GR 133647; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133647 ; April 12, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ADELIO CONDE y REYES, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Adelio Conde y Reyes was charged with murder for the killing of Nestor Velano on June 11, 1995, in Taguig, Metro Manila. The prosecution alleged that Conde, conspiring with his co-accused Henry Solomon and others, attacked and stabbed Velano with bladed weapons, employing treachery and abuse of superior strength. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Moises Soliman and Imelda Evangelista, who testified that they were with the victim and other members of a Citizens’ Crime Watch Team when they were confronted by a group including Conde. After an initial verbal altercation, the group, including Conde, stabbed Velano multiple times.
The defense presented an alibi. Conde claimed he was attending a barangay mediation conference with his brother-in-law, Leonardo Cipriano, at the time of the incident and was later at home. He asserted he was only implicated to pressure him to produce his brother. The trial court found the prosecution witnesses credible, rejected the alibi, and found Conde guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Adelio Conde y Reyes of murder based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution eyewitnesses, whose positive identification of Conde as a direct participant in the stabbing was categorical and consistent. Their testimonies were deemed more credible than Conde’s weak defense of alibi, which cannot prevail over positive identification. The Court also affirmed the finding of conspiracy. The collective and simultaneous actions of Conde and his cohorts in attacking the victim demonstrated a unity of purpose and design. Consequently, Conde is liable for all acts of his co-conspirators pursuant to the principle that the act of one is the act of all.
Furthermore, the Court agreed with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, denying the victim any opportunity to defend himself. However, the Court modified the damages awarded. While the awards of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages were sustained, the award of exemplary damages was deleted for lack of basis, as no aggravating circumstance was proven aside from the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.