People vs. Lopez

Positive identification under adequate moonlight prevails over alibi, and successive shotgun blasts killing two and non-fatally wounding a third constitute two murders and attempted murder qualified by treachery, not a complex crime under Article 48. Because each victim was hit by a separate act and Mario's wounds were not life-threatening, liability attached separately for each result with treachery qualifying all three attacks.

Federico Lopez @ Amboy Lopez and the Selderas were barriomates in Umingan, Pangasinan, with Lopez operating a store where Mario Seldera bought cigarettes and frequently visiting the Seldera house to play cards with Rogelio. Rodrigo Lopez, also called "Thunder" Lopez and at times "Amboy," resided in the same locality and shared a similar build with accused-appellant. No prior quarrel between accused-appellant and the victims was shown on the record.

At around 6:00 in the evening of November 15, 1991, Mario Seldera, 11, his father Rogelio Seldera, and his cousin Rodolfo Padapat were hired to bundle cut palay stalks in the riceland of a certain Lagula in Barangay Nancalabasaan, Umingan, Pangasinan. Being a moonlit night during harvest time, the three worked until about 9:00 and then started for home along a two-foot-wide trail beside the Banila river, walking single file with Rogelio leading, followed by Mario and then Rodolfo. Upon reaching a sloping portion, Federico Lopez appeared armed with a shotgun similar to those used by security guards, accompanied by a dark, unarmed man. Without uttering a word, Lopez fired at the three, who slumped forward face down, after which the companion rolled the bodies over with his foot and, satisfied they were dead, both men left toward the victims' house.

Mario, however, had sustained three gunshot wounds on the right side of his back, each about .5 x 1 cm and spaced vertically, but remained alive. As soon as the assailants left, he stood up crying and walked to the house of his uncle Alfredo Padapat, father of Rodolfo, avoiding his own home because the assailants had gone in that direction. His mother was fetched, the incident was reported to the barangay captain, and they proceeded to the police in Umingan that same night. Mario was investigated by CPL Jose Almerol and treated by Dr. Suller-Santos at Umingan Medicare Hospital, who certified the back wounds and referred him to Eastern Pangasinan District Hospital for x-ray. From his first report at Alfredo's house, to his mother, and to the police, Mario consistently pointed to accused-appellant, whom he recognized by face and clothing — white long-sleeved shirt, blue jeans, white slippers — under bright moonlight, having known him well from frequent card games with his father and purchases at his store.

Dr. Thelma C. Busto examined the bodies on November 16, 1991 and found Rogelio with a through-and-through gunshot wound from the frontal to the occipital area of the head and nine multiple gunshot wounds in the chest and neck, and Rodolfo with a gunshot wound in the right parietal area without exit, both caused by cerebral hemorrhage and cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to gunshot wounds consistent with a shotgun fired at close range. Leonida Seldera and Alfredo Padapat testified only on the civil aspect, stating funeral expenses were incurred but receipts were unavailable. For his defense, Lopez claimed alibi that from 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. he was drinking gin with four friends over dog meat in his uncle Asterio Sonaco's house in Caurdanetaan, about three kilometers from Nancalabasaan, corroborated in part by Daniel Fortunato, Mario Sonaco, barangay captain Juanito Costales, and Lorna Gonzales on the darkness of the night, though with inconsistencies on time of return, number of persons present, illumination, and distance to the scene.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: Petitioner argued that full faith and credit should not have been given to Mario Seldera because minute details on clothing colors, slippers, and firearm type could not have been observed during a sudden and unexpected shooting.
• Illumination and Identification: Petitioner maintained that recognition was impossible because it was very dark on the night of November 15, 1991, as corroborated by defense witnesses Lorna Gonzales and Barangay Captain Juanito Costales.
• Mistaken Identity: Petitioner argued that even with fair moonlight, Mario could have mistaken him for Rodrigo "Thunder" Lopez, another person in the barangay also called Amboy Lopez with the same height and build.
• Alibi: Petitioner maintained that he was in his uncle's house in Caurdanetaan at the time of the incident, and the defense of alibi should have been sustained.

• Credibility from Harrowing Experience: Respondent countered through the Solicitor General that Mario's memory was deeply etched by a harrowing experience in which he suffered three wounds and was left for dead, and victims of criminal violence naturally strive to notice assailants.
• Sufficient Moonlight: Respondent argued that Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration data showing 60% moon illumination, Mario's eyes having adjusted after walking under moonlight, and corroboration by shotgun-type wounds sustained identification.
• No Mistaken Identity: Respondent maintained that identification was by personal knowledge from frequent visits and store purchases, not by name, with Rodrigo Lopez darker and shorter and not even a suspect, and without improper motive the identification deserved full faith.

• Credibility and Illumination: Whether Mario Seldera's positive identification of accused-appellant was credible despite the suddenness of the attack and the claim of darkness.
• Mistaken Identity: Whether Mario could have mistaken accused-appellant for Rodrigo "Thunder" Lopez, the other Amboy Lopez.
• Alibi vs. Positive Identification: Whether the defense of alibi should prevail over positive eyewitness identification.
• Duplicity and Complex Crime: Whether accused-appellant committed a complex crime of double murder with frustrated murder or separate crimes despite a duplicitous Information.
• Treachery and Stage of Execution: Whether treachery qualified the killings and whether the wounding of Mario constituted frustrated homicide or attempted murder.
• Damages: Whether the awards for civil indemnity, moral, actual, temperate, exemplary damages and unearned income were proper.

• Credibility and Illumination: Yes. Identification was credible, the 60% moon illumination being sufficient and corroborated by shotgun-consistent wounds and prior familiarity.
• Mistaken Identity: No. Mistake was negated, identification having rested on personal knowledge and consistent immediate accusations, not mere name, with physical differences noted.
• Alibi vs. Positive Identification: No. Alibi failed, physical impossibility not having been shown for a site less than two to three kilometers away negotiable in 30 minutes or less.
• Duplicity and Complex Crime: Separate crimes were committed, duplicity having been waived by failure to move to quash, and Article 48 being inapplicable to successive shots.
• Treachery and Stage of Execution: Treachery qualified both murders and the attack on Mario, but the latter was only attempted murder, the injuries not being life-threatening and healing in seven days.
• Damages: Modified. Civil indemnity of P50,000.00 each, increased moral damages, temperate damages in lieu of unproved actual damages, and computed unearned income were awarded, while unsupported moral, exemplary, and actual damages for Mario were deleted.

• Credibility and Illumination: The natural reaction of victims of criminal violence to observe assailants explained detailed recall, etched by suffering three wounds and witnessing the massacre. Corroboration was found in wounds similar to a shotgun blast at close range — Rogelio's head practically blown off with nine pellet-like chest and neck wounds less than three meters away, and Mario's three vertical small back wounds. Illumination was sufficient because 60% moonlight over Umingan at 9:00 p.m., prior exposure while walking under moonlight adjusting Mario's eyes, and precedent sustaining identification under 62% moon, moonlight, and even starlight supported recognition; one who recognized his victims could equally be recognized by the survivor.
• Mistaken Identity: Identification was not by name but by knowledge from frequent house visits and store purchases, with immediate and repeated pointing to accused-appellant at Alfredo Padapat's house, upon the mother's arrival, and before police that same night. Rodrigo "Thunder" Lopez was never a suspect, was darker and shorter, and no improper motive to falsely implicate accused-appellant was shown, so full faith and credence attached.
• Alibi vs. Positive Identification: Caurdanetaan being only three kilometers by accused-appellant's admission, and his own witnesses placing his house less than two kilometers from the Banila river negotiable in 30 minutes on foot and less by running or through ricefields, slipping out and returning in time for police arrival was not physically impossible. Positive identification by a motive-free eyewitness, aged 11 at the incident and 13 at testimony, prevailed, with motive immaterial where identity was certain. Alibi was additionally weakened by inconsistencies on return time (8:00 p.m. in counter-affidavit vs. 11:00 p.m. in court) and number of persons present (five vs. at least ten), and admission that Fortunato was not constantly watching.
• Duplicity and Complex Crime: Although charging more than one offense violated Rule 110, Section 13, objection on duplicity was waived for failure to file a motion to quash under Rule 117, Section 8. No complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code resulted because a single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies was absent; successive shotgun firings each constituted a separate act, yielding three separate crimes.
• Treachery and Stage of Execution: Treachery, defined as swift and unexpected attack on unarmed victims without slightest provocation, qualified the killings where unarmed victims peacefully walking were suddenly fired upon and left helpless. Intent to kill Mario was inferred from weapon, proximity, and wound location, and treachery likewise attended his shooting. The offense was only attempted, not frustrated, because Dr. Santos certified healing in seven days, Mario was not confined and was referred only for x-ray without further treatment shown, establishing non-life-threatening injuries.
• Damages: P50,000.00 per death was retained as civil indemnity without need of proof beyond death, moral damages increased to P50,000.00 each, and P14,000.00 unreceipted funeral expenses converted to P5,000.00 temperate damages per set of heirs under Articles 2199 and 2224 of the Civil Code upon proof of pecuniary loss unprovable in amount. For Mario, P10,000.00 moral damages for lack of evidence, P20,000.00 exemplary damages absent aggravating circumstance beyond qualifying treachery under Article 2230, and P300.00 actual damages without documentary proof were deleted, replaced by P200.00 temperate damages. Unearned income was computed as life expectancy [2/3 x (80 - age)] multiplied by net annual income (50% of gross), yielding P160,355.00 for 43-year-old Rogelio earning P13,000.00 yearly and P91,675.00 for 25-year-old Rodolfo earning P5,000.00 yearly.

• Treachery — Treachery exists in a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the victim's part, leaving the victim helpless to defend. Applied to qualify the sudden shotgun firing on three persons peacefully walking single file along a trail.
• Positive identification vs. alibi — Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by an eyewitness without improper motive, and prospers only upon proof of physical impossibility of presence at the scene at the time of commission. Applied to reject alibi where distance was 1.5 to 3 kilometers negotiable in 20 to 30 minutes and identification was consistent and motive-free.
• Identification by moonlight — Illumination from the moon, and even stars, may be fair and sufficient to identify perpetrators, particularly where the witness's eyes had adjusted and prior familiarity existed. Applied to sustain identification under 60% moon illumination corroborated by wound characteristics.
• Motive when identity is certain — Proof of motive becomes significant only where identity is in serious doubt and is immaterial where the accused has been positively identified. Applied to disregard absence of proven quarrel.
• Complex crime under Article 48, Revised Penal Code — A complex crime requires a single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies; successive shots constitute separate acts and separate crimes. Applied to hold two murders and one attempted murder rather than double murder with frustrated murder.
• Waiver of duplicity — Charging more than one offense in one Information violates Rule 110, Section 13, but objection on duplicity is waived by failure to move to quash. Applied where accused-appellant did not timely object.
• Attempted vs. frustrated murder/homicide — Where treacherous intent to kill exists but injuries are not life-threatening, liability is for attempted and not frustrated murder. Applied where back wounds would heal in seven days without confinement.
• Damages for death and injury — Civil indemnity of P50,000.00 follows death without further proof; moral damages of P50,000.00 may be awarded; temperate damages under Article 2224 of the Civil Code may be recovered upon proof of pecuniary loss unprovable in amount; exemplary damages under Article 2230 require aggravating circumstances beyond a qualifying circumstance; actual damages under Article 2199 require due proof. Applied to recalibrate funeral, medical, moral, and exemplary awards.
• Unearned income formula — Net earning capacity equals life expectancy [2/3 x (80 - age at death)] multiplied by annual net income (gross annual income less 50% living expenses). Applied to compute P160,355.00 and P91,675.00 for the two deceased farmers.

• "The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim." — States the canonical definition of treachery used to qualify the sudden trail ambush of unarmed victims.
• "For alibi to prosper, accused-appellant must show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission." — States the strict standard for alibi that defeated the claim where the venue was minutes away on foot.
• "Under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime is committed only 'when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies.'" — States the controlling test that precluded a complex crime for successive shotgun shots.
• "The rule is that identification of the accused, when there is no improper motive for making it, should be given full faith and credence." — States the credibility rule sustaining the 11-year-old survivor's consistent identification.

• People vs. Pueblas, 127 SCRA 746 (1984) — Followed as authority that a 62% full moon disc provides sufficient illumination to sustain identification and murder conviction, supporting sufficiency of 60% illumination here.
• People vs. Oliano, 287 SCRA 158 (1998) — Followed for moonlight sufficiency and treachery, and for temperate damages where pecuniary loss is shown but amount is unprovable.
• People vs. Balderas, 276 SCRA 970 (1997) — Followed with People vs. Maguikay, People vs. Tiu, People vs. Cogonon, and earlier cases for holding non-life-threatening treacherous wounding as attempted rather than frustrated murder.
• People vs. Panida, G.R. Nos. 127125 & 138952, July 6, 1999 — Followed for fixing P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P50,000.00 moral damages and for the unearned income computation formula.
• Villa-Rey Transit, Inc. vs. CA, 31 SCRA 511 (1970) — Followed as source of the life-expectancy formula [2/3 x (80 - age)] used to compute unearned income.

• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Provides complex crime only when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies; held inapplicable because successive shootings were separate acts yielding separate murders and attempted murder.
• Rule 110, Section 13, Revised Rules of Court in relation to Rule 117, Section 8 — Prohibits charging more than one offense in an Information, but objection on duplicity is waived without a motion to quash; applied to excuse the formally defective Information.
• Articles 2199 and 2224, Civil Code — Require proof of pecuniary loss for actual damages but allow temperate damages where loss is shown but amount cannot be proved with certainty; applied to award P5,000.00 per set of heirs and P200.00 to Mario in lieu of unreceipted claims.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Allows exemplary damages only when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances; applied to delete the award where only qualifying treachery, not an aggravating circumstance, attended.

Bellosillo, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.