G.R. No. 138386-87 - People vs. Agudez

The case involves appellants Eufrocino Agudez y Asiong and his two sons, Ronilo Agudez y Cocoy and Ricardo Agudez y Cocoy, who were charged with two counts of murder in Criminal Cases Nos. 5176 and 5177.
The charges arose from the killing of Dominador Castro and Mamerto C. Nalangan on the morning of June 27, 1998, in Sitio Panukduka, Barangay Oquendo, Balete, Aklan.
Two separate information filings were made on June 29, 1998, which constitute the basis for the dual charges, and the cases were subsequently consolidated for joint trial.

The accusations allege that the appellants, together with accomplices (including Fernando Agudez y Cocoy and Paquito Katimpo y Inggo who were at large), executed a premeditated ambush using long shotguns (locally known as apugakhanga).
The modus operandi involved:

Conspiracy and mutual assistance among the accused.
Strategic positioning in foxholes dug in the ground.
A sudden and coordinated shooting from behind as the victims—Dominador Castro and Mamerto Nalangan—were crossing the Jal-O river.

Specific details of the wounds sustained by the victims were enumerated in the Informations, with multiple gunshot wounds predominantly on the victims' backs, indicating an attack from behind and a treacherous method of execution.

On June 27, 1998, around 5:00 AM, Dominador Castro, his wife Adoracion Castro, and nephew Mamerto Nalangan left their home to attend mass, proceeding by foot toward Barangay Ganzon, Jamindan, Capiz.
While crossing the Jal-O river at about 6:30 AM, Adoracion heard a gunshot and witnessed the ambush wherein the accused emerged from concealed positions.
Adoracion, the sole eyewitness to the shooting, identified the appellants:

Initially, she observed the bodies protruding from foxholes.
She later identified the accused at a police lineup, reinforcing the prosecution’s evidence.

Evidence from the crime scene (spent shotgun shells, consistency of wound locations, and pellet fragments) matched the details provided by Adoracion.
Law enforcement traced and apprehended appellants Ricardo, Eufrocino, and Ronilo on the same day, although some accused remained at large.

Establishing that on the morning of the incident, Eufrocino and Ricardo were seen at a construction site in Sitio Gaob, Barangay Julita, Libacao.
Evidence suggested that Ronilo was engaged in playing a card game at a different location.

The defense sought to prove that the appellants were not present at the scene of the crime. However, positive eyewitness identification against them contradicted this alibi.

On January 14, 1999, the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 2 rendered a decision convicting the appellants of two counts of murder.
The trial court sentenced each accused to the penalty of death for each murder count and ordered the payment of various forms of damages to the heirs of the victims.
Appellants subsequently raised assignment of errors including:

Alleged misappreciation of the evidence on the crime of murder.
Erroneous findings regarding the presence of aggravating circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, band, and uninhabited place.
Contentions regarding the credibility of the prosecution’s sole eyewitness and the alibi defense.

Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellants guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt in light of the evidence, particularly given the reliance on the lone eyewitness identification.

Whether the trial court properly appreciated the attendant circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation in the commission of the murders.
Whether the trial court was correct in finding aggravating circumstances such as band and uninhabited place, considering these were not specifically alleged in the Informations as required by law.

Whether the presence of foliage around the foxholes impaired the eyewitness’ (Adoracion Castro’s) ability to identify the attackers.
Whether any improper motive influenced the eyewitness to falsely identify the appellants as the perpetrators.

Whether the defense evidence sufficiently established an alibi for the appellants, given the conflicting testimonies regarding their whereabouts at the time of the crime.

Whether the penalty of death, as imposed by the trial court, should be reduced to reclusion perpetua in view of the circumstances of the case and under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the award of civil, moral, temperate, and exemplary damages to the victims’ heirs is properly supported by the evidence.