FACTS:

The case involves the appeal of Tirso Sibbu, who was convicted of attempted murder and murder. In the attempted murder case, the appellant, along with co-accused, was charged with conspiring to shoot the victim but missed. In the murder cases, the appellant and his co-accused were charged with shooting and killing three victims. The crimes were committed in the victims' dwelling at night, with the appellant wearing a bonnet as a disguise. The appellant pleaded not guilty and presented alibi witnesses. Witnesses testified to seeing the appellant at the crime scene and the police found evidence that linked the appellant to the crimes. During the investigation, the victim identified the appellant as the gunman.

The Regional Trial Court found the appellant guilty of murder and attempted murder, giving weight to the positive identification of the appellant. The court also found the appellant's defense weak. The court sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay damages to the victims' heirs. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC's decision with modifications. The appellant raised issues on the identification of the appellant as the assailant and the sufficiency of the aggravating circumstances. The RTC and the CA upheld the credibility of the eyewitness and found no reason to doubt his identification of the appellant.

The trial proceed without a supplemental brief from the appellant, and the Office of the Solicitor General agreed that no supplemental brief was necessary. The Court finds that the RTC and CA did not err in their appreciation of the facts and evidence, particularly the credibility of the eyewitness. There is no reason to doubt the appellant's identification as the assailant.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving undue credence to the testimony of the alleged eyewitness.

2. Whether the prosecution failed to overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence.

3. Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery, dwelling, and use of disguise were sufficiently established.

4. Whether treachery can be considered as a qualifying circumstance in the case.

5. Whether the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was correctly appreciated.

6. Whether the use of disguise was correctly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.

7. Whether the defense of alibi and denial were proven by the appellant.

8. Whether the appellant can be convicted of attempted murder.

9. Whether appellant should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in lieu of the death penalty.

10. Whether the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages are proper.

11. Whether appellant Tirso Sibbu is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder in Criminal Case No. 11724.

12. Whether appellant Tirso Sibbu is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted murder in Criminal Case No. 11722.

RULING:

1. The trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimony of the alleged eyewitness. The court upheld the findings of the trial court and the appellate court that the eyewitness positively identified the appellant as the person who committed the crime. Factual findings of trial courts, when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally entitled to respect and should not be disturbed on appeal unless substantial facts were overlooked. In this case, the court found that there was no reason to doubt the positive testimony of the eyewitness.

2. The prosecution successfully overcame the constitutional presumption of innocence. The court found that the eyewitness's identification of the appellant was credible and convincing. The eyewitness was able to recognize the appellant despite the fact that his face was partly covered with a bonnet. The court found that the eyewitness's familiarity with the appellant, combined with the illumination provided by Christmas lights, enabled him to positively identify the appellant.

3. The aggravating circumstances of treachery, dwelling, and use of disguise were sufficiently established. The court found that the evidence presented, including the eyewitness's testimony and the testimony of a police officer, supported the existence of these aggravating circumstances. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in appreciating these aggravating circumstances.

4. Treachery was correctly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance in the case. The appellant employed deliberate means to ensure the accomplishment of his purpose of killing his victims with minimal risk to his safety.

5. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling was correctly appreciated. Although the appellant did not enter the dwelling of the victims, the fact that the victims were attacked inside their own house is sufficient to consider the aggravating circumstance.

6. The use of disguise was correctly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. The appellant covered his face with a bonnet during the shooting incident, clearly intending to conceal his identity.

7. The defense of alibi and denial were not proven by the appellant. The appellant failed to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the shooting incident.

8. The appellant can be convicted of attempted murder. While he failed to kill his intended target, his acts of firing his firearm at the residence of the victims constituted overt acts towards the commission of murder.

9. Yes, appellant should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in lieu of the death penalty. The imposition of death penalty is now prohibited by law, and reclusion perpetua is the penalty to be imposed instead.

10. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages are proper. For crimes where the imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua, the latest jurisprudence pegs the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. In addition, temperate damages may be awarded in certain cases, and in this case, the amount to be awarded as temperate damages is P50,000.00.

11. Appellant Tirso Sibbu is declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder in Criminal Case No. 11724. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole. He is also ordered to pay the heirs of Warlito Julian, Sr. y Agustin the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.

12. Appellant Tirso Sibbu is declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted murder in Criminal Case No. 11722. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as a minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as a maximum. He is also ordered to pay Bryan Julian y Villanueva civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages each in the amount of P50,000.00, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.

PRINCIPLES:

• Factual findings of trial courts, when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally entitled to respect and should not be disturbed on appeal unless substantial facts were overlooked.

• The prosecution must overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence by presenting credible and convincing evidence.

• Identification based on familiarity, body built, height, and body movements, supported by proper standards of identification, is considered valid.

• The existence of aggravating circumstances must be supported by evidence presented during the trial.

• Treachery as a qualifying circumstance: Treachery is present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to themselves arising from the defense that the offended party might make.

• Aggravating circumstance of dwelling: The aggravating circumstance of dwelling can be appreciated when the victim is attacked inside his own house, even if the assailant perpetrated the assault from outside.

• Use of disguise as an aggravating circumstance: The use of disguise can be considered an aggravating circumstance when the purpose is to conceal the identity of the offender.

• Defense of alibi and denial: The defense of alibi can only prosper if the accused proves not only that they were at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity. The defense of denial requires the accused to present clear and convincing evidence to support their claim of innocence.

• Attempted murder: An individual can be convicted of attempted murder if they commence the commission of murder through overt acts but fail to perform all the acts of execution to produce murder by reason of some cause other than their own spontaneous desistance.

• In crimes where the imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua, the amount of civil indemnity is P100,000.00, moral damages is P100,000.00, and exemplary damages is P100,000.00.

• Temperate damages may be awarded when the exact amount of pecuniary loss suffered by the heirs of the victims is not proven. In this case, the amount of temperate damages awarded is P50,000.00.

• The guilt of an accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Murder is the killing of a person committed with any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Attempted murder is committed when there is a deliberate intent to take away the life of a person but, for some reason, the offender failed to perform all the acts of execution.

• The imposition of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages is warranted in cases involving murder.

• The legal interest rate for damages awarded is 6% per annum.