GR 143764; (February, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143764 ; February 15, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee vs. SAM HINAUT, JESSIE HINAUT, JONATHAN HINAUT and DIOSDADO HINAUT (at large), accused. SAM HINAUT, appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of September 19, 1999, in Barangay Bunga, Oroquieta City, Barangay Kagawad Advenicer Lumacang and Paquito Salibay were walking home after buying cigarettes. They encountered a group, including appellant Sam Hinaut and his co-accused, drinking tuba. Jonathan Hinaut confronted Salibay, alleging he had belittled their family. After a brief exchange and Salibay accepting a drink, Diosdado Hinaut suddenly hacked Salibay on the back with a bolo. Appellant Sam Hinaut immediately followed with another hack, and Jessie Hinaut then stabbed Salibay with a hunting knife. Lumacang, who witnessed the attack from about five meters away, fled and reported the incident. Salibay died from his wounds.
Appellant Sam Hinaut was later arrested and charged with Murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength and treachery, alongside his co-accused. He pleaded not guilty, denying participation and claiming the fatal wound was caused by Jessie Hinaut’s stab, not his hack. The trial court convicted him based primarily on the eyewitness account of Lumacang.
ISSUE
Whether the testimony of a lone eyewitness, Advenicer Lumacang, is sufficient to sustain appellant Sam Hinaut’s conviction for Murder beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s reliance on the positive and credible testimony of the lone eyewitness, Advenicer Lumacang. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction. Lumacang’s account was clear, categorical, and consistent. He positively identified appellant as one of the assailants who hacked the victim from behind. His testimony was corroborated by physical evidence, specifically the Medicolegal Report and photographs showing the location and nature of the victim’s wounds on his back, which supported the sequence of the attack and the use of superior strength.
The Court found no ill motive for Lumacang to falsely testify against appellant. Appellant’s defense of denial could not prevail over the positive identification. The simultaneous, concerted attack by multiple armed assailants against an unarmed and unsuspecting victim constituted the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, which absorbed treachery. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was thus proper. The Court modified the damages, reducing the death indemnity to P50,000 and actual damages to P10,200, as only the latter amount was duly supported by receipts.