People of the Philippines vs. Jerito Amazan, et al.

A killing committed by sudden attack from behind, deliberately adopted to leave the victim no opportunity to defend or retaliate, is attended by treachery and qualifies as murder, and conspiracy liability attaches to all who act in concert toward the common design even if not all inflicted the fatal blow.

Jerito Amazan and Jaime Amazan were nephews of Amparo Arma, wife of deceased Artemio Arma, making the young prosecution witnesses Alberto and Antonio Arma their cousins, while Danilo Villegas was their neighbor in Barangay San Vicente, Dimasalang, Masbate. The families had been neighbors for years, and the prosecution suggested Jaime's jealous suspicion of an affair between Artemio and Jaime's wife as probable motive.

At about 7 o'clock in the evening of April 27, 1997, 14-year-old Alberto Arma accompanied his father Artemio Arma to their farm about 30 meters from their house in Barangay San Vicente to graze their carabao. While Artemio was tethering the carabao to a coconut tree, Jerito Amazan struck him on the head with a bolo, after which Jaime Amazan stabbed him as he turned around, while Alberto watched from about five meters away and cried for help. Amparo Arma rushed from the house with her daughter-in-law Lorna and saw Jerito and Jaime Amazan and Danilo Villegas, all armed with bolos and training flashlights on Artemio's body; when she asked Jerito what happened to her husband, Jaime hacked her on the face.

Amparo, Alberto, and Lorna ran toward the house and met Antonio Arma, Amparo's other son, and the three then returned to where Artemio lay dead. As Antonio tried to help his father, Danilo Villegas struck him with a bolo on the face and left hand, after which the three accused ran away. Amparo and Antonio brought Artemio's body to their house; Barangay Captain Danilo Almocera later had the body brought to Dr. Ernesto L. Tamayo for autopsy and had Amparo and Antonio taken to Dr. Alfonso H. Alino's hospital in Poblacion, where they arrived at about 9:30 p.m. with wounds no longer bleeding. Dr. Tamayo found two fatal hacking wounds on the left and right parieto-occipital areas with skull fractures and massive bleeding, plus a three-inch abdominal contusion possibly caused by a blunt instrument, while Dr. Alino described Amparo's seven-inch, one-inch-deep left-face wound as non-fatal and Antonio's six-inch face and neck wounds and four-inch hand wound as requiring two to three weeks to heal.

For their part, Jaime and Jerito testified that at about 6:30 p.m. they had gathered tuba and gone to Jerito's house near the Arma land, and that Jaime, about to defecate at the Arma farm, was confronted by Amparo, Antonio, Artemio, and Alberto armed with bolos and wood. According to the defense, Artemio and Antonio tried to hit Jaime, Jerito intervened with his bolo, Artemio turned on Jerito and tried to strike him, Jaime grabbed Artemio's hands enabling Jerito to hit Artemio on the head, Jaime then picked up Artemio's dropped bolo and used it against Antonio and Amparo, and Jerito later helped bring the wounded Jaime to Dr. Alino's hospital before surrendering to police, with Jaime surrendering after four days' confinement for shoulder, forearm, and leg stab wounds. Danilo Villegas claimed he was asleep with his family after gathering coconuts until Jerito asked help to bring Jaime to the hospital, and was later merely invited by police for interrogation and detained. The trial court credited the prosecution eyewitnesses, rejected the defense-of-relative version as contrary to the location of the fatal wounds and the parties' relationship and relative injuries, and convicted as stated above.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Accused-appellants argued that the trial court erred in giving weight to the prosecution testimonies because of inconsistencies in Alberto Arma's account as to which brother hacked Artemio twice and as to dates, his admission that some statements were untrue, the variance between Alberto's and Amparo's accounts of where Amparo was hacked, and contradictions between Amparo's and Antonio's sworn statements and their court testimonies.
• Treachery: Accused-appellants maintained that suddenness alone does not constitute treachery absent proof the mode of attack was consciously adopted to render defense impossible, and that the attack on Artemio was frontal so the deceased had fair warning.
• Conspiracy: Accused-appellants argued that no conspiracy was proven in Crim. Case No. 8494 because each allegedly acted independently without evidence of common criminal purpose.
• Defense of Relative: Accused-appellant Jerito argued that his version should have been considered, namely that he only intervened to help his brother Jaime who was being attacked by the Armas, with Jaime grabbing Artemio's hands to enable the defensive blow.
• Liability of Jaime for Wounding Amparo: Accused-appellant Jaime argued that his guilt for attempted homicide in Crim. Case No. 8496 was not proven beyond reasonable doubt in light of the credibility defects.
• Liability of Danilo for Wounding Antonio: Accused-appellant Danilo argued that his conviction for attempted homicide in Crim. Case No. 8497 was erroneous, disputing identification as Antonio's assailant.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies and between their affidavits and court testimonies destroy their credibility.
• Treachery: Whether treachery attended the killing of Artemio Arma to qualify it as murder.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy among Jerito Amazan, Jaime Amazan, and Danilo Villegas in the killing of Artemio was established.
• Defense of Relative: Whether Jerito Amazan acted in defense of relative so as to justify the killing.
• Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances and Proper Offense and Penalty: Whether evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, nighttime, and voluntary surrender were present and what the correct crime and penalty are in each case.

• Credibility of Witnesses: No. Minor inconsistencies, youth-related confusion, and affidavit variances do not impair credibility where the core identifications and acts remain consistent and corroborated.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery was present, the deceased having been struck without warning from behind with a fatal first blow that left no opportunity for defense.
• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was established by joint presence, common armament, coordinated participation, failure to prevent the attack, and common flight.
• Defense of Relative: No. None of the requisites of defense of relative was proven, and the physical evidence contradicted a frontal defensive encounter.
• Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances and Proper Offense and Penalty: In part. Evident premeditation and nighttime were absent, abuse of superior strength was absorbed in treachery for murder but qualified the attack on the unarmed Amparo to attempted murder, voluntary surrender mitigated for the Amazan brothers, and penalties and civil indemnity required correction.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Trial court assessment of credibility is not disturbed unless substantial facts were overlooked, and inconsistencies on minor and collateral details do not affect veracity and may even negate rehearsal. Alberto's confusion was attributed to his age of 14 to 15 years, sixth-grade schooling, nervousness in court where he cried, near pitch darkness at 7 p.m. with corn and 15-foot coconut trees, sudden violence preventing clear perception of individual acts, and misunderstanding of defense questions. The supposed contradiction on Amparo's hacking was more apparent than real since both mother and son identified Jaime as the hacker, Amparo merely adding detail, while affidavit variances were explained by non-affiant preparation and by failure to confront witnesses under Rule 132, Sec. 13, and Antonio's identification of Danilo was corroborated by Amparo and Alberto.
• Treachery: Treachery requires (1) employment of means leaving the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate and (2) deliberate or conscious adoption of such means. Artemio had no warning because Jerito drew his bolo only when near and struck the head, with medico-legal findings showing two wounds on the upper back part of the skull at the left and right parieto-occipital areas indicating attack from behind, refuting a frontal encounter. The first fatal wound rendered the victim helpless against subsequent attacks.
• Conspiracy: Conspiracy exists upon agreement concerning commission of a felony and decision to commit it, deducible from the manner of commission without proof that all conspirators struck the fatal blow, provided specific acts show closeness and coordination toward the common design of killing. All three accused came together where Artemio tethered his carabao, were present and armed during the attack, made no effort to stop it, and fled together after attaining their purpose, with Jerito and Jaime both assaulting Artemio and Danilo checking to ensure death and then turning on Antonio when he came to aid his father.
• Defense of Relative: Defense of relative requires (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of means to repel it, and (3) absence of participation by the defender if provocation was given by the person attacked, with the burden on the accused. No requisite was proven: the claim of frontal defensive hitting was contrary to wounds at the upper back of the head indicating attack from behind, no reason was shown for the Armas to attack long-time neighbors and relatives, and the severity of the Armas' wounds compared with Jaime's minor non-fatal injuries indicated the victims merely fought back.
• Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances and Proper Offense and Penalty: Evident premeditation was absent for failure to prove time of determination, manifest clinging to it, and sufficient lapse for reflection; abuse of superior strength in murder was absorbed in treachery, but was correctly appreciated against Jaime for the unprovoked bolo attack on unarmed Amparo under United States vs. Consuelo; nighttime was not shown to have been deliberately sought to facilitate the crime or evade capture; and voluntary surrender mitigated for Jerito who surrendered immediately after hospitalization of his brother and for Jaime who surrendered four days later, fear of reprisal not detracting from spontaneity. Thus murder punishable by reclusion perpetua to death drew reclusion perpetua under Art. 63, Jaime's wounding of Amparo constituted attempted murder with intent to kill shown by bolo blow to the face though wounds were non-fatal, warranting an indeterminate penalty of prision correccional minimum to prision mayor minimum, Danilo's wounding of Antonio remained attempted homicide with intent to kill similarly shown but without aggravating or mitigating circumstances warranting arresto mayor medium to prision correccional medium, and P50,000.00 civil indemnity plus P50,000.00 moral damages were due the heirs.

• Credibility of witnesses; deference to trial court — Evaluation of witness credibility by the trial court is not disturbed on appeal unless facts of substance were overlooked that could affect the result. Applied to sustain the eyewitness identifications despite alleged inconsistencies.
• Minor inconsistencies — Inconsistencies on minor details and collateral matters do not affect credibility or the veracity and weight of testimony and may even strengthen credibility by negating rehearsal. Applied to excuse Alberto's confusion on dates and individual acts and variances on peripheral details.
• Young witnesses — Even candid witnesses commit mistakes, especially young witnesses overwhelmed by courtroom atmosphere, warranting ample space for inaccuracy. Applied to 14- to 15-year-old Alberto Arma who cried and answered nervously.
• Affidavits vs. court testimony; Rule 132, Sec. 13 — Affidavits are generally prepared by others and inconsistencies with court testimony are often excusable, and prior inconsistent statements must be shown to witnesses with opportunity to explain. Applied to reject appellate attacks on Amparo's and Antonio's affidavits never confronted at trial.
• Treachery — Treachery exists when means, methods, or forms are employed tending directly and specially to insure execution without risk from defense the victim might make, requiring (1) no opportunity to defend or retaliate and (2) deliberate adoption. Applied to qualify the killing as murder based on surprise attack from behind with fatal first head blow.
• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree concerning commission of a felony and decide to commit it, and may be deduced from concerted acts showing closeness and coordination toward a common purpose without proof all inflicted the fatal wound. Applied in People vs. Amazan to hold all three accused for murder based on joint presence, armament, participation, and flight.
• Defense of relative — Requires (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of means to repel it, and (3) non-participation of defender if provocation came from person attacked, with burden on accused. Applied to reject Jerito's claim for contradiction by wound location and absence of motive for alleged aggression.
• Evident premeditation — Requires proof of (a) time of determination, (b) acts manifestly indicating clinging to determination, and (c) sufficient lapse between determination and execution for reflection. Found absent for lack of such evidence.
• Abuse of superior strength; absorption; attack on unarmed woman — Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery when both arise from same facts, but a man's unprovoked attack on an unarmed defenseless woman constitutes abuse of superior strength. Applied to disregard it in murder but appreciate it to raise Jaime's offense against Amparo to attempted murder.
• Voluntary surrender — Spontaneity is not negated by fear of reprisal where the accused saves the State time and trouble of search by giving himself up. Applied to mitigate for Jerito and Jaime Amazan.

• "Inconsistencies as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor the veracity or weight of their testimonies." — States the rule sustaining the prosecution eyewitnesses despite peripheral variances and youth-related confusion.
• "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." — Provides the canonical definition applied to qualify the surprise attack from behind as murder.
• "Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." — States the basis for inferring conspiracy from coordinated presence, armament, participation, and flight rather than direct proof of agreement.

• People vs. Perez, 313 SCRA 544 (1999) — Cited for deference to trial court credibility findings and for deducing conspiracy agreement from manner of commission.
• People vs. Takop, 315 SCRA 465 (1999) — Cited for the rule that minor inconsistencies do not impair credibility and may negate rehearsal.
• People vs. Panlilio, 255 SCRA 503 (1996) — Cited for allowing ample space for inaccuracy in testimony of young witnesses.
• People vs. Penaflorida, 313 SCRA 563, 572 (1999) — Cited for the two elements of treachery requiring lack of defensive opportunity and deliberate adoption.
• People vs. Alib, G.R. No. 130944, January 18, 2000 — Cited for the principle that conspiracy does not require all participants to have hit and killed the victim if coordinated acts show common purpose.
• United States vs. Consuelo, 13 Phil. 617 (1909) — Followed to hold that a man's attack on an unarmed defenseless woman constitutes taking advantage of superior strength, applied to upgrade Jaime's offense to attempted murder.
• People vs. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267 (1998) — Cited for absorption of abuse of superior strength in treachery in the murder charge.
• People vs. Clemente, 21 SCRA 261 (1967) — Cited to hold that fear of reprisal does not detract from spontaneity of voluntary surrender.

• Article 14, par. 16, Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery as aggravating circumstance; applied to qualify the killing of Artemio as murder.
• Article 8, par. 2, Revised Penal Code — Defines conspiracy; applied to hold all three accused liable for murder from concerted acts.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Punishes murder with reclusion perpetua to death; basis for murder sentences and for classifying Jaime's attack with abuse of superior strength as attempted murder.
• Article 51, Revised Penal Code — Imposes penalty lower by two degrees for attempted felony; basis for sentencing attempted murder and attempted homicide.
• Articles 63 and 64, Revised Penal Code — Govern application of penalties with aggravating and mitigating circumstances; applied to impose reclusion perpetua with voluntary surrender and to fix indeterminate penalty ranges.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Requires minimum within range next lower and maximum within prescribed range; applied to correct straight penalties to indeterminate penalties for attempted offenses.
• Rule 132, Sec. 13, Rules of Court — Requires confronting witnesses with prior inconsistent statements and opportunity to explain; non-compliance barred appellate reliance on affidavit variances.

Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.