G.R. No. 82770 October 19, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO PAJARIT y VALENCIA, RODOLFO PAGADOR, JAIME OBRA and JOHN DOES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case involves the killing of Rogelio Carig. The series of events began on May 11, 1975, when Rogelio Carig and accused Rodolfo Pagador were both paying court to Cecilia Palanas at her store. Pagador, with companions, challenged Carig to a fight, but Carig ignored it. Pagador’s group left but threatened to return that night. They did return, walking around Carig’s house until midnight; the group included Pagador, Ricardo Pajarit, Jaime Obra (who carried a gun), and others. This alarmed Eulalia Carig, Rogelio’s mother, who reported it to the police the next morning.
On the evening of May 12, 1975, the group returned to Eulalia’s house. At about eight o’clock, Eulalia was in the yard carrying a kerosene lamp to catch chickens for supper, with Rogelio. By the lamp’s light, she recognized Pajarit, Pagador, and Obra approaching; Obra pointed a flashlight at her face. Sensing trouble, she told Rogelio to go upstairs and preceded him. As Rogelio ascended the stairs, he suddenly cried out, “Mother, bring out the light! I have been stabbed by Carding!” Eulalia and her other son, Juan Gañola, ran to his aid and found him stabbed in the left buttock. They saw the group running away. Rogelio was rushed to the hospital but was dead on arrival from massive hemorrhage. The autopsy revealed the assailant was behind and in a lower position when he struck.
The prosecution presented witnesses, including Eulalia Carig, Juan Gañola, Crispin Ancheta (a supper guest), and Dr. Ernesto Gallardo. The original information for murder was filed against Ricardo Pajarit, Rodolfo Pagador, Jaime Obra, and John Does. The charge against Obra was dropped after he died during trial. Both accused-appellants testified with separate alibis: Pagador claimed he was working on his farm and attending to his mother, corroborated by two witnesses; Pajarit claimed he was at his grandmother’s farm 40 kilometers away, but defense witness Etang Almojuela contradicted him, stating he was at her house on May 12. The trial court convicted Pajarit and Pagador of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and civil indemnity.

ISSUE

The issues raised by the accused-appellants are: (1) whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for conviction; (2) whether they were positively identified; (3) whether conspiracy was proved; (4) whether treachery attended the crime; and (5) whether their defenses of alibi should have been rejected.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision, finding the accused-appellants guilty of homicide, not murder. The Court held that the conviction based on circumstantial evidence was valid, as there was more than one circumstance, the facts were proven, and the combination produced conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Key circumstances included: the prior altercation and threats; the group’s presence at the scene moments before the stabbing; the victim’s dying declaration as part of res gestae, identifying “Carding” (Ricardo Pajarit) as his assailant; and the positive identification by Eulalia Carig and Juan Gañola, who saw the accused-appellants fleeing. The minor inconsistencies in witnesses’ testimonies did not detract from the substance of the declaration.
The Court rejected the alibis. Pajarit’s alibi was contradicted by defense witness Etang Almojuela. Pagador failed to establish physical impossibility of presence, as he lived only 500 meters away. Their alibis could not prevail over positive identification.
Conspiracy was established through circumstantial evidence, including the prior incident, the group’s concerted actions on the two nights, and their united purpose inferred from attendant circumstances.
However, the Court found that treachery was not proven. The mere fact the victim was stabbed from behind did not necessarily constitute treachery, as there was no showing of means employed to directly and specially insure execution without risk. The victim, warned by his mother, could not be said to be totally unprepared. Thus, the killing was homicide, not murder.
The penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the prescribed penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. Civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00. The appealed decision was affirmed as modified.