G.R. No. 173248 November 3, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. DANTE NUEVA y SAMARO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Dante Nueva y Samaro, along with Porpirio Maribuhok and a John Doe, was charged with Murder for the killing of Virgilio Revollido, Jr. on December 29, 2000, in Caloocan City. Only the appellant was apprehended. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Alfonso Bacar, Jr., testified that at around 10:00 p.m., while standing outside the Great Taste Bakery on 4th Avenue East, Caloocan City, he saw a person being chased by another (John Doe). When the victim reached 4th Avenue, the appellant, who was standing near the corner with Porpirio, held the victim’s left hand and led him across the road. There, Porpirio hit the victim on the head with a piece of wood, causing him to fall to his knees. The appellant boxed the victim until John Doe arrived and stabbed the victim at the back. The appellant then pulled out a knife and also stabbed the victim. The three assailants then fled. The victim stood up but fell after taking two steps and was later brought to a hospital. The victim died from stab wounds, as confirmed by the medico-legal officer. The appellant denied involvement, claiming he was at work as a bouncer at the Yellow Submarine at the time. The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellant of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages awarded.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the appeal, affirming the appellant’s conviction for Murder. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Alfonso Bacar, Jr. to be credible, positive, and consistent, providing a clear and detailed account of the appellant’s direct participation in holding the victim, boxing him, and then stabbing him. The witness was at a reasonable distance (7 to 8 arms length) from the well-lighted scene. The appellant’s defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present because the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim defenseless after being held and hit on the head. The Court modified the awarded damages, ordering the appellant to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P56,112.00 as actual damages.