G.R. No. L-6969 - People vs. Ubina

The case involves the murder of Aureliano Carag, Mayor of Solana, Cagayan, and two others, Dionisia and Esteban Tambiao, in Barrio Bangag on September 14, 1952.
A longstanding political enmity existed between the deceased mayor and appellant Tomas Ubina, who had lost an election contest to Carag and had allegedly suffered personal affronts from him.
Motivated by revenge and political rivalry, Tomas Ubina conspired with several of his political adherents and relatives to execute the murder.

Early on the afternoon of September 14, 1952, Tomas Ubina convened with his co-conspirators, which included his nephew Jose Ubina, companions such as Marcelo de Guzman, Loreto Mercado, and others (Romero Pagulayan, Pascual Escote, Pablo Binayug).
The conspirators met at Tomas Ubina’s house and organized the logistics: they gathered firearms (three carbines, one 38-caliber revolver, one 45-caliber pistol) and loaded them into a sack.
They embarked on a freight truck (driven by Antonio Ugaddan), crossed the Cagayan River by banca, and regrouped at another location where additional conspirators were waiting to join the plan.

After assembling, the group moved on foot toward Barrio Bangag where the Tambiao household was located.
Upon arrival around 8:00 p.m., the conspirators distributed the firearms:

Tomas Ubina and Jose de Guzman positioned themselves near the northwestern gate of the Tambiao house.
Marcelo de Guzman took position on the eastern road, while Loreto Mercado and others were strategically placed around the area.

The arrangement enabled them to cover multiple approaches, ensuring that no resistance from the victim or his entourage could be effectively mounted.

Aureliano Carag arrived at the house carrying a dead rooster as a customary offering for a meal. He greeted the household, including Dionisia Tambiao, with whom he had an illicit relationship, and his companion Esteban Tambiao.
Shortly after the casual reunion, while Carag planned to retrieve his saddle, the first gunshot rang out, indicating the commencement of a coordinated attack.
Amid ensuing chaos:

Carag was struck (notably at the buttocks and heels), and he urgently called for help.
Teodora Quilang, a resident at the scene, along with other family members, attempted to come to Carag’s aid but were caught in the indiscriminate gunfire.
The assailants fired continuously for about 15 minutes, leaving behind a trail of spent shells and scattered projectile evidence.

The bodies of Aureliano Carag, Dionisia Tambiao, and Esteban Tambiao distributed in distinct positions around and under the house.
A 45-caliber pistol found near Carag’s body along with his dead horse, and various cartridge cases and fragments identified near strategic points (e.g., well, gate, and roadside paths).

Ruben Francisco testified that the planning to kill Carag was carried out at Tomas Ubina’s house, listing names of his accomplices and describing the movement and positioning of each during the attack.
Flora Quilang recounted her proximity to the events, describing how she saw Tomas Ubina firing from close range, identified by the light flashes from the firearms.
Cecilio Ubina, though a minor, provided testimony regarding the events, including identifying Tomas Ubina among the assailants after initially being constrained by familial pressure.
Other witnesses, such as Proceso Ledesma, Geronimo Batang, and Vicente Bautista, corroborated various aspects of the timeline, the distribution of firearms, and the hostile intent of the conspirators.

Physical evidence matched the witnesses’ accounts: the distribution of shell casings, locations of the gunshots, and the dead bodies helped establish the sequence of events.
The defense’s attempt to weaken witness credibility (notably the later contradictory testimony of Ruben Francisco) was addressed by emphasizing that a later recantation does not automatically discredit the original, coherent and corroborated account.

Appellants (apart from Tomas Ubina) furnished alibi testimonies, asserting they were engaged in activities in other locales during the time of the crime:

Tomas Ubina claimed he was in Tuguegarao, running errands at various local establishments (tiendas) and dining at his home.
Jose Ubina, Romero Pagulayan, Loreto Mercado, and Marcelo de Guzman similarly provided accounts of being preoccupied with business or homebound duties.

The court found these alibis inherently weak as they lacked external or documentary corroboration and were contradicted by the strong, unified narrative provided by several independent witnesses and physical evidence.

Whether each of the accused should be held liable as principals in the commission of triple murder or considered mere accomplices based on their level of involvement.
The distinction between those who actively executed the killings (principals) versus those who provided moral or passive participation (accomplices).

The court had to determine the weight to be given to the testimonies of witnesses—particularly the conflict between Ruben Francisco’s initial testimony and his later recantation.
Whether the physical evidence and witness corroboration were sufficient to establish a clear narrative of premeditated murder.

The issue of evident premeditation: whether the time elapsed between the planning (afternoon meeting) and execution (evening attack) is enough to satisfy the criterion.
The presence of treachery and abuse of superior strength as qualifying circumstances due to the sudden, coordinated attack under cover of darkness in a remote area.

The credibility of the alibis provided by the defendants who claimed to be elsewhere during the crime.
The lack of third-party confirmation or documentary evidence to substantiate these alibi claims.

How the actions of those present at the scene but not directly engaged in firing would be classified under the law.
The application of principles derived from comparable Spanish jurisprudence and prior Philippine cases regarding mere presence versus direct participation.