GR 179044; (December, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 179044 ; December 6, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. RODRIGUEZ LUCERO y PAW-AS alias “Kikit,” Appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Rodriguez Lucero, was charged with murder for the killing of Edgar Aydaon. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Leonito Maceda, testified that in the early morning of July 21, 1998, he saw the appellant call out to the victim. The appellant pleaded to accompany the victim, claiming he was being pursued. After the victim agreed and they walked about ten meters, the appellant suddenly hacked the victim on the head with a bolo and stabbed him while he was on the ground, causing his death. The defense presented only the appellant, who denied the accusation and proffered an alibi, claiming he was at his farm in a different province at the time of the incident.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt, particularly with the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction for murder. The Court upheld the credibility of the prosecution’s eyewitness, Maceda, dismissing minor inconsistencies in his testimony as natural and even enhancing his credibility. The appellant’s defense of alibi and denial was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The appellant himself admitted the distance was only ten kilometers, traversable by motorcycle, thus failing this requirement. Denial, being inherently weak, cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification by a credible witness.
The Court affirmed the presence of treachery, which qualified the killing as murder. The legal logic is that treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that ensure its commission without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. Here, the appellant employed a ruse by pretending to seek help, lulling the victim into a false sense of security. The sudden and unexpected hacking attack, while the victim was walking alongside him and completely unaware, deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself. This manner of execution directly and specifically ensured the execution of the crime without any risk to the appellant. The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing civil indemnity to ₱75,000.00 and exemplary damages to ₱30,000.00, and replacing the actual damages with ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages.