GR 135779; (November, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 135779-81; November 21, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. LUCIANO DE GUZMAN, EFREN REYES and BERNARD BUSTAMANTE, appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of March 9, 1992, in Dasol, Pangasinan, appellants Luciano de Guzman, Efren Reyes, and Bernard Bustamante, armed with long firearms, shot and killed Bernardo Calamno, Presente Calamno, and Teofilo Calamno, Jr. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Ariston Calamno and Teofilo Calamno, Sr. Ariston, while on his way to his father Bernardo’s house, saw from a distance of five to six meters the three appellants, with de Guzman firing at the three victims who were seated against a wall. The area was illuminated by moonlight. Teofilo, Sr., who heard the gunshots from his nearby house, corroborated the account, stating he saw the appellants from seven to eight meters away under the bright moon.
The appellants interposed the defense of alibi, claiming they were elsewhere during the incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of three counts of murder, qualified by treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and nocturnity, and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua for every count. The appellants appealed, challenging the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the trial court’s appreciation of the qualifying circumstances.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstances for murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the ruling on the qualifying circumstances. The Court upheld the credibility of the eyewitnesses, Ariston and Teofilo, Sr., finding their testimonies clear, consistent, and credible. Their positive identification of the appellants, made possible by sufficient moonlight, prevailed over the weak defense of alibi, which was not physically impossible. The Court found the elements of murder present, as the killing was attended by treachery. The victims were seated and unarmed when suddenly fired upon, depriving them of any opportunity to defend themselves. This manner of execution ensured the commission of the crime without risk to the appellants.
However, the Court ruled that the other circumstances alleged—evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and nocturnity—were not proven with equal certainty. Evident premeditation requires proof of planning and sufficient lapse of time, which was absent. Abuse of superior strength was absorbed in treachery. Nocturnity was not deliberately sought to facilitate the crime, as the moonlight actually aided identification. Thus, only treachery qualified the killings to murder. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count was affirmed. The awards for damages were modified, granting civil indemnity, moral damages, temperate damages, and exemplary damages to the heirs of each victim.