People v. Drew
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 3, 1991, at around 11:00 P.M., the victim, Antonio Cordial, Jr., was walking towards an eatery when he was waylaid by appellants Salvador Drew, Jenny Ramos, and eleven (11) other accused. Drew clubbed the unarmed victim with a piece of wood, and Ramos struck him on the back of the head with a lead pipe. As the victim fell, the others joined in beating him. Prosecution witnesses Junjun Sopeña and Conrado Militante witnessed the incident. The victim was brought to the hospital and died the next day from pneumonia, secondary to traumatic head injuries. Procedural History: Appellants Drew and Ramos were charged with murder along with eleven others. Only Drew and Ramos were apprehended and stood trial. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80, found both appellants guilty of murder and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. One co-accused, Gerry Rivera, was acquitted. The Petition: Appellants Salvador Drew and Jenny Ramos appealed their conviction, alleging that the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies despite inconsistencies and in finding that the killing was attended by abuse of superior strength and conspiracy.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court gravely erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite their alleged manifest inconsistencies. Whether the trial court gravely erred in finding that the killing was attended with abuse of superior strength and conspiracy; and the propriety of the penalty and damages imposed.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding appellants Salvador Drew and Jenny Ramos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. They were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of prosecution witnesses: The Court held that the inconsistencies pointed out by the appellants in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Sopeña and Militante were minor and collateral, and did not affect the substance of their positive identification of the appellants and their participation in the crime. The Court noted that the judge who penned the decision was not the same judge who heard the witnesses, necessitating a minute scrutiny of the records. However, the substance of the testimonies remained consistent regarding the commission of the crime. The Court also found no improper motive for the witnesses to testify falsely. Regarding the discrepancy in the time of the incident in Militante's sworn statement and court testimony, the Court explained that affidavits are generally subordinated to declarations made in open court, especially when the affiant had no opportunity to correct inaccuracies. The Court also clarified that Militante did not state he and Sopeña were the only eyewitnesses, but rather that no other passers-by were present. The Court reiterated that the number of witnesses is not as crucial as the quality and weight of their testimonies, and that the prosecution is not obligated to present all possible witnesses. The Court found that the testimonies of Militante and Sopeña corroborated each other and were credible. On the presence of conspiracy and abuse of superior strength; and the penalty and damages: The Court found that conspiracy was sufficiently established by the concerted acts of the appellants and their co-accused, who waylaid and surrounded the lone and unarmed victim, ganged up on him, and inflicted fatal injuries. The Court rejected the appellants' theory that their neighbors merely surrounded the victim to protect Drew, deeming it preposterous given Drew's act of arming himself. The Court emphasized that the form and manner of the attack, including the use of a wooden club and a lead pipe, clearly indicated unity of action and purpose. The Court also affirmed the finding of abuse of superior strength, noting that the appellants and their confederates took advantage of their collective strength and weapons to render the victim defenseless and prevent his escape. The unarmed victim was no match for the thirteen assailants, two of whom were armed with deadly weapons. The Court concluded that these circumstances qualified the killing to murder. The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court, noting that at the time of the crime, the penalty for murder was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. The Court modified the award of damages, increasing the actual damages from P23,047.00 to P23,565.38 based on receipts for medical and burial expenses, and affirmed the P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P50,000.00 moral damages.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for murder, holding that conspiracy was established by the concerted acts of the accused, and that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present due to the assailants' numerical superiority and use of weapons against an unarmed victim. Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not necessarily impair credibility, and alibi is unavailing against positive identification.