People of the Philippines (Plaintiff Appellee)

vs

Fundador Camposano a.k.a Punday/Masta and HERMAN DELOS REYES a.ka. YOB (Accused
Appellant)

FACTS:

An appeal filed on the decision of CA and RTC in finding the appellants guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of MURDER and sentencing each one of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for stabbing the 16-year old minor, ESMERALDO ILAO. In this case, two versions were
presented:

Version of Prosecution:
In the morning of January 11, 2001, a certain security guard Flores, saw two persons chasing
another person. The chased person fall face down on the ground and was stabbed with ice pick. The
victim tried to stand up, but the two assailants continued to stab him. Immediately after, the people
within the vicinity started shouting, forcing the two assailants to flee the crime scene. The witness
“Flores” were able to see the faces of the assailants and later on referred to as the appellants of this
case.

Another prosecution witness, testified that he was with ILAO when the latter was stabbed to
death. According to KEMPIS, he and ILAO attended the birthday party, when a certain Ricky, a
member of a gang Tropang Pugasi that the appellants were challenging ILAO to a fight. After that, he
and the victim ate goto at Zapote plaza, and Kempis was able to see DELOS REYES hit ILAO’s head with
2x2 lumber.

Version of the Defense:

Both appellants denied the charges against them.

CAMPOSANO testified that at around 11:00 in the morning on January 11, 2001, he and his 6
companions (all members of Tropang Pugasi), were on their way to a friend’s house, when suddenly
someone threw a pillbox at them causing them to run away to avoid the explosion. They encountered
the Sad Army Gang, and as a result, he was stabbed at the chest causing him to be confined in a
hospital. This alibi of Camposano was supported with the medical records and statements of the
medical officers who attended him.

DELOS REYES interposed alibi, and denied any participation in the killing of ILAO. He asserted
that he was at home when the incident happened, presenting his friend Marco Lyon and aunt to
support his claim.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC and CA erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the
crime of MURDER, since the testimonies of the witnesses did not accord in all particulars, as to:

1. Weapon used in the killing;

2. Relative position of the appellants when they inflicted the mortal wounds on the victim;
3. Who between two appellants was the first to inflict stab wounds on the victim;
4. The court erred in appreciating qualifying circumstance of TREACHERY

HELD:
The court find the rulings of the RTC and CA correct in the crime committed, which is MURDER
qualified by TREACHERY.
 Whether or not the appellants used ice pick or knives is IMMATERIAL. Due to the sudden turn of
events, the witnesses may have focused more to the stabbing incident than to the instrument used by
the assailants. What cannot be discounted was the fact that the witness saw the stabbing incident.
The alibis presented by the defense, are all self-serving. It is a settled that for the defense of alibi
to prosper, it must be proved that it is physically impossible for the accused to be present at the crime
on the time of its commission.

This court likewise is convinced that treachery attended the killing. There is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself,
arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of TREACHERY is that the
attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate and unexpected manner, affording the
helpless unarmed and unsuspecting the victim no chance to resist or escape. This was successfully
established in this case.

Hence, the SC affirmed the decision of the RTC and CA.