GR 107245; (December, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 107245 December 17, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE ABORDO, RICARDO AREBALO, DANIEL ABORDO and ANICETO JALANDONI, accused-appellants.
FACTS
A conciliation conference was held on June 19, 1988, presided by barangay official Hermogenes Pan, concerning an accusation by Porferio Lubiano that Ricardo Arebalo had convinced him to rob a residence. The conference was attended by the victim Lubiano, appellants Felipe Abordo, Daniel Abordo, Ricardo Arebalo, Aniceto Jalandoni, and other members of the Abordo family. During the proceedings, Jalandoni acted disruptively. After the conference, the appellants left with Lubiano. Hermogenes Pan called Lubiano back to pay a fee, after which Lubiano rejoined the waiting appellants.
The group proceeded towards Purok 4. Witnesses saw the appellants, with Jalandoni and Felipe Abordo holding Lubiano by the shoulders, lead him to a secluded bamboo grove. There, the appellants collectively attacked Lubiano with stones and pieces of wood, resulting in his death. The appellants were charged with Murder. The Regional Trial Court convicted all four, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court due to the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on three appellants.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of all accused-appellants for the crime of Murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution successfully established conspiracy among all appellants. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It can be inferred from the collective and simultaneous acts of the accused directed towards a common objective. The evidence showed unity of purpose and concerted action. The appellants attended the conference together, left together with the victim, positioned themselves around him during the walk, and jointly attacked him in an isolated area. Their acts before, during, and after the assault demonstrated a common criminal design to kill Lubiano.
The Court rejected the defense of alibi and denial, which cannot prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses. The claim of Felipe Abordo that he alone was responsible was untenable, as his judicial confession did not absolve his co-conspirators. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated because the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim unable to defend himself. The appellants employed means which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to themselves. The penalties were affirmed, with the civil indemnity increased to P50,000.00.