G.R. Nos. 117267-117310 August 22, 1996
Generoso N. Subayco, Alfredo T. Alcalde, and Eleuterio O. Ibañez, petitioners, vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

On September 20, 1985, during the “Welga ng Bayan” protest rally in Escalante, Negros Occidental, twenty demonstrators were killed and twenty-four others were wounded by gunshots from military, police, and paramilitary forces. Forty-five individuals, including civilian officials, Philippine Constabulary and Integrated National Police personnel, and Civilian Home Defense Force members, were charged with multiple counts of Murder and Frustrated Murder. Only twenty-eight accused were arrested and stood trial, as the others remained at large.
After trial, the Sandiganbayan acquitted all accused except petitioners Generoso Subayco, Alfredo Alcalde, and Eleuterio Ibañez. The court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of sixteen counts of Murder and several counts of Frustrated Murder, sentencing them to imprisonment and ordering them to pay indemnities and damages. The petitioners appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court, insisting on their innocence.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioners Subayco, Alcalde, and Ibañez of Murder and Frustrated Murder based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the sufficiency of evidence establishing the petitioners’ direct participation and the absence of a justifying circumstance. The Sandiganbayan meticulously evaluated the testimonies of eyewitnesses who positively identified the petitioners as among those who fired upon the demonstrators. The court found these testimonies credible, consistent, and corroborated by the physical evidence and the nature of the victims’ wounds.
The Supreme Court upheld the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan, emphasizing that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded high respect and is binding unless substantial facts were overlooked. The defense of alibi and denial proffered by the petitioners was rightly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the Court categorically ruled that the dispersal of a peaceful assembly by lethal force is never justified. The constitutional right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances cannot be suppressed through violent means. The petitioners, as law enforcement agents, were duty-bound to protect this right, not violate it through murderous assault. Their actions constituted a grave abuse of authority and a criminal offense, warranting their conviction.