GR 95684; (October, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95684 October 27, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ELORDE ANTUD, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Elorde Antud was charged with Murder for stabbing Fernando Siega on December 24, 1986, in Agusan del Sur. The prosecution presented eyewitness Leonisa Espera, who testified that while walking with the victim and others, she saw Antud suddenly appear behind Siega and stab him with a hunting knife. Another witness, Dionesio Tagleong, testified to knowing both the accused and the victim. The medical certificate confirmed Siega died from a perforating stab wound. The defense presented an alibi through witness Eduardo Estepano, who claimed Antud was at his house from 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM on the day of the incident, slaughtering and eating a dog. Another defense witness, Leonardo Guma, claimed he saw the stabbing but that Antud was not the assailant. Antud himself testified, reiterating the alibi. On rebuttal, prosecution witness Patrolman Dioscoro Rocacorbo testified that after the incident, Antud was present at the scene, boarded the motorcycle used to transport the victim to the hospital, and was with the group until he alighted near his house. It was also noted that Antud escaped from custody on November 22, 1987, and was recaptured on February 10, 1988. The trial court convicted Antud of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Elorde Antud for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. The trial court’s findings on credibility were accorded great weight, as it is in the best position to observe witness demeanor. The positive identification by eyewitness Leonisa Espera, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, prevailed over the defense of alibi and denial. The Court found the alibi weak and physically impossible, as the defense failed to prove Antud could not have been at the crime scene. Antud’s flight after the filing of the information (escape from custody) was considered an indication of guilt. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, as the attack was sudden and from behind, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The Court modified the indemnity to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence but affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and other damages.