PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO ANDASA ALIAS “EDDIE”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused-appellant, Eduardo Andasa, was convicted of the crime of
murder in a decision, dated 22 November 1989, of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch XXVIII of Iloilo City.^[1]
He was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment, ranging
from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law; to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Martin Andea, in the amount of Thirty
Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos, and to pay the costs.

The accused appealed the trial court’s decision to the Court of
Appeals, raising the sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in
finding the accused guilty of the crime of murder. On 28, June 1991, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision^[2]
affirming the judgment of the court a quo but modifying the
penalty to reclusion perpetua and increasing the civil indemnity
from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. Considering that the penalty determined by the Court of Appeals is reclusion
perpetua, the case has been referred to us for final review.^[3]

The facts are as follows:

“At around 9:00 o’clock in the evening of 3 May 1987, while a
dance was going on in cele­bration of the May Flower Festival at Barangay
Bungol, Poblacion Alimodian, Iloilo, Martin Andea was drinking whiskey together
with accused-appellant Eduardo Andasa, Nicanor Cablada, Jr., Adimas Hipalin and
Jimmy Quiraos about a meter outside the dancehall. They were all squatting side by side except accused-appellant who
was squatting behind Martin Andea.

“Accused-appellant who was about less than an arm’s length
behind Martin Andea and without uttering a word, shot the latter once in his
back. As the victim fell to the ground,
accused-appellant put the gun under his right armpit and walked casually to the
dancehall.

“The Chief of the Barangay Tanod of Bungol, Santiago Maganto,
and other barangay tanods who witnessed the shooting of the victim by the
appellant did not arrest the latter because they were not armed and besides,
accused-appellant was reputed to be a member of the N.P.A.

“The incident was immediately reported to the police
authorities of Alimodian by Eddie Alipunga but he did not reveal the identity
of the accused for fear of reprisal from the NPA.

“Pat. Angelo Anglacer of the INP of Alimodian conducted an
investigation only in June 1987, a month after the incident was reported by
Eduardo Alipunga, because barangay, Bungol, Alimodian, was an NPA infested
area. It was after the Philippine Army
cleared the area of NPA that he conducted an “on the spot”
investigation, and also took the sworn statement of Eduardo Alipunga and
Nicanor Cablada, Jr. while he told the other witnesses just to testify in
court.

“The post-mortem examination on the cadaver of the victim
conducted by Dra. Maria Winefreda Cainoy, the Rural Health Physician of
Alimodian, Iloilo reveals that the victim sustained a gunshot wound at the back
which penetrated the internal organs piercing through the diaphragm, the lower
lobe of the left lung and the posterior left cardia ventricle.

“Dr. Cainoy testified that the victim’s assailant was at the back
considering that “the wound was straight”, “the character of the
wound and the entry of bullet” and the position of the assailant is on the
same level of the victim.

“Accused-appellant Eduardo Andasa testified that between 9:00
and 10:00 in the evening of 3 May 1987, he went to Brgy. Bungol, Alimodian to
attend the dance party. Upon reaching
the place, he sat near the stall of Norma Alipuangan and Fely Ortiz situated
near the entrance of the dancehall.

“He saw Martin Andea outside the dancehall roaming around with
a glass of whisky on his hand. Martin
Andea offered him a drink and when he was about to receive the whisky, he heard
a gunfire coming right in front of them, and then he saw Martin Andea fall down
with his head on Andasa’s feet. He
shoved the head of Martin Andea aside, and helped his companions gather their
goods and accompanied them in going home.

“Accused-appellant denied having a gun during the incident.

“Witness Fely Ortiz testified that on the night of 3 May 1987
she was also at the place where the dance was held as she peddled and sold her
goods beside the dancehall, together with other co-vendors, namely, Dolores and
Norma.

“At around 9:00 in the evening, accused Eduardo Andasa, whom
she knew as a conductor of a jeepney, was seated and was conversing with them
at her stall; while Martin Andea, whom she knew as a caretaker of the Alimodian
cockpit, was drinking liquor together with his other companions, about an arm’s
length away from her stall.

“A few moments later, she saw Martin Andea stand up in front
of Eduardo Andasa and offered the latter a glass of wine, but before he could
hand it over, a shot was fired and Martin Andea fell to the ground between
Dolores and Eduardo Andasa. She saw
blood flowing at his back.

“She recalled that after the shot, Eduardo Andasa merely stood
up and helped her gather her goods, and they transferred to a safer place and
after which, they all went home while Eduardo Andasa went towards the garage of
his employer at the downhill portion of the Alimodian Public Market.

“Witness Norma Alimpuangan corroborated the testimony of her
friend, Fely Ortiz. She testified that
it was not Eduardo Andasa who shot Martin Andea because she did not see the
accused commit the act nor was he armed with a gun when the incident took
place. She further testified that she
heard the shot coming from the uphill portion of the dancehall.”^[4]

After carefully deliberating upon the evidence on record, we are
fully convinced that the lower court committed no error in finding the accused
Eduardo Andasa guilty as charged. The
issue raised by accused-appellant is basically factual and involves essentially
the credibility of the witnesses.

Appellant capitalizes on the fact that the crime which took place
on 3 May 1987 was reported and entered in the police blotter of the PNP in Alimodian,
Iloilo as having been committed by an unknown person or persons, and that it
took more than one (1) month after the crime was committed before the case was
filed in court, naming herein appellant as the assailant of Martin Andasa. He contends that the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses that they immediately knew the identity of the accused
appellant as the assailant contradicts the police report that the assailant was
unidentified or unknown. Thus, according
to him, the theory of the prosecution is not convincing and is contrary to
human nature. This contention of
appellant is without merit.

As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, and we quote:

“x x x The reason why the assailant is unidentified in the
police blotter is established by the evidence to be due to the fact that the
prosecution witnesses believed that the accused was a member of the NPA and
they were afraid of the reprisal by the NPA (TSN, 10 May 1988, p. 5).”^[5]

Such initial reaction of the prosecution witnesses in refusing to
identify the assailant whom they believed to be an NPA member is understandable
when we consider the fact that they are simple farmers. Their fear of the NPA is entirely human and
quite expectable and should not detract from their credibility. The fear of the NPA by civilians is a matter
of judicial notice. It is noteworthy,
however, that once they (witnesses) were assured that the accused was not a
member of the NPA, they immediately reported the identity of the assailant to
the police authorities and thereafter an information against the appellant was
filed with the proper court.

On the other hand, the bare denial of the accused that he
committed the crime is not sufficient to overcome the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses who positively identified the accused as
the person who shot Martin Andea on 3 May 1987. Well-settled is the rule that greater weight is given to the
positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than to the
accused’s denial and explanation concerning the commission of the crime.^[6]

Accused-appellant’s other arguments, such as, that the
prosecution witnesses are either related to the victim or were his friends and
that there was no motive for him to kill the victim, are likewise without
merit. As ruled by the Court of
Appeals, to which we agree:

“There is however no evidence that the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses are biased.

“Relationship of the prosecution witnesses to the victim does
not necessarily disqualify them as biased (People vs. Legaspi, 151 SCRA 670,
678).”

x x x x x

“Motive is, however, important in cases where there is doubt
as to whether the defendant is or is not the person who committed the offense
(Ebajan vs. Court of Appeals, 170 SCRA 178).

“The eye-witnesses for the prosecution clearly and positively
identified the accused-appellant as the assailant.”^[7]

In a long line of decided cases, we have ruled that where the
accused is positively identified as the culprit, motive is not essential to
conviction.^[8]

The appellate court correctly held that there was treachery in
the commission of the crime.

“Considering that the appellant suddenly shot the victim from
behind, treachery as defined in Article 248, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code
qualified the killing to murder.”^[9]

Finally, we agree with the Court of Appeals that –

“As no aggravating and mitigating circum­stances were proven
in this case, the penalty for murder should be imposed in its medium period or reclusion
perpetua (People vs. Norberto Clores y Coral, G.R. No. 82362, 26, April
1990).”^[10]

As aforestated, the issue raised by appellant is one that
questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. In a long line of cases, this Court has held
that where the issue is on the credibility of witnesses, generally the findings
of the court a quo will not be disturbed on appeal since it was
in a better position to decide the question, having heard and observed the
demeanor of the witnesses, unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance and value which, if considered; could affect the result of the
case. We find no exception to this rule
in this case that would justify us to overturn the factual and legal
conclusions of the lower courts.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the appellate court dated June
28, 1991 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs
against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Judge Edgar D. Gustilo, in
Criminal Case No. 30810, entitled “People of the Philippines vs.
Eduardo Andasa”

^[2]
Penned by Justice Fernando A. Santiago with the con­currence of Justices Pedro
A. Ramirez and Fermin A. Martin, Jr. in CA-G.R. CR No. 08634.

^[3]
People vs. Francisco Centeno, G.R. No. L-48744, 30 October 1981, 108
SCRA 710

^[4]
pp. 38-40, Rollo of CA-G.R. CR. No. 08634

^[5]
p. 41, ibid.

^[6]
People vs. De Mesa, G.R. No. 87216, July 28, 1990, 188 SCRA 48

^[7]
p. 41, Rollo, supra

^[8]
People vs. Yurong, 133 SCRA 26; People vs. Oga-Oga, 133 SCRA 530;
People vs. Abucay, 133 SCRA 732; People vs. Clores, 184 SCRA 638

^[9]
p. 41, Rollo, supra

^[10]
ibid.