People of the Philippines vs. Oandasan, Jr.

Treachery attends the killing of multiple victims where the attack is sudden, swift, and executed in quick succession against unarmed victims who are unaware of the imminent assault and have no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate, even if only one victim was initially targeted and even without eyewitness testimony as to the actual shooting of each victim, provided circumstantial evidence establishes the accused as the lone assailant.

On the evening of July 29, 2003, Danilo Montegrico, Edgardo Tamanu, and Mario Paleg were having a drinking spree outside the bunkhouse of Navarro Construction in Barangay Pena Weste, Gattaran, Cagayan. The accused, a former employee of the same construction company with a prior misunderstanding with some of the victims' companions, allegedly approached from behind a dump truck and opened fire.

• The Shooting Incident: Ferdinand Cutaran testified that between 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. on July 29, 2003, he was drinking with Jose Ifurung, Arthur Cutaran, and victim Danilo Montegrico outside the Navarro Construction bunkhouse when the accused suddenly appeared from behind a dump truck, aimed and fired at Montegrico. Cutaran fled upon seeing the shooting and did not witness the shooting of Tamanu and Paleg. When he returned, he found all three victims lying on the ground. They were rushed to Lyceum of Aparri Hospital where Montegrico and Tamanu were pronounced dead; Paleg survived a gunshot wound to the right anterior hind spine.
• Physical Evidence: Dr. Nida Rosales conducted a post-mortem examination on Montegrico and found a single gunshot wound below the ribs causing death. Certificates confirmed Tamanu's death and Paleg's gunshot wound.
• Defense: The accused interposed denial and alibi, claiming he was working in Rosario, Cavite for SERG Construction, Inc. from July to October 2003. He presented an employment certificate and time record sheet for July 29, 2003. He alleged that witnesses Cutaran and Bueno harbored ill will because he had previously caught them stealing cement, causing their transfer and his promotion to checker, and that they planned to kill him. Witness Fred Escobar testified that the assailant was a stranger shorter in stature than the accused.
• Lower Court Findings: The RTC credited Cutaran's positive identification of the accused as Montegrico's shooter but found treachery only as to Montegrico, not as to Tamanu and Paleg because no witness saw the accused shoot them. The CA affirmed, adopting the "lone assailant" theory based on circumstantial evidence but maintained the distinction in the characterization of the crimes.

• Alibi and Denial: Petitioner maintained that he was physically impossible to have committed the crime as he was in Cavite working at a construction site on the date of the incident, supported by an employment certificate and time record.
• Motive of Witnesses: Petitioner argued that prosecution witnesses Cutaran and Bueno were biased, having been previously caught stealing by him, which led to their transfer and his promotion, giving them motive to falsely implicate him.
• Misidentification: Petitioner contended that witness Escobar described the assailant as a stranger of shorter stature, contradicting Cutaran's identification.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Respondent argued that the accused was positively identified by Cutaran as the shooter, and circumstantial evidence established him as the lone assailant of all three victims.
• Treachery: Respondent maintained that the sudden, unexpected attack on unarmed victims who had no opportunity to defend themselves constituted treachery as to all three victims, not merely Montegrico.
• Damages: Respondent argued for the proper award of civil indemnity and other damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

• Identification and Alibi: Whether the accused's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite his defense of alibi and denial.
• Treachery as to All Victims: Whether treachery attended the killing of Tamanu and Paleg where no eyewitness testified to the actual shooting of these two victims.
• Characterization of Offenses: Whether the accused should be convicted of murder (and frustrated murder) rather than homicide (and frustrated homicide) for the deaths and injury of Tamanu and Paleg.
• Civil Liability: Whether the award of civil indemnity and other damages should be increased to reflect current economic realities.

• Identification and Alibi: The conviction was affirmed; alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification by prosecution witness Cutaran, who was found credible and bereft of ill motive. Physical impossibility was not established as the distance between Cavite and Cagayan did not preclude presence at the scene.
• Treachery as to All Victims: Treachery was found to attend the shooting of all three victims because the attack was sudden, swift, and unexpected, executed in quick succession against unarmed victims who were unaware of the imminent assault and had no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate. The fact that Cutaran did not see the actual shooting of Tamanu and Paleg was inconsequential; circumstantial evidence proved the accused was the lone assailant.
• Characterization of Offenses: The accused was properly found guilty of two counts of murder for the deaths of Montegrico and Tamanu, and one count of frustrated murder for Paleg. The nomenclature "frustrated homicide" in the information did not preclude conviction for frustrated murder where the allegations established treachery and intent to kill.
• Civil Liability: Pursuant to Article 2206 of the Civil Code and prevailing jurisprudence (People v. Jugueta), civil indemnity for death was fixed at ₱75,000.00 for each murder victim, with moral and exemplary damages also at ₱75,000.00 each, plus temperate damages of ₱50,000.00. For the frustrated murder victim, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were fixed at ₱50,000.00 each, plus ₱25,000.00 temperate damages. Interest of 6% per annum was imposed from finality until full payment.

• Treachery: The essence of treachery lies in the attack that comes without warning, swift, deliberate and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victims no chance to resist, retaliate, or escape, thereby ensuring the accomplishment of the deadly design without risk to the aggressor. The two requisites are: (a) the means, methods and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or to retaliate; and (b) such means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person.
• Circumstantial Evidence: Circumstantial evidence is competent to establish guilt as long as it is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, and not someone else, was responsible for the killing. The requisites are: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
• Alibi: For alibi to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, not merely that the accused was somewhere else.
• Civil Indemnity for Death: The award is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the deceased as compensation for the death of the victim. The amount must attune to contemporaneous economic realities. Where the penalty prescribed by law is death or reclusion perpetua (by virtue of RA 9346), civil indemnity is fixed at ₱75,000.00.
• Exemplary Damages: Article 2230 of the Civil Code authorizes the grant of exemplary damages if at least one aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime. The term "aggravating circumstances" is understood in its broad or generic sense, encompassing both ordinary and qualifying circumstances. The distinction between ordinary and qualifying aggravating circumstances is relevant only to criminal liability, not civil liability; either entitles the offended party to exemplary damages.

• "The essence of treachery lay in the attack that came without warning, and was swift, deliberate and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victims no chance to resist, or retaliate, or escape, thereby ensuring the accomplishment of the deadly design without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims."
• "Circumstantial evidence is competent to establish guilt as long as it is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, and not someone else, was responsible for the killing."
• "The term 'aggravating circumstances' used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense... relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code."
• "Civil indemnity for death has been increased through the years from the minimum of ₱2,000.00 to as high as ₱100,000.00. The increases have been made to consider the economic conditions, primarily the purchasing power of the peso as the Philippine currency."

• People v. Flora, G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000 — Cited for the proposition that treachery attends the killing of multiple victims even where the accused first fired at his intended victim but missed and hit others, provided all victims were helpless to defend themselves.
• People v. Pinto, Jr., G.R. No. L-39519, November 21, 1991 — Followed for the rule that treachery attends multiple killings and wounding where the attack was sudden and victims were defenseless.
• People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016 — Established guidelines on fixing civil liabilities in crimes resulting in death, fixing ₱75,000.00 for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in murder where the penalty is reclusion perpetua.
• People v. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001 — Held that aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitle the offended party to exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code.

• Article 2206, Civil Code — Enumerates damages recoverable for death caused by crime or quasi-delict, fixing the minimum indemnity and allowing recovery for loss of earning capacity and moral damages.
• Article 2202, Civil Code — Provides that defendants are liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Authorizes the grant of exemplary damages when the crime is attended by at least one aggravating circumstance.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, effectively reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua for crimes where death would have been the penalty.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Caguioa, JJ.