G.R. Nos. L-31646-52 August 6, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EXEQUIEL ANGELES y KU, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This case arose from a shooting incident at the Melrose Kitchenette in Malate, Manila, on June 23, 1969. The attack resulted in the deaths of Rosita Garcia, Conrado Dungca, and Herminigildo Sebastian; the wounding of Jose Caraon Jr. and Fructuoso Abayon; and the serious injury of Edilberto Aquino and Saturnino Melida. A co-accused, William Limson, was previously tried, convicted for multiple murders and frustrated/attempted murders, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, having been credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Subsequently, accused-appellant Exequiel Angeles, a police officer, was charged in seven separate informations for his alleged conspiracy in the same incident. He was specifically charged with three counts of murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and two counts of attempted murder.
The prosecution presented eyewitnesses who positively identified Angeles as one of the armed assailants who fired upon the victims. The defense interposed alibi, claiming Angeles was elsewhere performing official police duties. The trial court, however, found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and rejected the alibi. The court convicted Angeles on all counts, noting the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. For the three murder charges, the trial court imposed the supreme penalty of death, citing the need for a stern example against peace officers who commit vicious crimes.

ISSUE

The primary issue for review is whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Exequiel Angeles guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged, and in imposing the death penalty for the three murders.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. The Court upheld the factual findings of the trial court, emphasizing that the positive identification by multiple eyewitnesses, who had no motive to falsely testify, prevailed over the weak defense of alibi. The Court agreed that the killings were attended by treachery, as the victims were unarmed and unexpectedly fired upon, ensuring the execution of the attack without risk to the assailants. The Court also found evident premeditation duly proven, as the circumstances indicated a preconceived plan to carry out the shootings.
Regarding the penalty, the Supreme Court sustained the finding of the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation with no mitigating circumstance to offset it. However, the Court modified the sentence. Applying the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime, and considering that the co-accused Limson was only sentenced to reclusion perpetua, the Court held that the imposition of the death penalty on Angeles was improper. The Court ruled that where two or more persons are liable for the same offense, their penalties should be uniform unless a distinction is justified by specific circumstances affecting individual liability. No such distinction warranted a harsher penalty for Angeles. Consequently, the Court reduced the penalty for each murder charge to reclusion perpetua. The penalties for frustrated and attempted murder were affirmed. The civil indemnities and damages awarded by the trial court were likewise sustained.