G.R. No. 94786 . April 6, 1993.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMADO CLAVERIA alias “ARMANDO”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On March 24, 1984, at about 7:00 PM in Sitio Barit-barit, Barangay Villa Mercedes, San Quintin, Abra, accused-appellant Amado Claveria, together with the victim Rosario Liberato and others, were drinking at the store of Primitiva Gaspar. After the drinking session, the victim and the accused went out together. As the victim was mounting his motorcycle to leave, with his back towards the accused, the latter shot him three or four times with a .38 caliber revolver, hitting him fatally in the back. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Lorna Valera (the victim’s sister), positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant. Her presence was corroborated by witness Bernardo Combis. The paraffin test on the accused was positive for nitrates in both hands. Accused-appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was already about 200 meters away when he heard the shots and returned to find the victim shot. He also alleged that Lorna Valera had an improper motive to testify against him because his brother, a police officer, had filed charges against the victim. Several police officers, including the accused’s brother, were present at the scene but did not intervene. The trial court convicted the accused of Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, aggravated by nighttime, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify the victim’s family.

ISSUE

1. Whether the eyewitness testimony of Lorna Valera is credible despite alleged inconsistencies and improper motive.
2. Whether the defense of alibi can prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness.
3. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated.
4. Whether the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was correctly appreciated.
5. Whether the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was correctly appreciated.

RULING

1. Yes, the eyewitness testimony is credible. The alleged inconsistencies in Lorna Valera’s testimony pertained only to minor details (e.g., her exact reason for being at the scene, her precise location, what the group was drinking) and did not affect her credibility regarding the material points of the killing and the positive identification of the accused. Such minor inconsistencies may even be considered badges of veracity. No improper motive was proven; her testimony was clear, coherent, and forthright. Her immediate attempt to have the accused arrested was thwarted by a police officer (the accused’s brother). The positive paraffin test result corroborated her account. As the victim’s sister, her identification is given weight.
2. No, the defense of alibi cannot stand. For alibi to prosper, it must be convincing enough to preclude any doubt of the accused’s physical presence at the crime scene or its vicinity at the time of the crime. It cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness. The accused’s own testimony placed him only 200 meters away, a distance coverable in 2-3 minutes, making his presence at the scene possible. Prosecution witnesses testified that the accused left with the victim, and the defense witness (Lauro Cantano) who claimed to have left with the accused was not mentioned by prosecution witnesses.
3. Yes, treachery was correctly appreciated. The essence of treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation, employing means that ensure the attacker’s safety from any defensive or retaliatory act. The victim was shot at the back while mounting his motorcycle, unprepared for any defense, constituting a sudden, unexpected, and unprovoked attack.
4. No, evident premeditation was not correctly appreciated. None of its elements were established: (1) the time the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act showing he clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision and execution to allow reflection.
5. No, nighttime was not correctly appreciated. Nighttime is aggravating only when deliberately sought by the accused to facilitate the crime. No evidence showed the accused purposely waited for nightfall. Moreover, nocturnity is generally absorbed in treachery and should not be separately appreciated.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the indemnity awarded to the victim’s family is reduced to P50,000.00.