GR 137001; (December, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137001 ; December 5, 2001
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CAYETANO MOSENDE y MORATA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of March 22, 1998, Leticia Sapupo witnessed the stabbing of Enrique “Andrew” Sefriuto in their neighborhood in Rosario, Cavite. From her window, she saw accused-appellant Cayetano “Tano” Mosende, whom she recognized, wait for the victim to urinate before stabbing him twice without warning. The victim cried out, identifying “Tano” as his assailant before being taken to the hospital, where he died. The victim’s mother and brother also heard his dying declaration. An Information was filed charging Mosende with Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation.
At trial, the prosecution presented eyewitness Sapupo and the victim’s relatives. The accused denied involvement, presenting an alibi that he was at his sister’s house and only learned of the incident at midnight. The trial court convicted him of Murder, imposing the death penalty, finding the eyewitness account credible and the alibi weak.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of Murder and imposing the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The positive identification by eyewitness Leticia Sapupo, who had a clear view of the incident under sufficient illumination and knew the accused, was credible and conclusive. Her testimony was consistent and detailed. The defense of alibi failed because the accused did not prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, as his sister’s house was not distant. Denial cannot prevail over positive identification.
Regarding the qualifying circumstances, treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was sudden and from behind while the victim was urinating, ensuring the execution without risk to the assailant. However, evident premeditation was not proven, as there was no evidence of planning or sufficient time for reflection. Intoxication was also not established as habitual. With treachery as the sole qualifying circumstance and no other aggravating circumstance, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, not death. The civil indemnity of P50,000 was affirmed, with additional awards of P50,000 moral damages and P20,000 exemplary damages due to the presence of treachery.