G.R. No. 116511 February 12, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. COLOMA TABAG, SARENAS TABAG, MARCELINO TABAG, FERNANDO MAGLINTE, JR., ARTEMIO AWOD, LAURENO AWOD, ROMEO AGUIPO, LEOPOLDO LEONCIO and ERNESTO MAWANG, accused. COLOMA TABAG and SARENAS TABAG, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On March 11, 1984, the Magdasal family—spouses Welbino Sr. and Wendelyn, and their children Welbino Jr. and Melisa—were massacred in their home in New Corella, Davao. Initial investigations yielded no suspects. The case broke in 1985 when ICHDF member Ernesto Mawang and later Pablo Oca executed sworn statements implicating a team led by Sarenas Tabag in the killings. An information for multiple murder was filed against several accused, including appellants Sarenas Tabag and Coloma Tabag. The trial proceeded primarily against Sarenas, Coloma, and Romeo Aguipo after other co-accused remained at large or escaped. The prosecution presented witnesses, including co-conspirator Pablo Oca, who testified to the appellants’ direct participation in the shooting of the victims.
The defense claimed alibi and asserted that the killings were a legitimate military operation against suspected New People’s Army supporters. Appellants argued they were following superior orders. The trial court convicted Sarenas Tabag, Coloma Tabag, and Romeo Aguipo of four counts of murder, sentencing each to four terms of reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay indemnities. Only Sarenas and Coloma appealed the decision.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of appellants Sarenas Tabag and Coloma Tabag for the crime of multiple murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of prosecution witness Pablo Oca, a co-conspirator, to be credible and corroborated. Oca provided a detailed account of how appellants and their group surrounded the house and fired upon the victims, establishing conspiracy through their collective and coordinated actions. The defense of alibi and superior orders was rejected. For the defense of superior orders to be valid, the orders must be lawful, and the act performed must be in lawful exercise of a right or office. The massacre of an entire family, including children, was a brutal and unlawful act that could never be considered a lawful military operation. The killing of unarmed civilians, especially minors, constitutes a crime against persons, not a legitimate act of war. The presence of treachery (alevosia) was correctly appreciated by the trial court, as the attack was sudden and deliberate, rendering the victims defenseless. The qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, however, was not sufficiently proven. The Court modified the award of damages but sustained the penalties of reclusion perpetua for each count of murder.