G.R. No. L-34397, L-34398, and L-34399. June 10, 1976.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO LIM, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On April 20, 1969, in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, businessman Santiago Tumaliuan, accompanied by Fausto Guiyab and Patrolman Cesar Binag, went to a cockpit. Afterward, they proceeded to a gas station. As their jeep was being refueled, Genaro Tumaliuan, the appellant’s uncle, shouted “Fire now.” Immediately, three successive gunshots were fired. The first killed Santiago Tumaliuan, the second killed Fausto Guiyab, and the third wounded Patrolman Binag. Binag, though severely injured, identified Antonio Lim as the gunman, stating Lim fired the shots from close range. An eyewitness, Alvaro Corcino, also saw Lim emerge from the jeep’s left side holding a shiny gun and walking away. The victims were rushed to the hospital, where Santiago was declared dead on arrival, Guiyab died the next day, and Binag survived after extensive treatment.
The incident was rooted in a longstanding feud between the Lim and Tumaliuan families. Prior to the shooting, Vice-Mayor Carlos Tumaliuan (Santiago’s brother) and others were charged with the murder of Antonio Lim’s mother and sister. In a separate case, Lim’s brothers were charged with murder, and Binag was a prosecution witness. Santiago Tumaliuan was known to be the financier of his brother Carlos, and Guiyab assisted in obtaining bail bonds for him. The Circuit Criminal Court convicted Antonio Lim of two counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Antonio Lim committed the crimes of two murders and one frustrated murder. A subsidiary issue involves the correctness of the penalties imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the credibility of eyewitness testimony and the establishment of motive. Patrolman Cesar Binag provided a clear, positive, and credible identification of Lim as the assailant. As a fellow townsman familiar with Lim and knowledgeable about firearms, his testimony was deemed highly reliable. His written identification from his hospital bed, corroborated by investigator Sergeant Malillin, further strengthened his account. The eyewitness account of Alvaro Corcino, who saw Lim fleeing the scene with a gun, provided additional corroboration. The Court found no reason to doubt these consistent testimonies, rejecting the defense of alibi which was not physically impossible.
Regarding the qualifying circumstances, the Court found that treachery (alevosia) was present. The attack was sudden and deliberate, executed in a manner that ensured the victims had no opportunity to defend themselves. The victims were unarmed and seated in a stationary vehicle, completely unaware of the imminent assault. However, the Court ruled that evident premeditation was not proven, as the prosecution failed to establish the requisite elements: the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, an act showing he clung to his determination, and a sufficient interval for reflection.
On the penalties, the Court affirmed the imposition of reclusion perpetua for each murder, as there were no generic aggravating or mitigating circumstances. For the frustrated murder charge, the Court modified the sentence, imposing an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal minimum, as maximum, in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The appealed decision was thus affirmed with modification regarding the penalty for frustrated murder.