GR 126396; (June, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 126396 ; June 29, 2001
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Felixberto Lao-as, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On December 24, 1988, the victim Leonardo Bastuten invited the accused-appellant Felixberto Lao-as and others to his house in Marilao, Bulacan for a Christmas celebration. The group drank from the afternoon of December 24 until 5:00 a.m. on December 25. Bastuten did not join the drinking and went to sleep earlier. At about 5:30 a.m. on December 25, Bastuten went downstairs. Appellant, who was drunk, without saying a word, took a knife from his left sock and stabbed Bastuten. Appellant was about to stab the victim a second time but was parried by eyewitness Armando Ramirez, who was wounded in the thumb. Appellant then ran away. Demetrio Candilosas, who was inside the house, heard the victim shout “pare, nasaksak ako.” When asked who stabbed him, the victim identified appellant. The victim was brought to the hospital but died on December 27, 1988. Appellant was charged with murder. The Regional Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay indemnity. Appellant appealed, contending there was no eyewitness to the killing and no criminal intent was established.
ISSUE
Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The claim that no one witnessed the stabbing is belied by the record. Prosecution eyewitness Armando Ramirez positively and categorically identified appellant as the one who stabbed the victim with a balisong taken from his sock. Ramirez was an unbiased witness without improper motive. Furthermore, the victim’s ante mortem statement to Demetrio Candilosas identifying appellant as his assailant is admissible as a dying declaration, being evidence of the highest order, and alternatively as part of the res gestae. Appellant’s defenses of self-defense and accident are mutually exclusive and illogical, as he simultaneously denied stabbing the victim. Proof of motive is not essential since the identity of the assailant was positively established by an eyewitness. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present as the attack was sudden and unexpected, providing the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of indemnity were affirmed.