GR 134727; (February, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134727 February 19, 2001
CESAR BARRERA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Cesar Barrera, along with Domingo Lazo and Celedonio Itape, was charged with Murder for the stabbing death of Mario Anacay on May 24, 1981, in Calamba, Laguna. The prosecution evidence established that the victim and his companion, Jojo Fernandez, were at a fairground when confronted by Barrera’s group. Barrera, after a brief verbal altercation, suddenly stabbed Anacay in the back. Fernandez ran to seek help. The wounded Anacay was brought to a hospital where, believing he would die, he gave a dying declaration to police officer Cosme Malabanan, identifying his attackers as “Cesar Dictado, Doming and Dolong.” Witness Lauro Ejeda corroborated that these names referred to Barrera, Lazo, and Itape. Anacay later died. The trial court convicted Barrera of Homicide but acquitted Lazo and Itape due to insufficient evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Cesar Barrera’s conviction based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the strength of positive identification and the weakness of the defenses raised. First, the eyewitness account of Jojo Fernandez, who positively identified Barrera as the one who stabbed the victim, was found credible and consistent. The Court held that his testimony prevails over Barrera’s mere denial. The fact that Fernandez ran away out of fear did not impair his credibility but was a natural reaction. Second, the alleged discrepancy in the victim’s dying declaration—identifying “Cesar Dictado”—was inconsequential. Witness Ejeda clarified that “Dictado” was known to refer to petitioner Barrera, thereby satisfactorily explaining the variance and not casting doubt on Barrera’s identity as the perpetrator. Third, the affidavit newly presented by petitioner, executed by Elena de Sagun vda. de Gatdula, was correctly rejected as hearsay. It contained an alleged confession by her deceased husband, not the affiant’s personal knowledge, and thus had no probative value. The acquittal of the co-accused did not benefit Barrera, as his culpability was proven beyond reasonable doubt by direct evidence.