PETITION: - The petitioners contest the CAs affirmance of their conviction in this appeal via petition for review

on certiorari. - COURT HELD (SC) - We affirm their conviction, but we reduce the penalty imposed on Salvador Monreal because the RTC and the CA did not duly appreciate his minority at the time of the commission of the crime. FACTS: - The Office of the Sorsogon Provincial Prosecutor formally charged the petitioners and a certain Danilo Atizado (Danilo) with murder - That on or about the 18th day of April 1994, at Barangay Boga, Municipality of Castilla, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery and evident premeditation, and without any justifiable cause or motive, with intent to kill, armed with handguns, attack, assault and shot one Rogelio Llona y Llave, a Sangguniang Bayan member of Castilla, Sorsogon, thereby inflicting upon him mortal and serious wounds which directly caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of his legal heirs. - Mirandilla (WITNESS) narrated that on April 18, 1994 she and the late Rogelio Llona (Llona), her common-law husband, had attended the fiesta of Barangay Bonga in Castilla, Sorsogon; that at about 8 pm of that date, they had gone to the house of Manuel Desder (Desder) in the same barangay; that as they and Jose Jesalva (Jesalva), a barangay kagawad of the place, were seated in the sala of Desders house, she heard "thundering steps" as if people were running and then two successive gunshots; that she then saw Atizado pointing a gun at the prostrate body of Llona; that seeing Atizado about to shoot Llona again, she shouted: Stop, thats enough!; that while aiding Llona, she heard three clicking sounds, and, turning towards the direction of the clicking sounds, saw Monreal point his gun at her while he was moving backwards and simultaneously adjusting the cylinder of his gun; that the petitioners then fled the scene of the shooting; that she rushed to the house of barangay captain Juanito Lagonsing (Lagonsing) to report the shooting; and that she and Lagonsing brought Llona to a hospital where Llona was pronounced dead. - Denying the accusation, the petitioners interposed alibi. - The Defense showed that at the time of the commission of the crime, Atizado had been in his family residence in Barangay Tomalaytay, Castilla, Sorsogon, because he had been sick of influenza, while Monreal and Danilo had been in the house of a certain Ariel also in Barangay Tomalaytay, Castilla, Sorsogon drinking gin; that the petitioners and Danilo had not been recognized to be at the crime scene during the shooting of Llona; and that the petitioners had been implicated only because of their being employed by their uncle Lorenzana, the alleged mastermind in the killing of Llona. - The RTC convicted the petitioners but acquitted Danilo, viz: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the Court hereby sentences each of the accused to an imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua - Accused Danilo Atizado on reasonable doubt is hereby acquitted of the crime charged and he being a detention prisoner, his immediate release from the provincial jail is hereby ordered, unless he is charged of other lawful cause or causes. - After the CA denied their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners now appeal. ISSUES: - The petitioners submit that the RTC and the CA erred in finding them guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt based on the eyewitness testimony of Mirandilla despite her not being a credible witness; t - hat some circumstances rendered Mirandillas testimony unreliable, namely: (a) she had failed to identify them as the assailants of Llona, because she had not actually witnessed them shooting at Llona; (b) she had merely assumed that they had been the assailants from the fact that they had worked for Lorenzana, the supposed mastermind; (c) the autopsy report stated that Llona had been shot from a distance, not at close range,

contrary to Mirandillas claim; (d) Mirandillas testimony was contrary to human experience; and (e) Mirandillas account was inconsistent with that of Jesalvas. Ruling: The conviction of the petitioners is affirmed, subject to modifications in the penalty imposed on Monreal and in the amounts and kinds of damages as civil liability. RATIO: - The RTC and CAs conclusions were based on Mirandillas positive identification of the petitioners as the malefactors and on her description of the acts of each of them made during her court testimony on March 6, 1995, - Indeed, Mirandillas positive identification of the petitioners as the killers, and her declarations on what each of the petitioners did when they mounted their sudden deadly assault against Llona left no doubt whatsoever that they had conspired to kill and had done so with treachery. - Under the law, a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.Yet, the State did not have to prove the petitioners previous agreement to commit the murder, because their conspiracy was deduced from the mode and manner in which they had perpetrated their criminal act. They had acted in concert in assaulting Llona, with their individual acts manifesting a community of purpose and design to achieve their evil end. As it is, all the conspirators in a crime are liable as co-principals. Thus, they cannot now successfully assail their conviction as co-principals in murder. - We concur with the CA on the attendance of treachery. The petitioners mounted their deadly assault with suddenness and without the victim being aware of its imminence. II. Modification of the Penalty on Monreal and of the Civil Damages - Under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. There being no modifying circumstances, the CA correctly imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua on Atizado, which was conformable with Article 63 (2) of the RPC. - But reclusion perpetua was not the correct penalty for Monreal due to his being a minor over 15 but under 18 years of age. The RTC and the CA did not appreciate Monreals minority at the time of the commission of the murder probably because his birth certificate was not presented at the trial. - Yet, it cannot be doubted that Monreal was a minor below 18 years of age when the crime was committed on April 18, 1994. - Firstly, his counter-affidavit executed on June 30 1994 stated that he was 17 years of age. Secondly, the police blotter recording his arrest mentioned that he was 17 years old at the time of his arrest on May 18, 1994. Thirdly, Villafes affidavit dated June 29, 1994 averred that Monreal was a minor on the date of the incident. Fourthly, as RTCs minutes of hearing dated March 9, 1999 showed, Monreal was 22 years old when he testified on direct examination on March 9, 1999,which meant that he was not over 18 years of age when he committed the crime. And, fifthly, Mirandilla described Monreal as a teenager and young looking at the time of the incident. - It conformed with the norms subsequently set under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9344, also known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, 33 viz: - Section 7. Determination of Age. - The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years old or older. The age of a child may be determined from the childs birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor. - Pursuant to Article 68 (2) of the RPC, when the offender is over 15 and under 18 years of age, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law is imposed. - Based on Article 61 (2) of the RPC, reclusion temporal is the penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua to death.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 64 of the RPC, therefore, the range of the penalty of imprisonment imposable on Monreal was prision mayor in any of its periods, as the minimum period, to reclusion temporal in its medium period, as the maximum period. Accordingly, his proper indeterminate penalty is from six years and one day of prision mayor, as the minimum period, to 14 years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as the maximum period. Monreal has been detained for over 16 years, that is, from the time of his arrest on May 18, 1994 until the present. In this regard, the benefits in favor of children in conflict with the law as granted under Republic Act No. 9344, which aims to promote the welfare of minor offenders through programs and services, such as delinquency prevention, intervention, diversion, rehabilitation and re-integration, geared towards their development, are retroactively applied to Monreal as a convict serving his sentence. Its Section 68 expressly so provides: Section 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving Sentences . Persons who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of this Act, and who were below the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the commission of the offense for which they were convicted and are serving sentence, shall likewise benefit from the retroactive application of this Act. They shall be entitled to appropriate dispositions provided under this Act and their sentences shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be immediately released if they are so qualified under this Act or other applicable laws.