GR 148327; (June, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148327; June 12, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RENATO DESALISA Y PAYOS (At Large) and ROMEO DESALISA Y PAYOS, Accused, ROMEO DESALISA Y PAYOS, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
On July 7, 1996, in Carmona, Cavite, a drinking session among neighbors, including the victim Richard Oracion and accused Renato Desalisa, escalated into a violent altercation. After a heated argument, Renato went home. He later lured the victim’s son, Madge, to his house and twisted his arm. Upon learning of this, an enraged Richard confronted Renato at the latter’s mother’s house. Renato emerged armed with a bladed weapon and stabbed Richard in the stomach. Appellant Romeo Desalisa, Renato’s brother, then joined the attack, stabbing the victim in the back. The brothers pursued the fleeing victim, continuing to assault him. Richard’s wife, Ladella, who tried to intervene, was also hacked by Romeo. The victim was later found dead, having sustained 21 stab wounds.
The defense presented a different narrative, claiming Romeo was not involved in the killing. They alleged that Romeo was at his own home, became involved in a separate altercation with the victim’s brother-in-law, Pedro Diaz, and was later arrested without having participated in the attack on Richard.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of appellant Romeo Desalisa for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of the eyewitness, Ladella Oracion (the victim’s wife), to be credible, positive, and consistent. She clearly and convincingly identified Romeo as one of the assailants who stabbed her husband. Her testimony was corroborated by the medical findings, which indicated wounds inflicted from different directions and by different weapons, supporting the prosecution’s theory of a concerted attack by two individuals.
The defense of denial and alibi proffered by Romeo was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the eyewitness. For alibi to succeed, the accused must demonstrate not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene. Romeo failed to prove this physical impossibility. The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the killing was attended by treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, denying the victim any opportunity to defend himself, especially when he was stabbed from behind by Romeo. The circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength was deemed absorbed in treachery. The award of damages was modified, reducing the actual damages to the amount supported by receipts and setting moral damages and civil indemnity at ₱50,000.00 each.