GR 80225; (March, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 80225 March 31, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE SOLDAO, CAMILO ZUÑIGA, NARCISO ZUÑIGA & BENIGNO ZUÑIGA, JORGE SOLDAO, TOMAS DELA CRUZ and ROGELIO VALENCIA, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On April 12, 1985, in Barangay Salomague Sur, Bugallong, Pangasinan, the victim Bernardo “Benny” Arellano stopped at the store of Jose Soldao to buy a Pop Cola. While he was turning to his companions, Saturnino Fernandez and Ricardo Malicdem, Jose Soldao suddenly covered Benny’s eyes, and Jorge Soldao immediately stabbed him on the left chest. The victim ran but was overtaken and stabbed again by Jorge Soldao. Rogelio Valencia urged Jorge to stab the victim again. Tomas de la Cruz then arrived and stabbed the prone victim multiple times. The witnesses, Fernandez and Malicdem, tried to help but were prevented by Camilo, Narciso, and Benigno Zuñiga who brandished their bolos. The victim’s uncle, Herminio Achera, later witnessed a group including the accused clubbing and hitting the fallen victim. The accused Jorge Soldao, Rogelio Valencia, and Tomas de la Cruz were convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Jorge Soldao claimed self-defense, alleging the victim attacked him first with a balisong and a bottle. Rogelio Valencia and Tomas de la Cruz raised alibi and denial.
ISSUE
1. Whether the defense of self-defense should be appreciated in favor of accused-appellant Jorge Soldao.
2. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the accused-appellants acted in conspiracy attended by treachery and evident premeditation.
RULING
1. The defense of self-defense was not appreciated. The trial court found the eyewitness accounts of the prosecution credible and detailed, directly contradicting the claim of self-defense. The autopsy report showing the victim sustained six stab and puncture wounds in different parts of the body negated self-defense and indicated multiple assailants.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of conspiracy and the attendance of treachery (alevosia). The sudden attack, where Jose Soldao covered the victim’s eyes without warning, rendering him unable to defend himself, constituted treachery. However, the Court modified the trial court’s ruling by finding that evident premeditation was not proven, as there was no direct evidence of planning, preparation, or a sufficient lapse of time for reflection. The decision was AFFIRMED with the modification that the death indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.