GR 83373 74; (July, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 83373-74 July 5, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REYNALDO CORDOVA @ “REY” CORDOVA, EDUARDO CORDOVA @ “SULI” CORDOVA, ISIDRO CORDOVA, JR. @ “DROBAT,” FREDDIE BUENCONSEJO @ “ODONG,” and ERNESTO ESTORQUE, JR., accused. REYNALDO CORDOVA @ “REY” CORDOVA, EDUARDO CORDOVA @ “SULI” CORDOVA and ERNESTO ESTORQUE, JR., accused-appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of May 29, 1986, Marcelo Barruela and Segundo Maguad were killed in Barangay Bantique, Pontevedra, Capiz. Two separate Informations for Murder were filed against Reynaldo Cordova, Eduardo Cordova, Isidro Cordova, Jr., Freddie Buenconsejo, and Ernesto Estorque, Jr. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from eyewitnesses Rodolfo Maguad (son of Segundo) and Teresita Barruela (wife of Marcelo), established that around 7:00 PM, Eduardo Cordova, identifying himself as “Richard de la Torre,” requested Marcelo Barruela to ferry them using his motorboat. When Marcelo beamed a flashlight, Reynaldo Cordova emerged and fired multiple shots at him, killing him. Segundo Maguad was also found dead. Witness Norberto Javier testified to encountering the five accused on a motorboat earlier that evening, where they took his gasoline. The defense presented alibis, claiming they were elsewhere attending a birthday party.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellants (Reynaldo Cordova, Eduardo Cordova, and Ernesto Estorque, Jr.) for the crimes of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants Reynaldo Cordova and Eduardo Cordova for two counts of murder, but acquitted Ernesto Estorque, Jr. due to reasonable doubt. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitnesses Rodolfo Maguad and Teresita Barruela, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, to be credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Their testimonies were consistent and detailed. The alibis presented by the defense were weak and could not prevail over the positive identification. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present as the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the victims defenseless. The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing the indemnity to the heirs of each victim to P50,000.00.