G.R. No. 112731 July 18, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Salvador Caras, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Salvador Caras, alias “Badong,” was convicted of two counts of murder for the deaths of Pfc. Elino Apolinario and Guillermo Carcellar on the evening of August 28, 1984, in Sto. Niño, Samar. The prosecution’s version, as established by witnesses including Francisco Apolinario (brother of Elino), is that a drinking session was held at the house of Troadio Ramirez, attended by Sgt. Antonio Cabasares, Francisco, appellant, and others. When victim Elino Apolinario arrived to buy beer, Cabasares invited him in, offered him drinks, and later assaulted him outside after Elino tried to leave. A struggle ensued where Elino pinned Cabasares, who then shouted for help. Appellant, armed with an armalite, responded with other companions. Cabasares ordered the group to go to Elino’s house. There, Cabasares dragged Elino outside, and upon his order to kill, appellant fired a volley of bullets from his armalite, hitting Elino. Cabasares then used the same weapon to shoot Elino again inside the house. Cabasares also shot Guillermo Carcellar, who was hiding in a corner. Appellant later used Elino’s service armalite to strafe the inside of the house. The appellant admitted killing the two victims but invoked the justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger, claiming he shot Carcellar when he perceived Carcellar was about to kill Cabasares during a struggle. The trial court found appellant guilty of two counts of murder and imposed indeterminate penalties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count and ordered indemnity and damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Salvador Caras for two counts of murder and properly modified the penalty and damages.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in toto. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the credible and consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses, sufficient to prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant’s claim of defense of a stranger was rejected as untenable and unsupported by evidence, noting that the aggression had already ceased when appellant intervened, and his use of excessive force was unjustified. The qualifying aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present, elevating the killings to murder. The generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, resulting in the imposition of the medium period of the penalty for murder, which is reclusion perpetua for each count. The Court also affirmed the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the heirs of each victim.