GR 110098; (February, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110098 February 26, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BUENAFE AZUGUE y AMADOR, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s case, as established through the lone eyewitness Porferio Delmo, was that on October 27, 1990, in Roxas City, the victim Joebe Arrobang alighted from a jeep that got stuck in mud. Accused-appellant Buenafe Azugue then held the victim face-to-face by both forearms. Immediately thereafter, Azugue’s co-accused, Morito Salvador, stabbed Arrobang from behind. The victim died from the wound. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Azugue was in a different municipality harvesting rice at the time of the incident. The defense also offered a version where Salvador acted alone after being provoked by the victim.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) the credibility of the lone prosecution witness versus the defense of alibi, and (2) whether Azugue’s act of holding the victim constituted conspiracy in the crime of murder qualified by treachery.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On credibility, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment, noting that the witness’s proximity (two arm’s length) and prior familiarity with the accused lent credence to his positive identification. Alibi, being inherently weak, cannot prevail over such positive identification, especially absent proof of the physical impossibility for Azugue to have been at the crime scene. On conspiracy, the Court ruled it was sufficiently established by Azugue’s overt act of holding the victim’s arms, which directly facilitated the fatal stabbing by Salvador. This synchronized action demonstrated a unity of purpose to kill. Treachery was present because the means of execution—immobilizing the victim face-to-face while he was stabbed from behind—were deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk of defense. Consequently, as a conspirator, Azugue is equally liable for murder as the principal who inflicted the fatal wound. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and civil indemnity were affirmed.