G.R. No. L-32421. March 27, 1974.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NOEL JOVELLANO y RICAFRENTE, ET AL., defendants, ARTURO SANTOS y CLEOFAS and GIL JOVELLANO y RICAFRENTE, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On July 25, 1969, at a karinderia in Kamuning Market, Quezon City, a fatal altercation occurred. The victim, Nolasco Sebañes, made a joking remark to a group including appellants Arturo Santos and Gil Jovellano, his brother Noel Jovellano, and others. Arturo Santos took offense, left, returned, and threw money on the table. Gil Jovellano then threw a plate at Sebañes. As Sebañes fled, he was pursued by the group. Prosecution eyewitness Salome Lansangan testified that outside the karinderia, appellants Arturo Santos (armed with a fork), Gil Jovellano, and Noel Jovellano (both with knives), along with Ramon Luz (with a piece of wood), attacked Sebañes almost simultaneously. The victim sustained multiple stab wounds and collapsed after running approximately 20 meters. The autopsy confirmed stab wounds as the cause of death.

ISSUE

The core issue is the credibility of the lone eyewitness, Salome Lansangan, whose testimony was the primary basis for convicting appellants Arturo Santos and Gil Jovellano of Murder. Appellants challenged her credibility, citing alleged inconsistencies between her sworn affidavit and her court testimony, and arguing the improbability of four assailants inflicting only four wounds.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, finding the crime committed was Homicide, not Murder, and appreciating the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. On credibility, the Court upheld the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the established rule that appellate courts generally defer to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. The alleged inconsistency between Lansangan’s brief affidavit and her detailed court testimony was deemed not fatal. Affidavits are often incomplete, taken ex parte, and without the aid of clarifying questions that a court setting provides. The number of wounds did not disprove the presence of multiple assailants, as the attack was simultaneous and the victim fled immediately. The Court found the appellants, together with their companions, took advantage of their collective armed superiority over the unarmed victim, constituting abuse of superior strength. Since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. With one aggravating circumstance (abuse of superior strength) and no mitigating circumstances, the penalty is reclusion temporal maximum. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, each appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.