G.R. No. L-41412 May 27, 1985
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SANCHO NEPOMUCENO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On January 9, 1972, during barrio elections in Tanza, Cavite, appellant Sancho Nepomuceno, a candidate for re-election as barrio captain, and his nephew Antonio Nepomuceno (at large) shot and killed Rolando Arayata inside the Tanza Elementary School building, which served as the polling place. Prosecution witnesses, including Asuncion Paras Arayata and Rosalinda Arayata, testified they saw the appellant and his co-accused fire their handguns at the victim, who was lying on the floor after being boxed by Antonio. The shooting caused a commotion, and the assailants fled the scene. The victim sustained multiple gunshot wounds.
The defense presented a different version, claiming the appellant was campaigning elsewhere and that the shooting was done by Antonio alone following a sudden quarrel. The appellant surrendered a .22 caliber licensed firearm to authorities, but the ballistic evidence showed the fatal shots were fired from .45 caliber firearms. The trial court convicted the appellant of murder qualified by treachery, with the aggravating circumstance of the crime being committed in the presence of public officials performing official duties, and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Sancho Nepomuceno of murder and imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and increased the civil indemnity. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses credible, consistent, and positive in identifying the appellant as one of the assailants. Their account established that the attack was sudden and employed means that ensured the victim, who was already down, had no opportunity to defend himself, thereby satisfying the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The Court rejected the defense of alibi, noting it was weak and unsubstantiated compared to the positive identification.
Regarding the aggravating circumstance of the crime being committed in the presence of public officials, the Court held it was not sufficiently proven that the officials were present at the precise location and moment of the shooting to have witnessed it. The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. With treachery as the sole qualifying circumstance and no other aggravating or mitigating factors clearly established, the proper penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law is reclusion perpetua, as the required vote for the death penalty was not obtained. The civil indemnity was increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in line with prevailing jurisprudence.