G.R. No. 222645 - People vs. De Lima

Case Summary (G.R. No. 222645)

Facts and Criminal Information

An Information charged Michael and Allan, together with others, with murder for the stabbing death of Ramel on or about 14 June 2009 at approximately 4:00 a.m. at the stated location. The Information alleged the accused acted with deliberate intent, intent to kill, and with treachery and evident premeditation. Both accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented three principal witnesses: Josefina Congreso (mother of the victim), Jose Gajudo, Jr. (Jose), and Anthony Nator (Anthony). Jose testified that at about 4:00 a.m. he saw five persons ganging up on Ramel about eight meters from Anthony’s house; three fled when noticed, while two continued to beat and stab Ramel, one holding and pulling the victim by his pants. Jose identified Allan as the stabber and Michael as the one holding the victim by the pants and pointed them out in court. Anthony corroborated that Allan stabbed and Michael held Ramel and that both walked away after the incident. Josefina viewed her son’s remains at the funeral parlor and observed multiple stab wounds.

Defense Evidence and Alibi

The defense called Michael, Allan, and their father Francisco Delima. Their account placed Michael at a disco with a companion on 13 June 2009 and later fetched home by Francisco at about 1:00 a.m.; both Michael and Allan allegedly slept at home and only learned of the stabbing at around 6:30 a.m. Francisco’s testimony was offered to corroborate the alibi.

Regional Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court (Branch 58, Cebu City) found Michael and Allan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordering joint and several civil and moral indemnities and temperate damages. The RTC credited positive identification by Jose, discounted alleged ill will or possible influence by Anthony, and found the defenses of denial and alibi unconvincing and inconsistent. The RTC also concluded that the accused conspired to kill the victim.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The CA held that minor inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ accounts were immaterial and tended to show non-rehearsed testimony. The CA found conspiracy established by the concerted actions of the accused (Michael holding the victim while Allan stabbed him) and concluded that treachery attended the killing because the victim was helpless when the fatal blow was inflicted. The CA denied the appeal.

Issue on Appeal and Scope of Review

The appeal to the Supreme Court raised issues including alleged wrongful conviction; the Court observed that appeals in criminal cases are “wide open,” permitting plenary review of facts and law. The Supreme Court proceeded to examine witness credibility, sufficiency of proof for qualifying circumstances (treachery and evident premeditation), conspiracy, and the adequacy of the defense of alibi.

Witness Credibility and Insignificant Inconsistencies

The Supreme Court applied established doctrine that minor inconsistencies on trivial matters do not discredit a witness where material points are consistent. It relied on jurisprudence (e.g., Avelino v. People) to hold that discrepancies about the sequence of events (whether Jose called Anthony before or after the stabbing) were immaterial. The Court emphasized that Jose consistently identified Allan as the stabber and Michael as holding the victim, and that his testimony on material elements of the crime remained coherent.

Allegations of Grudge and Possible Influence

The accused argued that Anthony bore ill will and could have influenced Jose. The Supreme Court found the claim speculative and unsubstantiated. The record showed inconsistent accounts offered by the accused themselves regarding who fought with Anthony’s son, undermining the alleged grudge defense. Crucially, Jose’s independent identification, not simply Anthony’s naming, was the basis for incrimination; mere conjecture about influence did not suffice to discredit that identification.

Positive Identification Versus Denial and Alibi

The Court reiterated the rule that positive identification by a credible witness outweighs bare denials and unsupported alibi. It cited Escalante v. People for the requirement that a valid alibi must demonstrate physical impossibility of the accused being at the crime scene. Given the proximity of the accused’s home to the crime scene (about eight meters), it was physically possible for them to have been present. Moreover, alibi must be corroborated by disinterested witnesses; Francisco, being their father, did not qualify as a disinterested corroborator.

Inconsistencies in the Defense Narrative

The Court noted material inconsistencies in the defense testimonies that further weakened the alibi: Michael’s claim that Allan lived in a separate house contradicted Allan’s testimony that Michael shared a home with him and their parents; Francisco’s testimony contradicted Allan’s claim about being at home drinking. These discrepancies cast doubt on the veracity of the defense story.

Conspiracy: Implied Conspiracy and Unity of Purpose

The Supreme Court addressed the argument that Michael’s act of holding and Allan’s act of stabbing were separate and therefore did not prove conspiracy. It applied the doctrine of implied conspiracy: when two or more persons perform concerted and complementary acts aimed at accomplishing the same unlawful purpose, an implied conspiracy exists despite absence of an overt prior agreement. The Court found unity of action and purpose in the initial ganging-up, the coordinated physical restraint, and the stabbing; Michael’s continued holding while Allan stabbed demonstrated coordinated activity directed toward killing Ramel.

Evident Premeditation and Treachery: Legal Requirements

The Court examined the qualifying circumstances alleged in the Information. For evident premeditation, the elements are (a) a prior decision to commit the crime, (b) overt acts showing persistence in that decision, and (c) lapse of time sufficient for reflection. The Court found no evidence satisfying those elements and observed that neither the RTC nor the CA specifically discussed evident premeditation; therefore it could not be appreciated.

For treachery, the requisites are (a) that the victim was in a defenseless position at the time of the attack and (b) that the accused consciously and deliberately adopted means or methods that tend to ensure execution without risk to themselves. The Court stressed precedent (People v. De Leon) that treachery requires proof of the manner of attack and how the aggression commenced; mere proof that the victim was unarmed or immobile is insufficient without showing deliberate adoption of a method that deprived the victim of opportunity to defend.

Application of Treachery Standard to the Record

Although Ramel was clearly in a weakened and defens

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 222645)

Procedural Posture

Appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated 18 September 2015 in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01820, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 58, Cebu City Decision dated 22 October 2013 in Criminal Case No. CBU-88328.
Accused-appellants: Michael Delima and Allan Delima. Co-accused named in the Information: John Doe, Paul Doe and Peter Doe.
Case originated from an Information dated 26 February 2010 charging the accused with murder in the stabbing death of Ramel Mercedes Congreso.
The appeal was decided by the Supreme Court, opinion penned by Justice Martires, J.; the judgment of the Supreme Court partly granted the appeal and modified the conviction and penalty.
Concurrent justices listed as concurring: Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Leonen, and Gesmundo, JJ.

Charged Offense and Accusatory Allegations

Information alleges that on or about 14 June 2009, at about 4:00 a.m., Burgos St., Poblacion, Talisay City, Cebu, the accused, conniving and confederating, armed with a bladed and pointed weapon, with deliberate intent and intent to kill, and with treachery and evident premeditation, attacked, assaulted and stabbed RAMEL MERCEDES CONGRESO, hitting him on different parts of his body, and that as a consequence of said stab wounds, RAMEL MERCEDES CONGRESO died instantaneously.
Plea entered by Michael and Allan at arraignment on 25 May 2010 was “Not Guilty.”

Facts as Found in the Record — Prosecution Version

Prosecution witnesses: Josefina Congreso (victim’s mother), Jose Gajudo, Jr. (Jose), and Anthony Nator (Anthony).
Events: On 13 June 2009 Anthony invited Jose to his home for the barangay fiesta; at about 4:00 a.m. the following day Jose left and saw five individuals ganging up on Ramel about eight meters from Anthony’s house.
Observations by Jose: upon being seen, three assailants fled while two continued to beat Ramel; those two held and pulled Ramel by his pants and stabbed him; Jose, scared, rushed back into Anthony’s house.
Role of Anthony: upon being informed by Jose, Anthony accompanied him to the scene; Anthony identified the two persons Jose pointed to as Michael and Allan; Anthony said Allan stabbed Ramel while Michael held the victim by his pants; Anthony later saw Michael and Allan walk away from the scene.
Victim’s death: Josefina was informed on 16 June 2009 that her son Ramel had died from a stabbing incident; viewing the remains at the funeral parlor showed several stab wounds on various parts of the body.

Facts as Presented by the Defense

Defense witnesses: Michael, Allan, and their father Francisco Delima.
Defense narrative: Michael attended a disco on 13 June 2009 and was fetched by Francisco at about 1:00 a.m. on 14 June 2009; Michael claimed he slept at home and woke around 6:30 a.m. the next morning to learn of the stabbing.
Allan’s account: Allan alleged he was at home drinking with Francisco and slept after the drinking session in celebration of the barangay fiesta.
The defense presented denial and alibi as principal defenses, relying principally on the testimony of the accused themselves and their father.

RTC Decision (22 October 2013)

RTC convicted Michael and Allan of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.
RTC credited Jose’s testimony as a positive identification of Allan as the stabber and Michael as the one holding the victim by the pants; RTC found the conflicting versions offered by accused-appellants and Anthony to be unpersuasive.
RTC rejected defenses of denial and alibi as unsupported and inconsistent.
RTC found conspiracy between Michael and Allan.
RTC ordered joint and several civil damages (P50,000 civil indemnity, P50,000 moral damages, P25,000 temperate damages) and credited full preventive detention in service of sentence.

Court of Appeals Decision (18 September 2015)

CA affirmed the RTC conviction for murder.
CA held that minor inconsistencies in prosecution witness testimony were immaterial and actually strengthened credibility by showing testimony was not rehearsed.
CA ruled that inconsistencies between sworn affidavits and testimony do not necessarily discredit witnesses because affidavits are generally incomplete.
CA found conspiracy established by the concerted actions: Allan stabbed while Michael held the victim by his pants, and treachery attended the killing because the victim was helpless when the fatal blows were inflicted.
CA denied the appeal.

Issues Raised on Appeal to the Supreme Court

Principal identified issue: whether accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of serious illegal detention (note: source shows issue heading as Issue I but the Court addressed broader issues relevant to the conviction and qualifying circumstances).
The Supreme Court noted that on criminal appeal it may consider issues beyond those assigned and may revise the judgment, including increasing or changing penalties and citing proper penal provisions.

Standard on Witness Credibility and Inconsistencies

The Court reiterated that slight inco