G.R. No. L-45123 August 26, 1985
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANGGAYANAN SINAW-AY, GAPAW MAMPINANTAW, alias GAPAW LIGUNAY, et al., accused-appellants.

FACTS

The accused, including Gapaw Mampinantaw alias Gapaw Ligunay, were charged with Murder for the killing of Datu Agtalan Lasia on August 25, 1972, in Davao City. The information alleged conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation. Only appellant Gapaw Mampinantaw was apprehended and tried. The prosecution’s evidence established that the victim was called down from his house by co-accused Manggayanan Sinaw-ay under the pretext of a gun sale. As the victim examined a shotgun presented by another co-accused, the appellant, without warning, shot him. The victim fled inside his house where he fell, after which the appellant and his companions fired at the house. The victim’s wife and an eyewitness, Teodulo Dajones, positively identified the appellant as one of the assailants.
The appellant denied participation, claiming he was a different person named Gapaw Ligunay from a distant barangay and was not present at the crime scene. He asserted an alibi, stating he was elsewhere during the incident. The trial court rejected this defense, finding the positive identification credible and noting that a reinvestigation prior to arraignment had established that Gapaw Mampinantaw and Gapaw Ligunay were the same person. The court convicted him of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issues on appeal were: (1) the sufficiency of the appellant’s identification; (2) the existence of treachery and conspiracy to qualify the killing as Murder; and (3) the validity of his defense of alibi and mistaken identity.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The appellant’s defense of alibi and mistaken identity was unavailing against the positive and categorical testimonies of eyewitness Teodulo Dajones and the victim’s wife, Cundag Uminloy. Their testimonies were found clear and credible. The Court noted that the reinvestigation confirmed the appellant’s identity as the person charged, rendering the distinction between his alleged aliases inconsequential.
On the qualifying circumstances, the Court found treachery (alevosia) duly proven. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed while the victim was preoccupied with examining a firearm, depriving him of any chance to defend himself. This manner of execution ensured the assailants’ safety from any retaliation. While evident premeditation was not established, the presence of treachery alone was sufficient to qualify the crime as Murder. Conspiracy was rightly inferred from the appellant and his companions’ collective actions: going together to the victim’s house under a common ruse, the coordinated attack where the appellant initiated the shooting followed by his companions, and their subsequent joint flight and later collective threat to the victim’s family. These acts demonstrated a unity of purpose and design.
The crime was Murder qualified by treachery. The aggravating circumstances of dwelling (the attack commenced in the victim’s yard) and band (more than three armed malefactors acted together) were present, with no mitigating circumstances to offset them. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty would be death, but for lack of the necessary votes, it was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Court modified the civil liability by increasing the indemnity to the heirs to P30,000.00.