People v Masilang (GR 246466; January 26, 2021)

 

People of the Philippines v Reymar Masilang y Laciste (accused-appellant)

(G.R. No. 246466; January 26, 2021)

Peralta, C.J.

Facts:

    Masilang was charged with the murder of Rosa Yuzon (17 y.o.), respondent's girlfriend, on July 26, 2015. Accordingly, Masilang and Yuzon were at a cemetery in Nueva Ecija and Yuzon was blindfolded and did not have any idea about the attack. Yuzon was was not able to defend herself and was hacked with a bolo for several times and the accused allegedly banged Yuzon's head on a steel gate, which led to her death. This narration corroborates with the testimony of the witness Edgardo Gamboa, who was allegedly at the cemetery to watch (mamboso) at couples, but ended up witnessing the crime.

    Accused claims that he left Yuzon at a tent in the cemetery to look for his grandfather's tomb, and that once he heard a cry for help, he looked for people to ask for help and then when he approached the tent, he was instructed not to leave. 

    Yuzon's parents did not appear during trial, and the trial court did not award civil damages on the ground that the parents of the victim submitted two separate affidavits of desistance wherein they waived their criminal and civil claims against the accused-appellant. The parents have agreed to settle the case with Masilang for the amount of P100,000.

Issue: 

1. W/N Masilang was convicted with murder despite his doubtful identification

2. W/N the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery

3. W/N the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Held:

1. Masilang asserts that his identification as the culprit is doubtful as it was established only through the lone testimony of prosecution witness Edgardo Gamboa, with no other corroborating evidence. In addition, the name and identity of appellant as culprit was not reflected in Gamboa's affidavit and Gamboa testified that he did not remember the faces of the people he "watched" in the cemetery.

The assertion is untenable. An accused is convicted, not on the basis of the number of witnesses against him, but on the credibility of the testimony of even one witness who is able to convince the court of the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of a doubt; in other words, not quantitatively but qualitatively. Gamboa was able to identify the accused-appellant because of the length of time he watched the accused-appellant and the victim in broad daylight and his proximity to them.

Similarly, Gamboa's failure to state Masilang's name does not diminish his credibility as a witness. It only shows that at the time of the execution of the sworn statement, Masilang's name was not yet known to Gamboa. Furing Gamboa's direct testimony, he positively and categorically identified Masilang as the person who killed Yuzon. 

2.  The prosecution was able to prove treachery. Masilang lured Yuzon into a secluded place in the cemetery with a promise of giving her a surprise gift while the victim is blindfolded. As such, the victim did not have any means to defend herself nor to escape. 

It is well-settled that an unexpected and sudden attack under circumstances which render the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself/herself, as in the case of herein victim Yuzon, constitutes treachery.

3. The prosecution proved Masilang's guilt beyond reasonable doubt as they established the essential elements of murder: 

(a) that a person was killed (by presenting her death certificate and witness Gamboa); 

(b) that the accused killed him (by testimony of Gamboa); 

(c) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC (by testimony of Gamboa); and 

(d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide (through the stipulation that the victim were sweethearts, which was also admitted by appellant during his testimony; hence, their relationship would show that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 

For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the scene of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time the crime was committed. In this case, Masilang was also in the cemetery Hence, it was not physically impossible for him to have been present at the crime scene and prosecution eyewitness Edgardo Gamboa testified that he saw appellant hacking Rose Yuzon and banging her head against the front portion of a tomb. Positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.

Moreover, the non-flight of accused-appellant is not proof of his innocence. The Court has repeatedly held that there is no law or principle which guarantees that non-flight is a conclusive proof of the innocence of the accused and, as in the case of alibi, such a defense is unavailing when there is positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.