G.R. No. 208446 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND, VS. JONEL VARGAS Y RAMOS, JERIENALD VILLAMERO Y ESMAN, ARMANDO CADANO @ MANDO, JOJO ENORME @ JOJO, RUTHER GARCIA @ BENJIE/LOLOY, AND ALIAS TABOY, ACCUSED, JONEL VARGAS Y RAMOS, JERIENALD VILLAMERO Y ESMAN, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Li

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the Court finds the accused JONEL VARGAS y RAMOS and JERIENALD VILLAMERO y ESMAN, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder , and hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the heirs of the victim Jojo Magbanua, the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and costs. In so far as the other accused ARMANDO CADANO @Mando; JOJO ENORME @ Jojo; and RUTHER GARCIA @ Benjie/Loloy are concerned, let an ALIAS WARRANT be issued against them. In the meantime, the records of this case [are] hereby sent to the archives to be revived upon the arrest of the other accused. [10] The RTC relied on the lone eyewitness' positive identification of appellants as the perpetrators of the crime over appellants' defense of denial and alibi. Appellant seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal [11] before the Court of Appeals. On 8 January 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the RTC with modification on the amount of damages awarded, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeal is DENIED . The Decision dated 30 June 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch 12, City of Malo1os, Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 1014-M-2005, finding accused-appellants Jonel Vargas y Ramos and Jerienald Villamero y Esman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing accused-appellants to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua , and ordering them to pay to the heirs of the victim Jojo Francisco Magbanua the sum of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages, and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellants are further ordered to pay to the heirs of the victim Php25,000.00 as temperate damages, with interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages, from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. [12] Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal. [13] On 25 September 2013, we issued a Resolution requiring the parties to file their supplemental briefs, if they so desire. [14] Both parties manifested that they will adopt the same arguments in their separate briefs filed before the Court of Appeals. [15] Appellants highlight the inconsistencies in the statements given by the lone prosecution witness in his sworn statement and in his testimony in open court relative to the identification of the perpetrators. Appellants assert that due to said inconsistencies, their guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Appellants also question the trial court's finding of treachery to qualify the crime to murder. Appellants aver that the eyewitness did not witness the whole incident, thus treachery cannot be presumed. We agree with appellants. In every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two-fold, that is, (1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime