People of the Philippines vs. Herminio Vidal, Jr. y Uayan

A conviction for the complex crime of direct assault with murder may rest on the positive identification of a credible eyewitness-victim who had a close and unobstructed view of the attack, notwithstanding a delay in identification, where denial and alibi are not satisfactorily established; conspiracy and treachery may be inferred from the coordinated manner of attack.

Mayor Leon C. Arcillas was the City Mayor of Sta. Rosa, Laguna; PO2 Erwin B. Rivera and PO3 Wilfredo B. Almendras were police officers assigned as his security escorts. The charges arose under the Revised Penal Code provisions on direct assault, murder, attempted murder, and complex crimes. The penalty framework was affected by Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, and A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, which governs the qualification "without eligibility for parole" when reclusion perpetua is imposed in lieu of death.

On May 10, 2005, around 8:00 o'clock in the morning, PO3 Wilfredo Almendras, together with PO2 Binmaot, PO2 Erwin Rivera, and two civilian escorts, was with Mayor Leon Arcillas at the second floor of the Municipal City Hall of Sta. Rosa City. The police officers were assigned as security escorts of the Mayor. Mayor Arcillas was then solemnizing marriages. The ceremony ended at around 10:00 o'clock in the morning. The Mayor then proceeded to the Office of the Commission on Audit (COA) located at the same floor. While they were going out of the room where the ceremony was conducted, PO3 Almendras noticed that they were being followed by two young kids. After spending a moment in the COA office, the group then proceeded to the Office of the Mayor. On their way to said Office, gunshots were fired on them. PO3 Almendras was not able to pull out his gun since there was rapid fire coming from their front and back. He, PO2 Rivera, and the Mayor sustained gunshot wounds. The three fell to the ground. While on the floor, PO3 Almendras heard three more gunshots before he felt dizzy. Thereafter, PO3 Almendras and Mayor Arcillas were brought to the hospital. PO2 Rivera was found lying near the door already dead. The autopsy showed that Mayor Arcillas sustained three gunshot wounds, the fatal of which were the two gunshots in his head; PO2 Rivera sustained two gunshot wounds, on the nape and chest, the latter being the fatal one. PO3 Almendras was examined and found to have a fracture at the left forearm and weakness of the right hand.

At that time, SPO1 Victoriano Peria received a call from an unknown caller reporting that a shooting incident took place inside the Municipal building. Upon reaching the municipal hall, he saw Mayor Arcillas bloodied and being carried out by several men and placed inside a vehicle. On the second floor, he saw PO2 Erwin Rivera lying near the door already dead, while PO3 Almendras was brought to the hospital. The team searched the whole building of the City Hall for possible apprehension of the culprits, but to no avail. Regional Director P/Chief Supt. Jesus Versoza created a special investigating task force composed of the NBI, CIDG, Regional Intelligence Unit, SOCO, and Laguna Investigation Division to conduct an investigation to ascertain the identity of the assailants. During the investigation, Cipriano Refrea appeared and told SPO1 Peria that accused-appellants Vibal and David were his companions when the killing transpired. Refrea pointed to them as the gunmen. After knowing from Refrea the identity of Vibal, SPO1 Peria asked his whereabouts and came to know that Vibal was presently detained at Trece Martirez. SPO1 Peria, together with other policemen, visited Vibal, and when asked about his participation in the shooting incident, he at first denied his participation, but later on admitted to his participation. With respect to the identity of David, they came to know that he was detained at GMA, Cavite. In his investigation, SPO1 Peria was able to ascertain that Vibal, David, and Refrea were members of the gang called Royal Blood Gangsta.

The defense, on the other hand, related its version of the facts in this manner: On May 10, 2005 at 10:00 o'clock a.m., accused Arnold David was at Tanay, Rizal, where he had been staying since October 2004 as requested by his father because he was accused of murder in a gang war that happened at GMA, Cavite. He was then arrested on December 19, 2006 in connection with a case in GMA, Cavite, where he was brought somewhere blindfolded. On January 2, 2007, SPO1 Peria arrived and showed him photographs of the gang, but he denied he was in these. He denied knowing Cipriano Refrea, Jr. prior to his arrest, knowing only the latter at the police station. Accused Herminio Vibal, Jr. likewise denied participation in the incident that happened on May 10, 2005. He claimed that on that date, at 10:30 o'clock a.m., he was at GMA, Cavite, with his family, including his sister Lorelyn Coronel, and did not leave until afternoon. In February 2006, he was arrested and detained at the Cavite Provincial Jail in relation to prior cases. In December 2006, SPO1 Peria visited him and asked about the death of Reynaldo Cesar, to which Vibal denied. SPO1 Peria later took Vibal's photograph and left. He was visited again by SPO1 Peria and asked if he had any participation in the death of Mayor Arcillas. Again, Vibal denied. SPO1 Peria once again visited Vibal, this time with PO3 Almendras. The latter asked Vibal if he knew him, but Vibal could not answer as he was sick at the time. He was again photographed. In January 2007, he was again visited by SPO1 Peria and PO3 Almendras, who were now with Cipriano Refrea, Jr. and who was asked to point at Vibal. Another photograph was taken of Vibal. Prior to this meeting, Vibal did not know who Refrea was.

During trial, Refrea died and, as a consequence, he was dropped as one of the accused. Meanwhile, Yason's demurrer to evidence was granted by the RTC, which resulted in the dismissal of the criminal cases as against him. PO3 Almendras testified and recounted the incident. He stated that when they were going out of the room where the Mayor solemnized marriages, he observed that there were two young kids following them. He heard gunshots as they were going to the Office of the Mayor; he was about to pull out his gun but there was rapid fire so he was not able to draw it. The gunshots came from in front and at the back. He was the one who was shot first and the other bodyguard, Erwin Rivera, was shot next. Mayor Leon C. Arcillas was in between him and Erwin Rivera. They all fell down. He identified the two kids who fired the shots as Arnold David and Herminio Vibal. He said that if he would see these persons again, he would be able to identify them, and he pointed to them inside the courtroom. He had seen the faces of Vibal and David when they committed the crimes on that fateful morning of May 10, 2005, albeit briefly, but enough for him to remember how they looked. He had a close and unobstructed view of the incident and was able to take a good glimpse and recognize the faces of the gunmen as the same two young males he saw earlier in the day following his group. The crime happened in the morning when conditions of visibility were very favorable. He was rushed to the hospital because of gunshot wounds and was confined for around a month. His identification of the appellants was made more than a year after the incident. The prosecution also presented a photograph taken by prosecution witness Mercedita De Jesus, the official photographer during the solemnization of the mass wedding prior to the shooting incident, which showed appellant Vibal at the background. Said picture proved that Vibal was at the Sta. Rosa City Hall on May 10, 2005, which effectively belied his claim that he was at his residence in GMA, Cavite on that day.

The RTC rejected the twin defenses of denial and alibi interposed by appellants in the light of the positive identification of them by prosecution witness PO3 Almendras as the culprits. The RTC added that the manner by which the appellants committed the felonious acts revealed a community of criminal design, and thereby held that conspiracy exists. It also ruled that evident premeditation and treachery attended the commission of the crimes which qualified the killing of Mayor Arcillas and PO2 Rivera to murder. The CA held that the credible testimony of PO3 Almendras was sufficient to sustain the conviction, debunked appellants' denial and alibi, and found that the presence of the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was not adequately established by the prosecution. The CA also ruled that appellants should be held liable only for the complex crime of direct assault with attempted murder in Criminal Case No. 17648-B because the prosecution failed to prove that the gunshot wound inflicted upon PO3 Almendras was fatal.

• Reliability of Identification: Appellants contended that the CA gravely erred in its over-reliance on the problematic identification provided by prosecution witness/private complainant PO3 Almendras; they insisted that PO3 Almendras could not have properly seen and identified the assailants at the time of the shooting incident because after he was shot, he felt dizzy and lost consciousness.
• Delay in Identification: Appellants argued that PO3 Almendras's identification of them as the culprits was dubious considering that it was only made more than a year after the incident.
• Denial and Alibi: Appellants maintained that their respective defenses of denial and alibi assumed significance because the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identities of the authors of the crime.

• Reliability of Identification: Respondent countered that PO3 Almendras was not in a position to identify who shot him and killed Mayor Leon Arcillas and PO2 Erwin Rivera immediately after the incident because he was rushed to the hospital due to gunshot wounds and was confined for around a month; the investigation took a long time and appellants were not immediately apprehended, but PO3 Almendras remembered the faces of the shooters and was able to identify both appellants when he finally saw them.
• Sufficiency of Appellee's Brief: The Office of the Solicitor General manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief because its Appellee's Brief had sufficiently ventilated the issues raised.

• Reliability of Identification: Whether the identification of the culprits by eyewitness PO3 Almendras was reliable and positive enough to support the convictions of the appellants despite the claimed dizziness and loss of consciousness and the delay of more than a year.
• Complex Crime of Direct Assault with Murder: Whether appellants are liable for the complex crime of direct assault with murder in Criminal Case Nos. 17646-B and 17647-B.
• Complex Crime of Direct Assault with Attempted Murder: Whether the crime committed in Criminal Case No. 17648-B is the complex crime of direct assault with attempted murder rather than direct assault with frustrated murder.
• Conspiracy and Treachery: Whether conspiracy and treachery attended the commission of the offenses.
• Evident Premeditation: Whether evident premeditation qualified the killings to murder.
• Denial and Alibi: Whether appellants' defenses of denial and alibi should be credited.
• Penalties and Damages: Whether the penalties and damages imposed are proper.

• Reliability of Identification: Yes. The positive identification by PO3 Almendras, a credible eyewitness-victim who had a close and unobstructed view of the attack, was sufficient; the delay did not impair reliability because he was hospitalized for about a month and the investigation took time.
• Complex Crime of Direct Assault with Murder: Yes. Appellants are liable for two counts of the complex crime of direct assault with murder; Mayor Arcillas was a person in authority and PO2 Rivera was an agent of a person in authority, both performing official duties, and treachery qualified the killings to murder.
• Complex Crime of Direct Assault with Attempted Murder: Yes. In Criminal Case No. 17648-B, liability is for the complex crime of direct assault with attempted murder, not frustrated murder, because the gunshot wound on PO3 Almendras was not proven fatal or mortal.
• Conspiracy and Treachery: Yes. Conspiracy was inferred from the synchronized and coordinated attack, and treachery attended because the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victims of any chance to defend themselves.
• Evident Premeditation: No. The prosecution failed to prove a plan or preparation to kill, the time when the accused meditated and reflected on their decision, and the intervening time before the plan was carried out; evident premeditation cannot be presumed.
• Denial and Alibi: No. Denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification; alibi failed because appellants did not show that it was impossible for them to be at the crime scene, and Vibal was shown in a photograph at the Sta. Rosa City Hall on the day of the incident.
• Penalties and Damages: Modified. Reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole was imposed for the two murder counts; an indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum, was imposed for attempted murder; damages were increased per People vs. Jugueta and existing jurisprudence.

• Reliability of Identification: Every criminal conviction requires the prosecution to prove two things: (1) the fact of the crime, i.e., the presence of all the elements of the crime for which the accused stands charged, and (2) the fact that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. When a crime is committed, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the identity of the perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt, for there can be no conviction even if the commission of the crime is established. The RTC and the CA were one in declaring that the identification of appellants Vibal and David as the gunmen based on the recognition of PO3 Almendras was clear, worthy of credence, and met the requirements of moral certainty. PO3 Almendras vividly recounted before the RTC the appellants' respective positions and participation in the shooting incident, having been able to witness closely how they committed the crime, more so because the crime happened in the morning when conditions of visibility were very favorable. He had a close and unobstructed view of the incident and was able to take a good glimpse and recognize the faces of the gunmen as the same two young males he saw earlier in the day following his group. He stuck to the essentials of his story and, without hesitation, pointed to Vibal and David as the two culprits, eliminating any possibility of mistaken identification. Jurisprudence recognizes that victims of crime have a penchant for seeing the faces and features of their attackers and remembering them. No improper motive was shown that could have impelled PO3 Almendras to maliciously impute such serious crimes to appellants; as an actual victim, he was naturally interested in vindicating the outrageous wrong done to his person, and this interest would strongly deter him from implicating persons other than the real culprits. The delay of more than a year did not impair the identification: PO3 Almendras was rushed to the hospital and confined for around a month, the investigation took a long time, and appellants were not immediately apprehended; he remembered the faces of the shooters and identified both appellants when he finally saw them. Denial and alibi could not prevail over the positive identification. The photograph taken by Mercedita De Jesus showed Vibal at the Sta. Rosa City Hall on May 10, 2005, effectively belying his claim that he was at his residence in GMA, Cavite on that day.

• Complex Crime of Direct Assault with Murder: Direct assault, a crime against public order, may be committed in two ways: first, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition; and second, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance. Appellants committed the second form of assault, the elements of which are: (1) that there must be an attack, use of force, or serious intimidation or resistance upon a person in authority or his agent; (2) the assault was made when the said person was performing his duties or on the occasion of such performance; and (3) the accused knew that the victim is a person in authority or his agent, that is, that the accused must have the intention to offend, injure, or assault the offended party as a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority. Mayor Arcillas was a duly elected mayor of Sta. Rosa, Laguna and thus was a person in authority, while PO2 Rivera and PO3 Almendras were agents of a person in authority. All three victims were in the performance of their official duties at the time of the shooting incident: Mayor Arcillas was inside the Sta. Rosa City Hall officiating a mass wedding and thereafter, while walking along the hallway from the COA office to his office, was shot and killed; PO2 Rivera and PO3 Almendras were performing their duty of protecting and guarding Mayor Arcillas. Appellants' conduct of attacking the victims inside the Sta. Rosa City Hall clearly showed their criminal intent to assault and injure the agents of the law. When the assault results in the killing of an agent or of a person in authority, the complex crime of direct assault with murder or homicide arises. Here, treachery qualified the killing of Mayor Arcillas and PO2 Rivera to murder.

• Complex Crime of Direct Assault with Attempted Murder: When the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault, and his victim sustained fatal or mortal wounds but did not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime committed is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide depending on whether or not any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code are present. But if the wounds sustained by the victim in such a case were not fatal or mortal, then the crime committed is only attempted murder or attempted homicide. Here, the use of firearms and the manner of the commission of the crime by the appellants unmistakably showed that they intended to kill PO3 Almendras and that treachery was present. However, no evidence was adduced to show that the nature of the gunshot wounds sustained by PO3 Almendras was sufficient to cause his death without timely medical intervention. The attending physician of PO3 Almendras was not called to the witness stand to testify on the gravity or character of the gunshot wounds inflicted on him, and no evidence was introduced to prove that PO3 Almendras would have died from his gunshot wounds without timely medical attendance. Where there is nothing in the evidence to show that the wound would be fatal if not medically attended to, the character of the wound is doubtful; hence, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused and the crime committed by him may be declared as attempted, not frustrated, murder.

• Conspiracy and Treachery: Treachery attended the shooting of Mayor Arcillas, PO2 Rivera, and PO3 Almendras. There is treachery when the following essential elements are present: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery lies in the suddenness of the attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring the commission of the offense without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Here, the shooting was deliberate and without a warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner. Mayor Arcillas, PO2 Rivera, and PO3 Almendras were absolutely unaware of the imminent deadly assaults and were for that reason in no position to defend themselves or to repel their assailants. Vibal and David, who were armed with guns, suddenly appeared in front and at the back of Mayor Arcillas, PO2 Rivera, and PO3 Almendras and shot the three victims. The gunshots that came from the front of the victims were fired by Vibal, while those that came from behind them were fired by David. Said manner of attack clearly revealed appellants' deliberate design to ensure the accomplishment of their purpose to kill or injure the three victims without any possibility of their escape or of any retaliation from them. Conspiracy was very much evident from the actuations of the appellants. They were synchronized in their approach to shoot Mayor Arcillas and his group. The concerted efforts of the appellants were performed with closeness and coordination, indicating a single criminal impulse — to kill the victims. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when these point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. The ascertainment of who among appellants actually hit, killed, and/or caused injury to the victims already becomes immaterial. Where conspiracy has been adequately proven, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation because, in contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all.

• Evident Premeditation: The modifying circumstance of evident premeditation did not attend the commission of the offenses. The records are bereft of any proof, direct or circumstantial, tending to show a plan or preparation to kill by appellants Vibal and David as well as when they meditated and reflected upon their decision to kill or injure the three victims and the intervening time that elapsed before this plan was carried out. Accordingly, the circumstance of evident premeditation cannot be presumed against appellants. To qualify a killing to murder, the circumstances invoked must be proven as indubitably as the killing itself and cannot be deduced from mere supposition.

• Denial and Alibi: Appellants simply raised denial, which is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification made by prosecution witness PO3 Almendras that they were the gunmen. Moreover, an affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. Appellants' defense of alibi is likewise unavailing. In order that alibi might prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused has been somewhere else during the commission of the crime; it must also be shown that it would have been impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene. Appellants miserably failed to discharge this burden. Besides, the prosecution was able to present a photograph taken by prosecution witness Mercedita De Jesus, the official photographer during the solemnization of the mass wedding, prior to the shooting incident, which showed appellant Vibal at the background. Said picture proves that Vibal was at the Sta. Rosa City Hall on May 10, 2005, which thus effectively belied his claim that he was at his residence in GMA, Cavite on that day.

• Penalties and Damages: When the offense is a complex crime, the penalty for which is that for the graver offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. For the complex crime of direct assault with murder in Criminal Case Nos. 17646-B and 17647-B, the graver offense is murder. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the felony of murder; thus, the imposable penalty should have been death. However, considering that the imposition of the death penalty has been prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed upon appellants. In addition, the qualification "without eligibility for parole" should be affixed to qualify reclusion perpetua pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC. Thus, the CA properly imposed upon appellants the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. In Criminal Case No. 17648-B for the complex crime of direct assault with attempted murder, the penalty to be imposed on appellants should be that for attempted murder, which is the more serious crime. The penalty for attempted murder is two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, the imposable penalty is prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., prision correccional, in any of its periods, or anywhere from six months and one day to six years, while the maximum penalty should be from ten years and one day to twelve years of prision mayor, the maximum period of the imposable penalty. The Court deemed it proper to impose on the appellants the indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum. As to pecuniary liabilities, the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in Criminal Case Nos. 17646-B and 17647-B should be increased to P100,000.00 each, while the award of temperate damages should likewise be increased to P50,000.00, consistent with People vs. Jugueta. In Criminal Case No. 17648-B, the Court found it apt to award civil indemnity, in addition to moral damages and exemplary damages, the amount of which should all be fixed at P50,000.00 each in line with existing jurisprudence. Further, six percent (6%) interest per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded, to be reckoned from the date of the finality of the judgment until fully paid.

• Positive Identification and Credibility — Every criminal conviction requires proof of the fact of the crime and the fact that the accused is the perpetrator; identity must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court applied this doctrine by sustaining the conviction based on PO3 Almendras's positive identification, which was found clear, credible, and morally certain, and by holding that the delay in identification did not impair reliability because he was hospitalized for about a month and the investigation took time.
• Conspiracy — Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when these point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. Once conspiracy is proven, all conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation because the act of one is the act of all. The Court applied this doctrine by finding that Vibal and David were synchronized in their approach and acted with closeness and coordination, indicating a single criminal impulse to kill the victims.
• Treachery — Treachery requires that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and that the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed. Its essence lies in the suddenness of the attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and ensuring the commission of the offense without risk to the offender. The Court applied this doctrine by finding that the shooting was deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner, with Vibal firing from the front and David from behind.
• Complex Crime of Direct Assault with Murder — Direct assault under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code may be committed in two ways; the second form requires an attack, use of force, or serious intimidation or resistance upon a person in authority or his agent, while the latter is performing official duties or on occasion of such performance, with the accused knowing that the victim is a person in authority or his agent and intending to offend, injure, or assault him as such. When the assault results in the killing of an agent or of a person in authority, the complex crime of direct assault with murder or homicide arises. The Court applied this doctrine because Mayor Arcillas was a person in authority, PO2 Rivera and PO3 Almendras were agents of a person in authority, and all were performing official duties when attacked.
• Attempted vs. Frustrated Murder — When the accused intended to kill, as manifested by the use of a deadly weapon, and the victim sustained fatal or mortal wounds but did not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide depending on qualifying circumstances. If the wounds were not fatal or mortal, the crime is only attempted murder or attempted homicide. Where there is nothing in the evidence to show that the wound would be fatal if not medically attended to, the character of the wound is doubtful, and the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the gunshot wound on PO3 Almendras was not proven fatal, so the crime was attempted, not frustrated, murder.
• Alibi and Denial — Denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification, especially when the affirmative testimony comes from a credible witness. Alibi requires not only proof that the accused was somewhere else during the commission of the crime but also that it was impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene. The Court applied this doctrine by rejecting appellants' defenses and noting that Vibal was shown in a photograph at the Sta. Rosa City Hall on the day of the incident.
• Evident Premeditation — Evident premeditation requires proof of a plan or preparation to kill, the time when the accused meditated and reflected on their decision, and the intervening time before the plan was carried out. It cannot be presumed and must be proven as indubitably as the killing itself. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the prosecution failed to establish evident premeditation.
• Penalty for Complex Crime and Prohibition on Death Penalty — When the offense is a complex crime, the penalty for the graver offense is imposed in its maximum period. For direct assault with murder, the graver offense is murder, whose penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Because Republic Act No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, reclusion perpetua is imposed, with the qualification "without eligibility for parole" pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC. The Court applied this doctrine in modifying the penalties.
• Damages in Criminal Cases — Civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages may be awarded to the heirs of victims and to injured complainants in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The Court applied this doctrine by increasing the damages for the murder counts to P100,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 for temperate damages, consistent with People vs. Jugueta, and by awarding P50,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for attempted murder.

• "Every criminal conviction requires the prosecution to prove two things: (1) the fact of the crime, i.e., the presence of all the elements of the crime for which the accused stands charged, and (2) the fact that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime." — This passage states the foundational rule on the two facts the prosecution must establish in every criminal case and frames the Court's analysis of the identification issue.
• "It is basic and elementary that there can be no conviction until and unless an accused has been positively identified." — This passage emphasizes the necessity of proving the identity of the perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt and supports the Court's reliance on PO3 Almendras's positive identification.
• "Where there is nothing in the evidence to show that the wound would be fatal if not medically attended to, the character of the wound is doubtful; hence, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused and the crime committed by him may be declared as attempted, not frustrated, murder." — This passage articulates the ratio for modifying the third count from frustrated murder to attempted murder.
• "Where conspiracy has been adequately proven, as in the present case, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation because, in contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all." — This passage states the consequence of conspiracy and explains why the precise participation of each appellant in the shooting did not matter once conspiracy was established.

• People vs. Ayola, 416 Phil. 861, 871 (2001) — Cited for the rule that every criminal conviction requires proof of the crime and proof that the accused is the perpetrator.
• People vs. Sinco, 406 Phil. 1, 12 (2001) — Cited for the rule that the identity of the perpetrator must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• People vs. Limpangog, 444 Phil. 691, 709 (2003) — Cited for the rule that the State must prove both the crime and the identity of the perpetrator beyond cavil of a doubt.
• Vergara vs. People, 425 Phil. 124, 133 (2002) — Cited for the principle that victims of crime have a penchant for seeing the faces and features of their attackers and remembering them.
• People vs. Gallego, 453 Phil. 825, 855 (2003) — Cited for the principle that eyewitnesses can recall with a high degree of reliability the identities of criminals because of the startling acts of violence committed before their eyes.
• People vs. Lucero, 659 Phil. 518, 540 (2011) — Cited for the rule that absent evidence of improper motive, the prosecution witness's testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.
• People vs. Ex-Mayor Estonilo, Sr., et al., 745 Phil. 331, 355 (2014) — Cited for the elements of the second form of direct assault.
• People vs. Abalos, 328 Phil. 24, 36 (1996) — Cited for the rule that when the assault results in the killing of an agent or a person in authority, the complex crime of direct assault with murder or homicide arises.
• People vs. Villarico, Sr., et al., 662 Phil. 399, 422 (2011) — Cited for the essential elements of treachery.
• People vs. Escote, Jr., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003 — Cited for the principle that the essence of treachery lies in the suddenness of the attack on an unsuspecting victim.
• People vs. De la Rosa, Jr., 395 Phil. 643, 659 (2000) — Cited for the rule that conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.
• People vs. Drew, 422 Phil. 614, 628 (2001) — Cited for the rule that where conspiracy is proven, all conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent of their participation.
• People vs. Costales, 424 Phil. 321, 334 (2002) — Cited for the rule that frustrated murder or frustrated homicide is committed when the victim sustains fatal or mortal wounds but does not die because of timely medical assistance.
• People vs. Castillo, 426 Phil. 752, 768 (2002) — Cited for the rule that attempted murder or attempted homicide is committed when the wounds sustained by the victim are not fatal or mortal.
• Epifanio vs. People, 552 Phil. 620, 631 (2007) — Cited for the rule that where the evidence does not show that the wound would be fatal if not medically attended to, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.
• People vs. Baltar, Jr., 401 Phil. 1, 14 (2000) — Cited for the rule that evident premeditation cannot be presumed and must be proven as indubitably as the killing itself.
• People vs. Calonge, 637 Phil. 435, 455 (2010) — Cited for the rule that affirmative testimony is stronger than negative testimony, especially when it comes from a credible witness.
• People vs. Abella, 624 Phil. 18, 36 (2010) — Cited for the rule that alibi requires proof that it was impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited as the basis for increasing the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages.
• People vs. Romobio, G.R. No. 227705, October 11, 2017 — Cited for the imposition of six percent interest per annum on damages from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.

• Article 148, Revised Penal Code — Defines direct assault and its two modes; applied to the second form, which requires an attack, use of force, or serious intimidation or resistance upon a person in authority or his agent while in the performance of official duties or on occasion of such performance.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Provides the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for murder; applied because murder was the graver offense in the complex crime of direct assault with murder.
• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Provides that when a complex crime is committed, the penalty for the graver offense shall be imposed in its maximum period; applied to the two counts of direct assault with murder.
• Article 51, Revised Penal Code — Provides that the penalty for an attempted felony is two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony; applied to attempted murder in Criminal Case No. 17648-B.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty; applied to reduce the imposable death penalty for murder to reclusion perpetua.
• A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC — Governs the use of the qualification "without eligibility for parole" when reclusion perpetua is imposed in lieu of the death penalty; applied to the two murder counts.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum and maximum terms for the complex crime of direct assault with attempted murder, with the minimum taken from prision correccional and the maximum from prision mayor.

Carpio, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.