G.R. No. 86455 , September 14, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. DANIEL SISON y ALEGRIA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Daniel Sison y Alegria, was charged with Homicide with the Use of an Unlicensed Firearm for the shooting death of John Ventura on July 20, 1987, in Calasiao, Pangasinan. The prosecution’s evidence established that Sison, armed with an unlicensed homemade .45 caliber gun, approached Ventura, uttered a warning, and then chased him when Ventura fled. Sison caught up to Ventura in his yard and shot him at close range, inflicting a fatal gunshot wound to the chest. The victim’s sister, Corazon Ventura-Crisostomo, witnessed the entire incident and wrestled the gun from Sison after the shooting. The gun was later surrendered to the police. A certification confirmed Sison was not a licensed firearm holder.
The defense presented a different version, claiming Sison merely followed Ventura to talk, and a struggle ensued when Ventura emerged from his house with a gun. During the grapple for possession, the gun accidentally discharged, hitting Ventura. Sison asserted that the gun belonged to the victim and that two disinterested witnesses corroborated his account of an accidental shooting during a struggle.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, who were relatives of the victim, and in rejecting the defense’s theory of accidental shooting.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, upholding the trial court’s findings on witness credibility. The Court ruled that the relationship of prosecution witnesses to the victim does not, by itself, discredit their testimonies, especially absent any proof of improper motive to testify falsely. The positive and categorical testimonies of Corazon Ventura-Crisostomo and Daniel Alegria, who saw the chase and the shooting, were found clear and credible. The alleged inconsistencies in their accounts were deemed minor, pertaining only to collateral details like the exact sequence of their arrival at the scene, and did not undermine the core narrative of the intentional shooting.
The Court emphasized the settled doctrine that factual findings of the trial court, which had the direct opportunity to observe witness demeanor, are accorded great weight and respect on appeal. The defense failed to demonstrate any compelling reason, such as grave abuse of discretion, to overturn these findings. The defense version was rejected as less credible. The Court modified the judgment only by increasing the civil indemnity to the victim’s heirs to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) in line with prevailing policy. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was sustained.