G.R. No. 184500; September 11, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WENCESLAO NELMIDA @ “ESLAO,” and RICARDO AJOK @ “PORDOY,” Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

On June 5, 2001, Mayor Johnny Tawan-tawan and his security detail, composed of military and police personnel and civilian aides, were ambushed in San Manuel, Lala, Lanao del Norte. The group was traveling in the mayor’s yellow pick-up truck when appellants Wenceslao Nelmida and Ricardo Ajok, along with several co-accused, opened fire from concealed positions along the road. The attack resulted in the deaths of PO3 Hernando Dela Cruz and T/Sgt. Ramon Dacoco, and caused serious injuries to five others, while Mayor Tawan-tawan and another aide were unharmed. Appellants were charged with double murder with multiple frustrated murder and double attempted murder. During trial, co-accused Samuel Cutad was discharged to become a state witness, and he testified to appellants’ participation in the ambush.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellants as charged and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Appellants elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contending that the testimony of the discharged state witness was insufficient for conviction and that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They argued the witness’s testimony was uncorroborated and inherently unreliable.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellants Wenceslao Nelmida and Ricardo Ajok beyond reasonable doubt for the complex crime of double murder with multiple frustrated murder and double attempted murder.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the testimony of state witness Samuel Cutad was credible, corroborated, and sufficient to establish appellants’ guilt. The legal logic centered on the requisites for discharging an accused as a state witness under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. The trial court correctly discharged Cutad as there was absolute necessity for his testimony, his testimony could be substantially corroborated, he did not appear to be the most guilty, and he had not been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude. His detailed account of the conspiracy and ambush was corroborated by the victims’ testimonies and the physical evidence.
The Court further ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the victims no opportunity to defend themselves. The complex crime was properly designated; the various acts constituting the murders, frustrated murders, and attempted murders sprang from a single criminal resolution to ambush the mayor’s convoy. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, as the prescribed penalty for the complex crime is reclusion perpetua to death, and with no aggravating circumstances proven, the lesser penalty applies. The awards for civil indemnity and damages were also affirmed, with modifications to include exemplary damages and to adjust the amounts for consistency with prevailing jurisprudence.