GR 87216; (July, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 87216 July 28, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINGO DE MESA Y PANTALEON and MARIO DE MESA, accused. DOMINGO DE MESA Y PANTALEON, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution established that on January 19, 1988, at Yolly’s Canteen in Quezon City, appellant Domingo de Mesa, his cousin Mario de Mesa, and another companion were drinking beer. The victim, Sgt. Renato Santos, owner of the canteen, arrived and sat inside. An argument ensued after appellant asked Santos whom he voted for. When Santos replied “Oreta,” Mario de Mesa uttered provocative words. As Santos stood up, Mario pushed him, and appellant simultaneously stabbed him on the left chest. Prosecution witnesses Crisostomo Mapalad, a canteen helper, and Beatrice Perez, a sister-in-law of the victim, positively identified appellant as the assailant. The victim was taken to the hospital where he died.
The defense presented only appellant, who denied the stabbing and instead implicated his cousin, Mario de Mesa, as the perpetrator. He claimed he was merely present and that Mario, after an argument with the victim, instructed him to run, confessing to having stabbed a man. Appellant suggested that witness Mapalad testified against him due to a prior quarrel.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the trial court erred in crediting the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies over the appellant’s denial and defense of frame-up; and (2) whether the crime committed was murder qualified by treachery, or merely homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder. On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, noting that the factual findings of the trial court are generally binding on appeal. The testimonies of Mapalad and Perez were found to be straightforward, categorical, and consistent on material points. Their relationship to the victim does not, by itself, discredit their testimony absent proof of improper motive. Appellant’s claim of a prior quarrel with Mapalad over gambling was deemed insufficient to overturn the positive identification. His attempt to shift blame to his at-large cousin was rejected as a convenient ploy unsupported by evidence.
On the second issue, the Court affirmed the presence of treachery. The attack was sudden and without warning. Although a heated discussion preceded the assault, it involved a trivial matter and did not place the victim on sufficient guard against a lethal stab. The victim, though armed with a gun, was given no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, as the stabbing was executed in a manner that deliberately ensured its execution without risk to the appellant. The crime was therefore Murder qualified by treachery. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, but the indemnity was reduced to P30,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.