Case Digest (G.R. No. 123485)
Facts:
The case arose from a June 1, 1985 ambush at Mansueto Compound, Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu in which two persons, Glenn Tiempo and Alfredo Nardo, were killed and three others were wounded. The Regional Trial Court convicted Rolusape Sabalones and Artemio Timoteo Beronga of two counts of murder (with treachery) and three counts of frustrated murder; the Court of Appeals affirmed guilt, imposed reclusion perpetua for murder and modified penalties for frustrated murder, and certified the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rendered the present decision affirming guilt but modifying penalties and damages.
Issues:
- Did the prosecution present credible and sufficient evidence to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
- Could the accuseds denial and alibi overcome the prosecution identifications?
- Were the crimes correctly characterized and were the penalties and indemnities properly imposed?
Ruling:
The appeal was denied and the convictions were affirmed. The Court confirmed guilt for two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated murder. The Court modified the penalties: for each murder count, each accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua; for each frustrated murder count, each accused was sentenced to eight years of prision mayor (minimum) to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal (maximum). The Court awarded P50,000 to the heirs of each deceased and ordered actual medical expenses to the injured victims (Rey Bolo P9,431.10; Rogelio Presores P5,412.69; Nelson Tiempo P21,594.22).
Ratio:
The Court relied on the trial court’s and Court of Appeals’ factual findings, giving weight to positive eyewitness identifications by survivors Edwin Santos and Rogelio Presores and to corroborative evidence including an extrajudicial statement by Beronga and witness testimony about rifles and conduct before the ambush. The Court found the accuseds alibi unproven and insufficient to rebut positive identification. The circumstance of treachery was established by the manner of attack. Penalty adjustments were made pursuant to Article 248 and Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law; fixed statutory indemnity for death was awarded but indemnity for frustrated murder victims was limited to proven actual expenses.
Doctrine:
- Factual findings of the trial court affirmed by the Court of Appeals are, as a general rule, binding on the Supreme Court.
- Positive eyewitness identification outweighs a plea of alibi unless the alibi proves physical impossibility of presence at the scene.
- An extrajudicial statement is admissible against a declarant and may be used as corroborative or circumstantial evidence against co-accused when supported by other proof; *res inter alios acta* is not an absolute bar.
- Treachery exists when means and methods give the victim no opportunity to defend and were deliberately adopted by the assailant.
- Under Article 50, the penalty for a frustrated felony is the next lower degree than that for the consummated felony, applied in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
- Indemnity of a fixed amount for death may be awarded without further proof of damages, but victims of frustrated murder are entitled only to proven actual expenses.