People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Antonio, et al.

Conspiracy may be established by the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the felony; proof of a previous agreement is not required, and all conspirators are liable as principals for the act of one. The killing was qualified to murder by abuse of superior strength, which obtains when attackers cooperate to secure the advantage of their combined strength.

Edgardo F. Hernandez was killed in Almaguer North, Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, where the accused and the prosecution witnesses were residents or neighbors. T/Sgt. Wilfredo Bala, a member of the Philippine Army, was initially included as an accused but was dropped before the Regional Trial Court after the prosecution failed to secure a Presidential waiver of military jurisdiction over him.

At around 8:00 o'clock in the evening of December 26, 1989, at Sitio Alindayo, Almaguer North, Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, Edgardo F. Hernandez was attacked and killed. The information charged Vicente Antonio, Romeo Antonio, Manuel Antonio, and T/Sgt. Wilfredo Bala with murder, alleging conspiracy, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, intent to kill, and nighttime. T/Sgt. Bala, a Philippine Army member, was eventually dropped as an accused before the Regional Trial Court because the prosecution failed to secure a Presidential waiver of military jurisdiction over him. Three prosecution witnesses claimed to have seen the killing.

Zacarias Hernandez testified that at around 8:00 o'clock in the evening of December 26, 1989, while on his way home from a birthday party, he met the victim, Edgardo Hernandez. After stopping by a store to buy cigarettes, they proceeded home. After a while, Zacarias heard a gunshot; when he looked around, he saw T/Sgt. Wilfredo Bala with a rifle pointed at them, cursing them. Frightened, Zacarias ran to his brother's house, and Vicente, Manuel, and Romeo pelted him with stones, one of which hit him on the head. He identified the three accused and T/Sgt. Bala as the persons who attacked them and stated that only they and Bala were left with Edgardo. He was uncertain whether one or several stones were thrown and whether Bala later joined the mauling, but his testimony positively identified the accused-appellants.

Rosalinda Reyes, who was in Zacarias' house at the time, heard the gunshot and ran toward the direction of the sound. She saw Manuel and Romeo take turns boxing and kicking the victim while Vicente strangled him. She heard the victim shout in Ilocano, "I will not fight you, Manong Enteng," referring to Vicente, but the three men did not relent. When she wanted to help, Sgt. Bala pointed his rifle at her. She later learned that Edgardo had died that same evening. Feliciana Napao, also a resident of Almaguer North, went outside her house upon hearing a gunshot; she heard another shot and Edgardo saying, "I will not fight you Manong Enteng, Romeo and Manuel Antonio." Her daughter, Rosalinda Reyes, ran toward Edgardo, who asked her to help him.

Police officer Antonio Lucas testified that he and other members of the Philippine National Police found the victim lifeless on the ground some 15 meters away from an electric post near the place where the mauling was committed. He noticed three pairs of sandals and one sandal without its pair near the scene. The death certificate prepared by the Municipal Health Office of Bambang gave asphyxia due to "strangulation and suffocation" as the cause of death.

Vicente Antonio claimed self-defense. He testified that on the night in question, while on his way to irrigate his ricefield, he met the victim and Zacarias Hernandez, who blocked his way. After an exchange of words, Edgardo allegedly tried to hit him with a bolo, which he parried with a shovel; the victim then jumped to the ricefield. Zacarias allegedly attempted to pick up a stone but ran away when he saw Vicente had a shovel. Vicente hurled stones at Zacarias. Edgardo later tried to strike him with a wooden club but missed; Vicente ordered Edgardo to drop the club and raise his arms so he could frisk him. According to Vicente, the victim pounced on him and they wrestled; Vicente got the club and clubbed the victim. The victim grabbed his genitals and bit his fingers, and Vicente plastered the victim's mouth and nose with mud. He then heard something break in the victim's throat and thought, "I think, I have really killed someone." Manuel Antonio interposed alibi, claiming he was at home in the evening of December 26, 1989, and had no part in the killing.

After trial, the trial court found that Zacarias Hernandez positively identified accused-appellants, Romeo Antonio, and T/Sgt. Bala as the attackers; that the victim was ganged up on; and that the attackers cooperated while T/Sgt. Bala stood guard with a rifle. Vicente and Manuel appealed.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Accused-appellants contended that the lower court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of Zacarias Hernandez, Feliciana Napao, and Rosalinda Reyes, pointing to Zacarias's uncertainty on whether T/Sgt. Bala alone or all accused attacked the victim, whether one or several stones were thrown, whether Bala joined the mauling, and whether Zacarias left the victim behind or the victim ran to the ricefield.
• Conspiracy: Accused-appellants argued that the lower court erred in finding conspiracy among the three accused in causing the victim's death by strangulation.
• Abuse of Superior Strength: Accused-appellants maintained that the lower court erred in finding that there was taking advantage of superior strength to qualify the crime to murder.
• Self-Defense: Vicente Antonio argued that the lower court erred in not acquitting him on the ground of self-defense.
• Conviction of Manuel and Romeo Antonio: Accused-appellants argued that the lower court erred in convicting Manuel and Romeo Antonio based on an erroneous finding that they conspired with Vicente Antonio, and that as to them there was absent the quantum of proof necessary to overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence.
• Voluntary Surrender: Vicente Antonio contended that the lower court erred in failing to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in his favor.
• Individual Liability: Assuming without admitting that Manuel and Romeo Antonio also boxed and kicked the victim while Vicente strangled him, accused-appellants argued that the lower court erred in not holding them responsible only for their individual acts of boxing and kicking.

• Credibility and Positive Identification: The Solicitor General argued that Zacarias Hernandez's fear when Sgt. Bala aimed a gun at them and when appellants pelted them with stones caused him to run for his life and prevented him from seeing every detail; a confused and agitated mind cannot be expected to pay attention to every detail, and saving one's life takes precedence. Hernandez was clear and positive in pointing to appellants and Sgt. Bala as the attackers, and the fact that appellants were ten meters away from Sgt. Bala at the start did not negate their later participation, especially since the victim ran to the ricefield while being pursued.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of Zacarias Hernandez, Feliciana Napao, and Rosalinda Reyes.
• Conspiracy: Whether the trial court erred in finding conspiracy among the three accused in causing the victim's death by strangulation.
• Abuse of Superior Strength: Whether the trial court erred in finding that there was taking advantage of superior strength to qualify the crime to murder.
• Self-Defense: Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting Vicente Antonio on the ground of self-defense.
• Conviction of Manuel and Romeo Antonio: Whether the trial court erred in convicting Manuel and Romeo Antonio based on conspiracy despite the alleged absence of proof sufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.
• Voluntary Surrender: Whether the trial court erred in failing to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of Vicente Antonio.
• Individual Liability: Whether, assuming Manuel and Romeo Antonio boxed and kicked the victim while Vicente strangled him, they should be held liable only for their individual acts.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: No. The trial court correctly found Zacarias Hernandez positively identified accused-appellants, Romeo Antonio, and T/Sgt. Bala as the attackers; minor uncertainties did not detract from his positive identification, which was corroborated by Rosalinda Reyes and Feliciana Napao. Relationship of a witness to a party, without more, does not impair credibility.
• Conspiracy: No. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it; proof of a previous agreement is not necessary, as acts before, during, and after the felony may demonstrate it. Vicente strangled the victim while Manuel and Romeo boxed and kicked him, and Bala stood guard.
• Abuse of Superior Strength: No. The killing was qualified by abuse of superior strength because the attackers cooperated to secure the advantage of their combined strength; three able-bodied men attacked one victim while Bala guarded with a rifle.
• Self-Defense: No. Vicente Antonio was an aggressor; absent unlawful aggression, self-defense cannot be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.
• Conviction of Manuel and Romeo Antonio: No. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification, and Manuel failed to show that his house was so far from the crime scene as to make his presence impossible. Conspiracy made the act of one the act of all.
• Voluntary Surrender: No. The elements of voluntary surrender did not concur; Vicente was arrested before he could be surrendered, and mere intention to surrender is insufficient.
• Individual Liability: No. Conspiracy having been established, Manuel cannot be held liable solely for his individual acts of boxing and kicking; all perpetrators are liable as principals.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The trial court's evaluation of witness credibility is generally accorded the highest respect because the trial judge directly observed the witnesses and can detect the line between fact and prevarication. Zacarias Hernandez positively identified accused-appellants, Romeo Antonio, and T/Sgt. Bala as the persons who attacked him and the victim. His uncertainty on whether one or several stones were thrown and whether Bala later joined the mauling did not detract from his positive identification, which was corroborated by Rosalinda Reyes and Feliciana Napao. The victim was a boarder of Feliciana Napao's son and the owner of the land tilled by the latter, but mere relationship of a witness to a party, without more, cannot impair credibility. No improper motive was shown, and positive declarations subordinate disclaimers from the defense. The presence of bushes and trees near the electric post did not necessarily make the place dark or render identification impossible.
• Conspiracy: Under Art. 8 of the Revised Penal Code, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Proof of a previous agreement is not necessary; it is sufficient that the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the felony demonstrate its existence. The evidence showed that accused-appellants ganged up on the victim: Vicente strangled him while Manuel and Romeo boxed and kicked him, and T/Sgt. Bala stood guard with a rifle ready to shoot anyone who tried to rescue the victim. These acts showed a unity of criminal design to kill Edgardo Hernandez. Manuel cannot be held liable solely for his individual acts without negating conspiracy; the act of one is the act of all. Where the acts collectively and individually demonstrate a common design toward the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident and all perpetrators are liable as principals.
• Abuse of Superior Strength: Although evident premeditation was not established because there was no evidence of planning and preparation to kill, the killing was qualified by abuse of superior strength. The attackers cooperated in such a way as to secure the advantage of their combined strength to perpetrate the crime with impunity. There were three able-bodied attackers against one victim, all doing their part while their safety was guaranteed by Sgt. Bala pointing his gun at anyone who dared approach and assist the victim.
• Self-Defense: Vicente Antonio claimed self-defense, but he and Manuel were the aggressors. Self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, requires unlawful aggression; absent unlawful aggression, the claim cannot be successfully pleaded. The finding that Vicente was an aggressor was sustained.
• Conviction of Manuel and Romeo Antonio: Manuel Antonio interposed alibi, claiming he was at home on the night of the incident. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of accused-appellant by prosecution witnesses. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove presence at another place at the time of the offense and demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime; the requirement of time and place must be strictly met. Manuel failed to show that his house was so far away from the crime scene as to make it impossible for him to be present; his home was in the same barangay, Almaguer North.
• Voluntary Surrender: The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender requires that (a) the offender has not been actually arrested; (b) he surrenders himself to a person in authority; and (c) the surrender is voluntary. On December 27, 1989, the police went to Sgt. Bala's house looking for Vicente Antonio and were told by Bala that Vicente was inside the house although he was going to be surrendered to the authorities by Bala. Vicente was thus arrested before he could be surrendered. Mere intention to surrender is insufficient to claim the benefit of the mitigating circumstance.
• Individual Liability: The conspiracy established among the accused made the act of one the act of all. Manuel cannot be held liable solely for his individual acts of boxing and kicking the victim without negating the existence of the conspiracy. All the perpetrators are liable as principals.

• Conspiracy; proof of agreement — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Proof of a previous agreement is not necessary; it is sufficient that the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the felony demonstrate its existence. In this case, Vicente strangled the victim while Manuel and Romeo boxed and kicked him, and T/Sgt. Bala stood guard, showing a unity of criminal design.
• Act of one is the act of all — Once conspiracy is established, all conspirators are liable as principals for the acts of their co-conspirators. The rule was applied to hold Manuel liable notwithstanding his claim that he should be responsible only for his individual acts of boxing and kicking.
• Abuse of superior strength — Abuse of superior strength qualifies a killing to murder when the attackers cooperate in such a way as to secure the advantage of their combined strength to perpetrate the crime with impunity. The qualifying circumstance was found because three able-bodied attackers ganged up on one victim while T/Sgt. Bala guarded with a rifle.
• Credibility of witnesses; appellate deference — Appellate courts generally accord the highest respect to the trial court's evaluation of witness credibility because the trial judge directly observed the witnesses. Mere relationship of a witness to a party, without more, does not impair credibility, and positive identification prevails over disclaimers. The trial court's crediting of Zacarias Hernandez, Rosalinda Reyes, and Feliciana Napao was upheld.
• Self-defense; unlawful aggression — Self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, requires unlawful aggression. Absent unlawful aggression, the defense cannot be successfully pleaded. Vicente Antonio was found to be an aggressor, defeating his self-defense claim.
• Alibi — For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove presence at another place at the time of the offense and demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime; the requirement of time and place must be strictly met. Manuel Antonio's alibi failed because his home was in the same barangay as the crime scene and no physical impossibility was shown.
• Voluntary surrender — The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender requires that (a) the offender has not been actually arrested; (b) he surrenders himself to a person in authority; and (c) the surrender is voluntary. Mere intention to surrender is insufficient. Vicente Antonio was arrested before he could be surrendered, so the circumstance was not appreciated.

• "Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." — This defines conspiracy under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code and anchors the finding that the accused acted with a common criminal design.
• "While it appears that there was no evident premeditation, there being no evidence of the planning and preparation to kill Edgardo Hernandez, we find that the killing was qualified by abuse of superior strength because the attackers cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage of their combined strength to perpetrate the crime with impunity." — This states the ratio for qualifying the killing as murder despite the absence of evident premeditation.
• "Absent an unlawful aggression, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete." — This rejects Vicente Antonio's self-defense claim on the ground that he was the aggressor.
• "The mere intention to surrender is insufficient to claim the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender." — This disposes of Vicente Antonio's claim that he should be credited with voluntary surrender.

• People vs. Layaguin, 262 SCRA 207 (1996) — Cited for the rule that mere relationship of a witness to a party, without more, cannot impair the witness's credibility.
• People vs. Flores, 185 SCRA 366, 378 (1990) — Cited for the rule that absent any improper motive to accuse falsely, the trial court's findings on credibility must be respected.
• People vs. Nitcha, 240 SCRA 283, 293 (1995) — Cited for the principle that positive declarations of prosecution witnesses subordinate disclaimers emanating from the defense.
• People vs. Llaguno, 285 SCRA 124, 135 (1998) — Cited for the rule that appellate courts accord the highest respect to the trial court's evaluation of eyewitness testimonies.
• People vs. Salison, Jr., 253 SCRA 758 (1996) — Cited for the rule that the act of one conspirator is the act of all.
• People vs. Sancholes, 271 SCRA 527 (1997) — Cited for the rule that where the acts of the accused demonstrate a common design toward the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident and all perpetrators are liable as principals.
• People vs. Narca, 275 SCRA 696 (1997) — Cited for the rule that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by prosecution witnesses.
• People vs. Patawaran, 274 SCRA 130, 139 (1997) — Cited for the requisites of alibi and the strict requirement of time and place.
• People vs. Tampon, 258 SCRA 115 (1996) — Cited in connection with the finding that evident premeditation was not established.
• People vs. Baluyot, 170 SCRA 569 (1989) — Cited for abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance.
• People vs. Rapanut, 263 SCRA 515 (1996) — Cited for the elements of voluntary surrender.
• People vs. Umadhay, G.R. No. 119544, Aug. 3, 1998 — Cited to deny voluntary surrender where the accused's intention to surrender was never realized because the police arrested him.

• Revised Penal Code, Art. 8 — Defines conspiracy: two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The provision was applied to find conspiracy from the accused's concerted acts before, during, and after the killing.
• Revised Penal Code, Art. 29, as amended by R.A. 6127 — Cited in the Regional Trial Court's dispositive portion in crediting detention prisoner Vicente Antonio with the whole period of his preventive suspension in the service of his sentence; the Supreme Court affirmed the decision.

Bellosillo, Puno, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.