G.R. No. 133833 ; October 15, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUDY SICAD, CAMELO LOBATON, MELCHOR SICAD, JOHNNY GUIÑEZ and PAQUITO BERNIL, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On June 24, 1992, around 4:00 PM, Melchor Sicad was at his parents’ house in Sitio Punta Luis, Concepcion, Iloilo, attending to his ailing mother. Present were his nephews Jimmy Asturias, Rudy Sicad, and Camelo Lobaton. His cousin, Roberto Asturias, Sr., arrived. A verbal clash and fistfight ensued between Melchor and Roberto after Roberto refused a bottle of beer. Roberto left at 5:30 PM. Melchor’s mother died shortly thereafter.
Around 7:30 PM that same day, Roberto Asturias, Sr. was found dead near his fishing banca in Barangay Loong Poblacion due to multiple gunshot wounds. The victim’s 11-year-old son, Roberto Asturias, Jr., testified that he saw Paquito Bernil throw a dynamite at his father’s back. Then, from a distance, Rudy Sicad fired a gun at his father, and while his father was lying face down, Camelo Lobaton also shot him. Melchor Sicad and Johnny Guiñez stood as lookouts under a nearby camachile tree. An electric bulb hanging from a tree illuminated the scene. Jimmy Asturias corroborated this testimony, stating he saw the five accused proceed toward the victim’s banca, heard a dynamite explosion, and saw Rudy Sicad and Camelo Lobaton shoot the victim.
Dr. Jeremiah Obañana conducted an autopsy and found six gunshot wounds, with the cause of death being irreversible shock secondary to multiple gunshot wounds. Paraffin tests on Melchor Sicad, Camelo Lobaton, and Rudy Sicad yielded positive results for gunpowder.
The accused-appellants denied the charge, interposing alibi. Melchor, Rudy, and Camelo claimed they were at Melchor’s mother’s house, about 150 meters away, from the afternoon of June 24 until the morning of June 25. Johnny Guiñez’s siblings testified he was at their parents’ house. Ramon Malabago testified Paquito Bernil was with him in his house. The defense also presented employees of the Iloilo Electric Cooperative who testified that electricity in Barangay Loong was restored only at 5:00 PM on June 25, 1992, implying it was dark during the incident.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellants Melchor Sicad and Johnny Guiñez beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the offense was committed with the attendant circumstances of conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation.
3. Whether the trial court erred in sentencing accused-appellant Camelo Lobaton to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua despite his being a minor.
4. Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the defense of alibi/denial.
5. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution’s alleged eyewitnesses despite their improbability.
6. Whether the trial court erred in convicting all accused-appellants despite an alleged lack of motive.

RULING

1. The trial court did not err in convicting the accused-appellants. The positive identification by eyewitnesses Roberto Asturias, Jr. and Jimmy Asturias, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, prevails over the defenses of alibi and denial. The rule that appellate courts generally do not disturb the trial court’s findings on witness credibility applies, as the trial court observed the witnesses’ deportment and manner of testifying.
2. The trial court correctly found conspiracy. The accused-appellants’ collective and coordinated actions—some acting as lookouts while others executed the attack—demonstrated a community of criminal purpose. Treachery (alevosia) was present as the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. However, the circumstance of evident premeditation was not proven, as there was no evidence of the time when the accused determined to commit the crime or an act manifestly indicating their determination.
3. The trial court erred in sentencing Camelo Lobaton to reclusion perpetua without considering his minority. The defense presented evidence, including his birth certificate, that he was 17 years old at the time of the crime. Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over 15 but under 18 years of age is entitled to a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed by law. The case was remanded to the trial court for determination of his exact age and the proper application of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
4. The defense of alibi was correctly disregarded. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the crime scene. The distance of 150 meters between the alibi location and the crime scene did not constitute physical impossibility. Positive identification by credible eyewitnesses prevails over alibi.
5. The trial court did not err in crediting the eyewitness testimonies. The witnesses consistently and clearly identified the assailants. The claim that there was no electricity was contradicted by the witnesses’ testimony about an electric bulb illuminating the scene. The natural reaction of a son to focus on his dying father does not negate his ability to identify the assailants, especially when the attack was not instantaneous but involved multiple assailants performing successive acts.
6. Lack of motive is not a defense where the accused have been positively identified. Motive becomes relevant only when the identity of the perpetrator is in doubt. The positive identification by eyewitnesses rendered the issue of motive inconsequential.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, modified the penalty by deleting the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for accused-appellants Rudy Sicad, Melchor Sicad, Johnny Guiñez, and Paquito Bernil. The case was remanded to the trial court for the proper determination of Camelo Lobaton’s age and the imposition of the appropriate penalty considering the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. The accused-appellants were ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of Roberto Asturias, Sr. the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.