G.R. No. 253312 - Rodrigo Conche y Obilo vs. People

On July 23, 1992 at approximately 9:00 in the evening, three accused—Catalino Melendres, Jr., Bernardino Kirit, and Teodulo Kitay—allegedly conspired to commit double murder in Sitio Balatican, Barangay Casala-an, Siaton, Negros Oriental.
An Information was filed on November 10, 1992 against Catalino along with two John Does, later identified as Bernardino and Teodulo, charging them with double murder in violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The crime involved a premeditated attack on the house of Pacifico Gualingco where the victims, first cousins Syrel and Exor Balasabas, were asleep on the second floor.

The accused allegedly approached the house under cover of darkness and without forceful entry, taking advantage of an unlocked door.
While Syrel and Exor were sleeping, the accused split up:

Catalino and Bernardino hacked Syrel Balasabas with bolos, inflicting severe wounds to his head, neck, shoulder, and upper extremities.
Teodulo Kitay simultaneously hacked Exor Balasabas, resulting in fatal injuries including severe head and neck wounds.

The brutality of the act was underscored by the use of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and the attacking of victims in a dwelling.

Rodrigo Hungoy testified that he and his cousin Mardie Balasabas witnessed the assailants entering the premises and identified the accused from a kerosene lamp-lit room.
Testimonies detailed the sequence of events: awakening by a barking dog, observation from a concealed position, and later identification of the accused.

The primary defense relied on alibi, with six witnesses including Juan Pahayat, Catalina Melendres, Bernardino Kirit, Teodulo Kitay, and Victoria Kirit testifying that the accused were at a different location (the house of Catalino in Sitio Baliw) during the time the murders occurred.
Testimonies varied on the exact time of arrival and departure at Catalino’s house; some witnesses claimed the accused were there from 7:00 to 10:00 in the evening, while discrepancies arose regarding the presence of certain individuals (e.g., the alleged presence of Juan Pahayat).

The trial court allowed the amendment of the Information to include Bernardino and Teodulo as co-accused once the two John Does were identified.
During the trial, both prosecution and defense presented their respective evidence:

The prosecution focused on eyewitness direct identification and the physical evidence of the wounds inflicted.
The defense attempted to establish alibi, arguing that the accused were indisputably present at Catalino’s house and that the distance (approximately ten kilometers) made it physically impossible for them to reach the scene of the crime in time.

On February 27, 1998, the Regional Trial Court (Branch 44) rendered a decision finding all three accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of double murder, imposing a penalty of two (2) Reclusion Perpetua per count, as well as ordering the payment of civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages to the heirs of both victims.

Whether the trial court gravely erred in giving weight to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly Rodrigo Hungoy and Mardie Balasabas, despite noted inconsistencies such as alleged mental derangement or delay in reporting the crime.
Whether the demeanor and credible explanations provided by the prosecution witnesses (including explanations of any discrepancies) were insufficiently scrutinized.

Whether the defense’s alibi, claiming that the accused were at a separate location (Catalino’s house in Sitio Baliw) during the time of the murders, was supported by convincing and coherent evidence.
Whether inconsistencies among the testimonies of the defense witnesses (e.g., discrepancies in the timing of arrival and departure, and the presence or absence of certain individuals) materially weakened the alibi claim.

Whether the synchronized actions of the accused, as demonstrated by their coordinated entry and immediate attack on the sleeping victims, clearly established a conspiracy and a common design to commit double murder.
Whether the aggravating circumstances (treachery, abuse of superior strength, and dwelling) were properly considered and proven beyond mere conjecture.

Whether the delay in reporting the crime by prosecution witnesses (affidavit taken approximately a month later) detracted from the reliability of their testimonies.
Whether the alleged inconsistencies regarding the physical configuration of the house (e.g., incomplete walling) were material to the credibility of the witnesses.