GR 185726; (October, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 185726; October 16, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DARWIN BERNABE y GARCIA, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Darwin Bernabe was charged with Murder for the killing of Jann Michael Olivo. The prosecution evidence, primarily from eyewitnesses Alvin Tarrobago and Jomar Butalid, established that in the early morning of May 26, 2005, Bernabe, after a drinking session, brought the victim to his house. He accused the victim of being paid to surveil him. Bernabe then subjected the victim to brutal interrogation, hitting him with a piece of wood and a metal pipe, and committing an act of sexual torture with a toothbrush. Finally, Bernabe strangled the unconscious victim to death with a G.I. wire, with Alvin and Jomar being forced to hold the victim’s feet. The body was concealed and later dumped. The autopsy confirmed death by asphyxia due to strangulation, consistent with the eyewitness accounts.
The defense interposed denial and alibi, claiming he was elsewhere during the incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted Bernabe of Murder qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded. Bernabe appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the witnesses were not credible and the qualifying circumstances were not proven.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for Murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Alvin and Jomar to be credible, consistent, and corroborated by the physical evidence. Their detailed narration of the gruesome events, including the sexual assault and the strangulation, was deemed spontaneous and unshaken by cross-examination. The defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses. Regarding the qualifying circumstances, the Court upheld the presence of treachery. The attack was sudden and deliberate, employing means that ensured the victim, who was unarmed, weakened from prior beatings, and under the accused’s control, had no opportunity to defend himself. The manner of the final act of strangulation—using a wire, covering the head with a shirt, and ordering accomplices to hold the victim down—directly ensured the execution without risk to the assailant. Abuse of superior strength was absorbed by treachery. The penalty of reclusion perpetua without parole was affirmed, and the monetary awards were modified in line with prevailing jurisprudence.