GR 128821; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128821 ; April 12, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO ORIO and ROMEO ORIO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of June 28, 1992, in Guiguinto, Bulacan, Domingo Francisco was attacked and killed. Eyewitness Amancia Marcial testified that she heard a commotion and saw Rodolfo Orio armed with a bolo menacingly approach Domingo, who shouted, “Huwag pare, hindi tayo magkatalo!” Romeo Orio then rushed out, pinned Domingo to a wall, and stabbed him with a fan knife while Rodolfo hacked him. The brothers continued their assault despite the victim’s pleas. Domingo died from multiple stab and hack wounds. The accused brothers were charged with Murder, qualified by treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength.
The accused-appellants, brothers Rodolfo and Romeo Orio, denied involvement. Romeo claimed he was merely a bystander who witnessed the incident from his window and then fled upon the police’s arrival out of fear. Rodolfo presented an alibi, asserting he was in Marilao, Bulacan, at the time. They assailed the credibility of eyewitness Amancia Marcial, pointing to alleged inconsistencies in her testimony.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the prosecution evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimony, is credible and sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, emphasizing that such factual findings are generally binding on appeal. The alleged inconsistencies in Amancia Marcial’s testimony were deemed minor and did not detract from the core consistency of her account—that she positively identified both appellants as the perpetrators. Her testimony was clear, straightforward, and remained unshaken on cross-examination. The defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. The Court found the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was correctly appreciated, as the concerted attack by two armed men against an unarmed victim clearly constituted the taking advantage of superior strength to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to themselves. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awarded damages were affirmed.