G.R. No. 88838 ; April 26, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MOISES MOKA alias “MOISES FERNANDEZ”, FLORENTINO DALMATAN alias “TINO”, MODESTO MONGKIL alias “DET”, and EMILIO MANIB alias “BITONG”, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants, including a barangay captain and ICHDF members, were charged with Robbery with Homicide for the death of Francisco Miguel. The prosecution’s version, credited by the trial court, established that appellants, armed with guns and bolos, went to the victim’s house, demanded rice and money, and then shot him. The trial court convicted them of Murder, not Robbery with Homicide, appreciating the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of public position, and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.
The defense presented a contrary narrative, claiming the victim was killed in a crossfire during an encounter between appellants, who were on patrol, and alleged NPA rebels who were at the victim’s house. Defense witnesses, including a policeman and the station commander, testified that the victim’s wife initially stated her husband was caught in a crossfire and that a homemade gun was recovered beside the body. The trial court rejected this version.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellants of Murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, finding the prosecution’s evidence clear and convincing. The defense version was improbable and replete with inconsistencies; the alleged sworn statement of the victim’s wife was deemed unreliable as she was not presented for cross-examination, and the defense failed to account for why the victim would be hosting NPA rebels. The Court agreed with the trial court’s finding that the crime committed was Murder, not Robbery with Homicide. The intent to gain was not proven; the demand for rice and money was likely a ruse. The information alleged conspiracy and taking advantage of superior strength, which qualifies the killing to Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The number of armed assailants against a single victim constituted notorious inequality of force. Nocturnity and abuse of public position were correctly treated as generic aggravating circumstances. However, as the penalty for Murder is a single indivisible penalty, reclusion perpetua was properly imposed regardless of these aggravating circumstances. The civil indemnity was increased to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).