FACTS:

This case involves the appeal of Ceferino Guillermo, who was found guilty of murder complexed with frustrated murder. The information against him stated that he shot and killed Ronnie de la Cruz and wounded Michael de la Cruz. The trial court found that Ceferino harbored a grudge against Ronnie due to suspicions of his wife's illicit relationship with him. On the evening of December 15, 1991, Ceferino appeared and shot Ronnie with a rifle, also hitting Michael. Witnesses, including Michael and Eusebio de la Cruz Jr., identified Ceferino as the shooter. Ceferino surrendered the rifle used. The trial court dismissed claims of witness bias and rejected Ceferino's alibi defense. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

The accused-appellant questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, citing inconsistencies in Michael de la Cruz's testimony and his delay in reporting the crime. He also disputes the identification made by Darlina Guillermo based on the presence of a dog, stating that identification should be based on facial features or physical appearance. The accused-appellant also questions the credibility of witness Eusebio De la Cruz, Jr., who claimed the assailant had his face covered. The accused-appellant alleges witness bias due to their relationship to the victims, as well as claiming that a prosecution witness retracted his statement after alleging he was promised money. However, the court finds these contentions to be without merit.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the inconsistency in the testimonies of Michael de la Cruz regarding the location of the shooting affects his credibility as a witness.

2. Whether the testimony of Darlina Guillermo, based on mere conjecture, can be considered reliable and corroborative evidence.

3. Whether the testimony of Eusebio de la Cruz, Jr., recognizing the assailant despite his face being covered, is credible.

4. Whether the retraction of the sworn statement by Rogelio Guillermo affects the credibility of the prosecution's evidence.

5. Whether the positive identification of the accused-appellant by the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to convict him.

6. Whether the relationship between some of the prosecution witnesses and the deceased affects their credibility as witnesses.

7. Whether proof of motive is necessary when there is already a positive identification of the accused.

8. Whether the crime committed qualifies as murder with evident premeditation

9. Whether the penalty of death can be imposed for the complex crime of murder with frustrated homicide

10. Whether the claims for actual damages are supported by proper receipts

RULING:

1. The inconsistencies in Michael de la Cruz's testimonies regarding the location of the shooting are considered minor and do not significantly affect his credibility as a witness. These inconsistencies can be attributed to his tender age and his slow mental capacity. The court considers Michael's testimony reliable.

2. The testimony of Darlina Guillermo, though based on mere conjecture, can be considered corroborative evidence. It is reasonable to believe that she recognized the assailant through the dog that was following him since a dog usually follows its master.

3. The testimony of Eusebio de la Cruz, Jr. is credible, despite the assailant's face being covered by a bonnet. Eusebio, Jr. was able to identify the accused because they were childhood friends and neighbors. Their familiarity and relationship make Eusebio's identification reliable.

4. The retraction of the sworn statement by Rogelio Guillermo does not significantly affect the credibility of the prosecution's evidence. The fact that he was promised money in exchange for his statement may cast doubt on his motive for retracting, but it does not automatically render the whole prosecution's evidence unreliable.

5. Yes, the positive identification of the accused-appellant by the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to convict him. Even if one witness recanted his statement, there were still other witnesses who pointed to the accused-appellant as the person who committed the crime.

6. No, the relationship between some of the prosecution witnesses and the deceased does not necessarily make them biased witnesses. The relationship between the accused-appellant and these witnesses is also considered. The absence of improper motive on the part of witnesses does not affect their testimonies.

7. No, proof of motive is not necessary when there is already a positive identification of the accused. However, the establishment of motive strengthens the case against the accused-appellant by reinforcing the positive identification of the prosecution witnesses.

8. The court held that evident premeditation was not established in this case since the first requisite of the offender determining to commit the crime at a prior time was not proven. However, the qualifying circumstance of treachery is present, making the crime remain as murder complexed with another offense.

9. The penalty for the complex crime of murder with frustrated homicide is death. However, at the time the crime was committed, the imposition of the death penalty was prohibited. Therefore, the penalty next lower to death, which is reclusion perpetua, should be imposed.

10. To award actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss supported by receipts. In this case, the claimed amounts for death expenses and hospital expenses were not supported by proper receipts, thus they should not be allowed.

PRINCIPLES:

• Testimonies of children of sound mind are likely to be more correct and truthful than those of older persons.

• Minor inconsistencies in a witness's testimony do not necessarily affect their credibility, especially if attributable to the witness's age or mental capacity.

• Corroborative evidence, even if based on mere conjecture, can still be considered reliable and admissible.

• Familiarity and a pre-existing relationship between a witness and the accused can make an identification despite facial coverings credible.

• A retracted statement may cast doubt on a witness's credibility, but it does not automatically invalidate the whole prosecution's evidence.

• Positive identification by credible witnesses is sufficient to convict an accused.

• The relationship between a witness and the victim does not affect the credibility of the witness in the absence of improper motive.

• Proof of motive is not necessary when there is already a positive identification of the accused, but it can strengthen the case against the accused by reinforcing the identification.

• Evident premeditation requires proof of the time when the offender determined to commit the crime and that there be a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

• The penalty for a complex crime is determined by imposing the penalty for the most serious crime, which is to be served in its maximum period.

• The imposition of the death penalty for heinous offenses was prohibited at the time of the commission of the crime.

• To justify an award of actual damages, competent proof of the actual amount of loss supported by receipts is required.