G.R. No. 114740 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROGELIO GALAM,[1] ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prosecution having successfully proven its case, the Court hereby finds the herein accused, ROGELIO GALAM guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder charged against him in the above-captioned case as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code without any mitigating circumstance whatsoever, and it hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA , and to indemnify the heirs of the victim, ROBERTO BALASANOS the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as compensatory damages; THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) as moral damages; and TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as corrective or exemplary damages; and to pay the costs." Hence, the present appeal. Appellant assigns the following errors: [11] A. THE IDENTIFICATION MADE ON APPELLANT GALAM WAS PURELY CONJECTURAL AND BY MERE INFERENCE. JOSE MEDINAS TESTIMONY IS FATALLY FLAWED ON TWO (2) PIVOTAL POINTS NAMELY: 1. HE DID NOT ACTUALLY AND DIRECTLY SEE APPELLANT GALAM IN THE POSSESSION OF A LONG FIREARM AS HE ONLY PRESUMED THAT WHAT APPELLANT WAS CARRYING WAS A GUN CONCEALED INSIDE A JACKET UNDER APPELLANTS ARMPIT. 2. HE DID NOT ACTUALLY AND DIRECTLY SEE APPELLANT GALAM SHOOT THE VICTIM AS (i) HIS VISION WAS TURNED AWAY FROM APPELLANT AT THE PRECISE MOMENT THAT THE EXPLOSION OF GUNFIRE OCCURRED; AND (ii) IT WAS THE SOUND OF GUNFIRE WHICH PROMPTED JOSE MEDINA TO TURN IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SOURCE OF THE GUNFIRE, WHICH HE SURMISED CAME FROM APPELLANT SINCE HE SPECULATED THAT APPELLANT WAS BRINGING A FIREARM HIDDEN UNDER A JACKET. B. IT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI BY DEFENDANT. C. NOT AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO DISTINCTLY AND CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THE ELEMENT OF EVIDENT PREMEDITATION AND TREACHERY TO QUALIFY THE CRIME TO MURDER. Appellant anchors his appeal on the credibility of Jose Medinas testimony and his alleged failure as prosecution witness to sufficiently identify appellant as the gunman in the shooting incident. Appellant argues that in the face of this questionable identification, the trial court erred in not giving due credence to appellants defense of alibi, which was corroborated by his two witnesses. He further contends that the prosecution failed to present evidence to prove the existence of evident premeditation and treachery. For the State, the Office of the Solicitor General raises the issues as follows: (1) Was the eyewitness account of Jose Medina sufficient to convict? (2) Was the crime committed murder? The OSG points out that prosecution witness Medina actually saw appellant fire at the victim as the events unfolded before his very eyes from a distance of mere ten (10) meters in a well-lighted place. Hence, his positive identification should prevail over appellants alibi. The OSG also contends that treachery qualified the killing to murder because of the suddenness of the attack on the victim, who was unarmed and had no chance at all to defend himself. On the issue of cred