G.R. No. L-22604 July 31, 1967
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LORENZO PORTUGUEZA @ ENSOY, ET AL., defendants. LORENZO PORTUGUEZA @ ENSOY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Lorenzo Portugueza and Florentino Gapole were indicted for murder, with allegations of conspiracy, evident premeditation, treachery, and abuse of superior strength. Gapole pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Portugueza pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Samar found Portugueza guilty of murder, noting the aggravating circumstance of superiority in number and the victim’s age (70) versus the accused’s (20). He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, ordered to indemnify the heirs jointly and severally, and to pay costs. Portugueza appealed. The prosecution evidence, primarily from eyewitness Ana Taringting, showed that on July 27, 1963, in barrio Cabatuan, Palapag, Samar, she saw Gapole hack the victim, Francisco Balicuas, on the left arm, followed by Portugueza hacking him on the left flank below the armpit. The victim’s left arm was almost severed. He identified his assailants to his daughters and in an ante-mortem statement before dying the next day. Dr. Leocadio C. Mendoza documented the injuries: a near-complete amputation of the left arm (fatal), and two superficial incised wounds. Portugueza testified that he was on the trail, met Gapole, and then the victim; Gapole suddenly attacked the victim, delivering three blows, while Portugueza claimed non-participation.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) Whether appellant Lorenzo Portugueza participated in the commission of the crime; and (2) Whether conspiracy between Portugueza and Gapole was satisfactorily proved.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the trial court. On the first issue, the Court held that Portugueza’s participation was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the positive identification of eyewitness Ana Taringting and the ante-mortem statement of the victim, rendering motive irrelevant. His bare denial could not overcome this evidence. On the second issue, the Court held that conspiracy was not proven. Aside from being brothers-in-law, no evidence showed a previous agreement or united purpose and execution. The meeting of the accused and with the victim was casual. The nature of the wounds indicated different objectives: Gapole inflicted a mortal wound showing intent to kill, while Portugueza inflicted only a superficial wound. Since conspiracy was not established, Portugueza’s liability was separate and individual. The Court found him guilty only of less serious physical injuries (as the wound he inflicted would have required medical attendance for about ten days) and sentenced him to six months of arresto mayor. Considering his preventive imprisonment since August 26, 1963, which exceeded the penalty, the Court ordered his immediate release.