G.R. No. L-35133. May 31, 1974.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAYMUNDO MADERA @ “Mundo”, MARIANITO V. ANDRES @ “Totoy”, GENEROSO ANDRES @ “Ross”, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

In the early morning of April 20, 1970, three men arrived at the house of Elino Bana in Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija. The gunman, positioned on the first step of the stairs, fired multiple shots from a .45 caliber pistol at the sleeping victim, inflicting fatal abdominal wounds. Elino Bana was later transported but died en route to the hospital. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimonies of the victim’s wife, Bernarda Bana, and son, Juanito Bana. Both identified appellant Raymundo Madera as the shooter and placed appellants Marianito and Generoso Andres immediately behind him at the scene.
The prosecution also presented a written dying declaration of the victim, taken at the municipal building shortly after the shooting. In it, Elino Bana identified “Mundo Madera” as his assailant but stated he could not recognize the two others. The defense challenged the witnesses’ credibility, arguing it was a moonless night, making identification impossible, and highlighting alleged inconsistencies in Juanito’s testimony regarding where he slept and fled.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Raymundo Madera as the principal by direct participation; and (2) whether the presence and alleged actions of Marianito and Generoso Andres sufficiently established their criminal liability as principals by cooperation or accomplices.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed Madera’s conviction but acquitted the Andres brothers. The Court upheld the lower court’s finding that Madera was the shooter, giving full credence to the positive identification by two eyewitnesses and the victim’s dying declaration. It rejected the defense of a “moonless night,” ruling it could take judicial notice of natural laws, including the fact that on the date in question, the moon was in its first quarter and would have been visible, providing sufficient illumination for identification. Minor inconsistencies in Juanito’s testimony were deemed inconsequential and did not affect his overall credibility.
However, the Court acquitted Marianito and Generoso Andres. The Solicitor General correctly recommended their acquittal, as the evidence failed to establish their criminal participation beyond mere presence. The record showed no proof that they performed acts demonstrating a common criminal design with Madera or that they supplied material or moral aid in an efficacious way. Their passive presence at the crime scene, without more, was insufficient to constitute them as principals by cooperation or accomplices. The Court commended the prosecution for its ethical stance in seeking the acquittal of the Andres brothers, emphasizing that the duty of a prosecutor is to secure justice, not merely to obtain convictions.