People of the Philippines vs. Madali

Conspiracy must be established by positive and convincing evidence; absent proof beyond reasonable doubt of a common design, a person who merely facilitates the commission of the crime—such as by focusing a flashlight on victims and warning the gunman—is liable only as an accomplice. Self-defense cannot prosper without proof of a previous unlawful and unprovoked attack and the employment of reasonable means to resist it.

Patrolman Ricarte Madali and his wife Annie Mortel Madali were neighbors of the Gasang family and Agustin Reloj in sitio Marawi, barangay Cagbo-aya, San Agustin, Romblon. Ricarte was a peace officer issued a .38 caliber service revolver. The prosecution arose from a shooting that killed Cipriano and Felix Gasang and wounded Agustin Reloj and Merlinda Gasang, requiring application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on self-defense, conspiracy, accomplice liability, treachery, and complex crimes.

On October 26, 1979, Felix Gasang, then twenty years old, figured in a fistfight with a friend of Ramon, the son of Ricarte and Annie Madali. Ramon interceded and mauled Felix with a “chako.” Agustin Reloj was one of Felix’s companions. The following day, the police summoned Felix to the municipal building, and his mother, Desamparada Gasang, accompanied him. At the police station, Ricarte Madali angrily scolded Felix and his cousin, Arnaldo Fadriquilan, and told them that because they were “very brave,” he would put them in jail for twelve hours. After asking about Felix’s age, Ricarte added that he would “sow bullets” in Felix’s body. Policeman Aristeo Fetalino heard Ricarte utter, “Kailangan sa imo lubongan bala,” meaning what you need is a bullet embedded in you. Ricarte’s father-in-law, Agustin Mortel, who arrived at the police station, agreed that Felix and his group must be “sown with bullets” to eradicate them. Another group mate of Felix was detained at the municipal jail, but Felix was sent home with his mother.

At around 9:00 o’clock in the evening of October 31, 1979, Felix and his cousin Agustin Reloj went home together from the town plaza. Their houses were located near each other in sitio Marawi, barangay Cagbo-aya, San Agustin, Romblon. Felix and Agustin parted ways at the Marawi bridge. Felix dropped by the store of Coroy Mangao to buy cigarettes while Agustin proceeded home. Around fifteen meters from the house of Ricarte Madali, Ricarte accosted Agustin, held him by the arm, and said, “So you are here, you devil, now you are finished. I have been waiting for you. I have been watching for you for three nights already.” Ricarte then dragged Agustin toward the gate of his house. When Agustin asked why he was being dragged, Ricarte said it was because Agustin helped in fighting his son. As one of Agustin’s feet stepped over the knee-high fence at the gate of the Madali residence, Annie Madali clubbed him with a piece of wood. Annie struck him first on the left shoulder and would have given him another blow had not Agustin freed himself from Ricarte’s hold; Annie landed that blow on Ricarte instead. Agustin was looking back as he ran away when Ricarte shot him. He was hit below his right hip. He fell to the ground and did not get up, fearing that Ricarte might shoot him again. Agustin was still lying on the ground with his eyes focused on Ricarte when Felix Gasang arrived. He saw Annie beam her flashlight at Felix and say, “Here comes another.” Agustin saw Felix raising his hands as Annie focused her flashlight on Felix. Felix told Ricarte that he would not fight with him, but Ricarte shot Felix twice. Felix fell to the ground. Ricarte was still near the gate of his house when Cipriano Gasang arrived. Annie beamed her flashlight at Cipriano and said, “Here comes, here comes another, fire upon him.” Ricarte shot Cipriano, who fell to the ground. Merlinda Gasang, who was with her father Cipriano, clung to the fence nearby and shouted that she was also hit. Then Desamparada Gasang arrived and shouted for help. One Romeo Manes came and carried away Merlinda. Agustin slowly stood up and, as he walked toward his house, he saw Roman Galicia and the Madali spouses entering their gate.

Merlinda Gasang was at home when she heard an explosion. Her father, Cipriano, was also at home then, but after the second shot, he went out of the house toward the direction of the source of the gunfire. There was a minute interval between the first and second shots, but only a second elapsed between the second and third shots. The fourth shot came about two minutes later. Cipriano was “beyond the gate” of the Madali residence when he was shot by Ricarte. Merlinda was around three meters from her father. She saw Annie focus her flashlight at Cipriano and heard Annie say, “Yara pa, yara, pa, barila,” meaning “Here comes another one, here comes another one, shoot.” That was when the fourth explosion occurred, and Merlinda heard her father exclaim that he was hit. Merlinda felt that she was also hit. She did not fall to the ground because she was able to take hold of the wooden fence. She saw both her brother Felix and Agustin lying flat on the ground, with the latter’s head turned to one side. Merlinda shouted for help. Romeo Manes came and brought her to the Tablas Island Emergency Hospital. She did not notice anymore where Ricarte Madali was at that time because she was looking toward the direction of their house. She saw her mother running to her. Desamparada Gasang was washing the dishes after supper when she heard the first shot. After the fourth shot, she became apprehensive because a policeman was mad at her family. She proceeded to where she heard the gunbursts and met her daughter Merlinda, who informed her that she was shot by Ricarte and that she saw Annie focus a flashlight on her. Then Desamparada saw her husband crawling on the ground. She asked him to stand up, but he could not do so. Cipriano told her, “Ging iwagan ako ni Annie Madali cag ging baril ako ni Ricarte Madali” — Annie focused a light on me and Ricarte Madali shot me. She then went back to her daughter and shouted for help.

The bodies of Cipriano and Felix Gasang were not removed from the road until around midnight. They were brought to the Gasang residence for autopsy. The rural health physician who conducted the postmortem examinations found that Cipriano sustained a gunshot wound at the right lower quadrant of the abdomen along the mammary line. From that point of entry, the bullet followed an obliquely downward course, penetrating the small and large intestines and the urinary bladder, and exited at the middle of the left buttock. Cipriano’s death was caused by hemorrhage due to the gunshot wound. Felix also died of hemorrhage resulting from the gunshot wound at the right second intercostal space within the mid-clavicular line of the chest. The bullet veered backwards toward the left, hitting the right lung, its blood vessels, and the fourth cervical vertebra. The second gunshot wound was at the right side of the abdomen at about the level of the navel and within the right anterior axillary line. The bullet hit the subcutaneous tissues and exited at the posterior axillary line. Merlinda Gasang sustained a gunshot wound at the anterior upper third portion of her right leg with no exit wound, which would incapacitate her for ten to fifteen days. She stayed for treatment at the emergency hospital in San Agustin for 39 days. Later, she was brought to the hospital in Romblon for extraction of the slug lodged in her leg. For the treatment of her wound, Merlinda spent P6,200.00. She could not go to school for three months. Agustin Reloj suffered a gunshot wound at the gluteal region of the right thigh. The bullet entered the lateral aspect of the upper third of the right thigh and exited at the posterior aspect of the gluteus maximus muscle. The attending physician certified that Agustin’s injury would incapacitate him for seven to nine days. Agustin, who was then a laborer, stayed one week at the hospital and spent P200 for the treatment of his wound. For his pain and anxiety, he stated that he should be compensated in the amount of P500.00.

Ricarte Madali voluntarily surrendered to the San Agustin police. He handed his .38 caliber service revolver to the policemen who arrived at the scene of the crime, and they noted that there were only two remaining bullets in the revolver. He was placed under technical arrest by the provincial commander of the Philippine Constabulary. After the investigation, on February 1, 1980, two informations were filed against Patrolman Madali and his wife, Annie Mortel Madali. In Criminal Case No. 981, the spouses were charged with multiple murder for the killing of Felix and Cipriano Gasang. The information alleged that they conspired, confederated, and mutually helped each other in killing Felix and Cipriano treacherously, with evident premeditation and with the use of a .38 caliber revolver. In the separate information for multiple frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 982, conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation were also alleged as having attended the felonious assault with the use of a .38 caliber revolver on Merlinda Gasang and Agustin Reloj, which could have resulted in the crime of murder had not timely and able medical assistance intervened. At the trial, both Ricarte and Annie, who had pleaded not guilty, testified in their own defense.

According to Ricarte, at around 9:00 o’clock in the evening of October 31, 1979, he and his family were about to sleep when a stone was hurled at their house. His wife said it could have been a stray stone, but three other stones landed on the GI sidings and the lawanit and bamboo walls of their house. Ricarte went to their porch, where he noticed a person crouching near their gabi plants. He could not identify the person because of the fog, so he went inside their room and dressed in his fatigue trousers and jacket. He went down the house and noticed that there was no one in the gabi plants anymore. Ricarte was behind their kitchen and about to go back to his house when someone hit his left shoulder. The person struck him again, but he was able to catch the club aimed at him and strike the person with his nightstick. Ricarte was about to give him another blow with his nightstick, but the person caught it. They tried to get each other’s club. They were in that position when Ricarte’s foot stepped into a low canal, causing him to fall flat on his back. The intruder fell with him and landed on Ricarte’s stomach. The person shouted at someone in the vicinity, asking what the latter was tarrying about. As Ricarte tried to get up, he heard his wife call, “Carte, Carte.” Just then he kicked the intruder on the stomach, and the latter fell to the ground. Ricarte hurriedly stood up, pulled his gun, and fired at the intruder. He noticed two other persons approaching him, one with a club and the other with what looked like a knife. He warned them, “This is a policeman. Do not come near.” One of the persons proceeded to strike him, and Ricarte was hit on his forehead by the man with the club. Ricarte in turn dealt him a blow by swinging back his left forearm. The man with the club fell down. When the man with the knife was about to stab him, Ricarte fired his gun at him. As that man was still closing in on him, Ricarte shot him again. The man with the knife retreated to the gate and fell just outside of it. After firing two shots, Ricarte turned sideward and saw the man with the club about to strike him. So Ricarte shot him. The man walked away. Ricarte later identified the man crouching amid their gabi plants as Agustin Reloj.

Annie Mortel Madali corroborated her husband’s testimony from the stoning of their house until he dressed up, got his gun and nightstick, and went out of the house. When she heard Ricarte opening the door to the stairs, Annie got up and went to their balcony to peep. She saw her husband going around their house in a clockwise direction. When he was near their kitchen, Annie saw him grappling with someone over the possession of a club. Her husband and his protagonist fell into a canal, trampling the gabi plants. She heard the man say, “Hay, naga tanga pa kamo dira!” meaning “What are you still waiting for!” Annie then saw two persons rushing inside their premises. One person was holding a club while the other had something which he appeared to thrust forward. Losing her composure, Annie warned her husband by calling out his name, “Carte, Carte!” Then she heard a gunshot, and the person holding a club who grappled with her husband ran out of the premises. Annie heard her husband say, “Pulis ini, ayaw maglapit,” meaning “This is a policeman, do not come near.” After that, she heard three more gunshots. The two who came rushing inside their premises scampered away and out of their fence. She could not recognize the three intruders. Ricarte then walked toward her and asked her to call the police. Annie went inside their sala and told her daughter Agnes to summon the police.

Policeman Numeriano Galang, who heard the gun reports, met Agnes on his way to sitio Marawi. When he arrived at the Madali residence, he found Ricarte with his face and jacket smeared with mud and with a swollen forehead. Galang asked Ricarte what happened, but he did not put his investigation in writing. At the yard, he found stones, two slippers, and a nightstick. He did not find bloodstains in the yard because it was drizzling. Neither did he find bloodstains outside the yard because he inspected only the areas surrounding the Madali house. Policeman Antonio Morales arrived at the scene of the crime with two other policemen. He found Felix Gasang lying flat on his belly about one foot from the gate. To identify him, they turned Felix’s body face up and found that his right hand was holding a knife. Later, that knife was turned over to police investigator Pfc. Ernesto Solano. The other victim, Cipriano, was found about five to six meters from the body of Felix. Like Galang, Morales saw pieces of stones which were different from the stones found in Madali’s yard, which were mere corals or “boga,” two pairs of slippers, and the gabi plants which appeared to have been trampled upon. To prove aggression on the part of his victims, Ricarte presented a medical certificate stating that on November 1, 1979, he was examined at the Tablas Island Emergency Hospital for a vertical contusion (hematoma) on his left forehead and another contusion on the left deltoid region.

The lower court gave full faith and credit to the evidence of the prosecution, especially the testimonies of eyewitnesses-victims Agustin Reloj and Merlinda Gasang. It found that the concerted acts of Ricarte and his wife while committing the crimes proved conspiracy between them, thereby making their criminal responsibility collective. While finding that the prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation, the lower court positively appreciated treachery to qualify as murder the killing of both Cipriano and Felix Gasang. It noted, however, that the prosecution erred in charging as separate crimes of murder and frustrated murder the killing of Cipriano and the wounding of Merlinda. Observing that only one bullet hit Cipriano and his daughter Merlinda, the lower court concluded that the Madali spouses should have been charged with the complex crime of murder and frustrated murder. Accordingly, it imposed the penalties set out above for the crimes of frustrated murder, murder, and the complex crime of murder and frustrated murder.

• Annie’s Participation: Petitioners argued that the lower court erred in finding Annie Mortel Madali guilty as principal by direct participation; Annie denied participation in the commission of the crimes and interposed an alibi, insisting that like any other wife, her natural reaction to situations involving risk was to stay away, meditate, and shout and warn her husband of the intruders rushing toward him.
• Self-Defense: Ricarte Madali maintained that he acted in self-defense, claiming that their house was stoned and that he was attacked by intruders, one with a club and another with a knife, forcing him to defend himself.
• Revenge/Motive: Petitioners argued that the lower court erred in not finding that the Gasangs and their kins were motivated by revenge.
• Credibility: Petitioners argued that the lower court erred in giving credence to and adopting the theory of the prosecution instead of that of the defense.

• Self-Defense: Whether Ricarte Madali acted in self-defense, justifying the killings of Cipriano and Felix Gasang and the wounding of Agustin Reloj and Merlinda Gasang.
• Annie’s Participation: Whether Annie Mortel Madali was a principal by direct participation in the crimes.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy between Ricarte and Annie Madali was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Accomplice Liability: Whether Annie Mortel Madali’s acts made her liable only as an accomplice.
• Treachery and Complex Crime: Whether treachery qualified the killings to murder and whether the single shot that killed Cipriano Gasang and wounded Merlinda Gasang constituted a complex crime of murder with frustrated murder.
• Penalties and Damages: Whether the penalties and damages should be modified in light of voluntary surrender, Annie’s accomplice liability, and proportional liability.
• Motive/Revenge: Whether the lower court erred in not finding that the victims were motivated by revenge.

• Self-Defense: No. The plea failed because no previous unlawful and unprovoked attack was credibly shown, and Ricarte used unreasonable means without first firing a warning shot.
• Annie’s Participation: No. Annie was not a principal by direct participation; her acts of beaming a flashlight and warning her husband merely facilitated the crimes.
• Conspiracy: No. Conspiracy between the spouses was not proven beyond reasonable doubt; doubts were resolved in favor of the accused.
• Accomplice Liability: Yes. Annie is liable only as an accomplice, her assistance not being indispensable to the shooting.
• Treachery and Complex Crime: Yes. Treachery qualified the killings of Felix and Cipriano to murder due to the suddenness of the attack, and the single shot that killed Cipriano and wounded Merlinda constituted a complex crime of murder with frustrated murder.
• Penalties and Damages: Modified. Ricarte’s voluntary surrender was credited; Annie’s penalties were reduced to those for an accomplice; damages and indemnity were imposed in a 2:1 proportion with subsidiary liability.
• Motive/Revenge: No. Proof of motive is unnecessary where there is clear identification of the accused, and Ricarte did not deny firing the fatal shots.

• Self-Defense: The defense was anchored on the justifying circumstance of self-defense. For such a plea to prosper, it must be positively shown that there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked attack that placed the defendant’s life in danger and forced him to inflict more or less severe wounds upon his assailant, employing reasonable means to resist the attack. The defense failed to pass this test. The allegation that the Madali residence was hurled with stones before Ricarte confronted the Gasang group was not credibly established. No one was able to positively identify the stone-throwers, not even Ricarte and Annie. There was no proof that the stones found in the Madali yard were indeed the stones thrown at their house. Defense witness Antonio Morales, a fellow policeman, testified that he did not have personal knowledge of where the stones were discovered because he was only informed by Galang, who in turn was only told by Ricarte that the latter was stoned. The defense story was riddled with contradictions and loopholes. Agustin Reloj sketched a map placing Felix Gasang’s body on a spot across the road from the Madali gate, while defense policemen Morales and Galang gave clashing testimonies: Morales said both dead bodies were found close to the gate, while Galang swore that one body was near the gate and the other was five meters away from the Madali fence. Ten days after the alleged commission of the crime, police investigator Fetalino found blood stains in the middle of the street indicating that a blood-drenched body had been dragged across the street. If Agustin and Cipriano were really armed with clubs, at least Cipriano’s club would have been found as he died on the spot. The nightstick found by the police could not have been used by any of the victims; according to Galang, it was similar to that of a policeman and could have been the same nightstick Ricarte admitted using in striking one of the intruders. Even granting that Agustin, Felix, and Cipriano were armed with clubs and a knife, Ricarte’s means of resisting them was unreasonable. Having known that an interloper was inside his yard, Ricarte, being a policeman, should have first fired a warning shot to deter the intruder. Instead, he fired directly at his victims, and all four shots hit their targets. Moreover, if Agustin, Felix, and Cipriano were the intruders, they should be credited for extraordinary bravery in entering the Madali yard, knowing that Ricarte possessed a service revolver. The lower court, which saw the Madali yard, considered it “rather inconceivable” for the victims to dare go inside the premises armed only with a knife and clubs.

• Annie’s Participation: Annie’s defense strategy was to deny participation and interpose alibi. Her denials and uncorroborated alibi could not stand against the categorical declarations of prosecution eyewitnesses Agustin Reloj and Merlinda Gasang on her participation. She should have presented witnesses to support her story; she admitted that she and her husband were not alone in their house when they were allegedly stoned, as six of their children were home, and any one of them could have corroborated her story. Nevertheless, proof beyond reasonable doubt was not established as to the existence of conspiracy between the Madali spouses. While direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy, as it may be shown by acts and circumstances from which may logically be inferred the existence of a common design among the accused to commit the offense charged, the evidence to prove the same must be positive and convincing, considering that conspiracy is a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold. With the principle that in criminal prosecution doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused, Annie’s liability with respect to the crimes committed was only that of an accomplice.

• Conspiracy: The Court found that proof beyond reasonable doubt had not been established as to the existence of conspiracy between the Madali spouses. Although conspiracy may be inferred from acts and circumstances, the evidence must be positive and convincing. The Court applied the rule that doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused, and accordingly ruled that Annie’s liability was only that of an accomplice.

• Accomplice Liability: Annie’s participation in the shooting consisted of beaming her flashlight at the victims and warning her husband of the presence of other persons in the vicinity. By beaming her flashlight at a victim, Annie assisted her husband in taking good aim. However, such assistance merely facilitated the commission of the felonious acts of shooting. Considering that, according to both Madali spouses, it was not so dark nor too bright that night, or that brightness and darkness were equally of the same intensity, Ricarte could have nevertheless accomplished his criminal acts without Annie’s cooperation and assistance. Neither could Annie’s shouts of “here comes, here comes another, shoot” be considered as having incited Ricarte to fire at the victims so as to make her a principal by inducement. There was no proof that those inciting words had great dominance and influence over Ricarte as to become the determining cause of the crimes. The rapidity with which Ricarte admittedly fired the shots eliminated the necessity of encouraging words such as those uttered by Annie. The fact that Annie dealt a blow on Agustin while he was being dragged by Ricarte to their yard did not make her a principal by direct participation. Annie’s act, being previous to Ricarte’s act of shooting Agustin, was actually not indispensable to the crime committed against Agustin.

• Treachery and Complex Crime: The lower court was correct in characterizing the felonious assault on Agustin Reloj as frustrated murder. While Agustin was hit only below his right hip, Ricarte’s act of shooting was plainly attended by an intent to kill. This was evidenced by Ricarte’s statements while accosting Agustin some fifteen meters from his house: “So you are here, you devil, now you are finished. I have been waiting for you. I have been waiting for you for three nights already.” The statements “now you are finished” and “I have been waiting for you for three nights already” sufficiently showed that Ricarte not only intended to do away with Agustin but also that the crime had been premeditated. They satisfactorily proved that Ricarte had formed a determination to commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution, that he had clung to his determination, and that there was sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. Moreover, after uttering those statements, Ricarte dragged Agustin toward his gate; Annie then clubbed Agustin, who succeeded in freeing himself from Ricarte’s hold; Agustin was running away when Ricarte shot him. Firing at his fleeing victim and subsequently shooting to death two other persons on the same occasion evinced the intent to kill. There was likewise no doubt that Ricarte committed murder when he shot Felix Gasang twice in the body. Treachery qualified the killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. There was treachery because of the suddenness of the attack. Felix was raising his hands and saying that he would not fight back when Ricarte feloniously fired at him twice. Annie’s uttering “Here comes another” before Ricarte shot Felix may not be considered sufficient warning so as to rule out suddenness of the attack. However, no generic aggravating circumstance was sufficiently proven. With respect to the killing of Cipriano Gasang and the wounding of Merlinda Gasang, the crime committed was the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder, inasmuch as a single shot hit them both. It was immaterial that Merlinda was wounded on the leg and not on a vital part of her body; what was of primordial consideration was that the criminal act which killed Cipriano also caused Merlinda’s injury. As in the killing of Felix, treachery qualified the killing of Cipriano to murder because of the suddenness of the attack.

• Penalties and Damages: Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a complex crime shall be the maximum period of the penalty for the most serious crime. The death penalty being the maximum period of the penalty for murder under Article 248, the death penalty should be imposed for the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder, considering that under Article 63 an indivisible penalty cannot be affected by the presence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance. Under People vs. Muñoz, Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution does not change the period of the penalty for murder except insofar as it prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua. Hence, the lower court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua on Ricarte Madali for the complex crime. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, proven but not appreciated by the trial court, should be considered in imposing on Ricarte the penalty for the murder of Felix Gasang. The presence of this mitigating circumstance without any aggravating circumstance to offset it justified the imposition of the minimum period of the penalty for murder under Article 64(2). Accordingly, the proper penalty was the indeterminate sentence of not less than ten years and one day of prision mayor as minimum and not more than twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The same mitigating circumstance should be considered for the frustrated murder committed against Agustin Reloj. The penalty for frustrated murder under Article 50 in relation to Article 248 is prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period. Taking into consideration voluntary surrender and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty imposed on Ricarte was four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum to twelve years of prision mayor as maximum. As an accomplice, Annie should be imposed the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felonies under Article 52. For the complex crime of murder and frustrated murder, like her husband, she was imposed reclusion perpetua, considering that the penalty prescribed by law for Ricarte was the death penalty. For the murder of Felix Gasang, the penalty imposable on her was prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium, and there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the penalty should be reclusion temporal minimum under Article 64(1). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Annie was meted the penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal as maximum. For the frustrated murder committed against Agustin Reloj, Annie was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from six months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor as maximum. Ricarte and Annie were also liable to the heirs of Cipriano and Felix Gasang for indemnity in the total amount of sixty thousand pesos (P60,000) in the proportion of 2:1, with two shares for Ricarte as principal and one share for Annie as accomplice, with each accused being subsidiarily liable for the other in case of insolvency. The Court saw no reason to disturb the lower court’s findings on reimbursement of hospitalization and medical expenses in favor of Merlinda Gasang and Agustin Reloj, as well as the award of damages, except to clarify that payment thereof shall likewise be in the proportion of 2:1, with each accused being subsidiarily liable for the other in case of insolvency.

• Motive/Revenge: Proof of motive is unnecessary where there is a clear identification of the accused, more so where the principal accused does not deny having fired the fatal shots. The Madali spouses must have harbored a deep resentment against the Gasang family to put into action Ricarte’s threat of “sowing bullets” on them. What made Ricarte’s crimes even more reprehensible was that he claimed to have committed them in the pursuit of his task as a peace officer. He even wore his fatigue jacket and trousers to create a facade of performance of an official function. He misused his authority, and his wife, harboring an improper sense of connubial cooperation, did not even try to dissuade him.

• Self-Defense (Justifying Circumstance) — For self-defense to prosper, it must be positively shown that there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked attack that placed the defendant’s life in danger and forced him to inflict more or less severe wounds upon his assailant, employing reasonable means to resist the attack. The Court applied this doctrine to reject Ricarte’s claim because the alleged stoning and armed intrusion were not credibly established and his direct shooting without warning was unreasonable.
• Conspiracy — Conspiracy may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence showing a common design, but the evidence must be positive and convincing because conspiracy is a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared; doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused. The Court found no proof beyond reasonable doubt of conspiracy between the spouses.
• Accomplice Liability — An accomplice is one who, not being a principal, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. The Court held Annie liable only as an accomplice because her flashlight and warnings merely facilitated the shooting and Ricarte could have accomplished the crimes without her assistance.
• Principal by Inducement — One becomes a principal by inducement only if the inciting words have great dominance and influence over the principal as to become the determining cause of the crime. Annie’s shouts did not meet this standard, especially given the rapidity of the shots.
• Treachery — Treachery qualifies a killing to murder when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense the victim might make. The Court found treachery because of the suddenness of the attacks, with victims unprepared and Felix raising his hands in surrender.
• Complex Crime under Article 48 — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the complex crime is the maximum period of the penalty for the most serious crime. The Court held that the single shot that killed Cipriano and wounded Merlinda constituted murder with frustrated murder.
• Proof of Motive — Proof of motive is unnecessary where there is clear identification of the accused, especially where the principal accused does not deny firing the fatal shots. The Court applied this in rejecting the defense’s motive/revenge argument.
• Voluntary Surrender — Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance that, without any aggravating circumstance, justifies imposition of the minimum period of the penalty. The Court credited Ricarte’s voluntary surrender in modifying his penalties.
• Death Penalty Prohibition — Under the 1987 Constitution, the death penalty is prohibited, and per People vs. Muñoz, the period of the penalty for murder is not changed except that the death penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Court applied this to the complex crime penalty.

• "In order that such plea can prosper, it must be positively shown that there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked attack that placed the defendant's life in danger and forced him to inflict more or less severe wounds upon his assailant, employing therefor reasonable means to resist the said attack." — States the requisites of self-defense and explains why Ricarte Madali’s plea was rejected.
• "Nevertheless, the Court finds that proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been established as to the existence of conspiracy between the Madali spouses. While direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy as it may be shown by acts and circumstances from which may logically be inferred the existence of a common design among the accused to commit the offense(s) charged, the evidence to prove the same must be positive and convincing considering that conspiracy is a facile devise by which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold." — Articulates the standard for proving conspiracy and is the basis for reducing Annie’s liability to that of an accomplice.
• "By beaming her flashlight at a victim, Annie assisted her husband in taking a good aim. However, such assistance merely facilitated the commission of the felonious acts of shooting." — Defines the nature of Annie’s participation as mere facilitation, supporting accomplice liability rather than principal liability.
• "Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a complex crime shall be the maximum period of the penalty for the most serious crime." — States the rule applied to the single shot that killed Cipriano Gasang and wounded Merlinda Gasang.

• People vs. Pasco, Jr., L-45716, June 24, 1985, 137 SCRA 137, 143 — Cited for the requisites of self-defense.
• People vs. Tingson, L-31228, October 24, 1972, 47 SCRA 243, 255 — Cited for the rule that conspiracy must be proved by positive and convincing evidence.
• People vs. Canial, L-31042-43, August 18, 1972, 46 SCRA 634 — Cited for the rule that principal by inducement requires inciting words to have great dominance and influence as the determining cause of the crime.
• People vs. Templonuevo, 106 Phil. 1003, 1007 — Cited for the principle that an act previous to the shooting and not indispensable does not make one a principal by direct participation.
• People vs. Paculba, L-37366-67, August 31, 1983, 124 SCRA 383, 392 — Cited for the complex crime rule where a single shot hits two victims.
• People vs. Muñoz, L-38968-70, February 9, 1989 — Cited for the rule that the 1987 Constitution prohibits the death penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua.
• People vs. Anquillano, G.R. No. 72318, April 30, 1987, 149 SCRA 442 — Cited for the rule that proof of motive is unnecessary where there is clear identification of the accused.
• People vs. Catipon, L-49264-66, October 9, 1985, 139 SCRA 192, 204 and People vs. Rosario, L-46161, February 25, 1985, 134 SCRA 496, 510 — Cited in relation to treachery and the suddenness of the attack.
• People vs. Aguilar, 88 Phil. 693 — Cited in connection with the imposition of the indeterminate penalty after considering voluntary surrender.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines murder and prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal maximum to death; treachery qualified the killings of Felix and Cipriano to murder.
• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the complex crime is the maximum period of the penalty for the most serious crime; applied to the single shot that killed Cipriano and wounded Merlinda.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Provides that an indivisible penalty cannot be affected by mitigating or aggravating circumstances; cited in imposing the death penalty, reduced to reclusion perpetua, for the complex crime.
• Article 64(2), Revised Penal Code — Provides that when only a mitigating circumstance is present and no aggravating circumstance, the minimum period of the penalty is imposed; applied to Ricarte’s voluntary surrender for the murder of Felix.
• Article 64(1), Revised Penal Code — Provides for imposition of the minimum period when neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances are present; applied to Annie’s penalty for the murder of Felix.
• Article 50, Revised Penal Code — Provides that the penalty for a frustrated felony is one degree lower than that for the consummated felony; applied to the frustrated murder of Agustin.
• Article 52, Revised Penal Code — Provides that an accomplice shall be imposed the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony; applied to Annie.
• Article 61, Revised Penal Code — Cited in relation to the penalty for the complex crime and for murder; used in computing Annie’s penalties.
• Article III, Section 19(1), 1987 Constitution — Prohibits imposition of the death penalty; per People vs. Muñoz, it reduces the death penalty for murder to reclusion perpetua without changing the period of the penalty.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.