People vs. Sanchez

The use of automatic weapons in continuous bursts, resulting in multiple deaths, does not constitute a single act under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code; rather, the accused are liable for as many offenses as the bullets that produced them. The Court held that because the mechanism of an automatic weapon allows continuous firing from a single trigger press, the felonies produced are determined by the number of bullets hitting the victims, not the single act of pressing the trigger.

On April 13, 1991, in Calauan, Laguna, Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez ordered the killing of Nelson Peñalosa, a political leader of his opponent, after being assured of Peñalosa's presence at a party. Accused Peradillas, Corcolon, and Averion, along with state witness Malabanan, planned the operation, procuring a vehicle and two-way radios. That evening, after Peradillas confirmed Peñalosa's departure, Averion drove the group as they pursued Peñalosa's jeep. Upon overtaking the jeep, Corcolon and Peradillas fired M-16 and baby armalite rifles in automatic mode, killing both Nelson Peñalosa and his son Rickson. The assailants subsequently reported the killing to Mayor Sanchez.

• The Order: At 10:00 a.m. on April 13, 1991, Peradillas informed Mayor Sanchez of Nelson Peñalosa's location. Mayor Sanchez responded, "Bahala na kayo mga anak. Ayusin lang ninyo ang trabaho," which the group understood as an order to kill.
• The Preparation: Peradillas, Corcolon, and Averion acquired two-way radios and a vehicle. They met at Mayor Sanchez's house at 6:00 p.m.
• The Ambush: The group proceeded to the vicinity of the victim's location. Upon confirmation via radio that Peñalosa's jeep was leaving, Averion drove the car to overtake the jeep. Corcolon and Peradillas fired automatic weapons at the jeep, resulting in three bursts of gunfire. Nelson and Rickson Peñalosa died from multiple gunshot wounds.
• The Physical Evidence: Dr. Ruben Escueta's autopsy indicated that the assailants were at a lower elevation, three kinds of guns were used, and the assailants were on the right side of the victims—contradicting Malabanan's testimony that they were at the same elevation, used two guns, and were on the left side.
• The Defense: The accused interposed alibi and denial. Corcolon claimed he was at a poultry farm; Averion claimed he was in Lucena City tending to his ailing father; Mayor Sanchez claimed he was in Anilao, Batangas, and Tagaytay City with his family. They alleged Malabanan falsely implicated them due to threats and torture related to their refusal to testify against Sanchez in another case.

• Accused-appellants argued that the trial court failed to recognize material inconsistencies between Malabanan’s testimony and the physical and scientific evidence, specifically regarding the elevation, number of firearms, and the location of the assailants relative to the victims.
• They contended that these inconsistencies seriously impaired Malabanan's credibility, especially given his alleged motive to falsely implicate them due to threats from Mayor Sanchez.
• They maintained that their defense of alibi, though generally weak, was credible under the circumstances.

• The Solicitor General argued that the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through Malabanan's positive identification and categorical testimony.
• The OSG contended that the alleged inconsistencies were explained by the fact that both vehicles were moving; the victims naturally shifted positions to evade bullets, and the automatic firing mode caused bullets to burst in different directions.
• The OSG maintained that Malabanan had no sufficient ill motive to testify falsely and that his delay in reporting the crime was justified by Mayor Sanchez's power and influence.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the inconsistencies between the eyewitness testimony and the autopsy/ballistic reports negate the witness's credibility and warrant acquittal.
  • Whether the crime committed is a complex crime of double murder under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code or two separate counts of murder.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • On Credibility: The Court ruled that the inconsistencies did not impair Malabanan's credibility. Minor lapses buttress credibility by showing the testimony was neither coached nor contrived. The discrepancies between the eyewitness account and the medical findings were adequately explained by the moving vehicles and the victims' natural instinct to dodge bullets, as well as the nature of automatic firing. The testimony of a single credible witness is sufficient for conviction, especially one who participated in the planning and execution of the crime.
  • On Complex Crime: The Court ruled that the crime was not a complex crime of double murder but two separate counts of murder. Citing People v. Vargas, Jr., the Court held that when automatic weapons are used, the felonies are determined by the number of bullets that actually produced them, not the single act of pressing the trigger. Because the assailants fired in automatic mode producing three bursts of gunfire, they are liable for as many offenses as resulted from their acts. Treachery qualified the killings to murder, and the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and use of a motor vehicle were appreciated. Nighttime was not appreciated due to lack of proof it was purposely sought.

• Complex Crimes and Automatic Weapons — When multiple deaths result from firing an automatic weapon, the act of pressing the trigger is not considered the single act that produces the felonies; rather, the number of bullets that actually hit and kill the victims constitutes the multiple acts. Thus, the accused are liable for as many offenses as there are victims, not for a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court applied this to recharacterize the crime from a complex crime of double murder to two separate counts of murder.
• Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony vs. Physical Evidence — Minor inconsistencies between an eyewitness's recollection and physical or medical evidence do not necessarily destroy the witness's credibility, especially when the dynamics of the event—such as moving vehicles, the victims' evasive maneuvers, and the use of automatic weapons—explain the variance in bullet trajectories and entry points.
• Conspiracy — In conspiracy, it is not necessary that all conspirators actually hit and kill the victim; the performance of specific acts with closeness and coordination indicating a common purpose renders all participants liable as co-principals. The act of one conspirator is the act of all. The Court applied this to hold Mayor Sanchez liable as the mastermind despite his absence at the crime scene.

• "Although each burst of shots was caused by one single act of pressing the trigger of the sub-machinegun, in view of its special mechanism the person firing it has only to keep pressing the trigger of the sub-machinegun, with his finger and it would fire continually. Hence, it is not the act of pressing the trigger which should be considered as producing the several felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced them." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi for rejecting the complex crime characterization under Article 48 when automatic weapons are used.
• "This Court has held time and again that any minor lapses in the testimony of a witness tend to buttress, rather than weaken, his or her credibility, since they show that he or she was neither coached nor were his or her answers contrived." — This reinforces the doctrine on witness credibility and the treatment of inconsistencies.

• People v. Vargas, Jr., 184 SCRA 254 (1990) — Followed. The Court adopted the ruling that firing a sub-machinegun or automatic weapon constitutes multiple acts rather than a single act, precluding the application of Article 48 on complex crimes.
• People v. Oliano, 287 SCRA 158 (1998) — Followed. Cited for the principle that nighttime is not appreciated as an aggravating circumstance unless the offenders specifically sought it to facilitate the crime.
• People v. Cesar Sanchez, G.R. No. 118423, June 16, 1999 — Followed. Cited for the rule that actual damages must be supported by receipts; self-serving statements are insufficient.
• People v. Mario Villanueva, G.R. No. 122746, January 29, 1999 — Followed. Cited for the requirement of unbiased proof of average income for lost earning capacity; a self-serving statement is inadequate.

• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Provides that 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. The Court ruled this provision inapplicable because the use of automatic weapons producing multiple bursts of gunfire constitutes multiple acts, not a single act.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines murder and prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. The Court applied this provision, as modified by the presence of aggravating circumstances and the constitutional proscription of the death penalty at the time, imposing reclusion perpetua for each count of murder.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Provides that exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The Court applied this to sustain the award of exemplary damages due to the presence of evident premeditation and use of a motor vehicle.
• Article 2206, Civil Code — Governs damages for death, including the right of the spouse and legitimate/illegitimate descendants/ascendants to demand moral damages. The Court noted that the common law wife is not entitled to share in the award of moral damages under this article.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.