FACTS:

The appellants, along with one Edwin Macas who remained at large, were convicted for the murder of Edgardo Tusi. The victim's wife testified that the appellants took offense when Edgardo admonished them to lower their voices during their drinking session. She witnessed Toribio stabbing Edgardo twice, and her cousin Ruben Bernal could not intervene because Filomeno and Gregorio, along with Edwin, also attacked Edgardo. The defense presented witnesses who testified that Edgardo initiated the physical altercation, and the appellants were not present during the incident. Filomeno claimed that he and his wife stayed away from their home out of fear of retaliation, while Gregorio stated that he left his residence to avoid confrontation. Toribio alleged that he declined the invitation to join Edgardo's drinking session.

The case involves two separate incidents. In the first incident, the appellants arrived at the victim's residence and without saying anything, Toribio stabbed the victim two times. The appellants, along with two others, joined in the killing of the victim by stabbing him with bladed weapons. The reason for the attack was allegedly due to the victim's admonition to the appellants for being noisy during their drinking spree. In the second incident, the victim was walking home when he encountered the appellants who were still drinking. One of the appellants attacked him with a lead pipe, hitting him in the left arm. The victim managed to run to a relative's house but was attacked again by the appellants with a lead pipe and a wooden club. The victim defended himself, eventually stabbing one of the appellants on the head, neck, and chest.

The victim suffered multiple stab wounds and incised wounds, resulting in his death. The injuries sustained by the victim included stab wounds to the left clavicular region, left infraclavicular region, sternal region, and right mammary region. The medical findings indicated that more than one assailant and more than one weapon were used in inflicting the wounds. The testimonies of witnesses and the medico-legal findings supported the claim of conspiracy by the prosecution. The Court rejected the denial and alibi of the other two co-accused. The confession of accused-appellant Loloy during his testimony undermined his claim of self-defense as he admitted to stabbing the victim in retaliation, rather than in self-defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the testimonies of witnesses and the medico-legal findings contradicted the accused's claim of self-defense.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the accused-appellants' claim of self-defense is credible.

2. Whether the testimonies and evidence presented by the accused-appellants are sufficient to prove their alibi.

3. Whether the testimony of one defense witness cast doubt on his credibility as an eyewitness.

4. Whether the entries in the sketch and report made by Dr. Aranas and acquired by Dr. Salen are admissible as evidence.

5. Whether Dr. Salen's interpretation of the medico legal report is admissible in court.

6. Whether the non-offer of evidence affects the admissibility of the medical legal report and anatomical sketch.

7. Whether the testimony of Dr. Salen is hearsay and his qualification as a medico legal expert is questioned.

8. Whether treachery and conspiracy attended the killing of the victim.

9. Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua is correct for the appellants.

10. Did the appellate court err in affirming the conviction of the accused?

11. Did the accused successfully prove their plea of self-defense and alibi?

RULING:

1. The Court ruled that the accused-appellants' claim of self-defense is not credible. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, along with the medico-legal findings, strongly contradict the accused-appellants' assertion of self-defense. The number and nature of the wounds sustained by the victim indicate a determined effort to kill rather than an act of defense.

2. The Court ruled that the accused-appellants failed to prove their alibi. Accused-appellant Boy Roti failed to present witnesses who could have corroborated his claim that he was in a different location during the commission of the crime. Accused-appellant Gorio's conduct, such as fleeing and leaving his family behind, implies an admission of guilt.

3. The Court ruled that the testimony of one defense witness, Tano, cast doubt on his credibility as an eyewitness. His testimony was inconsistent with the testimonies of other defense witnesses regarding the date of the offense and the identity of the victim.

4. Yes, the entries in the sketch and report made by Dr. Aranas and acquired by Dr. Salen are admissible as evidence because they were duly entered in a regular manner in the official records, making them prima facie evidence of the facts stated. (Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court)

5. Yes, Dr. Salen's interpretation of the medico legal report is admissible in court as it required his special knowledge, skill, experience, or training as a Medico Legal Officer to provide the meaning of the technical language used.

6. No, the non-offer of evidence does not affect the admissibility of the medical legal report and anatomical sketch. Even without their formal offer, the prosecution can still establish the case as long as they have been properly identified by testimony duly recorded and incorporated in the records of the case.

7. No, the testimony of Dr. Salen is not hearsay and his qualification as a medico legal expert is not questioned. The counsel of the appellants had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Salen but did not do so.

8. Yes, treachery and conspiracy attended the killing of the victim. The sudden and unexpected attack without provocation and the joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest shown the presence of treachery and conspiracy.

9. Yes, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is correct for the appellants as it is an indivisible penalty with a fixed duration under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The circumstances of voluntary surrender, incomplete self-defense, and treachery do not affect the application of the indivisible penalty.

10. The appeal has no merit. The Court upheld the appellate court's affirmation of the conviction of the accused.

11. The accused failed to prove their plea of self-defense and alibi.

PRINCIPLES:

• The burden of proof lies on the accused to prove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence.

• Positive identification prevails over alibi and denial when it is categorical, consistent, and not tainted by ill motive.

• Official records, such as a medico-legal report, can be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule when they are entries made in the performance of duty by the person who conducted the examination or investigation.

• Entries in official records are prima facie evidence of the facts stated (Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court).

• The interpretation of technical language in a report may be given by an expert witness.

• Non-offered evidence may still be considered if properly identified by testimony and incorporated in the records of the case.

• The testimony of an expert witness is not indispensable for a successful prosecution of murder.

• Treachery exists when the offender employs means and method that ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the offender.

• Conspiracy may be inferred from the mode, method, and manner of the offense or from the acts of the accused showing joint purpose and design.

• In cases where the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

• The determination of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is given full weight and credit, and is not easily disregarded.

• The accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of self-defense when invoking it as a defense.

• The burden of proof in self-defense lies on the accused, even if the prosecution's evidence is weak.

• The presence of a large number of wounds on the victim's body negates self-defense.

• Alibi is an inherently weak and unreliable defense that is easily fabricated and difficult to disprove.

• To establish alibi, the accused must prove that he was actually in another place at the time of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.

• Death indemnity is fixed at P50,000.00, without the need for evidence or proof of damages.

• Emotional pain and anguish of the surviving family is compensable through an award of moral damages.

• Exemplary damages may be awarded when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.

• Aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages in the civil aspect of the case.