GR 92597; (October, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 92597 October 4, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICTOR BELLO, WILLIAM LARA y MONTILLA alias INSO, ABDUL SALIGAN y HAIDEN alias BOY MUSLIM, and RUDY LARA y MONTILLA, accused, VICTOR BELLO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Victor Bello, was charged with murder for the killing of Benjamin Lachica on the evening of June 19, 1985, in Barangay Pangle, Aroroy, Masbate. The information alleged that the accused, conspiring together, attacked and shot the victim with treachery and evident premeditation. During trial, two of Bello’s co-accused died, leading to the dismissal of the case against them. The prosecution’s primary witness, Wilfredo Espaldon, testified that he was at the victim’s house when someone called for Benjamin. Upon opening the door, he recognized Bello, who fired a warning shot that hit the victim in the back. After the victim fell, three more shots were fired. Josefa Lachica, the victim’s wife, corroborated this account, adding that Bello and the victim had a prior quarrel over an unfinished plow.
The appellant interposed the defense of alibi and denial. He claimed he was at his house in a different barangay, drinking with his brother until late evening. He argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable, pointing to alleged discrepancies in their accounts of the family’s activities at the time of the shooting and questioning the feasibility of the shooting based on the house’s elevation and lighting.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of murder based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite alleged inconsistencies and the absence of certain physical evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, such as whether the family was eating or preparing to sleep, do not undermine their credibility but instead suggest they were not rehearsed. The witnesses consistently identified Bello as the shooter and concurred on the material points: that Bello called for the victim, fired four shots, and all shots hit their target. The Court found the appellant’s arguments regarding the house’s elevation and the lamp’s light to be unconvincing and not sufficient to cast doubt on the positive identification.
The Court further ruled that the prosecution is not required to present the murder weapon or a medico-legal report to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonial evidence of eyewitnesses is competent to establish the fact of death and the appellant’s authorship of the crime. The defense of denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification by credible witnesses. The killing was qualified by treachery because the victim was shot from behind while seated, without any opportunity to defend himself. The decision was affirmed with the modification of increasing the civil indemnity to P50,000.00.