G.R. No. 217380 - People vs. Cuesta y Astorga

On February 7, 2007, Eduardo Cuesta (a.k.a. Boyet Cubilla) was charged with murder for the killing of Ruel Duardo.
The Information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleged that on or about September 18, 2006, in Malabon City, Cuesta, while armed with a bladed weapon and possessing intent to kill with treachery and premeditation, attacked Duardo resulting in fatal injuries.

Around 9:00 o’clock in the evening on September 18, 2006, Duardo and his companion Bartolome were seen drinking beer.
At about 10:20 o’clock, Duardo was accompanying Bartolome to hail a jeepney from Teacher’s Village in Sitio 6, Catmon, Malabon City.

Bartolome, Duardo’s companion, testified that after Duardo boarded the jeepney, a companion of Cuesta, Roland Dante, cursed Duardo.
Duardo, prompted by the insult, stepped out of the vehicle to confront Dante.
Cuesta, who was near Duardo during the confrontation, suddenly stabbed him repeatedly while Duardo was distracted.
Juliet Duardo (the victim’s sister) and Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Villasenor provided corroborative testimonies and a medical report establishing that Duardo sustained three stab wounds (with the fatal wound on the left side of the abdomen).

Cuesta, supported by Feliciano de la Cruz (a former police officer from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Authority), claimed that he was in Bulacan on the morning of September 18, 2006, engaged in a drug surveillance operation.
According to de la Cruz, Cuesta was fetched at around 9:00 a.m. from the Larangay Police Station and later driven as part of the company’s surveillance operations.
After completing the surveillance work, they reportedly arrived at the PDEA head office in Quezon City around 2:00 a.m. the following day, after which Cuesta was allowed to go home.

The defense failed to produce any documentary or corroborative evidence to substantiate the alleged drug operation.

The RTC rendered a decision on December 13, 2012, finding Cuesta guilty of murder.
In convicting Cuesta, the trial court placed significant reliance on Bartolome’s positive identification of the accused, as opposed to the unsubstantiated alibi presented by the defense.
The RTC noted the necessity for proper documentation in drug-related operations, emphasizing that Cuesta’s failure to furnish any such evidence weakened his defense.
The court concluded that treachery was present since Duardo was caught unawares and in a defenseless position while alighting from the jeepney.

Bartolome’s testimony was inconsistent and improbable.
The evidence failed to establish the presence of treachery, contending that even if he was the assailant, his conduct amounted to homicide rather than murder.

On July 14, 2014, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction for murder, giving full weight to the testimony of Bartolome and acknowledging the presence of treachery due to the victim’s defenseless condition.
The CA modified the award of civil indemnity by increasing it to Php75,000.00 and ordered the accrual of interest at six percent (6%) per annum on all damages.

The Supreme Court reviewed the entire case focusing on the credibility of witness testimonies and the evidentiary basis for treachery.
The Court found that:

The inconsistencies in Bartolome’s account were minor and did not detract from his clear identification of Cuesta as the perpetrator.
The defense’s alibi lacked documentary support and was self-serving.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was not conclusively established given the accidental nature of the parties’ positions during the stabbing.

Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide and adjusted both the criminal penalty and pecuniary awards.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the conviction based on Bartolome’s testimony, given its alleged inconsistencies and improbability.
To what extent minor inconsistencies should affect the overall reliability of the eyewitness identification.

Whether the prosecution sufficiently demonstrated that Cuesta employed treachery when he attacked Duardo.
Whether the elements of treachery—namely, the deliberate and conscious adoption of means to ensure the victim’s inability to defend himself—were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether Cuesta’s defense based on an alleged participation in a drug surveillance operation, supported by de la Cruz’s testimony, could negate the positive eyewitness identification.
The significance of the absence of documentary evidence to substantiate the alibi.