G.R. No. 137014; January 16, 2002
ANTONIETO LABONG @ ONIET, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Antonieto Labong was charged with homicide for the death of Raul Batulan. The prosecution’s eyewitness, barangay official Judy Rom, testified that on the night of January 31, 1993, he saw petitioner and his brother Ferdinand dragging Batulan. Petitioner held the victim with his arm locked around the neck. When Rom intervened, petitioner warned him not to interfere. Petitioner and Ferdinand then pounded the victim’s head with handguns, after which their other brother, Aplonieto, stabbed Batulan several times in the stomach. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.
The petitioner presented a different version, claiming self-defense. He alleged that a verbal altercation with Batulan escalated, and when he attempted to placate the situation, Batulan fired two shots at him, wounding him. He claimed he lost consciousness and was unaware of the subsequent stabbing. Only petitioner was arrested and tried, as his two co-accused brothers remained at large. The trial court convicted him of homicide, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals with the modification of deleting an award for burial expenses.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction based on the finding of conspiracy and the credibility of the lone eyewitness testimony, despite petitioner’s claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The petition raised factual issues, which are generally not reviewable in an appeal via certiorari under Rule 45. Nevertheless, the Court found the evidence sufficient. The positive, clear, and categorical testimony of eyewitness Judy Rom, who saw petitioner actively participate by holding the victim and pounding his head, was deemed credible. Minor inconsistencies in his account did not affect his overall credibility, which was bolstered by the medico-legal report corroborating the violent cause of death.
Conspiracy was correctly inferred from the petitioners’ concerted actions. Although there was no proof of a prior agreement, the acts of petitioner and his brothers—wherein petitioner restrained the victim, Ferdinand assisted in the attack, and Aplonieto delivered the fatal stabs—demonstrated a joint purpose and community of design. The claim of self-defense was rejected as self-serving and uncorroborated, and it could not prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness. Thus, the appellate court committed no reversible error.