G.R. No. 129782 ; June 29, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. BALWINDER SINGH, GURMOK SINGH, DALVIR SINGH, DIAL SINGH, AMARJIT SINGH, MOHINDER SINGH, MALKIT SINGH DHILLON, JOHINDER SINGH and KULDIP SINGH, defendant, BALWINDER SINGH, MALKIT SINGH, MOHINDER SINGH and DALVIR SINGH, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Appellants Balwinder Singh, Malkit Singh Dhillon, Mohinder Singh, and Dalvir Singh, along with six other Indian nationals (some at-large, one deceased), were charged with Murder for killing Surinder Singh and Frustrated Murder for stabbing Dilbag Singh. The incident occurred on November 26, 1993, in Biñan, Laguna. According to the prosecution witness Dilbag Singh, the group of ten arrived shouting, demanded Surinder Singh come out, and upon his appearance, Dalvir Singh stabbed him after others held him. When Dilbag Singh tried to intervene, Balwinder Singh stabbed him. The victims were brought to the hospital where Surinder Singh was pronounced dead. After preliminary proceedings and a reinvestigation, two Informations for Murder and Frustrated Murder were filed against all ten accused. Only the four appellants were prosecuted. At trial, appellant Dalvir Singh presented a different version, claiming he was accosted by the victims, a struggle ensued over a knife, and Surinder Singh was accidentally stabbed during the grapple while Dilbag Singh was also hit. The trial court convicted the appellants.

ISSUE

The core issue is the correctness of the appellants’ conviction for Murder and Frustrated Murder, which hinges on the credibility of the witnesses and the establishment of conspiracy, qualifying circumstances, and the defense of self-defense or accident.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It found the testimony of the prosecution witness, Dilbag Singh, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. The Court rejected the appellants’ version of events, noting it was not credible and was corroborated by a witness who admitted testifying as a favor. The Court ruled that conspiracy was sufficiently established by the appellants’ collective and coordinated actions in assaulting the victims. For the killing of Surinder Singh, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present, as the unarmed victim was held by several assailants and attacked with weapons, making the crime Murder. The Court modified the damages awarded, deleting actual damages for lack of documentary evidence but awarding temperate damages, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the heirs of Surinder Singh, and civil indemnity and moral damages to Dilbag Singh. The penalties imposed by the trial court were affirmed.