G.R. No. 116618 November 21, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO BENITEZ y CABREROS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of December 24, 1981, accused-appellant Ricardo Benitez, a Philippine Marine, and an unidentified companion left the Pañeros Disco House in Manila without paying their bill. Eutiquiano Apan, a disco employee, pursued them to a taxi. A heated argument ensued, during which Benitez drew a .45 caliber pistol and pointed it at Apan. The victim, Edwin Tizon, a Philippine Constabulary soldier and former employee of the disco, intervened, identifying himself as a military man. This angered Benitez, who then demanded Tizon’s identification. When Tizon asked to see Benitez’s ID first, a further altercation occurred.
Benitez and his companion then led Tizon towards the Sta. Mesa bridge. At the foot of the bridge, under a Meralco lamp post, Apan and two other disco employees witnessed Tizon raise his arms in surrender. Benitez then pushed Tizon, pulled a gun from his waist, and shot him. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. The accused interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was on guard duty at the Malacañang Compound from midnight to 4:00 a.m. on the date in question and could not have left his post.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by three eyewitnesses, who had no motive to falsely testify, prevailed over the weak defense of alibi. The witnesses clearly narrated how the accused shot the victim after a confrontation. The Court found their testimonies credible, consistent, and given ample opportunity for identification under sufficient lighting. The alibi defense failed because it was not physically impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene, given the proximity of Malacañang to Sta. Mesa, Manila, and the inherent unreliability of logbook entries which could be fabricated.
Furthermore, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was executed suddenly and unexpectedly while the victim’s hands were raised in surrender, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the accused from any defense the victim might make. This method directly and specially ensured the killing without risk, qualifying the homicide as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of civil indemnity were thus sustained.