G.R. No. 120550 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ANTOLIN HAYAHAY, ORLANDO LICANDA, EDITO COMEDIA Y CONAKE, ALIAS "PALANG," SERAFIN MORELES Y PALOMPON, ZALDY BILLENTES Y OAB, MILIANO OLASIMAN Y VILLAROSA, DIONISIO OLASIMAN Y VILLAROSA AND ANTONIO OLASIMAN Y VILLAROSA, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prosecution having successfully proven its case, the Court hereby finds the herein accused ANTOLIN HAYAHAY, ORLANDO LICANDA, EDITO COMEDIA, SERAFIN MORELES, ZALDY BILLENTES, MILIANO OLASIMAN, DIONISIO OLASIMAN and ANTONIO OLASIMAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder charged against them in the above-captioned case as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and sentences each of them to the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA; to each indemnify the heirs of the victim, Gorgonio Lapu-Lapu the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (50,000.00), less the amount of 11,000.00 already paid as civil indemnity to the surviving spouse, as stated above; and to pay the costs. x x x" Hence this appeal. Appellants contend that: I THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EYEWITNESS RAMIL LAPU-LAPU WHOSE TESTIMONY IS DOUBTFUL AND CONTRADICTORY. II THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WHOSE GUILT WERE NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT CONSPIRACY EXIST IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED AND THAT THE TRIAL COURT ALSO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE CRIME CHARGED WAS COMMITTED WITH THE ATTENDING QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF TREACHERY AND SUPERIOR STRENGTH. In their first and second assigned errors, appellants claim that the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Ramil Lapu-Lapu is full of contradictions. First, they point out that on direct testimony, Ramil declared that appellants attacked the victim one after the other but, on cross examination, Ramil said he immediately ran away after the first stab blow on the victim for fear that he might also be attacked by appellants. Second, Ramil testified that a heated argument preceded the stabbing of the victim but, on further questioning, he claimed the affray was not prefaced by any argument as appellants just pounced on the hapless victim. Third, Ramil testified he returned to the crime scene but later, Ramil averred he did not leave the house for fear he might also be stabbed. Appellants urge us to reject Ramil's testimony. We disagree. The inconsistencies alluded to by appellants in the testimony of Ramil are more apparent than real. First, the records bear that Ramil categorically declared he saw the appellants maul and stab the victim. On the stand, Ramil gave a detailed eyeball account of the killing and the participation of each of the appellants. He was only at a distance of five (5) meters from the scene of the crime. It cannot be denied that Ramil saw appellant Comedia stab the victim on the chest; he saw appellants Hayahay and Licanda stab the victim's back; he saw appellant Dionisio Olasiman club the victim on the head with an iron bar; he saw appellants Miliano Olasiman and Billentes box and kick the victim; and he saw appellant Moreles hit the victim with a piece of wood. [19] Although Ramil fled when the carnage started, he s