G.R. No. 201584 - People vs. Avila y Alecante

The case involves People of the Philippines v. Apolonio “Totong” Avila y Alecante (G.R. No. 201584, June 15, 2016).
The accused was charged with murder under an Information dated October 23, 2002, for the killing of Janjoy Vasquez y Daganato on October 20, 2002.
The trial court (RTC, Branch 219 of Quezon City) found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua; the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals before being elevated to the Supreme Court.

On the evening of October 20, 2002, at around 7:30 pm, Ryan Vasquez, a 9-year-old child and brother of the victim, was returning home after borrowing a guitar.

While ascending the staircase, Ryan observed the accused and his companion lingering outside the house.
Deep in fear, Ryan hid approximately 8 meters away from where the accused stood.

The accused fired the first shot from behind a closed door, with the bullet penetrating through and injuring Janjoy.
He then kicked the door open and fired a second shot, striking Janjoy on the head, which led to her death.
Immediately following the shooting, both the accused and his companion fled the scene.

Ryan discovered his injured sister inside the house and sought help from nearby residents (Ate Milda and Kuya Ricky) who rushed her to the hospital.
Several witnesses, including a neighbor (Bryan Hermano) and the victim’s aunt (Jonalyn Vasquez), provided crucial accounts of the events including the presence and movements of the accused around the time of the crime.

Child witness Ryan Vasquez identified the accused as the shooter despite minor ambiguities in his narrative.
Bryan Hermano testified about overhearing the accused discussing plans involving the victim’s father, Rovic Vasquez, and the subsequent shooting.
Jonalyn Vasquez testified about seeing the accused pass along the pathway near the victim’s house immediately after the gunshots.

The accused presented a testimony based on an alibi, asserting that he was in a rented room in Freedom Park, Batasan Hills, at the time of the incident.
He denied any affiliation with the crime and claimed he only moved there at the invitation of Rovic Vasquez, whom he considered a friend and kababayan.
The defense emphasized inconsistencies in the child’s account, arguing that under parental influence the testimony was compromised.

Various receipts and documents were submitted to support the claim for actual damages.
The prosecution attempted to link expenses incurred by the victim’s father (burial, wake, and other related outlays) to substantiate the award on actual and consequential damages.

The RTC rendered judgment on September 9, 2009, convicting the accused and ordering reclusion perpetua with corresponding damages for the heirs of the victim.
The accused appealed the decision, contesting the credibility of the eyewitness testimonies and the inconsistencies therein, as well as asserting the improbability of his presence at the crime scene.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, noting that minor ambiguities in the testimonies were circumstantial and did not detract from the overall credible identification of the accused.
The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court, which ultimately adopted the CA’s ruling and affirmed the conviction with modifications in the award of damages.

Whether the slight inconsistencies in the testimony of the 9-year-old eyewitness (Ryan Vasquez) undermine his identification of the accused.
Whether the differing observations of various witnesses (including discrepancies between Jonalyn and Ryan Vasquez) affect the overall credibility of the prosecution’s evidence.

Whether the evidence supports the presence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance for murder.
Whether the prosecution successfully established evident premeditation or, alternatively, should have solely relied on the circumstance of treachery.

Whether the accused’s defense of alibi and denial, which contradicts the eyewitness accounts, is sufficient to raise reasonable doubt.
Whether the defense’s arguments regarding the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies effectively negate the positive identification of the accused.

Whether the inclusion of expenses not supported by adequate documentary proof (e.g., handwritten receipts, food and beverage expenses during the wake, and college tuition fees) warrants modification of the awarded actual damages.
Whether the additional awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are justified based on the evidence of the victim’s circumstances.