GR 82113; (July, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 82113 July 5, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMULO CAÑETE, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution established that on the evening of October 20, 1985, in Sitio Abaca, Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental, the victim Zacarias Tampipi was hosting a drinking session on the porch of his house with three companions. His wife, Norma Tampipi, was also present, with illumination provided by a small wick lamp. At around 11:00 PM, the accused Romulo Cañete suddenly appeared from behind and stabbed Tampipi on the left side with a bolo, causing him to fall to the ground. While the victim was defenseless on the ground, Cañete continued to hack him until told to stop by witnesses. The victim died shortly thereafter from his wounds. The accused was charged with Murder, qualified by treachery, and the trial court convicted him as charged, sentencing him to Reclusion Perpetua.
ISSUE
The core issues on appeal are: (1) whether the trial court erred in its assessment of the evidence and credibility of witnesses, particularly by not requiring the presentation of all alleged eyewitnesses; and (2) whether the crime committed was Murder qualified by treachery or the lesser crime of Homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder. On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution has the prerogative to decide which witnesses to present. The non-presentation of two other alleged eyewitnesses, Antonio Pantoja and Bomby Lastimosa, does not weaken the prosecution’s case. Their testimonies would have been merely corroborative. Notably, Pantoja, who was the accused’s brother-in-law and an adverse witness, was in fact presented by the defense. The testimony of a single credible witness is sufficient for conviction. The trial court’s findings on witness credibility, especially having observed their demeanor, are accorded great weight and respect.
On the second issue, the Court upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia). The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed from behind the victim who was seated, unarmed, and entirely defenseless. The accused employed means—attacking from the darkness without warning—that directly ensured the execution of the crime without any risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. These circumstances clearly qualify the killing as Murder. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s factual conclusions, which were supported by the evidence on record. The penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and the awarded indemnity were thus affirmed.