G.R. No. 98321 -24 June 30, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO DE GUZMAN y SAN PEDRO, VICENTE JIMENEZ y BUSTAMANTE, JOSEPH CAILANG y SUAN, RUEL BACLAYON y GELLEMER, LEOPOLDO CAILANG y SUAN, ALEX BARRETO, CONSTANTINO VILLANUEVA, VICTOR NUÑEZ, JR. and CELSO BUSTAMANTE, accused. VICTOR NUÑEZ, JR., appellant.

FACTS

Accused, including appellant Victor Nuñez, Jr., were charged with three counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder for the shooting incident on April 4, 1989, in Cebu City. The victims were Major Antonio Carteciano, Francisco Carteciano, Jose Bantug (who all died), and Lorna Carteciano (who survived). The prosecution evidence established that at around 7:45 A.M., Major Carteciano was driving a jeep with his wife Lorna, mother-in-law Juanita Ricaplaza, son Reiser, brother Francisco, neighbor Jose Bantug, and Bantug’s daughter Jennifer. Near the intersection of M. Velez and V. Rama streets, gunfire erupted from the left side. Major Carteciano fired back, but successive gunshots hit him, Francisco, Jose Bantug, and Lorna. After the jeep stopped, several gunmen approached. Appellant Nuñez demanded Major Carteciano’s firearm from Lorna, and when she offered valuables instead, Nuñez shot Major Carteciano in the head point-blank. The gunmen then commandeered a jeepney to escape. Witnesses Juanita Ricaplaza, Lorna Carteciano, and Reiser Carteciano positively identified Nuñez and others during police lineups. After a joint trial, the Regional Trial Court of Cebu convicted only Victor Nuñez, Jr., sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each murder and a prison term for frustrated murder, while acquitting all other accused due to reasonable doubt. Nuñez appealed, raising issues on illegal arrest, witness credibility, inconsistencies in prosecution testimony, and the alleged error in finding conspiracy despite the acquittal of his co-accused.

ISSUE

1. Whether appellant’s arrest without a warrant renders the trial invalid.
2. Whether the prosecution witnesses’ credibility is impaired by inconsistencies.
3. Whether conspiracy was sufficiently proven despite the acquittal of all co-accused.
4. Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant based on the evidence.

RULING

1. On the legality of arrest: The Supreme Court held that any irregularity in appellant’s warrantless arrest was cured when he voluntarily submitted to the trial court’s jurisdiction by pleading not guilty and participating in the trial. Citing People vs. Rabang and U.S. vs. Grant and Kennedy, the Court ruled that an illegal arrest does not invalidate a conviction based on sufficient evidence after a fair trial.
2. On witness credibility: The Court found the inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies to be minor and trivial, not impairing their core narrative that they saw appellant actively participate in the crimes. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is generally respected, as it is in a better position to evaluate testimonial evidence.
3. On conspiracy: The Court affirmed that conspiracy was established by the coordinated actions of appellant and his group—the synchronized ambush, surrounding of the jeep, demand for the firearm, point-blank shooting of Major Carteciano, and collective escape. The acquittal of the co-accused was based on the prosecution’s failure to establish their identities beyond reasonable doubt, not on a finding that conspiracy did not exist. Thus, appellant’s conviction as a principal, acting in concert with others, stands.
4. On the conviction: The Supreme Court upheld appellant’s conviction, finding the evidence sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for three counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder. However, the civil indemnity for each victim’s heirs was increased from P30,000 to P50,000 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION: the civil indemnity to be paid by appellant Victor Nuñez, Jr. to the heirs of each deceased victim is increased to P50,000. Costs against appellant.