G.R. No. 87555 November 16, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE DEUNA y DIMDAM, EMMANUEL PLANTA y DANAO alias “Maning”, JOHN DICHOSO y UNIZA alias “Bobot,” JOHN DOE, PETER DOE, RICHARD DOE, ALBERT DOE, and ROMEO DOE, accused. VICENTE DEUNA y DIMDAM, (deceased). EMMANUEL PLANTA y DANAO alias “Maning”, JOHN DICHOSO y UNIZA alias “Bobot,” appellants.

FACTS

Accused Vicente Deuna, Emmanuel Planta, and John Dichoso, along with several unidentified individuals, were charged with Murder for the killing of Ramon Torres on November 22, 1985, in Quezon City. The information alleged conspiracy, abuse of superior strength, evident premeditation, and treachery. Upon arraignment, Planta and Dichoso pleaded not guilty; Deuna’s arraignment was initially suspended. The trial court later proceeded against Deuna. After trial, the court convicted all three identified accused as principals of Murder and sentenced each to Reclusion Perpetua, plus indemnity. During the pendency of the appeal, the Court received a Notice of Death of Vicente Deuna, who died on November 16, 1988, extinguishing his criminal liability. The remaining appellants, Planta and Dichoso, filed separate appeals.
The prosecution evidence, as found by the trial court, established that around 9:30 PM on November 22, 1985, Ramon Torres was with friends when Robert Ramos accused Emmanuel “Maning” Planta of boxing him. Torres’s group confronted Planta, who remained silent. Torres then boxed Planta and ordered him home. About fifteen minutes later, Planta returned with his brother Carlito “Totoy” Planta, Vicente “Jun Pat” Deuna, John “Bobot” Dichoso, Alexander de los Santos, and Pedro Macabuhay, armed with knives and stones. Torres’s group fled for safety. Torres, lagging behind due to a leg injury, was caught. The prosecution witnesses saw Planta and Pedro holding Torres by the arms, surrounded by the group. They heard Dichoso order, “Sige Totoy (Planta) saksakin mo na.” Carlito Planta then stabbed Torres in the chest. As Torres fell, Alexander de los Santos threw stones at him, and Deuna kicked him. The victim died from the stab wound. The appellants denied involvement, presenting alibis and claiming they were tortured into giving statements.

ISSUE

The issues raised by the appellants, consolidated, are:
1. Whether the constitutional rights of the accused during custodial investigation were violated.
2. Whether conspiracy was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation were established.
4. For appellant Planta, whether the trial court erred in convicting him despite the presumption of innocence, in not sustaining his defense of alibi and denial, in relying on inconsistent testimonies, and in not finding his arrest illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellants Emmanuel Planta and John Dichoso for Murder, but modified the penalty and damages. The Court held:
1. On Custodial Investigation: Any alleged irregularities in the custodial investigation were rendered inconsequential. The conviction was based not on any extrajudicial confession but on the positive identification by eyewitnesses. The constitutional rights during investigation relate to the admissibility of confessions, not to the competence of testimonial evidence from witnesses.
2. On Conspiracy: Conspiracy was sufficiently established. The appellants acted in concert with a common purpose. The collective assault by the group, armed with knives and stones, against the unarmed victim, and the specific order by Dichoso to stab, demonstrated a community of criminal design.
3. On Aggravating Circumstances: The qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) was present. The attack was sudden and unexpected, ensuring the victim’s defenselessness. The victim was held by two assailants while another stabbed him, rendering any defense impossible. This qualified the killing to Murder. The Court did not find abuse of superior strength or evident premeditation as separate aggravating circumstances, as these were absorbed by treachery.
4. On Alibi and Denial: The defenses of alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by credible eyewitnesses. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses were consistent on material points. For alibi to succeed, it must be shown that the accused was so far away that they could not have been at the scene of the crime; this was not proven.
5. On Illegal Arrest: Any defect in the arrest was cured when the appellants voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by pleading not guilty and participating in the trial.
6. On Penalty and Damages: The penalty for Murder is Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period to Death. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty imposed was Reclusion Perpetua, which was affirmed. The civil indemnity was increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. Moral damages of P50,000.00 were also awarded, supported by the testimony of the victim’s father on the family’s grief and suffering.