G.R. No. 192183 ; November 11, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANDY ZULIETA a.k.a. “Bogarts,” Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On June 13, 2006, around 10:00 PM in Sto. Niño, Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City, Armand Labando, Jr. and Bryan Pascua were seated outside a store. The accused-appellant Andy Zulieta, alias “Bogarts,” accompanied by two others, approached them. Bogarts dropped a pitcher in front of the victim, and upon a companion’s shout of “birahi na na” (hit him now), he immediately pulled a Batangas knife and stabbed Labando in the chest. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. The medico-legal report confirmed the stab wound penetrated the chest, hitting the heart. The prosecution presented eyewitness Pascua, who positively identified Zulieta as the assailant.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Zulieta claimed he was asleep at his house in Gingoog City at the time of the incident, approximately 58 kilometers away, and did not know the victim or the witness. His wife corroborated his alibi. He asserted his nickname was Andy, not Bogarts, though he admitted being born and having previously resided in the very barangay where the crime occurred until his marriage in 2005.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Andy Zulieta for the crime of Murder.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Bryan Pascua, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, prevailed over the weak defenses of denial and alibi. The Court found Pascua’s testimony clear, credible, and consistent. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Zulieta failed this test, as Gingoog City was merely 58 kilometers away, a distance not constituting physical impossibility. His prior residence in the crime location also made him recognizable to the witness.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was sudden and unexpected, employing a knife against an unarmed victim who was merely sitting and eating. The mode of execution ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself, thereby qualifying the killing as Murder. The Court modified the awarded damages, increasing civil indemnity to ₱75,000, exemplary damages to ₱30,000, awarding ₱25,000 as temperate damages, and imposing 6% interest per annum on all damages from finality until full payment.