G.R. No. 125698. July 19, 2001.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO HAPA y EBASCO, CLARO FERATERO y ENCINARES, AMADOR ESPAÑO y OFALSA and CONRADO ENTERESO y HAPA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On June 14, 1977, in Casiguran, Sorsogon, accused Francisco Hapa, Claro Feratero, Amador España, and Conrado Entereso were charged with murder for the death of Leoniso Hermo. The information alleged they conspired, armed with bladed weapons, and attacked the victim with treachery and evident premeditation. All accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution witness Delfina Gratil testified that at around 2:30 a.m., from her house window illuminated by a nearby lamppost, she saw the victim held by two persons, with Francisco Hapa in front and another behind. She heard Francisco say, “Where is your house, you are our target?” and after the victim replied, “What is my fault?” Francisco repeated, “you are our target.” Francisco then pulled a bladed instrument from his jacket and stabbed the victim. Witness Benerando Hitosis corroborated, stating he saw the four accused, armed with bladed instruments, running after the incident. Evelyn Hadap testified that three accused fled to her house afterward. Dr. Evanswinda Ansus Demate’s autopsy confirmed the cause of death was a stab wound to the chest from a sharp instrument. The victim’s mother, Fidela Hermo, testified to seeing three accused fleeing with weapons. The defense denied participation, claiming they attended the dance and were elsewhere, but the trial court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity to the heirs.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Delfina Gratil, corroborated by other witnesses, was credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Her testimony was clear, consistent, and given under adequate illumination from a nearby lamppost. The flight of the accused after the incident and their apprehension by barrio people further indicated guilt. The killing was qualified by treachery (alevosia), as the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim had no chance to defend himself. The court found conspiracy among all accused, as their collective actions showed a common purpose to kill. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, and the civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00, with an additional P50,000.00 as moral damages awarded to the victim’s heirs.