G.R. No. 101830 May 27, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARTHUR BUNDANG, CELINO RAMOS and JUANITO BIBAT alias Edring, accused. ARTHUR BUNDANG, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of September 24, 1986, in Agbannawag, Tabuk, Kalinga-Apayao, accused Arthur Bundang, along with Celino Ramos and Juanito Bibat, were charged with murder and double frustrated murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm. The information alleged that they conspired and shot at victims Tommy Lardizabal, Jacquiline Palafox, and Janolino Palafox. Tommy Lardizabal was killed, while Jacquiline and Janolino Palafox sustained gunshot wounds. Appellant Bundang was arrested on October 9, 1987; his co-accused remained at large. The prosecution’s evidence established that at twilight, witnesses saw Bundang, Bibat, and Ramos drinking outside a house, with Bundang holding an armalite. Later that evening, while Tommy Lardizabal, Janolino Palafox, and his five-year-old daughter Jacquiline were walking home, they were suddenly shot at. Tommy died on the spot. Janolino Palafox, lying prone, was kicked by Bundang, who was holding an M-16 firearm, and he recognized appellant by the light from the PC detachment spotlight and nearby houses. Witness Romeo Cuaresma also heard rapid gunfire and later helped carry Tommy’s body. T/Sgt. Jose Andrada testified that Palafox identified Bundang as the shooter but initially refused to file a complaint, wanting personal revenge. After an unsuccessful personal search, Palafox eventually filed a complaint in August 1987. Bundang was later apprehended in Cordon, Isabela. The defense interposed alibi and denial, claiming Bundang was at a ranch working and that the crime scene was too dark for identification. The trial court found Bundang guilty of murder and two counts of frustrated murder.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Janolino Palafox regarding the identification of appellant as the perpetrator, despite the defense’s claim that the crime scene was inadequately illuminated.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision but modified the penalty. The Court held that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great respect and found no reason to deviate from it. The ocular inspection established that the crime scene was illuminated by two 1,000-watt spotlights from the PC detachment 206 meters away, a 40-watt fluorescent lamp from Palafox’s house 73 meters away, and a light from the Cuaresma residence 25 meters away, providing sufficient visibility for identification. The positive identification by Palafox, who had no ill motive to falsely testify, prevailed over the appellant’s denial and alibi. The Court found the qualifying circumstance of treachery present, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the victims defenseless. However, the Court ruled that the trial court erred in treating the crimes as separate. The act constituted a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, as a single act (the rapid gunfire) resulted in multiple felonies (murder and double frustrated murder). Appellant was found guilty of the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder. Applying Article 48, the penalty for the most serious crime (murder) in its maximum period (death) was proper, but since the death penalty was not in effect at the time of the crime, the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua. Appellant was ordered to indemnify the heirs of Tommy Lardizabal P50,000.00 and Janolino and Jacquiline Palafox P20,000.00 each.