FACTS:

The case involves an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, where the accused, Florante Leal, was found guilty of two counts of murder. The charges against Leal arose from an incident that occurred on February 21, 1987, in Barangay Nancayasan, Municipality of Urdaneta, Pangasinan. On that day, Joel Jacob and Emerson Jacob were stabbed to death by Leal. Joel Jacob suffered a stab wound in the abdomen that hit his heart, while Emerson Jacob had multiple stab wounds in the abdomen, chest, and chest wall.

During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including the victims' companions, Dr. Ramon B. Gonzales Jr., and the victim's mother, Lagrimas Jacob. They testified about the events leading up to and during the incident. Felipe Ganzagan and Victoriano Veloria positively identified Leal as the assailant and their testimonies were given weight by the trial court.

In his defense, Leal denied stabbing the victims and claimed he only approached them to assist Joel Jacob, who had fallen after being stabbed. According to Leal, he was at a disco pub with his friends when a brawl broke out. He pacified the parties involved and returned to the pub. Later, he was informed that his companions were involved in a fight, and when he went outside, he saw two groups of men fighting. Leal said that he was hit on the neck and lost consciousness. When he regained consciousness, he noticed another person lying on the ground in a pool of blood. Fearful, Leal went back inside the pub for about 20 to 30 minutes before going home.

The trial court found the defense witnesses' testimonies contradictory and gave weight to the testimonies of Ganzagan and Veloria, who positively identified Leal as the assailant.

ISSUES:

1. Whether treachery attended the commission of the crimes, thus qualifying the killing to murder.

2. Whether the award of damages to the victims' parents is supported by competent proof.

3. Whether the death of the victim and the responsibility of the person who caused the death are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was established.

5. Whether the amount of damages awarded is supported by evidence.

6. Whether the claimant's testimony regarding the expenses incurred is sufficient to support the trial court's award of actual damages.

7. Whether the award of moral damages by the trial court was excessive.

RULING:

1. The appellate court found the appeal partly meritorious.

2. First Issue: Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence

3. The court concurred with the trial court's finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible and detailed. The defense failed to contradict these eyewitness accounts, and the appellant himself did not insist on his innocence. The testimonies established the appellant's stabbing of the victims, which qualified as murder due to treachery.

4. Second Issue: Damages Award

5. The court did not provide a ruling on the second issue as the excerpt did not include their decision on this matter.

6. Yes, the death of the victim and the responsibility of the person who caused the death were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The eyewitness accounts positively identified the assailant and their testimonies were corroborated by the medicolegal's testimony and the Autopsy Report. The trial court gave full credence to the eyewitness accounts and found them credible. Denial, like alibi, is an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over positive and categorical identification provided by eyewitnesses. Thus, the conviction for murder or homicide is warranted.

7. No, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not established. The accounts of the eyewitnesses were unclear in depicting how the attack was launched against the victim. It was not known how the killing began and if the assailant planned the attack. Treachery requires the concurrence of two conditions: the employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender's safety, and the deliberate or conscious choice of such means, methods or manner of execution. Since the eyewitnesses did not provide clear details on how the attack commenced and if it was sudden and unexpected, treachery was not proven. Therefore, appellant's conviction should be on two counts of homicide only.

8. The claimant's testimony regarding the expenses incurred is insufficient to support the trial court's award of actual damages.

9. The award of moral damages by the trial court is considered palpably and scandalously excessive. It is reduced to P50,000 for each offense.

10. The award for actual damages is deleted.

PRINCIPLES:

• Positive identification by credible witnesses prevails over negative denials.

• Contradictory testimony of defense witnesses weakens their credibility.

• Failure to report a crime and act as if nothing had happened is not typical of a witness and may affect credibility.

• Flight can be considered as an indication of guilt.

• An attack that is sudden, unexpected, and which the victim is unarmed and unaware of qualifies as treachery.

• To secure a conviction of murder or homicide, it is enough that the death of the victim and the responsibility of the person who caused the death are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Denial, like alibi, is an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over positive and categorical identification provided by eyewitnesses.

• This Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, absent any indication that some material fact was overlooked or a grave abuse of discretion committed.

• Treachery exists when the offender commits a crime against a person employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure the execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

• Treachery requires the concurrence of two conditions: the employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender's safety, and the deliberate or conscious choice of such means, methods or manner of execution.

• Treachery cannot be presumed and must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.

• To aggravate the killing as murder, the qualifying circumstance of treachery must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself.

• To recover actual damages, the amount of loss must be proven with competent proof or the best evidence obtainable.

• Moral damages are not intended to enrich the victims' heirs or penalize the convict but to obviate the spiritual sufferings of the heirs.