G.R. No. 65589 May 31, 1989
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO SOMERA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Romeo Somera was charged with Murder for the stabbing death of Ernesto Sarabia on November 12, 1979, in Cabugao, Ilocos Sur. The information alleged treachery, evident premeditation, and the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, citing his prior final conviction for Homicide. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found him guilty and imposed the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. Following the accused’s initial but subsequently challenged waiver of appeal, the Court treated it as a regular appeal, with the appellant arguing that the trial court erred in crediting the eyewitness accounts and in not acquitting him based on reasonable doubt.
The prosecution’s case, established through eyewitnesses Avelino Somera and Arsenio Saquiton, was that the appellant suddenly appeared from behind the victim, who was seated and wearing a hat, and stabbed him in the back and forehead with a Batangas knife during a wake gathering. The victim died hours later. The defense interposed alibi, claiming the appellant was in Pangasinan visiting a sick brother at the time of the crime. The trial court rejected the alibi, finding the eyewitness testimonies credible and consistent on material points, and appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and indemnity. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the eyewitnesses’ credibility, ruling that minor inconsistencies in their testimonies regarding peripheral details did not undermine their core narrative of a sudden and unexpected attack from behind. This manner of execution, with the victim seated and unable to defend himself, validly qualified the killing to Murder through treachery. The Court also found the defense of alibi weak and unpersuasive, as the appellant failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.
Regarding the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, the Court ruled the trial court properly took judicial notice of the appellant’s prior final conviction for Homicide, as that case was previously decided by the same court. This circumstance, being generic and not offset by any mitigating circumstance, warranted the imposition of the maximum period of the penalty for Murder. However, pursuant to the 1987 Constitution prohibiting the death penalty, the Court imposed reclusion perpetua. Following prevailing jurisprudence, the Court also increased the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of the victim from P12,000.00 to P30,000.00.