FACTS:

The case involves accused-appellants Robert Buduhan and Rudy Buduhan who were found guilty by the trial court of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and the crime of homicide. The incident occurred on July 24, 1998, where the accused, armed with firearms, first robbed Romualde Almeron and Larry Erese, and then shot and killed them, as well as Orlando Pascua. The accused also injured Fernando Pera and Gilbert Cortez. The accused filed a Motion to Quash the information, which was denied by the trial court. The accused were arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty. The trial proceeded with the prosecution presenting witnesses and the defense presenting their own witnesses. The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision with modifications, ordering the payment of moral damages to the heirs of the victims.

On the evening of July 24, 1998, appellants Robert Buduhan, Rudy Buduhan, Boyet Ginyang, and Boy Guinhicna were in a beerhouse in Maddela, Quirino. They heard gunshots and witnessed someone falling to the ground, causing them to panic and run towards their boarding house. Rudy was stopped by an unknown armed person, and Ginyang asked Robert and Guinhicna for help in searching for Rudy. They were halted by another man who advised them to wait for a vehicle that would help them search for Rudy. They were eventually brought to the municipal jail along with Rudy. The following morning, they were presented to three unidentified ladies who did not recognize them. They were later subjected to a paraffin test, with negative results. The appellants testified in court, along with other defense witnesses.

The case involves an appeal from the decision of the RTC which found the appellants guilty of murder and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on each of them. The trial court awarded civil indemnity, exemplary damages, actual expenses, and temperate damages to the heirs of the victims. The case was transferred to the Court of Appeals, which modified the trial court's decision to include an award of moral damages to the heirs of the victims. The case is now before the Supreme Court for appeal.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving complete credence to the testimony of the prosecution's main witness despite the presence of facts tainting the witness's credibility.

2. Whether the trial court disregarded the defense of the appellants, which was corroborated by the findings of the forensic chemist.

3. Whether the trial court failed to make a direct ruling on the motion of the accused to quash the information on the ground that the arrest of the accused without a warrant is illegal.

4. Whether the testimony of a witness during the preliminary investigation should be given more weight than their testimony in open court.

5. Whether the inconsistencies in the witness's identification of the accused during the preliminary investigation affect her credibility as a witness.

6. Whether the act of the appellant Robert and his companion in poking their guns towards Larry and Romualde, respectively, and the announcement of a hold-up constitute the elements of robbery with violence or intimidation against persons.

7. Whether the intent to gain may already be presumed in this case.

8. Whether the appellants acted in conspiracy in perpetrating the crimes charged.

9. Whether there is conspiracy among the appellants.

10. Whether the defense of alibi is valid.

11. Whether the paraffin test results are conclusive.

12. Whether the warrantless arrest of the appellants was illegal.

13. Whether the heirs of Erese and Almeron are entitled to moral damages.

14. Whether the heirs of Larry Erese are entitled to the award of temperate damages.

15. Whether the heirs of Romualde Almeron are entitled to the award of actual damages.

16. Whether the grant of exemplary damages is proper.

RULING:

1. The appeal lacks merit. The Court held that the trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution's main witness and in disregarding the defense of the appellants. The Court also found that the trial court did not fail to make a direct ruling on the motion to quash the information.

2. The testimony of a witness in open court deserves more weight and careful consideration than their statements during the preliminary investigation. Preliminary investigations are summaries and are designed to determine probable cause, while open court testimonies are intended for the determination of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Inconsistent statements made during the preliminary investigation are not sufficient to impeach the credibility of a witness, unless the inconsistencies are related to the witness during the trial and the witness is given an opportunity to explain. In the present case, the witness's inconsistent statements during the preliminary investigation were not related to her during the trial, thus her credibility remains unimpeached.

4. Yes, the act of the appellant Robert and his companion in poking their guns towards Larry and Romualde, respectively, and the announcement of a hold-up constitute the elements of robbery with violence or intimidation against persons. The unlawful act of taking Larry's watch at gunpoint after the declaration of a hold-up shows the intention to permanently divest Larry of his personal property.

5. Yes, the intent to gain may already be presumed in this case. The act of the appellant's group in taking Larry's watch through violence or intimidation clearly shows their intention to obtain personal gain from the act.

6. Yes, the appellants acted in conspiracy in perpetrating the crimes charged. The fact that they were together when they entered the canteen, occupied the same table, and committed the acts in coordination with one another proves their common intent to commit the crimes.

7. Yes, there is conspiracy among the appellants. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy. Proof of concerted action before, during, and after the crime, which demonstrates their unity of design and objective is sufficient.

8. No, the defense of alibi is not valid. For alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met. The accused must prove not only their presence at another place at the time of the offense, but also demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime. In this case, there was no claim of any fact that would show it was physically impossible for the appellants to be present at the scene of the crime.

9. Paraffin test results are not conclusive and cannot exculpate the appellants. They are merely corroborative of other evidence and can be influenced by various factors. The positive and negative results can also be affected by conditions surrounding the use of the firearm.

10. The warrantless arrest of the appellants was not illegal. Even if their arrest was illegal, it did not affect the admissibility of the eyewitness accounts, which were obtained through lawful means. The testimonial evidence given in open court is admissible and can be used to secure conviction.

11. The heirs of Erese and Almeron are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 each.

12. The heirs of Larry Erese are entitled to the award of temperate damages for P25,000.00.

13. The award of actual damages to the heirs of Romualde Almeron should be reduced to P26,000.00.

14. The grant of exemplary damages is deleted.

PRINCIPLES:

• The credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court's discretion, considering that it has the opportunity to observe their demeanor and gauge their sincerity. (People v. Bayona, G.R. No. 229272, September 6, 2017)

• Inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness do not necessarily discredit the witness's entire testimony, as minor inconsistencies may be expected due to varying levels of recall and the stress of testifying. (People v. Soliman, G.R. No. 215233, November 14, 2018)

• The testimony of a single, credible witness, if positive and straightforward, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. (People v. Tamparong, G.R. No. 215454, January 21, 2019)

• Statements made by a witness during the preliminary investigation are not given as much weight as their testimony in open court.

• The requirement for a sufficient foundation to be laid before introducing evidence of inconsistent statements of a witness protects the character of the witness and allows them to explain the statements referred to.

• Inconsistent statements made by a witness during the preliminary investigation may not be used to impeach their credibility if the witness is not given an opportunity to explain the discrepancies.

• Robbery with violence or intimidation against persons requires the act of taking personal property by force, violence, or intimidation committed against the person of the victim.

• Intent to gain may be presumed from the overt acts of the offender, such as the unlawful taking of personal property through violence or intimidation.

• Conspiracy exists when there is unity of purpose or common design among individuals to commit a crime, and the acts of the co-conspirators are in furtherance of the common objective.

• Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Proof of concerted action before, during, and after the crime, which demonstrates unity of design and objective, is sufficient. (Doctrine of Conspiracy)

• Alibi as a defense requires strict compliance with the requirements of time and place. The accused must prove their presence at another place at the time of the offense and demonstrate that it is physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime. (Doctrine of Alibi)

• Paraffin test results are not conclusive and can be influenced by various factors. They are corroborative, but not determinative, of the issue of whether or not the subjects fired a gun. (Doctrine of Paraffin Test)

• The admissibility of testimonial evidence obtained through lawful means is not affected by an illegal arrest. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply when other admissible evidence exists to secure conviction. (Doctrine of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree)

• Emotional pain and anguish caused by a violent death entitles the victim's family to the award of moral damages.

• When actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000.00, the award of temperate damages for P25,000.00 is justified.

• Actual damages based on the receipts presented during trial should be granted.

• The amount awarded as actual damages should be based on the evidence presented and any excess amount should be reduced accordingly.

• Exemplary damages may only be awarded if aggravating circumstances were alleged and proved in the case.