GR 119958; (March, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 119958 -62; March 1, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO MARQUITA and JOSEPH MARQUITA, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Joseph and Alejandro Marquita were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of five counts of murder for the killing of Sergio Pampilo, his wife Rosalinda, and their daughters Merlene, Rosalie, and Sherly. The incident occurred in the early morning of July 4, 1987, following a drinking session between Joseph and Sergio. An altercation ensued after Sergio prohibited others from passing through his dike, leading Sergio to strike Joseph’s face with a bottle. Joseph retaliated by stabbing Sergio. Joseph then proceeded to stab the other victims who were sleeping inside the house. The prosecution’s main witness, Romeo Pampilo, testified that he saw Joseph stab his father and sister Rosalie, and that he saw Alejandro repeatedly hack his mother and other sisters as they fled downstairs.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to convict Alejandro Marquita as a co-conspirator, and (2) whether the killings were qualified by treachery to constitute murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It acquitted Alejandro Marquita but affirmed Joseph Marquita’s conviction, though it reduced the charges from murder to homicide for four counts and upheld one count of murder for Sergio’s killing. The Court found no credible evidence of conspiracy. Romeo Pampilo’s testimony implicating Alejandro was deemed unreliable because it contradicted his prior sworn statement and the physical evidence, which indicated the victims were killed where they slept, not while fleeing. Alejandro’s act of saving a child was consistent with non-participation. Thus, conspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating Alejandro’s acquittal.
Regarding Joseph, the Court ruled that treachery was not established for the killings of the four family members. The prosecution failed to prove that Joseph deliberately employed means to ensure their defenselessness. The attack on them was a sudden, indiscriminate continuation of his rage after killing Sergio, not a methodical execution. However, for the killing of Sergio, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present. Joseph, armed with a bolo, exploited his weaponry against an unarmed victim following a sudden attack, which qualified the crime as murder. The penalty was accordingly adjusted. The civil indemnity awarded by the trial court was sustained.