People of the Philippines vs. Angel Fabros y Sarmiento alias Boy Fabros, and Danilo Fernando

Factual findings of the trial court supported by substantial evidence, particularly its assessment of witness credibility, are conclusive on appeal; positive identification prevails over alibi, and delay in reporting caused by fear does not necessarily impair credibility. Where treachery qualifies a killing as murder, evident premeditation is only a generic aggravating circumstance, and separate killings by multiple gunshots do not constitute a complex crime under Article 48.

Angel Fabros and Danilo Fernando were implicated in the July 1, 1988 killings of Juan Siobal and his son Jovito in Barangay Salcedo, San Manuel, Tarlac. The killings were linked to an earlier killing of Dominador Fernando, Danilo’s brother and Fabros’s nephew, for which Carlito Siobal, Juan’s son and Jovito’s brother, was suspected; the prosecution attributed the later killings to vengeance. The victims were father and son, and the accused were later prosecuted for double murder.

On July 1, 1988, at around half past seven in the evening, four armed men entered the house of Jun Siobal in Barangay Salcedo, San Manuel, Tarlac. They forcibly took Siobal and his son Jovito outside and shot them in cold blood. Two of the men had covered their faces, while the other two had not. More than four months later, the two unmasked men were identified as Angel Fabros and Danilo Fernando and were subsequently prosecuted for double murder.

At trial, the prosecution’s star witness was Anita Siobal Fernandez, Juan’s daughter. She testified that on that night, four men knocked at their door and introduced themselves as Constabulary soldiers. They were not in uniform but were all armed; each of the accused carried a .38 caliber revolver, while the masked men carried carbines. One of the men closed the doors and windows, and the rest of the family was herded into a room while her father and her brother Jovito were tied and dragged out of the house into the MacArthur Highway. Minutes later, they heard five shots, and the lifeless bodies of Juan and Jovito were found sprawled along the road. Anita’s testimony was corroborated by her mother, Marina Castro Siobal, who explained that she had not spoken out earlier to denounce the accused because she was afraid; it was only later, after she had composed herself and thought things over, that she decided to talk to the police. She withheld her identification because of fear of threats she heard every night following the murders, the voices saying that she herself would be killed if she exposed her husband’s and son’s assailants.

Fabros and Fernando denied participation and claimed they were elsewhere at the time of the killings. Fabros sought to show that he was then working at Asian Engine Rebuilders, where he was employed as a machinist. Fernando testified that from 9 o’clock in the morning of July 1 until about the same hour the next morning of July 2, 1988, he was playing mahjong in the house of Zenaida Delfin. Fabros was corroborated by Marian Soriano, payroll clerk of the company, who presented the daily time record showing that on July 1, 1988, he punched out at 8:02 p.m., and the payroll record showing that he worked overtime for three hours that night. Rufino Yee and Jael Honesto declared under oath that Fabros worked until eight o’clock that evening. Fernando was corroborated by Zenaida Delfin and Basilio Delfin, who both testified that they were playing mahjong with him on the night in question.

The trial court found the prosecution witnesses credible and rejected the alibis despite their corroboration. It found that the men who entered the Siobal house were bent on one and only one thing: murder. Not a single article was taken, and none of the women was molested. The intruders closed the door and windows, forced the rest of the family unharmed into a room, dragged out the father and son, and killed them. The court connected the killing to the earlier killing of Dominador Fernando, Danilo’s brother and Fabros’s nephew, whose suspected killer was Carlito Siobal, Juan’s son and Jovito’s brother; the motive was vengeance for the slain Dominador. The trial court also found that the accused acted in concert and that the killings were attended by treachery and evident premeditation.

• Prosecution Evidence and Delay: The appellants’ brief sought to cast doubt on the prosecution evidence and questioned why it took Anita and Marina more than four months to point to the accused-appellants as the killers.
• Alibi: The appellants faulted the trial court for rejecting their defense of alibi notwithstanding their clear showing that they were not at the scene of the crime when the victims were killed.

• Credibility and Delay: Whether the trial court properly relied on the prosecution eyewitnesses despite inconsistencies in their testimonies and their delay of more than four months in identifying the accused-appellants.
• Alibi: Whether the defense of alibi, corroborated by employment records and mahjong companions, should have been credited over the prosecution’s positive identification.
• Conspiracy and Aggravating Circumstances: Whether the accused-appellants acted in conspiracy and whether treachery and evident premeditation attended the killings.
• Defective Information: Whether the single information charging double murder violated Section 13, Rule 110, and whether that defect could be raised for the first time on appeal.
• Complex Crime: Whether the killings constituted a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code carrying a single penalty.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed should be reclusion perpetua for each murder and whether the total duration is subject to Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Credibility and Delay: Yes. The trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence; inconsistencies on minor details and delay due to fear do not destroy credibility.
• Alibi: No. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification; the trial court’s rejection of the corroborated alibis was upheld, and the records did not conclusively prove absence from the scene.
• Conspiracy and Aggravating Circumstances: Yes. Conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation were established; treachery qualified the killings as murder, while evident premeditation was only a generic aggravating circumstance.
• Defective Information: No. The information violated Section 13, Rule 110, but the defect was not invoked at trial and cannot be raised belatedly on appeal; the accused may be convicted of as many offenses as charged.
• Complex Crime: No. The killings were not a complex crime under Article 48 because they were not committed by a single discharge of firearms; the victims were killed separately with five gunshots.
• Penalty: Reclusion perpetua for each murder. The penalty is reclusion perpetua for each murder, and under Article 70 the duration of the two penalties shall not exceed 40 years.

• Credibility and Delay: The Court applied the rule that factual findings of the trial judge are conclusive on appeal if supported by substantial evidence, because the trial judge can directly observe witnesses and detect deception. Inconsistencies among witnesses testifying on the same incident are expected; different persons may have different impressions, recollections, angles, or importance. The variations in Anita’s and Marina’s testimonies did not detract from their integrity; they represented a believable narration. The delay in identification was attributable to the two women’s apprehension that the accused might turn on them, as the threats they heard at night intoned. They were timid women whose kin had been murdered; fear inhibits and silences, and different persons may have dissimilar reactions. Fear did not mean they were not telling the truth. The trial court chose to believe them over the defense witnesses.
• Alibi: The alibis of both accused were corroborated, but the trial court’s credibility findings deserved respect. The daily time and payroll records were at best only persuasive and did not conclusively prove Fabros’s presence at the shop on the night of the killings; the Bundy clock is not the most reliable timekeeper, and punching in or out for somebody else is a common problem. As for Fernando, the Siobal house was only 750 meters away from the place where he was supposedly playing mahjong, within his convenient reach for the commission of the crimes.
• Conspiracy and Aggravating Circumstances: The men entered the Siobal house bent on one and only one thing: murder. No article was taken and none of the women was molested. They closed the door and windows, forced the rest of the family unharmed into a room, dragged out the father and son, and killed them; they knew what to do and did it. The Court connected the killing to the earlier killing of Dominador Fernando, Danilo’s brother and Fabros’s nephew, whose suspected killer was Carlito Siobal, Juan’s son and Jovito’s brother; the motive was vengeance, imputed to the accused. The trial court’s factual conclusions stood absent a clear showing that they were reached arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence. The accused acted in concert in pursuing their evil purpose and were liable under conspiracy to the same and equal penalty. The killings were attended by treachery and evident premeditation; where treachery qualified the crime as murder, evident premeditation was only a generic aggravating circumstance. With no other modifying circumstance, the penalty was reclusion perpetua due to the constitutional prohibition of the death penalty.
• Defective Information: The appellants were charged with double murder in one single information, violative of Section 13, Rule 110, which provides that a complaint or information must charge but one offense except only in cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses. Because this section was not invoked at trial, the defect could not be belatedly questioned on appeal. The consequence was that the accused could be convicted of as many offenses as were charged in the defective information.
• Complex Crime: The trial court erred in ruling that in essence a complex crime was charged carrying only a single penalty. Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime exists when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. Where the killings are not shown to have been committed by a single discharge of firearms, the crime cannot be complexed. The evidence showed that the victims were killed separately with five gunshots.
• Penalty: The accused were found guilty of two murders and sentenced for each murder to reclusion perpetua. The Court ordered them to pay jointly and severally to the heirs of the victims P100,000.00, in accordance with existing policy. Conformably to Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of the two penalties of reclusion perpetua shall not exceed 40 years. The appeal was dismissed with costs against the accused-appellants.

• Conclusiveness of Trial Court’s Factual Findings — Findings of the trial judge are conclusive on appeal if supported by substantial evidence because the trial judge can assess the credibility of witnesses by directly observing them on the stand and detecting the telltale marks of deception, which are not discernible from the sterile record. The Court upheld the conviction on this basis.
• Credibility and Inconsistencies — Inconsistencies among witnesses testifying on the same incident are expected because different persons may have different impressions, recollections, angles, or importance; such disparities do not necessarily taint credibility as long as the separate versions are substantially similar or agree on material points. The variations in Anita’s and Marina’s testimonies did not detract from their integrity.
• Delay in Identification Due to Fear — Delay in reporting or identifying assailants is attributable to apprehension and threats and does not necessarily impair credibility; fear inhibits and silences, and different persons may have dissimilar reactions to the same incident. The more than four-month delay was explained by the threats the witnesses heard every night.
• Alibi — Alibi is a weak defense that cannot prevail over positive identification; corroboration by friends or records does not conclusively prove absence from the scene. The alibis were rejected, the payroll records were only persuasive, and Fernando was within 750 meters of the crime scene.
• Conspiracy — When accused act in concert in pursuing an evil purpose, all are liable under the conspiracy to the same and equal penalty. The accused acted in concert in killing the victims.
• Treachery and Evident Premeditation — Where treachery has already been used to qualify the crime as murder, evident premeditation is considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance. The killings were attended by both, but evident premeditation did not qualify the crime.
• Complex Crime under Article 48 — A complex crime exists when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. Where the killings are not shown to have been committed by a single discharge of firearms, the crime cannot be complexed; the victims were killed separately with five gunshots.
• Waiver of Defect in Information — A complaint or information must charge but one offense except only in cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses. If the defect is not invoked at trial, it cannot be questioned belatedly on appeal, and the accused may be convicted of as many offenses as are charged in the defective information.
• Prohibition on Death Penalty — The Constitution prohibits the death penalty; the penalty properly imposable is reclusion perpetua. The Court imposed reclusion perpetua instead of death.
• Article 70 RPC 40-Year Limit — The duration of two penalties of reclusion perpetua shall not exceed 40 years. The Court capped the total duration of the two penalties at 40 years.

• "We have said often enough that the factual findings of the trial judge are conclusive even on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence." — This states the standard of review for factual findings and credibility, which underpinned the affirmance of the conviction.
• "The delay in the identification of the accused-appellants is attributable to the two women's apprehension that the accused-appellants might turn on them as the threats they heard in the night had intoned." — This explains why the more than four-month delay did not impair the prosecution witnesses’ credibility.
• "Where treachery has already been used to qualify the crime as murder, evident premiditation should be considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance." — This states the rule on the relationship between treachery and evident premeditation in murder cases.
• "Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime exists "when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other." We have held that where the killing are not shown to have been committed by a single discharge of firearms, the crime cannot be complexed." — This defines a complex crime and explains why the separate killings in this case could not be treated as one complex crime.

• People vs. Sabellano, G.R. 93932-33, June 5, 1991 — Cited in support of the proposition that different persons may have dissimilar reactions to the same incident, relevant to the witnesses’ delay in identification.
• People vs. Aldeguer, G.R. 47991, April 3, 1990 — Cited for the same proposition on dissimilar reactions to the same incident.
• People vs. Caringal, G.R. 75368, August 11, 1989 — Cited for the same proposition on dissimilar reactions to the same incident.
• People vs. Diaz, 55 SCRA 178 — Cited for the rule that where treachery has already been used to qualify the crime as murder, evident premeditation is considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance.
• People vs. Peralta, 193 SCRA 9 — Cited for the rule that where the killings are not shown to have been committed by a single discharge of firearms, the crime cannot be complexed.

• Section 13, Rule 110, Rules on Criminal Procedure — Provides that a complaint or information must charge but one offense except only in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses. Applied: the single information charged double murder; because the defect was not invoked at trial, it could not be questioned on appeal, and the accused could be convicted of as many offenses as charged.
• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Defines a complex crime as existing when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. Applied: the killings were not a complex crime because they were not shown to have been committed by a single discharge of firearms; the victims were killed separately with five gunshots.
• Article 70, Revised Penal Code — Provides that the duration of the two penalties of reclusion perpetua shall not exceed 40 years. Applied: the Court capped the total duration of the two penalties at 40 years.
• Constitution — Prohibition of Death Penalty — The death penalty is prohibited by the Constitution. Applied: the penalty properly imposable was reclusion perpetua.

Griño-Aquino and Bellosillo, JJ., concurred. Padilla and Medialdea, JJ., were on leave.