GR 179709; (July, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 179709 ; July 6, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FILOMENO MAYINGQUE, GREGORIO MAYINGQUE, and TORIBIO MAYINGQUE y SANICO, Defendants-Appellants.
FACTS
The appellants were convicted of murder for the killing of Edgardo Sumalde Tusi. The prosecution evidence, primarily from the victim’s wife Salvacion and corroborating witnesses Ruben and Jaime Bernal, established that on May 30, 1999, in Las Piñas City, the appellants and an at-large co-accused, Edwin Macas, conspired in the attack. The incident stemmed from the victim’s prior admonition to the group to lower their noise during a drinking session. The prosecution narrated that Toribio initially stabbed the resting victim, after which Filomeno and Gregorio joined, with Gregorio hacking the victim with a bolo and Filomeno helping to restrain him, ensuring the victim was lifeless.
The defense presented a different version. Toribio claimed self-defense, alleging the victim and companions attacked him first with a lead pipe, forcing him to retaliate. Filomeno and Gregorio asserted alibis, stating they were elsewhere during the incident—Filomeno at a birthday party and Gregorio caring for his grandson—and only went into hiding out of fear of retaliation from the victim’s family, which later led to their arrest.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the appellants for the crime of murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution witnesses credible and their testimonies consistent, positively identifying all appellants as direct participants in a concerted attack. The defense of alibi by Filomeno and Gregorio was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification. Toribio’s claim of self-defense was untenable. The nature, number, and location of the victim’s twelve wounds, eight of which were fatal, disproved a plea of self-defense and indicated a determined effort to kill. The attack by multiple armed assailants against a single, unarmed victim constituted abuse of superior strength, qualifying the killing to murder. The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing civil indemnity and granting moral and exemplary damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence, but sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each appellant.