GR 116721; (May, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116721 May 29, 1997
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NEMESIO BALANO and MORENO ALMENIANA, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Nemesio Balano, the local police chief, and Moreno Almeniana, along with other police and CAFGU members, were charged with the murder of Allan Ardonio. The incident occurred following a barangay fiesta dance where a fistfight erupted between the victim, Allan, and Emmanuel “Eiman” Balano, Nemesio’s nephew. The fight was pacified by Nemesio. Later, Eiman was found shot dead. Subsequently, Allan’s mother, Violeta Ardonio, testified that around 1:00 a.m., she saw appellants and their companions dragging, beating, and finally shooting Allan while he was kneeling and then prostrate. Her testimony was corroborated by Elvis Calubia, who saw the appellants take Allan from his grandfather’s house. The autopsy confirmed Allan died from multiple gunshot wounds to the head.
The defense interposed alibi and denial. Nemesio claimed he had taken Allan for investigation after Eiman’s death but released him, later finding his body after hearing gunshots. Almeniana claimed he was searching for his son. They suggested Eiman’s relatives could have been the assailants. The trial court convicted Balano and Almeniana of murder, qualifying it with abuse of superior strength, and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua with damages. Their co-accused were acquitted.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellants of murder based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Violeta Ardonio, who had no ill motive to falsely testify, prevailed over the weak defenses of alibi and denial. Her detailed account of seeing the appellants drag, maul, and shoot her son was credible and consistent. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment of her credibility. The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was correctly appreciated. The appellants, armed and with several companions, attacked the unarmed and helpless victim, employing force clearly disproportionate to any means of defense he might have had. This constituted purposely using excessive force out of proportion to the means of the person attacked. However, the Court modified the damages awarded. The award of moral damages was deleted for lack of factual basis, as the records did not substantiate the heirs’ claim for such. The civil indemnity for death was set at P50,000.00, and the P40,000.00 for burial expenses was upheld as actual damages. The decision was affirmed with this modification.