G.R. No. 104398 March 1, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINGO EUSTAQUIO, IGLECERIA EUSTAQUIO, JEAN EUSTAQUIO alias Nonoy, and NONONG RUADO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Domingo Eustaquio, Jean (alias Nonoy) Eustaquio, along with Igleceria Eustaquio and Nonong Ruado, were charged with Murder for the killing of Antonio Dante on May 3, 1990, in Sitio San Francisco, Milagros, Masbate. The prosecution’s eyewitnesses, Elma Fuentes (the victim’s daughter) and Aurelia Dante (the victim’s wife), testified that while walking home from a fiesta, the victim was called by Domingo. As Antonio approached, Domingo suddenly hacked him with a bolo. Jean Eustaquio then struck him with an iron bar, while Igleceria and Nonong Ruado hit him with pieces of bamboo. The witnesses, shocked, could not shout for help and were threatened by Domingo when they tried to approach. They later returned with relatives to recover the body. The post-mortem examination revealed multiple fatal wounds.
The defense presented a different version. Domingo, Igleceria, and their daughter Jeanita testified that Antonio visited their house that morning, ate with them, and later returned drunk to borrow money. When Igleceria refused, Antonio grabbed her collar, threatened to rape her, and tore her dress. Jeanita woke Domingo, who intervened. Antonio then boxed Domingo, who in response stabbed Antonio twice with a knife and then hit him with a piece of bamboo until he died. Domingo claimed he acted in defense of his wife. The defense also asserted that Jean Eustaquio was not present at the crime scene, presenting a barangay certification and testimonies that he was attending a meeting in Barangay Dao, Balud, Masbate, at the time.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Domingo and Jean Eustaquio as principals and Igleceria Eustaquio as an accomplice to Murder. Domingo and Jean appealed.

ISSUE

The primary issues on appeal were: (1) whether the prosecution evidence met the required moral certainty for the conviction of Jean Eustaquio, and (2) whether the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender for Domingo Eustaquio.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction of both accused-appellants for Murder but MODIFIED the penalties.
1. On the guilt of Jean Eustaquio: The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses, Elma Fuentes and Aurelia Dante, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. Their positive identification of Jean Eustaquio as one of the assailants who struck the victim with an iron bar was given full faith and credit. The defense of alibi presented by Jean was rejected. The barangay certification offered to prove his presence elsewhere was deemed unreliable as it was executed almost a year after the incident by officials who were not established to have personal knowledge of his presence at the meeting. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification.
2. On the qualifying circumstance of treachery: The Court agreed with the trial court that treachery was present. The attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. Domingo’s act of calling the victim and then immediately hacking him with a bolo ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants.
3. On the penalty for Domingo Eustaquio: The Court affirmed the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as Domingo presented himself to the barangay captain of Balud on the day of the incident. However, the Court found that the trial court erred in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. For the crime of Murder, punishable by reclusion temporal maximum to death, and with one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in its minimum period. Applying the rules of the Revised Penal Code, the proper penalty is reclusion temporal maximum. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is inapplicable as the penalty imposed is within the range of reclusion temporal. Therefore, Domingo Eustaquio was sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum.
4. On the penalty for Jean Eustaquio: With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty for Jean Eustaquio is reclusion temporal maximum to death, to be imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua. His sentence of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.
The decision of the trial court was affirmed with modification as to Domingo Eustaquio’s penalty.