G.R. No. 72001 - People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Bechayda
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 72001 August 7, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROMEO BECHAYDA,accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Dakila F. Castro & Asscociates for accused-appellant.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
The accused-appellant, claiming that reasonabledoubt exists in his favor, appeals the decision of theRegional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch X datedJune 28, 1985 which convicted him of the crime of murderinstead of robbery with homicide after having discounted the crime of robbery for lack of sufficient proof. Thedispositive portion of the assailed judgment reads:
In view of the foregoing considerationsthis Court is convinced beyond doubt of theguilt of the accused of the crime of murder,four (4) counts and for each of which theaccused is hereby sentenced toReclusion Perpetuaand to indemnify the heirs of thefour (4) victims the amount of P25,000.00each as damages and to pay the costs. (RTCDecision, p. 6;Rollo, p. 21)
In Criminal Case No. 2719, the information whichcharged the accused-appellant with robbery with homicidealleges:
That on or about the 6th day of January,1981, At about 8:00 o'clock P.M., at sitioDinanglayan, Barangay Buhatan, Municipality ofRapu-Rapu, Province of Albay, Philippines,above-named accused together with RodolfoBilan and Rogelio Vergara who are still atlarge, conspiring and confederating togetherand mutually helping each other, withtreachery and evident premeditation, atnighttime, taking advantage of superiorstrength, with intent to kill, and with theintent of gain, entered the dwelling ofEleuterio Bilon and once inside, did then andthere wilfully and feloniously attack,assault, hack and stab the occupants thereof,namely: ELEUTERIO BILON, MARIA ESCASA, AURELIOESCASA and NORRIS MARQUEZ, inflicting uponthem mortal wounds which resulted to theirdeaths, and thereafter above-named accused,take, steal and carry away (sic) from saiddwelling cash money and other valuables in thetotal sum of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00),Philippine Currency, owned and belonging tosaid Eleuterio Bilon.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.
Legazpi City, July 29, 1983. (Rollo, p. 15)
Upon arraignment on August 29, 1983, a plea of notguilty was entered by the accused-appellant with theassistance of his counselde parte.
The Solicitor-General in his brief gives a vividpicture of the antecedent facts of this case,to wit:
On the fateful day of January 6, 1981 at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, DivinaBarcelon, a resident of Nagkaubas, Rapu-Rapu,Albay, was on her way to the house ofPercivando Barcelon located in sitio Galiciato buy fish when she passed by the house of acertain Gomez. There she saw the appellant,Rodolfo Bilon and Rogelio Vergara, who werethen armed with bolos, drinking gin. Abouthalf an hour later, while she was returninghome, she again saw the trio in the said placestill drinking. (pp. 10-13, TSN, March 8,1984)
At around 8:00 o'clock in the evening ofthe same date, Jaime Bertis went to the houseof Eleuterio Bilon situated at sitioDinanglayan of the same municipality, to buycigarettes. (pp. 8-9, TSN, November 28, 1983) Upon reaching the place, he saw the same triohaving a drink in the kitchen of the house ofEleuterio while the latter and the three (3)other occupants of the house namely, MariaEscasa, Norris Marquez and Aurelio Escasa,were already sleeping. (pp. 10-12 TSN,Ibid.)The kitchen was lighted by the illumination ofthe light coming from the sala. (p. 18, TSB,Ibid). He heard Rodolfo telling his two (2)companions that he would be the one to killfirst. (pp. 12-13, TSN,Ibid.) Rodolfosuddenly stood up and went straight nearEleuterio, with the two (2) following him, andwith a bolo hacked Eleuterio while he wassleeping. Frightened by the startlingincident, Jaime ran away from the place. Ashe was running away from the place, he was metby Miguel Avila who was then going to thehouse of Eleuterio. He was asked by Miguel whyhe was in a hurry but he did not bother toanswer because he was then so afraid that hewanted to get away from the place as fast ashe could. (pp. 18-22 TSN,Ibid.)
Miguel proceeded to the house ofEleuterio to buy cigarettes. As he reached theplace, he stood right at the door which waspartly open and while he was peeping throughthe door, he saw Eleuterio inside the house,lying down with a wound an the neck. He alsosaw Maria Escasa weeping while embracing theright leg of the appellant who kicked her and,as soon as she fell from such hold, fatallywounded her with a bladed weapon. NorrisMarquez, a ten (10) year-old boy, woke up fromhis sleep beside Maria and upon seeing hercondition, he embraced her but while thusembracing Maria he was also hacked to deathby the appellant. Also awakened from sleep wasan old man named Aurelio Escasa who came outof the bedroom and tried to find out what washappening when he was suddenly stabbed on theabdomen by Rodolfo (pp. 10-14, TSN; September22, 1983)
As Miguel was about to leave the place, hewas seen by a person standing outside thehouse who at once called on the appellant andRodolfo and informed them of Miguel'spresence. Confronted by the group, heexplained to them that he was there merely tobuy cigarettes and a bottle of gin. Miguel wasallowed to leave but with a warning not totell anybody whatever he may have seen,otherwise, even members of his family wouldalso be killed. (pp. 14-15, TSN,Ibid.)
As he was not able to sleep that night, Miguel went home to Legazpi City the followingday and remained silent about the incident.But on January 8, 1981, or two (2) days afterthe incident, when his conscience could nolonger bear it, Miguel sent a PLECS massage tothe Rapu-Rapu Police Station, thru the LegazpiCity Police Station, informing them of theincident. He also disclosed the incident tohis wife that same day. (pp. 16-17, TSN,Ibid.)
Earlier in the morning of said date, atabout 5:00 o'clock, Jaime Bertis went to thehouse of Divina, a daughter of Eleuterio,informed her about the incident and revealedto her who were those responsible therefor.(p. 35, TSN, October 17, 1983) Divina and hergroup immediately proceeded to the house ofher father and when they arrived at the place,the house was still closed with some peoplearound. A few moments later, some members ofthe Civil Home Defense Force arrived andopened the house. (pp. 40-42, TSN,Ibid.)
Meanwhile Sgt. Rolando Victoria, theRapu-Rapu Police Station Commander, uponreceipt of the report about the incident,organized a team of policemen. He dispatchedthem to the place of the incident that sameday. He later followed them in the afternoonand upon his arrival, he and his men conductedtheir investigation. They found the bodies ofthe victims in the house already in the stateof decomposition. They also took photographsof the bodies of the victims. (pp. 12-16, TSN,December 9, 1983)
Lourdes Balute, a daughter of Eleuterio,was also at the scene of the incident that dayand noticed that the things in the house werescattered and certain valuables such as wristwatches, radio, cash, cigarettes, cannedgoods, rice, and other grocery items weremissing. (pp. 4-5, TSN,Ibid.) Upon therequest of the victim's relatives, Dr.Erlandino Albaytar, the Municipal HealthOfficer of Rapu-Rapu, Albay, conducted anautopsy on the cadavers of the four (4)victims and issued the corresponding autopsyreports (Exhs. A, B, C and D) on the samedate. (p. 10, TSN, November 14, 1983)(Appellee's Brief, pp. 3-7;Rollo, p. 24)
The autopsy reports aforementioned contain thefollowing findings:
Re: NORRIS MARQUEZ Y UY, around 10 years old
1. The corpse was already at the stateof putrefaction.
2. With hacked wound at the base of theneck, posterior cutting the cervicalbones and major blood vessels.
3. Lacerated wound (R) leg lateralportion
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Acute hypovolimia 20 degrees tohacked wound over the posteriorportion of the neck. (Exhibit "A")
Re: MARIA LAUDE ESCASA, around 57 years old
1. The corpse was already at the stateof putrefaction.
2. The head was almost totally severedfrom the body except for a smallstrand of skin connecting it to thebody.
3. Amputated (L) phalenges middleportion.
4. Amputated (R) thumb.
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Acute hypovolimia 20 degrees tohacked wound (Exhibit "B")
Re: ELEUTERIO BILON, 61 years old
1. The corpse was already at the stateof putrefaction.
2. The head was almost totally severedfrom the body except for a smallstrand of skin connecting it to thebody.
CAUSE OF DEATH: Acute hypovolimia 20degrees to hacked wound (Exhibit"C")
Re: AURELIO ESCASA, around 81 years old
1. The corpse was already in a stateof putrefaction.
2. Stabbed wound 3 inches in length (L)upper abdominal wall gapping (sic)with intestinal contents coming out.
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Acute hypovolimia 20 degrees tostabbed wound. (Exhibit "D").
The evidence for the defense which rests on alibiand denial is summarized by the trial court as follows:
. . . that the accused and his companion, RomanBolante, were asked to work in theconstruction of the house that Mancao, Rapu-Rapu, Albay of Ruben Bechayda, the brother ofthe accused Romeo Bechayda; that on the dateof the incident of January 6, 1981 the accusedwas working on the house of his brother; thathe arrived at that place almost three daysbefore January 6, 1981; that he (the accused)and his helper, Roman Bolante started workingthere on January 6, 1981 at about 6:00 o'clockin the morning continuously up to about 6:00o'clock in the evening of the same day thoughthey took a break at noon for lunch; that theynever left that place during that period asthey were hurrying up to finish theconstruction immediately; that after the day'swork, the accused took a rest and after eatinghis supper he went to sleep; that he sleptwith his brother, Ruben Bechayda; that theaccused knows the house of Eleuterio Bilonwhich is situated at Dinanglayan, barangayBuhatan, Rapu-Rapu, Albay; that Dinanglayancan be reached by walking or by motor bancafrom Mancao where he was working then onJanuary 6, 1981 in the house of his brother,Ruben Bechayda; that it will only take morethan one (1) hour to walk at fast pace toreach Dinanglayan from Mancao and only ten(10) minutes by "kumpit" or motor banca; thathe denies knowledge of, much less admitparticipation in the killings complained of;that he knows personally Eleuterio Bilon beingthe "compadre" of his father; that the accusedstayed at Mancao for two weeks and after thathe went home to Tabaco, Albay; that accusedwas apprehended only sometime on June 12,1983. (RTC Decision, p. 4;Rollo, p. 20)
The trial court rejected the defense versionhence, its verdict of conviction is now before us. The accused-appellant in this appeal which was assigned tothisponenteon March 2, 1992 interposes the followingassignment of errors:
The lower court erred in:
I
GIVING CREDENCE AND RELYING ON THETESTIMONY OF THE TWO ALLEGED EYEWITNESSESWHICH TESTIMONIES APPEAR INCONSISTENT WITHOTHER EVIDENCE AND ARE CONTRARY TO HUMANEXPERIENCE.
II
CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR MURDERON FOUR COUNTS DESPITE UNCLEAR SHOWING OFCONSPIRACY.
III
NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OFACCUSED-APPELLANT AS CORROBORATED BY HISWITNESS. (Appellant's Brief, p. 6;Rollo, p.101)
Anent the first assigned error, theaccused-appellant contends that the testimonies of the twoeyewitnesses are replete with inconsistencies and defyhuman experience. The testimonies which allegedlyappear inconsistent with the other evidence as pointedout by the accused-appellant are as follows: (1)prosecution eyewitness Miguel Avila testified on directexamination that the accused-appellant hacked the victimMaria Escasa on the leg while in cross examination thesame witness stated that the said victim was hit in theneck (Appellant's Brief, p. 7); (2) prosecutioneyewitness Avila declared in open court that the youngboy Norris Marquez was hacker at the back while theautopsy report which pertained to the said boy showedthat the cause of death was acute hypovolimia twodegrees hacked wound over the posterior portion of theneck (Ibid. pp. 7-8); (3) according to prosecutioneyewitness Avila the deceased Maria Escasa was lyingdown when hacked while according to another prosecutionwitness Sgt. Rolando Victoria who conducted theinvestigation in this case, Escasa was sitting on a matwith her neck cut off on a bench (Ibid., p. 8); (4) inhis testimony, prosecution eyewitness Avila did notmention having seen any blanket while the otherprosecution witness Sgt. Victoria described that bothEscasa and the boy Marquez were covered with a blanket;and (5) according to another prosecution eyewitnessJaime Bertis, he found the three assailants in thiscase which included the accused-appellant drinking inthe kitchen of the slain Eleuterio Bilon while thephotograph exhibit of Bilon's kitchen during theinvestigation contained only two opened bottles of beeratop the kitchen table (Ibid., p. 10).
The above inconsistencies are inadequate tooverturn the positive and straightforward declarationsof the prosecution witnesses who recounted the tragicand gruesome killings and who identified the accused-appellant as one of the authors. Hence, the accused-appellant must fail in his attempt to discredit theprosecution eyewitnesses.
Besides, the alleged inconsistencies can be readilydismissed for the following reasons:
(1) the apparent discrepancy with reference to thelocation of the hacked wound as regards the victimEscasa in the testimonies of Avila on direct and cross-examinations is a mere oversight either on the part ofthe court stenographer or the court interpreter inasmuchas Avila used the word "also" in reference to the hackedwound inflicted on Escasa. The use of the said wordstrongly indicates that Escasa's hacked wound wassimilarly located at the neck (not the leg) whereBilon's wound was as previously related by Avila.Thus, on direct examination he testified that:
x x x x x x x x x
Q Now, please relate to this Court howthese two persons, Romeo Bechayda andRodolfo Bilan, hacked Eleuterio Bilon,Maria Escasa, Morris (should be Norris)Marquez and Aurelio Escasa?
AWhen I was right at the door I saw Eleuterio Bilon already having a wound by the neck(witness by an action indicatesthe wound in the neck) and which wasalready bleeding and said person,Eleuterio was already lying down or hadalready fallen.
Q What else did you see inside that room?
A Maria Escasa was crying . . . .
ATTY. BASE
I would like the answer of the witness"Madarasta", which means stepmother, beput on record, "my Madarasta Maria."
COURT
Alright. Put in on record.
COURT INTERPRETER (continuing theinterpretation).
A My stepmother Maria Escasa was weepingand embracing the leg of Romeo Bechayda.
Q Which leg of Romeo Bechayda was beingembraced by Maria Escasa?
A Right leg.
Q What else did you see?
A He kicked her and when she fell he hackedheralsoon the leg.
Q When you refer he you mean RomeoBechayda?
A Yes, Romeo.
Q When you mentioned her you refer to MariaEscasa?
ATTY. BASE
Leading
COURT
Sustained.
Q When you refer to Maria Escasa to whomare you referring?
A Maria Escasa, Your Honor. (Emphasissupplied) (TSN, September 22, 1983, pp.10-12);
(2) there is no substantial difference between thedeclaration made by Avila in court that Norris' hackedwound was at the back and the autopsy report indicatingthe hacked wound at the posterior portion of the neck asboth locate the mortal wound at the back portion of thebody with the autopsy report having been more specificby its reference to the neck's posterior part;
(3) the alleged discrepancy as regards MariaEscasa's position when she expired bears no significanceinasmuch as the victim's body was in a supine position,i.e., lying down with her face upwards, and since herhead which was almost totally severed from her body asper autopsy report was elevated on a bench, it isunderstandable why another eyewitness would describeMaria Escasa's position as "sitting" and not "lyingdown";
(4) the fact that prosecution eyewitness Avilaomitted mentioning the presence of a blanket when hegave a picture of the crime scenario does not affect hiscredibility considering that his omission pertained toa very minor detail which jurisprudence regards as ineffective to taint one's credibility as a witness;and
(5) human experience shows that when one sees agroup gathered around a table with beer bottles on topthereof, the said group, more often than not, would beconstrued as having a drinking spree regardless ofwhether one or two of them would actually not bedrinking beer, thus, prosecution eyewitness Bertis didnot commit any serious error in stating that he foundthe accused-appellant and two assailants in this casedrinking in the kitchen of the slain Bilon when only twobottles of beer were captured in the photograph exhibit.
Once again, we rule that:
. . . The averred inconsistency in thetestimony of the prosecution witness on minordetails reinforces rather than weaken hiscredibility for it is usual that witnesses toa stirring event should see differently somedetails of a startling occurrence. This hasbeen taken judicial notice of by the Court.(People v. Obando, et al., 182 SCRA 95 [1990]). Discrepancies in minor details areto be expected from an uncoached witness,(People v. Noguerras, 181 SCRA 19 [1990]) andwill not impair the veracity of the evidence.(People v. Manalansan, 189 SCRA 6l9 [1990]).(See People v. Puloc, 202 SCRA 179; 189-190[1991])
With respect to the testimonies that allegedly defyhuman experience, the accused-appellant argues that thefollowing circumstances are not credible for beingcontrary to human experience: (1) prosecution witnessAvila works in Galicia, Rapu-Rapu making abaca strips;on the day of the killings in question, he testifiedthat he worked all day in Galicia but he went toDinanglayan, Rapu-Rapu in the evening to buy cigarettes(Appellants Brief, p. 7); (2) Avila was the son-in-lawof the victim Eleuterio Bilon, yet, he did not informanyone including his wife about the killings he had witnessed until two (2) days had elapsed after theincident (Ibid, p. 9); (3) Avila declared in courtthat he was only asked by the accused-appellant and oneRodolfo Bilon where he was going when they saw him atthe crime scene and he was merely warned not to tell anybody what he saw when normally perpetrators of heinouscrimes do not spare material witnesses thereto (Ibid);(4) prosecution witness Bertis, in his testimony incourt described that a Coleman lamp illuminated the salawhere the victims Maria Escasa, Eleuterio Bilon andNorris Marquez were sleeping while the kitchen wherealleged assailants were drinking was not (Ibid., p. 10);(5) Bertis' declarations that the four occupants of theplace where the killings transpired remained asleepwhile the accused-appellant and his two othercompanions were drinking and talking therein and thatthe hacking of the deceased Eleuterio Bilon while onsupine position which could have produced a thuddingsound did not awaken the three other occupants of thehouse do not conform to the normal standards of humanbehavior (Ibid., pp. 10-11); and (6) Divina Barcelon,daughter of the victim Eleuterio Bilon, averred thatboth (Avila and Bertis were contracted to strip abaca onEleuterio's land at the time of the incident inquestion; being close relatives, it was not natural forthem to flee from Dinanglayan and remain silent aboutthe killings if, indeed, they witnessed the same (Ibid.,p. 11).
We are not persuaded by the accused-appellant'ssuppositions.
The trial court has weighed the evidence and hasruled on the issue of credibility in favor of theprosecution. There are no cogent reasons for us toreverse the findings effected and the conclusionsreached by the trial court. Hence:
The oft-repeated aphorism that the appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the trial court especially as to credibility of witnesses, as the latter is in a better position to decide said question, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed their demeanor and manner of testifying during the trial, unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered might affect the result of the case (People v. Adones, 144 SCRA 364 [1986]; People v. Patog, 144 SCRA 429 [1986]; People v. Veloso, 148 SCRA 60 [1987]; People v. Acelajado, 148 SCRA 142 [1987]; People v. Alcid, 135 SCRA 280 [1985]; People v. Lopez, 132 SCRA 188 [1984] deserves reiteration (People v. Joselito Villalobos, et al., G.R. No. 71526, May 27, 1992; see also People v. Rafael Acuram, G.R. Nos. 98423-24, May 22, 1992 citing People v. Lati, 184 SCRA 336 [1990] and People v. Payumo, 187 SCRA 64 [1990]).
On the alleged failure of the prosecution's eyewitnesses to immediately report the killings in question, it is a fact of life that each person is so unique that different people register a variety of reactions when subjected to the same types of situations. (See People v. Biago, 182 SCRA 411 [1990], citing People v. Niebres, 178 SCRA 114[1989]). Moreover, it is a matter of judicial notice that there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking occurrence like the hacking incident in the instant case which even included a four-year old boy and an eight-one year old man to whom marked sympathy is generally afforded on account of the former's very tender age and the latter's far advanced age. (see People v. Ponce, 197 SCRA 746 [1991]) citing People v. Salufrania, 159 SCRA 401 [1988]).
As regards the second assigned error, the accused-appellant impugns the holding made by the trial courtthat conspiracy exists in the case at bar.
We see no error in the trial court's finding thatconspiracy is present. As submitted by the SolicitorGeneral in his brief, conspiracy as shown by theprosecution evidence is indicated from the followingcircumstances,to wit:
a) Few hours before the incident,appellant and his two (2) companions were seenby Divina Barcelon in the house of a certainGomez drinking gin while armed with bolos;
b) Eyewitness Bertis saw the same trioin the kitchen of Eleuterio drinking andshortly afterwards, Bertis overheard RodolfoBilon telling the group that he would be theone to kill first;
c) When Rodolfo Belan stood up and wentnear Eleuterio who was sleeping in the sala,appellant and Rogelio Vergara followed him;
d) After Rodolfo hacked Eleuterio witha bolo, the appellant in turn fatally woundedMaria and Norris;
e) When Avila's presence at the sceneof the incident was discovered by the thirdcompanion of the appellant, the latter andRodolfo came out and confronted Avila. Thetrio even warned Avila not to tell anyone whathe may have witnessed, otherwise, even membersof his family would also be killed.(Appellee's Brief, p. 17)
As we have held in the case ofPeople v. Lorenzo, et al., (200 SCRA 201, 217 [1991]):
. . . To prove conspiracy, the prosecution need not establish that all the parties thereto agreed to every detail in the execution of the crime or that they were actually together at all the stages of the conspiracy. It is enough that, from the individual acts of each accused, it may reasonably be deduced that they had a common plan to commit the felony (People v. Caitor, et al., 137 SCRA 761 [1985])
Consequently, there is conspiracy as theevidence by the prosecution clearly indicates that the acts and behavior of the accusedreveal their common purpose to assault andinflict harm upon the deceased and that therewas a concerted execution of that commonpurpose (People v. Batas, et al., 176 SCRA 46 [1989].
With respect to the third assigned error, theaccused-appellant insists that he was already sleepingwith his brother, Ruben Bechayda, at the latter's housein Mancao, Rapu-Rapu Albay, when the incident occurred.Considering that the accused-appellant was positivelyidentified by the prosecution eyewitnesses as one of theassailants responsible for the slaying of the fourvictims in this case, the defense of alibi becomesfutile for it is a settled rule that such defense cannotprevail over the positive identification of the accusedby the prosecution eyewitness against whom no motive tofalsely, testify against the accused can be established.(People v. Francisco C. Ventura, G.R. No. 90015, April 10, 1992; People v. Pedro Canciller y Balua, G.R. No.97296, March 4, 1992; People v. Desiderio Salazar yDacanay, et al., G.R. No. 88665, January 23, 1992).
Moreover, our pronouncement in the case ofPeople vs. Carlos Villanueva(G.R. No. 94133, May 8, 1992) bears reiteration:
. . . it is important to stress thatcourts always receive with caution, if notsuspicion, evidence of alibi, not only becauseit is inherently weak and unreliable, but alsobecause of its easy fabrication. To overcomethe evidence of the prosecution, an alibi, must satisfy the test of full, clear, andsatisfactory evidence. This test requires notonly proof that the accused was somewhere elseother than the scene of the crime, but clearand convincing proof of physical impossibilityfor him to have been at the place of thecommission of the crime. (People v. Baring,187 SCRA 629 [1990] citing People v. Gaddi y Catubay, 170 SCRA 649 [1990]).
According to the accused-appellant in his directtestimony, in order that one can cover the distancebetween Mancao (where he had been allegedly sleeping atthe time of the incident in question) and SitioDinanglayan (where the crime under considerationoccurred) by walking, it will take more than an hour butby "kumpit" or motorized banca, it will only take aboutten to twenty minutes (TSN, August 10, 1984, pp. 7-8).Thus, right from the horse's mouth, as the old adagegoes, the element of physical impossibility is wantingin this case. Besides, the accused-appellant did notpresent his brother Ruben in court to bolster his claimthat he was sleeping in Ruben's house and in the companyof Ruben himself. Hence, the defense on alibi becomesunavailing.
Finally, we are in accord with the trial court'sfindings that save for evident premeditation, theaggravating circumstances of treachery, nighttime andtaking advantage of superior strength are present inthis case and that treachery absorbs both nighttime andtaking advantage of superior strength in the light ofthe circumstances of the case at bar (see People v.Pacris, 194 SCRA 654 [1991] citing People v. Ramillano,133 SCRA 201 [1984] and People v. Rosario, 134 SCRA 496[1985]). Considering that treachery qualifies thekilling of the four victims in this case, the accused-appellant is guilty of four counts of murder, in theabsence of proof to sustain a conviction for robberywith homicide as charged in the information.
WHEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appealeddecision dated June 28, 1985 is hereby AFFIRMED with theMODIFICATION that the amount of indemnification to theheirs of the four (4) victims is increased to FIFTYTHOUSAND PESOS P50,000.00 each pursuant to prevailingjurisprudence.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur.