People v. Bensig
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the fiesta of Barangay Don Potenciano Larrazabal, Ormoc City, on the evening of May 29, 1996, Leonides Villegas and his wife Jenny, along with Leonides' nephew Vic, went to watch the disco. At around 2:00 a.m. on May 30, 1996, Leonides stepped out of the dancing area to buy cigarettes at a nearby store. While receiving his cigarettes and change, Leonides was suddenly stabbed by the appellant, Erlindo Bensig, who came from behind and, upon facing the victim, stabbed him in the left chest. The victim was brought to the hospital where he died upon arrival. Procedural History: The appellant was charged with murder. An arrest warrant was issued, but the appellant remained at large, leading to the archiving of the case. He was arrested on January 10, 1998, and the case was revived. The trial court, after a plea of not guilty and pre-trial where several facts were stipulated, proceeded to trial. On April 12, 1999, the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City, Branch 35, found Erlindo Bensig guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing him to forty (40) years reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay civil indemnity, actual damages, and moral damages. The Petition: The appellant appealed the decision, raising errors concerning the trial court's full faith and credence to the prosecution's version and its finding of guilt for murder.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the prosecution's version and disregarding the defense that a certain Pepe Boya, not the accused, stabbed the victim; and whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, considering the credibility of witnesses and the defense of denial. Whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, specifically regarding the elements of murder, the presence of treachery, the absence of evident premeditation, and the appropriate penalty and damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, with modifications. The penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, and the award of actual damages was deleted for lack of evidence. The accused-appellant is ordered to pay P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of credibility of witnesses and the defense of denial, and the conviction for murder generally: The Court reiterated that the trial court's evaluation of witness credibility is entitled to the highest respect. The defense of denial is inherently weak and unsubstantiated, especially when contradicted by positive and credible eyewitness testimonies. The prosecution witnesses positively identified the appellant, and their testimonies were consistent and corroborated each other. The Court found no ill motive on their part. The defense witnesses' testimonies lacked credibility, particularly their failure to come forward earlier and their inconsistent claims. The appellant's flight further indicated guilt. The Court affirmed the elements of murder: a person was killed, the accused killed him, the killing was attended by a qualifying circumstance, and it was not parricide or infanticide. On the conviction for murder, specifically regarding treachery, premeditation, penalty, and damages: The trial court correctly appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance because of the sudden and unexpected attack from behind on an unsuspecting victim. The information alleged evident premeditation, but the prosecution failed to present evidence to prove it. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Since treachery qualified the crime to murder, and evident premeditation was not proven, the lesser indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed. The award of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages was affirmed. The P20,000 award for actual damages was deleted due to the lack of receipts.
Main Doctrine
The defense of denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving, and merits no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. Flight of an accused, when unexplained, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. Treachery qualifies the crime to murder when the attack is sudden and unexpected, without affording the victim a chance to defend himself, ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.