People v. De la Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On 24 January 1992, at midnight, Rogelio Millan, with his brother Danilo, was waiting for his girlfriend when he saw his other brother, Rolando Millan, being blocked by accused-appellant Benjamin M. de la Cruz. Rogelio, about three arms' length away, witnessed Benjamin hit Rolando thrice with a shovel on the right forehead while Rolando attempted to parry the blows. Subsequently, Fernando M. de la Cruz, Benjamin's brother, stabbed Rolando five times, mostly on the chest, causing him to fall. Rogelio was unable to shout for help or intervene during the assault. After Benjamin and Fernando fled, Rogelio and Danilo brought the wounded Rolando to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Dr. Renato C. Bautista, NBI Senior Medico-Legal Officer, confirmed the injuries and concluded that Rolando died from multiple stab wounds. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalookan City convicted Benjamin M. de la Cruz of murder and imposed an indeterminate prison term of fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal as minimum to reclusion perpetua as maximum. The RTC rejected Benjamin's alibi, supported by his grandmother, due to the lack of physical impossibility for him to be at the crime scene. The RTC found treachery as a qualifying circumstance, noting the conspiracy and sudden attack on the unarmed victim. The Petition: The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The case was certified to the Supreme Court for review. Accused-appellant Benjamin de la Cruz appealed, arguing that the prosecution's evidence was incredible, insufficient, and that the RTC decided based on the weakness of the defense. He also questioned his liability for damages.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Benjamin M. de la Cruz was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether treachery attended the killing of Rolando Millan. Whether accused-appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Whether the penalty and damages awarded were proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Benjamin M. de la Cruz for murder, with modification to the penalty. The Court imposed an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years, six (6) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor maximum as minimum to seventeen (17) years, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal maximum as maximum. Accused-appellant was ordered to indemnify the heirs of Rolando Millan in the amount of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity and P7,000.00 for funeral expenses.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the guilt of accused-appellant Benjamin M. de la Cruz was proven beyond reasonable doubt: The Court held that the guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the positive identification by the eyewitness, Rogelio Millan. Rogelio testified that he saw accused-appellant Benjamin de la Cruz block his brother Rolando and hit him thrice with a shovel. The Court found Rogelio's testimony credible despite his initial reluctance to get involved, explaining that people react differently under emotional stress. The Court also noted that the distance of three arms' length from a lighted post provided sufficient visibility for positive identification. The alibi presented by the defense was rejected because it was not physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene, as his residence was only a one-minute tricycle ride away. The Court reiterated that denial, being self-serving, cannot prevail over positive identification. The Court emphasized that proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral certainty, not absolute certainty, and that the prosecution's evidence survived the test of reason. On whether treachery attended the killing of Rolando Millan: The Court agreed with the trial court in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The accused-appellant and his brother, Fernando, without provocation, blocked Rolando's path as he walked along an unlighted street. The attack was sudden and unexpected, giving Rolando no chance to retaliate or defend himself, thus ensuring the safety of the assailants. The Court cited jurisprudence stating that treachery can exist even in a frontal attack if it is executed in a sudden and unexpected manner, preventing the victim from defending himself. The combined acts of hitting with a shovel and stabbing demonstrated a unity of purpose, indicating conspiracy. On whether accused-appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender: The Court found that accused-appellant was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The records showed that he presented himself to the authorities before midday on the same day of the killing, barely twelve hours after the incident, upon learning he was a suspect. The Court noted that he had not been actually arrested, surrendered to a person in authority, and his surrender was voluntary. This mitigating circumstance was not considered by the lower courts. On whether the penalty and damages awarded were proper: The Court modified the penalty based on the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Under Article 64, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, when only a mitigating circumstance is present, the penalty shall be imposed in its minimum period. The imposable penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. The minimum of this penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence was taken from the maximum period of reclusion temporal (17 years, 4 months, 1 day to 20 years), and the minimum was taken from the penalty next lower in degree, prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period (10 years, 1 day to 17 years, 4 months). The Court also modified the award for funeral expenses, limiting it to P7,000.00, as only this amount was supported by proper receipts. The civil indemnity of P50,000.00 was affirmed as it is automatically awarded upon proof of death.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for murder, modifying the penalty to an indeterminate sentence due to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and reiterated that positive identification by an eyewitness is sufficient for conviction, even if the defense presents an alibi.