G.R. No. 97969 February 6, 1995
People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo Panganiban, et al. (Domingo Hingan and Nicolas Peria, Accused-Appellants)

FACTS

Accused Domingo Hingan and Nicolas Peria, along with four others, were charged with Murder with the use of illegally possessed firearms for the killing of retired 2Lt. Raymundo Medel. The prosecution evidence, primarily from the victim’s son Armando Medel, established that on August 18, 1981, the Medels attended a wake and cockfight in Calamba, Laguna. At the scene, Hingan and Peria were seen at a card game (baklayan) while their co-accused were positioned near a cockpit (sitawan). Armando testified that Hingan placed a .45 caliber gun on the table, pointed it towards his father, and made a threatening remark. As they moved around the area, Hingan and Peria followed them, signaling to their companions.
When Lt. Medel bent to pick up his rooster after a cockfight, a gunshot was heard. Armando saw his father hit and saw Hingan and Peria running away. Simultaneously, successive shots were fired from the sitawan by the other accused. The victim sustained seventeen gunshot wounds. The defense of Hingan and Peria was alibi, claiming they were elsewhere working in a field during the incident. The trial court convicted Hingan and Peria as principals by direct participation and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellants Domingo Hingan and Nicolas Peria for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of Armando Medel credible, positive, and consistent on material points, sufficiently establishing the appellants’ participation. His account detailed their presence, threatening conduct, and immediate flight after the initial shot, which was corroborated by the number and nature of the victim’s wounds indicating multiple assailants. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated, especially as the appellants failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene.
Regarding the qualifying circumstance, the Court modified the trial court’s ruling on treachery. The evidence showed the victim was aware of the appellants’ hostile presence and threatening actions prior to the attack, as they had been followed and signaled. Therefore, the element of surprise or the victim’s inability to defend himself was absent. Consequently, the crime is Homicide, not Murder. The penalty was reduced to an indeterminate sentence of ten years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.