G.R. No. L-31024 - People vs. Estocada

The victim, Dante Tupaz, was a partner with Macario Luching in a gambling enterprise known as “tombo-an” or “cara y cruz”.
The accused included several members of the Estocada family (Rafael Estocada alias “Boy Estocada”, Antonio Estocada, Ludovico Estocada alias “Loding”, Roque Estocada, and Aladino Estocada alias “Dindin”), along with Felicito Tolentino, Jr. and Fernando Lata.
The criminal incident took place during festivities in Capiz, with events initially occurring on April 4, 1968, and culminating in serious violence on April 11, 1968.
During the appellate proceedings, several accused withdrew their appeal or had their cases dismissed (Felicito Tolentino, Aladino Estocada, and Antonio Estocada withdrew; Ludovico Estocada died and was dismissed), leaving only Rafael Estocada, Roque Estocada, and Fernando Lata before this Court.

At a barrio fiesta and within the public market of Mambusao, Capiz, Macario Luching operated a gambling game which involved the use of coins.
On April 4, 1968, during one such game, Rafael Estocada was observed using a “doblon” (double-faced coin).
The use of this double-faced coin caused a disruption in the game, and when the deceased Dante Tupaz arrived, he admonished Rafael for the purported cheating.
Following the admonition, Rafael is recorded to have expressed a threat indicating that “there will be a day for you that you will pay your indebtedness,” setting the stage for future hostilities.

Early in the day, Macario Luching resumed his role as operator of the gambling game at the public market after being advised by the deceased to exclude Rafael.
During the course of the game, further disruptions occurred when it was again noted that Rafael Estocada employed a double-faced coin, leading to the cessation of play.
Ernesto Bogo, a local resident involved in collecting items from Macario Luching, encountered and engaged with Rafael Estocada and later with members of the Estocada family, establishing early witness linkages.
Testimonies from individuals such as Ernesto Bogo, Macario Luching, and Tiburcio Kapunan indicated that a palpable tension already existed at the scene, which would soon escalate into violence.

Around noontime on April 11, 1968, events rapidly escalated when the deceased, arriving by tricycle, was greeted by a group of assailants among whom were members of the Estocada family and Felicito Tolentino, Jr.
In a series of violent engagements:

Fernando Lata initially embraced the deceased from behind, establishing close contact.
Felicito Tolentino, Jr. then stabbed the deceased in the stomach.
Antonio Estocada attacked with a bolo, striking the left side of the neck.
As the victim staggered toward the sugar cane plants, Rafael, Ludovico, and Roque Estocada emerged from concealment and further hacked the deceased with bolos.
Additionally, Aladino Estocada struck the deceased on the left foot.

The autopsy report later revealed that the victim sustained ten distinct wounds on various parts of the body, which ultimately led to his death.
In his defense, appellant Rafael Estocada claimed that he alone inflicted the wounds and that his actions amounted to self-defense.

Multiple eyewitnesses, including Ernesto Bogo, Macario Luching, and Tiburcio Kapunan, provided detailed and consistent testimonies regarding the sequence of events.
The police on detail at the public market corroborated the absence of any pre-fight commotion or a lengthy quarrel as claimed by the appellant.
The physical evidence, especially the autopsy report which meticulously detailed the ten wounds, proved incompatible with a self-defense claim.
Accused Roque Estocada attempted to assert an alibi by claiming non-attendance at the affair, but his geographical proximity and positive identification by witnesses undermined this defense.

Whether the evidence presented, including the autopsy report and eyewitness testimonies, sufficiently established that multiple perpetrators inflicted the wounds on the deceased, thereby negating the single-actor self-defense claim by appellant Rafael Estocada.
Whether the defense’s claim that Rafael Estocada acted in self-defense could be reconciled with the number, nature, and distribution of wounds sustained by the victim.
Whether the absence of corroborative testimony (e.g., from Judge Federico Andaya) and the failure to establish an airtight alibi for appellant Roque Estocada constitute grounds for rejecting their defenses.
Whether the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of certain prosecution witnesses impair their overall credibility and the prosecution’s case.
Whether the proximity of accused residences to the scene of the crime and the positive identification of the accused by multiple witnesses sufficiently discredit the defense of alibi and self-defense.