G.R. No. L-84921 June 8, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO DURAL (also known as RONNIE JAVELON) and BERNARDO ITUCAL, JR. y BALDERAS, accused. ROLANDO DURAL and BERNARDO ITUCAL, JR., accused-appellants.

FACTS

An amended information for Double Murder with Assault Upon Agents of Persons In Authority was filed against accused Rolando Dural (a.k.a. Ronnie Javelon) and Bernardo Itucal, Jr. for the killing of TSgt. Carlos Pabon and CIC Renato Mangligot, members of the Philippine Constabulary, CAPCOM, on January 31, 1988, in Caloocan City. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Rener Ramos and Dennis Santos, who testified that they saw three gunmen, including appellant Dural, fire upon the two Capcom soldiers inside a mobile car. They also saw appellant Itucal standing near the scene with a .45 caliber pistol, and after the shooting, a man in a jeep told Itucal, “Pare, bahala ka na diyan,” before leaving. Both appellants interposed the defense of alibi. The trial court found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Double Murder qualified by treachery with Assaults Upon Agents of Persons In Authority and sentenced each to double reclusion perpetua, indemnity, and damages. The appellants appealed the decision.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by the appellants are: (1) whether conspiracy was proven; (2) whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible despite alleged inconsistencies; (3) whether the defense of alibi should be considered; (4) whether the illegality of their arrests should be considered in their favor; and (5) whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellant Rolando Dural but acquitted appellant Bernardo Itucal, Jr. on the ground of reasonable doubt.
1. On Conspiracy: The Court found conspiracy was established among appellant Dural and the two other gunmen based on their coordinated actions—arriving together, taking pre-assigned positions, simultaneously firing at the victims, and fleeing together. However, for appellant Itucal, the Court found the evidence insufficient to prove conspiracy. The testimonies of the eyewitnesses regarding Itucal’s participation were inconsistent and lacked the certainty required for a conviction. The claim that he acted as a lookout was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. On Credibility of Witnesses: The Court found the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Ramos and Santos credible, straightforward, and consistent on material points regarding the shooting and the participation of appellant Dural. The alleged inconsistencies pertained to minor details and did not affect their core narrative. Their positive identification of Dural prevailed over his defense of alibi.
3. On Defense of Alibi: The Court ruled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses. Appellant Dural’s alibi, which involved being in Laguna and later hospitalized, was not physically impossible and was correctly rejected by the trial court.
4. On Illegality of Arrest: The Court held that any irregularity in the arrest of the appellants was cured when they voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by entering a plea and participating in the trial.
5. On Treachery: The Court affirmed the presence of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the victims—who were unarmed and seated in their vehicle—no opportunity to defend themselves. The mode of execution ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants.
The Court modified the penalty. It held that appellant Dural committed two complex crimes of murder with direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority. Applying Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the more serious crime (murder) in its maximum period (reclusion perpetua, as death was not imposable) was imposed for each death. The civil indemnity for each victim was increased to P50,000.00.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
(1) The conviction of appellant Rolando Dural was AFFIRMED, subject to the modification of the death indemnity to P50,000.00 for each victim. (2) Appellant Bernardo Itucal, Jr. was ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. (3) Dural was ordered to pay one-half of the costs.