GR 110999; (April, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110999 & 111000, April 18, 1997
People of the Philippines vs. Hitro Sancholes and Kareem Sancholes
FACTS
Accused-appellants Hitro and Kareem Sancholes were charged with two counts of murder for the killings of Enrique Cabual and his 12-year-old son, Rodrigo, on June 10, 1990, in Mabinay, Negros Oriental. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Magno Reposo and Elpidio Babor. Reposo testified that while fishing, he saw the appellants attack Enrique Cabual at the river, with Hitro hacking the victim on the head and Kareem subsequently stabbing him. Babor testified that from a distance of 100 meters while gathering firewood, he saw the appellants chase and subsequently attack the young Rodrigo Cabual, with Kareem stabbing the boy and Hitro hacking him. The defense was alibi, claiming they were in a different barangay at the time.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the credibility of the eyewitness accounts and the validity of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalty to two separate penalties of reclusion perpetua. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings on credibility, ruling that the testimonies of eyewitnesses Reposo and Babor were clear, consistent, and credible. Their positive identification of the appellants prevailed over the weak defense of alibi, which was not physically impossible. On the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the Court found it present in both killings. The attack on the young Rodrigo, who was chased and unable to defend himself, was sudden and deliberate, ensuring the execution without risk to the assailants. For Enrique, who was similarly attacked while fishing, the mode of execution—a sudden hacking from behind—directly and specially ensured the attack without any opportunity for defense. The Court clarified that abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery. The finding of conspiracy was sustained based on the appellants’ coordinated actions in pursuing and attacking the victims, indicating a common criminal purpose.