G.R. No. 138233 January 18, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RONIL ABUNDO y CALVO; BRIXCIO CALVO (At Large); HENRY AGO (Deceased); and ROLANDO BOLAMBOT y VELASCO, accused, RONIL ABUNDO y CALVO and ROLANDO BOLAMBOT y VELASCO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Ronil Abundo and Rolando Bolambot, along with two others, were charged with Robbery with Homicide for the killing of Alberto Martinez and Ramil Eugenio and the taking of a chainsaw on August 26, 1996. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Allan Martinez, testified that while the victims were working, the four accused approached. Abundo suddenly shouted at the victims to drop to the ground and immediately shot Alberto Martinez, who was in a squatting position. Abundo then stabbed the fallen victim. Meanwhile, Bolambot repeatedly stabbed Ramil Eugenio, mostly in the back, while their cohorts acted as lookouts. Allan witnessed the events from a hiding place merely 2.5 meters away. The victims died from multiple stab and gunshot wounds.
The defense of the accused-appellants was denial and alibi. Abundo claimed he was at a CAFGU detachment at the time and was later asked by a victim’s relative to help rescue the hostages. Bolambot alleged he was at home. The trial court convicted them of Murder, qualified by treachery, but acquitted them of robbery due to insufficient evidence of intent to gain, leading to this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Allan Martinez credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Minor inconsistencies between his preliminary investigation testimony and his court declaration were deemed inconsequential and did not affect his core narrative of the violent attack. The defense of alibi was properly rejected as it was not physically impossible for the appellants to have been at the crime scene. The Court upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia). The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that deprived the victims of any chance to defend themselves. Alberto Martinez was shot while squatting and unarmed, and Ramil Eugenio was stabbed repeatedly, mostly in the back. This method of attack ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants. The trial court correctly convicted the appellants of two counts of Murder instead of Robbery with Homicide, as the prosecution failed to prove the element of intent to gain (animus lucrandi) for the robbery. The taking of the chainsaw was merely an afterthought to the killing, not its main purpose. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated, warranting the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of Murder.