FACTS:

The accused, Niel Piedad, Lito Garcia, and Richard Palma, were charged with murder for the killing of Mateo Lactawan. According to the information, together with an unidentified person, they attacked Mateo by hitting him with an empty bottle, beating him up, hitting him with a large stone, and stabbing him with a bladed weapon. Mateo's widow, Luz Lactawan, and another witness, Fidel Piquero, testified that they saw the accused assault Mateo. Mateo died in the hospital due to the injuries sustained. Dr. Ma. Cristina Freyra confirmed the cause of death. During the trial, the accused denied the charges and presented a different version of the incident.

Niel, Richard, and Lito claimed that they were involved in a fistfight with Fidel and Mateo. Richard left to seek help from the barangay hall and saw Niel fighting with Fidel upon his return. Lito witnessed the brawl while on his way home from buying cigarettes. Two witnesses, Wilson and Bernard, corroborated Niel and Richard's version, stating that Luz, Mateo's wife, was not present during the fight. The trial court found Niel and Lito guilty of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua. However, Richard was acquitted. Niel argued that his pre-trial identification was flawed, violating his right to counsel, but the court disagreed, stating that the witnesses were familiar with Niel, and the absence of a police lineup does not invalidate their identification. The appeals raised by Niel and Lito were deemed meritless.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the pre-trial identification of the accused-appellants was suggestive due to the absence of a police lineup.

2. Whether the lack of counsel during the pre-trial identification of the accused-appellants is fatal.

3. Whether the close relationship of the witnesses to the victim affects their credibility.

4. Whether the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses impair their credibility.

5. Whether the handling of the alleged murder weapon and the lack of proper authentication affects its admissibility.

6. Whether the non-presentation of the knife allegedly used to stab the deceased affects the finding of guilt of the accused.

7. Whether the presence of the instruments used in the killing of the deceased is indispensable in the prosecution of the accused.

8. Whether treachery can be appreciated in the case.

9. Whether the positive identification of the accused-appellants by the principal witnesses is credible.

10. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellants of the crime of murder.

RULING:

1. The absence of a police lineup does not render the pre-trial identification suggestive. The witnesses were familiar with the accused-appellants even before the incident, and they positively identified them based on their recognition of the perpetrators of the crime. There is no law that requires a police lineup for identification purposes.

2. The lack of counsel during the pre-trial identification process is not fatal. The right to counsel only accrues once the police investigation becomes an interrogation aimed at a particular suspect. In this case, the accused-appellants were not interrogated or forced to confess. They were not under custodial investigation and their right to counsel was not violated.

3. The close relationship of the witnesses to the victim does not automatically affect their credibility. It is more likely for friends and family members to have an interest in telling the truth and securing the conviction of the real culprits, rather than implicating innocent individuals. Their relationship to the victim lends credence to their testimonies.

4. Alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses do not impair their credibility. It is natural for different witnesses to give varying details of a crime. Inconsistencies do not change the fact that the accused-appellants were positively identified as the attackers.

5. The handling of the alleged murder weapon and the lack of proper authentication affect its admissibility. The concrete stone used by one of the accused in hitting the victim was not properly tagged, identified, or marked. The stone presented in court did not bear the same markings made by the witness who claimed to have made a marking on it. Furthermore, there was no forensic examination conducted to confirm whether the blood stain on the stone was of human blood. The proper handling and authentication of the evidence were necessary to establish its authenticity in court.

6. The non-presentation of the knife allegedly used to stab the deceased does not affect the finding of guilt of the accused. The presentation of the instruments used in the killing of the deceased is not indispensable in the prosecution of the accused. The weapon used in the killing is not an element of the crimes of homicide or murder. The accused has been positively identified, and the non-presentation of the items does not alter the finding of guilt.

7. The presence of the instruments used in the killing of the deceased is not indispensable in the prosecution of the accused. The production of the weapon used in committing the crime is not a condition sine qua non for the conviction of an accused. As long as the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the accused committed it, the absence of the weapons is not fatal.

8. Treachery can be appreciated in the case. Treachery requires that the offender consciously adopts a particular means, method, or form of attack that ensures the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from any defense from the victim. In this case, the victim was overpowered and helpless when the accused ganged up and mauled him. The accused employed a deliberate and sudden attack, making it impossible for the victim to retaliate. The victim had no chance to defend himself from the assault, and the manner of the attack showed treachery.

9. The positive identification of the accused-appellants by the principal witnesses is credible. The denials of the accused-appellants were deemed unconvincing and self-serving. The court held that between the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the accused-appellants, the former deserves more credence and is entitled to greater evidentiary weight.

10. The trial court did not err in convicting the accused-appellants of the crime of murder. The appellate court accorded due respect and weight to the findings of fact of the lower court, unless it overlooked material and relevant points that would have led to a different ruling. The court found that the trial court did not overlook or disregard facts and circumstances deemed significant by the accused-appellants in their assignment of errors.

PRINCIPLES:

• The absence of a police lineup does not render pre-trial identification suggestive if the witnesses were already familiar with the accused and positively identified them based on their recognition of the perpetrators.

• The right to counsel only applies during a custodial investigation and does not extend to the pre-trial identification process.

• The close relationship of a witness to the victim does not necessarily affect the witness's credibility and may even lend credence to their testimonies.

• Alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses do not automatically impair their credibility as long as the essential elements of the crime are established.

• Testimony inconsistencies do not necessarily weaken credibility, especially if they are trivial and do not affect the substance or veracity of the testimony.

• Proper handling and authentication of evidence are necessary to establish its authenticity in court.

• The non-presentation of the instruments used in the killing of the victim is not fatal as long as the accused has been positively identified.

• Treachery requires a deliberate and sudden attack that affords the victim no chance to defend or escape. The essence of treachery is the impossibility for the victim to retaliate.

• Positive identification by prosecution witnesses carries more weight than self-serving denials of the accused-appellants.

• Findings of fact of the trial court are accorded due respect and weight, unless it overlooked material and relevant points leading it to rule differently.

• The trial judge is in a more competent position to weigh the credibility of witnesses, considering their demeanor, conduct, and attitude at the trial.

• Moral damages must be awarded in cases of violent death, even in the absence of allegations and proof of emotional suffering.