G.R. No. 118331 May 3, 1999
People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo Agsunod, Jr. y Bibay

FACTS

On the evening of July 7, 1992, accused-appellant Rodrigo Agsunod, Jr., along with five armed companions in fatigue uniforms, arrived at the house of barangay councilman Rodolfo Sebastian. After inquiring about the victim and being told he was not home, the group forced the victim’s son, Reymundo, to accompany them to a nearby house to confiscate a firearm. The group then returned to the Sebastian residence, where Rodolfo had just arrived. Upon seeing the armed group, Rodolfo rushed towards his house. Appellant immediately fired at him with the confiscated rifle, grazing his chest. As the wounded victim tried to reach safety, appellant’s companions fired their armalites, killing Rodolfo on the spot.
Appellant was arrested ten months later and positively identified by eyewitnesses Reymundo and Purificacion Sebastian, the victim’s son and wife. He was charged with Murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength, evident premeditation, and treachery. The trial court convicted him of Murder qualified by abuse of superior strength and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Appellant appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy and his identity as the perpetrator.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the crime of Murder.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, Reymundo and Purificacion Sebastian, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent on material points. They positively identified appellant as the one who initiated the attack by firing the first shot, after which his companions joined in. Their identification was reliable despite the lapse of ten months before appellant’s arrest, as they had a clear view of the incident under adequate lighting conditions and their recollection was unwavering.
The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was correctly appreciated. Appellant and his five companions were all armed, some with high-powered rifles, against an unarmed victim who was shot while fleeing. This clearly constituted a situation of gross physical inequality. The defense of alibi was rightly rejected for being weak and uncorroborated by credible evidence, especially in light of the positive identification. The award of P50,000 as civil indemnity was affirmed, and the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed as the medium period of the penalty for Murder absent any modifying circumstances.