G.R. No. 111263 May 21, 1998
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO PADLAN @ “MARCOS,” ROMEO MAGLEO @ “MOTMOT,” and ALFREDO MAGLEO @ “BOY,” accused-appellants.

FACTS

An information was filed charging accused-appellants Mario Padlan, Romeo Magleo, and Alfredo Magleo with two counts of murder for the deaths of Rodolfo Manzon and Mateo Manzon. The prosecution’s version, based on testimonies of eyewitnesses Carlito Manzon (16 years old) and Jordan Pagsolingan (15 years old), is as follows: On November 14, 1992, at a pre-wedding dance in Barangay Libas, San Carlos City, Rufo Manzon was beaten by Mario Padlan and Lito Fernandez. Carlito and Jordan intervened and brought Rufo to the house of Flora Pagsolingan. They then went to fetch Rufo’s father, Rodolfo Manzon. Mateo Manzon, Rufo’s brother, joined them. On their way back, at Sitio Caniogon, they encountered accused-appellants. Romeo Magleo ordered them to stop. Carlito and Jordan saw Mario Padlan armed with a rifle and Alfredo Magleo with a knife. Mario Padlan went around the two boys and shot Rodolfo Manzon three times. Carlito and Jordan fled; Jordan heard two more shots. The police, informed by Flora Pagsolingan, recovered four empty armalite shells at the scene. Dr. Juan Pizarro’s autopsy found Rodolfo died from a gunshot wound, and Mateo from a fatal incised wound. The defense interposed alibi, claiming all accused were at the pre-wedding party at Aniceto de la Cruz’s house until 4 a.m. the next day and could not have committed the crime. The trial court found them guilty of two counts of murder and sentenced each to two penalties of reclusion perpetua, plus damages.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt and in not giving weight to the defense’s evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties and damages. The positive identification by eyewitnesses Carlito Manzon and Jordan Pagsolingan prevails over the weak defense of alibi, as the place of the alibi (Barangay Libas) was not physically impossible for them to have committed the crime in the same barangay. Ill motive is irrelevant given the positive identification. The alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were minor and did not affect their credibility. The killing of Rodolfo Manzon constituted murder qualified by treachery, as he was shot unexpectedly while his companions were young boys and he was unarmed. However, the killing of Mateo Manzon was found to be homicide, not murder, as the prosecution failed to prove the attendance of any qualifying circumstance; the fatal wound was likely inflicted with a knife found at the scene, but treachery was not established. Conspiracy was proven by their collective pursuit and presence during the shootings. The court modified the penalty for Mateo’s death to an indeterminate sentence (8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum). Damages were also modified: indemnity for each death at P50,000.00, moral damages at P50,000.00, and exemplary damages at P20,000.00; the award for actual and temperate damages was deleted for lack of proof.