GR L 34845; (March, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-34845, March 15, 1982
The People of the Philippines vs. Bernardo Espinosa, alias “Boy”
FACTS
On March 27, 1970, in Burgos, Pangasinan, the victim Mario Bonrostro was killed after being attacked with an air rifle. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Romeo Carreon and Alejandra Balason. Their testimonies established that the appellant, Bernardo Espinosa, convinced the victim to accompany him to a cockpit. While walking, with Mario ahead, Espinosa suddenly struck him from behind on the head with the butt of the air rifle. He continued to hit the fallen victim repeatedly and then shot him with the air rifle.
The defense interposed an alibi, claiming Espinosa was helping his father catch cows at the time of the incident. The trial court convicted Espinosa of murder, appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The accused appealed the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of murder, specifically in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses and in finding that treachery attended the killing.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive, clear, and convincing testimonies of two disinterested eyewitnesses, who had no motive to falsely testify, prevailed over the weak defense of alibi. For alibi to prosper, it must be demonstrated that the accused could not have been physically present at the locus criminis. The Court found that the place where the appellant claimed to be was merely a 15-minute walk from the crime scene, thus not precluding his presence there.
On the qualifying circumstance, the Court upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia). The attack was sudden, from behind, and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The manner of execution—striking the unsuspecting victim from the rear—directly and specially ensured the accomplishment of the homicide without risk to the assailant. This qualified the killing to murder. However, the Court found the evidence for the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation unconvincing. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards for damages were sustained.