G.R. No. 138933; October 28, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JERRYVIE GUMAYAO y DAHAO @ BIVIE, appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of December 28, 1996, Concordio Sulogan and Diocrly Binayao were sitting by the Syre Highway in Kalasungay, Malaybalay City, watching a nearby disco. Appellant Jerryvie Gumayao joined them. Shortly after, Edmund Paano, the victim’s cousin, passed by, shook Concordio’s hand, and proceeded to the disco. After Edmund left, Jerryvie suddenly drew a knife and stabbed Concordio twice, on the left chest and abdomen, before fleeing. Concordio died from his wounds. Diocrly witnessed the attack, and Edmund returned to find the victim bloodied. SPO1 Ersie Paano investigated, and Diocrly identified Jerryvie as the assailant. Jerryvie was later apprehended.
The defense presented an alibi. Jerryvie claimed he was at a drinking session at his aunt’s house, two kilometers away, and later went to the disco. He alleged that prosecution witnesses Diocrly Binayao and Edmund Paano were biased, as they were relatives of his enemy, Popoy Helacio, with whom he had a prior altercation. He denied any involvement in the stabbing.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in overcoming his defense of alibi and establishing the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder. The defense of alibi must fail as the appellant was positively identified by eyewitness Diocrly Binayao, whose testimony was clear, straightforward, and consistent. The court found no ill motive for Diocrly to falsely testify. The claim of witness bias due to a feud with Popoy Helacio was unsubstantiated and did not discredit the positive identification. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The appellant failed to do so, as the locations he mentioned were not prohibitively distant.
The court upheld the finding of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The victim was seated and unsuspecting when the appellant, who had just been sitting companionably beside him, suddenly stood and inflicted the fatal wounds. This method of attack directly and specifically ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was thus proper. The Court modified the damages, awarding civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages, but deleting the award for loss of earning capacity due to insufficient proof of the victim’s net income.