G.R. No. 132915. August 6, 2002.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SUNNY GARCIA and RODEL CRISTOBAL, accused, SUNNY GARCIA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On December 31, 1995, around 11:15 P.M., Linda Mendoza Benitez was at her Pasay City residence with her husband, Edgardo Benitez, when four men arrived. Three, led by Rodel Cristobal (live-in partner of Edgardo’s sister), entered the house; the fourth waited outside. Linda heard explosions, then found her husband slumped and bleeding. Before dying, Edgardo identified “Rodel” as the shooter. The visitors fled. Edgardo was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. An autopsy revealed three gunshot wounds. Appellant Sunny Garcia was later arrested and identified by Linda as one of the visitors. Co-accused Rodel Cristobal was arrested while hospitalized for a gunshot wound but later escaped. The prosecution presented witnesses, including Linda and police officers. Appellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi, claiming he was at home drinking with family and friends during the incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordering indemnity and damages. Only Sunny Garcia appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convict accused-appellant Sunny Garcia.
2. Whether conspiracy exists in the commission of the crime.
3. Whether the qualifying circumstance of superior strength was correctly appreciated.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction with MODIFICATION.
1. Sufficiency of Evidence: The prosecution evidence, though circumstantial, is sufficient. Circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction if there is more than one circumstance, the facts are proven, and the combination produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances—appellant and his companions went to the victim’s house, stayed briefly, one acted as a look-out, they fled immediately after the shooting, and the victim was shot multiple times at close range—form an unbroken chain consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. Appellant’s defense of alibi, uncorroborated by disinterested witnesses and not physically impossible, cannot prevail over positive identification.
2. Conspiracy: Conspiracy exists. The collective actions of the accused—going together to the victim’s house, the presence of a look-out, and their simultaneous flight after the shooting—demonstrate a common purpose to kill the victim. Direct proof of prior agreement is not necessary; conspiracy can be inferred from conduct.
3. Qualifying Circumstance: The qualifying circumstance of treachery is present, not superior strength. The attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The information alleged treachery, and the evidence supports it. However, the trial court erred in appreciating superior strength, as it was not alleged in the information. Treachery qualifies the killing to murder.
4. Damages: The award of P500,000 for loss of earning capacity is deleted for lack of sufficient proof of the victim’s net income. The Court modified the damages: P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P40,000 as actual damages (for wake and burial expenses). The penalty of reclusion perpetua is affirmed.