G.R. No. 97914 , November 22, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEL BROMO @ “CANO”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Joel Bromo alias “Cano” was charged with Murder in an amended information dated March 2, 1984. The information alleged that on or about March 19, 1983, in Sitio Guindahogan, Tayasan, Negros Oriental, with treachery and intent to kill, he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked, assaulted, and stabbed Zacarias Lindo with a hunting knife, inflicting multiple fatal wounds which caused the victim’s instantaneous death. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented several witnesses. Eyewitness Victorina Zuñiega, the victim’s sister-in-law, testified that at around 11:00 PM on March 19, 1983, during a town fiesta, she saw Joel Bromo standing about two feet behind Zacarias Lindo, who was facing north. She clearly saw Bromo stab Lindo at the left base of the neck with a stainless hunting knife, which glittered under the light of nearby petromax lamps. After the first stab, Bromo pulled the knife out and thrust it again into the left side of Lindo. The victim then ran inside the dance hall, where Zuñiega overtook and hugged him; the victim stated he was stabbed by “Cano.” Zuñiega later found Bromo being investigated by a policeman, pulled his hair, and then went home to inform the victim’s widow.
Dr. Rogelio Kho, the Municipal Health Officer, conducted the post-mortem examination and detailed seven wounds, including two fatal stab wounds. He opined that the fatal wounds could cause death within hours and were inflicted with a pointed, sharp, single-bladed instrument like a hunting knife. The cause of death was severe hemorrhage and shock.
Ramonita Lindo, the victim’s widow, testified on civil damages, claiming P4,000.00 for burial expenses and P20,000.00 as moral damages.
Patrolman Ricardo Barrera testified that the victim was brought to the police station around 11:00 PM on March 19, 1983, in a near-dying condition, and an entry was made in the police blotter alleging Bromo as the assailant.
Cpl. Warlico Balasabas testified that while inside the dance hall, he heard the victim shout, “Nahibalo ko ug kinsay gabuno nako — si Cano Bromo” (I know who stabbed me — Cano Bromo). He arrested Bromo, who was leaning against a jeep about 15-20 meters away, searched him, and found a rolled carton (believed to be a scabbard) but no weapon or bloodstains. He noted Bromo smelled of liquor. Balasabas denied Zuñiega’s claim that the stabbing occurred half a meter in front of her.
The defense presented the accused, Joel Bromo, who testified that at around 11:00 PM, he was seated on a jeep’s bumper with companions about 15-20 meters from the commotion. He heard people running and the victim’s shout identifying “Cano Bromo” as the assailant. He stood up and was approached and searched by Balasabas, who found only a rolled carton used for scratching. When asked if he stabbed the victim, he denied it.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly found accused-appellant Joel Bromo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The trial court’s findings, particularly on the credibility of the eyewitness, Victorina Zuñiega, were accorded great weight and respect. Her positive identification of the accused as the assailant was clear, consistent, and credible. She had a direct and unobstructed view of the stabbing under well-lit conditions and demonstrated the manner of attack in court. Her relationship to the victim did not impair her credibility but rather ensured her interest in securing justice.
The defense of denial and alibi offered by the accused could not prevail over the positive testimony of the eyewitness. The claim that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The testimony of Cpl. Balasabas, while noting the absence of a weapon or bloodstains on the accused immediately after, did not disprove the eyewitness account of the stabbing. The court found the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) to be present, as the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The civil indemnity of P30,000.00 awarded to the heirs of the victim was also sustained, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.