GR 126047; (September, 1999) (Digest)

G.R. No. 126047 September 16, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEOPOLDO AQUINO alias Poldong and LORETO AQUINO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On the night of December 23, 1988, Loreto Cecilio attended a Christmas dance in Bgy. Dulao, Aringay, La Union. Prosecution witness Pablo Medriano Jr. was at a store near the dance hall. The accused-appellants, brothers Leopoldo and Loreto Aquino, were drinking at the back of the same store. After a separate fight between two groups was pacified, the Aquino brothers approached and challenged Pablo Medriano to a fight, referencing a past stoning incident he denied. Fearing for his life, Pablo ran towards his uncle’s house. Upon looking back, he saw the Aquino brothers mauling Loreto Cecilio: Leopoldo was hugging the victim from behind while Loreto was boxing and hitting him. Leopoldo then hit the already dazed victim on the neck with a stone, causing him to fall. The victim was rushed to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival. A post-mortem examination confirmed death was caused by a strong force from a blunt object on the right side of the neck. The defense presented a different account, claiming a free-for-all erupted between groups including Pablo Medriano and the victim, and that the Aquino brothers went home to avoid trouble. They denied involvement, stating the victim was a stranger. The trial court convicted them of murder, finding Pablo Medriano’s positive identification credible and the defense of denial weak.

ISSUE

The issues raised by the accused-appellants are: (1) whether conspiracy and the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength were correctly appreciated; (2) whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should have been considered; (3) whether the exhumation report/postmortem findings were properly admitted; (4) whether reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness was proper; and (5) whether the trial court failed to observe judicial neutrality.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.
1. On Conspiracy and Abuse of Superior Strength: Conspiracy was duly proven as the brothers acted in concert with unity of purpose—one holding the victim while the other attacked him. Direct proof of prior agreement is not required; it can be inferred from their coordinated actions. Abuse of superior strength was also correctly appreciated. The two brothers took advantage of their combined strength against the unarmed and helpless victim. Premeditation is not necessary; it is enough that the accused employed their notorious superiority in strength to commit the crime.
2. On Voluntary Surrender: The claim of voluntary surrender was rejected. The records showed the accused were arrested by police officers, and there was no clear and positive evidence that they voluntarily surrendered themselves to authorities.
3. On the Exhumation Report: The post-mortem findings were properly admitted. The defense’s objection went to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence. The report corroborated the eyewitness account of the fatal blow with a stone.
4. On Uncorroborated Testimony: The testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction. The court found Pablo Medriano’s testimony clear, convincing, and consistent. His familiarity with the accused and the well-lit conditions at the scene bolstered his credibility. His positive testimony outweighed the negative denials of the defense.
5. On Judicial Neutrality: The claim that the trial court acted as a prosecutor was without merit. The court’s active questioning was within its prerogative to clarify issues and ascertain the truth, especially given the accused’s refusal to hire counsel and decision to represent themselves.