PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAUL RUBARES Y CAROLINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Rubares

The Case

This is People versus Rubares, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Raul Rubares for the killing of Ariel Atienza, a tricycle driver stabbed in the early morning of March 6, 1999 near the Philtranco Bus Station on EDSA, Pasay City. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it shows how the Supreme Court treats alleged inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, it states the rule on positive identification as proof of identity rather than an eyewitness account of the act itself, and it applies the doctrine of treachery to an unexpected attack from behind on a victim who had no chance to defend himself.

Procedural History

An information for murder was filed against the accused in the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 109, charging intent to kill, evident premeditation, and treachery. Upon arraignment he entered a plea of not guilty, and trial followed. The prosecution presented six witnesses; the defense presented the accused himself and his live-in partner. On April 18, 2000, the trial court rendered judgment finding him guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the heirs of the victim 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity. He appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's credence in the prosecution's identification and its rejection of his alibi.

Facts

At around three o'clock in the morning of March 6, 1999, Daniel Macawili went to the Seven Eatery near the Philtranco Bus Station on EDSA, Pasay City, and joined a group of men playing cara y cruz. At about six thirty in the morning, the accused arrived. Daniel knew him to be a snatcher at the bus station. The accused first stood behind Daniel, then approached Ariel Atienza, who was in his parked tricycle waiting for passengers. Without warning, the accused drew a sharp-pointed instrument and stabbed Ariel once on the right side of the lower back, then ran away. Daniel was only about a meter away and saw the whole incident.

Armando Llanes, a pedicab driver playing in the same group, saw the accused arrive and go near them. Moments later a man shouted that Ariel had been wounded. When asked who stabbed him, Ariel answered, "Si Raul," and described his assailant. Ariel was brought to the Pasay City General Hospital, where he told his live-in partner, Imelda Malaloan, that the accused had stabbed him. He died while undergoing treatment. The attending physician found a stab wound on the right side of the chest and massive blood loss. The National Bureau of Investigation medico-legal officer, Dr. Wilfredo Tierra, performed the autopsy and found a 1.5 centimeter stab wound at the right side of the lower back, which penetrated the thoracic cavity and the right hemi-diaphragm and lacerated the right lobe of the liver.

The accused was arrested in Cavite on March 19, 1999 and turned over to the Pasay City police. His defense was alibi and denial: he claimed he was asleep at home with his family at the time of the killing, and that he fled to Cavite only because he feared retaliation after a friend was killed. His live-in partner corroborated the alibi, but she too was asleep at the time.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses despite the alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not giving credence to the accused's defense of alibi.
• Whether or not the killing was attended by treachery, qualifying it as murder.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, defines and penalizes murder:

Article 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

This provision supplies both the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the range of the penalty, which the Court uses to test the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the alleged inconsistencies were trivial and did not affect the outcome. Whether the weapon was an ice pick or a knife was immaterial, because both doctors testified that the fatal wound was caused by a sharp-pointed and sharp-edged object. The medico-legal opinion on the positions of the victim and assailant did not rule out that Ariel was seated when attacked, and the upward direction of the wound was consistent with the medical findings. The Court said the discrepancies instead showed Daniel to be an unrehearsed witness. As to Armando Llanes, the Court held that positive identification requires essentially proof of identity and not per se an eyewitness account of the very act of committing the crime. Such identification forms part of circumstantial evidence which, taken with the other pieces of evidence in an unbroken chain, leads to the conclusion that the accused is the author of the crime to the exclusion of others. Ariel's statement naming Raul as his assailant was part of the res gestae, the spontaneous utterance of a dying man. The Court did agree that Imelda Malaloan could not have identified the accused, since she did not witness the crime and her sworn statement referred to the assailant as the husband of Irene, not of Corazon. Still, the testimonies of Daniel and Armando, who had no shown ill motive to testify falsely, sufficed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the alibi. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was in another place at the time of the felony and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene when the crime took place. Here his house was very near the Seven Eatery and the bus station, and his partner's testimony deserved no weight because she herself was asleep at the time.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the finding of treachery. There is treachery when the accused deliberately adopts such means, methods, and forms of execution that give the victim no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation. Where a victim is totally unprepared for an unexpected attack from behind and has no weapon to resist it, the assault is treacherous. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, reclusion perpetua was correct. The Court also affirmed the 50,000 pesos civil indemnity, which is automatically granted upon proof of the commission of the crime, and added 50,000 pesos as moral damages.

Doctrine

First, positive identification requires proof of identity, not necessarily an eyewitness account of the very act; it may form part of circumstantial evidence that, taken together in an unbroken chain, excludes every other author of the crime. Second, minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness, especially on details immaterial to the elements of the crime, do not destroy credibility; they may even show the witness was unrehearsed. Third, a statement identifying the assailant made by the victim shortly after the attack, and while dying, is admissible as part of the res gestae. Fourth, alibi must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the accused was elsewhere and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene; it cannot prevail against credible identification. Fifth, treachery under Article 248 qualifies the killing as murder where the attack is sudden, from behind, and gives the victim no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction with modification, ordering the accused to pay the heirs of Ariel Atienza an additional 50,000 pesos as moral damages on top of the 50,000 pesos civil indemnity.

Remember This

Memorize the line that positive identification requires proof of identity, not an eyewitness account of the act itself. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of alibi, the treatment of trivial inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, and the application of treachery to an unexpected attack from behind.