G.R. No. 196434 ; October 24, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. CHITO NAZARENO, Respondent.

FACTS

Accused Chito Nazareno and Fernando Saliendra were charged with murder for the killing of David Valdez. The prosecution evidence established that after a prior altercation at a wake, Nazareno and Saliendra waited for the victim and his companions. On the night of November 11, 1993, they blocked David’s path. Nazareno struck David with a stick while Saliendra hit his head with a stone. When David attempted to flee, both accused, aided by other barangay tanods, chased and continued to assault him until he fell unconscious. The victim later died from massive intra-cranial hemorrhage. Only Nazareno was tried as Saliendra remained at-large. Nazareno interposed an alibi, claiming he was out buying milk and merely witnessed a commotion.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Nazareno of murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength and aggravated by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the ruling, finding that treachery was not present. It upheld the murder conviction solely on the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether conspiracy existed between Nazareno and Saliendra; and (2) whether the killing was qualified by abuse of superior strength.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On conspiracy, the Court ruled it was sufficiently proven. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof of prior agreement is not necessary; it can be inferred from the perpetrators’ conduct indicating a common design. Here, the acts of Nazareno and Saliendra—jointly waiting for the victim, simultaneously attacking him with a stick and a stone, and collectively chasing him with others—demonstrated concerted action aimed at causing serious harm. The act of one conspirator is the act of all; thus, Nazareno is liable for the fatal blow delivered by Saliendra. Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies did not weaken credibility but instead indicated spontaneity. Nazareno’s alibi was correctly rejected as he failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.
Regarding the qualifying circumstance, the Court upheld the finding of abuse of superior strength. This circumstance is present when the aggressors purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the victim. The attack involved multiple assailants (Nazareno, Saliendra, and other tanods) employing weapons (a stick and a stone) against an unarmed victim who was overwhelmed and unable to defend himself. This collective and armed assault constituted a deliberate use of superior strength to ensure the attack. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, and damages were modified in line with prevailing jurisprudence.