G.R. No. L-30931 June 28, 1974
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SILVERIO BERMUDEZ alias BOTONG, VIRGILIO CAPINDING alias BOY, FERDINAND BERMUDEZ alias DANTE, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, Silverio Bermudez, Ferdinand Bermudez, and Virgilio Capinding, along with police officer Gregorio Asanion, were charged with the murder of Maximino Anis in Gerona, Tarlac. The prosecution evidence established that on the night of January 15, 1969, the appellants were drinking together at a canteen. Later, near midnight, the victim Anis and his companion were seen in the vicinity. Witness Pedro Ramirez testified that from his hut, he saw the appellants Silverio and Ferdinand Bermudez maltreating the victim, while Asanion was seated nearby holding a carbine. Another witness, Patrolman Gapal, corroborated seeing the assault and attempted to intervene. The victim died from the injuries inflicted.
The trial court acquitted Gregorio Asanion for insufficiency of evidence but convicted the three appellants of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with Silverio Bermudez receiving a lesser indeterminate penalty due to voluntary surrender. The appellants appealed, challenging the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the weight of Asanion’s testimony.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants based on the testimonial evidence presented, particularly in light of the acquitted co-accused’s testimony and the alleged lack of proven motive.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility, emphasizing that the matter of assigning value to declarations is best performed by the trial court, which can observe the witnesses’ demeanor, conduct, and attitude. The appellants’ argument that the testimony of the acquitted Asanion was a mere afterthought was found unpersuasive. The Court noted the Solicitor General’s observation that Asanion might have initially been in conspiracy with the appellants but was forced to admit their participation to save himself. However, this did not detract from the consistent and credible testimonies of other eyewitnesses, Pedro Ramirez and Patrolman Gapal, which firmly established the appellants’ concerted action in assaulting the victim.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that proof of motive is not indispensable for conviction when the accused’s guilt is otherwise established by sufficient evidence, as in this case. The appellants’ collective actions, witnessed and corroborated, clearly demonstrated a conspiracy to inflict fatal injuries, qualifying the crime as murder through abuse of superior strength. The appealed judgment was found to be in accordance with law and evidence.