G.R. No. 123397 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. BENJAMIN M. DE LA CRUZ (P) AND FERNANDO M. DE LA CRUZ (AT LARGE), ACCUSED, BENJAMIN M. DE LA CRUZ, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

accordingly charged together with his brother Benjamin M. de la Cruz, however has remained at large since the issuance of the warrant of his arrest on 26 March 1992. [4] During the assault of Rolando by the De la Cruz brothers, Rogelio was unable to shout for help nor rush to his brothers aid. It was not until Benjamin and Fernando fled that Rogelio and Danilo brought the wounded Rolando to the hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Apparently, the trial court believed the narration of Rogelio on how his brother was killed. On the other hand, in rejecting accused-appellants alibi expressed through his grandmother Concepcion Menes, who supported the formers claim that he was at home asleep when the slaying took place, the court below emphasized that the requisite of physical impossibility for the accused to be at the locus criminis was lacking. [5] In finding accused-appellant guilty of murder, the court a quo appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance taking into consideration how the De la Cruz brothers conspired to attack suddenly the unarmed Rolando with fatal blows without provocation on the part of their hapless victim. [6] Dr. Renato C. Bautista, NBI Senior Medico-Legal Officer, in his post-mortem examination of the victim, confirmed Rogelios account of the infliction of the injuries on Rolando and concluded that the latter died from multiple stab wounds. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, accused-appellant Benjamin de la Cruz assailed the verdict of the trial court on four (4) grounds: (a) that the prosecution evidence was inherently incredible; (b) that there was no sufficient evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; (c) that the court a quo decided the case on the weakness of the defense evidence and not on the strength of the prosecution evidence thus shifting the burden of proof on the accused; and (d) that since his guilt was not duly proved he should not be held liable for compensatory damages and for funeral and related expenses. [7] Finding no reversible error in the factual findings and conclusions of the court a quo, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant and modified the penalty imposed to reclusion perpetua. After a thorough review of the records, we also affirm the conviction of accused-appellant but reduce his prison term in view of the presence of voluntary surrender, a mitigating circumstance which was not considered in his favor. Extant on record is the fact that accused-appellant immediately presented himself to the authorities before midday of 24 January 1992 upon learning that he was a suspect in the killing of Rolando, or barely twelve (12) hours after the killing. [8] Once more we evaluate the prosecution evidence to respond to accused-appellants query whether his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal cases, it is elementary that the accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reas