G.R. No. 123456

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JUAN DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.

PROMULGATED: [Date]

D E C I S I O N

LEONEN, J.:

Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court finding accused-appellant Juan Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:

The Information charged accused-appellant with Murder for the killing of Pedro Santos. The prosecution alleged that on the evening of January 15, 2010, in Barangay San Isidro, the victim was walking home when accused-appellant, armed with a bladed weapon, suddenly and without warning attacked him from behind, stabbing him multiple times, which caused his instantaneous death. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including Mario Reyes, who testified to seeing the sudden and unexpected attack, and the medico-legal officer who confirmed the fatal nature of the wounds.

The defense interposed denial and alibi. Accused-appellant claimed he was at a different barangay attending a fiesta during the time of the incident. He presented witnesses to corroborate his presence elsewhere.

The Regional Trial Court found the testimony of the prosecution eyewitness credible and rejected the defense of alibi for being weak and unsubstantiated. It ruled that the killing was attended by treachery (alevosia), as the attack was sudden and from behind, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. It convicted accused-appellant of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. It also ordered him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim’s heirs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded, increasing the amounts in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

Hence, this appeal.

The sole issue for resolution is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for Murder.

The appeal is without merit.

I. Credibility of Witnesses and Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight and respect, as it had the unique opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct, and attitude on the witness stand. We find no compelling reason to deviate from this rule. The eyewitness account of Mario Reyes was clear, straightforward, and consistent on material points. He positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant. His testimony, corroborated by the physical evidence, sufficiently established accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The defense of alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Accused-appellant failed to establish such physical impossibility. The barangay where he claimed to be was not so far as to preclude his presence at the crime scene.

II. Presence of Treachery

The qualifying circumstance of treachery is present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

The evidence convincingly shows that the attack was sudden and unexpected. The victim was walking home, unarmed and unaware of any impending danger. Accused-appellant approached him from behind and immediately launched a violent assault with a deadly weapon. This mode of attack ensured the execution of the crime without affording the victim any chance to resist or escape. Hence, the killing was qualified to Murder by treachery.

III. Proper Penalties and Damages

The penalty for Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 , is reclusion perpetua to death. As no aggravating or mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, in accordance with Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The courts a quo correctly imposed this penalty.

With regard to damages, recent jurisprudence dictates the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in cases of Murder. Following current guidelines, we affirm the awards as modified by the Court of Appeals, which are in line with prevailing case law.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. XXXXX, which affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XX, in Criminal Case No. XXXXX, finding accused-appellant JUAN DELA CRUZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED.

Accused-appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Pedro Santos, the following amounts: Seventy-five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and Seventy-five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Gesmundo, C.J., (Chairperson), Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.