2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
JOEMARIE JALBONIAN alias "Budo", Accused-
Appellant.
G.R. No. 180281, July 01, 2013
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Facts:
On July 30, 1991, an Information for murder was filed against appellant that on or about the 26th day of January
1991, in the municipality of Ilog, province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, who is still at-large, armed with a bladed weapon, with evident premeditation, treachery
and with intent to kill, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and stab one FORTUNATO
QUINTANILLA, JR., thereby inflicting [a] mortal stab wound [on] the back of the body of the latter, which caused the death
of said victim.
Appellant went into hiding for more than five years and was apprehended on July 10, 1996.
Barangay Chairman Valenciano testified that on January 26, 1991, a barangay assembly meeting was held in
Balicotoc Elementary School. After the meeting was adjourned, the participants including him left the school premises.
From a distance of about three-arms length, Valenciano saw appellant position himself behind Fortunato
Quintanilla, Jr., stab the latter on the back with a knife, and immediately run away. Valenciano ordered Julio Gaston, a
member of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU), to chase appellant but the latter escaped.
Quintanilla was brought by Valenciano to the nearest hospital but he died before reaching there.
After the prosecution rested its case, appellant filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss (by way of
Demurrer to Evidence). However, the trial court denied the motion.
On March 5, 2003, the trial court rendered a Decision convicting appellant of murder qualified by treachery.
The CA affirmed appellant’s conviction but modified the RTC’s judgment by ordering appellant to pay the heirs of
the victim exemplary damages.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Valenciano’s uncorroborated testimony adversely affects his credibility as a witness, hence his
testimony is insufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (NO)
Ruling:
The testimony of Valenciano as the lone witness for the prosecution suffices to establish appellant’s culpability for
the crime charged. Valenciano clearly narrated the details of the stabbing incident and positively identified appellant as
the assailant.
It has been held that when a testimony is given in a candid and straightforward manner, there is no room for doubt
that the witness is telling the truth. Moreover, Valenciano’s testimony on the stabbing of the victim was corroborated by
the Certificate of Death attesting that the cause of death was a stab wound.
As to appellant’s argument that it was impossible for Valenciano to personally identify him as the assailant since
the victim and his attacker had their backs turned to Valenciano, the Court find it unworthy of credence.
The relative position of the witness from the victim and the assailant refers to a minor detail that does not detract
from his credibility. What is important is that Valenciano witnessed the unfolding of the crime and was able to positively
identify appellant as the culprit. In addition and as correctly pointed out by the OSG, Valenciano readily identified
appellant because the latter used to reside in the same barangay of which he was barangay captain.
Also, the fact that Valenciano was just a few meters away from the victim and that the crime was committed in
broad daylight bolster Valenciano’s identification of appellant as the assailant.
Likewise untenable is appellant’s contention that Valenciano’s testimony cannot be relied upon since it was not
corroborated by other witnesses to the crime. Finding of guilt based on the testimony of a lone witness is not
uncommon. "For although the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of evidence,
preponderance is not necessarily with the greatest number and conviction can still be had on the basis of the credible and
positive testimony of a single witness. Corroborative evidence is deemed necessary ‘only when there are reasons to
warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that his observation had been inaccurate.’"
Moreover, appellant also failed to attribute any improper motive to Valenciano to falsely testify against him. There
was no evidence to establish that Valenciano harbored any ill-will against appellant or that he had reasons to fabricate his
testimony. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption is that the witness was not moved by any ill-will
and was untainted by bias, and thus worthy of belief and credence. Furthermore, appellant’s immediate departure
from the scene of the crime and successful effort to elude arrest until his apprehension more than five years later are not
consistent with his claim of innocence. Flight from the scene of the crime and failure to immediately surrender
militate against appellant’s contention of innocence "since an innocent person will not hesitate to take prompt
and necessary action to exonerate himself of the crime imputed to him."
Under these circumstances, the rule that "where the prosecution eyewitness was familiar with both the
victim and the accused, and where the locus criminis afforded good visibility, and where no improper motive can
be attributed to the witness for testifying against the accused, then his version of the story deserves much
weight," thus applies. The Court was convinced that appellant’s culpability for the killing of the victim was duly
established by the testimony of the lone prosecution witness, Valenciano.
The crime committed by appellant is murder qualified by treachery.
Murder is the unlawful killing by the accused of a person, which is not parricide or infanticide, committed
with any of the attendant circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, one of which is
treachery.
"There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make." "The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a
warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no
chance to resist or escape."
In this case, treachery is evident from the fact that the victim could not have been aware of the imminent peril to
his life. He was unprepared for the sudden, unexpected and unprovoked attack on his person when appellant stabbed his
back with a knife then swiftly run away. Clearly, appellant’s execution of the killing left the victim with no opportunity to
defend himself or retaliate.
The appeal was DISMISSED.
