G.R. No. 140386 ; November 29, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENNY ACOSTA AND RENNY BOY ACOSTA, accused, BENNY ACOSTA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Benny Acosta and his son Renny Boy Acosta were charged with Murder for the stabbing death of Norton Baguio on March 14, 1993. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Hansel Cañete and Joy Boganutan, who testified that after a dance, the victim stopped to urinate. Benny Acosta suddenly attacked and stabbed Baguio from behind. As Baguio fell, Renny Boy Acosta rushed in and also stabbed him. The dying victim identified Benny Acosta as his assailant. The postmortem examination confirmed two fatal stab wounds on the victim’s back, consistent with an attack from behind.
The defense, anchored on alibi, presented accused-appellant Benny Acosta, who claimed he was out fishing from the afternoon of March 13 until past midnight of March 14, after which he sold his catch and watched a betamax film before going home to sleep. He denied any involvement or knowledge of the incident until his arrest. His son, Renny Boy Acosta, admitted to the stabbing but claimed he acted alone in self-defense, alleging the victim had previously threatened him with a knife.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Benny Acosta for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses credible, positive, and consistent. They clearly established that Benny Acosta initiated the attack by stabbing the unsuspecting victim from behind. This manner of attack constituted treachery (alevosia), qualifying the killing to Murder. The dying declaration of the victim, identifying Benny Acosta, further corroborated the eyewitness accounts.
The defense of alibi proffered by Benny Acosta was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses. The Court emphasized that alibi is unavailing when the accused is positively identified and his claimed location was not so far as to preclude his presence at the crime scene—here, the dance hall was a mere ten-minute walk from the seashore where he claimed to be. Renny Boy’s claim of sole responsibility and self-defense was rejected for being uncorroborated and inconsistent with the physical evidence of a treacherous attack from behind. The trial court’s findings on credibility are accorded great respect. Thus, the Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and increased the civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and awarded an additional P50,000.00 as moral damages.