PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JIMMY LAURIO AND DOMINADOR “TULONG” LAURIO, ACCUSED. DOMINADOR “TULONG” LAURIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

On July 25, 1989,
the brothers, Jimmy and Dominador Laurio,
were charged with murder in an information filed by
the Provincial Prosecutor of Masbate, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 5753 of the
Regional Trial Court of Masbate, which reads:

“That on or about May 7, 1988 at midnight thereof, at sitio Bagong Sirang,
Barangay Panique,
Municipality of Aroroy, Province of Masbate, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused with intent to kill, evident
premeditation and treachery, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously conspiring and helping each other, attack, assault, box and stab with a knife one Ely Banculo, hitting the latter on the different parts of the
body, thereby inflicting wounds which directly caused his death.

“Contrary to law.” (p. 7, Rollo.)

Upon arraignment, the accused Dominador
Laurio, assisted by counsel de parte, entered a plea of “not guilty.”
Trial ensued only against him,
because his co-accused, Jimmy Laurio, was, and still
is, at large.

In the evening of May 7,
1988, a benefit dance was held in the dance hall at the public
plaza in Bagong Sirang, Barangay Panique, Aroroy, Masbate.  The dance was managed by Roberto Manlapaz who was president
of the affair.

While the benefit dance was going on, Ely Banculo,
Dominador Laurio, and Jimmy
Laurio drank beer “grande”
at a corner store near the plaza.  When
the three decided to retire, they offered a
last drink to Roberto Manlapaz, who accepted
it.  Shortly after eleven o’clock in the
evening, they asked permission to leave. 
After the three had departed, Manlapaz went to the
comfort room about ten meters away. 
While he was there, he saw Dominador Laurio suddenly box Ely Banculo
on the right jaw.  The blow caused Banculo to fall on the ground.  Instantly, Jimmy Laurio
plunged his hand knuckle with a
protruding blade three times into Banculo’s body as
he lay on the ground, wounding him on the right nipple, on the back, and in the
right armpit.

Since the place of the scuffle was well-lighted by a fluorescent
lamp on a nearby coconut tree, Dominador’s neighbor, Andiolo Esquilona, who chanced to
be passing by, witnessed the stabbing of Banculo by
Jimmy Laurio. 
After rendering Banculo prostrate, the Laurio brothers fled.

Manlapaz reported the incident to the barangay captain, who went after the Laurio
brothers straightaway.  Dominador was arrested, but his brother Jimmy went into
hiding and has remained at large.

Someone informed Banculo’s wife, Delia,
about the stabbing of her husband.  She
rushed to the scene of the crime in time for her husband to inform her that he
was stabbed by Jimmy and Dominador Laurio.

Banculo was brought to the Atlas Clinic
for emergency treatment.  Afterwards, he
was moved to the clinic of Dr. Corpus, where he remained for two days and two
nights.  As his condition worsened, upon
the advice of Dr. Corpus himself, Banculo was
transferred to the Masbate Provincial Hospital where
he underwent an operation in the lungs. 
Unfortunately, infection had already set in.  He died of cardio-pulmonary arrest secondary
to septicemia with severe hemothorax, secondary to
stab wounds, chest anterior (Dr. Enrique O. Legaspi’s
Certification-Masbate Provincial Hospital).

In a decision dated July 24, 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Masbate (Br. 45) found Dominador Laurio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
and to pay indemnity in the amount of P30,000 to the heirs of the victim, Ely Banculo, plus costs.

He has appealed that decision, alleging that the court a quo erred:

1.  in
finding that he conspired with his brother, Jimmy, and employed treachery in
killing the victim; and

2.  in
giving full credit to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite
material inconsistencies.

There is merit in the appeal.

It is a basic principle of constitutional law that the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable
doubt.  Lacking such certainty, the trial
court has the duty to render a verdict of acquittal (People vs. Macasinag, 173 SCRA 292). 
The same degree of proof necessary to establish the crime is required to establish a criminal conspiracy
(People vs. Drilon, Jr., 123 SCRA 72).  It
cannot be established by conjectures but by positive and conclusive evidence
(People vs. Martinez, 127 SCRA
260).  A conspiracy may be inferred from
the circumstances attending the commission of the crime, but, like any other
ingredient of the offense, it must be established by clear and convincing
evidence (People vs. Agda, 111 SCRA 330).

The evidence in this case shows only that the appellant, Dominador Laurio, and the
deceased quarreled over a woman and that they had a fist fight.  In anger, Dominador
boxed Banculo on the jaw.  His brother, Jimmy Laurio,
immediately jumped into the fray by stabbing Banculo
in different parts of the body and inflicting wounds which caused his
death.  There is no evidence that the
brothers had conspired to kill Banculo or that Dominador had foreknowledge of what Jimmy (who apparently
had no score to settle with Banculo) would do.  Only a conspiracy between the brothers would
qualify to murder Dominador’s act of boxing the
victim, but such a conspiracy
was not proven as indubitably as the homicide itself (People vs. Felix Raquipo, 188 SCRA 571). 
Absent any evidence proving the gravity or duration of the physical
injury inflicted by Dominador’s fist blow upon the
victim, or proof of a conspiracy of the Laurio
brothers to seriously injure or kill the victim, Dominador
is presumed, and should be held, liable for slight physical injuries only
(People vs. Bautista, 30 SCRA 558; Art. 266, Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, 1987 Ed. by Aquino,
pp. 603-605).

WHEREFORE, the
appealed decision is hereby modified, by finding appellant Dominador
Laurio guilty of slight physical injuries only and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for thirty (30) days of arresto menor, with
the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the costs.  If he has been detained for longer than that
period, his immediate release from custody is hereby ordered, unless he is
being held to answer for some other offense or offenses.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.