Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83258:57258&catid=1585&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:18:30+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 194068, July 09, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENJIE CONSORTE Y FRANCO, Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENJIE CONSORTE Y FRANCO, Accused-Appellant.
Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 27 May 2010 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01806. The CA affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 67, Binangonan, Rizal, which found Benjie Consorte y Franco (appellant) guilty of Murder, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and directed him to indemnify the heirs of Elizabeth Palmar (Elizabeth) the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P29,500.00 as actual damages. The CA, however, modified the judgment of the trial court in that, in addition to actual damages, appellant was further directed to pay moral and exemplary damages in the amounts of P50,000.00 and P25,000.00, respectively.
x x x [Appellant] was a former conductor of Elizabeth Palmar’s jeepney plying [the route of] Antipolo, Teresa and Morong, Rizal. Sometime in June 2000, Elizabeth’s residence was robbed and several personal belongings[,] including cash[,] were taken. Appellant was the only one who had access [to the] house, aside from [Elizabeth’s] family. So [Elizabeth’s] brother x x x tailed appellant and found out that the latter pawned her tv [sic] set to Frederic Francisco. She then sued appellant for robbery. x x x A hearing was scheduled on January 23, 2001, but on the night of January 22, 2001, Elizabeth was murdered.
On January 22, 2001, Jose Palmar, Elizabeth’s husband, instructed Rolando Visbe to haul feeds from Morong, Rizal and deliver them to their piggery in x x x Binangonan, Rizal. As he [was driving] the jeepney, Rolando saw Elizabeth together with her 14-year old daughter Myrna and [her] 3-year old nephew “Big Boy.” They went with him to deliver the feeds to [Binangonan]. On their way back to Morong, Rolando noticed appellant[,] who was wearing a hat. When they got near him, Rolando slowed down and asked appellant where he was going. Appellant did not reply. Rolando veered to the right to avoid hitting appellant. In the process, the jeepney ran over a stone, lost its balance, and rolled [into] a ditch. While struggling to release the vehicle, Rolando heard a gunshot. He looked around and saw appellant standing near the jeepney’s left rear, holding a handgun. Appellant immediately fled. He (Rolando) then heard Myrna x x x shouting “Ninong, may dugo si Nanay!” They rushed Elizabeth to Angono District Hospital. But due to her fatal gunshot wound on the forehead, she died x x x.
When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. Trial thereafter ensued, during which, appellant interposed the defense of alibi. He claimed that at around 8 or 9 o’clock in the evening of 22 January 2001, he was at his brother’s house in Antipolo. He had dinner with his brother’s family and left at 10 o’clock in the evening, after his brother gave him P100.00 as fare. His sister-in-law corroborated his statement, testifying that appellant was at their house on the questioned date from 5 to 10 p.m.
Other than himself[,] the accused presented only two witnesses, her [sic] sister-in-law and the forensic chemist. As for the testimony of her [sic] sister-in-law, she could not reason out why, the [appellant] who is gainfully employed as a tricycle driver would be asking for a one hundred peso fare, just to appear at the hearing [the following day]. Her answers are full of open ends, which give [her testimony] little credence.
The testimony of the Forensic chemist is also not conclusive. She testified that the [appellant] tested negative for powder burns. On cross-examination, she testified that the lack or presence of nitrates in the hands of the [appellant] could be affected by several factors, like cloth or coverings on the hand that fired the gun; gun fired at a downward direction; wind velocity; efficiency of the gun; and finally[,] the kind of gun used[,] whether automatic or pistol.
x x x On the element of treachery, the rulings has [sic] been consistent that in order for the court to appreciate treachery it must be established by the prosecution that the victim did not have any opportunity to defend themselves (sic), or that the attack was so sudden or immediate that the victims were in no position to defend or protect themselves.
In the case at bar, [appellant] took advantage of the situation when he shot the unsuspecting victim. The unexpected attack on the victim rendered her unable and unprepared to defend herself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. [The] [f]acts [of this] case show that the victim [had] her back [to] her assailant when attacked, [and] she was not aware of any danger on her part. She was likewise cuddling a baby in [sic] her lap when the shot was fired. Clearly[,] she was in no position to make any defense.
x x x Rolando and Aneline never wavered in their respective testimonies regarding appellant’s presence in the situs criminis and his possession of the gun before and after the fatal shooting of Elizabeth Palmar. Although Visbe may have shouted “x x x, sinong bumaril?”, it did not mean he did not recognize appellant. It was simply an instinctive reaction of one who heard a gunshot in the middle of nowhere and saw his companion fatally wounded. At any rate, Rolando did not ask any further question when right after the shooting, he saw appellant holding a gun beside the jeepney he was driving. Rolando saw appellant twice that night and it was not improbable for him to remember appellant. Precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before his eyes, Rolando remembered with a high degree of reliability appellant’s identity.
Fifth. Notably, appellant himself did not accuse Rolando and Aneline of any [ill] motive to falsely testify against him and cause his damnation for such a serious crime of murder. Although he claims their loyalty belonged to the victim and her family, loyalty does not equate with perjury, let alone, persecution of an innocent peron [sic]. Settled is the rule that when there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why the prosecution witnesses should testify falsely against the accused or implicate him in a serious offense, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit.
Appellant, nonetheless, claims that the negative result of the paraffin test done on him is proof of his innocence.
The CA likewise concurred with the trial court with respect to its finding on the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery. According to the CA, the trial court correctly found that the two elements of treachery, which are: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution, are present in this case. In addition to the foregoing, the CA granted moral and exemplary damages to the heirs of Elizabeth, aside from the civil indemnity and actual damages previously granted by the trial court.
We deny the appeal but modify the award of damages.
In the first place, appellant relies on alibi for his defense. As invariably held by this Court, however, alibi is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which it can be concocted.10 Indeed, denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.11 For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.12 In the case at bench, the defense failed to present convincing evidence to reinforce appellant’s denial and alibi. It is significant to note that the distance between Binangonan (the scene of the crime) and Antipolo (where appellant claimed he was at the time of the incident in question) is only about twenty (20) kilometers.
x x x the defense admitted that the distance between La Trinidad, Benguet and Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya is 79 kilometers, which can be negotiated in 4 or 5 hours. Clearly, it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the locus criminis at the time of the killing. Hence, the defense of alibi must fail.
1 CA rollo, pp. 121-131; Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Sesinando E. Villon concurring.
3 TSN, 23 January 2003, pp. 4-5; Direct examination of appellant.
7 CA rollo, pp. 126-128.
8People v. Credo, G.R. No. 197360, 3 July 2013 citing People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 196434, 24 October 2012, 684 SCRA 604, 608.
9People v. Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, 3 April 2013, 695 SCRA 64-65.
10 People v. Peteluna, G.R. No. 187048, 23 January 2013, 689 SCRA 190, 201 citing People v. Barde, G.R. No. 183094, 22 September 2010, 631 SCRA 187, 211.
11People v. Tomolon, G.R. No. 180169, 27 February 2009, 580 SCRA 384, 395.
12 Id. citing People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 134762, 23 July 2002, 385 SCRA 38, 51.
13 419 Phil. 494, 516 (2001) cited in People v. Republo, G.R. No. 172962, 8 July 2010, 624 SCRA 542, 552.
14 458 Phil. 965, 993 (2003) cited in People v. Republo, G.R. No. 172962, 8 July 2010, 624 SCRA 542, 552.
15 People v. Bihag, Jr., 396 Phil. 289, 299 (2000) citing People v. Gomez, 388 Phil. 462 (2000).
16 People v. Salcedo, G.R. No. 178272, 14 March 2011, 645 SCRA 248, 262 citing People v Sumalinog, Jr., 466 Phil. 637, 651 (2004).
17People v. Peteluna, et. al., supra note 10.
19 People v. Alawig, G.R. No. 187731, 18 September 2013 citing People v. Manchu, G.R. No. 181901, 29 November 2008, 572 SCRA 752, 759.
20People v. Villamor, G.R. No. 187497, 12 October 2011, 659 SCRA 44, 50 citing People v. Solangon, G.R. No. 172693, 21 November 2007, 537 SCRA 746 and People v. Villarino, G.R. No. 185012, 5 March 2010, 614 SCRA 372.
21People v. Alawig, supra note 19 citing People v. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, 19 September 2008, 566 SCRA 76, 85.
22 Id. citing People v. Casta, G.R. No. 172871, 16 September 2008, 565 SCRA 341, 361.
23People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 201092, 15 January 2014 and People v. Dadao, G.R. No. 201860, 22 January 2014.
24People v. Alawig, supra note 19 citing People v. Berondo, Jr., G.R. No. 177827, 30 March 2009, 582 SCRA 547, 554-555.
25People v. Ibañez, et. al, G.R. No. 197813, 25 September 2013 citing People v. Barde G.R. No. 183094, 22 September 2010, 631 SCRA 187, 220.
26People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 194629, 21 April 2014 citing People v. Lagman, G.R. No. 197807, 16 April 2012, 669 SCRA 512, 529; People v. Cayanan, G.R. No. 200080, 18 September 2013.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.