GR 129217; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129217 ; August 25, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO NARCA (At Large), FELIX ANTIDO Y LUMBRE and LITO ANTIDO Y LUMBRE, accused, FELIX ANTIDO Y LUMBRE and LITO ANTIDO Y LUMBRE, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of October 5, 1991, in Quezon City, Joel Dayag, Edwin Bautista, and the victim Rodolfo Cardeno were at Kasunduan Street. Dayag and Cardeno were conversing while Bautista was buying barbecue. Appellants Felix Antido and Lito Antido, along with their co-accused Francisco Narca, suddenly arrived. Without any provocation, Lito Antido stabbed Dayag at the back. As Dayag fled, he looked back and saw Felix Antido holding the nape of Cardeno while both appellants mauled and stabbed him; Narca acted as a lookout. Cardeno sustained fatal stab wounds and was declared dead on arrival at the hospital.
The appellants interposed the defense of alibi. Felix Antido claimed he was constructing a deep well in another barangay and fled upon seeing a group of armed men approach his companion. Lito Antido asserted he was working in Malabon at the time. Both denied participation and claimed they were later mistakenly identified by witnesses after their arrest.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of appellants for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution successfully established all elements of Murder qualified by treachery. The positive identification by eyewitness Joel Dayag, who knew the appellants and clearly narrated their sudden and unprovoked attack from behind, was credible and categorical. The Court found no ill motive for Dayag to falsely testify. His testimony was consistent and corroborated by the autopsy findings.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the crime scene. Appellants failed to establish this physical impossibility. The locations they cited were not so geographically remote as to preclude their presence at the crime scene. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness.
The killing was attended by treachery. The attack was sudden, from behind, and without warning while the victim was unarmed and engaged in a friendly conversation. This method of execution deliberately ensured that the victim had no opportunity to defend himself, qualifying the crime as Murder. The trial court’s award of civil indemnity, actual damages, attorney’s fees, and moral damages to the victim’s heirs was also affirmed as proper under the law.