Title
People vs. Villegas
Case
G.R. No. 118653
Decision Date
Sep 23, 1996
Accused stabbed victim from behind in a sudden attack; alibi denied, treachery upheld, appeal dismissed, reclusion perpetua affirmed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 120135)

Facts of the Case

On December 18, 1989, in Pasig, Metro Manila, during the evening hours, Villegas allegedly approached the victim from behind and stabbed him with a hunting knife, resulting in fatal injuries. The autopsy conducted by Dr. Dario Gajardo confirmed the cause of death as cardio-respiratory arrest due to stab wounds. Eyewitness Lorenzo Marcelo testified that he observed the attack and provided key details regarding the incident, while Eleuteria de Guzman, the victim's mother, also testified about the financial impact of her son's death.

Proceedings and Developments

Following the incident, an Order of Arrest was issued on May 9, 1990, but Villegas evaded arrest for several months until he was detained on August 2, 1993, for another offense. Upon arraignment on September 22, 1993, Villegas pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented three witnesses against him, with Marcelo's testimony being pivotal in establishing the timeline and details of the murder.

Accused's Defense

Villegas raised an alibi as his defense, claiming he was operating his tricycle at the time of the incident and was unaware of the stabbing until after it occurred. His witness, Adelo Tena, corroborated his alibi, stating that both were occupied with their respective activities during the time of the crime.

Trial Court's Findings

The trial court ultimately credited the testimony of the prosecution’s eyewitness, finding that Villegas’s actions constituted treachery, as the attack was sudden and unprovoked. The Court highlighted that Villegas's flight from justice was indicative of guilt, as he had vanished following the incident.

Appellate Review

In the appeal, Villegas contended that the trial court erred in favoring the testimony of the eyewitness and misapplying the criterion of treachery. He argued inconsistencies in Marcelo's statements undermined his credibility. The appellate court maintained that the evaluation of witness credibility primarily lies with the trial court, which had the advantage of observing the witnesses directly.

Court's Decision on Evidence and Credibility

The appellate court reviewed the evidence, noting that minor inconsistencies in Marcelo’s testimony did not detract from the reliability of his account. It reaffirmed that inconsistencies often do not compromise credibility and, instead, could serve as indicators of truthfulness. The court rejected Villegas's claims of treachery not being present, stating that treachery was evident due to the nature of the attack.

Conclusion and Ruling

The court dismissed the appeal, thus affirming the trial court's original decision. Villeg

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.