G.R. No. 97957 March 5, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO LASE, alias “BERT”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of May 18, 1987, in Barangay Pia-ong, Dimasalang, Masbate, Dante Huelva was stabbed to death. The prosecution’s case, as summarized by the appellee, established that eyewitness Domingo Pangantihon saw accused-appellant Alberto Lase, accompanied by Ramon Sayson, pass by him. Lase then proceeded directly to the back of the victim, who was urinating by the roadside, and without warning stabbed him once in the stomach with a Batangas knife. The victim was brought to a hospital but died. The victim’s mother, Godofreda Huelva, testified that Ramon Sayson later identified Lase as the assailant. The initial information for murder was filed, but after a reinvestigation, the Provincial Fiscal dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence. This dismissal was reversed by the Secretary of Justice, leading to the filing of an information in the Regional Trial Court.
The defense presented a different version. Accused-appellant claimed he was at a different location, a store, during the incident. He alleged that the case was filed against him due to a land dispute between his father and the victim’s mother. He denied the prosecution’s narrative and the alleged offer to settle the case for P10,000.00, which was testified to by Godofreda Huelva in her rebuttal.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Domingo Pangantihon to be clear, positive, and credible. His account that he saw the accused-appellant stab the victim from behind was given full credence. The Court emphasized that the assessment of the trial court on witness credibility is entitled to great respect, as it had the direct opportunity to observe their demeanor. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated. It cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible eyewitness. The Court also noted that the alleged motive of a land dispute did not disprove the eyewitness account of the killing itself.
Regarding the qualifying circumstances, the Court agreed with the trial court that treachery (alevosia) was present. The attack was sudden and from behind, while the victim was urinating and utterly unable to defend himself. This method ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. However, the Court modified the penalty. The information alleged “evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of nighttime.” The trial court correctly appreciated treachery but erred in also appreciating nighttime as a generic aggravating circumstance. Nighttime is not aggravating unless it was specially sought by the offender to facilitate the crime. The prosecution failed to prove this deliberate use. With treachery as the sole qualifying circumstance and no other modifying circumstances, the penalty for murder is reclusion temporal maximum to death. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty imposed is the medium period of reclusion perpetua. The Court also increased the civil indemnity to P50,000.00.