GR 129892; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129892; October 16, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO BARRO, JR., accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of October 31, 1992, in Ocampo, Camarines Sur, Dennis Cano was engaged in a drinking session with three others, including Pedro Largo. Prosecution witnesses Pedro Largo and Renato Villaruel testified that after two companions left, appellant Rodolfo Barro, Jr. suddenly approached Cano from behind and stabbed him twice with a bladed weapon while Cano was seated with his back resting on a wall. Cano was brought to the hospital but died days later from his wounds. The autopsy confirmed two fatal stab wounds.
For his defense, appellant interposed alibi and denial. He claimed he was in Tabaco, Albay, working as a laborer on the date of the incident and did not know the victim or the eyewitnesses. His employer, Danilo Bonita, corroborated his presence but failed to present any employment records. On rebuttal, the prosecution presented Rogelio Largo, who testified that appellant had previously worked for him in the very barangay where the crime occurred, contradicting appellant’s claim of never having been there.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder. The Court found the positive identification by two eyewitnesses, Largo and Villaruel, to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt. Both witnesses had a clear view of the incident under adequate lighting and knew appellant prior to the event. Their testimonies were deemed more reliable than appellant’s weak defense of alibi, which was further undermined by rebuttal evidence showing his prior presence in the locality. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification, especially when the accused fails to prove the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene.
The killing was qualified by treachery. The attack was sudden and from behind, while the victim was seated and resting, depriving him of any opportunity to defend himself. This manner of execution ensured the assailant’s safety from any retaliation. However, the Court found evident premeditation not proven. The penalty was correctly imposed at reclusion perpetua. The Court awarded civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and actual damages of P34,261.10, supported by receipts, but deleted moral damages for lack of competent proof.