G.R. No. 124215 July 31, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Elezer Galapin and Ernesto Beira, Jr., accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Elezer Galapin and Ernesto Beira, Jr. were charged with murder for the death of Roberto Pillora on January 30, 1994, in Himamaylan, Negros Occidental. The information alleged conspiracy, evident premeditation, and treachery. Both pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from eyewitness Regemer Gutierrez (a 9-year-old nephew of the victim), established that at about 8:30 p.m., the victim Roberto Pillora was drinking with Elezer Galapin and Ernesto Beira, Jr. at a store. After an argument and as Roberto stood to leave, Ernesto Beira, Jr. held Roberto’s hands from behind and pulled down his jacket, forcing Roberto to kneel. Elezer Galapin then stabbed Roberto in the chest with a fan knife. The victim’s wife, Lydia Pillora, testified to a prior conflict between the victim and the Galapin family, dating back to 1983. The medico-legal report confirmed death was due to a single stab wound. The defense presented a different version, with Elezer Galapin claiming self-defense, stating he stabbed Roberto during a struggle after Roberto pulled a knife. Ernesto Beira, Jr. presented an alibi, claiming he was elsewhere at the time. The trial court convicted both of murder qualified by treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, sentencing them to life imprisonment and ordering solidary indemnity.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages. The Court found the testimony of the child eyewitness, Regemer Gutierrez, credible, straightforward, and consistent with the medico-legal findings. The defense of self-defense by Elezer Galapin failed as he did not prove the elements of unlawful aggression, necessity of means, and lack of sufficient provocation; the absence of defensive wounds on the victim negated a struggle. The Court agreed with the trial court that treachery was present because the attack was sudden, from behind, and rendered the victim defenseless as he was restrained by Ernesto Beira, Jr. However, the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength was absorbed in treachery. The Court rejected Ernesto Beira, Jr.’s alibi as weak and positively overcome by his clear identification as a conspirator who restrained the victim. The penalty was modified to reclusion perpetua, as “life imprisonment” is not the proper technical term. The indemnity was increased to P50,000.00, and moral damages of P25,000.00 were awarded. The accused-appellants were credited with full preventive detention time if they agreed in writing to abide by disciplinary rules for convicted prisoners.