G.R. No. 246466 , January 26, 2021.
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Reymar Masilang y Laciste, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Reymar Masilang was charged with the murder of his 17-year-old girlfriend, Rose Clarita A. Yuzon, on July 26, 2015, in Gapan City, Nueva Ecija. The Information alleged that he attacked her with a bolo while she was blindfolded, with her back turned, and unaware, hacking her several times and banging her head against a steel gate, causing her death. During arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented eyewitness Edgardo Gamboa, who testified that he and a companion were at the Gapan City Public Cemetery to watch couples. He saw the victim arrive and later saw her with accused-appellant. He witnessed accused-appellant blindfold the victim, lead her into a tomb structure, and then hack her with a bolo while her hands were on her face and her eyes were covered. He also saw accused-appellant bang the victim’s head against the tomb. The defense presented accused-appellant, who claimed he and the victim were at the cemetery, he blindfolded her for a surprise, walked away, and later heard her cries for help. He alleged that when he tried to respond, a man told him the girl was killed, and he was subsequently arrested. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua but awarded no civil damages due to affidavits of desistance executed by the victim’s parents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the decision by awarding civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim’s heirs, disregarding the affidavits of desistance as the affiants were not presented in court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision that accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Edgardo Gamboa, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, was credible and sufficient to establish accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His testimony detailed how accused-appellant, with whom the victim had a romantic relationship, attacked the blindfolded and defenseless victim with a bolo. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present because the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim unable to defend herself. Accused-appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi were weak and could not prevail over positive identification. Regarding damages, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 each, with interest, as the affidavits of desistance executed by the victim’s parents had no probative value since the affiants were not presented in court to confirm them. The crime was murder qualified by treachery, punishable by reclusion perpetua.