G.R. No. 90603 October 19, 1992
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Angel Fabros y Sarmiento alias Boy Fabros, and Danilo Fernando, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On July 1, 1988, around 7:30 p.m., four armed men entered the house of Jun (Juan) Siobal in San Manuel, Tarlac. Two men had covered their faces, while the other two, later identified as appellants Angel Fabros and Danilo Fernando, did not. The men, claiming to be Constabulary soldiers, tied up Juan Siobal and his son Jovito, dragged them outside to the MacArthur Highway, and shot them dead. The prosecution’s star witnesses were Anita Siobal Fernandez (Juan’s daughter) and Marina Castro Siobal (Juan’s wife), who identified Fabros and Fernando. They explained their four-month delay in identifying the appellants by citing fear due to nightly threats. The appellants denied involvement, presenting alibis. Fabros claimed he was at work until 8:02 p.m., supported by company time records and co-workers. Fernando claimed he was playing mahjong at a house 750 meters away from the crime scene, supported by his companions. The trial court found them guilty of double murder, sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, and ordered them to pay civil indemnity and costs.

ISSUE

The main issues were: (1) the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the delay in their identification; (2) the validity of the appellants’ alibi defenses; (3) the propriety of convicting them for two murders based on a single information; and (4) the correct classification and penalty for the crimes.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages. It held: (1) The factual findings and credibility assessments of the trial court are conclusive and entitled to respect, as the minor inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies did not detract from their overall credibility. The delay in identification was justified by the witnesses’ genuine fear. (2) The appellants’ alibis were weak. Fabros’s time records were not conclusive, and Fernando was proven to be within convenient reach of the crime scene. (3) The single information charging double murder was defective for violating the rule against duplicity, but since this defect was not raised at trial, the appellants could be convicted of as many offenses as charged. The killings did not constitute a complex crime as they resulted from separate acts (five gunshots). (4) The killings were qualified by treachery. Evident premeditation was present but should be considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance. The motive was vengeance for the earlier killing of Dominador Fernando (Danilo’s brother and Fabros’s nephew) by Carlito Siobal (Juan’s son). The Court modified the decision, finding the appellants guilty of two separate murders. For each murder, they were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The penalties shall not exceed 40 years in total duration under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. They were ordered to pay jointly and severally the sum of P100,000.00 to the heirs of the victims. The appeal was dismissed.