G.R. No. L-302; August 7, 1946
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDWIN DELGADO, JUANITO TRINIDAD, and RICARDO VILLANUEVA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of June 8, 1945, in Madridejos, Cebu, the defendants-appellants Edwin Delgado, Juanito Trinidad, and Ricardo Villanueva arrived at a store where Restituto Bragat and Ramon Chavez were seated. Without provocation, Juanito Trinidad struck Restituto Bragat with fist blows to the neck and mouth, knocking him down. Edwin Delgado simultaneously held Ramon Chavez by the shirt, and Ricardo Villanueva attempted to hit Restituto Bragat but was blocked by a table. After Restituto Bragat was kicked by Juanito Trinidad, he managed to leave the store but was pursued by the appellants into the street. Edwin Delgado boxed him, causing him to fall face downward, whereupon all three defendants stepped on and pounded him with their heavy army shoes. Upon the arrival of policeman Marcelo Seville, the appellants fled but were later arrested. Restituto Bragat remained unconscious until his death at about 9 o’clock that evening. The medical certificate indicated his injuries included multiple skull fractures and traumatic contusions. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Anastacio Chavez, Ramon Chavez, Dolores Macabosque, and Marcelo Seville, whose testimonies the trial court found credible. The appellants admitted their presence but contended that one Federico Macahilo, not they, was the principal assailant alongside Juanito Trinidad.

ISSUE

1. Whether the guilt of the appellants for the death of Restituto Bragat was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether conspiracy among the appellants was established.
3. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) was present to elevate the crime to murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu convicting the appellants of homicide.
1. On Guilt: The Court held the appellants’ guilt was fully established by the direct, positive, and credible testimonies of eyewitnesses, particularly Dolores Macabosque and Ramon Chavez, who identified the appellants and detailed their respective actions. The appellants’ claim that Federico Macahilo was the assailant was rejected as an afterthought, noting their failure to disclose this defense upon arrest or to present Federico as a witness. The lack of proven motive was deemed unimportant given the clear identification by eyewitnesses, though it appeared the victim was mistaken for another person with the same nickname.
2. On Conspiracy: The Court found conspiracy inferable from the appellants’ collective actions: they arrived together, simultaneously participated in the assault (with Juanito Trinidad striking the first blow, Edwin Delgado restraining Ramon Chavez, and Ricardo Villanueva attempting to hit the victim), jointly pursued and trampled the victim, and fled together. This community of purpose established their collective criminal liability.
3. On Treachery: The Court ruled that treachery was not present. The suddenness of the attack alone was insufficient to prove the appellants knowingly adopted a mode of execution to ensure the accomplishment of their purpose without risk from any defense the victim might offer. The initial use of bare fists, the presence of the victim’s companion, and the absence of evidence showing great disparity in strength or fighting ability negated the existence of alevosia. Consequently, the crime was properly classified as homicide, not murder.
The appellants were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal, with accessories, and ordered to jointly indemnify the heirs of Restituto Bragat in the sum of P2,000.