G.R. No. L-75816. September 26, 1988.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GAVINO AGUINALDO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On May 20, 1982, appellant Gavino Aguinaldo and two armed companions arrived at the house of Marcelo Bueno in Gattaran, Cagayan. They invited Marcelo out, but he declined. The conversation turned hostile, and one companion accused Marcelo of being a “CI” or civilian informer. That companion then shot Marcelo in the head. Prosecution eyewitness Silveria Pasion, the victim’s sister, testified that she then saw Aguinaldo and the other companion approach the prostrate victim and successively fire at him. The group threatened Silveria not to report the crime before leaving. Dr. Alejandro Jacob’s autopsy confirmed death was due to multiple gunshot wounds from high-powered firearms.
The defense presented a different account. Aguinaldo admitted being present but claimed he was coerced by four armed men to lead them to Marcelo’s house. He stated he was left behind at a distance and merely witnessed the four men, unprovoked, shoot Marcelo. He denied any participation in the shooting.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of Murder based on the credibility of the prosecution witness.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, upholding the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. The Court found no cogent reason to deviate from the trial judge’s findings, which heavily relied on the positive identification by Silveria Pasion. Her testimony that Aguinaldo actively participated by firing at the already fallen victim was deemed clear and convincing.
The Court systematically addressed the defenses raised to impeach Pasion’s credibility. Her initial failure to immediately identify the appellant to authorities was justified by the grave threat made against her and the known presence of insurgents in the area, making her fear for her life reasonable. This initial reluctance does not undermine credibility. The alleged inconsistency between her testimony (that her brother was shot in the head) and the medical finding (wounds on the chest) was deemed a minor detail, especially given the doctor’s own admission that he conducted the examination under fear and could not recall precise details. Finally, her relationship to the victim does not automatically discredit her testimony, especially absent any showing of improper motive to falsely accuse.
The appellant’s defense of denial and alibi was categorically rejected as it could not overcome the positive and credible testimony of an eyewitness. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.