G.R. No. 137171 - Kho vs. Biron Sr.

On March 11, 1984, at approximately 10:00 p.m., a massacre occurred in Sitio Candiis, Barangay Cabidianan, New Corella, Davao.
The victims were the Magdasal family – Welbino Magdasal, Sr., his wife Wendelyn, and their children Welbino, Jr. and Melisa – who were killed in their home.
The massacre was allegedly carried out by members of the Integrated Civilian Home Defense Force (ICHDF).

On March 14, 1984, relatives of the victims reported the incident to the local authorities and police in New Corella.
Joint affidavits and sworn statements were executed by the victims’ parents and a third party, Lucrecio Dagohoy, urging a proper investigation.
The true identity of the perpetrators initially remained unknown until witness testimonies began to shed light on the matter.

On February 27, 1985, barangay captain Sergio Doctolero testified that Romeo Guipo, a member of the ICHDF, confessed that the team led by Sarenas Tabag was behind the massacre.
Three days before the massacre’s first anniversary, Ernesto Mawang provided a sworn statement naming those involved, which was later corroborated by Pablo Oca.
An information for murder was filed on July 15, 1985, against the accused: Coloma Tabag, Sarenas Tabag, Marcelino Tabag, Fernando Maglinte, Jr., Artemio Awod, Laureao Awod, Romeo Aguipo, and Ernesto Mawang, with supporting affidavits, statements, and victim death certificates.

After preliminary investigation, Judge Napy Agayan issued a warrant for arrest based on the strong demonstration of guilt.
Accused Sarenas Tabag surrendered on August 21, 1985, while others were sought through alias warrants.
Subsequent to initial proceedings at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of New Corella, the case was transmitted to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal and later filed in the Regional Trial Court of Tagum, docketed as Criminal Case No. 6364.
Some accused, such as Laureao Awod and Artemio Awod, later escaped from detention, complicating the procedure.

The prosecution presented testimonies of several witnesses including Pablo Oca, Sergio Doctolero, Aniceto and Marciana Magdasal, among others.
The defense relied on alibi and denial, with accused Sarenas Tabag, Coloma Tabag, and Romeo Aguipo testifying in their favor.
Testimonies detailed the chain of command, the sequence of orders given by Sarenas, the movement of the ICHDF unit, and the execution of the massacre.

After the trial court decision on January 7, 1992, Sarenas Tabag, Coloma Tabag, and Romeo Aguipo were found guilty of four counts of murder.
The decision included sentencing to reclusion perpetua and orders for the accused to pay indemnities and moral damages.
Later, on appeal, the issue arose regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the nature of the conspiracy, and the applicability of justifying circumstances under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code.
With Coloma Tabag's death and the escape of certain accused, the proper continuation of the trial and the imposition of penalties remained central issues.

Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the chain of events and testimonies, established beyond reasonable doubt that Sarenas Tabag was the mastermind and principal in the massacre.

Whether the acts of the ICHDF members, particularly the orders given by Sarenas Tabag, sufficiently demonstrated a joint purpose and concerted action qualifying as conspiracy in the execution of multiple murders.

Whether the murder charges should be qualified by treachery rather than evident premeditation.
Whether generic aggravating circumstances such as nighttime and the use of a band (cuadrilla) were properly absorbed or needed separate appreciation.

Whether Sarenas Tabag’s claim of exemption under Article 11 (paragraphs 5 and 6) of the Revised Penal Code – based on acting in official capacity and under orders – is justified in view of his involvement in the massacre.

Consideration of Procedural Irregularities and the Fate of Absconding Accused

Whether the trial court erred in continuing the trial despite the escape of some accused.
The propriety of dismissing or continuing the proceedings against accused who failed to appear after arraignment.

Whether the award for moral damages and indemnity should be reduced as per current case law on the quantification of damages in death and moral suffering cases.