G.R. No. 191722 - People vs. Sabangan

On December 27, 1999, Barangay Captain Abe Felonia was fatally shot at Mega Market in Kidapawan City, Cotabato.
The Information initially filed before the RTC on February 21, 2000 identified only Gerry Sabangan; Noli Bornasal was later included as “John Doe” and subsequently identified and arrested.
During arraignment (Sabangan on April 14, 2000 and Bornasal on July 17, 2002), both accused pleaded not guilty.
No plea bargaining or stipulation of facts was reached at the pre-trial conference held on August 28, 2002.

Eden Allado testified that she witnessed Sabangan entering Flora Navales’ store, noticed him handling a gun, and saw him shoot Abe Felonia at close range.
Flora Navales provided detailed testimony regarding her observations from inside her store, including the description of Sabangan’s actions prior to and during the shooting.
Marlon Cordero, a street sweeper, testified that he saw two men fleeing the scene, identifying the first as Sabangan and the second (later) as Bornasal.
Helen Felonia Galladora, the victim’s daughter, testified regarding the sequence of events and the ensuing damages suffered by the victim’s heirs.

Sworn statements and affidavits by key witnesses (Allado, Navales, Cordero, Badian, and Galladora).
Exhibits including sketches of the crime scene, receipts for funeral, hardware, and grocery expenses, as well as additional handwritten documents related to the expenses incurred by the victim’s family.

Multiple witnesses consistently identified Sabangan as the shooter during both the crime and later in-court identification post out‑of‑court identification conducted by the police.
The evidence established that Felonia was unarmed and was fatally shot from behind, and that Sabangan’s actions were consistent with a planned attack by taking advantage of the victim’s unpreparedness.

Accused Gerry Sabangan asserted that on December 27, 1999 he was in Barangay Luhong, Antipas, Cotabato, helping prepare a makeshift structure for a relative’s wedding.
Accused Noli Bornasal maintained his non-participation, claiming he was in Arakan Valley tending his sister’s store and distancing himself from the crime scene.

Several relatives, neighbors, and co-workers testified to support the accused’ alibi claims, although many of these witnesses were family members or close associates.
Witnesses such as Eddie Reyes, Jesus Reyes, Carmelito Reyes, Romeo de Guzman, Ronald Reyes, and Mayette Orot provided inconsistent or weak corroboration regarding Sabangan’s whereabouts.
Andres Comeki testified in support of Bornasal’s version by stating that he and Bornasal were inside a grocery store throughout the day.

Certifications issued by Carmelito Reyes, Barangay Captain of Luhong, Antipas, were presented to corroborate the alibi of accused Sabangan.

The RTC rendered its Decision on November 25, 2004, finding both Sabangan and Bornasal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua with additional awards of civil indemnity, moral, actual, exemplary, and attorney’s fees.
On direct appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court modified the RTC decision by:

On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the petition by Sabangan was addressed regarding the reliability of the out‑of‑court identification and the sufficiency of the alibi evidence.

Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Sabangan as the triggerman responsible for the murder of Abe Felonia, particularly through the consistent and positive identification by the eyewitnesses.
Whether the circumstantial evidence, including multiple eyewitnesses’ testimonies and supporting documentary exhibits, was adequate to overcome the defense’s alibi claims.

Whether the manner in which the out‑of‑court identification of Sabangan was conducted by the police (including show-ups and photographic line-ups) was suggestive or in violation of due process.
Whether any irregularities in the identification process could have tainted the subsequent in‑court identification, thus undermining its evidentiary value.

Whether the alibi provided by Sabangan, asserting that he was in Barangay Luhong during the time of the crime, was credible and sufficient to create a physical impossibility for him to be in Kidapawan City at the critical time.
Whether the alibi evidence, largely supported by relatives and friends, held independent corroborative value against the positively identified and consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

Whether the RTC and appellate court rightly determined the amounts for actual, civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages, and if such awards were excessive or justified based on the evidence.