G.R. No. 179195; October 3, 2011
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Angelino Yanson, Appellant.

FACTS

On July 2, 1991, an Information was filed charging Angelino Yanson and Rolando Salcedo with the murder of Carlito Magan on May 12, 1991, in Jordan, Guimaras. Both pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s version, based on eyewitness Elmo Galfo, was that on the afternoon of May 12, 1991, Galfo and the victim were drinking at a store, later joined by appellant and Salcedo. After they finished drinking around 8:45 PM, Galfo and Magan walked home. After about half a kilometer, Galfo noticed two persons following them, and one suddenly stabbed Magan at the back. Galfo positively identified appellant as the assailant. When Galfo tried to approach, appellant and Salcedo rushed towards him, forcing him to run. While running, he looked back and saw both appellant and Salcedo stabbing the victim further. The autopsy revealed eight stab wounds, two fatal ones at the back. The defense, consisting solely of appellant’s testimony, claimed that after drinking with the group, he and Salcedo left, went to Salcedo’s house, ate, slept, and worked on the farm the next day, only learning of the death on May 23, 1991. Salcedo was not presented to corroborate.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found appellant guilty of murder, appreciating treachery due to the sudden and surreptitious attack from behind, but acquitted Salcedo, finding Galfo’s claim of seeing Salcedo stab while running improbable. Appellant was sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua and ordered to pay damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction and the finding of treachery but modified the damages, deleting the award of actual damages for lack of receipts and awarding temperate damages instead. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the CA Decision with modifications to the damages. The Court held:
1. Positive Identification: The Court found Galfo’s positive and categorical identification of appellant as the perpetrator credible. Galfo testified in detail that he saw appellant stab the victim from behind at a distance of about five steps, under a clear night with stars. His failure to name appellant in his initial sworn statement to the police did not impair his credibility, as sworn statements are often incomplete and the witness clarified his identification in open court.
2. Weakness of Alibi: Appellant’s defense of alibi was weak and undeserving of credence. He failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of the incident.
3. Treachery: The qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) was correctly appreciated. The attack was sudden, from behind, and delivered at the victim’s back without any warning, giving him no opportunity to defend himself. The location and fatal nature of the back wounds confirmed this.
4. Damages: The Court affirmed the CA’s modification on damages. It upheld the award of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages (in lieu of unsupported actual damages). However, the Court further awarded ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages due to the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The award of attorney’s fees was deleted for lack of basis.
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision, as modified by the CA and further modified by the Supreme Court, was affirmed. Appellant Angelino Yanson was found guilty of Murder and sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua. He was ordered to pay the heirs of Carlito Magan ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages, and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages.