GR 132026; (June, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132026 -27. June 28, 2001.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MARIO ABENDAN, JULIAN PADIGOS and PRIMITIVO “Tebong” ABENDAN, appellants.
FACTS
Appellants Mario Abendan, Julian Padigos, and Primitivo Abendan were charged with two counts of murder for the deaths of Olimpia Cañeda and Samuel Tardin, and one count of frustrated murder for the wounding of Carmelita Cañeda. The incidents occurred on the evening of June 7, 1993, in Cebu City. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from eyewitnesses Pedro Cañeda and Carmelita Cañeda, established that several armed men, including the appellants, entered the victims’ nipa house. Mario Abendan kicked open the door, shot Samuel Tardin in the head and chin, and later shot Olimpia Cañeda in the head after she pleaded for her life. When Carmelita Cañeda tried to flee, Julian Padigos shot her in the thigh. The defense of the appellants consisted of denial and alibi. Mario Abendan claimed he was drinking in Consolacion, Cebu, at the time of the incident. The Regional Trial Court found all three appellants guilty as charged. They appealed the decision.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt, which hinges on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses versus the defenses of denial and alibi, and the establishment of conspiracy.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions. The Court reiterated the following doctrines: (1) positive identification by credible witnesses prevails over denial and alibi; (2) delay in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses; and (3) once conspiracy is established, the act of one is considered the act of all. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses clear, consistent, and credible. The defenses of denial and alibi were weak and uncorroborated. Conspiracy was evident from the appellants’ collective and coordinated actions in carrying out the attacks. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, as the victims were attacked suddenly and while asleep, ensuring the execution without risk to the assailants. The Court modified the awards for damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence but upheld the penalties imposed by the trial court.