FACTS:

The appellants, Hermogenes Flora and Edwin Flora, were charged with double murder and attempted murder. The incidents occurred during a dance party in Barangay Longos, Kalayaan, Laguna. Hermogenes had a previous altercation with Oscar Villanueva, which was pacified by Ireneo Gallarte. On the night of January 9, 1993, Hermogenes attended the party with Edwin. Also present were Rosalie Roma, her mother Emerita Roma, her aunt Flor Espinas, and Ireneo Gallarte.

At around 1:30 in the morning, Edwin signaled Hermogenes to fire his revolver. The first shot grazed Flor Espinas and hit Emerita Roma, while the second shot hit Ireneo Gallarte. Rosalie Roma identified Hermogenes as the shooter, while Edwin threatened her with a knife. Both brothers fled the scene after the incident.

Emerita and Ireneo died due to their gunshot wounds. Hermogenes was arrested, and Edwin was apprehended in his rented house. Flor Espinas, who sustained gunshot wounds, underwent a medical examination.

During the trial, two eyewitnesses testified about the attack by Hermogenes. Felipe Roma and Matiniana Gallarte testified about the financial damages incurred by their families due to the deaths of their loved ones. The defense presented the Flora brothers and Imelda Madera, who claimed alibi as their defense.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the defense of alibi was proven by the accused-appellants.

2. Whether the witnesses' identification of the accused-appellants is credible.

3. Whether the credibility of the prosecution witnesses is undermined by their alleged inconsistency in their testimonies.

4. Whether the witnesses' relationship to the victim affects their credibility.

5. Whether Hermogenes Flora is liable for the death of Emerita and the injuries of Flor due to the principle of aberratio ictus.

6. Whether the acts of Hermogenes Flora qualify as murder based on the presence of treachery.

7. Whether Edwin Flora can be held equally guilty as his brother Hermogenes based on conspiracy.

8. Whether Edwin Flora's participation as a co-conspirator was proven by the prosecution.

9. Whether Edwin Flora can be held liable for the murder of Ireneo Gallarte and the death of Emerita Roma and the attempted murder of Flor Espinas.

10. Whether the liability of co-conspirators is limited only to acts done pursuant to the conspiracy.

RULING:

1. The defense of alibi was not proven by the accused-appellants. For the defense of alibi to prosper, two elements must be established: (a) the accused was not at the crime scene at the time of the offense, and (b) it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene at the time of the offense. In this case, the appellants failed to establish the physical impossibility of their presence at the crime scene. The defense of alibi is disfavored in law since it can easily be contrived. Appellants' alibi was self-serving and lacked corroboration from a disinterested and credible witness. Therefore, their defense of alibi crumbled in the face of positive identification by eyewitnesses.

2. The witnesses' identification of the accused-appellants is credible. The appellants argued that the witnesses' testimonies were inconsistent and should not be given credence. However, minor inconsistencies do not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness. In this case, the inconsistencies pointed out by the appellants were insignificant and did not cast doubt on the truthfulness of the witnesses' identification. The positive identification made by the eyewitnesses and the surviving victims outweighed the appellants' claim of mistaken identity.

3. The alleged inconsistency in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses does not impair their credibility. Minor inconsistencies or flaws in the testimony do not affect its substance or the credibility of the witness.

4. The relationship of the witnesses to the victim does not automatically render their testimony less credible. In the absence of any improper motive, the natural interest of witnesses in securing the conviction of the guilty does not discredit their testimony.

5. Hermogenes Flora is liable for the death of Emerita and the injuries of Flor due to the principle of aberratio ictus. Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony, even if the wrongful act is different from what was intended.

6. The acts of Hermogenes Flora qualify as murder due to the presence of treachery. In order for treachery to exist, the means, method, or manner of execution chosen by the offender must ensure their safety from any defense or retaliatory act on the part of the victim, and such means must be consciously and deliberately chosen.

7. Edwin Flora can be held equally guilty as his brother Hermogenes based on conspiracy. Conspiracy does not require an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence, it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused and co-accused had the same purpose and were united in execution. Edwin's conduct indicated cooperation with his co-accused and he provided encouragement and a sense of security.

8. Edwin Flora's participation as a co-conspirator was proven by his overt act of staying beside his brother, gazing ominously at the victim, and flicking a lighted cigarette to signal the commencement of the shooting. His presence and actions indicate his acquiescence and participation in the crime.

9. Edwin Flora is only liable for the murder of Ireneo Gallarte. He has no liability for the death of Emerita Roma and the injuries of Flor Espinas.

10. Co-conspirators are only liable for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy. Acts done outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime can only be attributed to the actual perpetrators.

PRINCIPLES:

• For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish that he was not at the crime scene at the time of the offense and it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at that time.

• The defense of alibi and its usual corroboration are disfavored in law as they can easily be contrived.

• An alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is invoked and sought to be crafted mainly by the accused himself and his immediate relative or relatives.

• Minor inconsistencies in a witness's testimony do not necessarily impair credibility.

• Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve respect, as they had the opportunity to observe the deportment of witnesses during trial.

• Minor inconsistencies or flaws in the testimony of witnesses do not affect the substance or credibility of their testimony.

• The relationship of witnesses to the victim does not automatically undermine their credibility, unless there is a showing of improper motive.

• Criminal liability can be incurred even if the wrongful act is different from what was intended, based on the principle of aberratio ictus.

• For treachery to exist, the means, method, or manner of execution chosen by the offender must ensure their safety from any defense or retaliatory act, and it must be consciously and deliberately chosen.

• Conspiracy does not require an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the offense, it is sufficient that the accused and co-accused had the same purpose and were united in execution.

• In order to hold an accused guilty as a co-conspirator, it must be shown that they performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy.

• Co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy.

• Acts done outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime can only be attributed to the actual perpetrators.