G.R. No. L-58414. June 24, 1983. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIEGO HERMOSILLA, OLEGARIO PLONE alias Dario, GREGORIO RELEVANTE alias Gilly, MACARIO PLONE, SR., RAUL ADAP and LEOPOLDO CANETE, accused-appellants.
FACTS

The six accused, all related by blood or marriage, were convicted of murder for the killing of Leopoldo Lagradilla. The prosecution evidence established that the killing stemmed from a prior altercation between the victim and the family of Macario Plone, Sr. On the afternoon of February 27, 1979, the group invited Lagradilla to drink, and after he returned home intoxicated, they followed him. At his house, they suddenly attacked him. Olegario Plone, Canete, and Adap held his feet while Relevante stabbed him with a spear. The assailants then brought him downstairs where Macario, Sr. hacked his abdomen with a bolo and Hermosilla struck his neck. The others joined in stabbing the helpless victim until he died, inflicting a total of twelve wounds.
At trial, the prosecution relied on the eyewitness account of the victim’s wife, Anita Lagradilla, who testified that all six accused participated. In defense, Hermosilla claimed he alone killed Lagradilla in a quarrel arising from being belittled, asserting self-defense. The other five accused presented alibis, claiming they were elsewhere during the incident. The trial court rejected Hermosilla’s claim of self-defense and disbelieved the alibis, finding all accused guilty of murder.

ISSUE

The primary issues on appeal were: (1) the credibility of the eyewitness testimony versus the defenses of alibi and self-defense; (2) the correctness of imposing the death penalty on Macario Plone, Sr. based on alleged recidivism; and (3) the proper penalties for the accused, considering the minority of Raul Adap and the voluntary surrender of Diego Hermosilla.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction but modified the penalties. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of credibility, finding the eyewitness testimony of Anita Lagradilla clear and convincing. It ruled that the nature and number of the victim’s wounds—incised and stab wounds from different weapons—contradicted Hermosilla’s claim that he acted alone in self-defense and supported the conclusion of concerted action by multiple assailants. The killing was characterized by treachery (attack on an intoxicated and helpless victim) and abuse of superiority, qualifying it as murder.
The Court corrected the trial court’s erroneous imposition of the death penalty on Macario Plone, Sr. The penalty was based on an unfounded finding of recidivism, which was not alleged in the information nor proven with certified copies of prior sentences as required by law. Therefore, his sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua. For Raul Adap, evidence showed he was under fifteen years old at the time of the crime, entitling him to a two-degree penalty reduction under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code. For Diego Hermosilla, the Court recognized the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which was established by uncontradicted testimony. The indemnity was to be paid solidarily by all accused.