FACTS:

In the first case, Carlito Cortez and Gerry España, along with two John Does, were charged with the murder of Dominador Bislig. M/Sgt Estefanio C. Anobling witnessed the accused engaging in suspicious behavior, which prompted him to place them under surveillance. Later on, Anobling observed Cortez and España holding Bislig while one of the John Does held a jungle bolo. Cortez stabbed Bislig, and upon seeing Anobling, the assailants fled. Anobling pursued them but was only able to apprehend one of them. Anobling then helped Bislig and received information that the culprits were hiding in the house of Carlito's brother. Carlito Cortez and Gerry España were apprehended, and the autopsy showed that Bislig sustained fatal stab wounds.

The trial court found Anobling's testimony credible and convincing, considering his detailed account of the incident. The court also deemed it unlikely for Anobling to provide such clarity and detail unless he was present at the time of the crime. The accused argued that Anobling was merely attempting to make himself look important, but the court rejected this argument.

The accused-appellants invoked the defense of alibi, claiming they were elsewhere at the time of the incident. However, the court found their alibi unavailing, as they had the opportunity to be present at the crime scene. The court also found Gilbert Cortez's testimony, presented to corroborate the defendants' statements, biased and entitled to little weight.

The defense attempted to discredit Anobling's credibility by calling him a "braggart" and questioning his intelligence. They also pointed out inconsistencies in Anobling's testimony. However, the court found these arguments lacking in merit and deemed it possible for Anobling to catch the unknown assailant due to the short distance and his physical fitness. The court also rejected the argument that it was impossible for Anobling to identify the assailants in the dark, as he testified that the place was well-lit.

In the second case, Carlito Cortez and Renato España were charged with the murder of Pablito Anobling. The sole eyewitness, Rolando Jovellar, positively identified Cortez and España as two of the attackers. Jovellar testified that he saw their faces clearly as the place was well lighted. He also mentioned that one of the attackers was wearing a yellow jacket, which made it easy to identify. The defense attempted to discredit Jovellar's testimony but failed.

The defense argued that the unknown assailant could not have escaped a karate expert and questioned why Jovellar was not feigning sleep during the attack. However, the court dismissed these arguments as non-sequitur and unworthy of consideration.

The defense also pointed out a mistake in Jovellar's testimony, misnaming Cortez's nickname. However, the court considered this mistake insignificant and did not undermine the credibility of Jovellar's identification.

ISSUES:

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to identify the assailants and establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the weapon presented in court was the same weapon used to stab the victim.

3. Whether the crime committed qualifies as murder or homicide.

4. Whether evident premeditation was proven in the case.

5. Whether abuse of superior strength was present.

6. Whether the offense proved is necessarily included in the offense charged.

7. Whether the award of civil indemnity ex delicto and moral damages is proper.

8. Whether the heirs of homicide victims should be entitled to moral damages without need of independent proof.

9. Whether the lackadaisical attitude and apparent lack of diligence of defense counsel warrant sanctions.

RULING:

1. The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to identify the assailants and establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The argument that it was dark and therefore impossible to identify the assailants was deemed untenable as the witness testified that the place was well lighted and he was able to see the faces of the accused clearly. The argument that the unknown assailant could not have escaped a karate expert and that one of the accused should have also been feigning sleep was considered non-sequitur. The positive identification of the accused was not affected by the witness's mistake in the nickname of one of the assailants.

2. The Court found that the testimony of the examining pathologist that the bolo presented in court was not the weapon used to stab the victim did not affect the credibility of the witness who positively identified the accused. The pathologist's finding that the bolo was not the knife used in the stabbing did not conflict with the witness's testimony.

3. The Court held that the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstances of the crime. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and use of superior strength. Therefore, the accused should be convicted of homicide instead of murder.

4. The prosecution failed to prove the elements of evident premeditation. There was no direct proof that the accused plotted in advance to kill the victim.

5. Abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated as there was no indication that the accused took advantage of their number to overpower the victim.

6. Since no qualifying circumstances were proven, the accused should only be convicted of the lesser crime of homicide, which is necessarily included in murder.

7. The award of civil indemnity ex delicto and moral damages is proper based on the fact of death of the victim and the culpability of the accused.

8. Yes, the heirs of homicide victims should be entitled to moral damages without need of independent proof, similar to the presumption that applies to the parents of rape victims. The conviction of the accused for the crime is enough to justify the award. Thus, the trial court's award of P100,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs must be sustained.

9. The defense counsel displayed a lackadaisical attitude and apparent want of industry and diligence in handling the case. This warrants sanctions as the counsel was held in contempt and fined P2,000.00 for failing to file the Appellants' Brief within the reglementary period and failing to satisfactorily explain the omission. The counsel's subsequent filing of a brief replete with name-calling, typographical and grammatical errors, and bereft of any discernible merit also reflects a lack of diligence bordering on betrayal of his clients' trust. The court expressed displeasure over such conduct and emphasized that it will not tolerate such disregard of the client's rights and absence of seriousness in the discharge of professional duties.

PRINCIPLES:

• Positive identification of the accused is not affected by minor discrepancies or mistakes in the witness's testimony, as long as the identification remains clear.

• The testimony of a witness and the identification of the accused can still be considered valid and credible even if the weapon presented in court is not the same as the weapon used in the crime.

• Mere allegation of qualifying circumstances in the information is not enough, as the prosecution must prove these circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

• To establish evident premeditation, there must be proof of the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, an overt act manifestly indicating the accused clung to the determination, and a sufficient period of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow the accused an opportunity to reflect on the consequences.

• Abuse of superior strength is present when there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor and the aggressor takes advantage of this situation in the commission of the crime.

• When there is a variance between the offense charged in the information and that proved, and the offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved.

• Civil indemnity ex delicto is automatically granted to the heirs of the victim without the need for further proof other than the commission of the crime.

• Moral damages may be awarded if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission, and in cases of death, it suffices to prove the fact of death of the victim for the existence of moral damages to be deduced.

• The presumption of sufferings applies to the heirs of homicide victims, similar to the presumption that applies to the parents of rape victims.

• The lackadaisical attitude and apparent lack of diligence of defense counsel may warrant sanctions and may be deemed a betrayal of the client's trust.