G.R. No. 188322 ; April 11, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSEPH ASILAN y TABORNAL, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Joseph Asilan was charged with the complex crime of Direct Assault with Murder for the killing of PO1 Randy Adovas. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from eyewitness Joselito Binosa, established that on March 27, 2006, in Manila, PO1 Adovas was in the process of arresting a man for illegal possession of a deadly weapon. As the officer attempted to handcuff the suspect, Asilan suddenly appeared and repeatedly stabbed Adovas in the back. The suspect then held Adovas, enabling Asilan to continue the attack, after which the suspect took the officer’s service firearm and shot him. Binosa secretly followed Asilan after the incident and later pointed him out to a responding police officer, leading to Asilan’s arrest and the confiscation of the fan knife used in the stabbing. The medico-legal report confirmed the cause of death as multiple stab and gunshot wounds.
The defense presented a different version, claiming Asilan was merely waiting for a jeepney when he was arbitrarily arrested, frisked, and brought to a police station where he was forced to confess and was mauled. He denied any participation in the crime and asserted that the prosecution’s eyewitnesses were not the same persons presented to him during the investigation.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Asilan’s guilt for the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Joselito Binosa and Pol Justine San Diego to be credible, consistent, and corroborative of each other on material points. Their positive identification of Asilan as the assailant who treacherously stabbed the victim from behind prevailed over Asilan’s bare denial and unsubstantiated claim of frame-up. The defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence of any ill motive on the part of the witnesses to falsely testify.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was sudden and from behind, while the victim was focused on arresting another suspect, rendering him defenseless and unable to retaliate. This method of execution ensured the accomplishment of the killing without risk to the assailant. The Court, however, agreed with the lower courts that the prosecution failed to prove the element of the victim being “engaged in the performance of official duty” at the precise moment of the assault with the required certainty to convict for Direct Assault. Consequently, Asilan was properly convicted only of the separate crime of Murder. The Court sustained the awarded damages, including civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages, actual damages, and loss of earning capacity, with legal interest.