GR 174194; (March, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174194 . March 20, 2007.
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Edwin Ausa, Appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Edwin Ausa was charged with Murder for the killing of Rosendo Pascual, Jr. and Homicide for the killing of Cerio David. For the first incident, prosecution witness Teresita Libao testified that on September 19, 1996, she and Pascual were conversing when appellant suddenly appeared and stabbed Pascual in the back, causing his death. Appellant later approached Libao, apologized, stating he mistook Pascual for someone else due to a personal quarrel, and warned her not to testify. For the second incident, on October 23, 1996, Libao testified she was walking with appellant when he attempted to extort money from Cerio David. After David refused and a physical altercation ensued, appellant stabbed David multiple times, resulting in his death. The defense consisted of denial and alibi, claiming he was asleep during the first incident and buying barbecue during the second.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for the crimes of Murder and Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Teresita Libao credible, positive, and consistent. Her account of both stabbings was clear and corroborated by the autopsy reports. The Court rejected the defense of alibi as weak and unsubstantiated, noting it cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness. For the killing of Pascual, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present. The attack was sudden and from behind, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself, which qualifies the crime as Murder. For the killing of David, the Court agreed with the lower courts that the prosecution failed to prove treachery. The incident stemmed from a sudden quarrel after David resisted appellant’s extortion attempt and pushed him, making the attack not insidious or deliberate. Thus, the crime was properly classified as Homicide. The Court modified the awards of damages, increasing civil indemnity and granting moral and exemplary damages where warranted by the evidence and circumstances of the crimes.