PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
Nos.
135779-81
November 21, 2003
-versus-
LUCIANO DE
GUZMAN,
EFREN REYES
AND BERNARD
BUSTAMANTE,
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA,
J.:
This is an appeal
from the Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Alaminos, Pangasinan, in
Criminal
Case Nos. 2504-A, 2505-A and 2506-A finding herein appellants Luciano
de
Guzman, Efren Reyes and Bernardo Bustamante guilty of three counts of
murder.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The separate informations
charging the appellants with murder read:chanrobles virtual law library
CRIMINAL CASE NO.
2504-A
That on or about March
9, 1992, at sitio Mandapat, Brgy. Malimpin, Municipality of Dasol,
Province
of Pangasinan, New Republic of the Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating
and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery
and
evident premeditation with abuse of superior strength and taking
advantage
of the night time to ensure (the) commission of the offense did then
and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot Presente Calamno with
the use of M-16 and M-14 rifles, inflicting upon him multiple gun shot
wounds which caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and
prejudice
of his heirs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code.cralaw:red
CRIMINAL CASE NO.
2505-A
That on or about March
9, 1992, at sitio Mandapat, Brgy. Malimpin, Municipality of Dasol,
Province
of Pangasinan, New Republic of the Philippines and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating
and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery
and
evident premeditation, with abuse of superior strength and taking
advantage
of the night time to ensure the commission of the crime, did then and
there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot Bernardo Calamno with M-16
and M-14 rifles inflicting upon him several gun shot wounds which
caused
his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code.cralaw:red
CRIMINAL CASE NO.
2506-A
That on or about March
9, 1992, at sitio Mandapat, Brgy. Malimpin, Municipality of Dasol,
Province
of Pangasinan, New Republic of the Philippines and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating
and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery
and
evident premeditation, with abuse of superior strength and taking
advantage
of the night time to ensure (the) commission of the offense, did then
and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot Teofilo Calamno, Jr.
with M-16 and M-14 rifles inflicting upon him several gun shot wounds
which
caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of his
heirs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code.cralaw:red
The facts of the case,
based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, were summarized
by the Solicitor General in his brief:chanrobles virtual law library
On March 9,
1992, about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, Ariston (Ariston) Calamno was
on the way to the house of his father, Bernardo (Bernardo) Calamno, to
get a match. Bernardo's house was located at Mandapat, Malimpin, Dasol,
Pangasinan. Before Ariston could reach Bernardo's house, from a
distance
of five (5) to six (6) meters, Ariston saw six (6) persons and
recognized
three (3) of them as appellants, who had long firearms pointed at his
father,
Bernardo, his brother, Presente (Presente) Calamno, and his cousin,
Teofilo
(Teofilo) Calamno.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ariston saw
Bernardo
sitting on the armrest of a sofa; beside Bernardo was Teofilo. Presente
was between the two (2). The three (3) were seated against the wall of
Bernardo's house. The place was illuminated by moonlight. Ariston then
hid behind banana trees. He saw appellant de Guzman shoot Bernardo,
Presente
and Teofilo one after the other. Appellants Reyes and Bustamante were
beside
de Guzman. Bernardo, Teofilo and Presente fell from their seats.
Appellants
watched the three (3) victims for about three (3) minutes. After
ascertaining
that the victims were dead, appellants left. Because of fear and
feeling
that the assailants were still around, Ariston went back to his house,
which was located west of his father's house, 20 to 25 meters away.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ariston's and
Teofilo's
wives, Salvacion and Nelia, reported the incident to the Barangay
Captain.
Ariston was present when the police conducted an investigation and took
pictures of Bernardo's house and its wall; the sofa, where Bernardo and
Presente were seated at the time of the incident; the bodies of
Bernardo,
Presente, and Teofilo. Thereafter, Ariston executed a statement about
the
incident.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Teofilo (Teofilo,
Sr.)
Calamno, Sr., father of deceased Teofilo Calamno, Jr., testified that
on
March 9, 1992, about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, he was resting at his
house at Barangay Malimpin, Dasol, Pangasinan, when he heard gunshots
coming
from the house of Bernardo Calamno, about twenty (20) meters away.cralaw:red
Teofilo, Sr. went
down
his house and crawled up to the house of Bernardo. From a distance of
about
seven (7) to eight (8) meters, he saw eight (8) armed men, three (3) of
whom he recognized as appellants. The moon was bright and he saw de
Guzman
fire at Bernardo, Presente and Teofilo, Jr. Appellants Reyes and
Bustamante
were about one-half meter away from de Guzman, standing on the latter's
right side and facing the three (3) victims. Reyes and Bustamante also
carried long firearms.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After the shots
were
fired, appellants stayed at the scene of the incident for a while to
determine
if the victims were still alive. After appellants had left, Teofilo,
Sr.
came out from where he was hiding to check on the victims. Finding that
the three (3) victims were dead, he went home. He did not report the
incident
to the barangay authorities because appellants might see him and shoot
him. The next morning, on his way to report the incident to the
barangay
authorities, he first went to the house of Nelia Calamno, husband of
Teofilo
Calamno, Jr. He was informed that Nelia Calamno had gone to report the
incident to the Barangay Captain. Thus, Teofilo, Sr. went to town where
he met the Barangay Captain and his companions, Chief of Police Nacar
and
some policemen, who were on their way to the house of the deceased
Bernardo
Calamno to conduct an investigation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Teofilo, Sr. went
with
Chief Nacar's group. A photographer took pictures of the victims,
Presente
Calamno, Teofilo Calamno, Jr., (and) Bernardo Calamno. The cadavers
were
taken by the policemen to the Municipal Hall of Dasol, Pangasinan for
autopsy.
Teofilo, Sr. then executed a sworn statement regarding the incident.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nelia Calamno,
wife
of Teofilo Calamno, Jr., testified that her house was more than fifty
(50)
meters away from the house of deceased Bernardo Calamno. On March 9,
1992,
about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, while feeding her dog, she heard the
barking of dogs and footsteps going northward, after which she saw a
group
of armed men pass by her house. They were dressed in fatigue uniforms
and
carrying long firearms. She recognized appellant Luciano de Guzman as
one
of them. Nelia was holding a kerosene lamp and the place was
illuminated
by moonlight.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The group had
walked
about fifty (50) meters from her house when Nelia heard successive
gunshots
coming from the house of Bernardo Calamno. She was frightened as she
was
alone with her child. Her husband, Teofilo Calamno, Jr., was not in
their
house as he had gone to the house of Bernardo Calamno that evening. She
did not go out of her house that night and she was not able to sleep
since
her husband did not come home.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The following
morning,
on March 10, 1992, Salvacion Calamno, wife of Ariston Calamno, went to
Nelia's house and told her that Teofilo, Jr. was dead. Salvacion asked
her to come with her to report the matter to the Barangay Captain,
Emilio
Cabrido. After reporting the incident to Cabrido, the latter in turn
reported
the matter to the police. Nelia and Salvacio proceeded to the house of
deceased Bernardo Calamno where they saw the bodies of Bernardo,
Teofilo,
Jr. and Presente. After a while, the policemen arrived with a
photographer.
Pictures of the place and the bodies were taken. The bodies of the
victims
were taken to the municipal hall for autopsy. Nelia executed a sworn
statement
before the Dasol PNP station. She testified that she spent P12,000.00
for
Teofilo, Jr.'s funeral. She declared that her husband was a farmer and
earned the equivalent of fifty (50) to seventy (70) cavans of palay a
year;
they had one child who was two (2) years old when Teofilo, Jr. was
slain.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Salvacion Calamno,
wife
of Ariston Calamno, testified that the deceased Bernardo Calamno was
her
father-in-law, Teofilo Calamno, Jr. the cousin of her husband and
Presente
Calamno her brother-in-law. She knew appellants Luciano de Guzman, who
was a resident of Barangay Malimpin, Mandapat, Pangasinan, Efren Reyes
and Bernardo Bustamante because they were CAFGU members in San Vicente,
Dasol, Pangasinan but she did not know accused Sgt. Orpilla. She and
her
husband spent the total amount of P23,000.00 for the funeral expenses
of
Bernardo and Presente. She was with Nelia Calamno when the incident was
reported to the Barangay Captain.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SPO3 Fredelito
Nacar,
Deputy Chief of the Dasol PNP Station, Pangasinan, testified that he
headed
the investigation conducted on the killing of Bernardo, Presente and
Teofilo,
Jr., all surnamed Calamno. He recovered at the crime scene twelve (12)
empty shells of M-14 bullets and twelve (12) empty shells of M-16
bullets,
some of which were about two (2) meters away from the bodies of the
victims
and some scattered on the dead bodies. He testified that some of the
CAFGU
members were issued garand rifles and some Armalites M-14 and M-16. He
took the statements of the relatives of the victims. (Citations
Omitted)
Appellants put up
the
defense of denial and alibi. Appellants de Guzman and Reyes testified
that
they did not know anything about the killing of the Calamnos. On the
day
of the incident, they were on duty from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the
Citizen
Armed Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU) camp in San Vicente, Dasol,
Pangasinan.
After their duty, they cooked and ate their supper, went to sleep in
their
bunkhouse and woke up at 6:00 a.m. the following day. Appellant
Bustamante
also denied killing the Calamnos but had a different alibi. He
testified
that, on the day of the incident, he was on leave and was at home
cementing
his balcon, together with Wilfredo de Leon, Eduardo Bustamante and
Patricio
Pulido. They started working around 8:00 a.m. and finished at 9:00 p.m.
Defense witness Wilfredo de Leon, the cousin of appellant Bustamante,
corroborated
his alibi. He claimed that since it was already late, he slept in
appellant
Bustamante's house that night. They woke up at 6:00 a.m. the following
day and only learned of the Calamno murders at about 9:00 a.m.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court,
however,
gave credence to the prosecution's version and convicted appellants of
murder:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE,
in consideration of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby
rendered,
declaring all the accused Luciano de Guzman, Bernardo Bustamante and
Efren
Reyes in conspiracy with and acting in concert with one another, in
Criminal
Case Nos. 2504-A, 2505-A and 2506-A GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of
the
crime of Murder as defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
with the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and treachery and
shall,
therefore, suffer the single indivisible penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
in Criminal Case No. 2504-A for each of the above-mentioned accused;
another
single indivisible penalty of Reclusion Perpetua in Criminal Case No.
2505-A
for each of the above-mentioned accused and another single indivisible
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua in Criminal Case No. 2506-A for each of
the
above-mentioned accused.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court finds
that
all the accused are liable for damages in the sum of P50,000.00 for
each
of the victims in accordance with law and all accused are severally
liable
for these indemnities imposed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Until accused
Samuel
Orpilla is apprehended by the authorities, together with his
co-accused,
John Doe and Peter Doe, these 'Does' not having been identified as yet,
these cases are ordered archived in the meantime. However, let Alias
Warrant
of Arrest issue as against them.cralaw:red
IT IS SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Dissatisfied with the
decision,
appellants elevated these cases to us on appeal. Two separate briefs
were
filed, one by appellant de Guzman and another by appellants Reyes and
Bustamante.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant de Guzman
raises the following assignments of error:chanrobles virtual law library
I. THE
TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF ALIBI; and
II. THE TRIAL
COURT
VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AS IT RESOLVED ALL
DOUBTS AGAINST THE APPELLANT LUCIANO DE GUZMAN.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand,
appellants
Reyes and Bustamante raise the following assignments of error:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
I. THE
LOWER
COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT BERNARDO
BUSTAMANTE
PARTICIPATED IN THE COMPLAINED INCIDENT BECAUSE HE WAS FOUND POSITIVE
OF
POWDER BURNS; chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II. THE LOWER
COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANTS EFREN REYES AND
BERNARDO
BUSTAMANTE CONSPIRED WITH THEIR CO-ACCUSED LUCIANO DE GUZMAN;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
III. LOWER COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE CRIME COMPLAINED OF WAS PERPETRATED BY
TREACHERY
AND NIGHTTIME; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IV. THE LOWER
COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY
ACCUSED-APPELLANT
EFREN REYES AND BERNARDO BUSTAMANTE.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In essence, both briefs
assail the trial court decision which gave full faith and credence to
the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
After a thorough study
of the records, this Court finds that the testimony of Ariston Calamno
(the son of victim Bernardo and brother of victim Presente) should be
disregarded.
We are not convinced that he was really present at the crime scene and
that he actually witnessed the killing of his father and relatives. His
testimony on cross-examination was as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY.
BERNAL:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Q: Now you made
mention
that on the night of March 9, 1992, you arrived from San Vicente,
Dasol,
Pangasinan where you were making charcoal, can you tell us what ride
did
you take (sic) from the place you were making charcoal to Malimpin?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: By carabao
back,
sir.cralaw:red
Q: With cart?
A: Yes, sir. Sled.cralaw:red
Q: This sled was
loaded
with something?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: What was loaded
in
it?
A: Cogon.cralaw:red
Q: What time did
you
leave that place where you were making charcoal?
A: About three
o'clock
in the afternoon, sir.[2]
Q: My question is,
from
your house in Mandapat, Malimpin, Dasol, Pangasinan, from the place
were
you (sic) making charcoal, how many kilometers?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: 15–20
kilometers,
sir.cralaw:red
Q: And whenever
you
go to the place where you are making charcoal, and you will ride a
sledge,
how many hour (sic) will it take you?
A: 4–5 hours, sir,
if
the sledge is empty.cralaw:red
Q: And if it is
loaded,
how many hours?
A: 7–8 hours, sir.[3]
From the foregoing, it
is logical to conclude that if Ariston left San Vicente at 3:00 p.m. on
March 9, 1992 using a carabao-drawn sled loaded with cogon, he should
have
arrived at Malimpin between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. Consequently, he could
not have possibly witnessed the incident at about 8:00 p.m. For this
reason,
we doubt the veracity his alleged eyewitness account. It is a cardinal
rule in criminal law that all doubts must be resolved in favor of the
accused.[4]
The failure of the court
a quo to admit defense witness Rudy Bastillo's sworn statement
impeaching
the testimony of Ariston, assigned as error no. IV by appellants Reyes
and Bustamante, need not therefore be discussed because of our
misgivings
about Ariston Calamno's testimony. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, the inadmissibility
of Ariston's testimony notwithstanding, the appellants' guilt for the
crimes
charged was established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution
through
the eyewitness account of Teofilo, Sr. regarding the murder of Teofilo,
Jr., and through circumstantial evidence regarding the murders of
Bernardo
and Presente.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With respect to the
murder of his son Teofilo, Jr., Teofilo Sr. testified as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
ATTY.
BERNAL:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Q: Now, you
mentioned
Mr. Calamno that you were then resting in the evening of March 9, 1992,
at about eight o'clock when you heard a gun fire, do you still maintain
that, gun burst or gun fire?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q: How is that gun
fire
that you heard first? Will you describe to us how you heard the first
gun
fire?
A: Prrrrt,- sound
denoting
a successive burst or gun fire.cralaw:red
Q: And after
hearing
that first burst or gun fire according to you, you went down and went
near
the house of your brother Bernardo Calamno, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
COURT:chanrobles virtual law library
Q: When you
reached
the place, the place where you said you hid, did you hear another gun
burst?
WITNESS:chanrobles virtual law library
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. BERNAL:chanrobles virtual law library
Q: How many burst
of
gun fire?
A: One (1), sir.cralaw:red
Q: So there were
only
two burst (sic) of gun fire that you heard therefore Mr. Calamno?
A: As if three
(3),
sir, because the gun burst is long. (Witness indicating the sound
of
successive gunshots).
Q: So you are
telling
us therefore that on the second burst, second long burst of gun fire
you
have already witness (sic) that?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
ATTY. BERNAL:chanrobles virtual law library
Q: You saw Luciano
de
Guzman fired (sic) his gun. To whom was he firing at that time?
A: Teofilo
Calamno,
Jr., sir.cralaw:red
Q: Teofilo
Calamno,
Jr. only?
A: Yes, sir,
because
there is a series of gun shots, sir, successively, and I only saw
Teofilo
Calamno, Jr., who fell down.cralaw:red
Q: Now, we will
abbreviate
this, we will make it short Mr. Calamno. You mentioned that there were
only, you heard two burst (sic) of gun fire, one, when you were still
at
your house resting, second, you are or when you were already at the
place
at the side of the house of your brother Bernardo Calamno and you are
telling
us now that when, on the second burst of fire you only saw Luciano de
Guzman
fire only at Teofilo Calamno, Jr., is that correct? chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Who shot
Bernardo
Calamno and Presente Calamno?
A: I did not see,
sir,
perhaps when I was still in my house, during the first gun burst, they
were already hit."[5]
His testimony on the
murder
of his son Teofilo, Jr. was clear, categorical and worthy of belief.
The
defense attempted to discredit his testimony by alleging certain
inconsistencies
between his sworn statement and testimony in open court. In his sworn
statement,
he declared that, of the eight men present at the crime scene, he only
recognized appellant de Guzman; in open court, he declared that he
recognized
appellants Efren Reyes and Bernardo Bustamante as part of the group. As
pointed out by the trial court, however, this seeming inconsistency was
adequately explained by witness Teofilo, Sr. who said that he did not
name
appellants Reyes and Bustamante in his affidavit since he did not see
them
fire at Teofilo Jr. It was appellant de Guzman he saw gun down his son.
There was thus no inconsistency to speak of.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellants Reyes and
Bustamante also argue that, because the gun bursts were in succession,
it was impossible for Teofilo, Sr. to have witnessed the killing as he
had to go down his house and crawl towards the eastern wall in a minute
or less. We fail to see how it was impossible for Teofilo, Sr. to have
gone down his house and climbed the eastern wall in a minute or less.
According
to Nelia Calamno, there was a one-minute interval between the first and
second gun bursts.[6]
Teofilo, Sr.'s house was small and it was completely possible for him
to
run down and crawl to the eastern wall in less than a minute. It was
even
smaller than Bernardo's and from the pictures[7]
forming part of the records of the case, Bernardo's house was not big
at
all.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As for the shooting
of Bernardo and Presente, although no one actually saw who shot them,
the
guilt of appellants for their death was established by circumstantial
evidence.
Under Rule 133, Section 4 of the Revised
Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction
if:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) there
is
more than one circumstance;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) the facts from
which
the inferences are derived are proven; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) the
combination
of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable
doubt.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar, the
following circumstances proved beyond doubt that the appellants were
responsible
for the murder of Presente and Bernardo:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a)
prosecution
witness Nelia Calamno saw them pass her house, carrying long firearms
and
walking northward;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) after three
minutes
or so, she heard a burst of gun fire coming from the direction of
Bernardo's
house, about 50 meters north of hers;
(c) Teofilo, Sr. also
saw appellants at the scene of the crime when Teofilo, Jr. was shot;
andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) based on the
empty
M-14 and M-16 shells found at the crime scene, the long firearms Nelia
and Teofilo, Sr. saw being carried by appellants were actually used by
them.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
These circumstances
constitute
an unbroken chain leading to the fair and reasonable conclusion that
the
appellants, to the exclusion of all others, were the guilty persons.[9]
Appellants' defenses of denial and alibi were weak. Alibi is easy to
fabricate
but difficult to prove. It cannot prevail over the positive
identification
of the accused by witnesses. We have held that for the defense of alibi
to prosper, the requirements of time and place (or distance) must be
strictly
met. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when
the crime was committed. He must also demonstrate by clear and
convincing
evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the
scene of the crime during its commission.[10]
Appellants miserably failed in this respect.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court was
correct that there was conspiracy among the appellants in killing the
victims.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Proof of conspiracy
may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after
the
incident, direct proof not being essential at all. The acts must point
to a joint purpose, concert of action or community of interest,[11]
that is, all the accused acted in concert, each of them doing his part
to fulfill the common design to kill the victim. Thus, the act of one
becomes
the act of all and each accused is deemed equally guilty of the crime
committed,
regardless of who pulled the trigger. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
conspiracy may be inferred from the concerted acts of appellants. They
arrived at the house of Bernardo together, all of them bearing long
firearms.
Appellants Reyes and Bustamante stood three meters to the right of
appellant
de Guzman while he fired at Teofilo, Jr. All of them stayed after the
shooting
to ascertain that their victims were dead and thereafter left together
at the same time. These actions clearly suggested that their only
purpose
in going to the house of Bernardo was to kill the victims.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We also affirm the trial
court's appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The
means,
methods and manner of the attack were adopted obviously to insure its
execution,
without risk to appellants arising from any defense which the victims
might
have made.[12]
Appellants, together with four other armed men, surrounded the unarmed
and defenseless victims and fired at them using high-caliber automatic
weapons. Because of the weapons used and the victims' relative
positions,
i.e., seated together on a sofa against the wall, the victims could not
have defended themselves against appellants' attack. The fact that the
killings were frontal did not negate treachery because the carnage was
so sudden and unexpected, and the victims unarmed, that they were not
in
a position to offer any defense at all.[13]
The crime committed was doubtlessly murder.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The aggravating circumstances
of nighttime and abuse of superior strength were absorbed by the
treachery.[14]
Although evident premeditation was likewise alleged in the information,
the court a quo was correct in not appreciating it since the
prosecution
was not able to prove it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Consequently, in the
absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper
penalty
imposable on appellants for murder qualified by treachery is reclusion
perpetua.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We affirm the award
of P50,000 as civil indemnity for each of the victims. Civil indemnity
s automatically granted to the heirs of the victim without need of any
evidence other than the fact of the commission of the crime.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We also award P50,000
as moral damages as the circumstances surrounding the untimely and
violent
deaths, in accordance with human nature and experience, could have
brought
nothing but emotional pain and anguish to the victim's family.[17]
Further, an award of P25,000 as temperate damages is also granted to
the
victims' family for their funeral expenses, in lieu of actual damages.
This is in light of our ruling in People vs. Abrazaldo, where we ruled
that, despite the absence of receipts to prove actual damages, if it is
shown that the heirs are entitled thereto, temperate damages of P25,000
may be awarded.[18]
Lastly, exemplary damages
of P25,000 are also awarded, given that the qualifying circumstance of
treachery attended the commission of the crime.[19]
WHEREFORE, the decision
dated April 15, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos,
Pangasinan,
Branch 54 in Criminal Case Nos. 2504-A, 2505-A and 2506-A finding
Luciano
de Guzman, Efren Reyes and Bernardo Bustamante guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of three counts of murder each, is hereby AFFIRMED, with the
MODIFICATION
that only the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the
commission
of the crime. They are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua for each count of murder and to pay jointly and severally the
legal heirs of each victim P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral
damages, P25,000 as temperate damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Vitug, Sandoval-Gutierrez
and Carpio Morales, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Penned by Judge Jules A. Mejia.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
TSN dated November 9, 1993, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
TSN dated September 27, 1993, p. 30.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
People vs. Callos, 373 SCRA 481 [2002].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
TSN dated November 9, 1993, pp. 18, 22–23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN dated December 7, 1991, p. 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Exhibit "B."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Section 4, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
People vs. Lagao, Jr., 271 SCRA 551 [1997]; People vs. Genobia, 234
SCRA
699 [1994].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
People vs. Pareja, et al., 265 SCRA 429 [1996]; People vs. Pallarco,
288
SCRA 151 [1998].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
People vs. Base, 329 SCRA 158 [2000]; People vs. Quianao, 269 SCRA 497
[1997].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
People vs. Dinglasan, 267 SCRA 26 [1997]; People vs. Santos and
Asuncion,
270 SCRA 650 [1997].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
People vs. Reyes, 287 SCRA 229 [1998]; People vs. Tampon, 256 SCRA 115
[1996].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
People vs. Tolibas, 325 SCRA 453 [2000]; People vs. Marquita, 327 SCRA
41 [2000]; People vs. Dacibar, 325 SCRA 725 [2000].
[15]
Article 248, in relation to Article 63 (2), Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
People vs. Yatco, 379 SCRA 432 [2002]; People vs. Marquez, 380 SCRA 561
[2002].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
People vs. Cabote, 369 SCRA 65 [2001]; People vs. Caboquin, 368 SCRA
654
[2001].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
People vs. Nicolas, April 1, 2003, G.R. No. 137782, citing People vs.
Catubig,
363
SCRA [2001].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|