G.R. Nos. L-34106-08 July 25, 1984
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DALMACIO MAALIHAN y CANTOS, ALFREDO PIANO y PILAPIL and ALFREDO SABAYBAY, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On September 25, 1958, Luis Arejola, accompanied by Roman Mora and Narciso Buendia, went to supervise the harvest of his disputed land in Pili, Camarines Sur. Their lifeless bodies, bearing multiple gunshot wounds, were discovered that same afternoon in sitio Caboclodan. Investigation by the Philippine Constabulary led to the sworn statements of Victorio Canabe and accused Alfredo Sabaybay. Canabe testified that days before the killings, Sabaybay informed him of the arrival of three armed men at his house, whom he later identified as appellants Dalmacio Maalihan and Alfredo Piano. Sabaybay’s statement admitted he pointed out Arejola to these men as instructed by Rufino Marasigan, who had revealed a plan to kill Arejola.
Appellants Maalihan and Piano were arrested and executed extrajudicial confessions detailing their participation. They admitted that after Sabaybay identified Arejola, they trailed the three victims and simultaneously fired at them. These confessions were later reenacted at the crime scene. Separate murder informations were filed. After a joint trial, the Court of First Instance convicted all three accused and imposed the death penalty for each murder, citing multiple aggravating circumstances including treachery, premeditation, band, uninhabited place, and reward.

ISSUE

The core issues on automatic review were the correctness of the convictions and the proper classification of criminal liability, particularly whether the aggravating circumstances were correctly appreciated and whether Sabaybay’s role constituted co-principalship or mere accomplice liability.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties and the classification of Sabaybay’s liability. It upheld the finding of murder qualified by treachery, as the victims were shot from behind without opportunity to defend themselves. However, the Court rejected several aggravating circumstances. The circumstance of “uninhabited place” was not proven, as there was no evidence the appellants deliberately sought the location to facilitate the crime. The circumstance of “band” was inapplicable, as it requires at least four armed malefactors, and only three were involved here. The circumstance of “reward or promise” was also deemed inadequately proven by the evidence.
Consequently, with these aggravating circumstances eliminated, the imposable penalty for Maalihan and Piano was reduced to reclusion perpetua for each murder. Regarding Alfredo Sabaybay, the Court held his participation—limited to identifying the victim to the triggermen upon instruction—was not indispensable to the execution of the killings. Following settled doctrine, such auxiliary conduct without direct cooperation in the execution of the act constitutes accomplice liability, not co-principalship. He was thus convicted as an accomplice and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. The civil indemnities were also adjusted accordingly.