G.R. No. 104839 April 29, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROEL DE LA PENA y RECILLAS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Roel de la Pena was charged with Murder before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela for stabbing German Pineda on September 27, 1991. The prosecution presented five witnesses. Eyewitness Alfredo Dizon testified he was sitting and talking with the victim when accused-appellant, whom he saw for the first time, suddenly came from behind and stabbed Pineda in the back without provocation. The victim ran towards a chapel shouting “Tay, may tama ako” before falling. Joselito Dizon, Alfredo’s brother, testified he was at a nearby store when he saw the victim and his brother running and heard the shout; he saw accused-appellant running away, chased him with others, and apprehended him. Arsenio Pineda, the victim’s father, heard his son’s shout, saw him fall, and saw a man running away; he sought help from police aide Chito Espiritu, and they chased and found accused-appellant being mauled by townsfolk. Chito Espiritu corroborated the chase, testified he saw accused-appellant throw a bladed weapon into a flower pot, recovered the bloodied weapon, and arrested him. Dr. Renato Bautista’s autopsy report indicated one fatal stab wound. The defense presented accused-appellant and his mother, Lucita de la Pena, who testified he was at home drinking with relatives until around 8:00 PM when he accompanied them to the Petron station, and was later arrested without cause. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in giving weight to the prosecution’s version and in convicting accused-appellant despite the alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Alfredo Dizon, Joselito Dizon, Arsenio Pineda, and Chito Espiritu to be clear, straightforward, and credible, establishing accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected the defense’s claim of inconsistencies, noting that affidavits are often incomplete and that minor variances in testimonies do not impair credibility. The Court held that the positive identification by eyewitnesses, the chase and apprehension, the recovery of the murder weapon, and the accused-appellant’s own admission that he was caught and mauled by townspeople negated his alibi. The combination of all circumstances produced moral certainty of his guilt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of indemnity were upheld.