GR 249859; (July, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 249859, July 06, 2022
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARK ANTHONY YULO Y GALLO A.K.A. “TATA” AND MARK RYAN BUENO Y CORONA A.K.A. “NONOY”, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
FACTS
On January 2, 2005, Felix Sabasan was stabbed multiple times outside his house in Antipolo City. Prosecution witness Lucena Abayon testified that she saw Felix being chased by three men, two of whom she positively identified as appellants Yulo and Bueno. She witnessed Bueno and another man hold Felix while Yulo stabbed him. The victim’s father, Nehemias Sabasan, testified that upon finding his son bloodied, he asked who the assailants were, to which Felix responded, “Tata Manukan and Nonoy,” identifying appellants before succumbing to his wounds. A blood-stained ice pick was recovered from Yulo upon arrest. Another neighbor, Cristy Cardinal, testified that Yulo later confessed to her that he had stabbed Felix.
For their defense, Yulo and Bueno presented alibi, claiming they were asleep at their employer’s house at the time of the incident and were forcibly taken by unidentified men accompanied by Nehemias. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of murder qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of appellants for Murder based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the qualifying circumstances. The Court upheld the credibility of the eyewitness account of Lucena Abayon, finding her testimony clear, consistent, and credible. Her positive identification of appellants, made under sufficient illumination from streetlights, prevailed over the weak defenses of denial and alibi. The Court also affirmed the admissibility and reliability of the victim’s ante-mortem statement to his father as a dying declaration, as it was made under the consciousness of impending death, which corroborated the eyewitness account.
However, the Supreme Court modified the legal basis for the murder conviction. It ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength with moral certainty, as the Information alleged it in conjunction with treachery without specifying how it was distinctly present. The Court held that when these two circumstances are alleged together without particulars, only treachery may be appreciated if proven. Here, the attack was sudden and from behind, leaving the victim no opportunity to defend himself, thereby qualifying the killing as murder through treachery. The penalty was thus imposed based on treachery alone. The Court also awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim’s heirs, with interest.