Title
People vs. Cirbeto y Giray
Case
G.R. No. 231359
Decision Date
Feb 7, 2018
Crisanto Cirbeto convicted of Murder for stabbing Ferdinand Casipit; treachery proven, alibi rejected, damages adjusted, reclusion perpetua upheld.
murder
conviction
appeal

Case Summary (G.R. No. 231359)

Factual Background

On December 31, 2010, at around 3:15 in the afternoon, Roger Dalimoos saw the victim, Ferdinand Casipit, together with the accused-appellant walking toward a nearby mall near the Marikina Sports Center at the corner of Sumulong Highway and Toyota Avenue. Dalimoos was on his way home and boarded a jeepney by hanging on to its end railings. While the jeepney reached the stoplight at Sumulong Highway and Tuazon St., Dalimoos maintained a vantage point that allowed him to see the victim and the accused as they were already in front of the mall.

Dalimoos testified that he then saw the accused-appellant suddenly pull a knife from the right side of his back, hold the victim’s shirt with his left hand, and stab the victim with his right hand. Dalimoos also observed that the accused managed to stab the victim once before the victim ran away. The accused then chased the victim, caught up with him, held his shirt again, pulled him to the ground, and stabbed him repeatedly, which resulted in the victim’s death.

Shortly after the incident, the accused attempted to flee. Police Officer 1 Jayson Rael and Police Senior Inspector Fabian Ribad, who responded to a radio message about the stabbing, seized the accused. The officers were likewise able to recover the knife used to stab the victim.

The autopsy results, as presented through Police Inspector Dela Cruz, showed that the victim sustained five (5) stab wounds from a bladed weapon. The most fatal wound was located at the posterior neck or nape region. The trunk stab wounds injured the right lung, and a chest stab wound caused severe bleeding.

Criminal Charge and Arraignment

The accused was charged with Murder through an Information alleging that, on or about December 31, 2010, in Marikina City, while armed with a knife and with intent to kill, he repeatedly stabbed the victim on the back and neck. The Information further alleged that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and abused[sic] of superior strength, thereby changing the nature of the felony to murder.

At arraignment, the accused pleaded “not guilty” with the assistance of counsel de oficio. He raised the defenses of denial and alibi, claiming that he was assisting in parking a car in front of a fast-food restaurant in the area when police officers arrested him for the killing. He also denied knowing the witness Dalimoos or the victim.

RTC Proceedings and Ruling

In the RTC, the prosecution presented testimony and evidence establishing the killing and the accused’s identity as the perpetrator. The victim’s brother, Isidro Casipit, testified that he incurred wake expenses of P5,000.00 “more or less” and burial expenses of P8,000.00, supporting his claims with receipts.

The RTC convicted the accused-appellant of murder and imposed the straight penalty of reclusion perpetua. It awarded the heirs P13,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.

On conviction, the RTC rejected the accused’s denial and alibi. It reasoned that the accused’s testimony did not establish innocence even in light of his denial that he knew the victim. The RTC noted that, during his testimony, he referred to the victim by the nickname “Ferdie.”

The RTC also appreciated qualifying circumstances. It found treachery, holding that the mode of assault was deliberately and consciously adopted to insure the execution of the crime without risk to the accused-appellant. It likewise appreciated evident premeditation, inferring it from the accused’s act of bringing a knife and waiting for the “perfect moment” to consummate a plan to kill the victim.

CA Appellate Review and Modifications

The accused appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed the conviction with modifications. It increased civil indemnity from the RTC’s award to P75,000.00 and increased moral damages to P75,000.00. It also awarded exemplary damages of P30,000.00. Additionally, it directed that all monetary awards earn six percent (6%) per annum interest from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.

The CA found the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to establish that: (1) the victim was stabbed and killed; (2) the accused was the one who killed him; (3) the killing was attended by treachery and evident premeditation; and (4) the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide. It sustained Dalimoos’s positive identification of the accused. It held that Dalimoos’s testimony remained straightforward and direct and did not contain serious and material inconsistencies that could destroy credibility.

As to treachery, the CA ruled that the victim was caught off-guard when stabbed, a circumstance it considered indicative of treachery. It further observed that the victim had no way of defending himself, and that the deliberate and conscious manner of attack was intended to ensure execution without risk to the accused. Regarding evident premeditation, the CA inferred it from the accused’s carrying a knife and waiting for the right moment to consummate the plan. It reasoned that, from the time the accused and the victim began walking toward the mall until they stopped to wait for a jeepney, the accused had time to ponder whether to pursue his plan. The CA rejected denial and alibi for failure to prove physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene.

Issues for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court faced the single issue of whether the CA correctly affirmed the accused-appellant’s conviction for Murder.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court restated that Murder is defined and punished under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. It reiterated the elements required to convict for murder: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed the victim; (3) that the killing was attended by any qualifying circumstances under Article 248; and (4) that the killing was not parricide or infanticide.

The Supreme Court held that these elements were present. It agreed with the findings of the courts a quo that the victim died, that the accused was the person who killed him, that the killing was attended by treachery, and that the killing did not constitute parricide or infanticide.

Identification and credibility of the eyewitness

The accused’s appeal focused on the alleged uncertainty of Dalimoos’s identification. The accused argued that Dalimoos was mistaken and that he may have been coached to lie. The Court rejected these arguments.

The Court emphasized that conviction may rest on the testimony of a single witness if the testimony is positive and credible. It then examined Dalimoos’s testimony, which consistently and directly described the incident. Dalimoos narrated how he boarded the jeepney, maintained visibility of the accused and the victim at the stoplight, observed the accused pull a knife, see the accused stab the victim once, and then witness the accused chase, subdue, pull the victim to the ground, and stab repeatedly. The Court found that Dalimoos’s account did not waver and did not suffer from grave or material inconsistency that would destroy credibility.

The Court invoked the settled rule according high respect to the trial court’s credibility findings, especially when the RTC’s factual findings are sustained by the CA. It found no sufficient reason to depart from the concurrent assessment of the RTC and CA regarding Dalimoos’s probative value.

Treachery

On treachery, the Court concurred with the courts a quo. It reiterated that treachery exists when the accused employs means, methods, or forms of attack against persons that tend directly and specially to insure execution without risk arising from the defensive response of the offended party. It stressed that the essence of treachery lies in a deliberate and sudden attack without warning that leaves the victim no chance to resist or escape.

The Court applied the two elements for treachery: at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the mode of attack employed. It found that the victim was walking with the accused and had no awareness of any threat to his life. It also reasoned that deliberate intent to kill could be inferred from the location and number of stab wounds. Even though the victim was able to run after the first stab wound, the accused was still able to subdue him and stab him further, rendering him defenseless and incapable of retaliation. These circumstances supported the appreciation of treachery.

Evident premeditation—reconsideration by the Court

While the Court affirmed guilt for murder on the basis of treachery, it held a different view regarding evident premeditation. It reiterated the required proof for evident premeditation as a qualifying or aggravating circumstance: the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; an act manifestly indicating the culprit clung to that determination; and a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow reflection and conscience to overcome the resolution of the will.

The Court found a “dearth of evidence” to show that the accused had previously planned the killing of

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms