G.R. No. L-67785 October 4, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FEDERICO CAPINPIN, JR., HENRY CAPINPIN, DANILO CAPINPIN, BERNARDO BALTAZAR and ROMEO BALTAZAR, accused, FEDERICO CAPINPIN, JR., accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused Federico Capinpin, Jr., his two brothers, and two other individuals were charged with the murder of Jaime Benzon. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of Viriato Malanot. He testified that on the evening of November 15, 1977, after the victim borrowed his flashlight to visit a sister of the Capinpin brothers, he followed to retrieve it. He then heard moaning, and from a distance of about three meters, he saw Federico Capinpin, Jr. hacking the victim while the other accused stood by. He witnessed all five accused carry the body away. The defense of the Capinpin brothers was alibi, which the trial court rejected as their homes were within the same barangay as the crime scene. The Baltazar brothers presented corroborated alibi that they were at a distant workplace, leading to their acquittal.
The trial court convicted Federico Capinpin, Jr. as principal for murder, qualified by nocturnity (nighttime), and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Two co-accused were convicted as accessories. Only Federico Capinpin, Jr. appealed, challenging the credibility of the lone eyewitness, Viriato Malanot.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Federico Capinpin, Jr. of murder based on the testimony of Viriato Malanot, and whether the crime was properly qualified.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide. On credibility, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment, finding no ill motive for Malanot to falsely testify against the appellant. His testimony was clear, consistent, and provided a plausible narrative. The defense of alibi, being weak and not demonstrating physical impossibility to be at the scene, rightly failed to overcome this positive identification.
However, the Court found the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven, as the attack’s manner was not detailed enough to show the victim was deliberately deprived of any chance to defend himself. The trial court erroneously used nocturnity to qualify the killing as murder. Nocturnity is not a qualifying circumstance under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; it is only an aggravating circumstance if specially sought by the offender to facilitate the crime. The record lacked evidence that the appellant deliberately sought the cover of darkness. Thus, absent any qualifying circumstance, the crime is homicide.
The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty is imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced Federico Capinpin, Jr. to an indeterminate penalty of nine years and six months of prison mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The civil indemnity was increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos.