G.R. No. 111568 March 2, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO DE LA CRUZ y Baluga, CHARLIE TULALI y Ceria, RODOLFO TULALI y Uy, MAX LACUBAN y Palattao, ELIGIO LACUBAN y Palattao, ROMEO AMORSOLO y Sabangan, 2ND LT. ARMANDO C. DOLOR, SN2 RAMON AMORSOLO y Sabangan, C2C EDGAR REFORMOSO y Hugo, C2C JAMES BARCELONA y Berona, C2C MANUEL RESUELLO y Rombaoa, and C2C VIVENCIO DEL ROSARIO y Ricafort, accused. ALBERTO DE LA CRUZ y Baluga, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On October 12, 1981, a group of soldiers and armed civilians, including appellant Alberto de la Cruz and his co-accused, went to the houses of Barangay Captain Rizal Saldino and Jaime Ceria in Sicatna, Piat, Cagayan, searched for firearms, and took the two victims. Appellant also took documents related to a land dispute between his father and Rizal Saldino. The victims were brought to the house of Eligio Lacuban, where they were maltreated by the appellant, other civilians, and soldiers. Later, around midnight, the group brought the victims to a place called “slide” near Dugayong and Gumarueng. There, upon Romeo Amorsolo’s instigation, appellant stabbed Rizal Saldino, and other accused civilians joined in. Jaime Ceria was also tortured. Segismundo Saldino, Rizal’s son who was brought along, managed to hide and witnessed the appellant, Romeo Amorsolo, and soldiers gun down the two victims. The bodies, bearing multiple fatal wounds, were delivered to the police the next morning. An information for Kidnapping with Double Murder was filed. After trial, the Regional Trial Court acquitted several accused civilians due to insufficient evidence and dismissed the case against those who died during the pendency. However, it convicted appellant Alberto de la Cruz of two counts of Murder, sentencing him to two life imprisonments. He appealed.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the guilt of appellant Alberto de la Cruz for the crime of Murder (two counts) was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Segismundo Saldino credible, natural, and consistent. His presence at the scene was corroborated by defense witnesses, and his motive to testify was rooted in seeking justice for his father and uncle, not in the land dispute. The Court rejected appellant’s defense of alibi as weak and unsubstantiated. The killing was attended by treachery, as the victims were unarmed and helpless after being detained and maltreated, ensuring the execution without risk to the assailants. The qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was not proven. The Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count of murder, in accordance with the prevailing nomenclature, and affirmed the civil liability. The decision of the trial court was affirmed with modification.