G.R. No. 217380, November 23, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Eduardo Cuesta y Astorga a.k.a. Boyet Cubilla y Quintana, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Eduardo Cuesta was charged with Murder for the killing of Ruel Duardo on September 18, 2006, in Malabon City. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimony of eyewitness Rodel Flores Bartolome, was that Duardo and Bartolome were drinking beer; when Duardo was alighting from a jeepney, he was cursed by Roland Dante, a companion of Cuesta; as Duardo confronted Dante, Cuesta, who was in front of Duardo, suddenly stabbed him on the side of the abdomen while Duardo was holding the jeepney’s vertical bars and looking at Dante; Cuesta stabbed Duardo repeatedly despite pleas. The victim died from his wounds. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Cuesta was with PDEA officers on a surveillance operation in Calumpit, Bulacan, at the time of the incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted Cuesta of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages. Cuesta appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the eyewitness testimony was inconsistent and that treachery was not established.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the conviction based on the testimony of Bartolome despite alleged improbabilities and inconsistencies.
2. Whether the elements of treachery were duly established.

RULING

The Supreme Court MODIFIED the decision. It upheld the conviction but found the crime to be Homicide, not Murder, as the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
1. On the credibility of the prosecution witness: The Court found no error in affirming the credibility of eyewitness Bartolome. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is generally binding. The alleged inconsistencies in Bartolome’s testimony pertained to minor details (e.g., whether he saw Duardo flee or lie down after the stabbing) and did not detract from his positive and unwavering identification of Cuesta as the assailant. Such minor inconsistencies even strengthen credibility by showing the testimony was unrehearsed.
2. On the presence of treachery: The Court ruled that treachery was not established. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, the prosecution must prove: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (b) the means were deliberately or consciously adopted. The evidence showed the attack arose from a sudden altercation instigated by Dante’s cursing of the victim. Duardo had alighted from the jeepney to confront Dante, indicating he was aware of a potential conflict. The attack was not so sudden and unexpected as to deny him any chance to defend himself; it occurred face-to-face in the course of a heated confrontation. Thus, the killing lacked the requisite deliberate adoption of a treacherous mode of attack.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Accused-appellant Eduardo Cuesta y Astorga a.k.a. Boyet Cubilla y Quintana is found GUILTY of HOMICIDE. He is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Ten (10) Years of prision mayor, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum. He is ordered to pay the heirs of Ruel Duardo: ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity; ₱50,000.00 as moral damages; and ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages, plus interest on all damages awarded at 6% per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid.