G.R. No. L-30449 October 31, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO GARCIA Y CABARSE alias “TONY MANOK” and REYNALDO ARVISO Y REBELLEZA alias “RENE BISUGO,” defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The accused, Antonio Garcia and Reynaldo Arviso, were convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the Circuit Criminal Court for the killing of Apolonio Dioquino, Jr. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of the victim’s sister, Corazon Dioquino Paterno. She testified that in the early morning of October 19, 1968, she went out to fetch her brother, having learned he was drinking with his gang. At around 3:00 a.m., she witnessed her brother being chased by a group of about seven men, including the two appellants whom she recognized as former gangmates. She saw the group catch and beat the victim. She then saw Antonio Garcia sitting astride the prostrate victim, stabbing him in the back with a long knife. The defense of both accused was alibi, claiming they were elsewhere at the time of the incident.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of murder based on the eyewitness testimony and in appreciating the aggravating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime and penalty. The Court found the testimony of Corazon Paterno credible, positive, and consistent, thereby sufficiently establishing the appellants’ participation in the killing. The defense of alibi, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, could not prevail over this positive identification. However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation alleged in the information were not proven. The attack arose from a chase following a drinking spree, and there was no evidence of a deliberate method to ensure execution without risk to the assailants. Consequently, the crime is homicide, not murder.
Regarding aggravating circumstances, the Court found two generic aggravating circumstances present: abuse of superiority and nocturnity. Abuse of superiority was established as seven armed men attacked a single, unarmed victim. Nocturnity was aggravating under the objective test, as the commission of the crime at 3:00 a.m. facilitated the offense by handicapping eyewitnesses and encouraging impunity. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was appreciated in favor of the appellants. Offsetting the two aggravating circumstances with the one mitigating circumstance left one net aggravating circumstance. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellants were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 18 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The decision was modified accordingly.