G.R. No. 133439 ; December 26, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ULDARICO PANADO, RONIE PANADO, RONEL PANADO, JESSIE OQUENDO (At large), JOHN PAUL ELESERIO (At large), and JOHN DOE (At large), accused. ULDARICO PANADO, RONIE PANADO AND RONEL PANADO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The accused-appellants, Uldarico Panado and his sons Ronie and Ronel, were convicted of Murder for the killing of Danilo del Rosario and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution evidence established that on June 28, 1997, the appellants, along with other accused who remained at large, armed with assorted weapons, surrounded the victim’s house. Witness Hilda del Rosario, the victim’s wife, testified that Uldarico, with a bolo, approached her husband Danilo, who was then challenged by Ronie to a fight. As Danilo stepped out, he was encircled by Ronie, Ronel, and John Paul Eleserio. After Danilo tripped, Uldarico attacked him with a bolo, Ronel stabbed him, and Ronie smashed his head with a stone. The victim’s son, Louie Gee, corroborated this account, specifically identifying Ronel as the stabber and Ronie as the one who used a stone.
The defense interposed alibi. Uldarico, Ronie, and Ronel claimed they were working at a carpentry job in the Poblacion at the time of the killing, an assertion supported by their alleged employer and a neighbor. Another accused, Placido Panado (who was acquitted by the trial court), also claimed he was repairing a roof elsewhere. A defense witness, Nathaniel Montaño, offered a different version, testifying he saw the victim fire a gun at a certain Lorenzo de Pedro earlier that afternoon.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the positive identification by the eyewitnesses, Hilda del Rosario and Louie Gee, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. Their testimonies clearly established the appellants’ direct participation in the concerted attack that led to Danilo del Rosario’s death. The Court rejected the defense of alibi, noting it is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses. The testimonies of the defense witnesses were deemed insufficient to cast reasonable doubt, especially as the defense failed to prove the physical impossibility for the appellants to have been at the crime scene.
Regarding the qualifying circumstances, the Court upheld the trial court’s finding of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that denied the victim any opportunity to defend himself. The victim was unarmed, drinking in his home, when the armed group surrounded the house and launched the assault, ensuring the execution of the killing without risk to the assailants. The Court modified the awards for damages. In addition to civil indemnity, the appellants were ordered to pay ₱514,800.00 for loss of earning capacity, calculated based on the victim’s life expectancy and net income. Significantly, the Court also awarded moral damages of ₱50,000.00, ruling that such damages are inherent in cases of violent death and are due to the family’s emotional suffering even without specific proof, as the fact of such anguish is undisputed. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for each appellant was sustained.