GR 100197; (April, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 100197. April 4, 1997.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDWIN NARDO and WILLY YLARDE, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Edwin Nardo and Willy Ylarde were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of the complex crime of Multiple Murder with Double Frustrated Murder. The prosecution evidence established that on July 21, 1985, in Umingan, Pangasinan, the appellants, armed with firearms, fired indiscriminately at an eatery. The attack resulted in the deaths of Clarence Suitos, Anicia Sales, Macario dela Peña, and Luzviminda Pudol, and the wounding of Claro Suitos and Micaela Suitos. The prosecution’s case was anchored on the eyewitness testimony of Micaela Suitos, who identified the appellants as the assailants who had earlier attempted to sell marijuana at their eatery.
The appellants interposed the defense of alibi, claiming they were in Quezon City at the time of the shooting. They asserted they had traveled there to return unsold merchandise and only returned to Pangasinan the following day. This was corroborated by a defense witness. They attacked the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence against them.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of the complex crime of Multiple Murder with Double Frustrated Murder based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the legal characterization of the crimes. The Court upheld the trial court’s factual findings, emphasizing the well-settled doctrine that the assessment of witness credibility is best left to the trial judge. The positive identification by eyewitness Micaela Suitos, who had no ill motive to falsely testify, prevailed over the weak defense of alibi, which was not physically impossible. The Court found conspiracy, as the appellants acted in concert during the shooting.
However, the Court corrected the trial court’s legal error. The Information charged multiple victims killed and wounded by a single act of indiscriminate firing. Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime requires a single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies. Here, the multiple deaths and injuries resulted from multiple gunshots, not a single act. Therefore, the appellants committed four separate crimes of murder and two separate crimes of attempted murder, not a single complex crime. The penalty for each murder is reclusion perpetua, and the penalties for the attempted murders were also imposed. The awards for civil indemnity and damages were sustained.