G.R. No. L-2371 - People vs. Vicente Mendoza, Celes Beltran, Peping Beltran, Sabas Borer and Marcos Capatoy

An amended information was filed by the provincial fiscal in the Court of First Instance of Leyte charging five appellants and one still-at-large individual (Cornelio Briva) with crimes including sedition with multiple murder and frustrated double murder.
The charges specifically involved acts committed by an armed band led by Alberto Alcober before and during the ambush, which resulted in several deaths and injuries.

On December 15, 1946, Zacarias Ladera, the chief of police of Alangalang, Leyte, accompanied by eight policemen, Vicente Salazar, and Fausto Babiano, boarded a passenger truck of the Leyte Transit destined for the barrio of Lucay, Alangalang.
Their mission was to apprehend a group of troublemakers suspected of lawlessness and previous threats made against a police informer, Vicente Salazar.

Upon reaching Km. 33 at the barrio of Lucay, a confrontation ensued when the truck was ambushed by members of the armed band.
Alberto Alcober and Vicente Mendoza, armed respectively with a tommygun and a carbine, stopped the truck.
Without warning, Vicente Alcober fired on the truck, followed by simultaneous firing from Vicente Mendoza and other appellants, who were positioned in a kneeling stance near a banana plantation.

The returning fire by the chief of police resulted in wounding Alberto Alcober, who later died.
Additional casualties included the deaths of two policemen (Ambrosio Ladera and inspector Ignacio Velarde), the truck inspector Florencio Brazil, and two children (Francisco Tejones and Trinidad Tejones).
Two other individuals, policeman Jose Blanco and Sixto Tolete, were wounded in the attack.

On December 14, 1946, a prior attempt to arrest some members of this group was thwarted by their escape when confronted at Alberto Alcober’s residence.
Acts of lawlessness, including the robbery of pigs from Isidro Banes and random shootings at a passing automobile, had prompted police interventions leading up to the violence on December 15, 1946.
Vicente Salazar’s report and subsequent alert to the authorities provided the impetus for the police action that culminated in the ambush.

The evidentiary record includes testimonies from Chief of Police Zacarias Ladera, Vicente Salazar, Fausto Babiano, Gavino Acebedo, and Sixto Tolete, all confirming the occurrence of the ambush and killings.
The appellants, except for Celes Beltran, admitted being present at the scene but claimed non-participation in the shooting, asserting they were merely bystanders forced into the situation after being confronted by Alberto Alcober.
Vicente Mendoza contended he was at the scene only after being sent by his sister (Alberto Alcober’s wife) and denied firing any shots, while Celes Beltran claimed an alibi, stating he was at a store in Cavite purchasing cigarettes.

The trial court and the Solicitor General found the defense arguments unconvincing, emphasizing that the evidence clearly placed the appellants as members of an armed band responsible for multiple criminal acts.
The appellants were found guilty of five counts of murder and two counts of frustrated murder, with the crimes committed under circumstances qualifying as treacherous.

Can mere presence at the scene of the ambush be equated to active participation in committing the crimes when some appellants claimed passive involvement or alibi?
Does the evidence sufficiently indicate that all named appellants were actively engaged as members of the armed band that committed the murders and frustrated murders?

To what extent can the defenses provided by the appellants—claiming non-participation or presenting alibis—nullify or mitigate the direct evidence and testimonies establishing their roles in the ambush?
Can the statements and testimonies of the police officers and other witnesses completely counter the self-serving narratives put up by the appellants?

Should Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code govern the imposition and aggregation of penalties such that the total duration does not exceed 40 years?
How does the provision of joint and several liability for indemnification affect the overall sentencing and financial obligations of the appellants?