People v. Abaigar
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Francisco Abaigar was charged with murder for the killing of Joseph Gabuya on July 11, 2001. The prosecution alleged that Abaigar willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked Gabuya with a homemade shotgun, shooting him in the left side of the face and behind the head, causing mortal wounds. The Information specified that the killing was committed with treachery and evident premeditation. 2. Procedural History: Abaigar pleaded not guilty to the charge. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gandara, Samar, found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, along with civil damages. The RTC's decision was based on the testimony of an eyewitness, Relecita del Monte, and considered Abaigar's flight as an indication of guilt. Abaigar appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's judgment in its entirety. Subsequently, the case reached the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Abaigar appealed to the Supreme Court, primarily arguing that the RTC and CA erred in giving credence to the eyewitness testimony of Relecita del Monte. He contended that the witness could not have seen the incident clearly due to poor lighting conditions and questioned why she did not warn the victim. The Supreme Court, in its resolution, required supplemental briefs but the parties opted to adopt their previous submissions. The Court ultimately affirmed the findings of the lower courts regarding guilt and treachery, modifying only the awards for damages and clarifying eligibility for parole.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court and Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the testimony of the eyewitness. Whether treachery attended the commission of the crime.
Ruling
The appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's judgment finding appellant Francisco Abaigar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS regarding parole eligibility, temperate damages, exemplary damages, and interest on damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of the eyewitness: The Supreme Court held that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province and expertise of the trial court. The Court found no cogent reason to depart from the trial court's findings, noting that the eyewitness had no ill motive to testify against the appellant and had positively identified him as the perpetrator. The Court also ruled that the failure of the eyewitness to warn the victim should not be taken against her credibility. Regarding visibility, the Court agreed with the appellate court that the lighting conditions from a street post, passing vehicles, and a kerosene lamp were sufficient for positive identification. On the presence of treachery: The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that treachery attended the commission of the crime. The records showed that the victim was about to enter his house when he was shot from behind by the appellant, hitting him at the back of his head. This manner of attack, which caught the victim unaware and without means to defend himself, constituted treachery, a qualifying circumstance that elevated the crime to murder. The victim suffered five gunshot wounds, four of which were fatal.
Main Doctrine
The credibility of witnesses is within the province and expertise of the trial court, and appellate courts will not interfere unless there is a clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and consequence. The presence of treachery, where the victim was attacked from behind while about to enter his house, qualifies the killing to murder.