G.R. No. 137046 February 26, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO CAPITLE alias DANNY, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Danilo Capitle was charged with the murder of Yubegildo Peralta on September 20, 1982. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Diomedes Apigo, testified that after a drinking session, the group, including the victim, was invited by Capitle to his house. Before leaving, Capitle took a split bamboo (bayog). While walking single-file along a fishpond dike, with Peralta ahead, Capitle muttered “Ikka kon sa” (“I may as well give it now”). Diomedes, sensing danger, excused himself. From about fifteen meters away, he saw Capitle strike Peralta with the bamboo, causing him to fall. Diomedes fled. Later, Capitle returned to his house with bloodied hands and a knife, stating “Nalpasen” (“It is finished”). The victim’s body was later found floating in a river, with fatal stab wounds.
The defense presented a different version. Capitle claimed that Peralta uttered an insult, leading to a fight between Peralta and Diomedes. He alleged that Diomedes was the one who stabbed Peralta. Defense witness Moises Rivera claimed he only heard a thud and ran away, not seeing the actual assault. The trial court found the testimony of Diomedes credible and convicted Capitle of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Danilo Capitle for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that direct evidence is not indispensable for conviction; circumstantial evidence suffices if it meets the requisites under the Rules of Court: (a) more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. These were satisfied. The credible eyewitness account of Diomedes Apigo detailed the events: Capitle arming himself with a bamboo, his ominous statement, the sudden attack on the unsuspecting victim from behind, and his subsequent admission and bloodied appearance. The trial court’s assessment of Diomedes’ credibility is accorded great weight, as no fact of significance was overlooked. The Court upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia), as the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim had no chance to defend himself. However, evident premeditation was correctly disregarded for lack of proof of the time and manner the plan was conceived. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was proper. The Court affirmed the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P7,581.00 as actual damages, and added P50,000.00 as moral damages.