GR 132743; (November, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132743; November 22, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCIAL CAÑARES Y ORBES, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Marcial Cañares, was charged with the murder of Gerson Luceñara. The prosecution presented two eyewitnesses, Luis Alsola and Jovelindo Corrales, both security guards who were with the victim on the night of August 25, 1993. They testified that while walking home, appellant, from a distance of about two meters, shot Luceñara in the back of the head. As the victim fell, appellant shot him again in the abdomen before fleeing. Both witnesses positively identified Cañares as the assailant. The defense presented a different version, alleging that a certain Roy Velos was the actual killer. Defense witnesses Adelo Ayuban, Estemio Reyes, and Virginia de los Reyes testified they saw Velos fleeing the scene. Appellant himself interposed an alibi, claiming he was watching a movie at a theater during the incident.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hinging on the credibility of the witnesses and the positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The testimonies of Alsola and Corrales were found to be clear, consistent, and categorical. Their identification of the appellant was reliable as the crime occurred at close range under sufficient illumination from a nearby store’s fluorescent light, enabling a clear view. The Court emphasized that positive identification by credible witnesses prevails over denial and alibi, which are inherently weak defenses. The defense’s theory implicating Roy Velos was rejected for being uncorroborated and coming from witnesses whose credibility was questionable due to their relationship with the appellant.
Furthermore, the Court affirmed the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The attack was sudden and from behind, aimed at the victim’s head, rendering him defenseless and unable to escape, which squarely meets the legal definition. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was sustained. However, the Court modified the damages awarded. The award of actual damages was deleted for lack of evidentiary support but was replaced with an award of temperate damages. Moral damages were also increased in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.