G.R. No. 110833 November 21, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO LAYNO and ROBERT LAYNO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that in the early morning of May 10, 1992, Rodolfo Gabuat was awakened by shouts outside his house in Malabon. Upon going down, he was pulled by accused Robert Layno, hit in the face with a gun by a certain “Inag,” and then stabbed in the back with an ice pick by Alexander Layno. While Rodolfo was lying face down on the ground, Robert Layno shot him in the back. Accused Danilo Layno was present during the attack. The victim’s wife, Anna Marie, witnessed the entire incident and saw Danilo approach her and the fallen victim armed with a bladed weapon, causing her to retreat. Rodolfo later died from the gunshot wound.
The defense presented a different version. Robert Layno claimed he was at a wake some distance away during the entire incident. Danilo Layno asserted he was asleep and was prevented from going outside by a neighbor, Rodora Trinidad. Trinidad testified that she witnessed the victim’s own brother, Junior Gabuat, shoot the victim during a family altercation, and that the blame was later shifted to the Laynos.

ISSUE

The core issues were the credibility of the witnesses, the existence of conspiracy between the appellants, and the proper appreciation of the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation for the crime of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On credibility, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment, giving weight to the clear, positive, and categorical testimony of the eyewitness, Anna Marie Gabuat. Her account was found more credible than the defense’s version, which was largely based on the testimony of Rodora Trinidad. The Court noted that Trinidad’s claim that the victim was killed by his own brother was directly rebutted by the brother’s wife, Nancy Gabuat.
The Court found conspiracy. The appellants, together with their companions, acted in concert with a common purpose to attack the victim. Robert’s act of pulling the victim and then shooting him, combined with Danilo’s presence and menacing approach with a bladed weapon to prevent aid from reaching the victim, demonstrated a community of criminal design.
Treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was sudden and unexpected, denying the victim any opportunity to defend himself. The victim was first rendered helpless by being pulled and assaulted before being shot while already lying defenseless on the ground. However, evident premeditation was not established, as the prosecution failed to prove the elements of cool planning and deliberate execution of the criminal act. The penalty was modified by deleting the erroneous imposition of “life imprisonment” and affirming the proper penalty of reclusion perpetua.