G.R. No. 114003 -06. January 14, 1997.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO VIOLIN, REMEGIO YAZAR, CESAR ALLEGO (at large) and EUTIQUIO CHERRIGUENE, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On January 1, 1986, in Barangay San Jose, Daram, Samar, Police Commander Dioscoro Astorga Jr. was killed and his brother Darmo Astorga was wounded. The incident stemmed from a prior request by Barangay Captain Cesar Allego for Dioscoro’s help in settling a dispute. After a failed mediation attempt at Allego’s house, the Astorga brothers spent the night there. The following morning, while drinking with the appellants—Antonio Violin, Eutiquio Cherriguene, and Remegio Yazar—Dioscoro went outside to urinate. Darmo then heard gunshots and saw his wounded brother stagger inside. From his hiding place under a table, Darmo witnessed Violin firing at Dioscoro while shouting about a P50,000 payment from “Cata,” with Yazar and Cherriguene also shooting. A stray bullet grazed Darmo’s head. The appellants were charged with murder and frustrated murder, with the prosecution alleging political motives, as the Astorgas were rivals of the Figueroa family whom the appellants supported.
The trial court convicted Violin, Cherriguene, and Yazar of both murder and frustrated murder. On appeal, they argued that Darmo’s testimony was unreliable and that the evidence failed to prove conspiracy and the qualifying circumstances for murder.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of murder and frustrated murder, and (2) whether the qualifying and aggravating circumstances were correctly appreciated.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction but modified the conviction for frustrated murder. The Court found conspiracy among Violin, Cherriguene, and Yazar established by their coordinated actions in simultaneously attacking the unarmed victim, Dioscoro Astorga Jr., ensuring he had no chance to defend himself. This execution method constituted treachery, qualifying the killing as murder. However, the Court rejected the trial court’s finding of craft and abuse of superior strength as separate aggravating circumstances, as these were already inherent in the treacherous manner of attack.
Regarding the frustrated murder charge for the wounding of Darmo, the Court downgraded it to slight physical injuries for appellant Violin only. The evidence showed Darmo was hit by a stray bullet while hiding; there was no proof that Violin deliberately aimed at him or was even aware of his presence. The element of intent to kill Darmo was absent. Consequently, the Court sentenced Violin, Cherriguene, and Yazar to reclusion perpetua for murder and ordered them to pay indemnity. For the slight physical injuries, Violin was sentenced to ten days of arresto menor. The charges against Cherriguene and Yazar for the wounding of Darmo were dismissed for lack of evidence of their direct participation in that particular injury.