s wife) and Samuel Batidor (their son). The appellants were arrested the following morning as they were about to depart via pump boat.
At trial, the prosecution presented the eyewitness accounts of Lorenzo and Samuel Batidor, who positively identified Liston and Bebanco, asserting they knew both men and clearly recognized them under the lamplight. The defense consisted of alibi, with both appellants claiming they were at Bebanco’s house at the time of the incident and were preparing for an early morning trip. The trial court convicted both accused of Murder and sentenced them to death, finding several aggravating circumstances.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution’s eyewitness testimonies over the appellants’ defense of alibi, and in its appreciation of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, emphasizing that the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate demeanor and sincerity. The positive identification by the Batidors, who knew the appellants and had sufficient illumination, was deemed credible and prevailed over the weak defense of alibi, which was not physically impossible. The Court affirmed the presence of treachery (alevosia), qualifying the killing as Murder, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the unarmed victim seated at supper no opportunity to defend himself.
However, the Court corrected the trial court’s appreciation of aggravating circumstances. Nighttime and abuse of superior strength were held to be absorbed in treachery. Disregard of respect due to age and use of an unlicensed firearm were not proven. Only the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling was properly considered, as the victim was killed in his own home. This circumstance increased the penalty to the maximum period. Nevertheless, owing to the constitutional prohibition against the death penalty, the sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00, for which the appellants were held solidarily liable.