G.R. No. 109617 August 11, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE SION @ “JUNIOR,” JOHNNY JUGUILON, EDONG SION, FELIX SION @ “ELLET,” and FEDERICO DISU @ “MIGUEL,” accused. FELIPE SION @ “JUNIOR” and FEDERICO DISU @ “MIGUEL,” accused-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of October 16, 1991, in Barangay Binday, San Fabian, Pangasinan, an initial altercation occurred where appellants Felipe Sion and Johnny Juguilon chased Ronnie Manuel and threw stones. The victim, Fernando Abaoag, intervened, prompting Sion to utter threats against him. Later that same evening, a group of men, including appellants Sion and Federico Disu, armed with stones and bladed weapons, attacked Fernando Abaoag in front of his house. Prosecution eyewitnesses, Cesar Abaoag (the victim’s brother) and Felicitas Abaoag (the victim’s wife), positively identified both appellants as participants in the assault, which resulted in Fernando’s death from multiple stab wounds. The appellants were charged with Murder.
The defense presented alibis. Appellant Sion claimed he was at a different barangay attending a fiesta, while appellant Disu asserted he was at home. They denied participation and alleged that the eyewitnesses were biased. The Regional Trial Court found both appellants guilty as principals of the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced them to Reclusion Perpetua. They appealed the decision.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of appellants Felipe Sion and Federico Disu for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by the prosecution eyewitnesses, who had no ill motive to falsely testify, prevails over the weak defenses of alibi and denial. The Court found the testimonies of Cesar and Felicitas Abaoag credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish the appellants’ presence and participation in the killing. Treachery was correctly appreciated as the attack was sudden and deliberate, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The Court also upheld the finding of the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, as the nature and number of wounds indicated the assailants’ intent to prolong physical suffering.
However, the Supreme Court modified the penalty. While the crime was Murder qualified by treachery, punishable by Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period to Death, the presence of the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, not offset by any mitigating circumstance, justified the imposition of the maximum penalty of death. Nevertheless, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence at the time, the penalty was reduced to Reclusion Perpetua. The award of civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00, and moral damages of P50,000.00 were additionally granted. The appealed decision was affirmed with modifications.