FACTS:

Tomas Oronan was attacked by four individuals using bamboo spears, bows and arrows, and stones, resulting in his death. His wife, Felomina Peñones Oronan, and two sons, Ramon and Antonio Oronan, identified the assailants as her brothers, Efren, Oscar, Froilan, and Andres Peñones. The four brothers were charged with murder with evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength. According to Felomina and Ramon, the Oronan family was on their way to report an incident to the Barangay Captain when they were attacked. The assailants emerged from a grove of trees armed with weapons and attacked Tomas. Despite their defense of alibi and self-defense, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of murder. The accused appealed the decision, asserting that the Trial Court erred in rejecting their alibi and self-defense claims, relying on biased witnesses, admitting photographs without proper authentication, and denying a motion for new trial to present newly discovered evidence. The defense of alibi was deemed unavailing due to the positive identification of the accused and the lack of physical impossibility for them to be present at the scene of the crime.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the defense of alibi is applicable in this case.

2. Whether Efren Peñones acted in legitimate defense of his person and his father.

3. Whether the testimonies of Ramon and Felomina Oronan should be given credence.

4. Whether or not the testimony of Felomina Peñones Oronan is credible despite alleged inconsistencies.

5. Whether or not the photographs depicting the crime scene were properly admitted as evidence.

6. Whether or not the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence should be granted.

7. Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation can be appreciated in this case.

8. Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present.

RULING:

1. The defense of alibi is not applicable in this case as there is positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses and there was no showing of physical impossibility for the accused to be present at the scene of the crime.

2. Efren Peñones did not act in legitimate defense of his person and his father as the evidence presented contradicted his claim and there was an irreconcilable inconsistency between his story and the evidence of the wounds and injuries inflicted on the victim.

3. The testimonies of Ramon and Felomina Oronan should be given credence as their relationship to the victim does not automatically destroy their credibility as witnesses. Relatives of the victim would not be expected to falsely implicate innocent persons in the crime.

4. The Court finds that the inconsistencies in Felomina Peñones Oronan's testimony are not substantial and do not affect her credibility. Her testimony is corroborated by her son, Ramon.

5. The Trial Court properly admitted the photographs as part of the testimonies of Felomina and Ramon. It was not necessary to present the photographer for cross-examination since Felomina and Ramon were both competent to identify and describe the persons and things appearing in the pictures.

6. The motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence was correctly denied. The evidence presented in the motion was not newly discovered and, even if considered, would not change the judgment.

7. The Court finds that there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out. Therefore, the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation cannot be appreciated.

8. The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present in this case. The four accused were armed with weapons while the victim was unarmed. The violence and force used by the accused were excessive and out of proportion to the means of defense available to the victim.

PRINCIPLES:

• Alibi is not applicable when there is positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses and there is no showing of physical impossibility for the accused to be present at the scene of the crime.

• Legitimate defense requires the presence of unlawful aggression, absence of sufficient provocation, and reasonable necessity of the means adopted to repel the aggression.

• The relationship of a witness to a party does not automatically affect the credibility of the witness. Relatives of the victim would not be expected to falsely implicate innocent persons in the crime.

• Inconsistencies in testimonies are not necessarily substantial and may not affect the credibility of a witness.

• Photographs may be admitted as evidence if they are part of a witness's testimony and the witness is competent to identify and describe the persons and things depicted in the pictures.

• A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence may be denied if the evidence was known to the party during the trial.

• Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated without proof of how and when the plan to kill was hatched.

• Abuse of superior strength can be considered as a qualifying circumstance if the violence and force used by the accused were excessive and out of proportion to the means of defense available to the victim.