G.R. No. 72001 August 7, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO BECHAYDA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Romeo Bechayda, was charged with robbery with homicide for the killings of Eleuterio Bilon, Maria Escasa, Aurelio Escasa, and Norris Marquez on January 6, 1981, in Rapu-Rapu, Albay. The information alleged conspiracy, treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime, superior strength, and intent to gain. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of four counts of murder, sentencing him to Reclusion Perpetua for each count and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of each victim P25,000.00. The trial court discounted the robbery aspect for lack of sufficient proof. The prosecution’s evidence established that on the evening of the crime, eyewitnesses Jaime Bertis and Miguel Avila saw the appellant, together with Rodolfo Bilon and Rogelio Vergara (both at large), at the victims’ house. Bertis saw them drinking and heard Rodolfo state he would kill first, after which Rodolfo hacked the sleeping Eleuterio. Bertis fled. Avila later arrived, peeped through the door, and saw Eleuterio wounded, Maria Escasa being kicked and fatally wounded by the appellant, Norris Marquez being hacked by the appellant while embracing Maria, and Aurelio Escasa being stabbed by Rodolfo. Avila was seen, confronted, warned not to tell anyone, and then allowed to leave. He reported the incident two days later. Autopsy reports confirmed the violent deaths. The defense relied on alibi and denial, claiming the appellant was working and then sleeping at his brother’s house in Mancao, a place reachable from the crime scene in over an hour by foot or 10-20 minutes by motor banca.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the eyewitnesses despite alleged inconsistencies and their being contrary to human experience.
2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of four counts of murder despite an unclear showing of conspiracy.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to the appellant’s defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. On the first issue, the Court found the testimonies of eyewitnesses Jaime Bertis and Miguel Avila credible, straightforward, and consistent on material points. Minor inconsistencies were deemed to enhance credibility as they indicated unrehearsed testimony. Their conduct of initially keeping silent out of fear was reasonable. On the second issue, conspiracy was sufficiently established by the concerted actions of the appellant and his companions in simultaneously attacking the helpless victims, demonstrating a common purpose to kill. On the third issue, the defense of alibi was rejected as inherently weak and unsubstantiated. The appellant failed to prove physical impossibility of being at the crime scene, as he admitted the distance could be traversed in 10-20 minutes by motor banca. His failure to present his brother to corroborate his alibi further weakened his defense. The Court agreed with the trial court that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, absorbing the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and superior strength. The appellant was thus guilty of four counts of murder. The decision was AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the civil indemnity for each victim was increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.