G.R. No. 231359 , February 7, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Crisanto Cirbeto y Giray, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

On December 31, 2010, eyewitness Roger Dalimoos saw accused-appellant Crisanto Cirbeto and the victim, Ferdinand Casipit, walking together near a mall in Marikina City. From his vantage point on a jeepney, Dalimoos witnessed accused-appellant suddenly pull a knife, hold Casipit’s shirt, and stab him. Casipit attempted to flee, but accused-appellant chased him, pulled him to the ground, and stabbed him repeatedly, resulting in Casipit’s death. The police responded promptly, apprehended accused-appellant, and recovered the knife. The autopsy revealed five stab wounds, with the most fatal on the nape.
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty, raising denial and alibi. He claimed he was assisting a parked car and did not know the victim or the eyewitness. However, during his testimony, he inadvertently referred to the victim by his nickname, “Ferdie.” The Regional Trial Court convicted him of Murder, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages awarded.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed accused-appellant’s conviction for Murder, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution established all elements of Murder. The positive identification by eyewitness Dalimoos, whose testimony was clear and consistent, prevailed over the weak defenses of denial and alibi. His inadvertent use of the victim’s nickname further undermined his claim of not knowing Casipit.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present. The attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. Accused-appellant’s act of initially walking casually with the victim before suddenly producing a knife and launching the assault ensured the execution without risk to himself. However, the Court found that evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven. The prosecution failed to establish clear evidence of the time when accused-appellant determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow for reflection. The mere carrying of a knife and the subsequent attack, without more, do not constitute evident premeditation. Thus, the killing was qualified only by treachery. The awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were affirmed in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.