G.R. No. 148627 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JENELITO IBAÑEZ @ “JEN”, JOVY IBAÑEZ, DANILO IBAÑEZ @ “TABUNO”, AND FERNANDO DELA PAZ @ “NENE CALVO”. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding both accused JENELITO IBAÑEZ and DANILO IBAÑEZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of murder and are hereby sentenced to pay the heirs of Belardo Pagapulan the following: 1. Civil Indemnity P 50,000.00 2. Actual and compensatory damages P 10,000.00 3. Moral damages P100,000.00 4. Loss of earning capacity P630,000.00 It appearing from the records of the case that both accused Jenelito Ibañez and Danilo Ibañez were detained since February 3, 1994, the period of their preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the imposition of the penalty which is Reclusion Perpetua or forty (40) years imprisonment. The case as against co-accused Jovy Ibañez and Fernando dela Paz alias Nene Clavo who are both at-large is ordered ARCHIVED, to be reinstated upon their arrest or voluntary surrender. The alias warrant of arrest previously issued last January 18, 1996 is hereby reiterated. In their Brief, [33] appellants assigned two errors to the decision of the trial court, viz : FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE KILLING OF THE DECEASED WAS ATTENDED BY TREACHERY. SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT DANILO IBAÑEZ NOTWITHSTANDING THAT NEITHER HIS IDENTITIY NOR HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE KILLING OF THE DECEASED WAS ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE UNCORROBORATED AND BIASED TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIMS OWN DAUGHTER. Appellants assailed the judgment of the trial court on several grounds. First, they allege that there was no treachery attendant to the killing of Pagapulan. On the occasion of that fateful day when Pagapulan was confronted by the appellants and the other accused, he did not run away but chose to approach them. Pagapulan even took off his white shirt when he purportedly went down to hide under the house. In the minds of the appellants, this should be seen by the Court as a recognized local fact [34] indicative that Pagapulan was readying himself to fight the appellants. The victim was therefore not caught unaware and unable to defend himself, and instead of being cautious, chose to be courageous. On the other hand, the plaintiff-appellee contends that the trial court properly appreciated the existence of treachery. The attack on Pagapulan had been executed in such a manner so as to make it impossible for him to retaliate. The appellants deliberately resorted to the use of superior strength, by employing their superiority in number and in the bolos they used as weapons against the unarmed victim. According to the appellee, there being abuse of superior strength, there must be treachery as the former circumstance is absorbed in the latter. [35] The Court sustains the argument of the appellants that no treachery attended the killing of Pagapulan. Contrary to the asseverations of the appellee, we must distinguish the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery from abuse of superior str