G.R. No. 125305 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. BERNABE MONTEMAYOR ALIAS "BABY,".D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this court finds accused guilty of the crime of murder as charged in the information in relation to RA 7659 and therefore hereby sentences him to death by electrocution and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P100,000.00 for the loss of life of the said victim; P200,000.00 as moral damages; P10,000.00 are exemplary damages and P10,000.00 as consequential damages. [32] The trial court stated that Gracia and Berlin positively identified Bernabe as the assailant. The situs criminis was illuminated by electric bulbs on the hollow block fence of Beverly's residence. Moreover, Gracia and Berlin were both familiar with Bernabe's physical features that even if the crime was committed at nighttime, it was not difficult for them to recognize the appellant when he fired his gun four times, and shot the victims Berlin and Leo. The trial court gave credence and full probative weight to the positive identification made by Gracia and Berlin, of Bernabe as the assailant of Leo, and rejected the appellant's bare denial of the crime charged as well as his defense of alibi. Bernabe, now the appellant, assails the decision of the trial court contending: I. That the Lower Court gravely erred in finding that the identity of the Accused-appellant as the author of the crime charged has been established beyond reasonable doubt; II. That the Lower Court gravely erred in not considering the inconsistencies and incredibilities of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. III. That the Lower Court gravely erred in finding the crime committed was one of murder. IV. Lower Court gravely erred in not giving weight to the evidence of the defense. [33] On the first two assignments of errors, the appellant avers that the prosecution's principal witnesses are the relatives of the victim: Gracia, the surviving spouse; Randy Rosario, the nephew; and Berlin, the brother-in-law. He argues that because of their relationship to the victim, the said witnesses are biased in favor of the prosecution. Furthermore, the testimony of Gracia is incredible. It is inconsistent with her Sworn Statement executed on October 7, 1995, as well as her testimony before the MTC, in support of her motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the appellant. Gracia and Berlin could not have identified him as Leo's assailant because of the following: (a) Gracia testified before the MTC that when she heard the first gunshot, her back was towards the assailant, and she ran away immediately; (b) Gracia likewise testified before the MTC that the place where the appellant hid himself before the first gunshot was dark; (c) when Berlin was hit by the first gunshot, he fell to the ground unconscious; hence, he could not have seen the appellant shoot Leo; (d) Gracia also stated before the MTC that before the first gunshot rang out, she saw that portion of the appellant's body (from the waist up to the head) facing her and her companions. This is contrary to the physical evide