FACTS:

The case involves two separate informations filed against Engracio Valeriano, Juanito Rismundo, Macario Acabal, Abundio Nahid, and several John Does for the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder. The information for murder alleges that the accused conspired and attacked Rizalina Silvano with bolos and pinuti, causing her death. They also set the house on fire while she was inside, resulting in her burning beyond recognition. The information for frustrated murder alleges that immediately after the murder, the accused hacked and struck Wilson Silvano, the victim's son, with bladed weapons. He sustained multiple hack wounds but was saved by medical assistance.

Both cases were consolidated and a joint trial was ordered. However, the records of the cases were burned in a fire and had to be reconstituted. One of the accused, Engracio Valeriano, jumped bail and remains at large.

The prosecution presented the testimony of Antonio Silvano, the barangay captain, who witnessed the events and identified the accused as being present during the attack on his family.

The accused-appellants, including Jose Napigkit, were allegedly involved in the kidnapping, killing, and burning of the houses of KBL political leaders. The prosecution presented witnesses, including a witness who heard the shouts for help of one of the victims and saw the accused-appellants near her house. A doctor testified about the examination of the burned and hacked body of the victim, which showed evidence of hacking. Two attorneys testified that they assisted the Governor in taking the affidavits of two of the accused implicating Napigkit.

The accused-appellants invoked the defense of alibi and alleged that they were forced to sign affidavits implicating them in the crimes.

The court found the accused guilty of murder and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the victim. Nahid was absolved of any criminal responsibility for the attempted murder. The defense of alibi was rejected, and the identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses was found credible.

The accused manifested their intention to appeal, and notices of appeal were filed.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial court erred in cancelling the bail bonds of the accused appellants and ordering their immediate arrest.

2. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

3. Whether the prosecution witnesses positively identified the accused appellants as the culprits.

4. Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting all the accused appellants for insufficiency of evidence and/or on the hypothesis of reasonable doubt.

5. Did the trial court lose jurisdiction over the accused-appellants when they perfected their appeal?

6. Can the trial court consider nighttime, use of fire, and abuse of superior strength as qualifying aggravating circumstances?

7. Did the trial court correctly state the penalty for murder?

8. Can a penalty be imposed on accused Engracio Valeriano, who jumped bail?

9. Did the trial court err in relying on the testimonies of certain prosecution witnesses?

10. Whether the testimony of Antonio Silvano, the sole witness who claimed to have seen the accused-appellants commit the crime, can be relied upon.

11. Whether the delay in reporting the incident to the authorities indicates that Antonio Silvano was unable to identify the real perpetrators or was afraid to do so.

12. Whether the failure of Antonio Silvano to disclose the names of the perpetrators during his alleged investigation by the PC casts doubt on his credibility.

13. Whether the omissions in Antonio's affidavit affect his credibility

14. Whether the medical evidence supports Antonio's testimony regarding the number of wounds sustained by his wife

15. Whether Antonio's failure to mention the name of accused-appellant Abundio Nahid in his sworn statement raises doubts on his identification of Nahid as one of the assailants

16. Whether the testimonies of Visitacion Silvano and Wilson Silvano provide sufficient proof of the accused-appellants' guilt

RULING:

1. The trial court did not err in cancelling the bail bonds of the accused appellants and ordering their immediate arrest. Since the accused Engracio Valeriano was a fugitive or at large, no penalty could be imposed on him as he was beyond the jurisdiction of the court to reach.

2. The trial court did not err in finding the accused appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. The court found that the accused were positively identified as the culprits by the prosecution witnesses, who were their neighbors for a long time and co-worker. The defense of alibi was rejected by the trial court.

3. The prosecution witnesses positively identified the accused appellants as the culprits. Although only one witness testified as to the identity of the person who killed his wife, the other witnesses shared that they witnessed the wounding of Wilson Silvano by Engracio Valeriano, indicating their presence during the incident.

4. The trial court did not err in not acquitting all the accused appellants for insufficiency of evidence and/or on the hypothesis of reasonable doubt. The court found that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through the positive identification by the witnesses.

5. The trial court did not lose jurisdiction over the accused-appellants when they perfected their appeal. Hence, the trial court still had the authority to cancel their bail bonds and order their arrest and immediate commitment.

6. Nighttime, use of fire, and abuse of superior strength cannot be considered as qualifying aggravating circumstances for the crime of murder. The information only alleged treachery and evident premeditation as qualifying aggravating circumstances.

7. The trial court erred in stating that the penalty for murder is reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. The correct penalty for murder remains to be reclusion temporal maximum to death, but due to the prohibition on the imposition of the death penalty in the Constitution, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed instead.

8. A penalty can be imposed on accused Engracio Valeriano despite his absence. Trial in absentia is permitted after the accused has been arraigned and has been duly notified of the trial. In the case of Engracio Valeriano, who jumped bail, his non-appearance during the trial cannot be justified.

9. The trial court did not err in relying on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony are best determined by the trial court, which has the opportunity to observe their demeanor and manner of testifying. The delay in reporting the crime does not necessarily affect the credibility of the witness.

10. The Court cannot give full faith and credit to the testimony of Antonio Silvano. The judge who rendered the decision did not have the opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, which are important considerations in assessing credibility.

11. The delay in reporting the incident and the failure of Antonio Silvano to offer an explanation for such delay bolster the claim of the defense that the crime was committed by the "Salvatore" group, which Antonio admitted was known to him.

12. The failure of Antonio Silvano to disclose the names of the perpetrators during his alleged investigation by the PC casts doubt on his credibility.

13. The omissions in Antonio's affidavit regarding crucial details do affect his credibility.

14. The medical evidence contradicts Antonio's testimony regarding the number of wounds sustained by his wife.

15. Antonio's failure to mention Abundio Nahid in his sworn statement raises doubts about the accuracy of his identification.

16. The testimonies of Visitacion Silvano and Wilson Silvano do not provide sufficient proof of the accused-appellants' guilt.

PRINCIPLES:

• The cancellation of bail bonds and ordering of immediate arrest is justified when one of the accused is a fugitive or at large and beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

• Positive identification by credible witnesses can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt even if not all witnesses are able to identify all the accused.

• Once an accused is convicted of a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, he/she is no longer entitled to bail as a matter of right, even if he/she appeals the case.

• Nighttime, band, use of fire, craft, fraud, disguise, and ignominy are generic aggravating circumstances, not qualifying aggravating circumstances.

• The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal maximum to death, but due to the prohibition on the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed.

• Trial in absentia is permissible after the accused has been duly notified of the trial and has been arraigned, provided that his/her failure to appear is unjustified.

• The trial court has the discretion to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, as it has the opportunity to observe their demeanor and manner of testifying. Delay in reporting a crime does not necessarily affect the credibility of a witness.

• Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses should be given the highest respect, as it had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses.

• Delay in reporting a crime may cast doubt on the ability of the witness to identify the real perpetrators or indicate fear in doing so.

• Failure to disclose important details in a sworn statement, especially when it pertains to the identification of the perpetrators, may cast doubt on the credibility of the witness.

• The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

• The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

• In cases where there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, they must be acquitted.

• The weakness of a defense of alibi becomes irrelevant if the prosecution fails to discharge its burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.