G.R. No. 96389 December 11, 1992
REYNALDO ABAYA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Reynaldo Abaya, together with Rolando Acedo and Francisco de la Cruz, was charged with robbery with homicide and physical injuries before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. Trial proceeded only against Abaya as Acedo remained at large and de la Cruz died during trial. The prosecution’s case rested principally on the testimony of lone eyewitness Alexis Bensorto. Bensorto testified that on the night of September 3, 1984, after being robbed and mauled by Acedo and Abaya, he reported the incident to Luis Bartolome. They boarded an Isuzu pick-up to report to the police and stopped at Acedo’s house to pick up Eufrocinio Acedo. Rolando Acedo emerged pointing a revolver, followed by Francisco de la Cruz. Bensorto was assaulted by Acedo and de la Cruz. At this point, Bensorto saw Abaya come out from Acedo’s gate, point a .45 caliber gun at Bartolome, and, upon de la Cruz’s order, shoot Bartolome. Abaya then frisked the fallen victim, taking two wads of 100-peso bills and a bracelet. Bensorto was dragged into the pick-up, heard de la Cruz order Abaya to shoot him as well, but managed to escape. The defense presented witnesses Reynaldo Picazo and Teresita Vivas, who testified they saw the incident from a distance. Picazo claimed he saw two men ahead of him, one left-handed, shoot a man talking to Abaya, after which Abaya and the two men ran. Vivas testified she heard a shot and saw two persons run, one of whom she recognized as Abaya. The defense also presented Abaya, who claimed he was merely trying to pacify Acedo during an initial confrontation with Bensorto and had left the scene before the shooting. The trial court convicted Abaya of homicide, modifying the charge as the robbery was not proven, and sentenced him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment which relied on the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Bensorto, to convict the petitioner of homicide, despite alleged inconsistencies and the defense’s version of events.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with the modification of increasing the civil indemnity for death to P50,000.00. The Court held that the findings of fact of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive. It found no reason to deviate from these findings, as the alleged inconsistencies in Bensorto’s testimony were minor and did not affect his credibility or the core of his narrative—that he saw Abaya shoot Bartolome. The Court noted that Bensorto had a clear view of the incident as the area was illuminated by a Meralco lamp post and light from Acedo’s house, and he was familiar with Abaya. The defense witnesses’ testimonies were rejected for being congruent in all material aspects, creating a suspicion of coaching and rehearsal, and for containing major flaws, such as Picazo’s unnatural behavior in not inquiring about the incident and Vivas’s failure to report it. The guilt of the petitioner for the crime of homicide was established beyond reasonable doubt.