G.R. Nos. 141154-56; January 15, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO “Ando” COSTALES and FERNANDO RAMIREZ (at-large), accused. FERNANDO “Ando” COSTALES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Fernando Costales and his co-accused Fernando Ramirez were charged with the murder of Miguel Marcelo and the frustrated murder of Crispina Marcelo, along with illegal possession of firearms. The crimes occurred on the night of November 27, 1997, when the two accused forcibly entered the Marcelo family’s home. Witnesses, including the victims’ daughters, testified that Costales shot Miguel Marcelo in the head at point-blank range, while Ramirez sprayed a chemical and then shot Crispina Marcelo in the chest. The witnesses positively identified the assailants, whom they knew well as all were members of the “Baro a Cristiano” religious sect. The family had recently distanced themselves from the sect, after which Ramirez had issued threats against them.
The trial court convicted Costales of murder and illegal possession of firearms. For the shooting of Crispina Marcelo, he was convicted of the lesser crime of attempted murder. Costales was sentenced to death for murder and appealed the decision, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and contesting the credibility of the eyewitnesses.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and (2) whether the crimes were correctly qualified.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. On the first issue, the Court upheld the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Their positive identification of Costales was deemed reliable, as the room was illuminated by a nightlamp and they were familiar with him. Their testimonies were consistent and detailed. The defense of alibi presented by Costales was weak and could not prevail over this positive identification. Treachery was correctly appreciated in the killing of Miguel Marcelo, as the attack was sudden and deliberate, ensuring the victim had no chance to defend himself, qualifying the crime as murder.
Regarding the second issue, the Court affirmed the trial court’s finding of attempted murder, not frustrated murder, for the shooting of Crispina Marcelo. Applying settled jurisprudence, the prosecution failed to prove that the gunshot wound she sustained was inherently fatal. The evidence did not establish that the injury would have caused death without timely medical intervention. In such cases, any doubt is resolved in favor of the accused, warranting a conviction only for attempted, not frustrated, murder. Consequently, the death penalty for murder was reduced to reclusion perpetua, as no aggravating circumstances attended the crime, and the indeterminate penalty for attempted murder was recalculated. Accused-appellant was also ordered to pay indemnity and damages to the heirs.