GR 95891; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95891 -92 February 28, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OSMUNDO FUERTES @ “Dodo”; AGUSTIN LUYONG @ “Jack” and “Jackie Pangalan” (at large); EDGAR GIBONE; FRANCISCO SALVA @ “Bochoy”; and ROLANDO TANO @ “Boy Negro” and “Brando”, accused, OSMUNDO FUERTES, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Osmundo Fuertes, along with several others, was charged with two counts of Murder for the killing of Napoleon and Mateo Aldeguer on November 1, 1986, in Mati, Davao Oriental. The victims, aged 14 and 16, were allegedly bound, gagged, hacked to death, and thrown into a dried creek after they were caught gathering firewood and coconuts from a hacienda managed by Fuertes. The Informations alleged the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, and the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, ignominy, and reward. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Fuertes and his co-accused, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua for each count. Fuertes appealed, challenging the credibility of the prosecution’s principal witness, Francisco Salva, and the finding of conspiracy.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the testimony of discharged state witness Francisco Salva is credible; and (2) whether conspiracy among the accused was sufficiently proven.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Salva’s credibility. Salva’s testimony was found to be clear, consistent, and corroborated by the physical evidence and the extra-judicial confession of co-accused Agustin Luyong. The Court emphasized that the trial judge’s firsthand observation of witness demeanor is entitled to great respect. Salva’s discharge to become a state witness was properly granted, as his testimony was absolutely necessary for conviction and was corroborated by other evidence.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that conspiracy was established beyond reasonable doubt. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a felony and decide to commit it. The collective actions of the accused—apprehending the victims, bringing them to Fuertes, binding them, and collectively hacking them to death—demonstrated a unity of purpose and a concerted effort to achieve the criminal objective. Fuertes, as the hacienda manager who ordered the killings, was a principal by inducement. His act of pointing out the victims and instructing his co-accused to kill them established his criminal liability as a co-conspirator. The killing was attended by treachery, as the victims were bound and helpless, ensuring the execution without risk to the assailants. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for each murder was affirmed, with modifications to the civil indemnity.