FACTS:

Accused Bienvenido Bonito, Edilberto (Roberto) Candelaria, and Domingo Buiza were convicted of murder for the death of Flora Banawon. Witnesses testified during the trial, including the victim's spouse Santos Banawon, who found her lifeless body with severe injuries and a cassava trunk inserted in her genitalia. Dr. Arsenia Mañosca-Moran conducted an autopsy and concluded that more than one person attacked the victim. Eyewitness Nelson Volante saw the accused standing near the victim while Bonito inserted a cassava trunk in her private part. Volante did not report the incident until months later. Benjamin Brusola testified that Bonito mentioned it was nice to have "fun" with an old woman at the wake of the victim. The defense claimed denial and alibi. Accused Candelaria and Buiza claimed to be sleeping in their respective houses during the crime. Accused Bonito did not testify. Additional witnesses testified to dispute the testimonies of the accused.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the testimony of the prosecution's lone eyewitness, Nelson Volante, should be accorded undue credence and weight.

2. Whether there is enough evidence to establish the qualifying circumstances of murder as alleged in the information.

3. Whether the accused-appellants can be held responsible for the death of Flora Banawon.

4. Whether the accused-appellants should be sentenced to pay damages despite the failure of the prosecution to prove such damages.

5. Whether the trial court correctly believed the testimony of witness Volante.

6. Whether the actions and reactions of witness Volante were natural and logical.

7. Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellants guilty of murder and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua without discussing the attending circumstances that qualified the killing as murder.

8. Whether the prosecution established the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, and abuse of superior strength.

9. Whether or not cruelty qualifies the killing to murder.

10. What is the proper penalty for murder in the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

11. Whether or not the trial court's award of damages should be modified.

RULING:

1. The judgment is affirmed with modification.

2. Principles:

3. The trial court has the discretion to assign values to the declarations of witnesses on the stand, and its findings regarding witness credibility are given deference.

4. The wide latitude given to the trial court in assessing witnesses' credibility is based on its unique opportunity to observe them testify.

5. The guilt of the accused must be established beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

6. The qualifying circumstances of a crime must be proven by the prosecution.

7. The trial court correctly believed the testimony of witness Volante. His account of the incident was consistent and candid. He did not waver even during cross-examination.

8. The actions and reactions of witness Volante were natural and logical. Different people may react differently in a given situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when confronted with a strange or frightful experience. Volante's reaction of retreating instead of confronting the assailants was understandable considering he witnessed a gruesome murder.

9. Yes, the trial court erred in not discussing the attending circumstances that qualified the killing as murder. Section 1, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court requires the court, after an adjudication of guilt, to impose the proper penalty and civil liability provided by law. Additionally, Section 2 of the same rule mandates the judgment of conviction to state the attending aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The appreciation of these attending circumstances is crucial as they determine the appropriate penalty. Failure to comply with these requirements contributes to the disorderly administration of justice.

10. No, the prosecution failed to establish the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, and abuse of superior strength. Evident premeditation requires the concurrence of three requisites: the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, an act showing that the accused clung to his determination, and sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution. In this case, there was no evidence showing that the appellants planned, meditated, or reflected on their intention to kill the victim.

11. To establish treachery, two conditions must be present: the use of means of execution that gave the victim no opportunity to defend or retaliate, and the deliberate adoption of those means. Since the eyewitness did not see the inception of the assault and only witnessed the appellants surrounding the victim while she was already on the ground, treachery cannot be appreciated.

12. Similarly, abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated since there was no clear and categorical evidence that the appellants deliberately took advantage of their combined strength in committing the crime. The lone eyewitness did not see how the aggressors initially attacked the victim, and there was no evidence showing how appellants took advantage of their combined strength to consummate the offense.

13. Yes, cruelty qualifies the killing to murder. The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission and inhumanly increased the victim's suffering or outraged or scoffed at his/her person or corpse. In this case, the appellant inserted a cassava trunk inside the victim's private organ, which was unnecessary and inhumanly increased her suffering, considering that she was already weak and almost dying. As such, cruelty has qualified the killing to murder.

14. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the proper penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua.

15. The trial court's award of actual damages is set aside for lack of basis. Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed and must be duly proved with reasonable certainty. In this case, the prosecution failed to substantiate its claim for actual damages.

16. However, the appellants are liable to pay for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased. The victim used to earn P400.00 per week by weaving mats, and her life expectancy was 80 years old. Applying the formula for loss of earning capacity, the appellants should be held liable to pay P166,399.99.

17. Furthermore, the award of civil indemnity of P50,000.00 for the death of the victim and moral damages of P30,000.00 is affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

• The trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses should not be interfered with unless any fact or circumstance of weight and influence has been overlooked or misconstrued.

• Delay in revealing the identity of the malefactors does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness if there is a sufficient explanation for the delay.

• Different people may react differently to a given situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when confronted with a strange or startling experience.

• Natural reluctance and fear of witnesses to get involved in a criminal case and provide information to authorities should be taken into consideration.

• The totality of evidence, even if the witness did not see the actual killing, can still point to the guilt of the accused if it leads to a reasonable conclusion.

• To establish evident premeditation, there must be evidence showing the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, an act manifesting such determination, and sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution.

• For treachery to be appreciated, there must be evidence showing the use of means that gave the victim no opportunity to defend or retaliate, and the deliberate adoption of those means.

• Abuse of superior strength must be proven by clear and categorical evidence, showing that the attackers deliberately took advantage of their superior strength to commit the crime.

• Cruelty qualifies the killing to murder if the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, inhumanly increased the victim's suffering, or outraged or scoffed at his/her person or corpse.

• In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua.

• Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed but must be duly proved with reasonable certainty. Speculation, conjectures, or guesswork as to the fact and the amount of damages are not allowed.

• When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to civil indemnity for the death of the victim without need of proof of damages.