G.R. No. 120550 September 26, 1997
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Antolin Hayahay, Orlando Licanda, Edito Comedia y Conake, alias “Palang,” Serafin Moreles y Palompon, Zaldy Billentes y Oab, Miliano Olasiman y Villarosa, Dionisio Olasiman y Villarosa and Antonio Olasiman y Villarosa, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The accused-appellants were charged with murder for the killing of Gorgonio Lapu-Lapu on November 2, 1990, in Barangay Sto. Niño, San Vicente, Palawan. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of Ramil Lapu-Lapu, the victim’s brother and sole eyewitness. He testified that at about 7:00 p.m., while he and the victim were on their way to buy fish, they were suddenly accosted by the eight appellants. Edito Comedia stabbed Gorgonio on the chest, while Antolin Hayahay and Orlando Licanda stabbed him at the back. Dionisio Olasiman clubbed him on the head with an iron bar. Serafin Moreles hit him with a piece of wood. Miliano Olasiman and Zaldy Billentes repeatedly boxed and kicked him. Ramil was about five meters away, the scene was illuminated by a full moon and kerosene lamps, and he knew all the assailants as they lived in the same barrio. After the attack, Ramil ran home, was pursued by Moreles, and later returned to find his brother dying. The prosecution also presented evidence of a motive: a few days prior, appellant Hayahay had a heated argument with the victim after Hayahay accused the victim’s wife of wearing his clothes. The autopsy revealed the victim suffered eleven stab wounds, four of which were fatal. The appellants raised defenses of denial and alibi. Only Hayahay admitted being near the scene, claiming he was in a neighbor’s house where a commotion occurred, and he did not see the assailants. The other appellants claimed they were elsewhere. The trial court convicted all eight appellants of murder.

ISSUE

The main issues were: (1) the credibility of the prosecution’s eyewitness, Ramil Lapu-Lapu; (2) whether the guilt of the accused-appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) whether conspiracy and the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength were correctly established.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. It held that the testimony of eyewitness Ramil Lapu-Lapu was credible, straightforward, and consistent. His proximity to the crime scene, adequate illumination, and familiarity with the assailants bolstered his identification. The Court found the defenses of denial and alibi weak and unsubstantiated, especially as they were not physically impossible for the appellants to be at the crime scene. Conspiracy was duly proven by the concerted actions of the eight appellants in assaulting the victim. The crime was qualified as murder due to the presence of both treachery and abuse of superior strength. The attack was sudden and unprovoked, rendering the victim defenseless. The number of assailants (eight), five of whom were armed, against one unarmed victim constituted notorious inequality of force. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of civil indemnity were affirmed.