FACTS:

The case involves the bombing of Awang Airport in Maguindanao. The bombing resulted in one death, several injuries, burned houses, and damage to the terminal building. There were several individuals initially charged, but the information was later amended to include additional accused. Some of the accused were arrested, while others remain at large. The case was transferred to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) from Cotabato City.

According to the prosecution's version of events, appellant Zulkifli, an Indonesian national and member of the Jemaah Islamiyah, convened a meeting with Abdulgani and other members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) at a safehouse in Cotabato City. Their plan was to detonate a bomb near Awang airport to terminate the ceasefire agreement between the government and the MILF. The plan also included targeting military checkpoints, government offices, military personnel, embassies, and areas frequented by foreigners. Appellants Rifqi, Delos Reyes, and Pareja later joined the group and agreed to transport the bomb using a multicab vehicle. On February 20, 2003, they parked the multicab near a restaurant, and when the balik Islam members were starting to alight from the vehicle, the bomb exploded, resulting in one fatality and injuries to two others.

The defense interposed the defense of denial and alibi. Each appellant testified that they were in different places at the time of the bombing. Delos Reyes claimed to be teaching Arabic language in Lamitan, Basilan. Pareja stated that he was with his sister in Novaliches, Quezon City. Rifqi, an Indonesian national, testified that he arrived in the Philippines in 2000 and stayed in Barera, Cotobato City until his arrest.

During the trial, the accused Zulkifli denied any involvement in the bombing and claimed that his activities and schedules were controlled and supervised by the office of Hashim. He also denied being present in a meeting 15 days before the bombing and denied giving any directives or "go" signal for the attack. Zulkifli maintained that Abdulgani testified against him to secure his freedom and obtain money. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the guilt of Delos Reyes, Pareja, and Rifqi proven beyond reasonable doubt, while Lavilla, Jr., Dalungan, and Ayeras were acquitted due to lack of evidence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the guilt of the accused Ruben P. Lavilla, Jr. @ Shiek Omar, [Dalungan], and Ricardo Ayeras @ Abdulkarim was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the accused Ruben P. Lavilla, Jr. @ Shiek Omar, [Dalungan], and Ricardo Ayeras @ Abdulkarim should be acquitted.

3. Whether the conviction of the accused Delos Reyes and Pareja should be affirmed.

4. Whether the conviction of the accused Zulkifli and Rifqi should be affirmed.

5. The issue before the Court is whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting the accused-appellants of Murder with Double Attempted Murder.

6. Whether Pareja's participation in the conspiracy was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Whether Delos Reyes' guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Whether Zulkifli's and Rifqi's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Whether the extrajudicial confession of Rifqi is admissible in evidence.

10. Whether the testimony of Abdulgani is sufficient to prove the guilt of Zulkifli and Rifqi.

11. Whether the guilt of CIANO DELOS REYES @ BOX has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

1. The guilt of the accused Ruben P. Lavilla, Jr. @ Shiek Omar, [Dalungan], and Ricardo Ayeras @ Abdulkarim was proven beyond reasonable doubt. They were found to have participated in the conspiracy to execute the bombings based on the testimony of witnesses and their positive identification by the Pampangueña restaurant employees.

2. The accused Ruben P. Lavilla, Jr. @ Shiek Omar, [Dalungan], and Ricardo Ayeras @ Abdulkarim should be acquitted. The prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The conviction of the accused Delos Reyes and Pareja should be affirmed. Their participations in the conspiracy to execute the bombings were sufficiently proven by the testimony of witnesses and their positive identification by the Pampangueña restaurant employees.

4. The conviction of the accused Zulkifli and Rifqi should be affirmed. Their participations in the crime through conspiracy were sufficiently proven by the testimony of witnesses and the admissibility of Rifqi's extrajudicial confession.

5. The Court notes that in their Manifestation, the counsel for accused-appellants Delos Reyes and Pareja waived the filing of a Supplemental Brief, stating that their arguments were already thoroughly discussed in the brief filed before the Court of Appeals (CA). On the other hand, counsel for Zulkifli and Rifqi filed an Urgent Motion for Review and for Withdrawal as Counsel, indicating that they would no longer file a brief before the CA.

6. The Court found that Pareja's participation in the conspiracy was proven beyond reasonable doubt. His acquiescence to the plan and his presence at the scene of the crime, as agreed upon during the second meeting, made him liable as a conspirator. Therefore, Pareja's guilt was affirmed.

7. The Court found that Delos Reyes' guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. He was not identified by the restaurant employees, and the prosecution's main evidence against him, Abdulgani's testimony, was not sufficient to establish his participation in the actual bombing. Delos Reyes' absence from the scene of the crime and the lack of evidence showing his active participation led to the conclusion that he was not part of the conspiracy. Therefore, Delos Reyes' acquittal was affirmed.

8. The Court found that Zulkifli and Rifqi's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of Abdulgani and Rifqi's extrajudicial confession served as primary evidence against them. While Rifqi's confession was deemed inadmissible due to the lack of competent and independent counsel, Zulkifli's guilt was proven by other evidence. Therefore, Zulkifli's and Rifqi's guilt was affirmed.

9. The extrajudicial confession of Rifqi is inadmissible in evidence because the prosecution failed to meet the requirements for a valid extrajudicial confession. There are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the officers who took Rifqi's statement, and there is a lack of details on the assistance provided by the assisting attorney to Rifqi.

10. The testimony of Abdulgani is sufficient to prove the guilt of Zulkifli and Rifqi. Abdulgani provided details of the conspiracy to bomb the Awang Airport that only someone with inside knowledge could possibly provide. His testimony was corroborated by the testimonies of other witnesses.

11. CIANO DELOS REYES @ BOX is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

• The guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Positive identification by credible witnesses can prevail over defenses of denial and alibi.

• Conspiracy can be established by the participation of the accused in the planning and execution of a crime.

• Admissions or confessions, especially when given in writing and voluntarily, can be admissible in evidence.

• The testimonies of witnesses can establish the participation of an accused in a crime and prove conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.

• Conspiracy is not presumed and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime.

• A conspirator must have performed some overt act, either directly or indirectly contributing to the execution of the crime committed.

• The mere presence of an accused at the discussion of a conspiracy, even approval of it, without any active participation, is not enough for conviction.

• A valid extrajudicial confession requires voluntariness, assistance of competent and independent counsel, expressness, and being in writing.

• The testimonies of witnesses must be consistent and credible to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Requirements for a valid extrajudicial confession must be strictly complied with, and the prosecution must prove such compliance.

• Testimony of a witness can be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused if it is credible, consistent, and corroborated by other evidence.

• The guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction to be valid.