FACTS:

During a period of political polarization after the 1986 EDSA Revolution, a rally was scheduled by Marcos loyalists at the Luneta. Denied a permit, they held an impromptu event at the Rizal Monument and clashed with the police when asked to disperse. Later, a small group of loyalists encountered Annie Ferrer, a movie starlet and Marcos supporter, who ordered them to attack "Cory hecklers." A commotion ensued, and Stephen Salcedo, a known "Coryista," was chased, attacked, and mauled by Marcos loyalists.

The mauling resulted in Edward Salcedo sustaining various injuries, including skull fractures. Witnesses, including press people, captured the event on pictures and video. Salcedo was taken to the hospital but was refused admission and died upon arrival. The cause of death was determined as "hemorrhage, intracranial traumatic." President Aquino ordered an investigation, leading to the apprehension and investigation of several individuals.

During the trial, the accused denied their participation and provided alibis. The trial court found several individuals guilty of murder qualified by treachery, while others were acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Annie Ferrer was also convicted as an accomplice. The trial court imposed varying penalties and ordered the accused to pay damages to the victim's heirs. Accused who were under detention were credited with their period of detention.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision by acquitting Annie Ferrer and increasing the penalty for the rest of the accused, except for Joselito Tamayo, who was convicted of homicide instead of murder due to the information not alleging the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Sumilang and Banculo.

2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of conspiracy among the accused.

3. Whether the crime committed was murder or homicide in a tumultuous affray.

4. Whether the evasiveness and argumentative behavior of the witness, Sumilang, is enough reason to reject his testimony.

5. Whether Banculo's mistake in identifying another person as one of the accused makes him an untrustworthy witness.

6. Whether the testimonies of the witnesses corroborate each other and are supported by the medical and documentary evidence.

7. Whether the photographs presented by the prosecution were properly identified and admissible as evidence.

8. Whether the use of photographs as evidence is admissible to prove the accused's participation in the crime.

9. Whether the crime committed was death in a tumultuous affray or murder qualified by abuse of superior strength.

10. Whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation can be appreciated in this case.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of Sumilang and Banculo. There is no proof that they testified due to the reward announced by General Lim, and their testimonies were consistent and supported by other evidence.

2. There is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of conspiracy among the accused. The testimonies of the witnesses, as well as other evidence, establish their concerted effort to assault the victim.

3. The crime committed was murder, not homicide in a tumultuous affray. The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was proven, and the accused were properly convicted of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength.

4. The court held that the evasiveness and argumentative behavior of the witness, Sumilang, is not enough reason to reject his testimony. The court stated that his testimony was correctly given credence by the trial court despite his evasiveness at some instances. The trial court, being in the best position to assess the demeanor of witnesses when on the witness stand, can best appreciate the verbal and non-verbal dimensions of a witness' testimony.

5. The court ruled that Banculo's mistake in identifying another person as one of the accused does not make him an entirely untrustworthy witness. The court stated that an honest mistake is not inconsistent with a truthful testimony, and perfect testimonies cannot be expected from persons with imperfect senses. The court held that the testimony of a witness can be believed as to some facts but disbelieved with respect to others, based on the court's discretion.

6. The court sustained the findings of the appellate and trial courts that the witnesses' testimonies corroborate each other on all important and relevant details of the principal occurrence. The positive identification of all petitioners by the witnesses was found to be consistent and supported by medical and documentary evidence.

7. The court ruled that the objection to the admissibility of the photographs, based on the lack of proper identification by the photographer, is not valid. The court held that photographs can be identified by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy. In this case, the court noted that the accused themselves used the photographs as part of their defense evidence and no objection was made until a later hearing. The court found that the photographs were properly identified and admissible as evidence.

8. The use of photographs by some of the accused to show their alleged non-participation in the crime is an admission of the exactness and accuracy of the photographs. The photographs were affirmed to be faithful representations of the mauling incident. The absence of two appellants in the photographs does not exculpate them because the photographs only captured segments of the incident. The eyewitnesses' identification of the accused outweighs their denials and alibis.

9. The lower courts did not err in finding the existence of conspiracy among the principal accused and convicting them of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, not death in a tumultuous affray. Death in a tumultuous affray requires that there be several persons who did not compose groups organized for the purpose of assaulting each other, that they quarreled and assaulted each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, that someone was killed, that it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, and that the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified. In this case, there was no confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray, and the victim's assailants took advantage of their superior strength and excessive force to attack him.

10. Treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance because there is no proof that the attack on the victim was deliberately and consciously chosen to ensure the assailants' safety from any defense the victim could have made. The attack was sudden and unexpected, but it was apparently provoked by the victim's actions. Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated because the attack was sudden and spontaneous, without cool thought and reflection.

PRINCIPLES:

• The credibility of witnesses is generally left to the determination of the trial court, whose findings on factual matters are accorded great respect on appeal.

• Conspiracy may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused showing unity of purpose and intention to commit a crime.

• Qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information for the proper conviction of a crime.

• The credibility of witnesses is best assessed by the trial court, considering their visual view of the demeanor of witnesses when on the witness stand.

• A witness can be believed as to some facts but disbelieved with respect to others, based on the court's discretion.

• An honest mistake by a witness does not make the entire testimony untrustworthy.

• Testimonies that corroborate each other and are supported by medical and documentary evidence are given weight by the court.

• Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer or any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.

• The use of photographs as documentary evidence is admissible and can be considered as admissions of the parties.

• Death in a tumultuous affray requires the presence of several persons who did not compose groups organized for the purpose of assaulting each other, a quarrel and assault in a confused and tumultuous manner, a person being killed, uncertainty as to who actually killed the deceased, and identification of the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries.

• Qualifying circumstances such as treachery and evident premeditation require specific elements and cannot be appreciated if those elements are not present.

• Existence of conspiracy implies unity of purpose and concerted effort among the conspirators.

• In a conspiracy, each conspirator is liable for all acts of the others.

• It is not necessary to establish who among the conspirators inflicted the fatal wound to sustain a conviction.