G.R. No. L-39211 - People vs. Atanacio

On or about November 5, 1970, in Jamindan, Capiz, the accused, Eufrocino Atanacio (alias “Appa”), allegedly used a locally made shotgun (“pogakhang”) to shoot Federico Escala in his own residence.
The killing occurred at night under circumstances indicating treachery, as the accused fired from a concealed position beneath Escala’s house, thereby avoiding immediate risk.

Remedios Pablo, while fetching her husband Leodegario Pablo from the house of Federico Escala, witnessed a man crouching under the kitchen with a shotgun.

Recognizing the man as “Appa”, she attempted to greet him but then saw the weapon discharge.
After hiding behind a post, she later discovered Escala lying dead, surrounded by family members.

Apolinario Escala, while en route to Escala’s house, heard the gunshot, encountered “Appa” who warned him not to speak, and later identified him as the shooter.
Additional background shows a dispute prior to the killing where Federico Escala allegedly denied the accused his share of a harvest, inciting anger in Eufrocino Atanacio.

The accused denied killing Federico Escala, alleging he was elsewhere at the time and that another individual, Carmelino Gevero, was responsible.
The defense raised issues regarding the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses by highlighting discrepancies between Remedios Pablo’s and Apolinario Escala’s testimonies, such as the lack of mutual confirmation of their presence at the crime scene.
An entry in the police blotter (Exhibit 3, 3-A) is cited in support of the defense’s alibi, which mentioned alternative suspects.

The absence of the autopsy was explained by the unavailability of the Rural Health Physician at the time.
Despite the absence, the evidence established that the death was caused by a gunshot, indirectly supporting the admission by the accused that a gun was involved.

Additional defense witnesses (Benjamin Laurilla and Jose Advincula) claimed that Carmelino Gevero was the true offender, but their testimonies were discredited by the trial court on the basis of natural human behavior and the inherent improbability of a confession by a criminal.

The trial court found the evidence of the prosecution (including the positive identifications by Remedios Pablo and Apolinario Escala) credible and sufficient to convict the accused for murder.
Originally, the accused was sentenced to death, along with an order to indemnify Federico Escala’s heirs and to pay the court costs.
The trial court’s findings emphasized aggravating circumstances such as treachery and the advantage of attacking from a position of safety, while insufficient evidence was found to support claims of evident premeditation.

Whether the discrepancies in the testimonies of Remedios Pablo and Apolinario Escala significantly undermined their credibility.
The impact of potential inconsistencies (e.g., failure to confirm each other’s presence) on the overall reliability of the prosecution’s evidence.

Whether the absence of an autopsy report and the non-submission of the murder weapon were fatal errors in the prosecution’s case.
How the omission of such evidence affected the determination of the cause of death and the identification of the assailant.

Whether the accused successfully demonstrated that he was elsewhere at the time of the murder.
If the alternative identification of another suspect (Carmelino Gevero) provided sufficient basis to doubt the positive identification of the accused.

Whether the trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies.
The extent to which the appellate court should defer to the trial court’s observation of the witnesses’ demeanor and evidentiary presentation.