G.R. No. 97564 June 29, 1993
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO “RUDY” CAYETANO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On February 3, 1988, Rodolfo “Rudy” Cayetano was charged with Murder before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City for the killing of Antonio Baes, Jr. The Information alleged that accused-appellant, armed with a handgun, shot the victim, inflicting fatal gunshot wounds to the forehead and neck, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery (employing nighttime to ensure a sudden unprovoked attack) and the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. After trial, the lower court found Cayetano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentenced him to Cadena Perpetua (life imprisonment), ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim P30,000.00. Accused-appellant appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution established that on the afternoon of February 3, 1988, a dispute arose over a basketball between Reynaldo Bartolo (the victim’s brother-in-law) and accused-appellant at a basketball court. Accused-appellant made a threatening statement to Bartolo. That evening, Bartolo’s house was stoned. Bartolo went outside and was followed by the victim, Antonio Baes, Jr. While they were walking back to the house, a sudden burst of gunfire occurred, and Baes, Jr. fell dead. Eyewitness Ramon Belo positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant, seeing him shoot the victim. Dr. Rafael Almalbis, Jr. conducted a post-mortem examination and determined the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the forehead fired at close range. The defense of accused-appellant was alibi, claiming he was asleep in his house at the time of the incident, corroborated by his sister and father. The trial court found the alibi weak and not physically impossible, as accused-appellant’s house was only 150 to 200 meters from the crime scene.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in not holding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction with modifications. The Court held that the prosecution proved accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The positive identification by eyewitness Ramon Belo was credible, and minor inconsistencies in his testimony did not affect his identification of the accused as the assailant. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over positive identification, especially since it was established by the accused and his relatives, and there was no physical impossibility for him to be at the crime scene. The absence of motive was immaterial since the identity of the accused was established.
The Court agreed that treachery was present, qualifying the killing as Murder. However, it found that evident premeditation was not sufficiently established, as mere threats without proof of a deliberate and persistent plan did not constitute this circumstance. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty was the medium period of reclusion perpetua. The trial court’s equation of cadena perpetua with life imprisonment was noted. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with recent rulings.
The dispositive portion of the decision modified the penalty to Reclusion Perpetua and increased the indemnity to P50,000.00.