G.R. No. 192183 - People vs. Zulieta

On June 13, 2006, at approximately 10:00 in the evening, a stabbing occurred in Sto. NiAo, Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City, resulting in the immediate death of Armand Labando, Jr.
The Information charged the accused, Andy Zulieta, a.k.a. aBogartsa, with Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to RA 7659, as amended.
At his arraignment on November 3, 2006, the accused pleaded not guilty.

SPO1 Apolinario Ubilas recounted that, upon being directed by his precinct commander, he investigated the stabbing incident after the victim was taken to the Northern Mindanao Medical Center (NMMC), and learned from inquiries that witness Bryan Pascua had observed the crime.
Witness Bryan Pascua testified that while he and the victim were outside their boarding house near Jimmy Saura’s store, they were approached by the accused and his companions. According to Pascua, the accused, carrying a pitcher, dropped it in front of them before suddenly stabbing the victim with a Batangas knife, hitting him on the chest.
Dr. Francisco Romulo C. Villaflor, the Medico-Legal Officer, conducted the autopsy. His findings revealed that the stab wound was located on the anterior chest, piercing the vital right ventricle of the heart, and that the weapon was a bladed instrument consistent with a knife. The wound’s location suggested that the attack was executed from in front of the victim.

The accused claimed that on the day of the incident he was asleep at his home in Gingoog City with his wife and in-laws, presenting this as his alibi.
He denied any acquaintance with the victim, Armand Labando, Jr., and his alleged companions, and also asserted that he was not known in Sto. NiAo as “Bogarts.”
Testimony by his wife, Maryflor Mamba Zulieta, supported their residence in Gingoog City and corroborated his presence at home during the alleged time of the crime.

The trial court (Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 38) conducted a trial on the merits after no stipulation of facts was made during the pre-trial, and rendered a Judgment on October 24, 2007.

The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder with the aggravating circumstance of treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
The RTC also ordered the payment of civil indemnity (Php50,000.00), moral damages (Php50,000.00), and costs.

The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated August 13, 2009, affirmed the RTC’s Judgment with modifications.

The CA increased the damages: awarding exemplary damages and modifying the amounts for civil indemnity, moral damages, and adding temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.
Specifically, the CA ordered that the civil indemnity be increased to Php75,000.00, exemplary damages to Php30,000.00, and temperate damages of Php25,000.00, with all damages earning interest at 6% per annum from the date of finality.

The accused contended that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
He argued that even if his presence at the scene was admitted, the killing could not have been attended by treachery since there was no evidence of employing means to render the victim defenseless.
The defense also asserted the credibility of the alibi, claiming that travel from Gingoog City to Cagayan de Oro City in a timely manner was not feasible.

The prosecution’s evidence, particularly the clear and positive identification by eyewitness Bryan Pascua, was determinative in overcoming the defense’s uncorroborated alibi.
The court identified that the accused’s actions during the stabbing—suddenly attacking the victim with a knife in a manner that left no opportunity for defense—constituted treachery.
The travel time between Gingoog City and Cagayan de Oro City (approximately two hours) further weakened the accused’s argument regarding the impossibility of his presence at the crime scene.

Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the accused’s alibi—that he was asleep in his residence in Gingoog City—was credible and properly corroborated.
Whether the qualification of treachery was correctly applied based on the sudden, unexpected, and premeditated nature of the stabbing.
Whether the trial court’s factual findings and the assessment of witness credibility should be given deference.
Whether the modifications made by the CA in awarding damages (civil indemnity, moral, exemplary, and temperate damages) were appropriate and in line with prevailing jurisprudence.