G.R. No. L-12943; October 31, 1963
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELIAS CADACIO and JULIAN OBRADOR, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, Elias Cadacio and Julian Obrador, were charged with triple murder, double frustrated murder, and attempted murder. The prosecution alleged that on April 24, 1955, in Barrio Dayapan, Lemery, Batangas, the appellants, conspiring with three others at large, ambushed a jeepney. The victims were partners in a swine business: Dionisio de Leus, Leoncio Razon, and Pastor Kamson. Earlier that day, while traveling to buy pigs, they passed a man (later identified as Cadacio) who signaled them to stop. Heeding De Leus’s instruction not to pick up passengers due to the cash they carried, driver Razon did not stop. On their return trip in the afternoon, they picked up several relatives, including Simplicio Gamboa, Serapia Gamboa, and Geminiano Lagrosa.
As the jeepney passed through Dayapan, it was suddenly fired upon from multiple directions. Razon, Kamson, and Simplicio Gamboa managed to jump out and escape. The ambush resulted in the deaths of Dionisio de Leus, Serapia Gamboa, and Geminiano Lagrosa. Leoncio Razon and Simplicio Gamboa sustained gunshot wounds, while Pastor Kamson escaped unharmed. The principal issue at trial was the identity of the assailants.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the identities of Elias Cadacio and Julian Obrador as the perpetrators of the crimes.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, with modifications. The Court found the testimonies of the surviving victims—Leoncio Razon, Pastor Kamson, and Simplicio Gamboa—to be credible and sufficient to establish the appellants’ identities. Razon positively identified Cadacio as the man who had earlier signaled the jeepney to stop. Both Razon and Kamson identified Obrador as one of the two gunmen who fired directly at the vehicle during the ambush. Their identification was deemed reliable despite initial claims to investigators that they did not know the assailants’ names, as they consistently maintained they could recognize them by face.
The Court rejected the appellants’ defenses. Their alibi was weak given the proximity of their alleged locations to the crime scene. The testimony of Paulino Huertas, a co-accused and admitted “Huk” who attempted to exonerate them, was found unworthy of belief. The manner of attack—sudden, from concealed positions, with superior firepower—constituted treachery, qualifying the killings as murder. The mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction was offset by the aggravating circumstance of aid from armed companions.
The Court modified the penalties. For the three murders, each appellant was sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment, with indemnity to the heirs. For the three attempted murders, each was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. The Court also ordered indemnity for the medical expenses of the wounded victims. The decision was affirmed with these modifications.