G.R. No. 140426 ; July 30, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDDIE ANDARME (at large), LORETO PAMAT (at large), RONALDO SILVIO (at large), ROQUE ANDARME, accused. ROQUE ANDARME, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On September 29, 1988, Loreto Morante Sr., his wife Estelita, and their young son Leo were ambushed while traveling on a motorcycle in La Paz, Leyte. Prosecution witnesses Virgilio Giron and Arturo Custodio, who were following the victims, testified that they saw accused-appellant Roque Andarme, along with his co-accused, armed with long firearms and firing at the family. Estelita and Leo died from the gunshot wounds, while Loreto survived. The accused were charged with double murder and frustrated murder. Only appellant Roque Andarme was apprehended and tried, as his co-accused remained at large. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Appellant claimed he was at a different location and was later asked to stay at the municipal building when the incident was reported. He asserted that he went to Manila for work two weeks after the incident and only learned of the charges against him upon his return nine years later, prompting his surrender. He challenged the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, arguing that Arturo Custodio, due to age and distance, could not have reliably identified him.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Roque Andarme beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crimes and penalties. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility. It ruled that Arturo Custodio’s positive identification of appellant as a perpetrator was credible and reliable. The shooting occurred at 9:30 a.m. under favorable visibility conditions, and there was no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the witness to falsely testify. Between appellant’s bare denial and the witness’s positive testimony, the latter prevails. The Court also found that appellant’s departure for Manila shortly after the incident and his prolonged absence constituted flight, which is indicative of guilt.
However, the Court modified the legal qualification of the crimes. The information alleged treachery and evident premeditation, but these qualifying circumstances were not proven with the same degree of certainty as the crimes themselves. The essence of treachery requires proof of the specific manner of attack to ensure the victim’s defenselessness, which was not established. Evident premeditation requires proof of planning and preparation, which was also lacking. Consequently, the crimes were downgraded from double murder to two counts of homicide for the deaths, and from frustrated murder to frustrated homicide for the wounding of Loreto Morante. Appellant was sentenced to indeterminate penalties for each count of homicide and for frustrated homicide, and ordered to pay indemnity to the victims’ heirs.