FACTS:

On March 8, 1992, appellants Danilo Pablo, Nicolas Compra, and Edwin Trabuncon were charged with multiple counts of murder and attempted murder. The victims were Domingo Loveres, Lucita Loveres, and Robert Loveres, who were killed in their house. Jocelyn Loveres, the daughter of the victims, identified several individuals, including Panong Pablo and Domingo Pablo, as the suspects. Jocelyn gave her statement to the police, recounting the events leading to the killings.

Danilo Pablo was arrested at Pier 14, North Harbor, Manila, while Nicolas Compra was arrested in Valenzuela. Edwin Trabuncon was later arrested in Iloilo City. Autopsies conducted by the medico-legal officer revealed that Domingo and Robert Loveres died from stab and hacked wounds, while Lucita Loveres died from a gunshot wound.

During the trial, the accused denied their involvement in the killings and presented their own versions of events. Danilo Pablo testified that he was driving a passenger jeepney on the day of the incident and denied knowing the Loveres family. His friend, Oscar Badango, corroborated his testimony. Nicolas Compra claimed that he was drinking beer with friends at home on the day of the killings and denied any knowledge of or involvement in the crime. Compra's wife, Bella Luz Compra, supported his alibi.

In another aspect of the case, Jose Romeo Quino testified that he was approached by Cristobal, who claimed that his brother-in-law, Domingo Fernandez, had been wrongfully arrested and detained for drug possession. Cristobal promised Quino that if he paid a certain amount of money, Fernandez would be released. Quino agreed to provide the money only if Fernandez was innocent and if Cristobal could provide the necessary release papers.

These are the relevant facts of the case without any elaboration on the issues or rulings.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the defense of bare denials and alibi can prevail over the positive identification of the accused.

3. Did the trial court err in finding that the accused conspired with Panong in killing or shooting Lucita Loveres?

4. Did the trial court err in holding that the murders of Domingo Loveres and Robert Loveres were committed with the qualifying aggravating circumstances of treachery, superior strength, and evident premeditation?

5. Did the trial court err in holding that the attempted murder of Edgar Loveres was committed with the aggravating circumstances of superior strength and evident premeditation?

6. Whether or not treachery was present in the commission of the crime of murder.

7. Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of superior strength was present.

8. Whether or not evident premeditation was present.

9. Whether or not the prosecution proved the elements of evident premeditation and implied conspiracy in the commission of the crimes.

10. Whether or not the crime of attempted murder against Edgar Loveres was committed with the aggravating circumstance of superior strength and evident premeditation.

11. Whether the imposition of exemplary damages is proper.

12. Whether the offense committed by the accused constitutes an aggravating circumstance warranting the imposition of exemplary damages.

RULING:

1. The trial court found that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were straightforward, sincere, and truthful. It gave credence to their testimonies and concluded that they positively identified the accused as participants in the crimes charged. The court held that the defense of bare denials and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of eyewitnesses who had no improper motive to testify falsely.

2. The defense of bare denials and alibi put up by the accused were not enough to overcome the positive identification by the witnesses. The trial court found that the alibi presented by the accused was not substantiated and could not be given weight. Thus, the defense of bare denials and alibi was ineffective in negating the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses.

3. No, the trial court did not err in finding that the accused conspired with Panong in killing or shooting Lucita Loveres. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of prior agreement, but can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. In this case, it was established that all the accused were present at the scene of the crime, holding weapons, and did not assist or show concern for the victim when she was shot by Panong. The trial court correctly ruled that there was implied conspiracy among the appellants in the commission of the crime.

4. Yes, the trial court erred in holding that the murders of Domingo Loveres and Robert Loveres were committed with the qualifying aggravating circumstances of treachery, superior strength, and evident premeditation. While the act of shooting Lucita Loveres qualified the crime with alevosia, there was no factual basis for finding evident premeditation as the prosecution failed to prove the requisite elements.

5. No, the trial court did not err in holding that the attempted murder of Edgar Loveres was committed with the aggravating circumstances of superior strength and evident premeditation. The accused were present at the scene of the crime, did not assist or show concern for the victim, and even chased him with a knife. Their collective actions demonstrate premeditation and the use of superior strength in the commission of the crime.

6. Treachery was present in the commission of the crime of murder. Treachery exists when the offender commits the crime against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In this case, the victims were both unarmed and were taken by the group of appellants who repeatedly stabbed and hacked them, thereby depriving them of any opportunity to defend themselves. The court agrees with the trial court that the killing was attended by treachery.

7. The aggravating circumstance of superior strength was present. Superiority in number does not necessarily mean superiority in strength. It is necessary to show that the aggressors cooperated in such a way as to secure an advantage from their superiority in strength. In this case, the group of appellants, numbering 10 and all armed, took advantage of their superior strength as they helped one another in the killing of the victims who were unarmed. The testimony of a witness confirmed that the appellants were present and actively participated in the stabbing of the victims.

8. Evident premeditation was not present. The prosecution failed to prove that sufficient time elapsed between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow the appellants to reflect upon the consequences of their act. Therefore, the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation cannot be considered.

9. The prosecution failed to prove the elements of evident premeditation and implied conspiracy. Therefore, the court affirmed the convictions of murder of the spouses Domingo and Lucita Loveres and their son Robert Loveres, but acquitted the appellants of the crime of murder of Edgar Loveres. Instead, they were convicted of attempted homicide.

10. The attack on Edgar Loveres was made alternately and not simultaneously, therefore the use of superior strength cannot be considered. Moreover, evident premeditation cannot be considered as the prosecution failed to prove the time when the appellants determined to commit the crime. Therefore, absent any aggravating circumstances, the appellants can only be convicted of attempted homicide in the case of Edgar Loveres.

11. The imposition of exemplary damages is not proper.

12. The offense committed by the accused does not constitute an aggravating circumstance warranting the imposition of exemplary damages.

PRINCIPLES:

• Positive identification by credible witnesses can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even without corroboration.

• The defense of bare denials and alibi can be overcome by strong and credible evidence of positive identification.

• Conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, showing that they acted in unison with each other, evincing a common purpose or design.

• When conspiracy is established, the act of one conspirator is the act of all, making all the conspirators liable as co-principals.

• Evident premeditation requires the prosecution to prove the time when the offender determined to commit the crime and an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination.

• Treachery exists when means, methods, or forms in the commission of the crime tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to the offender.

• Superiority in strength as an aggravating circumstance requires proof that the aggressors cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from their superiority in strength.

• Evident premeditation can be considered as an aggravating circumstance when there is proof of sufficient time elapsed between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

• In case of evident premeditation, there must be proof of the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, an act indicating their determination, and a sufficient lapse of time to reflect on the consequences of their act.

• In case of implied conspiracy, proof of how and when the plan was hatched, as well as the time that elapsed before its execution, is necessary.

• The use of superior strength should not be considered when the attacking party alternately attacks the victim.

• The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies in determining the penalty for attempted homicide.

• Exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime committed is attended by one or more aggravating circumstances.

• In the absence of any aggravating circumstances, the imposition of exemplary damages is deleted.