Facts:

• The case involves the conviction of appellants Domingo Hingan and Nicolas Peria for the murder of 2Lt. Reymundo Medel.
• The main witness in the case was the victim's son, Armando Medel, who positively identified the appellants as the assailants.
• The appellants were sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants.
• The court found that the inconsistencies in Armando Medel's testimony were minor and did not affect his credibility.
• The court rejected the defense's claim that Armando Medel had an improper motive to implicate the appellants.
• The court emphasized that Armando's positive identification of the appellants, along with other evidence, was sufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• The court also rejected the defense's alibi, noting that it was weak and not supported by credible evidence.
• The court held that the killing of the victim was qualified by treachery and that conspirac...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The court found that the minor inconsistencies in Armando Medel's testimony did not affect his credibility. The court emphasized that his positive identification of the appellants, along with other evidence, was sufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• The court rejected the defense's claim that Armando Medel had an improper motive to implicate the appellants. The court found no evidence to support this claim.
• The court also rejected the defense's alibi, noting that it was weak and not supported by credible evidence. The appellants failed to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be a...continue reading