G.R. No. 131117; June 14, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. NELSON CARIÑO, DOMINGO BANHAON, LUIS CORCOLON, ROGELIO “BOY” CORCOLON, JOSELITO “LITO” CALONG-CALONG and “BOY PANSIT,” appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, bodyguards of Mayor Antonio Sanchez of Calauan, Laguna, were charged with the murder of Ruben Velecina. The prosecution established that on July 30, 1989, during a pre-nuptial party in Los Baños, the appellants arrived in a convoy. After a brief interaction where appellant Luis Corcolon confirmed the presence of the victim and the host, the appellants positioned themselves near the kitchen of the house. When Ruben Velecina emerged from a nearby comfort room, several appellants simultaneously fired their guns at him. Appellants “Boy Pansit” and Domingo Banhaon acted as armed lookouts during the attack. The assailants then fled, leaving the victim mortally wounded. The motive was traced to the prior killing of Leopoldo Cariño, the brother of co-accused Nelson Cariño, for which Mayor Sanchez suspected the Velecina family.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder, qualified by treachery.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder. The Court found the testimonies of eyewitnesses Valentin Velecina and Edwin Botero credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish the appellants’ identities and collective action. The simultaneous, sudden, and concerted firing by the armed appellants at the unarmed and unsuspecting victim, who had just exited a comfort room, constituted alevosia or treachery. This manner of attack ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the appellants from any defense the victim might make. The Court upheld the finding of conspiracy, as the appellants’ coordinated movements—with some directly attacking and others serving as lookouts—demonstrated a unity of purpose and design to kill. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court modified the damages, awarding civil indemnity, exemplary damages, and temperate damages, but deleted the award for moral damages due to lack of sufficient basis.