GR 106536; (September, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 106536 September 20, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDGAR LAYAGUIN, GORGONIO MARIĂ‘AS, JUVY TABOTABO, ROLANDO BUCOG, FLORENCIO DIONALDO and GREG LABAYO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
The victim, Rosalito Cereño, was a medical canvasser with no known quarrel with the accused. The animosity stemmed from his father, Benito Cereño, a barangay councilman, who had been previously attacked and mauled by the accused-appellants, leading to criminal charges filed against them. On July 10, 1987, the victim’s sister, Gerarda Villagonzalo, was tasked to meet him. While waiting, she heard gunshots and witnessed from hiding as her brother, surrounded by seven armed men, pleaded for mercy. She saw Edgar Layaguin shoot him on the arm, Rizalino Gemina fire twice, and Greg Labayo shoot twice more. The others stood guard with their firearms aimed. The post-mortem examination revealed five gunshot wounds, three of which were fatal, causing Rosalito’s death.
The accused were charged with Murder. At trial, the prosecution presented Gerarda Villagonzalo as the lone eyewitness. All accused presented alibi defenses, claiming they were elsewhere during the incident—fishing, working on a construction site, or at their respective homes. The trial court convicted the six apprehended accused (Rizalino Gemina having died pending appeal) of Murder, appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength and conspiracy, but not treachery or evident premeditation. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
The core issues on appeal were: (1) the credibility of the lone eyewitness testimony; (2) the validity of the accused’s alibi; and (3) the proper appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On credibility, the Court held that minor inconsistencies in Gerarda Villagonzalo’s testimony regarding distances and her initial shock did not impair her credibility but instead reinforced the natural reaction of a witness to a traumatic event. Her positive identification of the appellants, whom she knew personally, prevailed over their weak alibi defenses, which were not physically impossible and were uncorroborated. The defense of alibi cannot succeed against positive identification.
On the qualifying circumstance, the Court upheld the trial court’s finding of abuse of superior strength. The legal logic is that this circumstance is inherent when the aggressors, collectively and cooperatively, use their overwhelming force to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to themselves. The evidence clearly showed seven armed men surrounding and shooting a lone, pleading, and unarmed victim. This situation manifestly constituted a situation of gross physical inequality, qualifying the killing as Murder. The Court found conspiracy from their collective and coordinated actions. Thus, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.