GR 100386; (December, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 100386 December 11, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDUARDO DE LA CRUZ Y CUMPIO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Eduardo de la Cruz was charged with Murder for the killing of Clarito “Larry” Olivares on July 2, 1985, in Baguio City. The sole eyewitness, Alfred Dizon, testified that he and the victim were walking home along Session Road when they were met by three men, including the appellant. Appellant immediately drew a fan knife and stabbed Olivares in the stomach. As Olivares tried to get up, appellant stabbed him again on the chest. Olivares fell, kicked appellant, and was stabbed a third time below the knee. Dizon tried to intervene, grappled with appellant, and lacerated his finger before appellant and his companions fled. Olivares was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. An autopsy revealed stab wounds, including a fatal one penetrating the heart. Dizon gave a detailed description of the assailant to the police. From mug shots, he identified appellant, who was later picked up and identified again in a line-up. Appellant denied involvement, interposing the defense of alibi, claiming he was at the hospital where his wife was giving birth.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Eduardo de la Cruz of Murder based on the eyewitness identification and in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Alfred Dizon, who had a clear opportunity to observe the appellant during the incident and whose detailed description matched the appellant, prevails over the weak defense of alibi. Dizon’s identification was consistent and reliable, even though he had been drinking earlier, as his condition did not impair his perception. The crime was Murder qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and unexpected. Applying the doctrine in People vs. Munoz, and with no generic aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the prescribed penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court affirmed the penalty but increased the civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased to P50,000.00.