GR L 32295; (September, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32295 September 12, 1984
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUANITO LORENZO alias “BUNGI”, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On April 9, 1969, the victim Benito Bote was walking home with his wife, Segunda Bernardo, in Sitio Pantay, General Tinio, Nueva Ecija. Appellant Juanito Lorenzo suddenly emerged from the bushes armed with a carbine. Segunda, sensing danger, embraced Lorenzo to pacify him and pleaded with him. Lorenzo broke free, shouted at Bote who was ahead and unaware, and then opened fire. He continued shooting the defenseless victim even after he had fallen to the ground. The incident was witnessed by Segunda and by Miguel Malgapo, a barriomate walking nearby. The police, led by Sgt. Abesamis, responded and found Bote’s body riddled with bullet wounds. They proceeded to Lorenzo’s house where they found him and, upon questioning, he admitted to shooting Bote and pointed to where the carbine was kept.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) the credibility of appellant’s alibi against positive identification; (2) the presence of treachery to qualify the killing as murder; and (3) the presence of evident premeditation.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but found no evident premeditation. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, it must be established by clear and convincing evidence that the accused was at another place for such a period as to render his presence at the crime scene impossible. Appellant’s claim of being at home, accidentally shot by his brother, was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive, straightforward, and credible testimonies of two eyewitnesses who had no motive to falsely testify. Their identification of the appellant as the assailant was conclusive.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that deprived the unarmed victim of any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The victim was walking ahead, unaware and unprepared, when appellant sprang from hiding and immediately fired. The continuation of the assault while the victim was already down on the ground further underscored the deliberate adoption of means to ensure execution without risk to the assailant. The Court ruled that a sudden and unexpected shooting with a carbine constitutes treachery. However, the prosecution failed to prove the three requisite elements for evident premeditation—the time of conception, an act indicating persistence, and a sufficient lapse of time for reflection—thus it was not considered. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was sustained, but the indemnity was increased to P30,000.00.