G.R. Nos. L-17486-88 February 27, 1965
The People of the Philippines, plaintiffs-appellee, vs. Cabagel Macatembal, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Cabagel Macatembal was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Cotabato for three crimes arising from an ambush on August 30, 1953: (1) double murder (Criminal Case No. 1959) for the deaths of Avelino Hernandez and Mene Bagia, sentenced to reclusion perpetua and indemnities; (2) frustrated murder (Criminal Case No. 1980) against Enrique Oagdan, sentenced to an indeterminate penalty; and (3) assault upon an agent of a person in authority with frustrated murder (Criminal Case No. 1979), also sentenced. The informations alleged he acted with eight others. After escaping and being recaptured, he pleaded not guilty, and the cases were consolidated for trial. The prosecution evidence included death and medical certificates and the testimonies of Dr. Santos V. Acosta, Mariano Abellera, Enrique Oagdan, and Florencio Hernandez. Their testimonies established that a passenger jeep en route to Kabacan was ambushed at Kilometer 95, Sayre National Highway, resulting in two deaths and two serious injuries. Witness Oagdan positively identified appellant as the one who signaled the jeep to stop, attacked him with a bolo, shot him, and took his police equipment, recognizing him as a former detention prisoner. The defense consisted solely of appellant’s denial and alibi that he was in Maridagao, Pagalunga on the day of the crime.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of appellant Cabagel Macatembal is proper given the alleged weaknesses, inconsistencies, and improbabilities in the prosecution’s evidence.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is proper, with modifications to the penalty for one crime. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the trial court, holding that the crimes were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The positive identification by witness Enrique Oagdan, who knew appellant from prior detention, was deemed credible despite an initial sworn statement omitting appellant’s name, as the witness explained the omission was due to his wounds and shock, and he later identified appellant at the preliminary investigation and in open court. The sudden attack by several armed persons from different directions and the use of firearms established the elements of double murder, frustrated murder, and assault upon an agent of authority. The penalties for double murder and frustrated murder were affirmed. However, for the crime of “assault upon an agent of authority with frustrated murder,” the penalty for the higher crime (frustrated murder) must be imposed in its maximum degree, pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, for that crime, appellant was sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, with accessories, subject to the provision of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code limiting the maximum period of imprisonment to forty (40) years. The appealed judgment was thus affirmed with these modifications.