G.R. No. 92153 - People vs. Obzunar

On May 6, 1988, at about 9:00 o’clock in the evening in Talalora, Samar, the victim, Anastacio Macato, was chased and attacked by a group of individuals.
The accused-appellants – Artemio Obzunar, Virgilio Obzunar, Nelson Isanan, Alfredo Isanan, Sr., Alfredo Isanan, Jr., Julio Zilmar, and Jose Superio – were charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with qualifying circumstances of alevosia and superiority in strength.
The information filed alleged that the accused, armed with bolos and pieces of wood, deliberately attacked the victim inflicting multiple injuries including a fatal stab wound on the victim’s right posterior chest.

Eyewitness Lydia Zilmar, a relative of the victim, testified that while folding clothes at her home, she witnessed the accused chasing her brother, Anastacio Macato.
She observed that Artemio Obzunar overtook the victim and stabbed him from behind, after which the other accused participated by kicking, boxing, and striking with a piece of wood.
Other prosecution witnesses, including Maria Gina Figueroa and Miguel M. Diaz of the Commission on Audit, testified regarding the victim’s role as a guide to an audit team investigating an infrastructure project linked to the Municipal Mayor, thereby establishing motive.
Additional testimony from Pablo Millano, though ultimately given less weight due to inconsistencies, initially linked the accused to premeditated planning during a drinking session.

Dr. Adoracion L. Cinco’s post-mortem report noted a single fatal stab wound in the back affecting the coronary blood vessel.
The victim sustained multiple other injuries such as lacerations, abrasions, and blunt force injuries consistent with a group assault.
The singular fatal stab wound, accompanied by the presence of other non-fatal injuries, suggested that while one assailant may have administered the deadly blow, the overall attack was a group effort.

The defense maintained that only one of the accused, Virgilio Obzunar, was responsible for the killing and that it occurred in an act of self-defense.
According to the defense, events unfolded during two separate wakes in Talalora, where the accused were present playing cards and drinking.
The defense contended that a heated altercation ensued when the victim, Anastacio Macato, who was allegedly a known tough character, approached Virgilio Obzunar.
Virgilio Obzunar admitted to having stabbed the victim but claimed it was a necessary act to repel an attack, thus asserting that the killing was justified by self-defense.
Several witnesses for the defense – including Ricardo Patrimonio, two policemen (Pat. Ananias Idlisan and Pat. Edgardo Valdez), and Pedro Aclado – testified to support the claim that only Virgilio had engaged in the fatal act, while providing alibi testimonies for the other accused.

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Basey, Samar, convicted all seven accused for murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua.
The court found that the eyewitness testimony of Lydia Zilmar, corroborated by other evidence such as motive established by the COA audit team members, conclusively identified the accused.
Despite defense arguments regarding self-defense and alibi, the trial court ultimately held that the collective actions of the accused evidenced a conspiracy resulting in the deliberate, group-perpetrated killing of Anastacio Macato.
The trial court also ordered the accused to jointly and severally pay indemnity to the victim’s heirs.

Whether the trial court correctly assessed and gave due weight to the testimony of prosecution witness Lydia Zilmar and other related witnesses.
Whether the conflicting testimonies, including that of defense witnesses, were properly evaluated.

Whether there was sufficient evidence to infer a conspiracy or common design among the accused in planning and executing the murder.
The significance of the collective conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime in establishing a shared criminal intent.

Whether the accused-appellant Virgilio Obzunar correctly established the elements of self-defense.
Whether the fatal attack was indeed initiated by unlawful aggression from the victim or if it was merely a cover-up for a planned murder.

Whether the overall evidence, including physical, testimonial, and circumstantial evidence, met the threshold for a conviction of murder.
Whether the failure of the defense to rebut the prosecution’s evidence warrants a conviction.