GR 135521; (April, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135521 April 11, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO M. JUDAVAR, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution established that on February 15, 1995, during a public dance in Baao, Camarines Sur, accused-appellant Francisco Judavar stabbed Arnel Dato from behind, inflicting a fatal chest wound. Eyewitnesses, including the victim’s girlfriend Margie Malazarte and barangay tanod Francisco Cabalquinto, positively identified Judavar as the assailant. The attack was allegedly motivated by jealousy, as Judavar and the victim were former rivals for Malazarte’s affection, with Judavar having previously threatened and assaulted Dato on two separate occasions. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Judavar and his friends left the dance upon hearing a commotion and only later learned of the stabbing.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Judavar’s guilt for the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish Judavar’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as it was not physically impossible for Judavar to have been at the crime scene, and it crumbled against the positive identification by credible witnesses. The Court upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia). The attack was sudden, from behind, while the victim was unarmed and merely watching the dance, giving him no opportunity to defend himself. This manner of execution deliberately and consciously ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. However, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua because the Information alleged “evident premeditation and treachery” in the alternative, using “and” instead of “or,” which did not constitute a sufficient allegation of two independent qualifying circumstances. Only treachery was proven. The Court awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages in lieu of the unsubstantiated portion of the actual damages claimed.