G.R. No. L-32495 August 13, 1975
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENTINO MOISES Y SANIDAD, EUSEBIO MOISES Y SANIDAD and BALTAZAR MOISES Y SANIDAD, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The three accused brothers, Florentino, Eusebio, and Baltazar Moises, were charged with Murder for the killing of Jose Soloria on July 19, 1969, in San Manuel, Pangasinan. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of Alejandro Tuvera. He testified that he saw Florentino shoot the victim from behind with a .45 caliber pistol and fire additional shots at the fallen victim. Subsequently, Eusebio hacked the victim with a bolo, and Baltazar struck the victim’s head with a stone. The victim sustained multiple gunshot and incised wounds, causing his death. The defense presented alibis, which the trial court rejected, finding the testimony of Tuvera credible and consistent.
The trial court convicted all three accused of Murder, qualified by treachery. It found the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, with no mitigating circumstances. It imposed the death penalty on Florentino and Eusebio. For Baltazar, who was a minor at the time of the crime, the court imposed an indeterminate penalty, applying Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code for a penalty one degree lower. The accused appealed the decision.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants based on the credibility of the lone eyewitness, Alejandro Tuvera, and in appreciating the aggravating circumstances. A subsidiary issue involves the correct application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law to the minor accused, Baltazar Moises.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. On the credibility of the witness, the Court upheld the trial court’s findings, applying the settled doctrine that appellate courts generally will not disturb the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, as it is in a better position to observe demeanor. The Court found no cogent reason to reject Tuvera’s straightforward and consistent testimony, which was corroborated by the physical evidence and the immediate report to the police. The flight of the victim’s companions, who did not witness the actual assault, did not undermine Tuvera’s account.
The Court agreed with the trial court’s appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, which were duly proven. With no mitigating circumstances, these justified the imposition of the supreme penalty of death upon Florentino and Eusebio. For Baltazar, the Court modified the penalty. As a minor, he was entitled to a penalty one degree lower under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code. Furthermore, the Court overruled the contrary doctrine in People vs. Colman, holding that the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable since the penalty actually imposed was not death. Thus, Baltazar was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The awards for damages were affirmed.