G.R. No. 134484 ; January 30, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Leo Abejuela and Welinido Samson (at large), accused, Leo Abejuela, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of June 29, 1990, spouses Juresmundo and Leticia Moradas were walking home from a benefit dance in Masbate. They noticed two persons following them. When Juresmundo confronted the individuals, Leticia turned and shone her flashlight on them, recognizing their neighbors, Leo Abejuela and Welinido Samson. Abejuela warned Juresmundo not to move or run, after which he and Samson suddenly attacked and stabbed Juresmundo. Leticia fled in fear and sought refuge in a neighbor’s house for the night, reporting the attack there. The following morning, after finding her husband had not returned home, she reported the incident to authorities. Juresmundo’s body was later discovered with multiple stab wounds.
Accused-appellant Leo Abejuela, who was eventually apprehended in 1996, denied the accusation. He presented an alibi, claiming he was selling goods at the dance hall the entire evening and only left after it ended at 1:30 a.m. The trial court convicted Abejuela of Murder qualified by treachery, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay indemnity. Abejuela appealed, challenging the credibility of the eyewitness and the appreciation of treachery.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Leticia Moradas, is credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction; and (2) whether the killing was attended by treachery to qualify it as Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Leticia Moradas’s credibility. Her positive identification of Abejuela, made under the illumination of her flashlight, was clear and categorical. The Court found her explanations for not immediately reporting the crime—her genuine fear for her own safety and her anxious hope that her husband had escaped—to be natural and reasonable reactions given the traumatic circumstances. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness, especially since no ill motive was shown for Leticia to falsely testify against the appellant.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The warning “Huwag kang kikilos, huwag kang tatakbo” preceded the immediate stabbing, which ensured the execution of the attack without risk to the assailants. This method directly and specially ensured the accomplishment of the crime without any provocation from the victim, satisfying the elements of treachery. The Court modified the damages, awarding an additional P50,000.00 as moral damages to the victim’s heirs.