G.R. No. 206958 - Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc. vs. Carandang

The case involves the People of the Philippines charging Domingo Vasquez y Pacheco (appellant) and his brother Ramon Vasquez y Pacheco (co-accused) with murder and attempted homicide.
Two Informations were filed: one for the murder of Geronimo Espinosa and another for the attempted killing of Luis Luable.

On June 18, 1995, an altercation erupted in Kalookan City involving members of the Luable and Pacheco families.

Luis Luable, while conversing with a relative, became involved in a dispute after witnessing a family quarrel.
The confrontation escalated when Roel Pacheco, armed with a bolo, attacked Luis, leading to physical injuries.

After the altercation, Luis Luable fled with his half-brother Geronimo Espinosa for safety.

As they reached a residential area illuminated by a street lamp, a blue-colored jeepney driven by Domingo Vasquez, accompanied by his brother Ramon and others, approached at speed.
Observing the jeepney, Luis and Geronimo attempted to escape by diving and fleeing, which initiated a chase.

Debbie Dorado and Maria Luisa Abellanosa provided detailed descriptions of the chase, the physical appearance of the assailants, and the sequence of events.
Luis Luable testified that both Domingo and Ramon Vasquez, armed with bolos, pursued him and Geronimo after the jeepney stopped near a Meralco lamp post.
The identification of the assailants, including their relative positions in the jeep and actions taken immediately after the chase, was noted in trial testimonies.

The physical evidence, including the autopsy report by Dr. Rosaline Cosidon, confirmed that Geronimo Espinosa sustained multiple incised and hacked wounds typical of heavy cutting instruments.

Domingo Vasquez, in his testimony, denied personally killing Geronimo or directly attempting to kill Luis Luable.

He claimed he was at home repairing windows until later being brought to the police station by his brother and a law enforcement officer.
His identification by witnesses was largely based on appearance and positioning (e.g., having a moustache and short hair) rather than active participation in the actual hacking.

Luis Luable and Debbie Dorado indicated that Domingo was one of the assailants who leapt from the jeepney and wielded a bolo.
Maria Luisa Abellanosa, however, identified other individuals (members of the Pacheco and Bartonico groups) as the primary perpetrators, though she also linked the pursuit to the accused Vasquez brothers.

Discrepancies were noted concerning the location of the fatal attack (corners of Lapu-Lapu, Sumakwel, and Magat Salamat Streets) and the exact sequence of how the victims were chased and attacked.

The evidence portrayed a scenario in which the occupants of the jeepney acted in concert, suggesting a common design to apprehend and kill or harm the victims.

The act of Domingo alighting from the jeepney and allegedly ordering his cohorts—uttering “Sige, patayin niyo na, patayin niyo na, at huwag niyong iwanang buhay!”—is central to establishing conspiracy.

The autopsy and physical evidence corroborated that the fatal injuries on Geronimo were inflicted by heavy, sharp instruments consistent with the weapons carried by the accused and their companions.
Despite the appellant’s assertion of a weak motive and his alibi claim, the collective circumstantial evidence and the testimonies of multiple witnesses placed him at the scene with his cohorts, actively participating in the ensuing chaos.

Whether the court properly assessed the conflicting yet corroborative witness testimonies (from Luis Luable, Debbie Dorado, and Maria Luisa Abellanosa) to establish the appellant’s direct involvement.
Whether identification of Domingo Vasquez by physical appearance and his proximity to the scene—despite witness inconsistencies—sufficed to prove his guilt.

Whether the appellant’s claim of lacking any motive to kill Geronimo effectively negated his criminal liability for the murder/homicide.
Whether the bare denial and the purported alibi (being at home until later transferred to the police station) were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Whether the overall conduct of the occupants of the jeepney—specifically the appellant’s actions of inciting his cohorts—adequately established a conspiracy linking him to the crimes.
Whether proving conspiracy removes the necessity to directly demonstrate that the appellant personally inflicted the fatal wounds.

Whether the penalty for attempted homicide should be recalibrated in light of the evidence and the stipulated guidelines under the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the modifications in the award of actual, moral, temperate, and exemplary damages are justifiable based on the discrepancies in the testimony and the overall evaluation of the case.