G.R. No. 177150 - People vs. Ching

On June 22, 2005, at approximately 10:30 PM, an incident occurred at an abingohana located in Zone 3, Barangay San Nicolas, Municipality of Pili, Camarines Sur.
The victim, Joseph Nicolas, was present at the abingohana with his wife Maria and friends Manuel Chica and Ramon Tirao.
Earlier in the evening, an altercation between Joseph and Randy Credo took place when Randy punched Joseph, prompting Joseph to chase after him.

After the initial confrontation, as Joseph pursued Randy, chaos ensued with onlookers scattering due to the commotion.
Meanwhile, Randy Credo, accompanied by his co-accused Ronald Credo (also known as Ontog) and their father Rolando Credo, regrouped in Zone 3.
All three accused were each armed with a bolo, indicating premeditation and organized action against the victim.
On their way, Joseph’s children (including Russel, Ramon, Roldan, and Rea) encountered the accused. During their search for their father, they were met with stone throwing by the appellants, resulting in panic and separation.
Russel, while separated from his siblings, later saw the accused in Zone 2, actively engaged in hacking an individual with their bolos. It was subsequently identified that the victim was their father, Joseph Nicolas.

Eyewitness Francis Credo (the nephew of the victim and cousin to the accused) testified that he heard a shout from another relative and then observed through a nearby window the accused, armed with bolos, repeatedly hacking the victim.
The testimony of Russel, although given from a different vantage point and with minor inconsistencies, corroborated the critical detail that after the initial attack the accused returned to the scene and delivered an additional blow, using the term “apang-dulcea” (alluding to a final strike).
The consistent detail from both key eyewitnesses was that all three accused were seen actively engaged in the attack and that the victim, who was unarmed and holding only a lemon and an egg, was overwhelmed by the numerical and physical superiority of the accused.

The Regional Trial Court (Branch 31, Pili, Camarines Sur) initially found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

The trial court determined that the accused acted in concert (conspiracy) and employed abuse of superior strength during the commission of the crime.
The decision, rendered on 14 July 2009, included a sentence of reclusion perpetua and awarded the victim’s family various sums for actual, civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications to the award of damages:

Civil indemnity was increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.
Moral damages were increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.
Exemplary damages were reduced from P50,000.00 to P30,000.00.
Temperate damages of P25,000.00 were awarded in place of actual damages, based on the receipts presented, which totaled only P14,300.00.

Subsequent developments noted the death of one of the accused, Rolando Credo, which, according to Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, extinguished his criminal and civil liability, thus narrowing the appeal issues to Randy and Ronald Credo.

Whether the trial court erred in not affording sufficient exculpatory weight to the defense pleaded by accused-appellant Ronald Credo, specifically the defense of self-defense as well as defense of relatives.
Whether the evidentiary inconsistencies noted in the testimonies of the prosecution’s key eyewitnesses (Russel and Francis) were material enough to cast doubt on their credibility and thus warrant an acquittal.

Whether the trial court wrongly determined that the killing of Joseph Nicolas was not committed in self-defense or defense of relatives, due to the absence of evidence showing the victim’s unlawful aggression.
Whether the conduct of the accused, particularly the concerted action and use of superior strength, established sufficient grounds for the conspiracy charge and the aggravating circumstance qualifying the crime as murder.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the award of damages, specifically:

Increasing the civil indemnity and moral damages.
Correctly reducing the exemplary damages and awarding temperate damages in lieu of the actual damages presented.

Whether it is erroneous to conclude that the accused-conspirators conspired together in the commission of the crime based purely on circumstantial evidence.
Whether the increase of the civil indemnity award from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 was properly supported by the evidence and applicable law.