G.R. No. 110001 July 28, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELMER HEREDIA @ BOLL JACK, ALEXANDER RUBIO and NELSON LYNSON CHUA, accused, ELMER HEREDIA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Elmer Heredia, Alexander Rubio, and Nelson Lynson Chua were charged with Murder for the killing of Innocentes Tan on May 18, 1989, in Mandaue City. The information alleged conspiracy, evident premeditation, treachery, and abuse of superior strength. Heredia was arraigned and pleaded not guilty; his co-accused remained at large. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Heredia guilty of Murder and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years, 5 months, and 11 days of reclusion temporal as minimum to reclusion perpetua as maximum, plus indemnity. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the penalty to straight reclusion perpetua and increased the indemnity. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules of Court as the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua.
The prosecution’s case, based primarily on the testimony of eyewitness Franklin Saplad, established that Saplad, the victim Tan, and Sonny Boy Rosello were co-workers at El Marino Bar and Restaurant. At around 2:30 a.m. on May 18, 1989, as they were leaving work, a group including Heredia harassed them and threw a bottle, causing them to run. While fleeing, Saplad saw that Tan was overtaken by Heredia’s group. He witnessed Nelson Lynson Chua hold Tan’s hands, Alexander Rubio hold Tan’s hair, and accused-appellant Elmer Heredia stab Tan. When Tan was lying on his back on the ground, Heredia squatted over him and continued stabbing him. Saplad and Rosello reported the incident to the police. Tan was brought to the hospital but died before arrival.
The accused-appellant denied participation, attacking the credibility of the lone eyewitness. He argued that Saplad’s testimony was vague and contradictory, that Saplad did not identify him by name initially, that the medico-legal findings contradicted the eyewitness account, and that the behavior of Saplad and his companions was contrary to human nature. He also claimed his identification was influenced by the extrajudicial confessions of his co-accused.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in holding that there was positive identification of the accused-appellant.
2. Whether the trial court erred in regarding as minor the discrepancy between the physical facts and the testimony of the eyewitness.
3. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the lone eyewitness.
4. Whether the trial court erred in holding that conspiracy was duly proved.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification.
1. On Positive Identification: The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Franklin Saplad explicit, straightforward, and credible. He positively identified Heredia as the one who stabbed the victim, noting they were co-workers. The fact that Saplad did not know Heredia’s name at the initial investigation did not negate his recognition of Heredia as a participant. The Court found no evidence that the identification was influenced by the extrajudicial confessions of the co-accused.
2. On Discrepancy Between Physical Facts and Testimony: The Court held that the testimony of the medico-legal officer, who stated the victim could have been stabbed while standing, was based on conjecture and probabilities. In contrast, Saplad testified as to what he actually saw. The Court found no irreconcilable inconsistency, as both testimonies agreed the victim died from stab wounds. The medico-legal opinion did not disprove the eyewitness account.
3. On Credibility of the Lone Eyewitness: The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Saplad’s credibility, finding his narration clear and consistent. The Court found nothing unnatural in the witnesses’ conduct of running away from the aggressors instead of seeking refuge inside the bar, as fear produces different reactions.
4. On Conspiracy: The Court found conspiracy duly established. The acts of Heredia’s two companions in holding the victim’s hands and hair, thereby rendering him defenseless, while Heredia stabbed him, demonstrated a community of criminal purpose and concerted action to achieve the objective of killing the victim.
The Court affirmed the presence of abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance, as the victim was held by two men and attacked by a third with a knife, clearly overpowering him. The penalty for Murder is reclusion temporal maximum to death. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty was imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua. The Court modified the civil liability, awarding P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant ELMER HEREDIA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER and sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua. He is ordered to pay the heirs of Innocentes Tan P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.