G.R. No. 105668 October 16, 1997
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERNANDO DALABAJAN, DOMINADOR DALABAJAN and FERNANDO DALABAJAN, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On January 1, 1986, in Barangay Cayapas, Dumaran, Palawan, during a New Year’s Eve dance, Amado Zabalo, Jr. was killed. An information for Murder was filed against Hernando, Dominador, and Fernando Dalabajan, among others. The prosecution’s sole eyewitness, Melencio dela Cruz, testified that he saw Hernando Dalabajan kick and stab the victim as he exited the barangay hall. The victim fled towards the sea, pursued by the three appellants in a banca. They overtook him 30-40 meters from shore and collectively attacked him with bladed weapons, wooden clubs, and a boat paddle. Dela Cruz witnessed this from hiding, fearing the Dalabajan clan’s reputation. The victim’s body bore multiple stab wounds. The defense presented a different version: Hernando claimed the victim, who was drunk, attacked him first with a bolo, and he only struck back in self-defense. Dominador, a barangay tanod, denied participation. Fernando did not testify. After the case was submitted for decision, the victim’s father executed an Affidavit of Desistance, and the eyewitness, Melencio dela Cruz, executed an Affidavit of Recantation, stating he did not witness the killing and was coerced by the victim’s father. The trial court convicted the three appellants of Murder.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of Murder despite the Affidavit of Desistance and the Affidavit of Recantation by the prosecution’s eyewitness.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Affidavit of Desistance executed by the victim’s father was given scant consideration, as a criminal offense is an outrage against the State and not subject to the will of a private party. The Affidavit of Recantation was likewise rejected. Recantations are inherently unreliable and viewed with extreme suspicion, as they can easily be obtained through coercion or monetary consideration. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the original testimony of Melencio dela Cruz, which was clear, positive, and convincing. The defense of self-defense by Hernando was not credible, as his flight from the scene and failure to immediately report the incident negated such a claim. The Court found that the killing was attended by treachery, qualifying it as Murder. The aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were present, offsetting the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender appreciated only for Hernando. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.