G.R. No. 112968 February 13, 1997
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Arsenio Letigio, Teddy Nemenzo and Amay Ravanes, Defendants. Arsenio Letigio, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on May 23, 1989, Jimmy Repunte was killed in Barangay Don Andres Soriano, Toledo City. Eyewitness Felix Repunte, the victim’s brother, testified that he saw accused Arsenio Letigio, Teddy Nemenzo, and Amay Ravanes chase and attack Jimmy. Felix saw Letigio shoot Jimmy, causing him to fall, after which Ravanes slashed the victim’s neck with a knife. The scene was illuminated, allowing clear identification. Another witness, Pedro Taneo, corroborated seeing the three accused at the scene. Only Letigio was arrested and tried, as his co-accused remained at large.
The defense presented a different account. Witness Rodolfo Ginos claimed he was with Letigio at a gathering when Ravanes arrived, reporting he had been mauled by the victim. Nemenzo and Ravanes left to confront Jimmy, and Letigio later followed. Ginos testified they heard gunshots from a distance and later encountered Nemenzo and Ravanes, who admitted killing Jimmy. Letigio denied direct participation, portraying himself as a mere follower who arrived after the shooting.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Arsenio Letigio for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court correctly gave credence to the positive and categorical testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Felix Repunte and Pedro Taneo, who consistently identified Letigio as one of the assailants. Their testimonies were clear, straightforward, and remained unshaken on cross-examination. The Court found no ill motive for them to falsely testify against the appellant. The defense of alibi and denial interposed by Letigio cannot prevail over these positive identifications. The claim of being a mere follower who arrived late is unconvincing; his presence at the scene and his association with the admitted perpetrators, coupled with the eyewitness account of his active participation in the shooting, established conspiracy. All three accused acted in concert to achieve the common purpose of killing the victim, making each liable for the acts of the others. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven, as the attack was sudden and deliberate, rendering the victim defenseless. The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of civil indemnity to the victim’s heirs.