GR 84449; (March, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 84449 March 4, 1997
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENEDICTO (Benito) JAVIER, ANGELITO (Manolito) JAVIER, REDENCIO (Esteban) JAVIER, DOMINGO JAVIER, and EDWIN DE PERALTA, accused-appellants.
FACTS
The accused-appellants, Angelito, Redencio, and Domingo Javier, along with their father Benedicto and brother-in-law Edwin de Peralta, were charged with the murder of Elmer Publico. The information alleged that on August 3, 1986, in Buguey, Cagayan, they conspired and attacked the victim with pieces of wood, stakes, and a paddle, employing treachery and abuse of superior strength. Benedicto Javier pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide in a separate proceeding and was sentenced. The appellants pleaded not guilty. The prosecution evidence established that the victim, Elmer, was walking with his mother, Candida, when they passed by the house of Benedicto Javier, who was drinking with the appellants and de Peralta. Without provocation, Benedicto and Angelito attacked Elmer with a paddle and a stake. As Elmer fell, Domingo, Redencio, and de Peralta joined in, clubbing the prostrate victim. The attack ceased only upon the arrival of the victim’s brother.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the victim’s mother Candida and brother Juanito, to be credible, consistent, and worthy of belief. Their positive identification of the appellants as participants in the concerted attack was deemed conclusive. The defense of denial and alibi proffered by the appellants was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses. The Court upheld the finding of conspiracy, as the appellants’ collective and simultaneous actions in assaulting the helpless victim demonstrated a community of criminal purpose. The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was correctly appreciated. The attack by five armed men against a single, unarmed victim who was rendered defenseless and beaten while on the ground clearly constituted the deliberate and unequal use of force to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to the assailants. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was thus properly imposed. The Court modified the civil liability by increasing the indemnity to the heirs of the victim to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.