G.R. No. L-38787, September 12, 1984
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Mariano Bacay, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On February 20, 1971, in Sariaya, Quezon, eyewitness Venancio Abdon saw appellant Mariano Bacay and his co-accused, Margarito Watiwat, converge on the victim, Pedro Macatangay. Abdon heard Bacay ask, “What are you pulling?” and the victim answer, “No, no.” He then saw both assailants raise their hands and pound something onto the back of Macatangay’s shoulder. Abdon fled to report the incident. Upon returning with a barrio councilman, they found Macatangay’s lifeless body. The victim sustained fifteen stab wounds, several fatal. Prior motive was established through the testimony of the victim’s widow, who stated that Bacay had threatened revenge because the victim had assisted in the prosecution of Bacay’s brother for a shooting incident.
The appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was in Manila at the time of the killing. The trial court found the alibi weak and not physically impossible, especially given the positive identification by the eyewitness who had known him for twenty years. The court convicted Bacay of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength to elevate the killing from homicide to murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for the killing but modified the classification of the crime from murder to homicide. The Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the alibi defense, emphasizing that it cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible eyewitness. The prosecution successfully proved Bacay’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for causing the death of Macatangay.
However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not sufficiently established. Jurisprudence holds that this circumstance requires proof that the aggressors deliberately used excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the victim, taking advantage of their superior strength to ensure the commission of the crime. The mere fact that there were two assailants does not, per se, constitute abuse of superior strength. The prosecution witness’s account—that the assailants held the victim’s shoulder and stabbed him—did not conclusively demonstrate that they cooperated to secure an advantage from their numerical superiority so as to completely overpower and render the victim helpless. The meeting was also described as unexpected and accidental, negating a deliberate plan to use superior strength. In the absence of any qualifying circumstance, the crime committed is homicide. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of ten years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fifteen years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and the indemnity was increased to P30,000.00.