G.R. No. 139069 ; June 17, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. NIÑO GARIN, Appellant.

FACTS

On April 3, 1997, in Caloocan City, fourteen-year-old Eleazar Galang was swimming with friends, including his brother Mario, when they saw appellant Niño Garin and his group approaching. Fearing Garin, who was known as a community toughie, the boys fled. Eleazar, who delayed to get dressed, was left behind. Garin approached Eleazar, drew a butcher’s knife, and poked it at him. When Eleazar tried to run, he fell. Garin then mounted the victim’s back and stabbed him. Mario, witnessing the event from six to seven meters away, heard Garin shout that his brother was dead. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital from a single stab wound at the back.
The defense presented a different account. Garin, claiming to be a minor, denied the accusation and asserted he was misidentified. He testified that on the same afternoon, he was swimming in a different barangay and, upon returning, witnessed a quarrel between his friend and Eleazar. He claimed he merely intervened to pacify them before leaving, and that Eleazar was later stabbed by an unknown assailant after Eleazar’s father called for armed men.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Garin’s guilt for the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Mario Galang credible, straightforward, and consistent. Mario positively identified Garin as the assailant and clearly narrated the sequence of events, including the treacherous manner of the attack. The medical findings corroborated his account, confirming the victim was stabbed from behind. The defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. The Court also rejected the claim of minority, as the defense failed to present competent evidence like a certified copy of a birth certificate; the presented document was under the name “Noe Garing” and lacked authentication.
The killing was qualified by treachery. The attack was sudden, from behind, and employed a lethal weapon against an unarmed and fleeing victim who was in no position to defend himself, ensuring the execution without risk to the assailant. The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing civil indemnity and granting temperate damages for burial expenses lacking full receipt, but deleted actual damages for unsubstantiated claims. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, with the modification that the appellant is ordered to pay the victim’s heirs P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, P25,000 as exemplary damages, and P25,000 as temperate damages.