People v. Seduco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two criminal informations were filed against Roberto Millamina, Juan Sasi, John Sasi, and Nestor Seduco. The first, Criminal Case No. 46363, charged them with Murder for the killing of Noe A. Selibio on March 23, 1996, alleging that they conspired, confederated, and mutually helped one another, armed with firearms and bolos, to attack and kill the victim with treachery and superior strength. The second, Criminal Case No. 46364, charged them with Attempted Murder for the attack on David M. Selibio on the same date, alleging similar circumstances of conspiracy, armed assault, treachery, and superior strength, but that the execution of the crime was not completed. Procedural History: Nestor Seduco surrendered to the authorities and pleaded not guilty, while the other three accused remained at large. The prosecution presented evidence detailing the ambush of Noe and David Selibio, resulting in Noe's death from gunshot and hack wounds. The defense offered an alibi for Nestor Seduco, claiming he was a peacemaker attempting to stop the violence. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Nestor Seduco guilty of Murder in Criminal Case No. 46363, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. He was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 46364 for Attempted Murder due to insufficient proof. Seduco appealed the conviction. The Petition: Accused-appellant Nestor Seduco filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, raising three main arguments. He contended that the trial court erred in finding him liable for murder, arguing that his denial was weak against the positive identification by prosecution eyewitnesses, whose testimonies he claimed were inconsistent and designed to implicate him while the real perpetrators remained at large. He also argued that the trial court erred in finding him to have participated in the killing, asserting he attempted to stop the assailants. Finally, he argued that even if he participated, he should only be considered an accomplice, not a principal. The appeal sought to overturn his conviction for murder.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding Nestor Seduco guilty of murder. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses were inconsistent and unreliable. Whether Nestor Seduco participated in the killing of Noe Selibio. Whether Nestor Seduco should be considered merely an accomplice instead of a principal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding Nestor Seduco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt for murder: The Court found that the accused-appellant was positively identified by eyewitnesses David Selibio and Rodolfo Monserrate, Jr. as one of the assailants who delivered hacking blows on the victim, Noe Selibio. The testimonies of these eyewitnesses were deemed unblemished by major flaws, and no ill motive was shown for them to implicate the accused-appellant. The Court gave greater evidentiary weight to the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses over the mere negative averment of the accused-appellant. On the alleged inconsistency of eyewitness testimonies: The Court held that certain discrepancies between declarations in a sworn statement and those made in court seldom discredit the declarant, especially when sworn statements are taken ex parte and may be incomplete or inaccurate. The Court found no real incongruence between David Selibio's affidavit and his testimony in court, particularly regarding Nestor Seduco's involvement and his weapon (a bolo). On the participation of Nestor Seduco: The Court found sufficient evidence detailing the involvement of the accused-appellant in the commission of the crime. Eyewitnesses positively identified him as one of those who hacked the victim. The dying declaration of Noe Selibio, which was admitted as evidence, also named Nestor Seduco as one of those who hacked him. The Court considered the dying declaration reliable as it was made in extremis when the victim was conscious of his impending death. On whether Nestor Seduco should be considered merely an accomplice: The Court ruled that conspiracy was sufficiently established. The acts of the malefactors, including Roberto Millamina shooting the victim and then the others, including Nestor Seduco, striking the fallen victim with their bolos, showed a concurrence of sentiments, a joint purpose, and a concerted action indicative of a common objective. This negated the claim that Nestor Seduco was merely an accomplice.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, holding that conspiracy was sufficiently established by the concurrence of sentiments, joint purpose, and concerted action. Treachery was also found to be present as the victim was attacked suddenly and without warning, affording no opportunity for defense. The Court also found the dying declaration of the victim admissible and reliable.