G.R. No. 134928; September 28, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FILOMENO BARNUEVO, DEMETRIO PALACAT, and TERESITO SABALZA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The case originated from the fatal stabbing of Leopoldo Nacman on December 2, 1983, in Abuyog, Leyte. Prosecution eyewitnesses Mauro Valdez and Eduardo Zarzua testified that they saw the three accused-appellants attack Leopoldo. They witnessed Filomeno Barnuevo and Teresito Sabalza boxing and kicking the victim, while Demetrio Palacat stabbed him multiple times with a Batangas knife. The scene was illuminated by light from nearby stores, enabling the witnesses, who were familiar with the appellants, to identify them clearly. The victim’s widow, Emma Nacman, testified that before his death, Leopoldo identified his attackers as the three appellants. The medical findings confirmed multiple stab wounds as the cause of death.
The defense presented a different version, claiming self-defense and lack of conspiracy. They alleged that Leopoldo was the initial aggressor, having boxed Filomeno and drawn a weapon. Demetrio intervened to disarm him, and a struggle ensued. The defense presented several witnesses, including the appellants themselves, to support this narrative. The trial court convicted all three of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but certified the case to the Supreme Court due to the penalty imposed.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the existence of conspiracy and the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses credible, consistent, and positive. Their identification of the appellants was reliable given the sufficient illumination and their prior familiarity with them. The Court rejected the defense of self-defense as the appellants failed to prove unlawful aggression by the victim. The number, location, and severity of the victim’s wounds, inflicted while he was being held by his co-accused, negated any claim of mere self-preservation and instead indicated a concerted effort to kill.
The Court upheld the finding of conspiracy. The appellants’ collective actions—boxing, kicking, and stabbing the victim—demonstrated a unity of purpose and design to kill Leopoldo. Treachery was correctly appreciated because the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the unarmed victim of any chance to defend himself. The Court modified the damages awarded. In addition to the P50,000 civil indemnity, the appellants were ordered to pay P176,000 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity, calculated using the victim’s age (36) and proven monthly income (P1,000) at the time of his death. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.