G.R. Nos. 145452-53; June 10, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. LARRY CARITATIVO alias “LARRY,” Appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of April 28, 1995, during a wedding dance in Sitio Bulangcog, Occidental Mindoro, appellant Larry Caritativo informed prosecution witness Catalino Gonzales of his intent to stab someone, whom he accused of running over his mother. Caritativo then showed Gonzales a knife. Shortly after, a commotion erupted. Witness Expedito Prado testified that he saw Caritativo enter a parked jeep and stab two sleeping persons, one of whom was the victim, Freddie Mariano. Caritativo then chased Prado, who escaped. Later, while walking home with Gonzales, Caritativo confessed to the stabbing, stating he thrust the knife deeply, and Gonzales noticed blood on Caritativo’s shirt. The victim died from a single stab wound to the chest that hit his heart.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Caritativo was at home sleeping at the time of the incident. The trial court rejected this and found the testimonies of Gonzales and Prado credible, convicting Caritativo of murder qualified by treachery and sentencing him to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimonies of Catalino Gonzales and Expedito Prado credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Gonzales’s account of the appellant’s prior declaration of intent and subsequent confession, corroborated by the physical evidence of blood on his shirt, was deemed credible. Prado’s eyewitness account of the actual stabbing inside the jeep was straightforward and unshaken by cross-examination. The Court ruled that the positive identification by these witnesses prevailed over the weak defense of alibi, which was not physically impossible.
However, the Court found that treachery was not sufficiently established. The prosecution failed to prove how the attack was commenced. The victim was stabbed while asleep inside a jeep, but there was no evidence detailing the manner of execution that would show the assailant consciously adopted a method to ensure the victim’s defenselessness. Thus, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven. Consequently, the crime is homicide, not murder. The Court imposed the penalty of reclusion temporal, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The award of civil indemnity and actual damages was affirmed.