G.R. No. L-55176 February 28, 1983
The PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NAPOLEON BERNAT, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On July 4, 1979, at dawn, Primitivo Ampo was shot and killed inside his house in Lobogon, Duero, Bohol. His fifteen-year-old granddaughter, Maria Nimfa Felisilda, was sleeping upstairs. She heard a gunshot, saw her grandmother flee, and then witnessed a man ascend the stairs holding a gun and a flashlight. The man illuminated the room, saw Maria Nimfa, and left without harming her. Initially, out of fear, Maria Nimfa refused to identify the assailant to investigating police, especially since the suspect, Napoleon Bernat, was present at the scene observing the investigation. Five days later, she executed an affidavit identifying Bernat as the killer. The prosecution established that the fatal gunshot wound exhibited powder burns, indicating close range.
The defense interposed alibi, with Bernat claiming he was sleeping at his house, 500 meters away, with a friend, Antonio Caper, who corroborated his testimony. The trial court convicted Bernat of murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The court found the eyewitness testimony credible and rejected the alibi as inherently weak. Bernat appealed, challenging his identification and the murder qualification.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Napoleon Bernat of murder based on the credibility of the lone eyewitness and in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. Maria Nimfa’s initial reluctance to identify Bernat was reasonably explained by her fear, given his presence during the investigation. Her subsequent positive identification, absent any ill motive to falsely testify, was deemed credible and sufficient for conviction. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected, as the distance of 500 meters did not preclude Bernat’s presence at the crime scene, and such a defense is inherently weak against positive identification.
However, the Court disagreed with the finding of treachery. The trial court’s own factual findings negated this qualifying circumstance. It noted that the destroyed flashlight near the victim suggested a possible confrontation, with the victim perhaps discovering the intruder and using the flashlight for defense. The court stated Bernat “may not have had the least intention of killing the old man” and that the violence may have occurred “by reason of the discovery of his presence.” These findings indicate that the attack was not deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure execution without risk to the assailant, which is essential for treachery. Absent any other qualifying circumstance, the killing constituted homicide. Bernat was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, with the civil indemnity affirmed.