G.R. Nos. 118573-74 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RICARDO FRANCISCO Y CUPCUPIN, REYNALDO FRANCISCO Y CUPCUPIN, TEODORO FRANCISCO Y CUPCUPIN, ANTONIO SIOCO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Teodoro, Reynaldo and Ricardo, all surnamed Francisco, as well as Antonio Sioco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder in Criminal Case No. 12196-MN and of Murder in Criminal Case No. 12197-MN, and hereby sentences each one of them as follows: In Criminal Case No. 12196-MN, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum; In Criminal Case No. 12197-MN, to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; To indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Serafin Mangali, Jr. the sum of P44,500.00 as actual damages plus the further sum of P50,000.00 for the death of said Serafin Mangali, Jr. and the cost of suit. Let the accused be credited with whatever preventive imprisonment they have undergone in connection with these cases. Let the records of these cases be sent to the archives pending the trial of accused Efren Francisco and the arrest of all the other accused." [11] In so ruling, the court a quo found that there was a conspiracy as the accused acted pursuant to a common criminal design as the acts performed by them individually thereafter were concerted and were so connected as to unequivocally show the existence of a conspiracy; and that the accused took advantage of superior strength in executing their criminal design in that Teodoro sought the assistance of his companions and despite the superiority in number, the conspirators even armed themselves with knives. Hence, the present appeal where the Francisco brothers RICARDO, REYNALDO and TEODORO, assign the following errors allegedly committed by the trial court: "1. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RELYING ON POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS AS THE PERPETRATORS OF THE CRIMES; 2. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES ARIEL DE DIOS AND EMMANUEL PASCUAL, DESPITE THEIR IMPROPER MOTIVES, BIASES AND INTERESTS IN TESTIFYING AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS; 3. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN LENDING CREDENCE TO PROSECUTION'S VERSION RATHER THAN ON THE DEFENSE VERSION ON HOW DECEASED SERAFIN MANGALI, JR., WAS STABBED; 4. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN IGNORING ACCUSED-APPELLANT RICARDO FRANCISCO'S JUDICIAL ADMISSION OF BEING THE ASSAILANT OF THE DECEASED SERAFIN MANGALI, JR.; 5. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT TEODORO FRANCISCO THE ASSAILANT OF DECEASED MANGALI, JR.; 6. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT REYNALDO FRANCISCO THE ASSAILANT OF ARIEL DE DIOS; 7. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT; AND ASSUMING IN GRATIA ARGUMENTI, THAT ACCUSED, OR SOME OF THEM, ARE GUILTY: 8. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING CONSPIRACY AMONG THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS; 9. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF A