G.R. No. 177302 , April 16, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JAIME LOPEZ, ROGELIO REGALADO, AND ROMEO ARAGON, Appellants.

FACTS

On April 25, 1996, at around 3:30 p.m., in Hinatuan, Surigao del Sur, appellants Jaime Lopez, Rogelio Regalado, and Romeo Aragon were charged with Murder for the killing of Edencito Chu. The prosecution’s evidence established that Regalado initially called out Chu, challenged him, and upon Chu’s emergence and attempt to apologize, stabbed him below the left nipple with a curved knife. As Chu fled, Regalado chased him, picking up firewood to hit him. Lopez and Aragon then joined the chase. The three appellants cornered Chu at a street corner, where Aragon boxed and kicked him, causing him to fall, and Lopez proceeded to stab him multiple times while Regalado looked on. Chu died from his wounds. Post-mortem and autopsy reports revealed multiple stab wounds, including one penetrating the heart. The appellants raised separate defenses: Regalado claimed Chu attacked him first; Lopez invoked defense of a relative and self-defense, alleging he intervened to protect Regalado; and Aragon interposed alibi, claiming he was at a wharf buying fish during the incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted all three appellants of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, with damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether conspiracy attended the killing of the victim.
2. Whether the defenses interposed by the appellants (alibi, self-defense, defense of a relative) should be upheld.
3. Whether the appellants were correctly convicted of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision.
1. Conspiracy was present. The appellants cooperated in a common design to kill Chu: Regalado initiated the attack by stabbing Chu; Lopez and Aragon joined in chasing and cornering him; Aragon boxed and kicked Chu to subdue him; and Lopez delivered multiple fatal stab wounds. Their coordinated actions demonstrated a unity of purpose and execution, establishing conspiracy.
2. The appellants’ defenses were unmeritorious. Regalado’s claim of being attacked was belied by eyewitness accounts. Lopez’s invocation of defense of a relative and self-defense failed, as the evidence showed he pursued and stabbed an already fleeing and cornered victim, indicating aggression rather than defense. Aragon’s alibi was rejected because the wharf where he claimed to be was not so far as to preclude his presence at the crime scene, and his presence was positively identified by prosecution witnesses.
3. The crime committed was Murder qualified by treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, leaving Chu with no opportunity to defend himself. The manner of execution—initiated by a stab from Regalado, followed by concerted pursuit, cornering, and multiple stabbings by Lopez while Chu was incapacitated by Aragon’s blows—ensured the victim’s helplessness, constituting treachery. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and awarded damages were upheld.
The Supreme Court emphasized that factual findings of the trial court, especially when based on credible eyewitness testimony, are entitled to great weight and respect. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.