G.R. No. 116233 - People vs. Gailo

The accused-appellants Renato Gailo and Rudy Gailo, along with four co-accused who remained at large, were charged with the crime of murder.
The incident occurred on November 28, 1990, in Sitio Puting Balas, Barangay Rizal, Municipality of Jordan, Guimaras, Iloilo.
The Information alleged that the accused, acting in concert and with superior strength, attacked Mario MaAale with multiple weapons—including a bolo, an iron bar, a lead pipe, and even stones—inflicting wounds that directly led to the victim’s death.

Fernando Sotela and Mario MaAale, who were co-workers and housemates, visited Mercy Espinosa’s store to drink beer in the early evening.
Shortly thereafter, they were joined by Renato Gailo and his elder brother, Ronaldo Gailo (alias aMukonga), leading to a minor scuffle when Ronaldo boxed the victim.
After pacification, Ronaldo invited them to his house purportedly for a birthday party, but the group eventually reconvened at the store.

As Mario MaAale and Fernando Sotela left the store to visit Ronaldo’s house, they were intercepted at about 10 meters from the house.
According to Sotela’s testimony, he witnessed Ronaldo stabbing the victim on the face with a bolo, followed by Renato stabbing the victim on the back, and Rudy hitting the victim with a lead pipe on the neck.
Within minutes, additional individuals—Budoy Gallantes, Jerry Gailo, and Pablo delos Reyes—arrived and participated in beating the victim with stones, further evidencing the use of multiple weapons by more than one person.

Sotela departed from the scene as the group attempted to drag the victim’s body into the yard of Rudy Gailo.
The second prosecution witness, Rolando Portillo, corroborated the occurrence of the assault from a distance, describing the same sequence of brutal actions and identifying the accused.
The crime scene’s physical evidence and the necropsy report confirmed multiple lacerations, contusions, and compound fractures on the victim, including an 8 cm laceration on the face.

The necropsy report by Dr. Edgardo Jabasa documented numerous wounds—lacerations, contusions, abrasions, and hematomas—demonstrating that the victim had been attacked with different weapons, and identified the multiple compound fracture of the head as the fatal injury.
Additional documents included a police blotter narrative and a medical certificate issued (purportedly) to Ronaldo Gailo, though inconsistencies in the location of a gunshot wound were noted.

Mercedes Gailo, the mother of several accused, testified that only her son, Ronaldo, was responsible for killing the victim, alleging that the victim acted aggressively and that the killing occurred in self-defense.
She also claimed that the wounds were not stab wounds but rather a contusion from a homemade gun (apugakhanga).
Accused-appellants Renato and Rudy Gailo denied any involvement at the scene, offering alibis—Renato stated he was in Iloilo City, while Rudy claimed he was fishing on a nearby beach.

Although the defense presented an alibi, no corroborative evidence (e.g., independent witnesses in Iloilo City) supported Renato’s claim.
Similarly, Rudy’s proximity to the crime scene (only a half-kilometer away) undermined his alibi.
The eyewitness accounts, despite certain minor discrepancies regarding timing and sequence, maintained a consistent identification of the accused as participants in the assault.

Whether the trial court erred in not giving sufficient credence to the denial and alibi presented by the accused-appellants, specifically the claim that they could not have been at the scene of the crime.
Whether the alibi evidence, being unsupported by reliable, independent corroboration, should have been considered credible.

Whether the lower court erred in rejecting the defense’s contention that there were no stab wounds and that the injuries were inflicted solely by blunt trauma—as purportedly evidenced by the medical certificate and Mercedes Gailo’s testimony.
The extent to which the necropsy report, which clearly indicated multiple lacerations and compound fractures, should be given overriding probative value over defense testimonies.

Whether the discrepancies between the testimonies of the prosecution’s primary witnesses (Sotela and Portillo) and the defense witness (Mercedes Gailo) were significant enough to undermine the identification of the accused.
How the trial court should assess minor inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts without letting them override the overall effect of the evidence.

Whether the trial court’s appreciation of nighttime conditions as an aggravating circumstance was proper, in light of evidence suggesting that sufficient illumination was present.
Whether treachery and evident premeditation were adequately proven by the nature and execution of the crime.

Whether the alternative account attributing the killing solely to accused Ronaldo Gailo acting in self-defense and under provocation was supported by sufficient credible and corroborative evidence.
The implications of the absence of the alleged homemade gun and the conflicting location of the gunshot wound as raised by the defense.