Salvador Atizado & Salvador Montreal VS People of the Philippines

G.R. 173822 (Mabunga, Sandy)

Facts of the Case:

Sometime on April 18, 1994 during the barangay fiesta celebration in Bonga Castilla Sorsogon,
the petitioners (Salvador Atizado and Salvador Montreal) were accused of killing a Sanguniang Bayan
member (Rogelio Llona). The facts narrated in the case indicated that the victim were attending a
fiesta celebration and was a guest of certain Manuel Desder along with other visitors. Accordingly, the
petitioners went to the house of Desder and shot the victim thereby inflicting mortal and serious wounds
causing his instant death. The state witness (Mirandilla) were able to identify the murderer before
leaving the scene of the crime. A month after, case was brought into trial and petitioners were
convicted. The decision of the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals thereby elevating the
case to Supreme Court via petition for review of certiorari (reversal of decision).
The petitioners contest that at the time of the commission of the crime (Atizado) were in his
family residence as he has been suffering for influenza while Montreal was in the house of their friend
drinking gin and that they were just implicated because they were employed by their uncle
(Lorenzana) who was allegedly the mastermind of killing Llona.

Issue:
WON the lower courts (CA & RTC) erred in convicting the petitioners for murder beyond
reasonable doubt despite the proposition that they are not a credible witness?
WON the lower courts were able to give the correct judgement to one of the petitioner (Monreal)
despite being a minor the time were crime committed?

Ruling:
Yes. The SC affirmed the decision of the lower courts with modification. Based on the narration
of facts and evidence presented the court give credence to the testimony of the witness for their
deadly assault against Llona. The court also believed that they conspired to kill Llona with treachery.
(Under the law conspiracy exist when 2 or more persons come to an agreement concerning
commission of a felony and decide to commit it hence both of them were convicted as co-principal
in murder w/c is punishable under Art. 248 of the RPC as amended by RA No. 7659 “An act to impose
the death penalty on certain heinous crimes amending for that purpose the Revised Penal Laws as
amended other special penal laws and for other purposes”).
There being no modifying circumstances, SC upheld the penalty for murder to Atizado which is
reclusion perpetua w/c conform to RPC Art. 63 Sec (2) but modified for Monreal being a minor during
the time when offense was perpetrated. Accordingly, during the commission of the crime, Monreal
was only 17 years of age (as per affidavit) thus Art. 68 of RA 9344 applies stating that when the offender
is a minor (over 15 but under 18) the penalty next lower that prescribed by law shall be imposed but in
a proper period. The SC was in the assumption that CA and RTC failed to appreciate that Monreal was
a minor as the birth certificate was not also presented during the trial.

Therefore, petitioners were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. SC upheld the decision of
CA and RTC with modifications.
Atizado was sentence of reclusion perpetua while Salvador Monreal (minor during commission
of crime) was sentenced to suffer prison mayor (6 years and 1 day minimum) to reclusion temporal (14
yrs to 8 months & 1 day) as maximum period. Since Monreal was detained for over 16 yrs from
commission of the crime, he was ordered for immediate released from the penitentiary.
They were also ordered to pay damages to surviving heirs of Llona. The SC raised the amount
of moral damages from 50,000 ordered by CA up to 75,000 to conform to the prevailing jurisprudence
in addition to civil indemnity, actual damages and exemplary damage.

SO ORDERED! :)