G.R. No. 201723 ; June 13, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PERCIVAL DELA ROSA y BAYER, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Percival Dela Rosa and his co-accused Jaylanie Tabasa (at large) were charged with Murder for the killing of Jojie Magdua on November 18, 2001, in Caloocan City. The Information alleged they conspired, with treachery and evident premeditation, to attack Magdua with fistic blows and a bladed weapon, stabbing him in the chest and causing his death. During arraignment, Dela Rosa pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented witnesses: Marcelino Samson, Jr., who was with the victim during the incident; Dr. Jose Arnel Marquez, the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy; and Zoilo Magdua, the victim’s father. Samson testified that on the night of the incident, while he and Magdua were talking, they were approached by Dela Rosa and Tabasa. Without warning, Tabasa boxed Magdua while Dela Rosa pulled out a knife and stabbed Magdua in the chest. Magdua ran but was chased and overtaken by the assailants. Tabasa again boxed him, and Dela Rosa stabbed him on the nape. Magdua was brought to the hospital but was dead on arrival. Dr. Marquez reported the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock due to a stab wound on the neck. The defense presented only Dela Rosa.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Dela Rosa of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. It ordered him to pay indemnity and exemplary damages. The RTC found conspiracy and gave credence to Samson’s positive identification, noting his testimony was categorical and consistent. It found treachery as the victim was unarmed and conversing when attacked, but found no evident premeditation.
On appeal, Dela Rosa assailed the credibility of eyewitness Samson, arguing poor lighting conditions, inconsistencies in testimony, and questioned the appreciation of treachery. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto, giving full weight to Samson’s testimony, finding the lighting sufficient, and upholding the presence of treachery as the victim was defenseless and ganged up upon.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s judgment convicting accused-appellant Percival Dela Rosa of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court found no error in the CA’s affirmation of the RTC’s conclusion that the prosecution proved Dela Rosa’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court upheld the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, including their assessment of witness credibility, finding no compelling reason to disturb them. It ruled that the positive, categorical, and unequivocal identification by eyewitness Samson, who was with the victim and vividly described the attack, deserved more weight than the defense’s speculations on lighting or inconsistencies. The totality of prosecution evidence, including the autopsy report and Samson’s testimony, established guilt.
The Court affirmed the appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, with the victim unarmed and merely conversing, rendering him defenseless against the concerted assault by Dela Rosa and Tabasa. This method ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed. While treachery would have warranted the maximum penalty of death under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, Republic Act No. 9346 prohibits its imposition, thus reducing it to reclusion perpetua. The awarded damages were likewise sustained.