G.R. No. 139313 ; June 19, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. FLORANTE LEAL alias ‘Burat,’ appellant.

FACTS

This is an appeal from the March 24, 1999 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Branch 45, convicting Florante Leal on two counts of murder. The Information dated August 4, 1987, charged appellant with double murder for the stabbing deaths of brothers Joel Jacob and Emerson Jacob on or about February 21, 1987, in Barangay Nancayasan, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, with treachery and evident premeditation. Appellant was arraigned on November 20, 1998, and pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses Moore Ganzagan and Ariel Veloria, is as follows: On the evening of February 20, 1987, Veloria, Ganzagan, and the Jacob brothers were at a beerhouse. Past midnight, as they were walking home, they passed by the Rosemart Disco Club where they saw appellant standing. Veloria later heard shouts and saw Emerson Jacob running, pursued by appellant who was holding a knife. Appellant caught up with and stabbed Emerson at a Shell gasoline station. Ganzagan, who was with Joel, looked back and saw Emerson fall with appellant standing beside him holding a knife. When Joel went to assist his brother, appellant also stabbed him despite Joel saying, “I will not fight.” Autopsy reports confirmed the fatal stab wounds.
The defense’s version, based on appellant’s testimony and that of waiter Perfecto Lazo and patron Elmer Domingo, is as follows: Appellant was inside the Rosemart Disco Pub drinking. He went outside to pacify a mauling incident involving an acquaintance. Later, he went out again after being informed his companions were in a fight. He saw two groups fighting and individuals lying on the ground. While trying to help, he was hit on the neck and lost consciousness. Upon regaining it, he saw a person lying prostrate and bathed in blood. He then ran inside the disco pub out of fear, stayed for 20-30 minutes, and went home. He denied stabbing the victims and claimed the brothers were involved in a rumble.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes charged. This involves the credibility of eyewitness identification, the presence of qualifying circumstances like treachery, and the propriety of damages awarded.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It upheld appellant’s conviction but found the qualifying circumstance of treachery not proven for either killing. The Court ruled that the eyewitnesses did not see the commencement of the assault on Emerson Jacob, and the attack on Joel Jacob occurred during a tumultuous incident, not with the requisite deliberate and sudden mode of execution. Therefore, the crimes were homicide, not murder. The Court sentenced appellant to two indeterminate penalties of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum for each count of homicide. The award of civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 for each victim. The award of moral damages was reduced to P50,000.00 for each victim. The award of P50,000.00 for actual expenses was deleted for lack of sufficient proof. The award of exemplary damages was not granted. Appellant was ordered to pay the costs.
The Court applied the following doctrines: (1) positive identification by an eyewitness with no ill motive prevails over bare denials; (2) treachery cannot be considered if the eyewitness did not see the commencement of the assault; (3) a qualifying circumstance must be proven as clearly as the crime itself; and (4) actual damages must be proven by the best evidence available.