A single act, such as detonating a hand grenade, that results in death (Murder) and injuries (Attempted Murder) constitutes a complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC, punishable with the penalty for the most serious crime (Murder) applied in its maximum period; when both treachery and explosion attend the killing, explosion qualifies the crime to Murder if it was the principal means employed, while treachery is considered a generic aggravating circumstance. Conspiracy must be proven by positive acts of cooperation beyond mere presence or relationship, and absent such proof, co-accused cannot be held liable.

The case arose from an incident where victims were having a drinking session on the terrace of a house when the appellants allegedly stopped in front, and one of them, Antonio Comadre, lobbed a hand grenade onto the roof, which subsequently exploded, causing death and injuries.

• On the evening of August 6, 1995, Robert Agbanlog and several companions were drinking on the terrace of Jaime Agbanlog's house in Brgy. San Pedro, Lupao, Nueva Ecija.
• The victims noticed appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre, and Danilo Lozano walking and stopping in front of the house.
• Appellant Antonio Comadre lobbed an object, later identified as an MK2 hand grenade, which landed and exploded on the roof of the terrace.
• The explosion caused the death of Robert Agbanlog due to hypovolemic shock and inflicted shrapnel injuries on surviving victims Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey Camat, Lorenzo Eugenio, Jaime Agbanlog, Emelita Agbanlog and Elena Agbanlog.
• Eyewitnesses positively identified the three appellants, stating visibility was adequate due to a lamppost and moonlight.
• The appellants immediately fled the scene after the explosion by scaling a nearby school fence.
• Police recovered metallic fragments confirmed to be from an MK2 hand grenade at the crime scene.
• Appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre, and Danilo Lozano denied involvement, offering alibis that they were at their respective homes during the incident.
• Family members corroborated the appellants' alibis.

• Appellants argued that the trial court erred in its appreciation of the evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
• Appellants pointed to alleged inconsistencies in the sworn statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the identification of the perpetrators.
• Appellants contended that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, making the imposition of the death penalty unwarranted.
• Appellants questioned the validity of the decision because the judge who penned it was not the same judge who heard and tried the case.
• Appellants maintained their defenses of denial and alibi.

• The prosecution (Appellee, People of the Philippines) maintained that the appellants were positively identified by credible eyewitnesses.
• The prosecution asserted that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not detract from their overall credibility, especially concerning traumatic events, and that no improper motive was shown for the witnesses to testify falsely.
• The prosecution argued that the appellants' defenses of alibi and denial could not overcome the positive identification made by the witnesses.
• The prosecution established that the killing was attended by treachery and the use of an explosive (hand grenade).
• The prosecution argued that the appellants acted in conspiracy to commit the crime.

• Whether the guilt of the appellants for the complex crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether conspiracy among the three appellants was established by the prosecution.
• Whether the qualifying circumstance for Murder was treachery or the use of explosives.
• Whether Republic Act No. 8294, which treats the use of unlicensed explosives in committing another crime as an aggravating circumstance, should be applied retroactively in this case.
• Whether the crime committed constitutes a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether the imposition of the death penalty and the award of damages by the trial court were proper.

• The Supreme Court held that the guilt of appellant Antonio Comadre was proven beyond reasonable doubt, based on positive eyewitness identification, but the guilt of George Comadre and Danilo Lozano was not, due to lack of evidence establishing conspiracy.
• The Court ruled that conspiracy was not proven for George Comadre and Danilo Lozano; their mere presence at the scene and relationship to Antonio were insufficient to establish common design, as they performed no positive act to assist in the crime.
• The Court determined that while treachery was present, the use of explosives was the principal means of attack and thus should be considered the qualifying circumstance for Murder under Article 248(3) of the RPC; treachery was relegated to a generic aggravating circumstance.
• The Court held that R.A. 8294 could not be applied retroactively to benefit Antonio Comadre because the law requires proof that the possession of the explosive was unlawful (i.e., unlicensed), which was neither alleged in the information nor proven by the prosecution. Therefore, Article 248(3) of the RPC (as amended by R.A. 7659) applied.
• The Court affirmed that the single act of lobbing the grenade, causing death and multiple injuries, constituted a complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC.
• The Court affirmed the imposition of the death penalty on Antonio Comadre, as it is the maximum penalty for Murder (the most serious component of the complex crime) prescribed by law and applied under Article 48. The Court modified the damages, affirming civil indemnity, increasing moral damages, reducing actual damages to the amount proven for funeral expenses, and awarding temperate damages to the surviving victims due to lack of receipts for their actual expenses. George Comadre and Danilo Lozano were acquitted and ordered released.

• Conspiracy: Defined as requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt of a common design and purpose to commit a crime, demonstrated by concerted acts; mere presence at the crime scene, silence, or relationship is insufficient. Applied here to acquit George Comadre and Danilo Lozano as no evidence showed their active participation or cooperation with Antonio Comadre's act.
• Alibi and Denial: Considered inherently weak defenses that cannot prevail over positive, clear, and convincing identification of the accused by credible witnesses. Requires proof that the accused was at another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Applied here to reject appellants' defenses due to strong positive identification by eyewitnesses and failure to prove physical impossibility.
• Witness Credibility: Minor inconsistencies or discrepancies in testimony on trivial matters do not impair credibility, especially when recalling details of a harrowing event; absence of ill motive strengthens credibility. Applied here to uphold the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses despite minor variations in their statements.
• Treachery (Alevosia): Exists when the offender commits any crime against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Requires deliberate adoption of the means of execution. Applied here: Found present due to the sudden grenade attack on unsuspecting victims but treated as a generic aggravating circumstance because explosion qualified the crime.
• Murder by Means of Explosion (RPC Art. 248(3)): Qualifies a killing to Murder. Applied here: The use of a hand grenade was ruled as the qualifying circumstance for the death of Robert Agbanlog.
• Complex Crime (RPC Art. 48): Occurs when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. The penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. Applied here: Antonio Comadre's single act of throwing the grenade resulted in Murder and Multiple Attempted Murders, thus the penalty for Murder (the most serious crime) was imposed in its maximum period (death).
• R.A. 8294 (Illegal Possession of Firearms/Explosives): Amends P.D. 1866. Treats the use of unlawfully possessed explosives in committing another crime under the RPC as an aggravating circumstance. Applied here: Determined not applicable because the essential element of unlawful possession (lack of license/authority) was neither alleged nor proven by the prosecution.
• Pro Reo Principle: Penal laws are generally construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. Applied here: Mentioned as the philosophy behind complex crimes (single penalty favors accused over multiple penalties), but did not lead to applying R.A. 8294 due to failure to meet its requirements.
• Judgment by Non-Hearing Judge: A judge who did not personally hear the testimony can validly render a decision based on the records of the case. Applied here: The Court rejected appellants' argument challenging the decision penned by a judge who did not preside over the entire trial.
• Damages in Criminal Cases: Governs the award of civil indemnity (fixed amount for death), moral damages (for suffering), actual damages (requires proof of expenses), and temperate damages (awarded when pecuniary loss is suffered but amount cannot be proved with certainty). Applied here: The Court adjusted the awarded damages based on prevailing jurisprudence and the evidence (or lack thereof) presented.

• "Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship."
• "For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity."
• "Time and again we have been guided by the principle that it would be better to set free ten men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit."
• "When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and by means of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance... reason dictates that this attendant circumstance should qualify the offense instead of treachery which will then be relegated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance."
• "...RA No. 8294 did not amend the definition of murder under Article 248, but merely made the use of explosives an aggravating circumstance when resorted to in committing ‘any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code,’... Before the use of unlawfully possessed explosives can be properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, it must be adequately established that the possession was illegal or unlawful..."
• "The single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade may quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct offenses, yet these component criminal offenses should be considered only as a single crime in law on which a single penalty is imposed because the offender was impelled by a ‘single criminal impulse’..."

• Co Tao v. Court of Appeals (101 Phil. 188): Cited to support the principle that a judgment is not erroneous merely because the judge who rendered it did not personally hear the evidence, but relied on the case records.
• People v. Tabuso (317 SCRA 454): Cited for the rule that conspiracy requires evidence of actual cooperation, not just cognizance or approval of an illegal act.
• People v. Bolivar (317 SCRA 577): Cited to emphasize that mere presence at the crime scene does not make one a conspirator.
• People v. Capili (333 SCRA 354): Referenced for the principle favoring acquittal of the potentially innocent over conviction ("better to set free ten men...").
• People v. Abundo (349 SCRA 577): Cited for outlining the requirements for the defense of alibi to prosper (physical impossibility).
• People v. Francisco (350 SCRA 55): Cited for the principle that positive identification prevails over alibi and denial.
• People v. Tayo (141 SCRA 393) and others: Cited as jurisprudence supporting the view that when both treachery and explosion are present, explosion qualifies the crime to murder.
• People v. Tintero (111 SCRA 704) and People v. Asibar (117 SCRA 856): Cited for the rule that treachery becomes a generic aggravating circumstance when explosion is the qualifying circumstance.
• People v. Solayao, People v. Lualhati, People v. Damaso: Cited by analogy for the requirement to prove the element of illegal/unlawful possession in cases involving firearms (extended to explosives under R.A. 8294).
• People v. Sakam (61 Phil. 27) and People v. Manantan (94 Phil. 831): Cited for the "single criminal impulse" rationale behind Article 48 (Complex Crimes).
• People v. Guillen (G.R. No. L-1477): Cited for the rule that in complex crimes, the penalty for the most serious crime is applied in its maximum period regardless of modifying circumstances.
• People v. Delim (G.R. No. 142773), People v. Caballero (G.R. Nos. 149028-30), People v. Abrazaldo (G.R. No. 124392): Cited regarding the proper amounts and bases for awarding civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages.

• Revised Penal Code, Article 248: Defines Murder and lists qualifying circumstances (specifically cited: par. 1 - Treachery, par. 3 - By means of explosion).
• Revised Penal Code, Article 48: Defines and provides the penalty for Complex Crimes.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 14: Defines Aggravating Circumstances (implicitly referenced regarding treachery as generic).
• Revised Penal Code, Article 47: Governs automatic review by the Supreme Court when the death penalty is imposed.
• Presidential Decree No. 1866: Codifying Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives.
• Republic Act No. 8294: An Act Amending P.D. No. 1866 (specifically Sections 2 and 3 concerning penalties and treatment of use of explosives as aggravating).
• Republic Act No. 7659: Act imposing the death penalty on certain heinous crimes, amending the Revised Penal Code (including Art. 248).
• 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 110, Sections 8 & 9: Requires the information to state the designation of the offense, acts constituting it, and specify qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
• Republic Act No. 7659, Section 25 (amending RPC Art. 83): Requires forwarding records to the Office of the President upon finality of a death sentence for possible exercise of pardoning power.
• 1987 Constitution: Mentioned indirectly regarding the previous suspension of the death penalty.