People vs. Sotes

G.R. No. 101337 (August 7, 1996)

Sotes and Ape were convicted of murder; penalties upheld, emphasizing eyewitness testimony's importance.

Facts:

On May 18, 1989, the residents of Sitio Lawis, Barangay Alimango, Escalante, Negros Occidental, were celebrating their annual fiesta. During the festivities, Virgilio Lumayno, Sr., a volunteer peacekeeper, was killed by three individuals, including the accused, Bennie Sotes and Deogracias Ape. The incident occurred around midnight when Sotes and Ape, along with another individual known as "Buroburo," entered the dance hall armed with firearms.

Earlier that evening, Ape had brandished a revolver, prompting Lumayno to advise him against such behavior. After a brief absence, Ape returned with Sotes and Buroburo, both armed with long firearms. They approached Lumayno, who was unarmed, and began to assault him. Sotes struck Lumayno with the barrel of his M-16 rifle, while Buroburo hit him with the butt of his rifle. As Lumayno attempted to flee, he was shot in the back by Buroburo and subsequently shot again by Sotes after his firearm jammed. Ape, meanwhile, threatened bystanders at the dance hall to prevent any intervention.

The attack resulted in Lumayno's death, confirmed by a post-mortem examination that revealed multiple gunshot wounds and contusions. Following the incident, an information for murder was filed against Sotes, Ape, and Buroburo, who remained at large. Both Sotes and Ape pleaded not guilty during their arraignment.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the crime of murder.
  2. Whether the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were credible and sufficient to establish the presence and participation of the accused in the crime.
  3. Whether conspiracy existed among the accused in the commission of the crime.

Arguments:

  • Prosecution's Argument: The prosecution presented eyewitness testimonies from Simplicio Abibas and Flocerfida Sante, who positively identified Sotes and Ape as the assailants. They argued that the testimonies were clear, consistent, and corroborated each other, establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution also contended that the actions of the accused demonstrated a conspiracy to commit murder.

  • Defense's Argument: The defense argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. They challenged the credibility of the eyewitnesses, claiming they were related to the victim and thus biased. The defense also presented an alibi, asserting that the accused were not at the scene of the crime at the time of the incident.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the prosecution had indeed proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the eyewitnesses were deemed credible and reliable, with the court noting that the trial court was in a better position to assess their demeanor and credibility. The court rejected the defense's argument regarding the witnesses' relationship to the victim, stating that mere familial ties do not disqualify a witness from testifying.

The court also found sufficient evidence of conspiracy, as the actions of the accused during the assault indicated they acted in unison with a common purpose. The court emphasized that conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence of prior agreement but can be inferred from the conduct of the accused.

In terms of sentencing, the court modified the trial court's decision, sentencing the accused to reclusion perpetua instead of life imprisonment and increasing the indemnity to the heirs of the victim from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, in line with established jurisprudence.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. The credibility of eyewitnesses is paramount, and their testimonies can be sufficient to establish guilt if they are clear, consistent, and corroborated.
  2. The relationship of a witness to the victim does not inherently impair their credibility.
  3. Conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused during the commission of the crime, and the act of one conspirator is the act of all.