Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

L-84921 June 8, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLAN O URAL !"#$o %no&n "$ RONNIE JA'ELON( "n) *ERNAR O ITUCAL, JR., + *AL ERAS, ",,u$e). ROLAN O URAL "n) *ERNAR O ITUCAL, JR., accused appellants. A'I E, JR., J.: n a!ended info"!ation fo" Double Mu"de" #ith ssault $pon %ents of Pe"sons In utho"it& #as filed on '( )eb"ua"& '*++ #ith the Re%ional T"ial ,ou"t of -aloo.an ,it& cha"%in% the accused Rolando Du"al, also .no#n as Ronnie /avelon, and 0e"na"do Itucal /". as follo#s1 That on o" about the 2'st da& of /anua"&, '*++ at ,aloocan ,it&, Met"o Manila, Philippines and #ithin the 3u"isdiction of the Hono"able ,ou"t, the above-na!ed accused, conspi"in% to%ethe", confede"atin% and !utuall& aidin% one anothe", #ithout an& 3ustifiable cause and #ith intent to .ill #ith t"eache"&, evident p"e!editation and abuse of supe"io" st"en%th, did then and the"e #ilfull&, unla#full&, and feloniousl& attac., assault and e!plo& pe"sonal violence upon the pe"sons of TS4T. , R5OS P 0ON P, and ,I, R6N TO M N45I4OT P,, as dul& appointed and 7ualified !e!be"s of the Philippine ,onstabula"&, , P,OM, ,a!p 0a%on% Di#a, 0icutan, Ta%ui%, #hile the latte" #e"e en%a%ed in the pe"fo"!ance of thei" official duties, .no#in% the said TS4T , R5OS P 0ON P, and ,I, R6N TO M N45I4OT P,, to be a%ents of pe"sons in autho"it& b& then and the"e shootin% TS4T. , R5OS P 0ON, P, and ,I, R6N TO M N45I4OT P,, on the diffe"ent pa"ts of thei" bodies, the"eb& inflictin% upon the latte" se"ious ph&sical in3u"ies, #hich eventuall& caused thei" death. ,ont"a"& to la#. 1 The case #as doc.eted as ,"i!inal ,ase No. ,-28''9 and assi%ned to b"anch '2' of the said cou"t. 0oth accused ente"ed a plea of not %uilt& upon thei" a""ai%n!ent on ': Ma"ch '*++. 2 P"e-t"ial #as conducted on 28 Ma"ch '*++ 3 and, the"eafte", the t"ial on the !e"its ensued. The #itnesses #ho testified fo" the p"osecution #e"e Rod"i%o Pascual, S%t. Dou%las Ta%apulot, ,pl. n%el )lo"anda, 4uille"!o /a"a!illa, Vicente Rosadi;o, Pfc. /uanito bella, 6d#in 0ala%, Rene" Ra!os, Dennis Santos, 6"linda Pabon and 6"linda Man%li%ot. The pa"ties a%"eed to dispense #ith the testi!on& of D". Deside"io Mo"alida, #hose autops& "epo"ts on the victi!s #e"e ad!itted b& the defense. The #itnesses #ho testified fo" the defense #e"e ,a"!elita lda&a, 5o"elie Itucal, "!ando !ba, Nilda Ma"avilla, 0e"na"do Itucal, 4"ace 4ueva""a and Rolando Du"al. On 2' u%ust '*++, the t"ial cou"t p"o!ul%ated a decision 4 findin% the accused %uilt& as cha"%ed. The dispositive po"tion the"eof "eads as follo#s1 <H6R6)OR6, the p"osecution havin% p"oven the %uilt of the accused RO5 NDO D$R 5 othe"#ise .no#n RONNI6 / V65ON and 06RN RDO IT$, 5, /R. & 0 5D6R S be&ond "easonable doubt, this ,ou"t finds both accused 4$I5T= of the c"i!e of DO$056 M$RD6R, 7ualified b& t"eache"& #ith SS $5TS $PON 46NTS O) P6RSONS IN $THORIT= and he"eb& sentences each of the! to suffe" the penalt& of double RECLUSION PERPETUA> to

- PEOPLE '

URAL

inde!nif& 3ointl& and seve"all& the hei"s of the deceased T?S%t. ,a"los Pabon P, and ,I, Renato Man%li%ot P, in the su! of P28,888.88 each as death inde!nit&> to pa& M"s. 6"linda Pabon the su! of P92,9**.88 "ep"esentin% the a!ount she spent fo" the bu"ial and #a.e of he" husband T?S%t. ,a"los Pabon> to pa& M"s. 6"linda Man%li%ot the su! of P9*,((8.88 "ep"esentin% the e@penses she incu""ed fo" the #a.e and bu"ial of he" husband ,I, Renato Man%li%ot> and to pa& the costs. It appea"in% that both accused a"e detention p"isone"s, the pe"iod of p"eventive i!p"ison!ent the& unde"#ent shall be %iven full c"edit in thei" favo". SO ORD6R6D. . The evidence fo" the p"osecution upon #hich the 3ud%!ent of conviction is ancho"ed is su!!a"iAed b& the t"ial cou"t in this #ise1 T#o p"osecution e&e #itnesses BsicC Rene" Ra!os and Dennis Santos #hen p"esented to BsicC the #itness stand co""obo"ated each othe"Ds testi!on& !o"e specificall& on !ate"ial points and testified that1 E t about '9 oDcloc. in the afte"noon of /anua"& 2', '*++ both of the! Bp"osecution #itnesses Rene" Ra!os and Dennis SantosC #e"e at the Macanenen% St"eet in 0a%on% 0a""io, ,aloocan ,it& as the& #e"e supposed to %o a BsicC EtupadahanE ho#eve", the& #e"e not able to a""ive at the tupadahan because #hile on thei" #a& o" f"o! a distance of t#elve B'9C a"!s-len%th the& hea"d successive %unfi"es BsicC so the& "un BsicC and hid the!selves in a conc"ete fence nea" a sto"e> f"o! the place the& #e"e hidin% o" f"o! a distance of ten B'8C a"!s-len%th the& sa# th"ee B2C !en each of the! a"!ed #ith .:( BsicC pistol, fi"in% upon at B sicC the t#o ,apco! soldie"s on boa"d a ,apco! !obile ca" #hich #as then on a full stop althou%h its en%ine #as still "unnin%> t#o of the %un!en positioned the!selves beside each of the side of the !obile ca" #hile the thi"d %un!an #ho! the& identified as accused Rolando Du"al othe"#ise .no#n as Ronnie /avelon BDu"al fo" b"evit&C clai!ed the hood of the !obile ca" and positioned hi!self in f"ont of the ca"> afte" the t#o ,apco! soldie"s #e"e i!!obiliAed, the %un!an standin% nea" the d"ive"Ds seat opened the left f"ont doo" of the ca" and %ot the .:( B sicC se"vice pistol and a"!alite of the ,apco! soldie"s> the"eafte", the th"ee %un!en left> du"in% the shootin% incident the& also noticed the p"esence of t#o pe"sons, one #as inside an o#ne" 3eep #hile the othe" one #ho! the& identified as accused 0e"na"do Itucal, /". BItucal fo" b"evit&C #as standin% nea" the scene of the incident #ith one of his a"! BsicC "aised #hile one of his hand B sicC #as holdin% a .:( calibe" pistol> i!!ediatel& afte" the th"ee B%un!enC #ho fi"ed at the ,apco! soldie"s left> BsicC the !an #ho #as "idin% on the o#ne" 3eep told accused Itucal that he #as leavin% and inst"ucted Itucal to ta.e ca"e of eve"&thin%> #itness Dennis Santos even 7uoted the ve"& #o"d BsicC of the !an on boa"d the o#ne" 3eep Pa"e, bahala .a na di&an> afte" that, the accused Itucal #al.ed a#a&> t#o da&s afte" the incident o" on )eb"ua"& 2, '*++ e&e#itnesses Ra!os and Santos volunta"il& #ent at BsicC the ,apco! head7ua"te"s at Da%at-Da%atan, ,aloocan ,it& to na""ate #hat the& have #itnessed, conse7uentl& the investi%ato" b"ou%ht the! at BsicC the ,apco! head7ua"te"s at 0icutan then at B sicC ,a!p Panopio Hospital> at the said hospital, the& sa# one of the th"ee %un!en B"efe""in% to accused Du"alC #ho shot the t#o ,apco! soldie"s> then the& #ent bac. at B sicC

0icutan head7ua"te"s #he"e the& %ave thei" "espective state!ents B6@hs. EDE and E6EC. / 0oth Itucal and Du"al denied autho"ship of the c"i!e cha"%ed and inte"posed the defense of alibi. The fo"!e", a student of the 4uA!an Institute of Technolo%& at Rosa"io St"eet, 0a%on% 0a""io, ,aloocan ,it&, clai!s that at about '9188 noon of 2' /anua"& '*++, #hile he #as eatin% inside his house at F2 Rosa"io St"eet, 0a%on% 0a""io, ,aloocan ,it&, he hea"d %un "epo"ts and shouts and #hen he peeped th"ou%h the #indo#, he sa# people "unnin% o" sca!pe"in% a#a&. He and his siste" 5o"elie, #anted to %o nea"b& Macanenen% St"eet f"o! #he"e the %un "epo"ts ca!e, but the& #e"e not able to "each it because of the p"esence of !an& onloo.e"s at the scene of the shootin% incident. 0efo"e '9188 noon o" in the !o"nin% of 2' /anua"& '*++, he #as at the ,hapel conve"sin% #ith so!e people the"e. ccused Rolando Du"al, a.k.a. Ronnie /avelon, #ho ad!itted that his "eal na!e is Rolando Du"al, testified thus1 that he sta&ed in his siste"Ds house at 0loc. '8, 5ot : South ,it& Ho!es, 0i;an, 5a%una f"o! 9* Nove!be" '*+G up to 2' /anua"& '*++> t#o B9C da&s befo"e ' )eb"ua"& '*++, he told his siste", %nes /avelon, that his sto!ach and chest #e"e achin% and althou%h he #as suffe"in% fo" 7uite a lon% ti!e, it #as onl& on ' )eb"ua"& '*++ #hen he e@pe"ienced seve"e pain> as a conse7uence, his siste" %ot in touch #ith D". /e"e!ias de la ,"uA> the said docto" fi"st b"ou%ht hi! to the latte"Ds clinic in HueAon ,it& #he"e his c&st #as "e!oved and his #ound at the left side of his bod& #as sutu"ed> the he #as b"ou%ht to the St. %nes Hospital #he"e he #as ad!itted unde" the na!e Ronnie /avelon fo" the "eason that it #as his siste" #ho #ill be shoulde"in% his hospital bills and e@penses. The t"ial cou"t "e3ected the defense of alibi on the %"ound that e&e#itnesses Rene" Ra!os and Dennis Santos, #hose testi!onies E#e"e lo%ical, st"ai%htfo"#a"d and p"obableE and #hose Ec"edibilit& #as not sha.en in an& !anne" b& the "i%o"ous e@a!ination to #hich the& have been e@posed,E positivel& identified the accused. 8 It app"eciated a%ainst the accused onl& the 7ualif&in% ci"cu!stance of t"eache"&. Not satisfied #ith the lo#e" cou"tDs decision, accused Du"al and Itucal, he"einafte" "efe""ed to as the ppellants filed thei" notice of appeal on ' Septe!be" '*++. 9 ppellants inte"pose the follo#in% assi%n!ent of e""o"s in thei" 0"ief1
10

' The lo#e" cou"t e""ed in findin% conspi"ac& a!on% and bet#een the accused. 9 The lo#e" cou"t e""ed in %ivin% #ei%ht to the testi!onies of the p"osecutionDs #itnesses not#ithstandin% thei" inconsistencies on "elevant and !ate"ial points. 2 The lo#e" cou"t e""ed in not conside"in% the defense of alibi inte"posed b& both accused. : The lo#e" cou"t e""ed in not conside"in% the ille%alit& of the a""es of both accused in favo" of thei" defenses. ( The lo#e" cou"t e""ed in conside"in% the 7ualif&in% ci"cu!stance of t"eache"&.
11

In the fi"st assi%ned e""o", appellants challen%e the t"ial cou"tDs findin% that conspi"ac& e@isted a!on% the accused, #ith Itucal actin% as loo.out. The& alle%e that the evidence fo" the p"osecution failed to establish that the appellants .ne# of the c"i!inal intent of thei" alle%ed t#o B9C unidentified co!panions. The People 12 !aintains, ho#eve", that conspi"ac& #as established b& the p"esence of the appellants and thei" co!panions at the scene of the c"i!e and thei" pa"ticipation in the .illin% of the victi!s. <itnesses Ra!os and Santos testified that the& sa# Du"al %o atop the hood of the , P,OM ca" and fi"e a shot at one of the , P,OM soldie"s seated in the f"ont seat. One 6d#in 0ala%, a #itness fo" the p"osecution and a nei%hbo" of Itucal, testified that he had #itnessed the shootin% of the , P,OM soldie"s and the"eafte" sa# Itucal %o atop the hood of the , P,OM ca" 13 and shout EMabuhay and Sparrow.E

conspi"ac& e@ists #hen t#o B9C o" !o"e pe"sons to an a%"ee!ent conce"nin% the co!!ission of a felon& and decide to co!!it it. 14 Di"ect p"oof is not essential to p"ove conspi"ac&, it !a& be sho#n b& acts and ci"cu!stances f"o! #hich !a& be lo%icall& infe""ed the e@istence of a co!!on desi%n a!on% the accused to co!!it the c"i!e cha"%ed. 1. It is sufficient that the !alefacto"s shall have acted in conce"t pu"suant to the sa!e ob3ective. 1/ ,onfede"ac& #as established be&ond cavil in this case a!on% appellant Rolando Du"al,a.k.a. Ronnie /avelon, and the t#o B9C othe" %un!en. "!ed #ith deadl& #eapons, the& a""ived to%ethe", each p"oceedin% di"ectl& to a p"e-assi%ned spot f"o! #he"e the& suddenl& and une@pectedl& shot thei" victi!s. The& then fled to%ethe" to#a"d the sa!e di"ection afte" divestin% the victi!s of thei" fi"ea"!s. ll these acts a"e elo7uent p"oof of a co!!on plan and desi%n delibe"atel& and ca"efull& e@ecuted #ith p"ecision th"ou%h coo"dinated action. The"e is no doubt in Ou" !inds as to the pa"ticipation of Du"al I the evidence fo" the p"osecution sufficientl& established his %uilt #ith !o"al ce"taint&. appellant

ppellant Itucal, ho#eve", dese"ves a diffe"ent t"eat!ent. The t"ial cou"t held hi! liable as a co-conspi"ato" because its findin% that he acted as the look ou! and #as a"!ed #ith a .:( calibe" pistol. Ou" evaluation of the evidence &ields factual foundation fo" such a findin%. It is based on clai!s, bo"de"in% on speculation, of p"osecution #itnesses Rene" Ra!os and Dennis Santos that f"o! #hat the& sa#, Itucal "us! ha#$ b$$n a loo.-out. The& did not cate%o"icall& decla"ed that Itucal #as such. The& onl& p"esu!ed o" speculated that he #as. The follo#in% is the testi!on& on di"ect e@a!ination of Rene" Ra!os1
H No# aside f"o! the pe"sons that &ou have !entioned fi"in% at the soldie"s inside the ,apco! ca", #e"e the"e an& othe" pe"sons if an&J @@@ @@@ @@@ =es, si". H <hat #e"e the& doin%J I sa# t#o pe"sons, si", one #as inside the o#ne" 3eep and the othe" one #as sandin% nea" the scene of the incident. H Ho# fa" #as this o#ne" 3eep pa".ed f"o! the ,apco! ca"J Mo"e o" less 9 to K a"!s len%th BsicC a#a&, si". H <hat about this othe" pe"son #ho! &ou sa# standin% nea" the ca", ho# fa" #as he f"o! the capco! ca"J Mo"e o" less t#o a"!slen%th BsicC a#a&, si". H <hat #as this pe"son, standin% nea" the ca" doin% at the ti!eJ He #as standin% the"e and he had his a"! "aised and one of his hand B sicC #as holdin% a .:( calibe" pistol. H <ill &ou tell us #hat #as his pa"ticipation in the .illin%J @@@ @@@ @@@ %ro" wha! I saw& sir& h$ "us! ha#$ b$$n !h$ look ou!. @@@ @@@ @@@ H No#, &ou said, #he"e a"e these t#o pe"sons that &ou have !entioned, the one &ou said #as seated on the d"ive" seat of the o#ne" 3eep and the one holdin% a :( calibe" fi"ea"!, #hich BsicC acco"din% to &ou acted as a loo.-out, if eve" &ou #ill see the! a%ain #ould &ou be able to identif& the!J =es si". H <ill &ou please loo. a"ound the cou"t "oo!, and see if the& a"e a"ound, and if the& a"e a"ound please point to the!J Onl& is he"e BsicC, si". H Please point to hi!J That pe"son, si". B<itness pointin% to p"isone" on left, stood up and %ave his na!e as 0e"na"do ItucalC. H No#, #as he the one holdin% the fi"ea"! standin% nea" the capco! ca", !obile ca", #hich "efe"s BsicC to be the loo. outJ =es si". H No#, afte" these th"ee pe"sons #ho actuall& fi"ed upon the soldie"sD ca" left, #hat did the othe" t#o do, if an&J The one #ho #as "idin% at the o#ne" 3eep told the othe" pe"son #ho #as standin% outside he #as leavin% the said pe"son to ta.e ca"e of eve"&thin%.

H To #ho! BsicC this pe"son add"essin%J The pe"son #ho #as standin%, si", and holdin% the .:( calibe". H =ou #e"e "efe""in% to accused 0e"na"do ItucalJ =es si". H nd afte"#a"ds #hat happenedJ The pe"son #ho #as ca""&in% :( pistol #al.ed a#a&, si" and #e left, si", because #e fell BsicC ne"vous at that ti!e, si". 1The pe"tinent po"tion of the di"ect testi!on& of Dennis Santos on the sa!e point is as follo#s1 H No#, aside f"o! these pe"sons includin% Rolando Du"al #ho! &ou sa# fi"in% thei" %un, #e"e the"e othe" pe"sons the"e aside f"o! the th"eeJ =es si", the"e #e"e still othe" BsicC. H Ho# !an&J T#o B9C, si". H <hat #e"e the& doin% at that ti!eJ One #as boa"in% BsicC a vehicle and he #as spo"tin% a violet standin% nea" the bas.etball cou"t and 'ro" wha! i saw h$ ac!$d as a look ou!& sir. H Ho# fa" #as this loo. out f"o! BsicC the capco! ca"J bout t#o a"!slen%th a#a&, si". H Ho# about the o#ne" 3eep ho# fa" #as it pa".ed in "elation to the capco! ca"J The sa!e distance, si". H <hat did that loo. out do if, an&, that &ou have !entionedJ The pe"son #ho #as inside the o#ne" 3eep shouted in a loud voice and said, EPa"e bahala .a na di&an.E nd the one #ho acted as a loo. out follo#ed the th"ee %un!en #ho ente"ed Rosal St"eet, si". H No#, #as this loo. out that &ou have !entioned a"!ed at that ti!e o" notJ I did not notice, si". H If eve" &ou #ill see this loo. out a%ain #ould &ou able BsicC to identif& hi!J =es, si". H <ill &ou please loo. a"ound the cou"t"oo! and see if he is inside, and if he is inside please point to hi!. <itness pointin% to the othe" p"isone" stood up and %ave his na!e as 0e"na"do Itucal. H <hat about the d"ive" of the said o#ne" 3eep is he inside the cou"t"oo!J No, si" he #as not p"esent. 18 On c"oss-e@a!ination, Rene" Ra!os cate%o"icall& ad!itted that it #as onl& #hen the th"ee B2C %un!en had s#iftl& #al.ed a#a& to#a"d Rosal St"eet that he sa# Itucal fo" the fi"st ti!e1 H In othe" #o"ds, the"e #as onl& o" it #as onl& afte" the %un!en have fled that &ou #e"e able to see 0e"na"do Itucal, isnDtJ )iscal1 That #ould be !isleadin%, &ou" hono". Not fled. @@@ @@@ @@@ H =ou stated a#hile a%o that afte" the %un!en have ta.en the :( calibe" and the a"!alite of the soldie", the& "an a#a&, isnDtJ The& #al.ed a#a& fast, si". H #a& f"o! the si%ht BsicC #he"e the .illin% too. place, isnDtJ =es si", the& #e"e tu"nin% thei" heads to#a"ds a st"eet BsicC Rosal. H nd it #as at that point that &ou #e"e sa&in% that &ou sa# 0e"na"do Itucal standin% #ith a :( on his hand and ve"& nea" the incident, isnDtJ =es, si". H nd this #as the fi"st ti!e that &ou sa# 0e"na"do Itucal, isnDtJ =es si". 19 Dennis Santos also ad!itted on c"oss-e@a!ination that he sa# Itucal fo" the fi"st ti!e onl& afte" the %un!en had left the scene, thus1 H =ou said that the loo. out #as accused 0e"na"do Itucal, &ou have seen 0e"na"do Itucal onl& afte" the %un!en have #ent BsicC a#a& f"o! the scene of the incide BsicC, isnDtJ =es si". 20 and that the onl& basis fo" his belief that Itucal #as the loo.out #as the follo#in% pa"tin% state!ent of the d"ive" of the o#ne"-t&pe 3eep add"essed to Itucal1 EPar$& bahala ka na diyan.E Thus1

H <h& did &ou sa& that, M". <itness, that 0e"na"do Itucal #as a loo. outJ 0ecause I hea"d the passen%e" of the o#ne" 3eep bid %oodb&e, si", so I %athe"ed that he #as his co!panion and he "e!a".ed, EPa"e, bahala .a na di&an.E 21

If Itucal #as the loo.out, he had to co!e eithe" ahead of o" si!ultaneousl& #ith the %un!en. 0& the ve"& natu"e of his dut& o" tas., a loo.out should not co!e to the scene of the c"i!e afte" its consu!!ation. The"e is absolutel& no evidence that Itucal ca!e ahead of o" si!ultaneousl& #ith the %un!en> on the cont"a"&, as sho#n above, he #as seen fo" the fi"st ti!e onl& afte" the %un!en had #al.ed a#a&. That he #as a"!ed, #hich could have enhanced the p"osecutionDs theo"& that he #as a co-conspi"ato", #as not li.e#ise sufficientl& p"oven. <hile Rene" Ra!os testified that he #as, his co!panion, Dennis Santos, #ho si!ila"l& focused his e&es on Itucal and the othe"s and #itnessed al!ost eve"&thin% that too. place, did not notice an& #eapon in ItucalDs possession. cco"din% to Rene" Ra!os, Itucal Ehad his a"! "aised and one of his hand BsicC #as holdin% a :( calibe" pistol.E If such #e"e indeed the fact, Dennis Santos #ould not have failed to see it. That is not all to it. nothe" p"osecution #itness, 6d#in 0ala% I #ho even testified that he had seen Itucal, his nei%hbo" #ho! he had .no#n fo" !o"e than t#o B9C &ea"s, 22 cli!b atop the hood of the , P,OM ca" afte" the %un!en shot the soldie"s and shout E "abuhay an( sparrowE I did not state that Itucal #as a"!ed. 23 The p"osecutin% )iscal did not atte!pt to e@t"act an& info"!ation o" testi!on& to that effect f"o! hi!. It #as the cou"t #hich as.ed the app"op"iate 7uestion afte" the "e-di"ect e@a!ination of 0ala%, but the #itness cate%o"icall& ad!itted that Itucal #as not a"!ed at that ti!e, thus1 ,O$RT1 Itucal #as not a"!ed at that ti!eJ No, si". 24 That Itucal shouted E"abuhay an( sparrowE and #as told b& the d"ive" of the o#ne"-t&pe 3eep1 EPar$, bahala ka na diyan,E do not conclusivel& p"ove that he #as a co-conspi"ato" in the absence of an& evidence, as in this case, that he #as a !e!be" of a subve"sive o"%aniAation #hich ope"ates the spa""o# unit and that the d"ive" of the o#ne"-t&pe 3eep #as also a co-conspi"ato". 6ven assu!in% fo" the sa.e of a"%u!ent that he #as a s&!pathiAe" of such a subve"sive o"%aniAation, !e"e s&!path& is not enou%h to p"ove his pa"ticipation in the conspi"ac&. The pa"tin% state!ent of the d"ive" of the o#ne"-t&pe 3eep could be add"essed to an&bod& at the scene and is susceptible of t#o B9C inte"p"etations, one of #hich is inconsistent #ith the pa"ticipation of Itucal eithe" in the plannin% of the c"i!e o" in the e@ecution of such plan. In the li%ht of the p"esu!ption of innocence %ua"anteed b& the ,onstitution, and in the absence of c"edible inculpato"& evidence, that inte"p"etation in his favo" !ust p"evail. <hile ad!ittedl& the alibi of Itucal is #ea., the evidence of the p"osecution a%ainst hi! is li.e#ise feeble. The p"osecution cannot use the #ea.ness of ItucalDs defense to enhance its case> it !ust "el& on the st"en%th of its o#n evidence. 2. nd conside"in% that ItucalDs culpabilit& could onl& be ancho"ed on his pa"ticipation in a conspi"ac&, such pa"ticipation !ust be p"oved b& clea" and convincin% evidence. The p"osecution has failed to successfull& discha"%e that bu"den in this case, leavin% this ,ou"t unconvinced, due to "easonable doubt, of the %uilt of Itucal. <ith the fo"e%oin% e@position, "esolution of the second and thi"d assi%ned e""o"s is no lon%e" necessa"&. Ho#eve", fo" the satisfaction of accused Du"al, let it be stated that the alle%ed inconsistencies in the testi!onies of the p"osecution #itnesses as to #hethe" the"e #as a bas.etball %a!e %oin% on at the ti!e the fi"st %unfi"e #as hea"d, #ho a!on% the appellants cli!bed atop the hood of the , P,OM ca", and #hich of the t#o B9C #"itten state!ents of Ra!os and Santos #e"e fi"st !ade, "efe" to t"ivial o" !ino" points. Settled is the "ule that disc"epancies on !ino" !atte"s do not i!pai" the essential inte%"it& of the p"osecutionDs evidence as a #hole o" "eflect on the #itnessesD honest&. 2/ s a !atte" of fact, the"e is at all no inconsistenc& in the testi!onies of the #itnesses on the second issue. s co""ectl& pointed out b& the People, both appellants did in fact cli!b atop the hood. cco"din% to Ra!os and Santos, Du"al did so and fi"ed at one of the soldie" seated in the f"ont seat of the ca". 2- cco"din% to 0ala%, Itucal cli!bed atop the hood onl& afte" the th"ee B2C %un!en had fi"ed at thei" victi!s. 28

s to alibi, it is a funda!ental 3u"idical dictu! that it cannot p"evail ove" the positive identification of the accused.29 In the instant case, Du"al #as positivel& identified b& the p"incipal #itnesses fo" the p"osecution. It is e7uall& settled that fo" alibi to p"ospe", it !ust not onl& be sho#n that the accused #as at so!e othe" place at the ti!e of the incident but that it #as ph&sicall& i!possible fo" hi! to have been at the scene of the c"i!e at the ti!e of its co!!ission. 30 This #as not p"oven b& Du"al. The fou"th assi%ned e""o" is #ithout !e"it. It is too late fo" the appellant to 7uestion the ille%alit& of thei" a""ests. The i""e%ula"it&, if an&, #as cu"ed #hen the& sub!itted the!selves to the 3u"isdiction of the t"ial cou"t b& filin% a petition fo" bail, 31 ente"in% a plea of not %uilt& and activel& pa"ticipatin% at the p"e-t"ial and t"ial. No" is the"e !e"it in the fifth assi%ned e""o". Pe" the testi!onies of Rene" Ra!os and Dennis Santos, the victi!s, #ho had no oppo"tunit& to defend the!selves as the& #e"e still inside the , P,OM ca" #hich #as still !aneuve"in%, #e"e shot at close "an%e i!!ediatel& afte" the th"ee B2C %un!en, one of #ho! is appellant Du"al, su""ounded the ca" #ith each positionin% hi!self, at p"e-assi%ned spots, i.$., the left, "i%ht and f"ont po"tions of the ca". The autops& "epo"ts 32 sho#ed that both victi!s sustained %unshot #ounds !ostl& in the head. The suddenness of the attac. on the un#a"& victi!s and the si!ultaneous and coo"dinated %unfi"e t"ained at the! insu"ed the e@ecution of the dead #ithout "is. to the %un!en a"isin% f"o! an& defense #hich the victi!s !i%ht !a.e. T"eache"& then attended the co!!ission of the deed. The .illin% of the t#o B9C , P,OM soldie"s #as thus 7ualified to !u"de" unde" "ticle 9:+ of the Revised Penal ,ode. The"e is t"eache"& #hen the offende" co!!its an& of the c"i!es a%ainst the pe"son, e!plo&in% !eans, !ethods, o" fo"!s in the e@ecution the"eof #hich tend di"ect and especiall& to insu"e its e@ecution, #ithout "is. to hi!self a"isin% f"o! the defense #hich the offended pa"t& !i%ht !a.e. 33 The"e is no doubt in Ou" !inds that appellant Du"al and the t#o B9C othe" %un!en .ne# that the victi!s, T?S%t. ,a"los Pabon and ,I, Renato Man%li%ot, #e"e !e!be"s of the Philippine ,onstabula"& detailed #ith the , P,OM as the& #e"e then in unifo"! and "idin% an official , P,OM ca". The victi!s, #ho #e"e a%ents of pe"sons in autho"it&, #e"e in the pe"fo"!ance of official dut& as peace office"s and la# enfo"ce"s. )o" havin% assaulted and .illed the said victi!s, in conspi"ac& #ith the othe" t#o B9C %un!en, appellant Du"al also co!!itted di"ect assault unde" "ticle ':+ of the Revised Penal ,ode. The c"i!es he co!!itted, the"efo"e, a"e t#o B9C co!ple@ c"i!es of !u"de" #ith di"ect assault upon an a%ent of a pe"son in autho"it&. Pu"suant then to "ticle :+ of the Revised Penal ,ode, the !a@i!u! of the penalt& fo" the !o"e se"ious c"i!e #hich is !u"de", should be i!posed. The !a@i!u! of the penalt& p"esc"ibed fo" !u"de" unde" "ticle 9:+ of the Revised Penal ,ode is death penalt&, 34 the p"ope" i!posable penalt& #ould be r$clusion p$rp$!ua. The t"ial cou"t co""ectl& i!posed on appellant Du"al t#o B9C penalties of r$clusion p$rp$!ua. In confo"!it& #ith the p"evailin% 3u"isp"udence, the inde!nit& fo" each death shall be inc"eased f"o! P28,888.88 to P(8,888.88. <H6R6)OR6, 3ud%!ent is he"eb& "ende"ed1 B'C ))IRMIN4, insofa" as accused-appellant RO5 NDO D$R 5 Balso .no#n as RONNI6 / V65ONC is conce"ned, the Decision of 0"anch '2' of the Re%ional T"ial ,ou"t of -aloo.an ,it& in ,"i!inal ,ase No. ,-28''9, sub3ect to the above !odification of the death penalt&. B9C ,H$ITTIN4, on the %"ound of "easonable doubt, accused-appellant 06RN RDO IT$, 5, /R.> and B2C O"de"in% accused-appellant RO5 NDO D$R 5 Balso .no#n as RONNI6 / V65ONC to pa& one-half B'?9C of the costs. SO ORD6R6D. %$liciano& )idin& Ro"$ro and M$lo& **.& concur.