GR 143127; (November, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143127 ; November 29, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAUL RUBARES Y CAROLINO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On March 6, 1999, at around 6:30 a.m., at the Seven Eatery near the Philtranco Bus Station in Pasay City, accused-appellant Raul Rubares approached Ariel Atienza, a tricycle driver waiting for passengers. Without any warning, Rubares drew an ice pick and stabbed Atienza once on the right side of the lower back. Eyewitness Daniel Macawili, who was only a meter away, saw the entire incident. The victim, Ariel Atienza, managed to run a short distance before being taken to the hospital. At the hospital, before his death, Atienza identified his assailant as “Raul” to his live-in partner, Imelda Malaloan, and to another witness, Armando Llanes, who heard the victim’s dying declaration.
The prosecution established the cause of death through medical testimony. Dr. Audie Czar Cipriano of Pasay City General Hospital confirmed Atienza died from massive blood loss due to a stab wound. Dr. Wilfredo Tierra, an NBI medico-legal officer, conducted an autopsy and concluded the wound was inflicted from behind, penetrating vital organs. The defense, consisting of accused-appellant and his live-in partner, presented an alibi, claiming he was at home in Cavite at the time of the incident. The trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible and convicted Rubares of murder.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Raul Rubares of murder, qualified by treachery, based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Daniel Macawili, who had no motive to falsely testify, was found credible and sufficient to establish accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification. Furthermore, the victim’s ante-mortem statement identifying “Raul” as his assailant constituted a dying declaration, an exception to the hearsay rule, as it was made under the consciousness of impending death.
The Court upheld the finding of treachery. The attack was sudden and from behind, giving the unarmed victim, Ariel Atienza, who was merely seated in his tricycle, no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. This method of execution deliberately ensured the attack’s success without risk to the assailant. With treachery qualifying the killing to murder, and with no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed. The Court affirmed the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and added P50,000.00 as moral damages to the victim’s heirs.