G.R. No. L-63735; April 5, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILFREDO MALINAO alias “WELLY,” WENCESLAO MORABE, alias “ESLAO,” and SERGIO MENDIONA alias “DODONG,” accused, WENCESLAO MORABE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case stemmed from the killing of Miguel Manang on June 3, 1979, in La Paz, Leyte. The victim, along with companions Esteban Lora and Reynaldo Diorico, had attended a baptismal party at the house of Dominador Abuya. Also present at the gathering were the accused: Wilfredo Malinao, Wenceslao Morabe, and Sergio Mendiona. The accused left the party ahead of the victim’s group. Later, as Manang and his companions were walking home, the three accused ambushed them. Without warning, Malinao first attacked Manang with a bolo, hacking him on the head and shoulder and causing him to fall. Mendiona and Morabe then joined the assault, stabbing the fallen victim with their bolo-like knives called “pisaw.”
The trial court convicted Malinao and Morabe of murder qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength. Malinao did not appeal. Morabe appealed, arguing that his participation was not sufficiently proven, that the qualifying circumstances were absent, and that he was denied due process due to alleged irregularities in the trial proceedings, including the occasional absence of his counsel and the prosecuting fiscal.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether Morabe’s participation in the crime was proven beyond reasonable doubt; (2) whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength were correctly appreciated; and (3) whether Morabe was denied due process during the trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s finding of conspiracy. The coordinated actions of the three accused—lying in wait, launching a sudden attack, and successively assaulting the fallen victim—demonstrated a common criminal design. The positive testimonies of two eyewitnesses, Reynaldo Diorico and Esteban Lora, who clearly identified Morabe as one of those who stabbed the victim, sufficiently established his direct participation. Conspiracy having been proven, Morabe was equally liable as a co-conspirator.
Regarding the qualifying circumstances, the Court ruled that both treachery and abuse of superior strength were present. Treachery was evident from the mode of attack: the victim was ambushed without any warning, rendering him defenseless. The attack was sudden and unexpected, ensuring its execution without risk to the assailants. Abuse of superior strength was also present as three armed men, wielding bolos and knives, collectively assaulted a single, unarmed victim. Morabe’s act of joining the attack on the already wounded and prostrate victim further underscored the treacherous nature of the assault.
Finally, the Court found no denial of due process. The record did not substantiate the claim that Morabe’s counsel was absent during critical stages. Even assuming arguendo that counsel was occasionally absent, no prejudice was shown. For instance, during one hearing where counsel was allegedly absent, the testimony presented pertained only to the bolo used by co-accused Malinao and not directly against Morabe. The absence of the fiscal during another hearing was also deemed non-prejudicial, as the defense waived the fiscal’s presence and did not object to the evidence presented. The trial court’s findings on witness credibility were accorded great respect. The decision was affirmed with the modification of increasing the civil indemnity to P30,000.