GR 97935; (October, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97935 October 23, 1996
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEL ALIPOSA y TONOG @ NONOY and CRISPIN VELARDE y ESPELIMBERGO. CRISPIN VELARDE y ESPELIMBERGO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution evidence established that on August 20, 1990, during a town fiesta in Catarman, Northern Samar, the victim Sonny Tonog was watching a game with friends when accused Joel Aliposa and Crispin Velarde approached. Aliposa put his arm around Tonog’s shoulders, engaged him in conversation, and then suddenly stabbed him twice in the chest with a small bolo. Velarde, positioned nearby, immediately followed with a stab from a fan knife. The coordinated attack caused Tonog’s death from multiple stab wounds. Witnesses fled and reported the incident to the police. The weapons were later recovered from Velarde’s residence, where both accused were apprehended.
At trial, Aliposa and Velarde were convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court. Only Velarde appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not established. Aliposa, in a separate testimony, claimed he acted alone in self-defense, exculpating Velarde. The defense version was rejected by the trial court, which found the eyewitness accounts credible and demonstrated conspiracy.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant Crispin Velarde’s conviction for the crime of Murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, which is accorded great respect. The positive identification by prosecution witnesses, who had a clear view of the incident, prevailed over Velarde’s denial and Aliposa’s belied claim of sole responsibility. The sequence of events—Aliposa initiating the attack by holding the victim and Velarde immediately following with a stab—conclusively established conspiracy. By their coordinated actions, they demonstrated a unity of purpose to kill Tonog, making each liable for the acts of the other.
Furthermore, treachery was correctly appreciated to qualify the killing as Murder. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that denied the victim any opportunity to defend himself. Aliposa’s act of holding the victim while talking to him ensured the victim’s defenselessness, which Velarde exploited by simultaneously delivering his own stab. This method directly and specially insured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants. The Court modified the civil indemnity to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence but sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua.