G.R. No. 185162; April 24, 2009
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Rolly Gidoc @ Bayeng, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On April 8, 2001, in Navotas, Metro Manila, accused-appellant Rolly Gidoc alias Bayeng, along with Ronnie Ocenar and one John Doe, were charged with two counts of Murder for the deaths of brothers Cesar Perez and Arnel Perez. The prosecution presented eyewitness Bernard Paladin, who testified that on the night of the incident, he, the victims, accused-appellant, and Ocenar were drinking and singing at a videoke joint. Ocenar got into a fistfight with another group, which accused-appellant joined, while the victims did not participate. After the fight, accused-appellant and Ocenar left but returned after about five minutes armed with bladed weapons. Accused-appellant, armed with a long knife, suddenly stabbed victim Arnel on the right breast and, about five seconds later, stabbed victim Cesar while they were sitting side by side and singing. Ocenar stood guard during the attack. The victims later died in the hospital from their wounds. The medico-legal reports confirmed each victim sustained fatal stab wounds. Accused-appellant denied the accusations, claiming it was his cousin, also named Rolly Gidoc, who committed the killings, and that he was being mauled by the victims’ group at the time. The Regional Trial Court found accused-appellant guilty of two counts of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, with civil indemnity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification, adding awards for moral and exemplary damages.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated.

RULING

1. Yes. The prosecution proved accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The fact of the crime was established through the medico-legal reports, and accused-appellant was positively identified as the perpetrator by eyewitness Bernard Paladin. His testimony was clear, consistent, and credible. The Supreme Court upheld that the testimony of a single witness, if trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction. Accused-appellant’s defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over Paladin’s positive identification.
2. Yes. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that deprived the victims of any opportunity to defend themselves. The victims were sitting and singing, unaware and unprepared for the assault, which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the accused-appellant. Thus, the crimes were properly qualified as Murder.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision with modification, upholding the conviction for two counts of Murder and the penalties of reclusion perpetua for each count. The awards of civil indemnity (₱50,000.00), moral damages (₱50,000.00), and exemplary damages (₱75,000.00) to the heirs of each victim were also affirmed.