G.R. No. 129072 . January 19, 2000.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO ABUBU y VALDEZ alias “BOY VALDEZ,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Antonio Abubu, along with four others, was charged with murder for the death of Julius Golocan and three counts of frustrated murder for the injuries inflicted on Julius’s wife Flordeliza and their two infant children. The incident occurred on February 18, 1996, when Abubu and his companions visited the Golocan residence. After a brief conversation on the balcony, the group suddenly drew firearms and shot the entire family. Julius died from multiple gunshot wounds, while his wife and children survived after extensive medical treatment. Flordeliza positively identified Abubu as one of the assailants to the investigating police officers.
At trial, Abubu presented an alibi, claiming he merely accompanied three other accused to the Golocan house but left before the shooting started, hearing gunshots from a distance. He denied direct participation. The Regional Trial Court convicted Abubu of murder and three counts of frustrated murder. He appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not established.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for murder and frustrated murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitness Flordeliza Golocan, who had no ill motive to falsely testify, to be credible and sufficient to establish Abubu’s criminal liability as a principal by direct participation. Her testimony was consistent and corroborated by the physical evidence. The Court rejected Abubu’s alibi for being weak and unsubstantiated, noting it could not prevail over positive identification. Regarding the qualifying circumstance, the Court ruled that treachery (alevosia) was duly proven. The attack was sudden and unexpected, employing means that ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants from any defense the unarmed victims could offer. The victims, including two infants, were shot at close range without any provocation, depriving them of any opportunity to defend themselves. The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua. For the frustrated murder charges, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty for each count. The Court also modified the award of damages accordingly.