Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40420:g-r-no-129217-august-25,-2000-people-of-the-phil-v-francisco-narca,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:19:10+00:00

Document:
FELIX ANTIDO Y LUMBRE and LITO ANTIDO Y LUMBRE, Accused-Appellants.
"WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court finds accused Felix Antido y Lumbre and Lito Antido y Lumbre both guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as charged. Accordingly, the Court hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided by law; to jointly and severally pay the heirs of the deceased Rodolfo Cardeno the amount of P50,000.00 for his death and the amount of P13,300.00 as actual damages as well as the sum of P15,000.00 as attorney’s fees and also the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
"That on or about the 5th day of October, 1991, in Quezon City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating and mutually helping one another, without any justifiable cause, with intent to kill, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of one Rodolfo Cardeno y Sonega, by then and there, stabbing him on the different parts of his body with a bladed instrument, thereby inflicting upon him serious mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the late Rodolfo Cardeno y Sonega in such amount as may be awarded under the provisions of the Civil Code.
Appellants pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. Their co-accused remains at large.
The prosecution presented, as witnesses, the deceased’s companions Edwin Bautista and Joel Dayag, the deceased’s mother, Epifania Cardeno, Police Investigator SPO2 Alfredo Quilang, and Dr. Emmanuel Aranas of the PNP Crime Laboratory. The defense presented the following witnesses: appellants Felix Antido and Lito Antido, and Belen Berdal who corroborated the testimony of appellant Lito Antido that he was at his residence at the time of the incident.
After trial on the merits, the trial court convicted appellants.
By way of defense, the accused pleaded alibi.
"The court a quo erred in convicting the accused-appellants notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In support of the first assigned error, appellants contend that aside from the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses who were the victim’s companions, no other evidence would point to either Lito or Felix as the perpetrators of the crime; that no weapons were recovered from either of them and no independent witnesses were presented to corroborate the testimonies of Joel Dayag and Edwin Bautista; that accused-appellants were able to adequately explain their respective whereabouts during the time the killing happened, which was not rebutted by the prosecution; that it is possible that the victim was killed by someone else and his two (2) companions merely found it convenient to put the blame on Felix and Lito; that it is, likewise, also possible that it was either Joel Dayag or Edwin Bautista who killed the victim and allegedly, this would explain the wound sustained by Joel Dayag who was also stabbed. According to appellants, if these two were really concerned about Rodolfo Cardeno, why did they not exert efforts in bringing the victim to the hospital as soon as possible?
This Court finds the appellants’ contentions to be untenable.
As to the second assigned error, appellants submit that it is erroneous to convict them of murder because of the existence of alevosia, or treachery. Appellants argue that the prosecution never established that the accused consciously, or deliberately, adopted the mode of attack which led to the victim’s death, and that the prosecution did not even present any indicia of proof as to how the attack started. Appellants cite the case of People v. Garcia, 258 SCRA 411, where it was held that treachery cannot be considered when the witnesses did not see the commencement of the assault.
"Q	Now, please tell this Court Mr. Witness the reason why you were there at that place on October 5, 1991 at 6:00 o’clock in the evening.
"A	We were there conversing with each other.
"Q	You were conversing with whom?
"Q	How about Edwin Bautista?
"A	He was the one buying barbecue.
"Q	When you saw Felix Antido, the brother of Lito Antido holding the nape of the victim in this case Rodolfo Cardeno, will you please tell this Court what was the relation of the position of Felix Antido in relation to Rodolfo Cardeno?
"A	He was at the back of Rodolfo Cardeno.
"Q	Will you please tell also Mr. Witness clearly what was the position of Rodolfo Cardeno the victim in this case while his nape was being held by Felix Antido?
Deceased Rodolfo Cardeno was sitting and conversing with eyewitness Joel Dayag while his other companion, Edwin Bautista, was buying barbecue when appellants appeared from behind and stabbed him. No conversation took place between assailants and their victim. The appellants purposely approached the victim to kill him. Unarmed and unaware of the impending danger, the victim could not have defended himself against the attack from his back. Appellants deliberately adopted means to ensure the consummation of their objective — to kill the victim.
The trial court did not err in convicting appellants of the crime of murder qualified by treachery, since the elements of said crime were established by the prosecution.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
2.	Original Record, p. 1.
3.	Appellee’s Brief, Rollo, pp. 85-87.
4.	TSN, Sept. 20, 1995, pp. 4-11.
5.	TSN, October 24, 1995, pp. 4-12.
6.	Appellant’s Brief, p. 4, Rollo, p. 62.
7.	People v. Gapasan, 243 SCRA 53 .
8.	People v. Canturia, 245 SCRA 275 .
9.	People v. Piandiong, 268 SCRA 555 .
10.	People v. Sancholes, 271 SCRA 527 .
11.	People v. Bersabe, 289 SCRA 685 .
12.	People v. Dinglasan, 267 SCRA 26 .
13.	TSN, January 27, 1993, pp. 3, 5-6.
14.	96 Phil. 868 .
15.	People v. Espanola, 271 SCRA 689 .
16.	Exhs. E, E-1, F, F-1, pp. 220-221, Original Records; TSN May 4, 1993, pp. 2-3.
17.	TSN, May 4, 1993, p. 4.
18.	TSN, May 4, 1993, p. 4.
19.	People v. Mejos, 265 SCRA 689 .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.