GR 80885; (May, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 80885 May 17, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMON ABAYA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On October 15, 1981, security guards Jesus Dapilos and Ambrosio Dumaya were sent on an errand in Taguig. They passed by a group of drinking men, including accused-appellant Ramon Abaya, a soldier. Abaya invited them to drink; Dumaya accepted, but Dapilos declined. As they left, Abaya angrily told Dapilos, “May araw ka rin.” Two hours later, four shots were fired into their compound. The third shot hit and fatally wounded Dapilos. Awakened, Dumaya grabbed a flashlight and saw Abaya about ten yards away, furtively looking around while walking away and carrying an armalite rifle, still in his fatigue uniform. Dumaya clearly recognized Abaya’s face.
Dumaya, fearing for his life, only reported the incident to authorities in January 1982 after being transferred to Manila. Murder charges were filed against Abaya in 1984. The defense presented alibi, claiming Abaya was on vacation in Isabela during the incident. However, no written leave or corroborating witness was presented. Records showed Abaya was later discharged from the military for absence without leave.
ISSUE
Was the accused-appellant’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt?
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence sufficient and credible. The positive identification by eyewitness Dumaya, who saw Abaya fleeing the scene with an armalite immediately after the shooting, was compelling. The Court rejected the defense of alibi for being weak and uncorroborated, especially against positive identification. The delay in Dumaya’s reporting was reasonably explained by his genuine fear of the armed accused.
The Court also addressed the defense’s arguments. It ruled that motive, while not essential given the positive identification, was inferable from Abaya’s uttered threat after Dapilos refused his drink. Minor inconsistencies in witness testimony do not discredit their overall credibility. The defense’s failure to call other potential witnesses to contradict the prosecution’s case was deemed its own tactical decision. The trial judge, despite not presiding over the entire trial, validly rendered a decision based on a complete and careful review of the full record. The Court affirmed the judgment finding Abaya guilty of murder qualified by treachery and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.