G.R. No.

192790, August 01, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YOLANDO LIBRE ALIAS

"NONOY," Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before this Court is an appeal via Rule 45 from the Decision dated April 27, 2010 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00089-MIN1, affirming in toto the Decision dated
January 18, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Panabo, Davao, Branch 34, convicting
appellant Yolando Libre of murder and frustrated murder.

On February 9, 1995, four (4) Informations were filed, accusing accused-appellant Yolando
Libre alias "Nonoy" and accused Albino Caman and Flora Encabo Vda. de Lumidas of murder
and frustrated murder. The Informations alleged -

Criminal Case No. 95-21 for Murder2

That on or about November 25, 1994, in the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of Davao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with one another, with treachery and
evident premeditation, with intent to kill, armed with a Garand rifle and a revolver, did then
and there wilfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Rodel Barte,
thereby inflicting upon him wounds which caused his death, and further causing actual,
moral and compensatory damages to the heirs of the victim. CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 95-22 for Murder3

That on or about November 25, 1994, in the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of Davao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with treachery and evident
premeditation, with intent to kill, armed with a Garand rifle and a revolver, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Joselito Barte,
thereby inflicting upon him wounds which caused his death, and further causing actual,
moral and compensatory damages to the heirs of the victim.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 95-23 for Frustrated Murder4

That on or about November 25, 1994, in the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of Davao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with treachery and evident
premeditation, with intent to kill, armed with a Garand rifle and a revolver, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Ruben Barte, thereby
inflicting upon him wounds which would have caused his death, thus the accused performed
all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of murder, as a consequence
but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reasons of causes independent of the will of
the accused, that is, by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Ruben
Barte, and further causing actual, moral and compensatory damages to the offended party.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 95-25 for Frustrated Murder5

That on or about November 25, 1994, in the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of Davao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with treachery and evident
premeditation, with intent to kill, armed with a Garand rifle and a revolver, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Renante Barte,
thereby inflicting upon him wounds which would have caused his death, thus the accused
performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of murder, as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of
the will of the accused, that is, by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said
Renante Barte, and further causing actual, moral and compensatory damages to the
offended party.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
On February 16, 1996, upon arraignment, all three (3) accused pleaded not guilty. Joint
trial ensued.

On January 7, 1997, however, during the pendency of these cases, accused Albino Caman
while attempting to escape, was shot by provincial prison guards which resulted in his
death. Consequently, on January 21, 1997, by reason of his death, the criminal cases
against him were dismissed.6

The facts are as follows:

In the evening of November 25, 1994, prosecution witness Lucy Sabando (Lucy), together
with her husband, Edwin, and their child, were visited in their home by three (3) persons,
whom she later identified as accused Albino Caman (Caman), a member of the Citizen's
Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU), accused-appellant Yolando Libre (Libre), and
accused Flora Encabo (Encabo). The three accused told her that they were confused as to
the direction of the house of Ruben Barte (Ruben), who was known to be a member of the
New People's Army (NPA). They suddenly pushed the door of her house and ordered them
to accompany them to Ruben's house. She noticed that each of them was carrying a
firearm. One was a long firearm and the rest were short firearms. Her husband, while
carrying their child, was the one who led the group to Ruben's house which was about two
(2) kilometers away. Since they were not carrying any lamp, it took them about thirty
minutes to reach their destination. In the meantime, while they were walking, accused
ordered Lucy to call out Ruben when they reach the latter's house and ask for medicine for
her child. 7

When they reached Ruben's house, Lucy called out asking for medicine for her supposed
sick child. Ruben, while holding a lamp, went out of his house to see who was calling. 8 It
was then that one of the male accused rushed towards Ruben. Lucy later testified that the
one who was carrying a short firearm was the one who rushed towards Ruben. She likewise
testified that immediately after the accused and Ruben started "pulling" each other, she
grabbed her husband and ran away. When they were about 250 meters away, she heard
several gunshots.

Ruben testified that at about 9 o'clock in the evening of November 25, 1994, while he was
inside their house together with his wife and children, he heard a woman's voice asking for
medicine for a sick child. He recognized the voice to be that of Lucy. When he opened the
door, he was suddenly attacked by accused Caman who was then carrying a gun which he
thought was an M-14. He likewise saw accused-appellant Libre bringing a .38 caliber
handgun. Caman then shot him at the back and thereafter began firing at his family who
were then sleeping. The strafing lasted for about 30 minutes.9 Meanwhile, immediately after
Caman shot Ruben, the latter took cover near their house post and was able to crawl out of
the house and escape. While escaping, he heard one of the accused saying "Buhi pa ba
rial" (Is he still alive") and the other one answered: "Mabuhi pay pino pa sa bugas." (an
idiom to mean that no one could survive with the strafing).10 He then went to the house of
SPO4 Ernesto Evangelista, which was about a half kilometer away. He told SPO4 Evangelista
that they were strafed. He thereafter fell unconscious and was later taken to Tagum for
treatment of his injuries.

Ruben likewise testified that he did not know the motive of the attack but he testified that
he had previous incident with Yolando Libre who challenged him to a fight with a bolo. He
likewise testified that albeit he did not know Albino Caman, he knew that the latter was a
member of the CAFGU and used to rove around their place. He also knew that Albino Caman
and Yolando Libre were compadres.11

SPO4 Ernesto Evangelista testified that at about 9 o'clock in the evening of November 25,
1995, he was awakened by Ruben who informed him that his house was strafed by
unidentified persons. While his house was only a half kilometer away from Ruben's, he did
not hear the gunfire as he was asleep. He noticed that Ruben was hit and bloody. He then
called the police station and requested assistance to investigate the incident. At about 10
o'clock that night, the PNP Group, consisting of about ten police officers, led by the chief of
Police, Elmer Royo, went to the crime scene. There they discovered that Juanita had one
gunshot wound and several of the children were also hit. They noticed that the house was
hit by several bullets and a number of empty shells of Garand rifle and .38 caliber revolver
were recovered in the premises. Thereafter, they brought Juanita and the wounded children
to the Davao Medical Hospital.12

Among the seven children, three (3) were shot. Renante Barte, who was then thirteen (13)
years old, was shot in his left buttock and was confined at the Davao Regional Hospital for
five (5) days and was recommended by the medical officer for medical attendance for 30-45
days barring complications. Joselito Barte, who was then eleven (11) years old, was
pronounced dead on arrival and the cause of death was: "Hemorrhagic shock sec. to
gunshot wound at the right inguinal point of entrance towards the right buttocks point of
exit. " Rodel Barte, who was then 1 year and 3 months old, was likewise hit and the medical
finding was: "gunshot wound buttock, bilateral with massive tissue loss" and the medical
operation performed was a "wide excision of gunshot buttocks proximal diverting loop
colostomy." He died four (4) days after he was confined in the Davao Regional Hospital.

Juanita Barte testified that when her husband went outside to answer Lucy's call for help,
she suddenly heard gunshots and learned that Ruben was hit. She then started crying and
shouted: "Do not shoot us because we have children" but the firing still continued. So she
gathered her children and embraced them all. She later identified accused Albino Caman,
Yolando Libre, and Flora Encabo as the assailants. She could see their faces because of the
lamp which was carried by Ruben. She was wounded on her right leg and right elbow.

For the defense, Flora testified that accused-appellant Libre was her common-law husband
and they started living together in 1993. She likewise testified that she did not know Albino
Caman and that she only met him in the evening of November 25, 1994. At about 9 o'clock
in the evening, Caman allegedly went to their house and asked her husband the directions
to the house of Ruben. Her husband allegedly did not want to accompany Caman as it was
already dark. Caman got mad, and with "blazing" eyes, poked his gun at Libre and forced
them to go out and accompany him to Ruben's house. She knew the Bartes by name and
face and she also knew where their house was. While they were walking, they were
allegedly pushed by Caman and were allegedly told not to tell anyone including the police.
She likewise testified that they did not stop at Ruben's house but instead passed by it as
they were allegedly afraid at what Caman might do to Ruben and to them. Then, Caman
asked them what place they were in already, and she answered that she did not know.
When Caman turned to his left, he saw a lighted house and ordered Flora to wake the
people inside. It turned out to be Lucy Sabando's house. As she refused Caman's orders,
the latter himself woke the people inside the house and asked for the direction of Ruben
Barte's house. Lucy Sabando then woke her husband, who told Caman that he will guide
them to Barte's house. Together with Lucy and her husband, they turned back to where
they came from to proceed to Ruben's house. She further testified that they could not run
as Caman was allegedly holding her shoulder while his gun was pointed at her husband. She
further testified that she and her husband ran to the cogon area when the commotion
started and it was there that she heard the gunshots.

Yolando Libre, for his part, denied having any participations in the strafing. He testified that
he knew Albino Caman as a member of the CAFGU and he used to see him wearing a
"fatigue" uniform and fully packed with firearms. He was not close to Albino Caman and did
not have any previous conversation with him. He testified that at around 9 o'clock in the
evening of November 25, 1994, Albino Caman went to their house and asked for the
directions of Ruben Barte's house. Albino Caman allegedly smelled of liquor and had reddish
eyes. Yolando Libre knew Ruben's house, however, he refused to accompany Albino as it
was already dark. This seemed to infuriate Albino Caman who then cocked his rifle and
poked it at him while commanding them to accompany him to Ruben's house. Libre testified
that he intentionally misled Albino Caman and so they were able to proceed to the house of
Lucy and Edwin Sabando instead and it was already the latter who led them to Ruben
Barte's house. Yolando Libre testified that he was familiar with Barte's house as he always
passed by it when gathering firewood. He however denied having a grudge against him.

On January 18, 2000, the court a quo rendered its Decision,13 to wit:
Wherefore, the Court sentences the accused Yolando Libre, to suffer the following penalties.
In Crim. Case No. 95-21, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is
ordered to pay the heirs of Rodel Barte the sum of P50,000.00 for indemnity ex delicto and
P50,000.00 for moral damages and P50,000.00 for exemplary damages.

In Crim Case No. 95-22, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is
directed to pay the heirs of Joselito Barte the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto,
moral damages of P50,000.00 and exemplary [damages] of P50,000.00.

In Crim. Case No. 95-23, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from 10
years and 8 months to 20 years and to pay Ruben Barte the sum of P20,000.00 as
indemnity ex delicto, PI 0,000.00 moral damages and PI 0,000.00 as exemplary damages.

In Crim. Case No. 95-25, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from 10
years and 8 months to 20 years and to pay Renante Barte the sum of P20,000.00 as
indemnity ex delicto, PI 0,000.00, [as] moral damages and PI0,000.00 as exemplary
damages.

In all of these cases, he shall also suffer all the accessory penalties provided for by law. He
should be credited with the period of his detention pending termination of these cases.

The accused, Flora Encabo, is acquitted in Crim. Cases [No.] 95-21, 95-22, 95-23 and 95-
25 for want of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to her.

SO ORDERED.
Accused-appellant Libre appealed before the Court of Appeals.

On April 27, 2010, in its disputed Decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for
lack of merit and the appealed decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto.

Hence, this appeal, with the following issues:

I
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT YOLANDO LIBRE
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
AGAINST HIM AND THAT THE EVIDENCE IS WANTING AS TO HIS ALLEGED CONSPIRACY
WITH HIS CO-ACCUSED.

II

THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE

THE CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

III

ASSUMING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT CONSPIRED WITH CAMAN IN PERPETRATING THE

CRIME, THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING AGAINST ACCUSED-
APPELLANT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TREACHERY, EVIDENT PREMEDITATION, NIGHTTIME,
AND ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH.
Appellant claims that the trial court erred in relying on the prosecution witnesses'
identification of the perpetrators considering that the affidavits of the witnesses were
inconsistent on their identities.

The appeal has no merit.

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. Moreover,
credibility, to state what is axiomatic, is the sole province of the trial court. In the absence
of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case, as in
this case, the trial court's findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses will not be
disturbed on appeal.14

The affirmance by the Court of Appeals of the factual findings of the trial court places this
case under the rule that factual findings are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed
on appeal to this Court. No reason has been given by appellant to deviate from the factual
findings arrived at by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.15

Given the foregoing, there is no doubt that prosecution witnesses, Lucy Sabando, Ruben
Barte and Juanita Barte, have sufficiently established the identities of appellants as the
perpetrators of the strafing incident. It should be noted that two of the prosecution
witnesses, i.e., Ruben and Juanita were victims of the strafing. Ruben and Juanita clearly
saw the perpetrators with their firearms as there was illumination coming from the lamp
carried by Ruben. To wit:

Cross-examination of Ruben Barte by Atty. Evanzelio:

Q You said sometime in November 25, 1994 at around 9:30 P.M. there was a person
calling your name, is that correct? Ma'am.
A Yes

Q Was that a voice of a woman or a male?

A A woman.

Q And that was the voice of Sabando?

A Yes Ma'am.

Q What is your encounter of Sabando, you are familiar with her voice?
A Because we were just living near.

Q You mean your house are near each other?

A Yes Ma'am..

Q You said you recognize the voice of Lucy Sabando but you did not see her face at that
time.
A I know her voice and after that I took the lamp to see her face.

Q And now the lamp you use is a small lamp.

A Yes Ma'am.

Q Lucy Sabando has several companion that time.

A Yes Ma'am.

Q How many are they?

A They were five (5).
Q Do you recognize the faces of those persons.
A Yes Ma'am.

Q And the basis of your seeing the faces is the small lamp?
A Yes Ma'am.

Q But outside your house it was dark.

A Yes Ma'am.

Q Your distance from Lucy Sabando is about 10 to 20 meters.

A Yes Ma'am.

Q What about the other person also 20 meters .

A About 10 meters.

Q And the only way that you recognize was the small lamp.
A When I raised the lamp I recognized their faces.

Q But yet you are still 10 meters away from them.

A We are also near each other like this.

Q You said that several persons were pulling you, is that correct?
A Yes Ma'am.

Q How many are they.

A Three (3) of them.

Q And you were already holding a lamp?

A Yes Ma'am.

Q They were pulling you while you were holding a lamp.

A Yes Ma'am.

Q At the same time your wife also pulling you.

A Yes Ma'am.

Q You still holding the lamp?

A It was already put off.

Q The light was put off before you have seen their faces. Pros. Gonzales:
 Misleading the testimony is - he recognized their faces when the light was already off.

Atty. Evangelio:

Yes, you Honor I withdraw the question.

Q You said that you were being pulled by three (3) persons while your wife was also
pulling you, and you were successfully pulled by your wife.
A Yes Ma'am.

Q You already recognize the uniform of the person and not their faces.
A I know the uniform.

Q But the face you are not familiar.

A I know them before.

xxxx

Q How did you know that Caman and Libre are compadres?
A They are close to each other and compadres.

Q You said you are neighbors with Caman and Libre, is that correct?
A This Caman and Libre is about 3 meters.

Q And yet you considered as neighbors.

A That the two (2) men are far and only Lucy is my neighbor.

Q You mean to tell us you saw these persons of that incident on November 25, 1994 .
A I saw them several times.

Q Tell us in what occasion?

A This Albino is a Cafgu and used to robe.

Q And he used to robe to your place.

A Yes always.

xxxx

Q Tell us your relationship with Caman purely an acquaintance.

A We are not close with each other.

Q But you have no disagreement or arguments with each other.

A None.

Q How about Libre do you have an argument?

A We have a grudge with Libre.

Q And it happens when? -

A It was long ago.

xxxx16
Lucy, on cross-examination, testified that while she did not see the faces of the perpetrators
who went to their house, she confirmed that the perpetrators were two (2) men and
recognized a voice belonging to a woman.17 Lucy testified that Caman and Libre were each
carrying a firearm, a long and short one, respectively.18 Such testimony coincides with
Ruben Barte's testimony that Albino Caman was carrying an M-14 rifle, while Yolando Libre
carried a .38 caliber handgun.19 It was likewise established that the police officers found
that Ruben Barte's house was hit by several bullets and discovered empty shells of both a
Garand rifle and a .38 caliber handgun within the premises, thereby indicating that both
guns were fired.

Jurisprudence tells us that where there is no evidence that the witnesses of the prosecution
were actuated by ill motive, it is presumed that they were not so actuated and their
testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. In the present case, no imputation of improper
motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses was ever made by appellant. 20

There is no reason to doubt Ruben and Juanita Barte's identification of the accused
considering that: first, Ruben was carrying a lamp when he went out of their house to
answer Lucy's call;21second, He recognized their faces as there was just a distance of 10
meters between Ruben Barte and the perpetrators;22third, Ruben saw that it was Caman
who pulled and shot him at the back and then strafed his house; 23fourth, Ruben likewise
saw Libre holding a .38 caliber gun; and, above all, Ruben Barte and Juanita Barte positively
identified both Caman and Libre in open court as one of those responsible for the strafing of
their house.24 Such open court declaration is much stronger than their affidavits/sworn
statements.25cralawred

Again, the prosecution witnesses were not only the victims but also the parents of the
deceased victims. Being the aggrieved parties, they all desire justice for what had happened
to them; thus, it is unnatural for them to falsely accuse someone other than the real
culprits. Otherwise stated, it is very unlikely for these prosecution witnesses to implicate an
innocent person to the crime. It has been correctly observed that the natural interest of
witnesses, who are relatives of the victims, more so, being victims themselves, in securing
the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating persons other than the
culprits, for otherwise, the culprits would gain immunity.26

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.27 Experience dictates that precisely because of the unusual acts of violence
committed right before their eyes, eyewitnesses can remember with a high degree of
reliability the identity of the criminals at any given time. Hence, as in this case, the
proximity and attention afforded the witnesses, coupled with the relative illumination of the
surrounding area, bolster the credibility of identification of the accused-appellants.28

Libre's claim that he was not one of the perpetrators considering that he and his wife
allegedly left the scene of the crime as soon as they heard gunshots has no ground to stand
on. 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. Unless
substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and
undeserving of any weight in law. Denial, like alibi, as an exonerating justification, is
inherently weak and if uncorroborated regresses to blatant impotence. Like alibi, it also
constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary
weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.

In this case, the defense failed to establish that it was physically impossible for Libre to
have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. In fact, Libre testified
that he came along with Caman about the same time of the crime, albeit on gun-point, but
claimed to flee with his wife as soon as gunshots started. Thus, from Libre's testimony, he
was within the vicinity of Barte's house about the same time that the crime was committed.
To reiterate, for the defense of 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. These, the defense failed to
do.

Furthermore, such claim of Libre that they fled as soon as Caman started firing his gun is
very easy to concoct in view of Caman's death29 since the latter can no longer belie his
allegation. It must be noted, however, that there were empty shells of .38 caliber revolver
and empty shells of garand rifle recovered in the surrounding of the premises where the
crime was committed. It could then be inferred that there were at least two (2) guns used
in the shooting. It is hard, therefore, to imagine that there was just one perpetrator holding
a .38 caliber revolver and a Garand rifle. Thus, Libre's defense of denial and alibi cannot
prevail over the witnesses' positive identification of him as one of the perpetrators.

We likewise affirm the findings of both the RTC and the CA that treachery and evident
premeditation attended the killing.

There is treachery 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 a
warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed,
and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. Otherwise stated, an unexpected
and sudden attack which renders the victim unable and unprepared to put up a defense is
the essence of treachery.

In this case, the records show that the attack was well-planned and the series of events
that transpired clearly established conspiracy among them. First, the perpetrators
undoubtedly acted in concert as they went to the house of Ruben together, each with his
own firearms; Second, the perpetrators used Lucy Sabando and her child to trick Ruben and
ensure that he will come out of the house clueless to their presence; Third, after a moment
of struggling, Caman immediately shot Ruben Barte at the back; Fourth, perpetrators
simultaneously strafed Barte's house for a long period to ensure that those inside the house
are likewise killed; Fifth, despite Juanita Barte's plea to stop shooting as there were children
with them, the shooting continued thus manifesting clear intent to kill; and Sixth, when they
ceased firing, they rested at the same time and fled together. The suddenness and
unexpectedness of the assault deprived the victims of an opportunity to resist it or offer any
defense of their persons. The victims were unaware that they would be attacked by accused
with a hail of bullets from their firearms. In fact, they were already in bed when Lucy
Sabando called for help which prompted Ruben Barte to come out of the house. Hence, the
subsequent shooting was deliberate, unexpected, swift and sudden which foreclosed any
escape, resistance or defense coming from the victims.

Likewise, the prosecution sufficiently established the attending circumstance of evident

premeditation. To prove this aggravating circumstance, the prosecution must show the
following: (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. 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.
Thus, treachery and evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime, qualifying
the killing of Barte's children as murder.30 The court, therefore, affirms the decision of the
trial court and the appellate court, in convicting accused-appellant of two (2) separate
crimes of murder for the death of Rodel Barte and Joselito Barte. Likewise, accused-
appellant is liable for two (2) separate crimes of frustrated murder, the victims Ruben Barte
and Renante Barte having survived their wounds due to the timely medical intervention.
Had it not been for said medical intervention, Ruben Barte and Renante Barte could have
died.

Penalty

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the crime of murder
is reclusion perpetua to death.31 With both penalties being indivisible and there being no
aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident
premeditation, the lower of the two penalties, which is reclusion perpetua, was properly
imposed on the accused-appellant for each count of murder. However, Libre is not eligible
for parole under the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 32

As to the frustrated murders, the penalty lesser by one degree shall be imposed on
appellant. Thus, the penalty that must be imposed is reclusion temporal for each count of
frustrated murder. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and in the absence of
modifying circumstances other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery and evident
premeditation, the maximum penalty shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion
temporal, which has a range of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, while the minimum shall be taken from the
penalty next lower in degree which is prision mayor in any of its periods, the range of which
is from six (6) years, one (1) day to twelve (12) years. The prison term imposed on
appellant must, therefore, be modified to six (6) years and one (1) day of prison
mayor minimum as the minimum penalty to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one
(1) day of reclusion temporal medium as the maximum penalty for each count of frustrated
murder.

On a final note, we could have imposed higher penalties and increased the amount of
damages if the prosecution has alleged in the Informations the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling, considering that the victims were inside their dwelling when the crimes were
committed. Having failed to allege the aggravating circumstance of dwelling - an ordinary
aggravating circumstance and proven during the trial, the same could not be appreciated to
impose higher penalties and increase the amount of damages. Prosecutors are, therefore,
enjoined to be more careful and prudent in determining the modifying circumstances that
attend the commission of the crimes and in properly alleging the same in the Informations
that they file before the courts to better serve the ends of justice.

Awards of Damages

For the two (2) counts of murder, the Court awards to the heirs of the victims; P75,000.00
as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
For the two (2) counts of frustrated murder, the Court awards P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages for each
victim.33

Moreover, while records do not show that the prosecution was able to prove the amount
actually expended for medical, burial and funeral expenses, prevailing jurisprudence
nonetheless allows the Court to award temperate damages to the victims' heirs as it cannot
be denied that they suffered pecuniary loss due to the crime committed.34 In conformity
with People v. Ireneo Jugueta,35 the Court, however, deems it proper to increase the award
of temperate damages from P25,000.00 to P50,000.00 for uniformity and to further provide
aid and financial assistance to the victims.

All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the
date of finality of this Judgment until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00089-MIN,
which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Panabo, Davao, Branch 34, finding
appellant Yolando Libre alias "Nonoy" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts
of murder and two (2) counts of frustrated murder, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS,
as follows:

For the murders of Rodel Barte and Joselito Barte :

(1) Appellant Yolando Libre is sentenced to suffer the prison term of reclusion perpetua for
each count of murder;

(2) Appellant Yolando Libre is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of the victims the amount of
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of each victim; moral damages in the amount
ofP75,000.00 each, exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 each, and P50,000.00
as temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages.

For the frustrated murders of Ruben Barte and Renante Barte:

(1) Appellant Yolando Libre is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years
and one (1) day of prision mayor minimum, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, for each count of
frustrated murder; and cralawlawlibrary

(2) Appellant Yolando Libre is ORDERED to PAY civil indemnity in the amount of
P50,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, exemplary damages in the
amount of P50,000.00, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages,
to each of the victims.

All damages awarded shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from finality of this Judgment until fully paid.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Department of Justice for its information and
appropriate action.

Costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:

1
Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim. Jr., with Associate Justices Leoncia R.
Dimagiba and Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring; rollo, pp. 4-24.

2
CA rollo, p. 9.

3
Id. at 10.

4
Id. at 11.

Id. at 12
5

Id. at 26.
6

5
Id. at 12.

6
Id. at 26.

7
TSN, April 10, 1996, pp. 16-17.

8
Id. at 17.

9
TSN, November 18, 1996, pp. 5-7.

10
Id. at 8.
11
TSN (Cross-examination of Ruben Barte), November 18, 1996, pp. 22-25.

12
TSN, April 10, 1996, pp. 5-6.

13
CA rollo, pp. 23-47.

People v. Nelmida, 694 Phil. 529, 556 (2012). (Citations omitted)

14

Id. at 556-557.
15

16
TSN, November 18, 1996, pp. 16-18; 24, 25.

17
TSN, April 10, 1996, p. 20.

18
Id. at 16.

19
TSN, November 18, 1996, pp. 6-7.

20
People v. Dadao, et al, 725 Phil. 298, 310-311 (2014).

21
TSN, November 18, 1996, p. 17.

22
Id.

23
Id. at 6.

24
TSN (Direct Examination of Juanita Barte), March 17, 1997, pp. 5-6; TSN (Direct
Examination of Ruben Barte), November 18, 1996.

cralawred
25
TSN (Direct Examination of Ruben Barte), November 18, 1996, pp. 4-5.

People v. Nelmida, supra note 14, at 562-563. (Citation omitted)

26

People v. Sumilhig, G.R. No. 178115, July 28, 2014, 731 SCRA 102, 112.
27

People v. Piedad, 441 Phil. 818, 833 (2002).

28

29
Caman died on January 7, 1997.

30
Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall
kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed
men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to
insure or afford impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a

vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an
airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means
involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph,

or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or
other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation..

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the

victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
31
Id.

32
Act No. 4103 (As Amended by Act No. 4225 and Republic Act No. 4203 [June 19, 1965]).

People v. Ireneo Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.

33

People v. Eugene Samuya, G.R. No. 213214, April 20, 2015.

34

Supra note 33.

35