G.R. No. 138386 -87. May 20, 2004.
People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Eufrocino Agudez y Asiong, Ronilo Agudez y Cocoy, Ricardo Agudez y Cocoy, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On June 27, 1998, Adoracion Castro, her husband Dominador, and their nephew Mamerto Nalangan were crossing the Jal-O river in Balete, Aklan. While in the water, Adoracion heard a gunshot. She turned and saw Dominador looking at her. After she shouted a warning, two more shots rang out, causing both Dominador and Mamerto to fall. Adoracion saw appellants Eufrocino Agudez and his sons Ronilo and Ricardo, along with two others, emerge from nearby bushes armed with long firearms. The group fired repeatedly at the two fallen victims. Adoracion, who knew the appellants well, positively identified them as the assailants before fleeing to seek help. The victims sustained multiple fatal gunshot wounds.
The defense presented alibi. Appellants Ronilo and Ricardo claimed they were at a neighbor’s house, while Eufrocino asserted he was at home during the incident. They alleged the charges were fabricated due to a land dispute. The trial court rejected their defenses, finding the eyewitness testimony of Adoracion credible and consistent. The court convicted all three appellants of two counts of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced each to death for each count.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the appellants for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Adoracion Castro’s credibility. Her positive identification, given her familiarity with the appellants and her clear, unwavering narration of the event, prevailed over the weak defenses of alibi and denial. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated. The victims were ambushed while crossing a river, a situation where they could not flee or defend themselves, ensuring the execution of the attack without risk to the assailants. The Court found conspiracy from the appellants’ collective and simultaneous armed attack, indicating a common purpose to kill.
However, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua for each count. The Informations alleged the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, but the prosecution failed to prove its elements—the time when the appellants determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating their clinging to that determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between the decision and execution to reflect upon its consequences. Without proof, it could not be used to justify the death penalty. The awards for civil indemnity and moral damages were affirmed, and exemplary damages were additionally awarded due to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery.