G.R. No. 112989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. PEDRITO AÑONUEVO Y BORAL ALIAS HANGER, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds Pedrito Añonuevo y Boral, also known as Hanger, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and, with neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances to consider, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify the heirs of Rufino Ereño in the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs." The Issues Before this Court, accused-appellant assigns the following errors:[7] "I The court a quo erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and in disregarding the theory of the defense despite the evidence to the contrary. II The court a quo erred in convicting accused-appellant notwithstanding the fact that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt." In his brief, accused-appellant centers his arguments on two main issues: the credibility of the prosecutions key witness and the weight to be given the defense of alibi. The Courts Ruling First Issue: Credibility of Prosecution Witness Appellant assails the credibility of the main witness for the prosecution, the victims wife Fe Ereño. Appellant claims Fe Ereño could not have seen her husbands assailant, for while she was present at the premises, nevertheless she did not see the actual shooting, as she was at the back of the kitchen busy attending to a piglet, and therefore had no opportunity to get a good view of the assailant. The defense also laid emphasis on the fact that it was nighttime, and the prosecution had not established taht the victim's house was situated in a place where there were no plants and trees in the surroundings which could have obstructed the moonlight from fully illuminating the scene or which might otherwise have prevented Fe Ereño from seeing the person of the assailant. Thus, the accused claims, her identification of appellant as her husband's killer is unreliable and untrustworthy. Her testimony, aside from being biased, is uncorroborated and therefore also insufficient to convict appellant. [8] We disagree. The record shows that Fe Ereño was in a position to see her husband's killer. Her testimony was to the effect that her family's dwelling was a small one-room hut. At the time she heard the gunshot, she was in their yard tethering their pig. The yard was near their kitchen, so she was in a good position to see appellant who was at the side of the hut, about three arms-lengths away from her, backing away from the house holding a long firearm in fort position, and then running away. Said she: "Q What were you doing at the time when you were in your house? A I was tethering our pig. Q Where was your pig at that time? A In our yard x x x x x x x x x Q At the time you were tethering your pig where was your husband? A He was lying down inside our house. Q In what part of the house was he lying down? A At the right side. Q Right side of what? A (witness repeating the answer) Right side. COURT: Q Your house is a one room affair? A Yes, sir. FISCAL: Q And while you