G.R. No. 123456

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JUAN DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.

PROMULGATED: [Date of Promulgation]

D E C I S I O N

LEONEN, J.:

Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court finding accused-appellant Juan Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:

An Information was filed charging Juan Dela Cruz with the crime of Murder. It was alleged that on or about [Date], in [Place], the accused, with intent to kill, armed with a bladed weapon, and with treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault, and stab one Pedro Santos, thereby inflicting upon him fatal wounds which directly caused his death.

During arraignment, the accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented eyewitness Maria Reyes, who testified that she saw the accused, whom she positively identified in open court, suddenly approach the victim from behind and without any warning or provocation, stab him multiple times. The victim fell to the ground and died at the scene. Dr. [Name], the medico-legal officer, testified that the victim sustained three stab wounds, one of which was fatal, penetrating the heart. The doctor confirmed that the nature, location, and depth of the wounds were consistent with an intent to kill and an attack from behind.

The defense interposed denial and alibi. The accused testified that he was in a different barangay attending a fiesta at the time of the incident. He presented a friend to corroborate his alibi.

The Regional Trial Court gave full credence to the testimony of the eyewitness, finding it clear, consistent, and credible. It rejected the defense of alibi for being weak and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court found the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be present, as the attack was sudden, unexpected, and from behind, depriving the victim of any opportunity to defend himself. Accordingly, the trial court convicted the accused of Murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded, increasing the amounts in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

Hence, this appeal.

The accused-appellant raises the sole issue of whether the prosecution proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He argues that the testimony of the lone eyewitness is unreliable and that his alibi should prevail.

The appeal lacks merit.

I. Credibility of Witness
The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court, which had the unique opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct, and manner of testifying. Its findings are accorded great weight and respect, and are generally binding on appellate courts, absent any showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance. In this case, the trial court found the eyewitness testimony to be straightforward, candid, and consistent on material points. Her positive identification of the accused, whom she knew personally, prevails over the negative defenses of denial and alibi.

II. Presence of Treachery
Treachery (alevosia) 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 himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, giving the victim no opportunity to resist or escape. The eyewitness account, corroborated by the medico-legal findings, clearly established that the accused attacked the unsuspecting victim from behind without warning. This manner of execution squarely qualifies the killing as Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

III. Weakness of Alibi
Alibi is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by a credible witness. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. The accused-appellant failed to prove such physical impossibility. The barangay where he claimed to be was not so far as to preclude his presence at the crime scene. Hence, his defense must fail.

IV. Damages
The Court of Appeals correctly awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in accordance with current jurisprudence. However, in line with the Court’s recent rulings, the awards must be further adjusted. For the crime of Murder, the award of civil indemnity is increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), moral damages to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), and exemplary damages to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00). Furthermore, temperate damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) are awarded in lieu of actual damages, as the prosecution failed to prove the exact amount of funeral and burial expenses but established that the heirs incurred such expenses. All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant JUAN DELA CRUZ is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.

He is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Pedro Santos, the following amounts:
1. Civil Indemnity Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00);
2. Moral Damages Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00);
3. Exemplary Damages Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00); and
4. Temperate Damages Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).

All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Gesmundo, C.J., (Chairperson), Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.