People vs. Libre

Positive identification by eyewitness-victims who have no ill motive prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi where the accused fails to prove physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene; furthermore, conspiracy is established by concerted actions indicating a common purpose, such as jointly approaching the victims' house armed with firearms, employing a decoy to ensure the victims' vulnerability, simultaneously strafing the dwelling, and fleeing together, thereby making all conspirators equally liable for the resulting crimes of murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation.

In the evening of November 25, 1994, in Sto. Tomas, Davao, accused Albino Caman (a CAFGU member), Yolando Libre, and Flora Encabo approached the house of Lucy Sabando seeking directions to the residence of Ruben Barte, alleged to be a member of the New People's Army (NPA). Armed with a Garand rifle and a revolver, the group forced Lucy and her husband Edwin to accompany them to Ruben's house, approximately two kilometers away. Upon arrival, Lucy called out to Ruben under the pretense of seeking medicine for a sick child. When Ruben emerged from his house holding a lamp, the accused attacked.

The Attack: At approximately 9:00 p.m. on November 25, 1994, prosecution witness Lucy Sabando, together with her husband Edwin and their child, were visited at their home by accused Albino Caman, Yolando Libre, and Flora Encabo. The three accused, armed with firearms (one long firearm and two short firearms), pushed open the door and ordered the Sabandos to accompany them to the house of Ruben Barte, located approximately two kilometers away. During the thirty-minute walk, the accused ordered Lucy to call out to Ruben upon arrival and ask for medicine for her child.

The Strafing: When the group reached Ruben's house, Lucy called out as instructed. Ruben Barte, holding a lamp, opened the door to assist. Immediately, Albino Caman, carrying what appeared to be an M-14 rifle, rushed toward Ruben and shot him in the back. Ruben saw Yolando Libre carrying a .38 caliber handgun. Caman then began firing at Ruben's family inside the house, strafing the dwelling for approximately thirty minutes despite Juanita Barte's pleas to stop because children were present. Ruben managed to crawl out and escape to the house of SPO4 Ernesto Evangelista, approximately half a kilometer away, where he fell unconscious.

The Victims: Among the seven children inside the house during the attack, three were shot. Joselito Barte (11 years old) died on arrival at the hospital from hemorrhagic shock due to a gunshot wound. Rodel Barte (1 year and 3 months old) suffered bilateral gunshot wounds to the buttocks with massive tissue loss and died four days after confinement. Renante Barte (13 years old) was shot in the left buttock and survived after five days of hospitalization. Ruben Barte survived his injuries. Empty shells from a Garand rifle and a .38 caliber revolver were recovered at the crime scene.

Defense Evidence: Yolando Libre testified that he was merely forced at gunpoint by Caman to accompany him to Ruben's house. He claimed that he intentionally misled Caman to the house of Lucy Sabando instead, and that he and his wife Flora fled to a cogon area as soon as they heard gunshots. He denied any participation in the shooting and any grudge against Ruben Barte, though Ruben testified that Libre had previously challenged him to a fight with a bolo. Flora Encabo corroborated the claim of duress, stating Caman poked his gun at Libre and forced them to accompany him.

• Insufficiency of Evidence and Identification: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on insufficient evidence, contending that the prosecution witnesses' affidavits were inconsistent with their court testimonies regarding the identities of the perpetrators.
• Conspiracy: Petitioner maintained that conspiracy was not established, asserting that he was merely a forced companion of Caman and did not share the criminal intent to kill the victims.
• Qualifying Circumstances: Petitioner argued that assuming arguendo that conspiracy existed, the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime, and abuse of superior strength against him.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Respondent countered that the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses, having observed their demeanor firsthand, were entitled to great weight and conclusive effect absent any showing of bias or improper motive.
• Positive Identification: Respondent argued that the positive identification by victims Ruben and Juanita Barte, who saw the accused at close range (approximately ten meters) under lamplight, was reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• Conspiracy and Qualifying Circumstances: Respondent maintained that conspiracy was established by the concerted actions of the accused, including the use of a decoy, the simultaneous firing of weapons, and the coordinated flight, thereby warranting the appreciation of treachery and evident premeditation.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the evidence of guilt was sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence notwithstanding alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' affidavits and testimonies.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy between Yolando Libre and Albino Caman was established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Qualifying Circumstances: Whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were properly appreciated to qualify the killings to murder.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The conviction was affirmed on the ground that positive identification by eyewitness-victims Ruben and Juanita Barte, who had no ill motive to falsely accuse the petitioner, prevailed over the defenses of denial and alibi. The Court noted that the proximity of the accused (ten meters), the illumination from the lamp Ruben carried, and the victims' status as parents of the deceased created a natural interest in securing justice that rendered their identification reliable. Alleged inconsistencies between affidavits and testimonies were deemed minor and affected only details, not the substance of the identification.
• Conspiracy: Conspiracy was established because the accused acted in concert: they approached the victims' house together armed with firearms, used Lucy Sabando as a decoy to ensure the victims' vulnerability, simultaneously strafed the house for thirty minutes despite pleas to stop, and fled together. The presence of empty shells from both a Garand rifle and a .38 caliber revolver indicated the use of two firearms, corroborating the testimony that Libre was armed and participated in the attack.
• Qualifying Circumstances: Treachery was present because the attack was sudden, deliberate, and unexpected, employing a decoy to lure the victims out and ensuring the attack occurred while the victims were sleeping and unprepared, thereby eliminating any risk to the attackers. Evident premeditation was established by the two-kilometer walk to the victims' house, which demonstrated a determined plan and sufficient time (approximately thirty minutes) for the accused to reflect on the consequences of their actions.

• Credibility of Witnesses; Relatives of Victims — Findings of fact of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth. Absent any clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts of weight and substance, its findings will not be disturbed on appeal. Witnesses who are relatives of the victims and are themselves victims have a natural interest in securing the conviction of the guilty and are thus unlikely to falsely accuse innocent persons.
• Alibi and Denial — For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses that cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses.
• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to pursue it. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, which indubitably point to a joint purpose, concerted action, and community of interest. Once conspiracy is established, the act of one conspirator is the act of all.
• Treachery — Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, 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. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.
• Evident Premeditation — To prove evident premeditation, the prosecution must show: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (3) a lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof sufficient to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
• Penalty for Frustrated Felonies — Under Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a frustrated felony is one degree lower than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony. When applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to frustrated murder, the maximum penalty is taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal (the penalty one degree lower than reclusion perpetua to death for murder), and the minimum from the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor.
• Damages in Criminal Cases — Heirs of murder victims are entitled to civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, each fixed at ₱75,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. Victims of frustrated murder are entitled to civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, each fixed at ₱50,000.00. Temperate damages of ₱50,000.00 may be awarded in lieu of actual damages when pecuniary loss is established but the amount cannot be proven with certainty. All damages awarded earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.

• "Time and again, this Court held that when the issues revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. This is so because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth."
• "The positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the accused, the former undisputedly deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight."
• "For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that appellant was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission."
• "The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape."
• "The fact that they asked Lucy Sabando to lead them to Barte's house, and on a 2-kilometer walk, showed their determination to commit the crime and clung to it all the time they were on the way to Barte's house."

• People v. Nelmida, 694 Phil. 529 (2012) — Cited for the rule that factual findings of the trial court on credibility are entitled to conclusive effect absent clear showing of error; also cited regarding the presumption that relatives of victims are not actuated by ill motive.
• People v. Dadao, et al., 725 Phil. 298 (2014) — Cited for the presumption that prosecution witnesses are not actuated by ill motive where no imputation of improper motive was made.
• People v. Sumilhig, G.R. No. 178115, July 28, 2014, 731 SCRA 102 — Cited for the rule that positive assertions of prosecution witnesses prevail over negative averments of the accused.
• People v. Piedad, 441 Phil. 818 (2002) — Cited for the principle that eyewitnesses can remember with high reliability the identity of criminals due to the unusual acts of violence committed before their eyes.
• People v. Ireneo Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016 — Cited as basis for increasing the award of temperate damages to ₱50,000.00 and for the standard amounts of civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages in murder cases.
• People v. Eugene Samuya, G.R. No. 213214, April 20, 2015 — Cited for the propriety of awarding temperate damages when pecuniary loss is suffered but the amount cannot be proven.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code (Murder) — Defines murder and prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when committed with qualifying circumstances including treachery and evident premeditation. Applied to qualify the killings of Rodel and Joselito Barte.
• Article 50, Revised Penal Code — Provides that the penalty for a frustrated felony shall be one degree lower than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony. Applied to determine the penalty for the frustrated murders of Ruben and Renante Barte.
• Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law), as amended — Applied to determine the indeterminate penalty for frustrated murder, with the minimum taken from prision mayor and the maximum from reclusion temporal.
• Article 64(1), Revised Penal Code — Provides that when there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. Applied in fixing the maximum penalty for frustrated murder.

Velasco, Jr., J. (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concurred.