GR 123155; (June, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123155 ; June 8, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLITO MUMAR @ LITOY, JOSUE BAYRON @ BOBONG, and DAGSON BAGAYAN @ TANGKAD, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Carlito Mumar, Josue Bayron, and Bagayaw Dagson were convicted of murder by the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution established that on August 31, 1992, the victim Arsenio Villaver and his 12-year-old son Vincent were walking home when they were waylaid by the three accused. The accused, identifying themselves as police, ordered them not to move. As the victims complied with their hands raised, Arsenio was shot in the back. Vincent testified that Mumar held a shotgun, Bayron a revolver, and Dagson a bolo. After the shooting, the accused threatened Vincent to falsely claim they were caught stealing copra. The victim’s body was found the next day. During trial, Vincent and his mother Margarita executed affidavits of desistance after being promised payment by the accused’s counsel, but they later recanted, stating they were compelled and received no payment.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Vincent Villaver credible and consistent. His minority did not impair his credibility, as the details he provided were clear and corroborated by physical evidence. The affidavits of desistance were correctly disregarded by the trial court, as they were executed under duress and with an unfulfilled promise of monetary consideration, rendering them involuntary and unreliable. The Court upheld the finding of conspiracy among the appellants. Their collective actions—lying in wait, jointly confronting the victims with arms, and their coordinated conduct after the shooting—demonstrated a common purpose to kill. The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was properly appreciated. The appellants enjoyed numerical superiority and were armed with a shotgun, revolver, and bolo against an unarmed man and a boy. The victim was shot in the back while complying with their orders, proving he posed no threat. The killing was thus attended by treachery and abuse of superior strength, qualifying it as murder.