People vs. Vargas

Conspiracy inferred from simultaneous and concerted firing makes each conspirator liable for all resultant deaths and injuries, with successive shots producing separate felonies rather than a single complex crime. Because appellant and his brother fired together at the occupied house and fled together, the act of one was the act of the other, and each fatal and non-fatal result constituted a distinct offense.

Jesus Vargas, Jr. and his brother Fortunato Vargas were relatives of the Malones family residing in Barangay Banugan, Municipality of Dueñas, Iloilo. Barangay Captain Simplicia Segura had known both brothers since childhood and recalled a 1972 incident in which Romeo Malones, Sr. complained of an attempt on his life, slept in her house out of fear, and later amicably settled the matter with Fortunato Vargas before the chief of police upon the latter's promise not to repeat the act.

At 9:00 o'clock in the evening of October 29, 1982, Romeo Malones, Sr. was reading the Bible by a kerosene lamp in his house at Barangay Banugan, Dueñas, Iloilo, when the house was sprayed with bullets. The shooting caused his death and that of his daughter Rosalie, and physical injuries to the remaining members of his family. Romeo Malones, Jr., then 14 years old, was resting in the extension of the house while his mother, brother and sisters were resting in the receiving room. Upon hearing the first burst of gunfire from the back of the house outside the fence, he peeped through the wall of bamboo strips (tadtad) and saw the brothers Jesus Vargas and Fortunato Vargas firing at the house, armed with a long firearm and an armalite, respectively.

Romeo, Jr. recognized them because the moon was bright, it being a full moon, and they stood only about five meters away; the Vargases were also his relatives. Upon seeing them, he lay flat on his stomach on the ground where his bed was situated, then heard another set of gunfire followed by many others. After the firing ceased, he saw his father fall in the kitchen and die instantly, while his brother and sisters were also wounded. He told his mother what he saw, and upon her instruction informed his grandmother Leonora Malones, who came to the house with him. Barangay Captain Simplicia Segura, Modesto Lorilla and some relatives arrived and brought the victims to the hospital, where Rosalie died.

When Segura learned of the incident she immediately proceeded to the Malones house, saw Romeo, Sr. already dead and the rest wounded, and conducted inquiries among those present, particularly Florentino Ladines and Romeo Malones, Jr. From them she learned that those seen armed and firing were Fortunato Vargas alias Nono and Jesus Vargas alias Lucky, whom she had known since they were small boys. Dr. Melchor G. Tupaz, senior resident physician of the Western Visayas Medical Center, documented gunshot wounds to Maribeth and Sheila Malones, abrasions to Ronald and Nona Malones, and a 2 x 2 cm head wound with extensive linear fracture of both parietal bones to Rosalie Malones, who died in the emergency room. NBI medico-legal officer Dr. Ricardo H. Jaboneta performed autopsies showing Romeo, Sr. died of four gunshot wounds involving the liver, stomach and lungs, with three deformed slugs recovered, and Rosalie died from one head wound with a deformed slug recovered.

Appellant denied participation and claimed he was in Barangay Mabini, Buenavista, Guimaras attending a barangay fiesta that evening, presenting witnesses on his whereabouts and on the alleged unavailability of regular sea and land transportation to Dueñas. The trial court found Romeo Malones, Jr. testified in an almost straightforward, continuous and flawless manner and was not shaken despite rigid cross-examination, with no serious inconsistencies suggesting coaching. It likewise noted glaring inconsistencies in the alibi witnesses on the time appellant allegedly returned home and on whether dinner or only drinks were served at Barangay Captain Pablito Gabe's house, and took judicial notice that Buenavista to Iloilo City takes only 15 to 25 minutes by pumpboat with special hires available, and Dueñas is barely 53 kilometers from Iloilo City.

• Absence of Conspiracy and Evident Premeditation: Petitioner argued that having found no conspiracy and evident premeditation, the trial court erred in convicting him for all resultant crimes, maintaining that the prosecution failed to pinpoint which of the two Vargases caused each death and wound and that acquittal should follow in light of his alibi.
• Credibility of Eyewitness: Petitioner argued that Romeo Malones, Jr.'s testimony was improbable because, instead of lying flat like an experienced soldier upon hearing gunshots, he allegedly stood to peep through flattened bamboo (tadtad) that wind, rain and light could hardly penetrate, and because the assailants' location was darkened by shadows of coffee plants despite the bright moon.
• Denial of New Trial and PAGASA Certification: Petitioner argued that the motion for new trial was improperly denied by treating as corroborative evidence a weather bureau certification on moonlight that was not introduced during trial.
• Alibi: Petitioner maintained that his defense of alibi deserved credence, as he was in Buenavista, Guimaras attending a fiesta, with the defense endeavoring to show non-availability of regular sea and land transportation to Dueñas, Iloilo.

• Conspiracy and Liability for Resultant Crimes: Whether appellant may be convicted for all resultant deaths and injuries despite the trial court's observation that conspiracy and evident premeditation were not established and without pinpointing whose shots felled each victim.
• Credibility of Single Eyewitness: Whether credence was properly given to Romeo Malones, Jr.'s testimony identifying appellant as one of two perpetrators who fired at the house at night.
• New Trial and Post-Trial Corroboration: Whether denial of the motion for new trial was proper notwithstanding reliance on a weather bureau certification on moonlight obtained after trial as corroborative evidence.
• Alibi: Whether appellant's defense of alibi should have been given weight.

• Conspiracy and Liability for Resultant Crimes: Yes. Conspiracy was established by simultaneous firing and joint flight, so the act of one was the act of the other with no need to pinpoint whose bullet caused each result.
• Credibility of Single Eyewitness: Yes. The single eyewitness was competent, credible and clear, having positively identified relatives from five meters away by bright full moon through slits in dried bamboo.
• New Trial and Post-Trial Corroboration: No reversible error. Denial was proper, the court being empowered to require post-trial corroborative evidence in its search for truth.
• Alibi: No. Alibi failed for marked inconsistencies, lack of physical impossibility, and positive identification by an unshaken eyewitness.

• Conspiracy and Liability for Resultant Crimes: Although the trial court observed that conspiracy and evident premeditation had not been established, the testimony showed both Vargases firing simultaneously toward the Malones home with their respective firearms and together fleeing the scene, which are clear indicia of conspiracy. From such concerted action, liability for each resultant crime attached to each conspirator, rendering it unnecessary to pinpoint which victim was felled by which shooter. Successive shots killing and injuring several persons produced distinct and separate felonies rather than a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, pursuant to People vs. Mones and People vs. Desierto on the number of bullets producing the felonies.
• Credibility of Single Eyewitness: Romeo, Jr. was not a soldier but a startled young man who stood and looked through slits in the house wall; dried bamboo poles shrink so one inside could easily peep outside. His account that the full moon was bright, the men were only about five meters away, and they were his relatives whom he could recognize, withstood rigid cross-examination in a straightforward, continuous and flawless manner without serious inconsistencies. Corroboration by medical, necropsy and investigative evidence sustained the finding that his testimony was competent, credible and clear and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• New Trial and Post-Trial Corroboration: The weather bureau certification that the moon was bright on the fateful evening merely corroborated Romeo, Jr.'s testimony on visibility. Its submission even after trial upon court order was properly appreciated, since it is within the court's power to require production of such evidence to satisfy itself in its search for truth even after trial.
• Alibi: The alibi rested on denials contradicted by glaring inconsistencies: one defense witness placed appellant's return home at 10:00 p.m. while another kept him at the auditorium until midnight, and accounts diverged on whether dinner was served at 8:30 p.m. or only drinks at 5:30 p.m. followed by dinner elsewhere. Physical presence at the scene was not shown to be impossible, judicial notice being taken of the short 15-to-25-minute pumpboat trip from Buenavista to Iloilo City and the 53-kilometer distance to Dueñas by regular transportation. Under P. vs. Alcantara, alibi requires clear and convincing proof precluding presence plus weak identification, which was not met where positive identification remained strong.

• Conspiracy by concerted action; liability for resultant crimes — Conspiracy may be inferred from simultaneous, concerted acts toward a common criminal purpose, such as firing together at an occupied house and fleeing together, even without direct proof of prior agreement. Once established, the act of one conspirator is the act of all, so the prosecution need not pinpoint whose shot caused each death or injury, and each accused is liable for every resultant felony.
• Separate felonies from successive shots vs. complex crime — Where several persons are killed and others injured by successive shots, each death and injury constitutes a distinct and separate felony rather than a single complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Following People vs. Mones and People vs. Desierto, it is the number of bullets actually producing the felonies, not the single act of pressing the trigger, that determines the number of offenses.
• Sufficiency of single eyewitness testimony — The testimony of a single eyewitness, if competent, credible, clear and corroborated by other evidence on record, suffices to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Positive identification from short distance under good visibility, coupled with straightforward and unshaken testimony despite rigid cross-examination, prevails over denial.
• Alibi: requisites and effect of positive identification — For alibi to prosper, the evidence must be clear and convincing as to preclude the accused's presence at the scene, while the identification evidence must be weak and insufficient. Marked inconsistencies among defense witnesses, failure to show physical impossibility of presence, and positive identification by a credible eyewitness defeat the defense.
• Court's power to receive post-trial corroborative evidence — A court may require production of corroborative evidence even after trial to satisfy itself in its search for truth. Such subsequently obtained corroboration, as with an official certification confirming visibility conditions, may properly be appreciated without constituting reversible error.

• "These are clear indicia of conspiracy." — Contextualizes the finding that simultaneous firing by the two brothers and their joint flight established conspiracy despite the lower court's contrary observation.
• "The act of one is the act of the other." — States the operative consequence of conspiracy, eliminating the need to pinpoint which shooter caused each death or wound.
• "In order that an alibi as a defense may prosper, the evidence to support it must be clear and convincing as to preclude the possibility of the accused's presence at the scene of the crime, while the evidence as to identification must be weak and insufficient (P. vs. Alcantara, 33 SCRA 813)." — Recites the controlling test for alibi applied to reject appellant's fiesta defense in the face of positive identification.
• "It is within the power of the court to require the production of such evidence to satisfy itself in its search for the truth even after the trial." — Justifies appreciation of the post-trial weather bureau certification corroborating moonlight visibility.

• People vs. Mones, No. L-2029, May 6, 1950; 86 Phil. 331 — Followed as controlling on multiple homicides; where accused fired a series of shots killing three persons, guilt for three distinct and separate murders qualified by treachery was found.
• People vs. Desierto, CA, 45 OG 4542 — Followed for the rule that several shots causing several deaths, though from continued pressing of a sub-machinegun trigger, are several acts measured by the bullets producing the felonies.
• P. vs. Alcantara, 33 SCRA 813 — Followed as authority for the requisites of alibi requiring clear and convincing exclusion of presence and weak identification.

• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Cited on complex crimes; held inapplicable because successive shots causing multiple deaths and injuries constituted separate felonies rather than a single complex crime of double murder.
• 1987 Constitution, abolition of death penalty — Applied to procedure; since the death penalty could no longer be imposed, automatic review of capital offenses no longer obtained and the case was treated as an ordinary appeal despite two life sentences.
• Penalties of reclusion perpetua and arresto mayor — Applied to sentence: reclusion perpetua for each of two murders, four months of arresto mayor for each of two less serious physical injuries, and twenty days of arresto mayor for each of two slight physical injuries, with civil indemnity, funeral reimbursement, attorney's fees and costs.

Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.