G.R. No. 97296 . March 4, 1992. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO CANCILLER y BAHIA, accused-appellant.
FACTS

Accused-appellant Pedro Canciller, together with Ed Diola and a certain “Jucol,” was charged with Murder for the killing of Wilfredo Mendoza on January 7, 1990, in Taguig, Metro Manila. The information alleged the qualifying circumstance of “taking advantage of superior strength.” Only Canciller was arraigned, as his co-accused remained at large. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of Jose Redoblado. He testified that around 2:00 a.m., he saw appellant and his two companions ganging up on the victim. Jucol beat Mendoza with a hard object, causing him to fall. Once the victim was on the ground, appellant stabbed him twice with a kitchen knife. The autopsy confirmed the victim sustained ten injuries, including the fatal stab wound.
The defense interposed alibi, claiming appellant was asleep in his house at the time of the incident, a claim corroborated by a housemate. The trial court convicted appellant of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Appellant appealed, challenging the credibility of the sole eyewitness and the finding of treachery.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of Murder and in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but corrected the qualifying circumstance. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Jose Redoblado credible, positive, and consistent. His identification of appellant was reliable, as they were familiar with each other from the neighborhood. His delay in reporting the incident was sufficiently explained by genuine fear for his life after receiving threats, which he even had blottered at a police precinct. His eventual disclosure upon learning of appellant’s arrest bolstered his credibility. The defense of alibi, weakly corroborated and failing to prove the physical impossibility of appellant’s presence at the crime scene, deserved no weight.
However, the trial court erred in appreciating treachery. The information did not allege treachery; it specifically alleged “taking advantage of superior strength.” The evidence clearly established this circumstance. The attack was carried out by three individuals who deliberately used their combined strength to overpower the unarmed victim. Jucol beat the victim, and once he was rendered defenseless and fallen, appellant delivered the fatal stabs. This concerted action constitutes abuse of superior strength, not treachery, as the mode of attack was not deliberately chosen to ensure the execution without risk to the assailants from any defense the victim might make. The crime is therefore Murder qualified by abuse of superior strength. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards for damages were affirmed.