G.R. No. 116233 October 13, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RENATO GAILO, RUDY GAILO, RONALDO GAILO @ “Mukong”, JERRY GAILO, BUDOY GALLANTES and PABLO DELOS REYES, accused, RENATO GAILO and RUDY GAILO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Renato and Rudy Gailo, along with four others, were charged with Murder for the killing of Mario Mañale on November 28, 1990, in Jordan, Guimaras. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Fernando Sotela and Rolando Portillo. Sotela testified that after a drinking session, the victim was attacked near Ronaldo Gailo’s house. He saw Ronaldo stab the victim on the face, Renato stab him on the back, and Rudy hit him with a lead pipe. Three other accused later arrived and helped stone the victim. Portillo, who went looking for the victim, testified from a distance of 15 meters, with the aid of moonlight, that he saw Rudy hit the victim with a pipe and Renato stab him while the victim was held by others. The defense, primarily through the testimony of accused’s mother Mercedes Gailo, claimed that only Ronaldo Gailo was responsible for the killing, alleging a prior altercation at a store.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of accused-appellants Renato and Rudy Gailo for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by two eyewitnesses, who knew the appellants beforehand, prevailed over the denial and alibi of the defense. The Court found the testimonies of Sotela and Portillo credible, consistent, and corroborated by the necropsy report indicating multiple wounds inflicted by different weapons and assailants. The defense of alibi was weak, as appellants failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. The Court upheld the trial court’s finding of conspiracy, inferred from the appellants’ collective and coordinated actions in assaulting the victim. The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was properly appreciated due to the six assailants attacking a single, unarmed victim. However, treachery was not established, as the initial attack was not shown to be so sudden and unexpected that the victim was deprived of any chance to defend himself. The crime was committed without any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Applying the law prior to R.A. No. 7659, the penalty for Murder is reclusion temporal maximum to death. With no modifying circumstances, the medium penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed. The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P17,786.00 as actual damages for burial expenses was sustained.