G.R. No. 189091; August 25, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ARMAN APACIBLE y RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Arman Apacible, was convicted of Murder for the stabbing death of Arnold Vizconde on May 23, 1999, in Tuy, Batangas. The prosecution’s primary witness was the victim’s wife, Mylene Vizconde, who is also the appellant’s first cousin. She testified that after a drinking session involving her husband, her uncle, and the appellant, her husband returned home to sleep. While she was in the kitchen preparing milk, she heard the appellant curse and threaten her husband. From a distance of three to four meters, through an open door, she then saw the appellant stab her sleeping husband multiple times. She immediately shouted for help. The defense interposed alibi, claiming the appellant had left for Cavite after the drinking spree, and suggested Mylene had a motive to falsely accuse him due to an unresolved malicious mischief case filed by the victim against the appellant’s brother.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt for the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt, particularly challenging the eyewitness identification and the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the civil indemnity. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Mylene Vizconde credible, graphic, and consistent. Her proximity to the crime scene (three to four meters), the open door providing a direct line of sight, and her familiarity with the appellant as a frequent visitor and first cousin negated any reasonable chance of mistaken identity. The claim that the room was not proven to be well-lit was insufficient to discredit her positive identification, especially as she recognized the appellant’s voice immediately before seeing the act. The killing was qualified by treachery because the victim was attacked while asleep, utterly defenseless and unable to offer any resistance, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The Court, however, reduced the civil indemnity from ₱75,000 to ₱50,000, clarifying that the increased award of ₱75,000 applies only when the proper imposable penalty at the outset is death, which was not the case here as the trial court originally imposed reclusion perpetua. The decision of the Court of Appeals was thus affirmed with this modification.