GR 108611; (August, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 108611 August 20, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE ASTO, BIENVENIDO ABAGAT @ “FELIPE”, FERNANDO AQUINO, ALMARIO VELO and EDUARDO MARIANO (at large), accused-appellants.
FACTS
On April 7, 1985, victim Gerardo Peregrino was invited to a prayer service by Almario Velo and others. The plan changed, and the group, including witness Almario Nabong, proceeded to a series of drinking sessions. During the final session at a house in Barangay Curareng, a verbal altercation occurred between Peregrino and accused Fernando Aquino. Suddenly, accused Bienvenido Abagat struck Peregrino on the head with a piece of wood. Accused Jose Asto then took the wood and also struck Peregrino. Aquino, Velo, and the at-large Eduardo Mariano subsequently joined in clubbing the victim. Nabong was also attacked but managed to escape. The victim was later found dead in a nearby tobacco plantation.
An autopsy confirmed the cause of death as cerebral hemorrhage secondary to skull fractures. The accused were charged with Murder. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellants Abagat, Asto, and Velo of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Aquino was acquitted for reasonable doubt, and Mariano remained at large. The convicted appellants appealed, challenging the credibility of the prosecution’s eyewitness.
ISSUE
Whether the conviction of appellants for Murder, qualified by treachery, is proper based on the evidence presented.
RULING
Yes, the conviction is proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s findings, emphasizing that the assessment of witness credibility is best undertaken by the trial judge. The Court found no ill motive for witness Almario Nabong to falsely testify against the appellants. His detailed and consistent narration of the events, from the initial invitation to the final brutal assault, was deemed credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The legal logic for finding treachery (alevosia) is clear. The attack was sudden and unexpected, employing means that deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself. The appellants, by their concerted actions, ensured the execution of the assault without risk to themselves. The Court also clarified a technical correction regarding the penalty. The proper penalty for Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua, not life imprisonment. While these terms are often used interchangeably in common parlance, reclusion perpetua carries specific accessory penalties and a definite duration of at least thirty years under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Therefore, the penalty was modified from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua. The decision was affirmed with this modification.