G.R. No. 223512 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ANTONIO ALMOSARA,* ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Antonio Almosara y Perez is found GUILTY of the crime of MURDER and is sentenced to suffer the maximum sentence under the law and is hereby sentenced to the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. He is also ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Cristito Manasan y Cervantes (sic) Php75,000.00 in Exemplary Damages, Php50,000.00 in Moral Damages and Php40,600.00 in Actual Cost with costs against suit. Damages representing unearned income of the deceased is not justified as no supporting document was ever presented in this case. Accused Antonio Almosara y Perez is hereby ordered committed to the National Bilibid Prisons (sic) for immediate service of his sentence. SO ORDERED . [23] The Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals On appeal, appellant faulted the trial court for finding him guilty of murder despite the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. His arguments may be summed up as follows: [24] (1) Gregorio and Marife's testimonies failed to paint a coherent picture of the incident. Both said they shouted for the Almosaras to stop, yet, Gregorio did not notice his sister was also present at that time. Gregorio testified only he and their neighbor Kris witnessed the incident. [25] (2) Marife and Gregorio gave inconsistent statements whether it was Ronnie or Anthony who stabbed their father right after appellant delivered the initial blow. [26] (3) Gregorio's act of going inside their home and doing nothing even after his father already got stabbed was contrary to human experience. [27] Appellant further negates the presence of treachery in the commission of the crime. According to him, there was no proof he consciously adopted said mode of attack to facilitate the killing. Too, the fact that per Gregorio's testimony, Arnulfo was also armed with a bolo, indicated that Arnulfo was not without any means to defend himself. [28] Also, the alleged quarrel between him and Arnulfo before the attack dispelled the presence of treachery. [29] Abuse of superior strength was not present here either. Gregorio and Marife themselves testified that appellant and his family did not simultaneously attack their father. They took turns in stabbing Arnulfo. Notably, no evidence was adduced showing a disparity between the built of Arnulfo and the individual builts of the Almosaras. [30] In the absence of treachery and abuse of superior strength, therefore, he should only be found liable for homicide. [31] Although the defense of denial is weak, the prosecution must not profit from the weakness of his defense but must rely on the strength of its own evidence. [32] The Office of the Solicitor General, through Assistant Solicitor General John Emmanuel F. Madamba and State Solicitor Ma. Jesusa Eleanor P. Siquijor-Magbanua, essentially countered: [33] (a) The testimonies of Gregorio and Marife were not only replete with details on how their father was attacked, the same were also given in a straightforward