GR 109764; (December, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109764. December 29, 1995.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDUARDO ASOY, LEOPOLDO ASOY, MAURINO OBIDOS and MIGUEL PAJUTA, accused. EDUARDO ASOY, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of February 24, 1989, Hermelino Perez, his wife, and his nephew Jaime Sunga were walking home in General Santos City. They passed by a group of four men—accused Eduardo Asoy, Leopoldo Asoy, Maurino Obidos, and Miguel Pajuta—drinking beneath a street light. Perez, aware that Obidos held a grudge against him, sensed trouble and advised Sunga to stay at his house for the night. Sunga refused and proceeded home alone. Perez went inside his house and watched through a window. He saw the four accused accost Sunga, who pleaded, “Huwag ninyo idaan sa init ng ulo.” The four then surrounded Sunga and stabbed him. Perez rushed out with a bamboo pole, struck Obidos, and chased the others away. Sunga, sustaining multiple stab wounds, was brought to the hospital where he died. Only Eduardo Asoy was arrested and tried for murder.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Eduardo Asoy of murder based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive and categorical testimony of eyewitness Hermelino Perez, who clearly identified Asoy as one of the assailants who stabbed the victim, prevails over the appellant’s bare denial. The Court emphasized that witnesses are weighed, not numbered; the testimony of a single witness is sufficient for conviction if found credible, as it was by the trial court. While the trial court did not qualify the killing with treachery, the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength was duly alleged in the Information and proven. The four armed accused collectively surrounded and attacked a single, unarmed victim, clearly demonstrating superior strength. Conspiracy was established by their concerted actions—accosting, surrounding, and successively stabbing the victim—which showed a unity of purpose to kill. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed as the medium period of the penalty for murder. The Court modified the award by increasing the death indemnity from P15,000 to P50,000 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.