G.R. No. L-24491 September 30, 1969
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Rufino Gensola, Fidelina Tan and Felicisimo Tan, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Defendants Rufino Gensola (driver), Fidelina Tan, and Felicisimo Tan (conductors) of a passenger truck suspected Miguel Gayanilo of puncturing their truck’s tires. On November 19, 1958, in Guimbal, Iloilo, around 6:30 p.m., Miguel Gayanilo was crossing the street. Rufino Gensola, holding a stone, followed closely behind him. Fidelina and Felicisimo Tan were standing in the middle of the street. As Miguel passed near them, Fidelina shouted, “Rufino, strike him.” Rufino then struck Miguel on the left face with the stone. Felicisimo struck Miguel on the back of the head with a piece of iron, causing serious wounds and a skull fracture. Fidelina then struck Miguel on the left forehead with another piece of iron, also causing serious wounds and a skull fracture. Miguel fell to the ground and died from traumatic shock. The defendants appealed their conviction for murder by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, which sentenced each to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

1. Whether the defendants acted in conspiracy, making them all liable as principals for the crime of murder.
2. Whether Rufino Gensola acted in legitimate defense.
3. Whether the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies are credible.
4. What is the individual criminal liability of each appellant?

RULING

1. No conspiracy. The Supreme Court found no conspiracy among the defendants. Fidelina’s earlier muttered threat was not shared by Felicisimo’s silence, and Rufino was not present. Her command during the act did not prove prior concert. Their individual acts did not, in themselves, demonstrate a previous criminal design.
2. No legitimate defense. The defense of legitimate defense by Rufino Gensola is unmeritorious. His claim that he alone caused the fatal injuries with stones in defense of Fidelina and himself is belied by medical evidence showing the wounds were caused by strong blows with pieces of iron, not by a fall, and by the lack of a pile of stones at the scene. His admission of sole responsibility has no probative value as one cannot assume another’s criminal liability.
3. Credibility of witnesses upheld. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses Enrique Gelario and Enrique Gela are credible. Contradictions regarding locations of nearby establishments and uncertainties in describing the weapons are minor, considering the lighting conditions and passage of time. Their presence was not disproven by defense witnesses.
4. Individual liability determined:
* Rufino Gensola is liable only for the lacerated wounds on the left face of the victim, causing disfigurement, under Article 263(3) of the Revised Penal Code. With the aggravating circumstance of treachery, he is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 3 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 3 years of prision correccional as maximum.
* Fidelina Tan is not liable as a principal by inducement for Rufino’s act, as her command was not the moving cause of his action. However, she is liable as a principal for her own act of striking the victim’s forehead with a piece of iron, which contributed to his death from traumatic shock.
* Felicisimo Tan is liable as a principal for striking the victim’s head with a piece of iron, which contributed to his death.
Felicisimo Tan and Fidelina Tan are both guilty of murder, qualified by alevosia (treachery), as the attacks on the defenseless victim were sudden. Their sentences of reclusion perpetua* are affirmed. The indemnity to the heirs is increased to P12,000, payable in solidum by these two appellants.