Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Credo
Case
G.R. No. 197360
Decision Date
Jul 3, 2013
Joseph Nicolas was fatally hacked by Randy, Ronald, and Rolando Credo, who claimed self-defense. The Supreme Court upheld their murder conviction, citing conspiracy, abuse of superior strength, and invalid defenses.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 126749)

Factual Antecedents

An amended information charged the appellants with the murder of Joseph Nicolas, alleging that they acted in conspiracy with intent to kill. On the night of the incident, after an altercation at an abingohan (a social gathering place), Randy punched Joseph, prompting Joseph to chase him. Later, Joseph was confronted by the three appellants, all armed with bolos, resulting in a fatal attack. Witnesses, including the victim’s children, testified seeing the appellants hack Joseph multiple times until he fell to the ground, after which they returned to strike him again, indicating the intent to kill.

Trial Court Ruling

The trial court ruled that the appellants had conspired in the crime, finding clear evidence of murder marked by the abuse of superior strength, given the overwhelming force exhibited by three armed attackers against an unarmed victim. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay damages including civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, modifying the damages awarded. Civil indemnity was increased and exemplary damages reduced. The appellants maintained their innocence, claiming self-defense for Ronald and raising issues about inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The appellants raised several arguments, including a claim that the trial court failed to properly consider the defense of relatives, disputed the guilt of Rolando and Randy, questioned the credibility of prosecution witnesses due to alleged inconsistencies, and contended that the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

Ruling on Credibility of Witnesses

The Supreme Court emphasized that the factual findings of the trial court, particularly regarding the credibility of eyewitnesses, are generally binding unless proven contrary. Despite claims of inconsistency from the defense, testimonies by the victim's son Russel and nephew Francis were found to corroborate each other and were credible, identifying the appellants unequivocally.

Defense Claims

The appellants argued that Ronald acted in self-defense. The Court clarified that for a valid claim of self-defense or defense of relatives, unlawful aggression must be present. In this case, Joseph was unarmed and did not exhibit any unlawful aggression, undermining the self-defense claim.

Conclusion on Conspiracy and Abuse of Super

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.