G.R. No. L-39211. March 5, 1984.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EUFROCINO ATANACIO, Alias “APPA”, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

An information for murder was filed against Eufrocino Atanacio for the killing of Federico Escala on November 5, 1970, in Jamindan, Capiz. The prosecution alleged that on a moonlit night, Remedios Pablo saw the accused, whom she recognized as “Appa,” squatting under the victim’s kitchen with a shotgun pointed upward. She then heard a gunshot and saw Atanacio flee. Apolinario Escala, who was nearby, also saw Atanacio emerge from under the house carrying a long gun. Atanacio pointed the gun at Apolinario and warned him not to tell anyone. The victim died from the gunshot. Evidence of motive was presented, showing a prior dispute between the accused and the deceased over a share of a palay harvest, during which Atanacio had threatened Escala.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Atanacio was elsewhere at the time of the killing. It also pointed to another individual, Carmelino Gevero, as the perpetrator, presenting witnesses who testified they saw Gevero commit the act and later confess to it. The trial court convicted Atanacio of murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by dwelling, imposing the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and in rejecting the defense’s evidence pointing to another perpetrator.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, emphasizing that factual findings of the trial court are accorded great weight and respect on appeal, as it is in a better position to observe witness demeanor. The prosecution witnesses, Remedios Pablo and Apolinario Escala, provided clear, positive, and consistent identifications of the accused as the shooter. Their testimonies were deemed credible and were corroborated by evidence of motive stemming from the land dispute.
The Court rejected the defense’s claim that the prosecution’s failure to present an autopsy report and the death weapon was fatal. The absence of the medico-legal report was adequately explained by the unavailability of the doctor, and the cause of death was sufficiently established through eyewitness accounts. The defense’s alternative theory implicating Carmelino Gevero was found to be incredible. The Court noted that the behavior of the defense witnesses—such as returning to sleep after witnessing a killing—was unnatural and contrary to the instinct of self-preservation or human curiosity. Furthermore, the testimony of a witness who failed to immediately report Gevero’s alleged confession was deemed unreliable, as it trifled with the cause of justice.
On the qualifying and aggravating circumstances, the Court found no evidence of evident premeditation. However, treachery was present because the accused shot the victim from a concealed position under the house, ensuring the execution without risk to himself. This circumstance absorbed the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. The Court, however, recognized the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, as the attack was committed in the victim’s home without provocation. While the trial court correctly appreciated these circumstances, the death penalty could not be affirmed due to lack of the necessary votes. Thus, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, and the indemnity was increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos.