G.R. No. 92633 October 17, 1991
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Salvador Sadia, Jr., Jose Allorde y Penoblar, and Mario Opeña alias “Ka Elmo”, accused. Salvador Sadia, Jr., accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused were charged with murder for the killing of Jose Lopez. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Danilo Chavez, testified that on November 18, 1986, he was working on Lopez’s farm in Ligao, Albay. Appellant Sadia, co-accused Jose Allorde, and Mario Opeña arrived that morning. Later, Chavez heard gunshots and saw Opeña, Allorde, Sadia, and two unidentified persons firing at Lopez, who had his arms raised pleading for them to stop. Lopez was shot multiple times while fleeing, and Opeña later delivered a coup de grace shot to his head. The autopsy confirmed Lopez died from multiple fatal gunshot wounds.
At trial, only Sadia and Opeña were apprehended. The Regional Trial Court found them guilty as principals of murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength and aggravated by the circumstance of band. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Sadia appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his direct participation and that the killing was in furtherance of rebellion, not murder. He also contested the aggravating circumstance of band.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved Sadia’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; (2) whether the killing was murder or a act of rebellion; and (3) whether the aggravating circumstance of band was correctly appreciated.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed Sadia’s conviction for murder but deleted the aggravating circumstance of band. The Court found the eyewitness account of Danilo Chavez credible and sufficient to establish conspiracy among the assailants, including Sadia. By acting in concert to shoot the unarmed victim, who was pleading for his life, they demonstrated a community of criminal purpose. Sadia’s presence and participation in the armed group made him equally liable as a co-conspirator.
The Court rejected the new theory that the killing was in furtherance of rebellion, as this issue was not raised before the trial court and could not be considered for the first time on appeal. The evidence solidly established the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, as the armed group used their collective force to overpower the defenseless victim, thereby qualifying the homicide as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
However, the Court agreed with Sadia that the aggravating circumstance of band was erroneously applied. For band to exist, more than three armed malefactors must have acted together. The information alleged five assailants, but only three were identified by name; the two others remained unidentified. The prosecution failed to prove the participation of these two unidentified persons as armed malefactors. Consequently, the element of more than three armed participants was not established. Nonetheless, the penalty remained reclusion perpetua, as it is the proper penalty for murder absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The civil indemnity was also increased to P50,000.00.