G.R. No. L-33638, February 20, 1984
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALFREDO LIBARDO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Alfredo Libardo, a municipal patrolman, was charged with double murder for the shooting deaths of Exequio Torres and Ismael Melicor. The prosecution’s evidence established that Libardo harbored animosity towards Torres, the president of the Inabanga Labor Union, having previously attempted to usurp the leadership and made threats against Torres’s life. On the morning of January 25, 1969, at the Inabanga public market, eyewitnesses saw Libardo, armed with a Thompson submachine gun, suddenly and without warning open fire on Torres and Melicor as they emerged from the market. The victims, who were unarmed and wearing only T-shirts, sustained multiple fatal gunshot wounds. Libardo continued firing at them even after they had fallen to the ground.
The defense, however, presented a starkly different version, claiming that Libardo acted in self-defense. He testified that he was on patrol when he heard a commotion and saw Torres and Melicor, who were allegedly armed with a knife and a piece of wood, attacking another individual. Libardo claimed he intervened, identified himself as a policeman, and ordered them to stop. He alleged that the victims then turned and attacked him, forcing him to fire his weapon in defense of his life.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in rejecting the justifying circumstance of self-defense and in convicting Libardo of double murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, finding the prosecution eyewitnesses—two public school teachers and a laborer—to be credible, disinterested, and consistent. Their testimonies were corroborated and remained unshaken on cross-examination. In contrast, the defense witnesses’ testimonies were deemed incoherent and biased. The Court found Libardo’s claim of self-defense unconvincing, as he failed to prove the essential elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The sudden, unprovoked attack with a submachine gun on unarmed victims negated any claim of self-preservation.
On the qualifying and aggravating circumstances, the Court found that treachery was duly proven by the sudden and unexpected assault, which ensured the victims had no opportunity to defend themselves. The circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength was deemed absorbed by treachery. Evident premeditation was not established due to lack of proof of cool reflection. The Court agreed with the trial court that the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position was present, as Libardo used his authority as a policeman to facilitate the crime. This was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Consequently, for each murder, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, the penalty for murder absent any modifying circumstances. The Court modified the trial court’s imposition of the death penalty, sentencing Libardo to two penalties of reclusion perpetua and increasing the indemnity to the heirs.