GR 123053; (August, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123053 August 21, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEONARDO CARIZO y LLAMES, JULITO CARIZO y LLAMES and CARLOS CARIZO y LLAMES, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Leonardo, Julito, and Carlos Carizo were convicted of Murder for the killing of Mario Dapitan. The incident originated from a fiesta in Sitio Ese on May 16, 1993. Earlier that day, a confrontation occurred when Julito felt slighted after the victim, Mario Dapitan, declined his offer to drink. Julito challenged Mario to a fight, but the latter refused and was later pacified. Later, in the early evening, as Mario and his companion Elmer Ewan were walking, their path was blocked by the armed Carizo brothers. Despite Mario and Elmer raising their hands and pleading they would not fight, the brothers attacked. Elmer escaped, but Mario was chased. Witness Rosemarie Esplana saw the appellants corner Mario, with Julito delivering the initial blow, Leonardo following up with a stab, and Carlos delivering a final stab while Mario was down and pleading.
ISSUE
The core issues were whether the guilt of the accused-appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt and whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly established to qualify the killing as murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, Elmer Ewan and Rosemarie Esplana. Their testimonies were found to be clear, consistent, and credible, positively identifying the appellants as the perpetrators. The defense of denial and alibi proffered by the appellants was deemed weak and could not prevail over this positive identification. The Court clarified that proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only moral certainty, not absolute certainty, which was sufficiently met here. Regarding treachery, the Court ruled it was present. The attack was sudden and unexpected, as the unarmed victim was blocked while walking and was immediately assaulted despite his pleas. The appellants, armed and superior in number, employed means that ensured the execution of the crime without any risk to themselves from the victim, who was rendered incapable of defense. This manner of attack squarely meets the definition of treachery under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code, thereby qualifying the homicide as Murder. The decision was affirmed with a modification reducing the civil indemnity to Fifty Thousand Pesos.