People vs. Santiago

Treachery qualifies a killing to Murder where the victim is shot suddenly from behind, leaving him no opportunity to defend himself, and the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the means of attack; positive identification by an eyewitness prevails over alibi and denial.

Artemio Garcia, Sr. was the barangay captain of Benito Soliven, Isabela, and Jhonny Garcia is his son. Santiago was one of four persons implicated in Artemio, Sr.’s death, the others being Mario Panis, Larry Cilino Flores, and Jerry Magday Galingana.

On July 18, 2008, Artemio Garcia, Sr. was in Benito Soliven, Isabela, with his sons Artemio Garcia, Jr. and Jhonny Garcia nearby. At around 5:00 a.m., Artemio, Jr. was having coffee when he heard gunshots coming from the house of his brother Jhonny. When he went out to check, he saw his father lying on the ground being assisted by Jhonny. They placed Artemio, Sr. in a hammock and boarded him in a truck bound for Villa Concepcion. While on the way, Artemio, Sr. was still alive and was able to identify the persons who shot him, but when they reached Ester Garcia Hospital, he was declared dead on arrival.

Jhonny testified that at around 5:30 a.m. of July 18, 2008, his father was shot while on his way back to his house after having coffee with him. When Jhonny heard the gunshots, he looked at the direction where the reports came from and saw Santiago and Panis holding long firearms. He then saw his father lying on the ground and asked for help. He heard two more gunshots and saw Santiago and Panis running away with two other persons whom he failed to identify. Jhonny further testified that Santiago shot his father, that his father’s back was facing the accused, that the victim was hit at the back, and that the four persons were about ten meters away from his father.

PCI Ronald Laggui testified that after receiving information about the shooting, he conducted a follow-up investigation. At the hospital, Artemio, Sr. had already been pronounced dead, but Jhonny informed him that the victim had identified the suspects before he expired. The police arrested Panis and Santiago on July 19, 2008 after locating their whereabouts and subjected them to inquest proceedings, leading to the filing of a Murder charge. On the same day, Flores and Galingana were invited to the police station of Benito Soliven, Isabela, and all four were brought to the Isabela Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for a paraffin test. Chemistry Report No. IC-009-2008 dated July 21, 2008 yielded positive results for Galingana and Santiago and negative results for Flores and Panis. On January 29, 2009, a warrant of arrest was issued for Flores and Galingana; only Flores was apprehended, while Galingana remained at large.

Santiago proffered alibi and denial. He narrated that at the time of the incident he was asleep in his house with his wife and children. He alleged that on July 16, 2008, Flores and Panis visited him at his farm and tried to persuade him to participate in the killing of Artemio, Sr., but he refused. He claimed that on July 19, 2008, several police officers went to his house and brought him, together with Panis, Flores, and Galingana, to the Municipal Hall, where he learned that they were suspects in the killing of Artemio, Sr.; he vehemently denied taking part in the killing. His daughter Angeline corroborated that they were at home at the time of the incident. Flores, also interposing denial, argued that he was never acquainted with Santiago, Panis, and Galingana; he narrated that on July 17, 2008, he was at Brgy. Rogus, Cauayan City, Isabela, with his wife and children, and returned to Capuseran, Benito Soliven, Isabela, on July 18, 2008 at past 6:00 a.m., where his father-in-law informed him that Artemio, Sr. had been gunned down. At around 5:00 a.m. of July 19, 2008, police officers arrived at their house and invited him to the police station; he was brought to the crime laboratory, and the paraffin test yielded negative results for him.

The death certificate showed that Artemio, Sr. suffered multiple gunshot wounds in his left scapular, 4th thoracic, and right infrascapular areas, and the post-mortem findings showed that the entry points of the gunshot wounds were all at the back of the victim. The RTC gave credence to Jhonny’s eyewitness account and found that his positive identification of Santiago prevailed over Santiago’s denial and alibi. The CA likewise found Jhonny’s testimony straightforward and categorical and held that the minor inconsistencies referred merely to collateral matters that did not touch upon the fact of the commission of the crime.

• Eyewitness Identification: Santiago argued that the RTC gravely erred in concluding that Jhonny, the lone eyewitness, positively identified him as one of the assailants despite inconsistencies in Jhonny’s testimony.
• Elements of Murder: Santiago argued that the RTC gravely erred in convicting him of Murder despite the prosecution’s failure to prove all its elements.
• Alibi and Denial: Santiago argued that the RTC gravely erred in disregarding his defense of denial and alibi.
• Treachery: Santiago argued that, assuming he indeed shot the deceased, the RTC gravely erred in convicting him of Murder despite the absence of treachery.

• Murder Conviction: Whether the CA correctly found Santiago guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
• Treachery: Whether treachery attended the killing so as to qualify it to Murder.
• Eyewitness Identification and Minor Inconsistencies: Whether Jhonny’s testimony positively identified Santiago despite the alleged inconsistencies.
• Alibi and Denial: Whether Santiago’s defenses of alibi and denial should be credited over the prosecution’s positive identification.

• Murder Conviction: Yes. The prosecution established all the elements of Murder: a person was killed, Santiago killed him, the killing was attended by treachery, and it was neither parricide nor infanticide.
• Treachery: Yes. Santiago shot Artemio, Sr. suddenly from behind, with the victim’s back facing the accused, leaving him no chance to defend himself; Santiago consciously adopted the means of attack.
• Eyewitness Identification and Minor Inconsistencies: Yes. Jhonny’s straightforward and categorical testimony positively identified Santiago; the minor inconsistencies concerned collateral matters and did not impair his credibility.
• Alibi and Denial: No. Santiago failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, and his alibi and denial cannot prevail over positive identification.

• Murder Conviction: Article 248 of the RPC, as amended, defines Murder and penalizes it with reclusion perpetua when committed with any of the listed attendant circumstances, including treachery. The SC applied the elements: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances in Article 248; and (4) the killing constitutes neither parricide nor infanticide. The SC found that Artemio, Sr. was killed; Santiago was positively identified as one of the assailants; the killing was not parricide or infanticide; and treachery attended the killing. Thus, the CA correctly found Santiago guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder.
• Treachery: Article 14(16) of the RPC defines treachery as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against the person that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. Under People vs. Calinawan, the elements are: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack. Jhonny testified that Santiago shot his father while the father’s back was facing the accused, that the victim was hit at the back, and that the assailants were about ten meters away. The death certificate and post-mortem findings showed entry points all at the back. The sudden attack without provocation and Santiago’s position at a particular location and time while holding a rifle showed that he consciously and deliberately adopted the means to commit the crime. Thus, treachery qualified the killing to Murder.
• Eyewitness Identification and Minor Inconsistencies: Santiago argued that Jhonny’s testimony was inconsistent and contradictory. The SC applied People vs. Licayan: discrepancies in testimonies concerning minor details and not touching the central fact of the crime do not impair credibility; instead, they strengthen credibility because they discount the possibility of rehearsal. The SC found Jhonny’s testimony straightforward, categorical, and sufficient to convict Santiago; the minor inconsistencies referred merely to collateral matters that did not touch upon the fact of the commission of the crime. The SC also upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility because of its direct and firsthand opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses, citing Heirs of Villanueva vs. Heirs of Mendoza. Thus, the CA correctly affirmed the RTC.
• Alibi and Denial: The SC applied People vs. Sibbu: for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence. Santiago failed to prove this; the fact that he resided in Brgy. Capuseran did not preclude the possibility that he was at the scene of the crime when the shooting happened. His alibi and denial deserved scant consideration in view of his positive identification by Jhonny. Thus, the defenses were properly rejected.

• Treachery — Under Article 14(16) of the RPC, treachery exists when the offender commits a crime against the person by employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The SC requires (a) that at the time of the attack the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (b) that the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack. The SC applied it because Santiago shot the victim from behind, with entry wounds at the back, leaving no chance to defend.
• Elements of Murder — Murder under Article 248 of the RPC requires: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances in Article 248; and (4) the killing constitutes neither parricide nor infanticide. The SC found all elements present.
• Alibi — For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence. Santiago failed to establish physical impossibility.
• Minor Inconsistencies in Testimony — Discrepancies in testimonies concerning minor details and not actually touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair credibility; instead, they tend to strengthen credibility because they discount the possibility of rehearsal. The SC applied this to Jhonny’s testimony.
• Credibility of Witnesses — The trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility is given the highest respect because of its unique position to directly observe the demeanor of witnesses on the stand. The SC upheld the RTC’s assessment of Jhonny.
• Positive Identification vs. Alibi and Denial — Positive identification by an eyewitness prevails over the defenses of alibi and denial. The SC rejected Santiago’s defenses because Jhonny positively identified him.
• Damages in Murder — Under People vs. Jugueta, the SC fixed civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages at P75,000.00 each, and temperate damages at P50,000.00, with 6% interest per annum from finality. The SC applied these amounts to Santiago.

• "To be convicted of the crime of Murder, the following elements must be established, to wit: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as amended; and (4) the killing constitutes neither parricide nor infanticide." — The SC states the elements of Murder.
• "Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC provides that there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." — The SC defines treachery under Article 14(16).
• "In People v. Calinawan, the Court enumerated the following elements that must be established for treachery to be appreciated: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him." — The SC lays down the two elements of treachery.
• "In People v. Sibbu, We held that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence." — The SC states the requisites of alibi.

• People vs. Babor, 772 Phil. 252, 259-260 (2015) — Cited for the elements of Murder.
• People vs. Calinawan, 805 Phil. 673, 683 (2017) — Followed for the elements of treachery.
• People vs. Sibbu, 808 Phil. 276, 291 (2017) — Followed for the requisites of alibi.
• People vs. Licayan, 765 Phil. 156, 183 (2015) — Followed on minor inconsistencies in testimony.
• Heirs of Villanueva vs. Heirs of Mendoza, 810 Phil. 122 (2017) — Followed on the trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016) — Followed for the amounts of damages in Murder.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended — Defines and penalizes Murder; the SC applied it because the killing was attended by treachery and imposed reclusion perpetua.
• Article 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery; the SC applied it because the victim was shot from behind and had no chance to defend himself.