G.R. No. L-29893 February 23, 1978
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERMINIGILDO PASCUAL alias Gildo, CEFERINO PASCUAL alias Efren, and LEONARDO CABIGTING alias Adong, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the night of March 9, 1966, the De la Cruz family was ambushed while returning home via calesa in Licab, Nueva Ecija. Anastacio de la Cruz, the father, saw seven men, including appellants Herminigildo Pascual, Ceferino Pascual, and Leonardo Cabigting, lined up near a bridge. As the calesa crossed, the group simultaneously opened fire. Anastacio was wounded but survived; his wife Pilar and children Cesario and Priscilla were fatally hit. Pilar executed a dying declaration identifying Ceferino Pascual as an assailant before succumbing to her wounds. Anastacio gave a detailed statement to authorities, naming the three appellants and four unidentified companions. The prosecution established a motive: Ceferino Pascual sought to supplant Anastacio as the overseer of a hacienda, a position yielding substantial annual compensation.
At trial, the appellants interposed alibis. Herminigildo claimed he was at his brother’s house, while Ceferino and Cabigting asserted they were at a movie. They alleged that Anastacio fabricated his accusation due to prior animosities, including a pending robbery case and a dispute over a killed pig. The trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible, convicting all three appellants of three counts of murder.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of three counts of murder based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by the surviving victim, Anastacio de la Cruz, who knew the appellants as fellow residents and recognized them under the bright moonlight, was deemed credible and sufficient for conviction. His testimony was corroborated by the dying declaration of his wife, Pilar. The Court found the appellants’ alibis weak and unsubstantiated, as they failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. The alleged motives for false accusation were considered flimsy compared to the strong motive established for the appellants: Ceferino Pascual’s desire to take over the lucrative overseer position, which provided a compelling reason to eliminate Anastacio.
The killings constituted three separate crimes of murder qualified by treachery. The sudden and simultaneous gunfire by a group of seven upon the defenseless family in a calesa ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants. No modifying circumstances attended the crimes. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for each murder was thus correct. The Court modified the civil indemnity, increasing it to P12,000 for each set of heirs, and ordered that the service of the three perpetual penalties respect the 40-year limit under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.