GR 120283; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120283 ; February 1, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO LUMACANG, PABLO LUMACANG and DOMINGO LUMACANG, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of August 11, 1993, brothers Pedro, Pablo, and Domingo Lumacang, along with companions Rogelio Balan and Nicolas Limosnero, were drinking tuba in Oroquieta City. They later proceeded to a pre-wedding party at Romy Leopoldo’s house. Upon arrival, Pedro suddenly and without warning stabbed their companion, Elmer Salac, in the chest. As Elmer fled, the three brothers pursued him to a nearby banana plantation where they took turns stabbing him. The attack, witnessed by Balan and Limosnero, resulted in Elmer Salac’s death from multiple stab wounds.
The accused brothers were charged with Murder, qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength, and aggravated by nighttime and Pablo’s recidivism. The Regional Trial Court convicted all three. On appeal, Pablo Lumacang argued that the prosecution witnesses were biased, that the qualifying circumstances were not proven, and that the failure to present the murder weapon created reasonable doubt.
ISSUE
Whether the conviction of accused-appellant Pablo Lumacang for the crime of Murder is proper.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed Pablo Lumacang’s conviction. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Rogelio Balan and Nicolas Limosnero to be credible and consistent, despite their relationship with the accused. Their detailed account of the sudden initial attack by Pedro and the subsequent pursuit and joint stabbing by all three brothers established conspiracy. The Court ruled that treachery was present because the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. Abuse of superior strength was absorbed by treachery in this context.
The Court rejected Pablo’s defenses. The claim of witness bias was insufficient to overturn their positive identification. The non-presentation of the specific weapon was immaterial, as the physician testified the numerous wounds were likely inflicted by several weapons, corroborating the witnesses’ account of a collective attack. The Court also correctly disregarded nighttime as an aggravating circumstance, as the prosecution did not prove it was purposely sought to facilitate the crime. The conviction, based on proof beyond reasonable doubt of Pablo’s participation in the conspiracy to kill, was upheld.