G.R. No. L-30251 February 14, 1980
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FILOMENO NOVELOSO, alias AMIN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of March 2, 1967, spouses Monico Valdez and Lucia Bumatay were asleep in their hut in Barrio Tallaoen, Luna, La Union, with their two small children. They were awakened by knocking. The door was forcibly opened by Filomeno Noveloso, a police corporal known to Lucia, who was naked from the waist up and armed with a .45 caliber pistol. Without warning, Noveloso shot Valdez, who was seated holding their three-month-old baby, Elma. Noveloso left but returned shortly after and fired another shot at the prostrate Valdez’s forehead, killing him instantly. Five shots were fired in total. Baby Elma, wounded in the head, also died. The motive was inferred to be revenge, as Valdez had previously served a sentence for killing Noveloso’s first cousin.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Noveloso was on guard duty at a nearby schoolhouse event during the time of the shooting, corroborated by fellow officers and the Mayor. The defense also presented an affidavit from prosecution witness Marta Esguerra, who recanted her prior statement, now claiming Lucia was unsure of the assailant’s identity. The trial court convicted Noveloso of double murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by dwelling and abuse of his position as a policeman, imposing the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of double murder and in imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the evidence, ruling that the positive identification by eyewitness Lucia Bumatay, who saw the appellant twice in a well-lit hut at close range, prevailed over the weak defense of alibi. The schoolhouse was only about 300 meters away, not rendering physical impossibility. The recantation by Marta Esguerra was deemed unreliable, as she was not an eyewitness and her affidavit was in English, a language she did not understand. The Court found the motive of familial revenge plausible.
However, the trial court erred in treating the two killings as a single complex crime. The evidence showed five shots were fired; it was not proven that a single bullet killed both victims. Therefore, the appellant committed two distinct murders, each qualified by treachery. Dwelling remained a generic aggravating circumstance. With no mitigating circumstances, the penalty for each murder is death. For lack of the necessary votes to affirm capital punishment, the Court imposed two separate penalties of reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity was sustained.