G.R. No. 200029 , November 13, 2013
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Basilio Villarmea y Echavez, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Basilio Villarmea was charged with Murder for the stabbing death of Arnaldo Diez. The prosecution evidence established that on the night of March 13, 2000, Diez and his uncle, Jaime Candelada, were attacked by a group of men along a street in Mandaue City. Candelada testified that Villarmea first punched him, causing both him and Diez to fall. While dazed, he saw the group, including Villarmea, gang up on and stab Diez. PO2 Rico Cabatingan later responded, found the victim, and with Candelada, proceeded to a nearby construction site where Villarmea worked. Candelada identified Villarmea, who was arrested with a swollen hand, a fresh wound on his knuckle, and blood on his slippers. The autopsy revealed Diez suffered twelve stab wounds, six of which were fatal.
The defense presented a different version. Villarmea claimed he was at work when a commotion erupted outside. He went out and saw his co-worker, Christopher Alfante, being mauled by Diez and Candelada. Villarmea intervened to pacify them, during which he was hit, causing his hand to swell. He denied stabbing anyone. Alfante corroborated this, testifying Villarmea only tried to separate the fighters. The RTC and the CA rejected the defense, convicting Villarmea of Murder qualified by treachery and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Villarmea’s conviction for Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the ruling on the qualifying circumstance and the awarded damages. The Court found the prosecution proved Villarmea’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Candelada’s positive identification, corroborated by Villarmea’s physical condition (swollen hand, bloody slippers) and his presence at the crime scene, was credible and consistent. His testimony withstood the test of cross-examination. The defense of denial and alibi could not prevail over this positive identification.
However, the Court disagreed with the finding of treachery. The prosecution failed to prove how the attack commenced. The evidence showed an initial fistfight, and the sudden escalation to stabbing did not, by itself, establish that the assailants employed means to ensure the victim’s defenselessness from the outset. Absent clear proof of the manner of execution, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not established. Thus, the crime committed was Homicide, not Murder. The penalty was reduced to an indeterminate prison term. The Court increased the awards for civil indemnity and exemplary damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence.