Article 14 and 15 CRIM

UST
Faculty of Civil Law
Republic of the Philippines Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
SUPREME COURT the above-named accused, armed with an unlicensed firearm,
Manila conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one
another, with intent to kill and treachery, did then and there
FIRST DIVISION willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shot BRYAN
JULIAN y VILLANUEVA, twice but missed, thereby
March 29, 2017 commencing the commission of the crime of Murder directly by
overt act'>, but did not perform all the acts of execution which
G.R. No. 214757 should have produced the said crime, by reason of some cause
independent of his will, that is, accused are poor shooters, to
PEOPLE OF TIIE PHlLIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee the damage and prejudice of the above-named victim.
vs
TIRSO SIBBU, Accused-Appellant That the crime was committed [in] the dwelling x x x of the victim
at nighttime and disguise was employed, with accused Sibbu
DECISION wearing a bonnet on his face.3
DEL CASTILLO, J.: In Criminal Case Nos. 11721, 11723 and 11724, and except for
the names of the victims and the location of their gunshot
This resolves the appeal from the January 6, 2014 Decision1 of wounds, appellant together with Benny and John Does, was
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04127 which charged with murder in three similarly worded
affirmed with modification the May 15, 2009 Decision2 of Branch 4
Informations allegedly committed as follows:
11, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City finding Tirso Sibbu
(appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted murder That on or about the 6th day of December 2004, in Brgy.
in Criminal Case No. 11722 and of murder in Criminal Case Elizabeth, Municipality of Marcos, Province of Ilocos Norte,
Nos. 11721, 11723, and 11724. Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, armed with an unlicensed firearm,
In Criminal Case No. 11722, appellant, together with Benny conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one
Barid (Benny) and John Does was charged with attempted another, with intent to kill and treachery, did then and t11ere
murder allegedly committed as follows: willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shot [Trisha May
Julian y Villanueva, Ofelia Julian y Bagudan, and Warlito
That on or about the 6th day of December 2004, in Brgy. Julian y Agustin], inflicting upon [her/him] gunshot wounds,
Elizabeth, Municipality of Marcos, Province of Ilocos Norte,
UST Faculty of Civil Law
which caused [her/his] instantaneous death, to the damage and recognized the armed man as the appellant.6 Brian also saw two
prejudice of the heirs of the above-named victim. men in crouching position at a distance of three meters away
from the appellant. Fearing the worst, Bryan shouted a warning
That the crime was committed in the dwelling x x x of the victim to his family. Appellant then fired upon them killing Trisha, Ofelia
at nighttime and disguise was employed, with accused Sibbu and Warlito.
wearing a bonnet on his face.
Bryan ran inside the house where he saw his brother, Warlito
During arraignment held on July 22, 2005, appellant pleaded Julian, Jr. (Warlito Jr.) coming out of the bathroom. Bryan then
not guilty to the charges against him. After pre-trial was proceeded to the pigpen at the back of the house to hide.
conducted, trial on the merits followed. On May 31, 2008,
appellant's co-accused Benny was arrested. However, his trial Another prosecution witness, Eddie Bayudan (Eddie), testified
was held separately considering that the trial with respect to the that on December 6, 2004, he was by a well near his house
Appellant was also almost finished with the prosecution already when he heard gunshots coming from the house of Warlito and
presenting rebuttal evidence.5 Ofelia. When he turned towards the direction of the gunshot5,
he saw a man about five meters away wearing a black bonnet
Version of the Prosecution and a long-sleeved camouflage uniform and holding a long
firearm. He also saw another man crouching on the ground
Bryan Julian (Bryan), the private complainant in Criminal Case whom he recognized as the accused Benny. Eddie went inside
No. 11722 and a common witness to all the cases, testified that his house for his and his family's safety. Afterwards, he heard
between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m. of December 6, 2004, he was with Bryan shouting for help. When he went out to investigate, he
his three-year old daughter, Trisha May Julian (Trisha), the saw the dead bodies of Warlito, Ofelia, and Trisha.
victim in Criminal Case No. 11721; his mother Ofelia Julian
(Ofelia), the victim in Criminal Case No. 11723; and his father, Warlito Jr. also testified that he heard gunshots coming from
Warlito Julian (Warlito), the victim in Criminal Case No. 11724 outside their house. When he went out of the bathroom, Bryan
in the azotea of his parents' house in Barangay Elizabeth, told him that appellant gunned down their parents and his niece.
Marcos, llocos Norte when he saw from a distance of about five In his cross-examination, Warlito, Jr. claimed to have seen the
meters a person in camouflage unifo1m with a long firearm appellant shooting at the porch of their house.7
slung across his chest and a black bonnet over his head. When
the armed man inched closer to the house, he tried to fix his Police Superintendent Benjamin M. Lusad (P/Supt. Lusad),
bonnet thereby providing Bryan the opportunity to see his face; chief of the provincial intelligence and investigation branch of
Bryan had a clear look at the armed man because there were Ilocos Norte, testified that at 7:00 a.m. of December 7, 2004, he
Christmas lights hanging from the roof of their porch. Bryan conducted an investigation and an ocular inspection at the crime
scene. He found bloodstains on the floor of the porch, the Elpidio testified that on December 6, 2004, he went to the house
cadavers of the victims laid side by side in the sala, and bullet of Eladio to deliver a wooden divider.12 He arrived at around
holes in the cemented portion at the front of the house below 6:00 p.m. and left at 7:00 a.m. the following day. Elpidio stated
the window gril1.8 During his interview with Bryan, the latter that the appellant did not leave the house that night and that
pointed to appellant as the gunman.9 appellant was inside the house when he heard explosions.
SPOl Eugenio Navarro (SPOl Navarro) also testified that he Appellant denied the charges against him. He testified that on
went to the crime scene together with Senior Police Inspector December 6, 2004, he never left the house of his in-laws
Arnold Dada, P02 Danny Ballesteros, and SPO1 Lester because he was taking care of his sick son. He claimed to have
Daoang, where they found 13 spent shells and slugs of a caliber heard the explosions but thought that those were sounds of
.30 carbine. Police Superintendent Philip Camti Pucay who firecrackers since it was nearing Christmas.13 Appellant denied
conducted the ballistic examination confirmed that the having any misunderstanding with the Julian family, or knowing
recovered shells and slugs were fired from a caliber .30 carbine. Bryan and Benny personally, or possessing camouflage
clothing.
Version of the Defense
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The appellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi.
Appellant's father-in-law, Eladio Ruiz (Eladio), testified that on On May 15, 2009, the RTC rendered judgment finding appellant
December 6, 2004, appellant did not leave their house because guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder in Criminal Case Nos.
they had a visitor, Elpidio Alay (Elpidio); moreover, appellant 11721, 11723, and 11724, and of attempted murder in Criminal
tended to his child. Eladio stated that the distance between his Case No. 11722. The RTC gave credence to Bryan's positive
house and Warlito's is approximately two kilometers and that it identification of appellant as the person who shot at him and
would take an hour to negotiate the distance by foot.10 killed his daughter, mother and father. On the other hand, the
RTC found appellant's defense of denial and alibi weak.
Eufrecina Ruiz (Eufrecina), mother-in-law of the appellant, also
testified that appellant had been living with th.em for two years The dispositive part of the RTC's Decision reads:
before he was arrested.11 She narrated that on December 6,
2004, appellant did not leave their house the whole night as he WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
was tending to his sick child. She also claimed that they had a
visitor who delivered firewood. Eufrecina alleged that appellant 1) In Criminal Case No. 11721, accused TIRSO SIBBU is
did not own any firearm and that he did not know Benny. hereby declared GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of
the crime of murder. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Further, he is hereby SO ORDERED.14

ORDERED to pay the heirs of Trisha Mae Julian y Villanueva
the [amounts] of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as Aggrieved by the RTC's Decision, appellant appealed to the CA.
moral damages and ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages;
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
2) In Criminal Case No. 11722, accused TIRSO SIBBU is
hereby declared GUILTY BEYOND REASONfJ3LE DOUBT of On January 6, 2014, the CA aft1rmed the RTC's Decision with
the crime of attempted murder. He is hereby sentenced to suffer modification as follows:
the penalty of SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional as
minimum to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor as maximum. WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
is DISMISSED. The Decision dated May 15, 2009, issued by
3) In Criminal Case No. 11723, accused TIRSO SIBBU is the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Laoag City in Criminal
hereby declared GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Case Nos. 11721, 11722, 11723 and 11724, is AFFIRMED with
the crime of murder. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the MODIFICATION, as follows:
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Further, he is hereby
ORDERED to pay the heirs of Ofelia Juliany Bayudan the 1. In Criminal Case No. 11721, appellant Tirso Sibbu is hereby
[amounts] of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as declared Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
moral damages and ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and murder. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA. Further, he is hereby ordered to pay
4) In Criminal Case No. 11724, accused TIRSO SIBBU is the heirs of Trisha May Julian y Villanueva the [amounts] of
hereby declared GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages
the crime of murder. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest at the
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETIJA. Further, he is hereby legal rate of 6% percent from the finality of this judgment until
ORDERED to pay the heirs of Warlito Juliany Agustin the fully paid;
[amounts] of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as
moral damages and ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages. 2. In Criminal Case No. 11723, appellant Tirso Sibbu is hereby
declared Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
In Criminal Case Nos. 11721, 11723 and 11724, accused TISO murder. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
SIBBU is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of Trisha Mae Julian RECLUSION PERPETUA. Further, he is hereby ordered to pay
y Villanueva; Ofelia Julian y Bayudan; and Warlito the heirs of Ofelia Juliany Bayudan the [amounts] of ₱75,000.00
Julian y Agustin the amount of ₱55,602.00 as actual damages. as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and
₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest at the legal
rate of 6% percent from the finality of this judgment until folly to the testimony of the alleged eyewitness Bryan; and (2) in
paid; and finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged because
the prosecution failed to overthrow the constitutional
3. In Criminal Case No. 11724, appellant Tirso Sibbu is hereby presumption of innocence in his favor.17 Further, appellant
declared Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of argues that the aggravating circumstances of treachery,
murder. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of dwelling, and use of disguise were not sufficiently established.
RECLUSION PERPETUA.Further, he is hereby ordered to pay
the heirs of Ofelia Juliany Bayudan the [amounts] of ₱75,000.00 Our Ruling
as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and
₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest at the legal The appeal is unmeritorious.
rate of 6% percent from the finality of this judgment until fully
paid. We uphold the findings of the RTC, which were affirmed by the
CA, that Bryan positively identified appellant as the person who
No costs. shot at him and killed Warlito, Ofelia, and Trisha. We have
consistently ruled that factual findings of trial comts, especially
SO ORDERED.15 when affirmed by the appellate court, are entitled to respect and
generally should not be disturbed on appeal unless certain
Dissatisfied with the CA's Decision, appellant elevated his case substantial facts were overlooked which, if considered, may
to this Court. On February 9, 2015, the Court issued a affect the outcome of the case. After due consideration of the
Resolution requiring the parties to submit their respective records of the case and the evidence adduced, the Court finds
Supplemental Briefs. However, the appellant opted not to file a that the RTC and the CA did not err in their appreciation of the
supplemental brief since he had exhaustively discussed his facts and evidence.
arguments before the CA. The Office of the Solicitor General
also manifested that there was no longer any need to file a We find that Bryan was able to identify the appellant as the
supplemental brief since the appellant did not raise any new assailant in the shooting incident; there is no reason to doubt
issue in his appeal before this Court.16 his positive testimony. As aptly observed by the RTC, Bryan's
narration of how he was able to recognize the appellant was
Issues credible and convincing, to wit:
The main issue raised in the Appellant's Brief concerns Bryan's q You said somebody [shot] at you, your father, your mother,
identification of the appellant as the assailant. The appellant and your daughter while you were at the azotea of the house of
contends that the trial court erred in (1) giving undue credence
your father on December 6, 2004. Did you see the person who A Tirso Sibbu, ma'am.
shot at you, your father, your mother, and your daughter?
Q If this Tirso Sibbu is inside the courtroom today, would you be
a Yes, ma'am. able to recognize him?
xxxx A Yes, ma'am.
q How far was [the gunman] when you saw him at the west side? Q Kindly look around the courtroom and point to us if he is inside
a Around five (5) meters away, ma'am. the courtroom?
q What was his position at the time you first saw him? A (Witness is pointing to a man wearing a black T-shirt with blue
denim pants who when asked his name answered Tirso Sibbu)
a He was at this position, ma'am. (Witness is showing as if a
gun was slung on his neck) Then I told my family, ''Somebody Q You said you were able to recognize the face of this man Tirso
would shoot us, let us all run and hide," and then he shot [at] me Sibbu because you are familiar with him? Can you tell us why
twice, ma'am. you were familiar with him? What were the circumstances where
you mingled with him?
xxxx
A He was a jueteng collector and he came to our place three (3)
q How about [his] face x x x, can you x x x describe [it] to us? times a day to get the bets, ma' am.
a When be came near us he fixed his bonnet which covered one xxxx
eye only that is why I recognized him; and even though his face
was covered with [a] bonnet, I could still recognize him because q Considering, Mr. Witness, that it was already x x x 6:30 [to]
I usually mingled with him, ma'arn. 7:00 in the evening, how were you able to see the face of Tirso
Sibbo?
xxxx
A There was a light in front of the azotea, ma'am.
q You said you were able to recognize his face because you
were familiar with him. Who was that person whom you q What was the light in your azotea you are referring to?
recognized?
a Christmas lights that were not blinking, ma'am.18
xxxx q You said that his face was uncovered, are you referring, to the
whole face that was uncovered?
q Now, Mr. Witness, how far [was the accused when you first
noticed his presence]? a Because of the stretching, the eyes and the nose were
uncovered, sir.19
a More or less 5 meters, sir.
From Bryan's testimony above, it is clear that he was only five
xxxx meters away from the appellant when the shooting incident
happened. While the appellant was seen wearing a bonnet over
q By the way, that was the first time [you noticed the presence his head, Bryan was able to get a glimpse of appellant's face
of] the accused. Was that in the same place you saw him fire when the latter fixed his bonnet. In addition, Christmas lights
his gun? hanging from the roof of the porch provided illumination
enabling Bryan to identify the appellant. Moreover, Bryan is
a He came nearer, sir. familiar with the appellant's built, height, and body movements.
As correctly pointed out by the CA:
xxxx
It is equally of common knowledge that the eyes readily [adjust]
q Now, Mr. Witness, [how did you recognize the accused]? to the surrounding darkness even if one stands in a lighted area,
and the distance of five meters is not an impossible or
a He fixed his bonnet [his] face was partly covered, sir. improbable way as to preclude identification.1âwphi1
q x x x That bonnet x x x covered the face, is that correct? Besides, Bryan’s identification did not solely rely on facial
recognition but also from appellant's body built and height, and
a Only one eye was covered so he fixed it sir. the way he walked and moved, all proper standards of
identification as corroborated in the testimony of an experienced
q And the whole face was covered except one eye, is that what police officer and PMA graduate Police Superintendent
you want to impress the Honorable Court? Benjamin M. Lusad, chief of the provincial intelligence and
investigation unit of Ilocos Norte.20
a The hole that was meant for his left eye went at his right eye
so he stretched the bonnet and his face was uncovered that is Based on the foregoing, the Court is convinced that the RTC
why I recognized him, sir. and the CA were correct in holding that Bryan positively
identified the appellant as the person who shot at him and killed In this case, the evidence on record reveals that at the time of
Warlito, Ofelia, and Trisha. the shooting incident, Warlito, Ofelia, Trisha, and Bryan were at
the porch of their house totally unaware of the impending attack.
Appellant also questions the RTC's appreciation of the In addition, they were all unarmed thus unable to mount a
aggravating circumstances of treachery, dwelling. and use of defense in the event of an attack. On the other hand, appellant
disguise. Citing People v. Catbagan,21 appellant argues that and his cohorts were armed. They also surreptitiously
"[t]reachery cannot be considered when there is no evidence approached the residence of the victims. Appellant, in
that the accused had resolved to commit the crime prior to the particular, wore camouflage uniform to avoid detection.
moment of the killing; or that the death of the victim was the Although Bryan was able to warn his family about the impending
result of premeditation, calculation, or reflection." attack, it was too late for the victims to scamper for safety or to
defend themselves. At the time Bryan became aware of
We disagree. Treachery was correctly appreciated as qualifying appellant's presence, the latter was already in the vicinity of
circumstance in the instant case. about five meters. In fine, appellant employed deliberate means
to ensure the accomplishment of his purpose of killing his
Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the victims with minimal risk to his safety. There can be no other
crimes against person, employing means, methods, or forms in conclusion than that the appellant's attack was treacherous.
the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure
its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense With regard to the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the trial
which the offended party might make."22 court correctly held:
The case of Catbagan has an entirely different factual context In the instant cases, the victims were at their azotea in their
with the case at bar. In Catbagan, the accused was a police house when accused Tirso Sibbu fired shots at them. Tirso
officer who investigated reported gunshots during an election Sibbu was outside the house of the victims. Under these
gun ban in the residence of one of the victims. Prior to the circumstances, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling can be
shooting, Catbagan had no intention of killing anyone. It just so appreciated against Tirso Sibbu. Thus, the Supreme Court
happened that during a heated exchange, Cc1thagan drew his ruled:
firearm and shot the victims. In this case however, before the
shooting incident, appellant was seen with a gun slung over his xxxx
neck and a bonnet covered his face to conceal his identity. It is
clear that appellant's purpose is to hmm and kill his victims. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be taken into
account. Although the triggerman fired the shot from outside the
house, his victim was inside. For this circumstance to be
considered it is not necessary that the accused should have foot.27 Verily, appellant's alibi must fail for failure to show that it
actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene or its
it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house, immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.
although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate
the assault from without x x x.23 The Court also upholds appellant's conviction for attempted
murder. Appellant commenced the commission of murder
The use of disguise was likewise correctly appreciated as an through overt acts such as firing his firearm at the residence of
aggravating circumstance in this case. Bryan testified that the the victims but did not perfom1 all the acts of execution which
appellant covered his face with a bonnet during the shooting should produce murder by reason of some cause other than his
incident There could be no other possible purpose for wearing own spontaneous desistance. Appellant simply missed his
a bonnet over appellant's face but to conceal his identity, target; he failed to perform all the acts of execution to kill Bryan,
especially since Bryan and appellant live ir1 the Appellant is therefore guilty of attempted murder, Unfortunately,
same barangay and are familiar with each other.24 Warlito, Ofelia and Trisha had to bear the brunt of appellant's
firearm.
As for the defense put up by the appellant that he was inside
the house of his in-laws during the shooting, the Court is All told, appellant was correctly convicted of three counts of
unconvinced by his denial and alibi.1avvphi1 Aside from being murder considering the qualifying circumstance of treachery
the weakest of all defenses, appellant was not able to establish and one count of attempted murder. Since two aggravating
that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of circumstances of dwelling and use of disguise attended the
the crime at the time the shooting incident happened. We have commission of the crime of murder, appellant should be
consistently 1uled that ''for the defense of alibi to prosper, the sentenced to death in accordance with Article 6328 of the
accused must prove not only that he was at some other place Revised Penal Code. Under Article 24829 of the Revised Penal
when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically Code, murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its Thus under Article 63, the higher penalty should be imposed.
immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence."25 However, because of the passage of Republic Act No. 9346,
or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
In this case, the crime was committed in the residence of the Philippines, the imposition of death penalty is now
victims which is located within the same barangay where prohibited.1âwphi1 The law provides that in lieu of the death
appellant resides. In fact, appellant's father-in-law testified that penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed with
the distance between the crime scene and his house is "more no eligibility for parole. Accordingly5 appellant should suffer the
or less 1 kilometer,"26 or two kilometers as he later amended penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility forparole in lieu
and that said distance could be traversed in one hour by
of the death penalty in Criminal Case Nos. 11721, 11723, 1. For those crimes like, Murder, Parricide, Serious Intentional
11724. Mutilation, Infanticide, and other crimes involving death of a
victim where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
In People v. Jugueta,30 the Court held that:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced
x x x [F]or crimes where the imposable penalty is death in view to reclusion perpetua because of R. A 9364:
of the attendance of an ordinary aggravating circumstance but
due to the prohibition to impose the death penalty, the actual a. Civil indemnity-₱100,000.00
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the latest jurisprudence
pegs the amount of ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity and b. Moral damages –₱l00,000.00
₱l00,0000.00 as moral damages. For the qualifying aggravating
circumstance and/or the ordinary aggravating circumstances c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
present, the amount of ₱l00,000.00 is awarded as exemplary
damages aside from civil indemnity and moral damages. 1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
Regardless of the attendance of qualifying aggravating
circumstance, the exemplary damages shall be fixed at a. Frustrated:
₱100,000.00. x x x
i. Civil indemnity-₱75,000.00
xxxx
ii. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
Aside from those discussed earlier, the Court also awards
temperate damages in certain cases. x x x Under Article 2424 iii. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered, as it
cannot be denied that the heirs of the victims suffered pecuniary b. Attempted:
loss allthough the exact amount was not proved. In this case,
the Court now increases the amount to be awarded as i. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
temperate damages to ₱50,000.00.
ii. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
xxxx
iii. Exemplary damages –₱50,000.00
In summary:
Hence, in Criminal Case Nos. 11721, 11723, and 11724 where be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., prision
the appellant was convicted of murder, the crime being attended correccional, in any of its periods, or anywhere from six (6)
by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and by the months and one (1) day to six (6) years. This Court finds it apt
aggravating circumstances of dwelling and disguise, we further to impose on appellant the Indeterminate penalty of four (4)
modify the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and years, two (2) months and one (l) day of prission correccional,
exemplary damages to ₱100,000.00 each for each case. as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of
Moreover, since the award of actual damages in the amount of prision mayor, as minimum, for each of the four (4) counts of
₱55,602.00 pertained to all three cases, the same should be attempted murder. (Emphasis supplied)
modified to ₱50,000,00 for each case.
Applying the foregoing, the proper imposable penalty for
In Criminal Case No. 11722 for attempted murder, the RTC as attempted murder, and considering the attendant aggravating
affirmed by the CA imposed the penalty of six (6) years of circumstances of dwelling and disguise, is four (4) years, two
prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years as prision (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum,
mayor as maximum. to ten (10) years and one (l) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
In addition, appellant is liable to pay civil indemnity, moral
In People v. Jugueta,31 the Court en banc held as follows: damages, and exemplary damages at ₱50,000.00 each. Finally,
these monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per
In view of the attendant ordinary aggravating circumstance, the annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
Court must modify the penalties imposed on appellant. Murder
is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, thus, with an WHEREFORE, the January 6, 2014 Decision of the Court of
ordinary aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the imposable Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04127 is AFFIRMED with
penalty is death for each of two (2) counts of murder. However, FURTHER MODIFICATIONS as follows:
pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 9346, prescribing the
imposition of the death penalty, the penalty to be imposed on 1. In Criminal Case No. 11721, appellant Tirso Sibbu is hereby
appellant should be reclusion perpetua for each of the two (2) declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
counts of murder without eligibility for parole. With regard to the He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with
four (4) counts of attempted murder, the penalty prescribed for no eligibility for parole. Further, he is ordered to pay the heirs of
each count is prision mayor. With one ordinary aggrawating Trisha May Julian y Villanueva the amounts of ₱l00,000.00 as
circumstance the penalty should be imposed in its maximum civil indemnity, ₱100,000.00, as moral damages, ₱100,000.00
period, Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the as exemplary damages, and ₱50,000.00 as temperate
maximum penalty should be from two (10) years and one (l) day damages, all with interest at the ro1te of 6% per annum from
to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, while the minimum shall the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
2. In Criminal Case No. 11723, appellant Tirso Sibbu is hereby MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. Associate Justice
He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with
no eligibility for parole. Further, he is ordered to pay the heirs of WE CONCUR:
Ofelia Julian y Bayudan the amounts of ₱l00,000.00 as civil
indemnity, ₱100,000.00 as moral damages, ₱100,000.00 as MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
exemplary damages, and ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages, Associate Justice
all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality Chairperson
of this Decision until fully paid.
3. In Criminal Case No. 11724, appellant Tirso Sibbu is hereby TERESITA J. (On official Leave)
declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. LEONARDO-DE ESTELA M. PERLAS-
He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with CASTRO BERNABE*
no eligibility for parole. Further, he is ordered to pay the heirs of Associate Justice Associate Justice
Warlito Julian, Sr. y Agustin the amounts of ₱l00,000.00 as civil
indemnity, ₱100,000.00 as moral damages, ₱100,000.00 as
ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA
exemplary damages, and ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages,
Associate Justice
all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality
of this Decision until fully paid.
CERTIFICATION
4. In Criminal Case No. 11722, appellant Tirso Sibbu is hereby

Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted 1nurdcr
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of four (4) years, two (2)
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Further, he is ordered to pay Bryan Julian y Villanueva civil
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary dams.gos each in
Chief Justice
the amount of ₱50,000.00, with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines liquor with accused Nazareno and Saliendra.3 A heated
SUPREME COURT argument ensued between Magallanes and Nazareno but their
Manila companions pacified them.4
THIRD DIVISION On the following day, November 11, David, Magallanes, and
Francisco returned to the wake. Accused Nazareno and
G.R. No. 196434 October 24, 2012 Saliendra also arrived and told the three not to mind the
previous night’s altercation. At around 9:30 in the evening, while
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, David, Francisco, and their friend, Aida Unos were walking on
vs. the street, Nazareno and Saliendra blocked their
CHITO NAZARENO, Respondent. path.5 Nazareno boxed Francisco who fled but Saliendra went
after him with a balisong.6 Francisco, who succeeded in hiding
DECISION saw Nazareno hit David on the body with a stick while Saliendra
struck David’s head with a stone.7 David ran towards a gasoline
ABAD, J.: station but Nazareno and Saliendra, aided by some barangay
tanods, caught up with him.8 As David fell, the barangay tanods
This case is about the evidence required for proving conspiracy took over the assault.9 This took place as Magallanes stood
and the qualifying circumstance of abuse or superior strength in about five meters across the highway unable to help his
a murder case. friend.10 Afterwards, Unos brought David to the hospital.11 Dr.
Rebosa performed surgery on David’s head but he died on
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila charged the accused November 14, 1993 of massive intra-cranial hemorrhage
Chito Nazareno and Fernando Saliendra, a barangay tanod, of secondary to depressed fracture on his right temporal bone12 in
murder before the Regional Trial Cow1 (RTC) of that city in a form of blunt trauma.13
Criminal Case 94-133117.1
On November 12, 1993 after David’s relatives reported the
Since Saliendra remained at-large, only Nazareno was tried. killing to the police, SPO1 Sinag investigated the case and took
The prosecution presented Roy Magallanes, Roger Francisco, Unos’s statement.14 On November 15, accompanied by SPO1
SPO1 Teodoro Sinag, SPO1 Julian Bustamante, Dr. Antonio E. Bustamante and two other police officers, SPO1 Sinag went to
Rebosa, and Jovelo Valdez.2 the UST Hospital and took a look at David’s body, noting the
wounds on his forehead.15 Subsequently, the officers went to
On November 10, 1993 David Valdez (David), Magallanes, and the crime scene but found no witness there.
Francisco attended the wake of a friend. While there, they drank
In his defense, accused Nazareno claimed that he left his house 2. Whether or not a qualifying circumstance of abuse of
at around 9:30 in the evening on November 11, 1993 to buy superior strength attended the killing of David.
milk. While on a street near his house, he noted a commotion
taking place nearby. He then bumped into Saliendra. Nazareno The Court’s Ruling
proceeded home and went to bed.16 His wife Isabel supported
his testimony, claiming that she asked her husband on that night One. As a rule, the factual findings of the trial court are, except
to buy milk for their children. When Nazareno returned home, for compelling or exceptional reasons, conclusive to the Court
he informed her of the commotion outside and how someone especially when fully supported by evidence and affirmed by the
bumped into him.17 CA.21 Here, no sound reason exists to alter the findings of the
RTC and the CA with respect to the facts they deemed to have
Unos testified that she saw Saliendra chasing David as the latter been proved and the credibility of the witnesses.22
hang on the rear of a running jeepney. She claimed that she did
not see Nazareno around the place.18 There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
On March 9, 2004, the RTC found Nazareno guilty beyond to commit it.23 Actions indicating close personal association and
reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by abuse of superior shared sentiment among the accused can prove its
strength and aggravated by treachery. The RTC sentenced presence.24 Proof that the perpetrators met beforehand and
Nazareno to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and decided to commit the crime is not necessary as long as their
ordered him to pay P141,670.25 as actual damages, acts manifest a common design and oneness of purpose.
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral
damages, without any subsidiary imprisonment.19 Here, both the RTC and the CA found conspiracy in attendance.
Magallanes and Francisco testified that accused Nazareno and
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification Saliendra purposely waited for David and his companions out
the decision of the RTC. 20 Finding no treachery, it convicted on the street as they came out of the wake. The witnesses
Nazareno of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, testified that each of Nazareno and Saliendra took concerted
hence, this appeal. steps aimed at killing or causing serious harm to David.
Nazareno repeatedly struck David on the area of his neck with
The issues in this case are: a stick; Saliendra hurled a fist-sized stone on his head. Even
when David tried to flee, they still chased him and together with
1. Whether or not Nazareno took part in a conspiracy to other barangay tanods, beat him to unconsciousness. Although
kill David; Magallanes testified that Saliendra and Nazareno acted "quite
differently" from each other before the attack,25 their actions
before and during the incident reveal a common Here, Nazareno and Saliendra evidently armed themselves
purpose.26 Saliendra appears to have delivered the fatal blow beforehand, Nazareno with a stick and Saliendra with a heavy
but Nazareno cannot escape liability because, in conspiracy, stone. David was unarmed. The two chased him even as he fled
the act of one is the act of all.27 from them. And when they caught up with him, aided by some
unnamed barangay tanods, Nazareno and Saliendra exploited
Magallanes and Francisco saw the commission of the offense their superior advantage and knocked the defenseless David
from different angles but the core of their stories remains unconscious. He evidently died from head fracture caused by
cohesive. The result of the autopsy of David’s body one of the blows on his head.1âwphi1
corroborates such stories. True their accounts have certain
inconsistencies but these do not weaken their credibility since On the matter of penalty, the Court affirms the imposition of
they concurred on material points.28 Rather, those small reclusion perpetua.34 The Court retains the amount of
inconsistencies strengthened their credibility as they evince P141,670.25 as actual damages.35 But, consistent with current
spontaneity and candor.29 Completely uniform and identical jurisprudence, 36 the Court is awarding P75,000.00 as civil
statements manifest rehearsed testimonies.30 indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
Taken against these considerations, the Court cannot give
credence to Nazareno’s defense of alibi.1âwphi1 To be WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the assailed Decision of the
admissible, not only must he be at a different place during the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01308 dated December
commission of the crime, his presence at the crime scene must 17, 2010, that found Chito Nazareno guilty beyond reasonable
also be physically impossible.31 Here, Nazareno even admits doubt of the crime of murder qualified by abuse of superior
that he encountered Saliendra, the accused who went into strength in Criminal Case 94-133117.
hiding, on the street and noticed the commotion.32
The Court also AFFIRMS the penalty of reclusion perpetua
Two. The CA held that the killing of David should be imposed on accused Nazareno but MODIFIES the award of
characterized as one of murder qualified by abuse of superior damages to P141,670.25 as actual damages, P75,000.00 as
strength. The Court finds no fault in this ruling. There is abuse civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00
of superior strength when the aggressors purposely use as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs.
excessive force rendering the victim unable to defend
himself.33 The notorious inequality of forces creates an unfair SO ORDERED.
advantage for the aggressor.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR: MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
CASTRO* Associate Justice
Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been


Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
Republic of the Philippines months and 1 day to 20 years." On appeal, the CA prescribed
SUPREME COURT reclusion perpetua.
Manila
Antecedents
FIRST DIVISION
The information filed on January7, 1991 averred as follows:
G.R. No. 171284 June 29, 2015
That on or about August 22, 1990, in the Municipality of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of
vs. this Honorable Court, the said accused, Alfredo Dulin y Narag
ALFREDO DULIN Y NARAG, Accused-Appellant. alias Freddie, armed with a sharp blade(d) instrument, with
intent to kill, with evident premeditation and with treachery did
DECISION then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and stab one, Francisco Batulan, inflicting upon him
BERSAMIN, J.: several stab wounds on the different parts of his body which
caused his death.
The accused is guilty only of homicide in a prosecution for
murder where the record does not substantiate the attendance Contrary to law.3
of treachery. But he may not benefit from the privileged
mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense if there was During the trial, the Prosecution presented four witnesses,
no unlawful aggression from the victim. The Case namely: (a) Dr. Nelson Macaraniag, (b) Alexander Tamayao, (c)
Romulo Cabalza and (d) Estelita Batulan. Their version follows.
Alfredo Dulin y Narag appeals the decision promulgated on Tamayao was on Tamayao Street in Atulayan Norte,
August 26, 2005,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed Tuguegarao at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of August 22,
with modification his conviction for the murder of Francisco 1990 when a young man came running from the house of
Batulan rendered on December 29, 1997 by the Regional Trial Vicente Danao towards the house of Batulan, shouting that his
Court (RTC), Branch 3, in Tuguegarao, Cagayan.2 In convicting Uncle Totoy (Batulan) had been stabbed. Tamayao rushed
him, the RTC had appreciated the privileged mitigating towards Danao’s house, which was about 30 meters from his
circumstance of incomplete self-defense, and had then own house, and there he saw Dulinstabbing Batulan who was
sentenced him to "suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its already prostrate face down. Dulin was on top of Batulan, as if
maximum period of imprisonment ranging from 17 years and 4 kneeling with his left foot touching the ground. Dulin was holding
Batulan by the hair with his left hand, and thrusting the knife at
the latter with his right hand. Seeing this, Tamayao ran towards Estelita said that Barangay Captain Meman went to her
Batulan’s house to inform Estelita Batulan, the victim’s wife who husband’s wake and repeated what he had said to her about
was his aunt, about the incident. He went home afterwards. Dulin. But when she later on sought out Barangay Captain
Meman to ask him to confirm what he had told her about Dulin’s
Tamayao mentioned of the long standing grudge between vowing to kill her husband, Barangay Captain Meman’s
Batulan and Dulin, and of seeing them fighting in April 1990. He response was: I’m sorry I cannot go and declare what I have
recalled Dulin uttering on two occasions: He will soon have his stated because I am afraid of FREDDIE and he will kill all those
day and I will kill him.4 persons who will testify in their favor.6
Cabalza, a barangay tanod, was in his house around 10:00 Estelita mentioned of the heated discussion between her
o’clock in the evening of August 22, 1990 when he heard the husband and his nephew, Seong Bancud, in front of Danao’s
commotion in Danao’s house which was facing his house. It was house in April 1990. On that occasion, Dulin wielded a knife with
Carolina, Danao’s daughter, screaming for help. He thus sought which he tried to stab her husband. Dulin was pacified only
out a fellow barangay tanod. On his return to the scene, he when she went to the aid of her husband, but she then heard
found Batulanat the door of Danao’s house, with Dulin wielding Dulin saying: You will soon have your day, I will kill you.7
a sharp pointed instrument, about 6-7 inches long. Fearing for
his safety, he rushed to the Barangay Hall to seek the Batulan was attended to at the Cagayan Valley Regional
assistance of Edwin Cabalza and Nanding Buenaflor to bring Hospital on August 22, 1990 by Dr. Macaraniag, who said that
Batulan to the Provincial Hospital in Carig, Tuguegarao.5 the victim was in a state of shock from his 12 stab wounds. Dr.
Macaraniag was part of the three teams that conducted the
Estelita recalled that Tamayao went to her house around 10:00 surgery on Batulan. He issued the Medico-Legal Certificate8
o’clock in the evening of August 22, 1990 to inform her that Dulin attesting that Batulan died on August 24, 1990 at 12:15 a.m.;
had stabbed her husband in Danao’s house. She rushed to and that Batulan had sustained several injuries, as follows:
Danao’s house but fainted on the way. Upon regaining
consciousness, she learned that her husband had been rushed Multiple stab wounds #12
to the hospital. On her way to the hospital, she met Barangay
Captain Loreto Meman, who told her: Finally, Freddie Dulin (1) Lacerated wound, sternum, 1 cm.
killed your husband as he vowed to do. At the hospital, she was
told that her husband had sustained two wounds in the back and (2) Lacerated wound, 4th ICS, 2 cm. MCL
several stab wounds in the front, and was being attended to at
the hospital’s intensive care unit (ICU) before he expired. (3) Lacerated wound, 1 cm. post axillary line
(4) Lacerated wound, 3 x 2 cm. 3 cm below scapula Estelita declared that her late husband had earned a living from
buying pigs, deriving a monthly income of ₱8,000.00; that their
(5) Lacerated wound, 3 cm. lateral aspect, left hand marriage bore only one child; that she spent more or less
₱6,500.00 for Batulan’s hospitalization, including his medicines,
(6) Lacerated wound, 3 cm. anterior aspect, left hand and ₱36,000.00 for Batulan’s 10-day wake, his burial attire and
his coffin; that during the wake she butchered one cow worth
(7) Lacerated wound, 3 cm. anterior aspect, about 3 cm. ₱6,800.00 and six pigsworth ₱15,000.00; that his death caused
from elbow, left her and her family so much pain; and that she and her family
expended a total of ₱70,000.00, plus the ₱20,000.00 for the
(8) Lacerated wound, 2 cm. middle third, left forearm counsel’s services in bringing the criminal charge against
Dulin.12
(9) Lacerated wound, 3 cm. posterior aspect left forearm
4 cm. from left wrist In his defense, Dulin testified thatin the evening of August 22,
1990, he was in his house in Atulayan Norte, Tuguegarao,
(10) Lacerated wound, 3 cm. lateral aspect of left foot Cagayan with Doming Narag, Imelda Danao, Jun Danao,
Carolina Dulin and Caridad Narag; that Nicanor Annariao and
(11) Lacerated wound, 4 cm. lateral aspect, left thigh Raymund Soriano arrived at his house to see the fighting cocks
being sold by Alberto Eugenio (Alberto); that Alberto was not yet
(12) Lacerated wound, 2 cm. scapular area. around, arriving only at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening to talk
with Raymund and Nicanor about the price of the fighting cocks;
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x.9 that after their transaction, Alberto served Nicanor and
Raymund food, and he (Dulin) and Jun Danao thereafter
Dr. Macaraniag stated the cause of death to be "Hypovolemic accompanied Raymund and Nicanor to the highway to get a
shock secondary to Massive Hemothorax secondary to Multiple tricycle ride, but on their way, they passed Angel Bancud who
stab wounds."10 He clarified in court that there were clerical called out to him: that he (Dulin) asked the others to go ahead,
errors in the preparation of the Medico-Legal Certificate and he would just catch up with them; that as he (Dulin)
because his handwritten records indicated that Batulan had approached Bancud, Batulan, the cousin of his (Dulin) mother,
sustained stab instead of lacerated wounds. He surmised that stabbed him on the right side of his body and in the left hand;
one of the clerks could have misread his handwriting in the that he complained to Batulan: Uncle, you hit me (Dinisgrasya
process of transcription.11 nakun), but Batulan replied: I will really kill you; that he (Dulin)
ran to the upper level of Carolina Danao’s house, pursued by
Batulan who stabbed him again several times; that they
grappled for the weapon until he (Dulin) was able to wrest it from Decision of the CA
Batulan; that he (Dulin) stabbed Batulan with the weapon, and
they struggled until he (Dulin) felt weak, eventually falling to the In his appeal, Dulin contended that his crime should be
ground; and that he (Dulin) regained consciousness only the homicide instead of murder, considering the RTC’s appreciation
next day at the hospital. of incomplete self-defense as a privileged mitigating
circumstance; and that even if self-defense should be
Dulin insisted that there was no grudge between him and unavailing, he could be found guilty only of homicide because it
Batulan, but interjected that the barangay captain would was the victim who had first attacked by stabbing him, and that
summon him to bring Batulan home each time the latter got the multiple wounds inflicted on the victim did not mean that he
drunk at night. had not been justified in killing the victim. He argued that the
penalty imposed on him was incorrect considering the absence
Erlinda Danao, Records Officer of the Cagayan Valley Regional of any aggravating circumstance and the presence of the
Hospital in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, authenticated the hospital privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense.
records showing that Dulin had also been injured.13 Judgment
of the RTC On August 26, 2005, the CA affirmed the conviction subject to
the modification of the civil liability, decreeing:
On December 29, 1997, the RTC rendered its decision
convicting Dulin of murder,14 to wit: WHEREFORE, judgment is The Court agrees with the OSG representing the State that the
hereby rendered finding the accused Alfredo Dulin guilty penalty requires modification. The Court a quo committed error
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, and in the imposition of the proper penalty. The crime committed by
appreciating the privileged mitigating circumstance of appellant in the case at bench is murder qualified by treachery.
incomplete self-defense and no aggravating circumstance, this There being no aggravating and no mitigating circumstance, the
Court hereby lowers the penalty of said crime by two degrees proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Where no mitigating or
and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the
temporal in its maximum period of imprisonment ranging from crime, the medium period of the imposable penalty, which is
17 years and 4 months and 1 day to 20 years and to indemnify reclusion perpetua, should be imposed by the trial court.
the heirs of the victim in the amount of ₱50,000.00 and to pay
actual damages in the amount of ₱36,000.00 and moral WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is hereby
damages for ₱40,000.00. AFFIRMED subject to the modification of the penalty and
awards of damages. Appellant ALFREDO DULIN y NARAG is
Without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.15 The award of ₱36,000 actual damages is DELETED. Appellant
is ordered to pay the heirs of Francisco Batulan ₱20,000 as WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
temperate damages and ₱50,000 by way of moral damages. APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
TREACHERY IN THE KILLING OF FRANCISCO.18
SO ORDERED.16
Ruling of the Court
On January 12, 2006, the CA denied Dulin’s motion for
reconsideration.17 The appeal is partly meritorious.
Issues I.
In this appeal, Dulin submits the following issues for our review There was no self-defense
and consideration, to wit:
The accused who pleads self-defense admits the authorship of
I the crime. The burden of proving self-defense rests entirely on
him, that he must then prove by clear and convincing evidence
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN the concurrence of the following elements of self-defense,
FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE PRESENCE OF THE namely: (1) unlawful aggression; (2)
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF SELF-DEFENSE
DESPITE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE SHOWING reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
THE ELEMENTS OF SELF-DEFENSE. the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of the person defending himself.19 The most
II important of all the elements is unlawful aggression,20 which is
the condition sine qua non for upholding self-defense as a
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN justifying circumstance. Unless the victim committed unlawful
NOT CONSIDERING SELF-DEFENSE AS A PRIVILEGED
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE, IN THE EVENT THAT THE aggression against the accused, self-defense, whether
APPRECIATION OF A COMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE IS complete or incomplete, should not be appreciated, for the two
UNAVAILING. other essential elements of self-defense would have no factual
and legal bases without any unlawful aggression to prevent or
III repel.
Unlawful aggression as the condition sine qua non for upholding accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming to throw
self-defense is aptly described in People v. Nugas,21 as follows: a pot.
Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial Dulin argues that the CA should have appreciated the justifying
element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without circumstance of self-defense in his favor because all its
unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense elements had been present in the commission of the crime.
of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression
under the circumstances is In rejecting Dulin’s argument, the CA observed that although
Batulan had initiated the attack against Dulin the unlawful
whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life aggression from Batulan effectively ceased once Dulin had
or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril wrested the weapon from the latter. The CA thus found and held
must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the in its assailed decision:
accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of
unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or Appellant testified that after the initial stabbing attack on him, he
material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be was able to take possession of the weapon and ran towards the
actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must second level of the house of Vicente Danao, away from
be unlawful. FRANCISCO. At that point, the unlawful aggression against him
effectively ceased. When
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material
unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. FRANCISCO and appellant again grappled for possession of
Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with the weapon, appellant now became the armed protagonist, and
physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively FRANCISCO’s act of trying to wrest the weapon cannot be
determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. considered as unlawful aggression. At that moment, appellant
Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is no longer faced any imminent or immediate danger to his life
impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a and limb from FRANCISCO.
mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but
must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver xxxx
at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a
motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful aggression must not From the foregoing, it is evidently clear that FRANCISCO could
be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing no longer be considered as unlawful aggressor. Appellant had
his right hand to his hip where a revolver was holstered, nothing to repel. Therefore, appellant’s theory that he was
merely defending himself when he killed FRANCISCO is Batulan was not committing any aggression when Dulin fatally
unavailing. A fortiori, there would be no stabbed him.
basis for the second requisite of self-defense.22 It is notable, too, that the results of the medico-legal
examination indicating Batulan to have sustained twelve stab
We uphold the finding and holding of the CA. Batulan, albeit the wounds25 confirmed the cessation of the attack by Batulan. The
initial aggressor against Dulin, ceased to be the aggressor as numerosity and nature of the wounds inflicted by the accused
soon as Dulin had dispossessed him of the weapon. Even if reflected his determination to kill Batulan, and the fact that he
Batulan still went after Dulin despite the latter going inside the was not defending himself.26
house of Danao, where they again grappled for control of the
weapon, the grappling for the weapon did not amount to II.
aggression from Batulan for it was still Dulin who held control of
the weapon at that point. Whatever Dulin did thereafter – like Incomplete self-defense was not proved
stabbing Batulan with the weapon – constituted retaliation
against Batulan. In this regard, retaliation was not the same as Pursuant to Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, the privileged
self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that the victim started mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense reduces the
already ceased when the accused attacked him, but in self- penalty by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law. For
defense, the aggression was still continuing when the accused this purpose, the accused must prove the existence of the
injured the aggressor.23 As such, there was no unlawful majority of the elements for self-defense, but unlawful
aggression on the part of Batulan to justify his fatal stabbing by aggression, being an indispensable element, must be present.
Dulin. Either or both of the other requisites may be absent, namely:
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
Still, Dulin vigorously insists that the initial aggression employed it, or the lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
by Batulan did not cease because the latter followed him into defending himself.27
Danao’s house with the singular purpose of ending his life; and
that there was no gap in the aggression initiated by Batulan.24 Dulin posits that the totality of circumstances indicated that his
acts constituted incomplete self-defense, and must be
The insistence is unwarranted. Dulin admitted having appreciatedas a privileged mitigating circumstance.28
successfully disarmed Batulan and then running away from him.
With the aggression by Batulan having thereby ceased, he did Dulin’s position is untenable. Like in complete self-defense,
not anymore pose any imminent threat against Dulin. Hence, Dulin should prove the elements of incomplete self-defense by
first credibly establishing that the victim had committed unlawful
aggression against him. With Batulan’s aggression having Based on the established facts, Dulinand Batulan grappled for
already ceased from the moment that Dulin divested Batulan of control of the weapon Batulan had initially wielded against Dulin,
the weapon, there would not be any incomplete self-defense. who divested Batulan of it and ran with it into the house of
Moreover, as borne out by his stabbing of Batulan several times, Danao, with Batulan in immediate pursuit. They continued
Dulin did not act in order to defend himself or to repel any attack, tograpple for the weapon inside the house of Danao, and it was
but instead to inflict injury on Batulan. at that point when Dulin stabbed Batulan several times. Under
the circumstances, treachery should not be appreciated in the
III. killing of Batulan because the stabbing by Dulin did not take
Batulan by surprise due to his having been sufficiently
The RTC and CA erred in appreciating forewarned of Dulin’s impending assault,32 and being thus
afforded the opportunity to defend himself, or to escape, or even
the attendance of treachery to recover control of the weapon from Dulin. The essence of
treachery is that the attack comes without warning, or is done in
Murder is the unlawful killing of any person attended by any of a swift, deliberate and unexpected manner, affording the
the circumstances listed Article 248 of the Revised Penal hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist
Code.1âwphi1 Treachery, which was alleged in the information, or to escape, without the slightest provocation on the part of the
is one such qualifying circumstance. victim.33 The mode of attack must not spring from the
unexpected turn of events.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means and methods or forms in the Consequently, Dulin should be liable only for homicide, the
execution thereof which tend to directly and specially ensure its penalty for which is reclusion temporal.34 There being no
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty is imposed
the offended party might make.29 Two conditions must concur in in its medium period (i.e., 14 years, eight months and one day
order for treachery to be appreciated, namely: one, the assailant to 17 years and four months). The indeterminate sentence of
employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the Dulin is, therefore, eight years and one day of prision mayor, as
criminal act which give the person attacked no opportunity to the minimum, to 14 years, eight months and one day of
defend himself or to retaliate; and two, said means, methods or reclusion temporal, with full credit of his preventive
forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by imprisonment, if any.
the assailant.30 Treachery, whenever alleged in the information
and competently and clearly proved, qualifies the killing and Anent the civil liability, the CA ordered the accused to pay to the
raises it to the category of murder.31 heirs of Batulan ₱20,000.00 as temperate damages and
₱50,000.00 as moral damages. We modify the awards, and
grant to the heirs of Batulan ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, SO ORDERED.

₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱25,000.00 as temperate
damages. Indeed, the current judicial policy sets the civil LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
indemnity for death caused by a crime at ₱50,000.00. In Associate Justice
addition, the heirs of the victim are entitled to moral damages of
₱50,000.00. The civil indemnity and moral damages are WE CONCUR:
allowed even without allegation and proof, it being a certainty
that the victim’s heirs were entitled thereto as a matter of law. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Temperate damages of ₱25,000.00 should further be granted Chief Justice
to the heirs of the victim for they were presumed to have spent
for his interment. It would be unjust to deny them this amount TERESITA J.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
for the reason that they were not able to establish the actual LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
expenditure for his interment with certainty.35 Associate Justice
In line with recent jurisprudence,36 interest of 6% per annum ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

shall be charged on all the items of the civil liability fixed and Associate Justice
imposed herein, computed from the date of the finality of this
decision until the items of the civil liability shall be fully paid. CERTIFICATION
WHEREFORE, the Court MODIFIES the judgment promulgated Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify
on August 26, 2005 by finding ALFREDO DULIN YNARAG that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of HOMICIDE, and consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
SENTENCES him to suffer the indeterminate sentence of opinion of the Court's Division.
EIGHT YEARS AND ONE DAY OF PRISION MAYOR, AS THE
MINIMUM, TO 14 YEARS, EIGHT MONTHS AND ONE DAY MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL, with full credit of his preventive Chief Justice
imprisonment; ORDERS him to pay to the heirs of Francisco
Batulan ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral
damages, and ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages, plus interest
of 6% per annum on each item reckoned from the finality of this
decision until full payment; and DIRECTS him to pay the costs
of suit.
Republic of the Philippines in Pandacan, Manila when all of a sudden, he heard Isabelita's
SUPREME COURT son, Winston, throwing invectives at him. Thus, Elpidio
Manila confronted Isabelita but she also cursed him, which prompted
the former to slapthe latter. On that occasion, Elpidio was under
THIRD DIVISION the influence of alcohol.
G.R. No. 190912 January 12, 2015 The Barangay Chairman heard what transpired and went to the
place where the commotion was taking place inorder to pacify
GARY FANTASTICO and ROLANDO those who were involved. Elpidio was eventually persuaded to
VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, go home where he drank some coffee. Thereafter, Elpidio went
vs. back to the house of Isabelita to offer reconciliation. On his way
ELPIDIO MALICSE, SR. and PEOPLE OF THE there, he passed by the house of Kagawad Andy Antonio and
PHILIPPINES, Respondents. requested the latter to accompany him, but was instead told to
go back home, leaving Elpidio to proceed alone.
DECISION
Upon reaching Isabelita's house, Elpidio saw the former's son,
PERALTA, J.: Titus Iguiron (Titus) and her son-in-law Gary Fantastico (Gary)
and asked the two where he can find their parents. Titus and
For this Court's consideration is the Petition for Review on Gary responded, "putang ina mo, and kulit mo, lumayas ka,
Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, punyeta ka."
dated January 20, 2010, of petitioners Gary Fantastico and
Rolando Villanueva assailing the Decision2dated August 31, In his anger with the response of Titus and Gary, Elpidio kicked
2007 and Resolution3 dated January 7, 2010 of the Court of the door open and saw Isabelita's elder son, Salvador Iguiron
Appeals (CA) in CA-G. R. CR. No. 31719, affirming the (Salvador) behind the door holding a rattan stick or arnis.
Decision4 dated March 31, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Salvador hit Elpidio on the right side of his head that forced the
Branch 11, Manila, in Criminal Case No. 93-127049, finding latter tobow his head but Salvador delivered a second blow that
petitioners guilty of attempted murder. hit Elpidio on the right eyebrow. Salvador attempted to hit
Elpidio for the third time but the latter got hold of the rattan stick
The following are the antecedents: and the two wrestled on the floor and grappled for the
possession of the same rattan stick. Then Titus ran towards the
On the afternoon of June 27, 1993, Elpidio Malicse, Sr. (Elpidio) two and sprayed something on Elpidio's face. Not being able to
was outside the house of his sister Isabelita Iguiron (Isabelita)
free himself from the clutches of Salvador and to extricate Thus, a case for Attempted Murder under Article 248, in relation
himself, Elpidio bit Salvador's head. to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, was filed against
Salvador Iguiron, Titus Malicse Iguiron, Saligan Malicse Iguiron,
Gary hit Elpidio on the right side of his head with a tomahawk Tommy Ballesteros, Nestor Ballesteros, Eugene Surigao and
axe when the latter was about to go out of the house. Elpidio petitioners Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva. The
tried to defend himself but was unable to take the tomahawk Information reads:
axe from Gary. Elpidio walked away from Titus but Gary, still
armed with the tomahawk axe and Salvador, with hisarnis, That on or about June 27, 1993, in the City of Manila,
including Titus, chased him. Philippines, the said accused conspiring and confederating
together and helping one another, did then and there willfully,
Roland (Rolly) Villanueva, without any warning, hit Elpidio on unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and with treachery
the back of his head with a lead pipe which caused the latter to and taking advantage of superior strength, commence the
fall on the ground. Elpidio begged his assailants tostop, but to commission of the crime ofmurder directly by overt acts, to wit:
no avail. Salvador hit him countless times on his thighs, legsand by then and there hitting the head of Elpidio Malicse, Sr. y de
knees using the rattan stick. Leon with a piece of rattan, axe, pipe and a piece of wood and
mauling him, but the said accused did not perform all the acts
While he was simultaneously being beaten up by Salvador, of execution which should have produced the crime of murder,
Titus, Gary, Rolly, Nestor, Eugene and Tommy, he tried to cover as a consequence, by reason of causes other than their own
his face with his arm. Gary hit him with the tomahawk axe on spontaneous desistance, that is, the injuries inflicted upon
his right leg, between the knees and the ankle of his leg, which Elpidio Malicse, Sr. y de Leon are not necessarily mortal.
caused the fracture on his legs and knees. Rolly hit Elpidio's
head with a lead pipe, while Tommy hit him with a piece of wood They all pleaded "not guilty." The defense, during trial,
on the back of his shoulder. presented the following version of the events that transpired:
Thereafter, a certain "Mang Gil" tried to break them off but Titus Around 4:30 p.m. of June 27, 1993, Salvador was at the second
and Gary shouted at him: "Huwag makialam, away ng mag- floor of their house when he heard his tenth son Winston crying
anak ito" and the two continued to maul Elpidio. The people who while the latter was being castigated by Elpidio. He went down
witnessed the incident shouted "maawa na kayo" but they only and told Elpidio to come back the next day to settle. His wife
stopped battering him when a bystander fainted because of the Isabelita called the Barangay Chairman two blocks away.
incident. Elpidio then pretended to be dead. It was then that Barangay Chairman Joseph Ramos and Elpidio's wife and
concerned neighbors approached him and rushed him to the daughter went to the house and Elpidio was given warm water,
emergency room of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). but he showered his daughter and Winston withit. Elpidio was
brought to his house and the former told the Barangay Accused Titus Iguiron, Saligan Iguiron and Tommy Ballesteros
Chairman that it was a family problem. Elpidio went back to the ACQUITTED.
house of Salvador where Titus was sitting on the sofa. Elpidio
asked Titus to open the door until the former kicked the door SO ORDERED.
open. Titus escaped through the open door and Salvador went
out of the house because another child was on the roof, afraid After their motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioners
that the said child might fall. Thereafter, Elpidio went to the appealed the case to the CA, but the latter court affirmed the
street. decision of the RTC and disposed the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision
According to petitioner Gary Fantastico, he was inside their appealed from, we hereby AFFIRM the same and DISMISS the
house with his wife and Titus when the incident occurred. He instant appeal.
and his wife ran upstairs, while Titus went out when Elpidio hit
the door. Elpidio had a reputation for hurting people when drunk SO ORDERED.
and Gary learned that Elpidio was brought to the hospital
because he was mauled by the people. A motion for reconsideration was filed, but it was denied by the
same court.
During trial, one of the accused, Salvador Iguiron died.
Eventually, the trial court, in a Decision dated March 31, 2008, Hence, the present petition.
acquitted Titus Iguiron, Saligan Iguiron and Tommy Ballesteros
but found Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva guilty Petitioners stated the following arguments:
beyond reasonable doubt for Attempted Murder. The dispositive
portion of the said decision reads: THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
AND THE TRIAL COURT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Court ARE INCORRECT.
finds Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva GUILTY of the
crime of attempted murder and sentences them to an THE INFORMATION ITSELF IN THIS CASE DOES NOT
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years and ALLEGE ALL THE ELEMENTS AND THE NECESSARY
one(1) day as minimum, to ten (10) years as maximum. They INGREDIENTS OF THE SPECIFIC CRIME OF ATTEMPTED
are also ordered to pay the actual damages of ₱17,300.00 and MURDER. NOT ALL OF THE ELEMENTSOF ATTEMPTED
moral damages of ₱10,000.00. MURDER ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE. THERE IS NO
TREACHERY OR ANY OTHER QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCE TO SPEAK OF IN THIS CASE.
THE LOWER COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS "question of law" when the doubt or difference arises as to what
FAILED TO CONSIDER THE PRESENCE OF MITIGATING the law is on a certain state offacts, and which does not call for
CIRCUMSTANCES. an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented
by the parties- litigants. On the other hand, there is a "question
THERE ARE MANIFEST MISTAKES IN THE FINDINGS OF of fact" when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or
FACTS BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL falsity of the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute
COURT. as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn
therefrom is correct, is a question of law.6
THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONERS WAS BASED ON
THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENSE EVIDENCE, NOT ON At any rate, the arguments of herein petitioners deserve scant
THE STRENGTH OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE. consideration.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE RESPONDENT THAT IT WAS THE It is the contention of the petitionersthat the Information filed
PETITIONERS WHO ATTACKED HIM IS INDEED against them was defective because it did not state all the
UNCORROBORATED AND THUS SELF-SERVING. elements of the crime charged. However, a close reading of the
Information would show the contrary. The Information partly
CLEARLY, THERE ARE SO MUCH REVERSIBLE ERRORS IN reads:
THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE
LOWER COURT THAT INJURIOUSLY AFFECTED THE x x x but the said accused did not perform all the acts of the
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS AND THESE execution which should have produced the crime of murder, as
SHOULD BE CORRECTED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT. a consequence, by reason of causes other than their own
spontaneous desistance, that is, the injuries inflicted upon
At the outset, it bears stressing that under the Rules of Court, Elpidio Malicse, Sr. y de Leon are not necessarily mortal.
an appeal by certiorari to this Court should only raise questions
of law distinctly set forth in the petition.5 From the above-quoted portion of the Information, it is clear that
all the elements of the crime of attempted murder has been
In the present case, the issuesand arguments presented by the included.
petitioners involve questions of facts. Therefore, the present
petition is at once dismissible for its failure to comply with the The last paragraph of Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code
requirement of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, that the petition defines an attempt to commit a felony, thus:
should only raise questions of law. The distinction between a
"question of law" and a "question of fact" is settled. There is a
There is an attempt when the offender commences the An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own complete termination following its natural course, without being
spontaneous desistance.7 frustrated by external obstacles nor bythe spontaneous
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen
The essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows: into a concrete offense. The raison d'etre for the law requiring a
direct overt act is that, in a majority of cases, the conduct of the
The offender commences the commission of the felony directly accused consisting merely of acts of preparation has never
by overt acts; ceased to be equivocal; and this is necessarily so, irrespective
of his declared intent. It is that quality ofbeing equivocal that
He does not perform all the acts of execution which should must be lacking before the act becomes one which may be said
produce the felony; to be a commencement of the commission of the crime, or an
overt act or before any fragment of the crime itself has been
The offender's act be not stopped by his own spontaneous committed, and this is so for the reason that so long as the
desistance; equivocal quality remains, no one can say with certainty what
the intent of the accused is. It is necessary that the overt act
The non-performance of all acts ofexecution was due to cause should have been the ultimate step towards the consummation
or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.8 of the design. It is sufficient if it was the "first or some
subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission
The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two (2) of the offense after the preparations are made." The act done
elements, namely: need not constitute the last proximate one for completion. It is
necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal
(1) That there be external acts; relation to the intended crime. In the words of Viada, the overt
acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to the
(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the offense.11
crime intended to be committed.9
Petitioners question the inclusion of the phrase "not necessarily
The Court in People v. Lizada10 elaborated on the concept of an mortal" in the allegations in the Information. According to them,
overt or external act, thus: the inclusion of that phrase means that there is an absence of
an intent to kill on their part. Intent to kill is a state of mind that
the courts can discern only through external manifestations, i.e.,
acts and conduct of the accused at the time of the assault and failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a
immediately thereafter. In Rivera v. People,12 this Court waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds
considered the following factors to determine the presence of provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this
an intent to kill: (1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the Rule.
nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim;
(3) the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or Anent the probative value and weight given to the testimony of
immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the Elpidio by the CA and the RTC, the same is not ridden with any
circumstances under which the crime was committed and the error. In People v. Alvarado,14 we held that greater weight is
motives of the accused. This Court also considers motive and given to the positive identification of the accused by the
the words uttered by the offender at the time he inflicted injuries prosecution witness than the accused's denial and explanation
on the victim as additional determinative factors.13 All of these, concerning the commission of the crime. This is so inasmuch as
were proven during the trial. Needless to say, with or without the mere denials are self-serving evidence that cannot obtain
phrase, what is important is that all the elements of attempted evidentiary weight greater than the declaration of credible
murder are still alleged in the Information. Section 6, Rule 110 witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.15
of the Rules on Criminal Procedure states:
It is clear from the records that Elpidio was able to make a
Sec. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. – A complaint or positive identification of the petitionersas the assailants, thus:
information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the
designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions Q. Then what happened next Mr. Witness?
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the
offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the A. When I was able to free myself from Salvador Iguiron,
offense; and the place wherein the offense was committed. I got out of the door of the house, then, I saw Gary was
hiding in the kitchen door holding an axe. Tonahawk with
In any case, it is now too late for petitioners to assail the blade of ax was dull and had a handle of one foot, with
sufficiency of the Information on the ground that the elements of the diameter of one inch.
the crime of attempted murder are lacking. Section 9, Rule 117
of the Rules of Court provides: Q. Why did you know that the ax blade of the tom was
dull? (sic)
SEC. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground
therefor.- The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a A. I also used that.
motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or
information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or
Q. Where do you usually keep that in the house of A. Because they were about 5 of them at the main gate
Iguiron? of the compound.
A. In the kitchen. Q. Who are they?
Q. How far is that kitchen from where Gary emerged A. Rolando Villanueva, Nestor Ballesteros, Tommy
from? Ballesteros, Eugene Surigao, Saligan Iguiron.
A. He is right in the kitchen. Q. You said you were hit by Rolando from behind, do
you have occasion to see first before you were hit?
Q. Then what happened?
A. When I was hit I fell down and I was able to see who
A. When I was able to free myself from Salvador, Gary hit (sic), I saw him.
Iguiron was hiding in the kitchen door and holding a
tomhack(sic) whose edge is dull and he hit me on my Q. When you fell down, you were able to realize it was
right side and my headand I got injury (sic) and blood Rolando Villanueva who hit you, you mean you realized
profusely oozing, I want to get hold of the tomhawk (sic). what he used in hitting you from behind?
Q. Were you able to get of the tomhawk (sic) from Gary? A. It was a pipe. 1/2 inch thick, 24 inches in length.
A. No sir.16 Q. You said you fell down because of the blow of

Rolando Villanueva and you saw him holding that pipe,
xxxx how was he holding the pipe when you saw him?
Q. You said while on that street somebody hit you from A. When I fell down he was about trying to hit me again.17
behind, who was that?
In connection therewith, one must not forget the well
A. Rolly Villanueva. entrenched rule that findings of facts of the trial court, its
calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties as
Q. Why do you say that it was Rolly Villanueva, well as its conclusion on its findings, are accorded high
considering that it was hit from behind? respect if not conclusive effect. This is because of the
unique advantage of the trial court to observe, at close
range, the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the nature of his fracture was relatively unstable, I think it
witness as they testify.18 The rule finds an even more necessitated prolong immobilization in a case.
stringent application where the said findings are
sustained by the Court of Appeals.19 PROSECUTOR TEVES:
It is also of utmost significance that the testimony of Q. Did you personally attend on his needs on that date
Elpidio is corroborated by the medico-legal findings as when you saw him?
testified by Dr. Edgar Michael Eufemio, PGH Chief
Resident Doctor of the Department of Orthopedics. He A. Yes, ma'am.
testified as to the following:
Q. And what could have been the cause of these injuries
Q. And as head of that office, Mr. Witness, why are you he sustained? A. I think one of his leg has close fracture,
here today? meaning, probably it was caused by a blunt injury rather
than a hacking injury, one on the left side, with an open
A. Actually, I was called upon by the complainant to wound which was very much compatible with a hack at
rectify regarding, the findings supposedly seen when he the leg area.20
was admitted and when I saw him in one of the sessions
of our Out Patient Department. Petitioners also claim that the prosecution was not able to prove
the presence of treachery or any other qualifying circumstance.
Q. When was this follow-up session at your department
did you see this complainant? In this particular case, there was no treachery. There is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
A. Based on the chart, I think it was four (4) months post persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution,
injury when I first saw the patient. which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without
risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended
Q. Why does he has (sic) to makea follow up in your party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack
department? comes without a warning and ina swift, deliberate, and
unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and
A. Based on this chart, he sustained bilateral leg unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. For
fractures which necessitated casting. Normally, casting treachery tobe considered, two elements must concur: (1) the
would take around three (3) months only but since the employment of means of execution that gives the persons
attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and
(2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously the victim. The multiple lacerations on the head were caused by
adopted.21 From the facts proven by the prosecution, the Gary, Rolly and Salvador as it was proven that they hit Elpidio
incident was spontaneous, thus, the second element of on the head. There is no sufficient evidence that the other,
treachery is wanting. The incident, which happened at the spur accused, namely Saligan Iguiron Y Malicsi, Tommy Ballesteros,
of the moment, negates the possibility that the petitioners Nestor Ballesteros and Eugene Surigao harmed or injured the
consciously adopted means to execute the crime committed. victim. Titus having sprayed Elpidio with the tear gas is not
There is no treachery where the attack was not preconceived sufficiently proven. Neither was the alleged blow by Titus, using
and deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden a piece of wood, on the victim's private organ sufficiently
infuriation on the partof the accused because of the provocative established as the medical certificate did not show any injury on
act of the victim.22 that part of the body of the victim.
The RTC, however, was correct in appreciating the qualifying The said injuries inflicted on the complainant after he went back
circumstance of abuse of superior strength, thus: to his sister Isabelita's house.1âwphi1 Whenhe kicked the door,
the melee began. And the sequence of the injuries is proven by
In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to establish that victim's testimony. But it was a lopsided attack as the victim was
Salvador Iguiron hit Elpidio Malicsi, Sr. twice on the head as he unarmed, while his attackers were all armed (rattan stick,
was entered (sic) the house of the former. Gary Fantastico hit tomahawk and lead pipe). And the victim was also drunk. This
the victim on the right side of the head with an axe or tomahawk. establishes the element of abuse of superior strength. The
The evidence also show that Rolando "Rolly" Villanueva hit the suddenness of the blow inflicted by Salvador on Elpidio when
victim on the head with a lead pipe. And outside while the victim he entered the premises show that the former was ready to hit
was lying down, Gary hit the legs of the victim with the the victim and was waiting for him to enter. It afforded Elpidio
tomahawk. lvador also hit the victim with the rattan stick on the no means to defend himself. And Salvador consciously adopted
thighs, legs and knees. And Titus Iguiron hit the victim's private the said actuation. He hit Elpidio twice on the head. Treachery
organ with a piece of wood. The Provisional Medical Slip (Exh. is present in this case and must be considered an aggravating
"D"), Medico Legal Certificate and Leg Sketch (Exh. "D-2") and circumstance against Salvador Iguiron. Rolly Villanueva, Gary
the fracture sheet (Exh. "D-4") all prove that the victim suffered Fantastico and Salvador Iguiron were all armed while Elpidio,
injuries to both legs and multiple lacerations on his head. The inebriated, had nothing to defend himself with. There is clearly
injury on one leg which was a close fracture was caused by a present here the circumstance of abuse of superior
blunt instrument like a piece of wood. This injury was caused by strength.23 (Emphasis supplied)
Salvador Iguiron. The other leg suffered an open fracture
caused by a sharp object like a large knife or axe. This was Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a
caused by Gary Fantastico who used the tomahawk or axe on notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength mayor in its medium term, which has a duration of eight (8)
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken years and one (1) day to ten (10) years; and that the minimum
advantage of by him in the commission of the crime."24 "The fact should be within the range of prision correccional, which has a
that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not duration of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.
per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of Therefore, the penalty imposed should have been imprisonment
superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength from six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight
of the aggressors and the victim."25 The evidence must establish (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated
had the deliberate intent to use this advantage.26 "To take January 20, 2010 of petitioners Gary Fantastico and Rolando
advantage of superior strength means to purposely use Villanueva is hereby DENIED. Consequently, the Decision
excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense dated August 31, 2007 and Resolution dated January 7, 2010
available to the person attacked."27 The appreciation of this of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED with the
aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and MODIFICATION that the petitioners are sentenced to an
strength of the parties.28 indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from six ( 6) years of
prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1)
Anent the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, day of prision mayor, as maximum. Petitioners are also
which is an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) ORDERED to pay Pl 7,300.00 as actual damages, as well as Pl
day as minimum, to ten (10) years as maximum and ordered 0,000.00 moral damages as originally ordered by the RTC. In
them to pay actual damages of ₱17,300.00 and moral damages addition, interest is imposed on all damages awarded at the rate
of ₱10,000.00, this Court finds an obvious error. of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of judgment
until fully paid.
For the crime of attempted murder, the penalty shall be prision
mayor, since Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code states that a SO ORDERED.
penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
attempt to commit a felony.29 Under the Indeterminate Sentence Associate Justice
Law, the maximum of the sentence shall be that which could be
properly imposed in view of the attending circumstances, and WE CONCUR:
the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower
to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. Absent any PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
mitigating or aggravating circumstance in this case, the Associate Justice
maximum of the sentence should be within the range of prision Chairperson
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
JR.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION

writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.

Chief Justice
Republic of the Philippines premeditation, abuse of confidence, and nighttime, did then and
SUPREME COURT there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
Manila maul NOLI PASION, by hitting and beating his head and other
parts of his body with said hammer, thereby inflicting upon said
SECOND DIVISION NOLI PASION fatal wounds on his head and body which caused
his death.4
G.R. No. 187536 August 10, 2011
On arraignment, Bokingco entered a guilty plea while Col
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, pleaded not guilty. During the pre-trial, Bokingco confessed to
vs. the crime charged.5
MICHAEL BOKINGO alias "MICHAEL BOKINGCO" and
REYNANTE COL, Accused-Appellants. The victim, Noli Pasion (Pasion) and his wife, Elsa, were
residing in a house along Mac Arthur Highway in Balibago,
DECISION Angeles City. Pasion owned a pawnshop, which formed part of
his house. He also maintained two (2) rows of apartment units
PEREZ, J.: at the back of his house. The first row had six (6) units, one of
which is Apartment No. 5 and was being leased to Dante
For review is the Amended Decision1 dated 14 November 2008 Vitalicio (Vitalicio), Pasion’s brother-in-law, while the other row
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00658, finding was still under construction at the time of his death. Appellants,
appellants Michael Bokingco2 (Bokingco) and Reynante Col who were staying in Apartment No. 3, were among the 13
(Col) guilty as conspirators beyond reasonable doubt of the construction workers employed by Pasion.6
crime of Murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. The prosecution’s evidence show that at around 1:00 a.m. on
29 February 2000, Vitalicio was spin-drying his clothes inside
On 31 July 2000, an Information3 was filed against appellants his apartment when Pasion came from the front door, passed
charging them of the crime of murder committed as follows: by him and went out of the back door.7A few minutes later, he
heard a commotion from Apartment No. 3. He headed to said
That on or about the 29th day of February, 2000 in the City of unit to check. He peeped through a screen door and saw
Angeles, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Bokingco hitting something on the floor. Upon seeing Vitalicio,
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating Bokingco allegedly pushed open the screen door and attacked
together and mutually helping each other, armed with a claw him with a hammer in his hand. A struggle ensued and Vitalicio
hammer and with intent to kill by means of treachery, evident was hit several times. Vitalicio bit Bokingco’s neck and
managed to push him away. Bokingco tried to chase Vitalicio He also saw a claw hammer with a green lead pipe handle
but was eventually subdued by a co-worker. Vitalicio proceeded approximately 13 inches long near the kitchen sink. A lead pipe
to his house and was told by his wife that Pasion was found measuring 40 inches and a chisel were also found in the nearby
dead in the kitchen of Apartment No. 3. Vitalicio went back to construction site. The police went to Angeles University Medical
Apartment No. 3 and saw Pasion’s body lying flat on the kitchen Center afterwards. PO3 Dayrit saw Pasion lying in one of the
floor. Pasion and Vitalicio were brought to the hospital. Pasion beds while Vitalicio was still loitering around the emergency
expired a few hours later while Vitalicio was treated for his room. He approached Vitalicio and Elsa who both informed him
injuries.8 of the incident.12 He prepared a police report on the same day
narrating the result of his investigation.13
Elsa testified that she was in the master’s bedroom on the
second floor of the house when she heard banging sounds and Evelyn Gan, the stenographic reporter of Prosecutor Lucina
her husband’s moans. She immediately got off the bed and went Dayaon, jotted down notes during the preliminary investigation.
down. Before reaching the kitchen, Col blocked her way. Elsa She attests that Bokingco admitted that he conspired with Col
asked him why he was inside their house but Col suddenly ran to kill Pasion and that they planned the killing several days
towards her, sprayed tear gas on her eyes and poked a sharp before because they got "fed up" with Pasion.14
object under her chin. Elsa was wounded when she bowed her
head to avoid the tear gas.9 Col then instructed her to open the The necropsy report prepared by Dr. Joven G. Esguerra (Dr.
vault of the pawnshop but Elsa informed him that she does not Esguerra), contained the following findings:
know the combination lock. Elsa tried offering him money but
Col dragged her towards the back door by holding her neck and 1. Marked pallor of lips and nailbeds
pulling her backward. Before they reached the door, Elsa saw
Bokingco open the screen door and heard him tell Col: "tara, 2. Body in rigor mortis
patay na siya."10 Col immediately let her go and ran away with
Bokingco. Elsa proceeded to Apartment No. 3. Thereat, she 3. Contusion with hematoma, right medial infraorbital
saw her husband lying on the floor, bathed in his own blood.11 region extending to the right of the root of the nose.
PO3 Quirino Dayrit (PO3 Dayrit) was stationed at Police Station 4. Contusion with hematoma, left post-auricular region.
No. 4 in Barangay Salakot, Balibago, Angeles City. At 1:20 a.m.
of 29 February 2000, he received a phone call regarding the 5. Contusion with hematoma, right angle of mandible.
incident. He, together with a certain P/Insp. Maniago,
proceeded to Apartment No. 3 and conducted an investigation. 6. Contusion with hematoma, right mandibular region.
He noticed a pool of blood on the cemented floor of the kitchen.
7. Contusion with hematoma, left occipital region. 17. Lacerated wound, right supraorbital region, medial
aspect, 2 cm length.
8. Contusion with hematoma, right fronto-parietal region.
18. Lacerated wound, semi-lunar, 5 cm length, occipital
9. Contusion with hematoma, right supraorbital region. region 5 cm length involving all layers of the scalp with
brain tissue seen on the gaping wound.
10. Abrasions, linear, confluent, proximal third, right leg
anterior 2 ½ x 6 ½ cm. 19. Lacerated wound, 4 cm length, C-shaped 2 ½ cm to
the right of injury (18) 1 ½ cm below, wound involving
11. Contusion with hematoma, left shoulder, level of the whole scalp.
head of left humerus.
20. Lacerated wound, left post-auricular region, C-
12. Stab wound, anterior chest along the anterior shaped 4 cm length, 3 cm length.
median line, 7 cm above the nipple line, 0.8cm length,
0.5 cm wide and 1 cm deep, hitting and puncturing the 21. Lacerated wound left post-auricular region, region of
manubrium sterni, not entering the thoracic cavity. Both the squamous part of the left temporal bone, C-shaped
extremities round. (2) 3.5 cm and 4 cm lengths.
13. 2 stab wounds, non-penetrating, anterior chest, 13 22. Lacerated wound, right mandibular region 4 cm
cm to the left of the anterior median line, 3 cm below length, 1 cm wide.
injury (12) 14 cm the right of the anterior median line 4
½ on below injury (12). Wound 0.8 cm in length, both 23. Lacerated wound, stellate, 5.5 x 5 x 5 cm, right
extremities round. fronto-parietal region with brain tissue out of the gaping
wound.
14. Lacerated wound, semi-lunar shape, 3 cm length,
left shoulder. 24. Lacerated wound, right submandibular region 0.3 x
3.5 cm.
15. Lacerated wound, right eyebrow area, C-shaped 2
½ cm length. 25. Lacerated wound, right cheek 0.8 cm length.
16. Lacerated wound, lateral angle, right eye, 0.8 cm

length.
26. Depressed, complete fracture, occipital bone right 2000 because of the deductions from his salary. He went home
with stellate linear extensions, with gaping, with brain to Cainta, Rizal, where he was apprehended and brought to
tissue maseration. Camp Olivas. Upon reaching the camp, he saw Bokingco who
pointed to him as the person who killed Pasion. He insisted that
27. Skull fracture, right fronto-parietal region, he doesn’t know Bokingco very well.19
depressed, complete, C-shaped with linear extensions,
with gaping of bone with brain tissue maceration and On 16 December 2004, the trial court rendered
expulsion. judgment20 finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
murder, viz:
28. Hemorrhage, massive, subdural and epidural.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused MICHAEL BOKINGO
15
29. Brain tissue damage. alias MICHAEL BOKINGCO and REYNANTE COL guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, defined and
Dr. Esguerra concluded that the injuries sustained by Pasion on penalized in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and there
his skull proved fatal.16 being the two aggravating circumstances of nighttime and
abuse of confidence to be considered against both accused and
Appellants testified on their own behalf. Bokingco recalled that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty in favor of
he was sleeping in Apartment No. 3 at around 1:20 a.m. on 29 accused Bokingo only, hereby sentences each of them to suffer
February 2000 when he was awakened by Pasion who the penalty of DEATH. Each accused is ordered to indemnify
appeared to be intoxicated. The latter wanted to know why he the heirs of victim Noli Pasion in the amount of Seventy five
did not see Bokingco at the construction site on 28 February thousand pesos (P75,000.00) to pay the heirs of the victim
2000. When Bokingco replied that he just stayed at the Seventeen thousand six hundred pesos (P17,600.00) as actual
apartment the whole day, Pasion suddenly hit him in the head. damages, Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00) as attorney’s
This prompted Bokingco to take a hammer and hit Pasion. They fees, Twenty five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary
both struggled and Bokingco repeatedly hit Pasion. Bokingco damages, and to pay the costs.21
escaped to Manila right after the incident. He was subsequently
arrested in Mindanao on 11 June 2000.17 During the cross- In its Decision dated 24 July 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed
examination, Bokingco admitted that he harbored ill feelings the findings of the trial court but reduced the penalty to reclusion
towards Pasion.18 perpetua in view of Republic Act No. 7659, thus:
Col confirmed that he was one of the construction workers WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with
employed by Pasion. He however resigned on 26 February MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant REYNANTE COL is found
GUILTY as conspirator beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with
as defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as MODIFICATION. Accused-appellants MICHAEL BOKINGCO
amended by Republic Act No. 7659, qualified by treachery and and REYNANTE COL are found GUILTY as conspirators
evident premeditation and with the attendant aggravating beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER as defined in Article 248
circumstances of nighttime and abuse of confidence, with no of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
mitigating circumstances. The proper imposable penalty would 7659, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and with
have been death. However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, the attendant aggravating circumstances of nighttime and
appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion abuse of confidence, with no mitigating circumstances. The
Perpetua. Accused-appellant is further ordered to indemnify the proper imposable penalty would have been death. However,
heirs of victim Noli Pasion in the amount of Seventy five pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, the accused-appellant are
thousand pesos (₱75,000.00); Fifty thousand pesos sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without
(₱50,000.00) as moral damages; Twenty five thousand pesos the possibility of parole (in accordance with Section 3 of the said
(₱25,000.00) as exemplary damages; Twenty five thousand law). Each of the accused-appellants is further ordered to
pesos (₱25,000.00) as temperate damages; Fifteen thousand indemnify the heirs of victim Noli Pasion in the amount of
pesos (₱15,000.00) as attorney’s fees; and to pay the costs.22 Seventy five thousand pesos (₱75,000.00); Fifty thousand
pesos (₱50,000.00) as moral damages; Twenty five thousand
Appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration23 and called the pesos (₱25,000.00) as exemplary damages; Twenty five
appellate court’s attention on the omission to rule on Bokingco’s thousand pesos (₱25,000.00) as temperate damages; Fifteen
fate when it rendered the challenged decision. Appellants also thousand pesos (₱15,000.00) as attorney’s fees; and to pay the
noted the absence of other evidence, aside from Bokingco’s costs.25
admission, to prove that conspiracy existed in the instant case.
Appellants maintained that the admission made by Bokingco Appellants filed a notice of appeal. In its Resolution dated 26
cannot be used as evidence against his alleged co-conspirator. October 2009, this Court required the parties to submit their
Appellants also took exception to the findings of the lower courts Supplemental Briefs within 30 days from notice thereof if they
that the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident so desire.26 Appellants manifested that they are no longer filing
premeditation, nighttime and abuse of confidence attended the a Supplemental Brief and are adopting their arguments in the
commission of the crime.24 Appellant’s Brief submitted before the Court of Appeals.27 The
appellee likewise manifested that it is dispensing with the filing
The Court of Appeals merely modified its Decision by including of a Supplemental Brief.28The instant case was thus submitted
the criminal liability of Bokingco in its dispositive portion of its for deliberation.
Amended Decision, which reads:
In seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ Amended On the other hand, the OSG emphasizes that the prosecution
Decision, two issues were raised: 1) whether the qualifying has established that Pasion was defenseless when fatally
circumstances were properly appreciated to convict appellant attacked by Bokingco and there was no opportunity for him to
Bokingco of murder and 2) whether appellant Col is guilty defend himself from the unexpected assaults of Bokingco. The
beyond reasonable doubt as a co-conspirator. OSG agrees as well with the trial court’s findings that evident
premeditation, nighttime, and abuse of confidence attended the
There is no question that Bokingco attacked and killed Pasion. commission of the crime.
Bokingco made two (2) separate and dissimilar admissions:
first, in his extrajudicial confession taken during the preliminary We agree with appellants that treachery cannot be appreciated
investigation where he admitted that he and Col planned the to qualify the crime to murder in the absence of any proof of the
killing of Pasion; and second, when he testified in open court manner in which the aggression was commenced. For
that he was only provoked in hitting Pasion back when the latter treachery to be appreciated, the prosecution must prove that at
hit him in the head. On the basis of his extrajudicial confession, the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
Bokingco was charged for murder qualified by evident himself, and that the offender consciously adopted the particular
premeditation and treachery. means, method or form of attack employed by him.29 Nobody
witnessed the commencement and the manner of the attack.
Appellants maintain that they could not be convicted of murder. While the witness Vitalicio managed to see Bokingco hitting
They question the presence of treachery in the commission of something on the floor, he failed to see the victim at that time.30
the crime considering that no one from the prosecution
witnesses testified on how Pasion was attacked by Bokingco. Bokingco admitted in open court that he killed Pasion.31 But the
They also submit that evident premeditation was not proven in admitted manner of killing is inconsistent with evident
the case. They belittle Bokingco’s extrajudicial admission that premeditation. To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the
he and Col planned the killing. The attendance of the prosecution must establish the confluence of the following
aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of requisites: (a) the time when the offender was determined to
confidence was likewise assailed by appellants. They aver that commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the
nighttime was not purposely sought but it was merely co- offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval
incidental that the crime took place at that time. Neither has trust of time between the determination and the execution of the
and confidence been reposed on appellants by the victim to crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his
aggravate the crime by abuse of confidence. Appellants claim act.32 It is indispensable to show how and when the plan to kill
that they were living in an apartment owned by Pasion, not was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was
because the latter trusted them but because they worked in the carried out. 33 In the instant case, no proof was shown as to how
construction of the victim’s apartment. and when the plan to kill was devised. Bokingco admitted in
court that he only retaliated when Pasion allegedly hit him in the case, Sunga made an uncounselled admission before the
head.34 Despite the fact that Bokingco admitted that he was police. He later acknowledged the same admission before the
treated poorly by Pasion, the prosecution failed to establish that judge in a preliminary investigation. Sunga was thrust into the
Bokingco planned the attack. preliminary investigation and while he did have a counsel, for
the latter’s lack of vigilance and commitment to Sunga’s rights,
It was during the preliminary investigation that Bokingco he was virtually denied his right to counsel. Thus, the
mentioned his and Col’s plan to kill Pasion.35 Bokingco’s uncounselled admission was held inadmissible.38 In the instant
confession was admittedly taken without the assistance of case, the extrajudicial confession is inadmissible against
counsel in violation of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Bokingco because he was not assisted at all by counsel during
Constitution, which provides: the time his confession was taken before a judge.
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the The finding that nighttime attended the commission of the crime
commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of is anchored on the presumption that there was evident
his right to remain silent and to have competent and premeditation. Having ruled however that evident premeditation
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person has not been proved, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with cannot be properly appreciated. There was no evidence to show
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the that Bokingco purposely sought nighttime to facilitate the
presence of counsel. commission of the offense.
xxxx Abuse of confidence could not also be appreciated as an

aggravating circumstance in this case. Taking into account that
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or fact that Bokingco works for Pasion, it may be conceded that he
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. enjoyed the trust and confidence of Pasion. However, there was
no showing that he took advantage of said trust to facilitate the
In People v. Sunga,36 we held that "the right to counsel applies commission of the crime.
in certain pretrial proceedings that can be deemed ‘critical
stages’ in the criminal process. The preliminary investigation A downgrade of conviction from murder to homicide is proper
can be no different from the in-custody interrogations by the for Bokingco for failure of the prosecution to prove the presence
police, for a suspect who takes part in a preliminary of the qualifying circumstances.
investigation will be subjected to no less than the State's
processes, oftentimes intimidating and relentless, of pursuing Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the applicable
those who might be liable for criminal prosecution."37 In said penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. There being no
mitigating or aggravating circumstance alleged and proven in from the declaration of Bokingco, the victim’s wife, Elsa, also
the instant case, the penalty should be applied in its medium positively declared that Col blocked and attacked her with a
period pursuant to Article 64(1) of the Revised Penal Code, knife when she tried to check on her husband. She was left
which ranges from a minimum of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day alone by Col when he was told by Bokingco that the victim was
to a maximum of 17 years and 4 months. Applying the already dead. For the OSG, appellants’ acts are indicative of
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty shall be conspiracy. The OSG contends that the prosecution witnesses
within the range of prision mayor in any of its periods as had no ill-motive to lie and falsely accuse appellants of the crime
minimum to reclusion temporal in its medium period as the of murder.
maximum. The range of prision mayor is from 6 years and 1 day
to 12 years, while reclusion temporal in its medium period, The lower courts concluded that there was conspiracy between
ranges from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 appellants.
months. Therefore, the indeterminate penalty of six years and
one day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, eight months We disagree.
and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum is appropriate
under the circumstances.39 The award of exemplary damages This Court is well aware of the policy to accord proper deference
should be deleted as no aggravating circumstance was proven. to the factual findings of the trial court, owing to their unique
opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their
Col, on the other hand, was charged as a co-conspirator. He demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling
contends that to hold him guilty as co-conspirator, it must be examination.40 However, this rule admits of exceptions, namely:
established that he performed an overt act in furtherance of the 1) when the trial court’s findings of facts and conclusions are not
conspiracy. Applying Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, supported by the evidence on record, or 2) when certain facts
Col asserts that Bokingco’s uncounselled testimony that of substance and value likely to change the outcome of the case
appellants planned to kill Pasion bears no relevance have been overlooked by the lower court, or 3) when the
considering the fact that there was no other evidence which will assailed decision is based on a misapprehension of facts.41 The
prove the conspiracy. Col also claims that Elsa’s statements second exception obtains in this case.
during trial, such as the presence of Col inside her house and
his forcing her to open the vault of the pawnshop, as well as the Indeed, in order to convict Col as a principal by direct
alleged statement she heard from Bokingco "Tara, patay na participation in the case before us, it is necessary that
siya," are not adequate to support the finding of conspiracy. conspiracy between him and Bokingco be proved. Conspiracy
exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) justifies Col’s commit an unlawful act. It may be inferred from the conduct of
conviction of murder by conspiracy by mentioning that starting the accused before, during, and after the commission of the
crime. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner A: I wondered why and I immediately went down to the
in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts kitchen since the door of the kitchen was directly leading
of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, to the back door or back portion of the building where
concerted action, and community of interest.42 Unity of purpose the apartments were situated.
and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective are essential
to establish the existence of conspiracy.43 Q: Why, on what floor is this master’s bedroom located?
As a rule, conspiracy must be established with the same A: Second floor.

quantum of proof as the crime itself and must be shown as
clearly as the commission of the crime.44 Q: Were you actually able to go down and see what was
happening?
The finding of conspiracy was premised on Elsa’s testimony that
appellants fled together after killing her husband and the A: Yes, sir, but I was only able to reach the stairs leading
extrajudicial confession of Bokingco. to the kitchen. I was not able to go out of the kitchen
because I was blocked.
Nobody witnessed the commencement of the attack. Col was
not seen at the apartment where Pasion was being attacked by Q: You were blocked by whom?
Bokingco. In fact, he was at Elsa’s house and allegedly ordering
her to open the pawnshop vault, thus: A: By Reynante Col.
Q: Do you remember any unusual incident that Q: Are you referring to the same Reynante Col, the
happened on that time and date when you were in your accused in this case?
master’s bedroom?
A: Yes, sir.
A: I heard a bumping sound (kalabog) at the back portion
of our building where we reside. xxxx
xxxx Q: You said you were blocked by Reynante Col. How did
he block you?
Q: What did you do when you heard those sounds in the
wee hours of the morning on that day when you were in A: As soon as I reached the stairs, I was blocked by
your master’s bedroom? Reynante Col and he was situated near the back door of
the pawnshop. There is a pawnshop in the front portion A: It was "mahapdi" (painful).
of our residence.
Q: When you felt pain in your eyes, how were you able
Q: When you saw him near the door of your pawnshop, to see something or a sharp weapon under your chin?
did you confront him?
A: Before he sprayed the tear gas to my eyes, I was able
A: Yes, sir. to see him poke the sharp object under my chin and I
bowed my head a little to avoid the tear gas. I was
Q: How did you confront him? wounded under my chin and I felt the sharpness of the
object.45
A: I asked him, Reynante, what are you doing here?
xxxx
Q: What was the reaction of Reynante Col?
Q: What else happened while he was doing that to you?
A: He ran towards me and sprayed something into my
eyes and he put a sharp object under my chin. (Witness A: He sprayed tear gas in my eyes and told me to be
demonstrating by putting her hand under her chin) silent.
Q: How far was he before he attacked you? Q: What else, if any, did he tell you?
A: Probably, from the witness stand up to the chair of A: To open the combination of the vault.
Fiscal Hilario. Maybe two steps away from him. (Around
3 meters) Q: Did you comply to his order that you open the
combination of the vault?
Q: Were you able to identify what this spray is and what
part of your body was hit? A: No, sir. I do not know the combination.
A: My eyes were sprayed with tear gas. Q: What vault are you referring to?
Q: What did you feel when your eyes was (sic) sprayed A: Vault of the pawnshop.
with tear gas?
Q: Where is that pawnshop located with reference to Elsa testified that she heard Bokingco call out to Col that Pasion
your residence? had been killed and that they had to leave the place. This does
not prove that they acted in concert towards the consummation
A: At the first floor is the pawnshop and at the back is of the crime. It only proves, at best, that there were two crimes
our kitchen. committed simultaneously and they were united in their efforts
to escape from the crimes they separately committed.
Q: When you refused to open the vault of the pawnshop,
what did Reynante Col do about it? Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion.
Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he sought Col.
A: He did not say anything. Their moves were not coordinated because while Bokingco was
killing Pasion because of his pent-up anger, Col was attempting
Q: How about you, was there anything else you did? to rob the pawnshop.1avvphi1
A: I offered him money so he will not kill me. In as much as Bokingco’s extrajudicial confession is
inadmissible against him, it is likewise inadmissible against Col,
Q: When you offered him money so he will not kill you, specifically where he implicated the latter as a cohort. Under
did he agree? Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the rights of a party
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of
A: No, sir. another. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet.
Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the
Q: What else happened next when he did not agree to confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused, and
your offer of money? is considered as hearsay against them.48 An exception to the
res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator.
A: He dragged me going towards the back door.46 Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that the act
or declaration of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy and
Based on these acts alone, it cannot be logically inferred that during its existence may be given in evidence against the co-
Col conspired with Bokingco in killing Pasion. At the most, Col’s conspirator provided that the conspiracy is shown by evidence
actuations can be equated to attempted robbery, which was other than by such act or declaration.49 In order that the
actually the initial information filed against appellants before it admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her
was amended, on motion of the prosecution, for murder.47 co-conspirators, it is necessary that first, the conspiracy be first
proved by evidence other than the admission itself; second, the
admission relates to the common object; and third, it has been
made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the SO ORDERED.
conspiracy.50 As we have previously discussed, we did not find
any sufficient evidence to establish the existence of conspiracy. JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Therefore, the extrajudicial confession has no probative value Associate Justice
and is inadmissible in evidence against Col.
WE CONCUR:
Bokingco’s judicial admission exculpated Col because
Bokingco admitted that he only attacked Pasion after the latter ANTONIO T. CARPIO
hit him in the head. Associate Justice
Chairperson
All told, an acquittal for Col is in order because no sufficient
evidence was adduced to implicate him. ARTURO D. BRION LUCAS P. BERSAMIN*
Associate Justice Associate Justice
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00658 is REVERSED MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
and SET ASIDE. Appellant Reynante Col is ACQUITTED on Associate Justice
ground of reasonable doubt. The Bureau of Corrections is
ordered to cause the immediate release of accused-appellant, ATTESTATION
unless he is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform
this Court of action taken within ten (10) days from notice. I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
Appellant Michael Bokingco is found GUILTY beyond writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. He is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of six years (6) and one (1) day ANTONIO T. CARPIO
of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, eight (8) months and Associate Justice
one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum Appellant is Chairperson
further ordered to indemnify the heirs of Noli Pasion in the
amount of Seventy five thousand pesos (₱75,000.00); Fifty CERTIFICATION
thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) as moral damages; Twenty five
thousand pesos (₱25,000.00) as temperate damages; Fifteen Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
thousand pesos (₱15,000.00) as attorney’s fees; and to pay the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions
costs. in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Republic of the Philippines confrontation during which the latter was stabbed nine times,
SUPREME COURT causing his death. The versions of the prosecution and the
Manila defense would later diverge as regards the presence of other
persons atin the scene and other circumstances concerning
FIRST DIVISION Ernesto’s death.
G.R. No. 168169 February 24, 2010 On March 3, 2000, Gary and his father, Alberto, were charged
with the crime of Murder in an Information which read:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. That on or about the 23rd day of October, 1999, in the
ALBERTO TABARNERO and GARY municipality of Malolos, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and
TABARNERO, Accused-Appellants. within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually
DECISION helping each other, armed with bladed instrument and with
intent to kill one Ernesto Canatoy, did then and there willfully,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: unlawfully, and feloniously, with evident premeditation, abuse of
superior strength and treachery, attack, assault and stab with
This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in the said bladed instrument the said Ernesto Canatoy, hitting the
CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00027 dated April 29, 2005. In said latter on the different parts of his body, thereby causing him
Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the serious physical injuries which directly caused his death.3
August 29, 2002 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 78 of Malolos, Bulacan, in Crim. Case No. 888-M-2000, On 27 March 2000, warrants for the arrest of Gary and Alberto
convicting herein appellants Alberto Tabarnero (Alberto) and were issued by the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.4
Gary Tabarnero (Gary) of the crime of Murder.
On April 22, 20021, Gary surrendered to Barangay Tanod
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as Edilberto Alarma.5 When he was arraigned Oon April 30, 2001,
follows: Gary pleaded NOT GUILTY to the crime charged. 6 During this
time, Alberto remained at large.
Late at night on October 23, 1999, Gary went to the house of
the deceased Ernesto Canatoy (Ernesto), where he the former On May 21, 2001, a pre-trial conference was conducted.
used to reside as the live-in partner of Mary Jane Acibar (Mary Therein, Gary admitted having killed Ernesto, but claimed that it
Jane), Ernesto’s stepdaughter. Gary and Ernesto had a
was an act of self-defense. Thus, pursuant to Section 11(e), According to Gary, Ernesto fell to the ground, and pleaded,
Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, an invertedreverse trial ensued. "saklolo, tulungan niyo po ako" three times. Gary was stunned,
and did not notice his father, co-appellant Alberto, coming.
Gary, a 22-year-old construction worker at the time of his Alberto asked Gary, "anak, ano ang nangyari?" To which Gary
testimony in June 2001, testified that he stayed in Ernesto’s responded "nasaksak ko po yata si Ka Erning," referring to
house from 1997 to 1999, as he and Mary Jane were living Ernesto. Gary and Alberto fled, ran, since they were
together. Mary Jane is the daughter of Teresita Acibar, the afraidallegedly out of fear.9
wife7 of Ernesto. However, Gary left the house shortly before
the October 23, 1999 incident because of a misunderstanding Gary denied that he and Alberto conspired to kill Ernesto. Gary
with Ernesto when the latter allegedly stopped the planned claims that it was he and Ernesto who had a fight, and that he
marriage of Gary and Mary Jane, who was pregnant at that had no choice but to stab Ernesto, who was going to kill him.10
time.
Gary’s sister, Gemarie Tabarnero, testified that she was a
On October 23, 1999, Gary was still allegedly in his house in childhood friend of Mary Jane. Gemarie attested that Mary Jane
Longos, Malolos, Bulacan at around 11:40 p.m. with his friend, was Gary’s girlfriend from 1995 to 1999. Sometime in 1999,
Richard Ulilian; his father, co-appellant Alberto; his mother, however, Gary and Mary Jane were prevented from talking to
Elvira; and his brother, Jeffrey. Overcome with emotion over each other. During that time, Gary was always sad and
being separated from Mary Jane, HeGary then went to appeared catatonicdumbfounded, sometimes mentioning Mary
Ernesto’s house, but was not able to enter as no one went out Jane’s name and crying.11
of the house to let him in. He instead shouted his pleas from the
outside, asking Ernesto what he had done wrong that caused On the night of the incident on October 23, 1999, Gemarie
Ernesto to break him and Mary Jane up, and voicing out several observed that Gary was crying and seemed perplexed. Gary
times that he loved Mary Jane and was ready to marry her. told Gemarie that he was going to Ernesto’s house to talk to
When he Gary was about to leave, the gate opened and Ernesto Ernesto about Mary Jane. Gary was crying and dumbfounded
purportedly struck him with a lead pipe. Ernesto was aiming at at that time. Gary allegedly did not bring anything with him when
Gary’s head, but the latter blocked the blow with his hands, he went to Ernesto’s house.12
causing his left index finger to be broken. Gary embraced
Ernesto, but the latter strangled him. At that point, Gary felt that In the meantime, on August 5, 2001, Alberto was
there was a bladed weapon tucked at Ernesto’s back. Losing apprehended.13 On August 20, 2001, he pleaded NOT GUILTY
control of himself, Gary took the bladed weapon and stabbed to the charge.14 However, while Alberto’s defense is denial and
Ernesto, although he cannot recall how many times he did so.8 not self-defense like Gary’s, the court decided to proceed with
the reverseinverted trial, as it had already started that way.15
Next on the witness stand was Edilberto Alarma (Alarma), who after the incident that he came to know that he was being
was a barangay tanod of Longos, Malolos, Bulacan since charged for a crime. At this time, he was already residing in
February 2000. Alarma testified that while he was in a meeting Hensonville Plaza, Angeles City, Pampanga, where he was
at around 4:00 p.m. on April 22, 2001, Gary arrived and told him assigned when his engineer, Efren Cruz, got secured a project
of his intention to surrender to him. Gary told him that he was in said place.18
responsible for the "incident [that] happened at Daang Riles."
Together with his co- fellow barangay tanod Zaldy Garcia, During cCross-examinationed, Alberto repeated that he did not
Alarma brought Gary to the Malolos Police Station, where the return to Gary’s house after the incident. He said that it did not
surrender was entered in the blotter report.16 occur to him to call inform the authorities about the killing of
Ernesto. Later, Alberto learned from his sibling, whom he talked
Appellant Alberto, a construction worker employed as to by phone, that Gary had already surrendered. He did not
leadman/foreman of Alicia Builders, was 45 years old at the time consider surrendering because, although he wanted to clear his
of his testimony in September 2001. He testified that on October name, nobody would work to support his family. He said that he
23, 1999, at the time when of the incident, he was living in had no previous misunderstanding with Ernesto.19
Norzagaray, Bulacan. On October 23, 1999, however, ,he went
to visit his children, Gary and Gemarie, in Barangay Longos, Answering questions from the court, Alberto stated that he
Malolos, Bulacan. Before going to sleep at 11:00 p.m., he immediately went home to Norzagaray because he was afraid
realized that Gary was not in the place where he would usually to be implicated in the stabbing of Ernesto. It did not occur to
sleep. He went downstairs, thinking that Gary was just urinating. him to stay and help Gary because he did not know where Gary
He waited for five minutes; when Gary did not show up, he proceeded after they ran away. The next time he saw Gary was
proceeded to Daang Bakal, where Gary had many friends. He three months after the incident, when Gary went to
walked for about 10 minutes. About Four400 hundred meters Norzagaray.20
from where the site of the incident, happened, he saw Gary and
asked him what happened and why he was in a hurry, to which The first to testify for the prosecution was its eyewitness,
Gary replied: "Wag na kayong magtanong, umalis na tayo, Emerito Acibar (Emerito). Emerito, the brother of Mary
napatay ko po yata si Kuya Erning." Alberto and Gary ran in Jane,21 was inside their house in Daang Bakal, Longos,
different directions. Alberto passed through the railways and Malolos, Bulacan with his brother and his stepfather, Ernesto,
exited in front of the capitol compound to wait for a jeepney at around eleven o’clock on the night of the incident on October
going to Sta. Maria, his route toward his home in Norzagaray.17 23, 1999. He heard somebody calling for Ernesto, but ignored
it. He then heard a "kalabog," followed by Ernesto’s plea asking
Alberto claims that he had no knowledge of the accusation that for help. Emerito was about to go outside, but, while he was
he conspired with Gary in killing Ernesto. It was three months already at the door of their one-room22 house, he saw Ernesto
being held by a certain Toning "Kulit" and another person, while Bulacan Provincial Hospital, where SPO2 Morales saw Ernesto
Gary and Alberto were stabbing Ernesto with a fan knivesfe. in the operating room, very weak due to multiple injuries. While
Emerito lost count of the number of thrusts made by Gary and in the presence of thetwo doctors on duty, SPO2 Morales asked
Alberto, but each inflicted more than one, and the last stab was Ernesto who stabbed him. Ernesto answered that the assailants
made by Alberto. Emerito shouted for help. The four assailants were the father and son, Gary and Alberto Tabarnero from
left when somebody arrived, allowing Emerito to approach Longos, Bulacan.25
Ernesto and bring him to the Bulacan Provincial Hospital.23
Cross-examined, SPO2 Morales clarified that it was already
On cross-examination, Emerito statedconfirmed that Gary and 1:00 a.m. of the following day when he and Emerito proceeded
Mary Jane used to reside in Ernesto’s house. On the date of the to the hospital. As they went to the hospital, Emerito did not
incident, however, Gary had already left the house, while Mary inform SPO2 Morales that he witnessed the incident. SPO2
Jane had moved to Abra with Teresita (the mother of Emerito Morales did not find it odd that Emerito did not tell him who the
and Mary Jane). According to Emerito, his family did not know suspects were when Emerito reported the incident, because
that Mary Jane and Gary had a relationship because they they immediately proceeded to the hospital, considering that the
treated Gary like a member of the family. Ernesto got mad when victim, Ernesto, was still alive. Ernesto was not able to affix his
because his wife, Teresita, found out about Gary and Mary signature on the Sinumpaang Salaysay26 because he could no
Jane’s relationship. On the night of the incident, at past 11:00 longer talk after the fourth question. Answering questions from
p.m., Emerito was fixing his things inside their houseat past the court, SPO2 Morales further stated that he could not
11:00 p.m., when he heard someone calling from for remember talking to Emerito on their way to the hospital, since
themoutside, but was not sure if it was Gary. Emerito neither they were in a hurry.27
saw Ernesto leaving the room, nor the fight between Ernesto
and Gary. All he saw was the stabbing, which happened seven The government physician at the Bulacan Provincial Hospital
to eight meters away from the doorway where he was standing who prepared Ernesto’s death certificate, Dr. Apollo Trinidad,
him. He was sure that there were four assailants, two of whom clarified that Ernesto died on October 25, 1999. However,
went to a bridge 8 to 10 meters from the incident, where they considering the admission by the defense of the fact of death,
boarded a yellow XLT-type car.24 the cause thereof, and the execution of the death certificate, the
prosecution did not proceed to solicit these facts fromno longer
Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Ronnie Morales of the Malolos questioned Dr. Trinidad on these matters.28
Philippine National Police testified that he was on duty at the
police station on the night of October 23, 1999. During that Teresita’s testimony was likewise dispensed with, in light of the
night, Emerito reported at the police station that Ernesto had admission by the defense that she was the common-law wife of
been stabbed. SPO2 Morales and Emerito proceeded to the
Ernesto, and that she incurred ₱55,600.00 in expenses in AFFIRMED with the modification that exemplary damages in the
relation to Ernesto’s death.29 amount of ₱25,000.00 is awarded because of the presence of
treachery.33
On August 29, 2002, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting
Gary and Alberto of the crime of murder. The decretal portion of From the Court of Appeals, the case was elevated to this Court
the Decision reads: anew when Gary and Alberto filed a Notice of Appeal on May
13, 2005.34 In its Resolution on August 1, 2005, this Court
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court hereby required both parties to submit their respective supplemental
finds accused Alberto Tabarnero and Gary Tabarnero GUILTY briefs, if they so desire. Both parties manifested that they were
beyond reasonable doubt of the Crime of Murder defined and adopting the briefs they had earlier filed with this Court.
penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and sentences them to suffer the penalty of Gary and Alberto, in their brief filed in this Court before the
Reclusion Perpetua and to pay private complainant Teresita referral of the case to the Court of Appeals, assigned the
Acibar the amount of ₱55,600.000 (sic) as actual damages[,] following errors to the RTC:
₱50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Ernesto Canatoy[,]
₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and the costs of suit.30 I.
Gary and Alberto appealed to this Court. After the parties had THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
filed their respective briefs, this Court, in People v. CONSIDERING THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
Mateo,31 modified the Rules of Court in so far as it provides for SELF-DEFENSE AND THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
direct appeals from the RTC to this Court in cases where the OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER INTERPOSED BY
penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life ACCUSED-APPELLANT GARY TABARNERO
imprisonment. Pursuant thereto, this Court referred32the case to
the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.- II.
H.C. No. 00027.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT
On April 29, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction THERE WAS CONSPIRACY IN THE CASE AT BAR
with modification as regards exemplary damages, disposing of
the case in the following manner: III.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78 dated 29 August 2002 is hereby ARE CULPABLE, THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED IN
APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF to prove the alleged unlawful aggression, namely, his own
TREACHERY35 testimony, is insufficient and self-serving. The alleged sudden
appearance of Ernesto and his first attack with the lead pipe the
The justifying circumstance of self-defense on the part of Gary very moment Gary decided to leave seems to this Court to be
cannot be considered all too convenient, considering that there was no one around to
witness the start of the fight.
The requisites for self-defense are: 1) unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim; 2) lack of sufficient provocation on the part The RTC, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor
of the accused; and 3) employment of reasonable means to of the witnesses, found Gary’s account concerning the alleged
prevent and repel aggression.36 unlawful aggression on the part of Ernesto to be unconvincing.
Factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by
The defense invokes the said justifying circumstance, claiming the Court of Appeals, as in this case, are binding onto this Court
that all of the above three elements are present in the case at and are entitled to great respect.39 It also bears to emphasize
bar. There was allegedly unlawful aggression on the part of that by invoking self-defense, Gary, in effect, admitted killing
Ernesto when the latter delivered the first blow with the lead Ernesto, thus, shifting upon him the burden of evidence to prove
pipe. According to the defense, the means Gary used to defend the elements of the said justifying circumstance.40 A plea of self-
himself was reasonable, and the shouting shouted professions defense cannot be justifiably appreciated where it is not only
of his feelings forabout Mary Jane could not be considered uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, but
provocation sufficient for Ernesto to make the unlawful also extremely doubtful in itself.41
aggression.
The defense further argues that assuming that Gary is not
The Court of Appeals noted that the only evidence presented by qualified to avail of the justifying circumstance of self-defense,
the defense to prove the alleged unlawful aggression was he would nevertheless be entitled to the mitigating circumstance
Gary’s own testimony. Citing Casitas v. People,37 the Court of of incomplete self-defense under Article 13(1) of the Revised
Appeals held that the nine stab wounds inflicted upon Ernesto Penal Code, which provides:
indicate Gary’s intent to kill, and not merely an intent to defend
himself. The number of wounds also negates the claim that the Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are
means used by Gary to defend himself was reasonable. mitigating circumstances:
We agree with the Court of Appeals. Unlawful aggression is an 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the
indispensable requirement of self-defense of self-defense.38 As requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal
ruled by the Court of Appeals, the evidence presented by Gary liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
We disagree. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non, his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and
without which there can be no self-defense, whether complete expenses in capturing him.46
or incomplete.42 There is incomplete self-defense when
the element of unlawful aggression by the victim is present, and In People v. Barcimo, Jr.,47 the pending warrant for the arrest of
any of the other two essential requisites for self- the accused and the latter’s surrender more than one year after
defense.43 Having failed to prove the indispensable element of the incident were considered by the Court as damaging to the
unlawful aggression, Gary is not entitled to the mitigating plea that voluntary surrender be considered a mitigating
circumstance, regardless even assuming of the presence of the circumstance. Thus:
other two elements of self-defense.
The trial court did not err in disregarding the mitigating
Gary is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary circumstance of voluntary surrender. To benefit an accused, the
surrender following requisites must be proven, namely: (1) the offender
has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered
The first assignment of error presents another issue for the himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was
consideration of this Court. The defense argues that Gary’s voluntary. A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous,
yielding to Alarma should be credited as a mitigating showing the intent of the accused to submit himself
circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Solicitor General unconditionally to the authorities, either because he
agreed with the defense on this point. The Court of Appeals, acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble
however, disagreed, and held that the delay of six and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
months44 before surrendering negates spontaneity,45 a Voluntary surrender presupposes repentance. In People v.
requisite for voluntary surrender to be considered mitigating. Viernes [G.R. No. 136733-35, 13 December 20010], we held
that going to the police station to clear one’s name does not
We agree with the Court of Appeals. show any intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities.
In order that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender In the case at bar, appellant surrendered to the authorities after
may be credited to the accused, the following requisites should more than one year had lapsed since the incident and in order
be present: (a) the offender has not actually been arrested; (b) to disclaim responsibility for the killing of the victim. This neither
the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and shows repentance or acknowledgment of the crime nor intention
(c) the surrender must be voluntary. A surrender, to be to save the government the trouble and expense necessarily
voluntary, must be spontaneous, i.e., there must be an intent to incurred in his search and capture. Besides, at the time of his
submit oneself to authorities, either because he acknowledges surrender, there was a pending warrant of arrest against him.
Hence, he should not be credited with the mitigating A Yes, sir.

circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Q Would you please point to those 2 persons?
The records show that Gary surrendered on April 22,
2001.48 The commitment order commanding that he be detained A (Witness pointing to the persons who, when asked
was issued on April 24, 2001.49 The surrender was answered to the name of Alberto Tabarnero and Gary
made almost one year and six months from the October 23, Tabarnero)
1999 incident, and almost one year and one month from the
issuance of the warrant of arrest against him on March 27, Q What was the position of Alberto Tabarnero in that
2000.50 We, therefore, rule that the mitigating circumstance of stabbing incident?
voluntary surrender cannot be credited to Gary.
A He was the one whom I saw stabbed last my
Alberto is a principal by direct participation in the killing of stepfather.
Ernesto
xxxx
In insisting upon Alberto’s innocence, the defense claims that
there was no conspiracy between him and his son, Gary. The COURT (TO THE WITNESS):
defense asserts that Alberto just happened to be near the scene
of the crime as he was looking for his son, whom he saw only Q How many times did you see Gary stabbed your
after the altercation. father?
The basis of Alberto’s conviction, however, is not solely A I cannot count how many stabs Gary made.
conspiracy. A review of the proven facts shows that conspiracy
need not even be proven by the prosecution in this case, since PROS. SANTIAGO:
Alberto was categorically pointed by the eyewitness, Emerito,
as one of the assailants who actively and directly participated in Q Was it many times or just once?
the killing of Ernesto:
A I cannot count but more than 1.
Q Those 2 persons whom you saw and who stabbed
your stepfather in the evening of October 23, 1999, if Q How about Alberto Tabarnero, how many times did
theyb are now in court, will you be able to identify them? you see him stabbing your stepfather?
A I cannot count also but he was the last one who statement accusing Gary and Alberto of stabbing him, his body
stabbed my stepfather.51 was already very rapidly deteriorating, as shown by his inability
to speak and write towards the end of the questioning.
Having actually participated in the stabbing of Ernesto, it was
adequately proven that Alberto is a principal by direct We have considered that a dying declaration is entitled to the
participation. highest credence, for no person who knows of his impending
death would make a careless or false accusation. When a
Even more persuasive is the statement of the victim himself, person is at the point of death, every motive of falsehood is
Ernesto, as testified to by SPO2 Morales, that it was "the father silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful
and son, Gary and Alberto Tabarnero from Longos, Bulacan" consideration to speak the truth.54 It is hard to fathom that
who stabbed him.52 While Ernesto was not able to testify in Ernesto, very weak as he was and with his body already
court, his statement is considered admissible under Section 37, manifesting an impending demise, would summon every
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides: remaining strength he had just to lie about his true assailants,
whom he obviously would want to bring to justice.
Sec. 37. Dying declaration. — The declaration of a dying
person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, The killing of Ernesto is qualified by treachery
may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of
inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding Emerito had testified that he saw Ernesto being held by two
circumstances of such death. persons, while Gary and Alberto were stabbing him with fan
knives with a fan knife:
In applying this exception to the hearsay rule, we held as
follows: Q When you said "lalabas po sana," what do you mean
by that?
"It must be shown that a dying declaration was made under a
realization by the decedent that his demise or at least, its A I am at the door and saw what happened.
imminence -- not so much the rapid eventuation of death -- is at
hand. This may be proven by the statement of the deceased Q What did you see?
himself or it may be inferred from the nature and extent of the
decedent’s wounds, or other relevant circumstances."53 A I saw my stepfather being held by two persons and
being stabbed.
In the case at bar, Ernesto had nine stab wounds which caused
his death within the next 48 hours. At the time he uttered his
Q Will you describe the appearance of your stepfather A He was the one whom I saw stabbed last my
and the 2 persons whom according to you were stabbing stepfather.
your stepfather at that time?
Q What about Gary, what is his position?
A My stepfather is "lupaypay" and he was being
stabbed. A He was helping in the stabbing.
Q When you said "lupaypay," will you describe to this xxxx

Honorable Court his position and appearance?
Q What kind of weapon or instrument were used by Gary
A When I saw my stepfather he was about to fall on the and Alberto?
ground.
A Fan knife, sir.
Q Could you describe their appearance?
Q Both of them were armed by a knife?
A They were helping each other in stabbing my
grandfather. (sic) A Yes, sir.55
Q Those two persons whom you saw and who stabbed From said testimony, it seems uncertain whether Emerito saw
your stepfather in the evening of October 23, 1999 if they the very first stabbing being thrust. Thus, the defense
are now in Court, will you be able to identify them? asseverates that since Emerito failed to see how the attack
commenced, the qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be
A Yes, sir. considered, citing People v. Amamangpang,56 People v.
Icalla,57 and People v. Sambulan.58 In said three cases, this
Q Could you please point to those 2 persons? Court held that treachery cannot be appreciated as the lone
eyewitness did not see the commencement of the assault.
A (Witness pointing to the persons who, when asked
answered to the name of Alberto Tabarnero and Gary Treachery is defined under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal
Tabarnero) Code, which provides:
Q What was the position of Alberto Tabarnero in that There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
stabbing incident? against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its and a companion. Not requiring a swift and unexpected
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which commencement to the attack, the Court held:
the offended party might make.
Thus, there is treachery where the victim was stabbed in a
The Solicitor General argues that treachery was amply defenseless situation, as when he was being held by the others
demonstrated by the restraint upon Ernesto, which effectively while he was being stabbed, as the accomplishment of the
rendered him defenseless and unable to effectively repel, much accused's purpose was ensured without risk to him from any
less evade, the assault.59 defense the victim may offer [People v. Condemena, G.R. No.
L-22426, May 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 910; People v. Lunar, G.R.
We agree with the Solicitor General. No. L-15579, May 29, 1972, 45 SCRA 119.] In the instant case,
it has been established that the accused-appellant stabbed the
In the cases cited by the appellants, the eyewitnesses were not victim on the chest while his companions held both of the
able to observe any means, method or form in the execution of victim's arms.
the killing which rendered the victim defenseless. In
Amamangpang, the first thing the witness saw was the victim In People v. Alvarado,61 the accused and his companions
already prostrate on the bamboo floor, blood oozing from his shouted to the victim: "Lumabas ka kalbo, kung matapang ka."
neck and about to be struck by the accused. In Icalla, the When the victim went out of the house, the accused’s
witnesses merely saw the accused fleeing from the scene of the companions held the victim’s hands while the accused stabbed
crime with a knife in his hand. In Sambulan, the witness saw the him. Despite the yelling which should have warned the victim of
two accused hacking the victim with a bolo. Since, in these a possible attack, the mere fact that the accused’s companions
cases, there was no restraint upon the victims or any other held the hands of the victim while the accused stabbed him was
circumstance which would have rendered them defenseless, considered by this Court to constitute alevosia.
the Court ruled that it should look into the commencement of the
attack in order to determine whether the same was done swiftly We, therefore, rule that the killing of Ernesto was attended by
and unexpectedly. However, the swiftness and unexpectedness treachery. However, even assuming for the sake of argument
of an attack are not the only means by which the that treachery should not be appreciated, the qualifying
defenselessness of the victim can be ensured. circumstance of abuse of superior strength would nevertheless
qualify the killing to murder. Despite being alleged in the
In People v. Montejo,60 the prosecution witnesses testified that Information, this circumstance was not considered in the trial
after challenging the victim to a fight, the accused stabbed the court as the same is already absorbed in treachery. The act of
victim in the chest while he was held in the arms by the accused the accused in stabbing Ernesto while two persons were holding
him clearly shows the deliberate use of excessive force out of
proportion to the defense available in to the person attacked. In Ordinarily, receipts should support claims of actual damages,
People v. Gemoya,62 we held: but where the defense does not contest the claim, it should be
granted. Accordingly, there being no objection raised by the
Abuse of superior strength is considered whenever there is a defense on Alma Paulo’s lack of receipts to support her other
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the claims, all the amounts testified to are accepted. (Emphasis
aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously supplied.)
advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken
advantage of in the commission of the crime (People vs. In the case at bar, Teresita Acibar’s testimony was dispensed
Bongadillo, 234 SCRA 233 [1994]). When four armed with on account of the admission by the defense that she
assailants, two of whom are accused-appellants in this case, incurred ₱55,600.00 in relation to the death of Ernesto.66 This
gang up on one unarmed victim, it can only be said that admission by the defense is even more binding to it than a
excessive force was purposely sought and employed. failure on its part to object to the testimony. We therefore sustain
(Emphasis ours.) the award of actual damages by the RTC, as affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.
In all, there is no doubt that the offense committed by the
accused is murder. The Solicitor General likewise alleges that a civil indemnity ex
delito in the amount of ₱50,000.00 should be awarded. Article
The award of damages should be modified to include civil 220667 of the Civil Code authorizes the award of civil indemnity
indemnity ex delito for death caused by a crime. The award of said civil indemnity
is mandatory, and is granted to the heirs of the victim without
In the Decision of the RTC convicting Gary and Alberto, it need of proof other than the commission of the
awarded the amount of ₱55,600.00 as actual damages, crime.68 However, current jurisprudence have already increased
₱50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Ernesto, ₱50,000.00 the award of civil indemnity ex delicto to ₱75,000.00.69 We,
as moral damages and an unidentified amount as costs of therefore, award this amount to the heirs of Ernesto.1awph!1
suit.63 The Court of Appeals modified the RTC Decision by
awarding an additional amount of ₱25,000.00 as exemplary Finally, the Court of Appeals was correct in awarding exemplary
damages on account of the presence of treachery.64 damages in the amount of ₱25,000.00. An aggravating
circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the
The Solicitor General claims that the award of ₱55,600.00 in offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the
actual damages is not proper, considering the lack of receipts unbridled meaning of Article 223070 of the Civil Code.71
supporting the same. However, we held in People v.
Torio65 that:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. REYNATO S. PUNO

CR.-H.C. No. 00027 dated April 29, 2005 is hereby AFFIRMED, Chief Justice
with the MODIFICATION that appellants Alberto and Gary
Tabarnero are further ordered to pay the heirs of Ernesto
Canatoy the amount of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO
ARTURO D. BRION*
MORALES
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were
Republic of the Philippines VICENTE VILBAR alias Dikit, with treachery, evident
SUPREME COURT premeditation and intent to kill, did then and there willfully,
Manila unlawfully and feloniously stab, hit and wound the victim herein
GUILBERT PATRICIO, without giving the latter sufficient time
FIRST DIVISION to defend himself, thereby inflicting upon said Guilbert Patricio
mortal wound which caused his death. Post Mortem
G.R. No. 186541 February 1, 2012 Examination Report is hereto attached.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, In violation of Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by
vs. R.A. 7659, Ormoc City, June 13, 2000.3
VICENTE VILBAR, Accused-Appellant.
When accused-appellant was arraigned on July 31, 2000, he
DECISION pleaded not guilty to the criminal charge against him.4
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: During the pre-trial conference, the parties already admitted that
Guilbert was stabbed at the Public Market of Ormoc City on May
On appeal is the Decision1 dated February 14, 2008 of the Court 5, 2000 at around seven o’clock in the evening, and that
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00270 which modified the immediately before the incident, accused-appellant was at the
Judgment2 promulgated on August 6, 2001 by the Regional Trial same place having a drinking spree with a certain Arcadio
Court (RTC), Branch 35, of Ormoc City, in Criminal Case No. Danieles, Jr. and two other companions. However, accused-
5876-0. The RTC originally found accused-appellant Vicente appellant denied that it was he who stabbed Guilbert
Vilbar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder for Patricio.5 Trial then ensued.
treacherously stabbing with a knife the deceased Guilbert
Patricio (Guilbert), but the Court of Appeals subsequently held The prosecution presented the testimonies of Maria Liza
accused-appellant liable only for the lesser crime of homicide. Patricio (Maria Liza),6 the widow of the deceased, and Pedro
Luzon (Pedro),7 an eyewitness at the scene. The defense
The Information charging accused-appellant with the crime of offered the testimonies of accused-appellant8 himself and Cerilo
murder reads: Pelos (Cerilo),9 another eyewitness. On rebuttal, the
prosecution recalled Pedro to the witness stand.10
That on or about the 5th day of May 2000, at around 7:00 o’clock
in the evening, at the public market, this city, and within the Below is a summary of the testimonies of the witnesses for both
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, sides:
Maria Liza testified that in the evening of May 5, 2000, she was approach Guilbert and then without warning, stab the latter. The
watching her child and at the same time attending to their store accused then ran away and left. Together with his drinking
located in the Ormoc City public market. It was a small store companion, they rushed Guilbert to the hospital. Pedro asserted
with open space for tables for drinking being shared by other that the area’s illumination was "intense" because of the big
adjacent stores. At around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, her white lamp and that he was certain that it was the accused who
husband, Guilbert Patricio (Guilbert) arrived from work. He was attacked Guilbert.
met by their child whom he then carried in his arms. Moments
later, Guilbert noticed a man urinating at one of the tables in Denial was the accused’s main plea in exculpating himself of
front of their store. The man urinating was among those the charge that he killed Guilbert. He claimed that in the evening
engaged in a drinking spree in a nearby store. It appears that of May 5, 2000, he and his wife went to the public market (new
the accused was with the same group, seated about two meters building) to collect receivables out of the sale of meat.
away. Guilbert immediately admonished the man urinating but Afterwards, they took a short cut passing through the public
the latter paid no attention and continued relieving himself. market where they chanced upon his wife’s acquaintances who
Guilbert then put down his child when the accused rose from his were engaged in a drinking spree while singing videoke. Among
seat, approached Guilbert, drew out a knife and stabbed him them were Dodong Danieles (Dodong for brevity) and his
below his breast. The accused, as well as his companions, younger brother. They invited him (the accused) and his wife to
scampered away while Guilbert called for help saying "I’m join them. While they were drinking, Dodong had an altercation
stabbed." At that time, she was getting her child from Guilbert with Guilbert that stemmed from the latter’s admonition of
and about two feet away from the accused. She easily Dodong’s younger brother who had earlier urinated at the
recognized the accused because he would sometimes drink at Patricio’s store premises. Suddenly, Dodong assaulted Guilbert
their store. Guilbert was immediately brought to the hospital and stabbed him. Fearing that he might be implicated in the
where he later expired 11:35 of the same evening. She declared incident, the accused fled and went to the house of his parents-
that for Guilbert’s medical and hospitalization expenses, the in-law. Thereafter, he went back to the market for his wife who
family spent about ₱3,000.00. As for the wake and burial was no longer there. When he learned that the victim was
expenses, she could no longer estimate the amount because of brought to the Ormoc District Hospital, he went there to verify
her sadness. the victim’s condition. He was able to talk with the mother and
the wife of Guilbert as well as the police. He was thereafter
Pedro, an eyewitness at the scene, corroborated Maria Liza’s invited to the precinct so that the police can get his statement.
testimonial account of the events. On that night, he was drinking The next day, the parents of Dodong Danieles came to his
together with a companion in Maria Liza’s store. He recalled parents-in-law’s house to persuade him not to help the victim’s
Guilbert admonishing a person urinating in one of the tables family. He declined. Half a month later, he was arrested and
fronting the store. Thereafter, he saw the accused pass by him, charged for the death of Guilbert Patricio.
The defense also presented one Cerilo Pelos ("Cerilo") who On intermediate review, accused (now accused-appellant)
claimed to have personally witnessed the stabbing incident seeks the reversal of his conviction for the crime of murder or in
because he was also drinking in the public market on that fateful the alternative, the imposition of the proper penalty for the crime
night. He insisted that Guilbert was stabbed by someone of homicide. He argues that the trial court erred in giving
wearing a black shirt, whose identity he later on learned to be credence to the inconsistent, irreconcilable, and incredible
Dodong Danieles.11 testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, to wit: (1) the exact
number of persons drinking with accused-appellant in the
On August 6, 2001, the RTC promulgated its Decision finding adjacent store; (2) what Maria Liza was doing at the exact time
accused-appellant guilty of murder and decreeing thus: of stabbing; and (3) the accused-appellant’s reaction after he
stabbed the victim. Moreover, accused-appellant argues that if
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing duly considered, the Court he was indeed the culprit, why did he approach Guilbert’s family
finds the accused Vicente Vilbar alias Dikit GUILTY beyond in the hospital immediately after the stabbing incident? Granting
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as charged, and without admitting that a crime of murder was committed,
hereby sentences him to imprisonment of reclusion perpetua, accused-appellant insists that he could only be held guilty of
[and ordered] to pay the offended party the sum of ₱75,000.00 homicide for it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that
as indemnity, the sum of ₱3,000.00 as medical expenses, the treachery and evident premeditation existed. He specifically
sum of ₱50,000.00 as moral damages. directs our attention to the following details: (1) there was a
heated argument between the victim and a member or members
If the accused is a detainee, his period of detention shall be of his group; (2) the stabbing happened in a spur of the moment;
credited to him in full if he abides by the term for convicted and (3) the victim then was not completely defenseless.
prisoners, otherwise, for only 4/5 thereof.12
Meanwhile, the OSG stresses that the alleged inconsistencies
The foregoing RTC Judgment was directly elevated to us for our in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are minor and
review, but in accordance with our ruling in People v. inconsequential given the positive identification of the accused-
Mateo,13 we issued a Resolution14 dated December 1, 2004 appellant as the assailant. As to accused-appellant’s contention
referring the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action. that he is innocent because he even went to the hospital and
conferred with Guilbert’s relatives immediately after the
Accused-appellant, represented by the Public Attorney’s stabbing incident, the OSG maintains that such actuation is not
Office, 15 and plaintiff-appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor a conclusive proof of innocence.
General,16 filed their Briefs on August 15, 2006 and April 30,
2007, respectively. The Court of Appeals made the following
determination of the issues submitted for its resolution:
The issues for resolution are first, the assessment of credibility In our Resolution19 dated April 15, 2009, we gave the parties the
of the prosecution witnesses; and second, the propriety of opportunity to file their respective supplemental briefs, but the
conviction of the accused-appellant for murder.17 parties manifested that they had already exhausted their
arguments before the Court of Appeals.20
The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision on February 14,
2008, in which it accorded great respect to the assessment by After a scrutiny of the records of the case, we find that the
the RTC of the credibility of the witnesses. The inconsistencies submitted evidence and prevailing jurisprudence duly support
and inaccuracies in the testimonies of the prosecution the findings and conclusion of the Court of Appeals.
witnesses are relatively trivial, minor, and do not impeach their
credibility. The positive identification and categorical statements Evidence in this case chiefly consists of testimonial evidence.
of the prosecution witnesses that it was accused-appellant who Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals gave credence and
stabbed Guilbert prevail over accused-appellant’s self-serving weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
denial. However, the appellate court did not find that treachery
attended the stabbing of Guilbert and, thus, downgraded the Case laws mandate that "when the credibility of a witness is in
crime to homicide. It also reduced the award of civil indemnity. issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the
sentenced accused-appellant as follows: probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on
said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect.
WHEREFORE, the 1 August 2001 Decision appealed from This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate
finding accused-appellant VICENTE VILBAR @ "Dikit" guilty court, since it is settled that when the trial court’s findings have
beyond reasonable doubt of murder is MODIFIED. The Court been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally
finds the accused appellant GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt binding upon this Court."21 There is no compelling reason for us
of HOMICIDE and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of to depart from the general rule in this case.
eight years and one day of prision mayor medium, as minimum,
to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal Prosecution witnesses Maria Liza and Pedro both positively and
medium, as maximum. He is also ordered to pay the heirs of categorically identified accused-appellant as the one who
Guilbert Patricio the amounts of Php50,000.00 as civil stabbed Guilbert.
indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages, and Php3,000.00
as actual damages.18 Maria Liza vividly recounted her traumatic moment as follows:
Accused-appellant now comes before us on final appeal. Q: Mrs. Patricio, do you know the accused in this case in the
person of Vicente Vilbar alias "Dikit?"
A: Yes, sir. A: My child saw my husband arriving.
Q: Why do you know him? Q: What happened after your child saw your husband arrived at
the store you were tending?
A: He used to go there for drinking in our store.
A: He met him.
Q: How long have you known this person?
Q: And what did your husband do when he was met by your
A: About three (3) months. child?
xxxx A: He cradled the child.
Q: Mrs. Patricio, can you recall where were you in the evening Q: What happened after that?
at about 7:00 o’clock of May 5, 2000?
A: So at 7:00 o’clock that evening there was somebody urinated
A: I was at the store. and my husband told that someone not to urinate that place
because that was a table.
Q: Where?
Q: Do you know who was this someone admonished by your
A: In the market. husband not to urinate because that was a table?
Q: What were you doing in the store? A: No, sir.
A: I was watching after my, attending to my child there. Q: Do you know where did he come from?
Q: How old was the child? A: They were drinking.
A: Two (2) years old. Q: Do you know who was his companion while they were
drinking?
Q: When you were attending to your child at this particular time,
what happened? A: No, only that Vicente Vilbar.
Q: From where he came from or from where he was drinking in Q: What did he use in stabbing your husband, this Vicente
the group of persons together with the accused Vicente Vilbar, Vilbar?
how far was the place wherein they were drinking to where he
urinated from where the group was drinking? A: Knife.
A: Just near. Q: Do you know, were you able to see where he kept the knife
which he used in stabbing your husband?
Q: When you said near, can you estimate the distance?
A: From his waist.
COURT INTERPRETER
Q: When the said Vicente Vilbar delivered the stabbed thrust to
The witness estimated a distance at about 2 meters. your husband, was your husband hit?
xxxx A: He was hit.
Q: What was the reaction of the person urinating when your Q: On what part of his body was your husband hit?
husband told him not to urinate?
A: Just below the breast.
A: He continue urinating.
xxxx
Q: What was the reaction of your husband when he did not heed
to the advice not to urinate? Q: Below the left nipple?
A: He put down the child, this Vicente Vilbar rose. A: Yes, sir.
Q: Rose from where? Q: What happened after your husband was hit below the left
nipple?
A: From the table.
A: Vicente Vilbar ran away and my husband told me to call for
Q: And what happened? some help and he said, "I’m stab."
A: Without any word stabbed my husband. xxxx

Q: By the way, how far were you to your husband Guilbert "Bay, don’t urinate there it would somehow create a bad smell
Patricio when he was stabbed? and considering that this is a drinking area."
A: I was behind Vicente Vilbar. Q: Who was that person who relieved himself just nearby?
Q: When you said you were behind, how far from Vicente A: I did not know.
Vilbar?
Q: Whose group was he coming from?
A: Just near, sir, from my husband next was the one who
urinated, next Vicente Vilbar and I was behind.22 (Emphases A: From Vicente Vilbar’s companion.
supplied.)
Q: Did that person who was admonished accede to the request
Pedro corroborated Maria Liza’s testimony, recalling the same of Guilbert Patricio not to relieve just nearby?
sequence of events the night of May 5, 2000, viz:
A: He just did not do something, he just relieved.
Q: Who was the companion of Guilbert when he arrived in the
vicinity? Q: So that person who was admonished in fact urinated?
A: He was alone. A: Yes, sir.
Q: So what happened after his arrival? Q: And so what happened?
A: When he arrived he was with his child. A: I saw this Vicente Vilbar stood up and pass behind me and
went to Guilbert Patricio and just immediately stabbed him.
Q: And what did he do with the child?
Q: What was the weapon used in stabbing?
A: He carried his child in his arms.
A: It seems like a knife (and the witness demonstrated to the
Q: And then what happened after he carried his child? Court the length of the weapon at about 10 inches with the width
of about 2 inches).
A: There was someone who [urinated] somewhere behind us
and he was admonished by this Guilbert Patricio by saying,
Q: When this stabbing incident took place, was it in front of you Q: Prior to the incident, have you seen this Dikit or Vicente
or was it behind? Vilbar?
A: In front of me but I was facing his back. A: Yes, because after we had our tuba drinking spree in that
same day they were there also.
xxxx
Q: Would you recall how many times you have seen Vicente
Q: Will you please point to us a part of your body that he was hit Vilbar prior to the incident?
by the stab thrust?
A: I could not just count how many times but what I’m sure is we
COURT INTERPRETER know him.
The witness demonstrated below his left nipple and the witness Q: Could it be more than five (5) times?
was pointing to the position below his left nipple.
A: It could be.23 (Emphases supplied.)
xxxx
The RTC, assessing the aforequoted testimonies, declared:
Q: At the time of that incident which was on the evening of May
5, 2000, did you already know that the person whom you just Maria Liza Patricio is credible. She recognizes the accused, she
pointed earlier was Vicente Vilbar? was just behind him when he stabbed her husband who was
facing the accused. There was proper illumination of the place
A: I did not know about his complete name but I know of him as x x x and her testimony was not destroyed in the cross-
"Dikit" as alias and his face. examination. Her testimony is positive and spontaneous. The
Court notes nothing in her demeanor and flow of testimony that
xxxx would indicate some contradiction or incredibility.
Q: Under what circumstance that you learned of his name? The other witness, Pedro Luzon, corroborates the testimony of
Maria Liza Patricio. x x x.24
A: Because I ask the victim himself, that Guilbert Patricio by
saying, "Who was that person who stabbed you Dong?," and The RTC and the Court of Appeals brushed aside the alleged
then he said "He is known to be Dikit and his real name is inconsistencies in the testimonies of Maria Liza and
Vicente Vilbar." Pedro,25 these being relatively trivial and insignificant, neither
pertaining to the act constitutive of the crime committed nor to A closer perusal of the testimony of accused-appellant’s
the identity of the assailant. Also, these minor contradictions corroborating witness, Cerilo, reveals just how incoherent and
were expected from said witnesses as they differ in their elusive he was in giving particular details about the stabbing
impressions of the incident and vantage point in relation to the incident:
victim and the accused-appellant.
Q: Now, while you were there, what happened?
In contrast, accused-appellant admitted being present at the
scene and time of the commission of the crime but asserted that A: When I arrived there, I arrived with this people having a
one Dodong Danieles was the perpetrator thereof. Yet, the RTC drinking spree and I myself went to the other table near this
was unconvinced by the version of events as testified to by people and this quite thin or slim guy was standing in front of
accused-appellant himself and Cerilo, because: them and one of these people who were having drinking spree
seemed to relieve himself not to the C.R. but beside the store.
In the observation of the Court, the accused is inconsistent and
he talked unintelligibly. His testimony is not credible and Q: Now, you said a while ago that there were four (4)
perceived to be flimsy excuses. If it is true that his wife was with companions of the accused. Now, tell us, were all of the four (4)
him at the time of the incident and he was not involved in the people that you are referring to that exclude the accused?
stabbing, why did he have to leave the place and his wife and
go to the house of his parents-in-law rather than their house? A: There were four (4) of them including the accused, sir.
The accused should have presented his wife to corroborate his
testimony in that regard, and also his parents-in-law so the latter Q: Now, you said that there was somebody from the group who
can testify regarding the alleged visitors, the alleged parents of relieved himself, is that right?
one Dodong Danieles who came to their place when the
accused was also there days after the incident, telling him not A: Yes, sir, urinated.
to help the family of the victim.
Q: And what happened when he urinated?
The accused’s witness, Cerilo Pelos, is the farthest of the
expected witnesses for the defense. He and the accused were A: He was confronted by that slim guy because he did not
not acquaintances and they only came to know each other in urinate in the C.R. but just beside the store.
prison where Pelos is also detained for another charge. x x x.
The testimony of the witness is hazy and full of generalities, Q: And what happened when the confrontation took place?
even the way he speaks, the Court notes some inconsistency in
his voice and incoherence in his testimony.26
A: They exchanged words and after that th[e] slim guy left the Q: Who stood up?
one who urinated because it seemed that they were having an
argument. A: The one named Dodong, the one who was in black and the
one who stabbed.
Q: And then, what happened after that?
Q: So, you said that this one wearing black approached the slim
A: The one who confronted left and this accused stood up went guy?
to this slim guy and talked to him.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: This slim guy you are referring to is the person who urinated?
Q: And what happened after that?
A: Yes, sir.
A: So then, he stabbed him and the one he stabbed ran away,
Q; And so what happened with that meeting between the because he was hit.
accused and the slim guy that you are referring to?
Q: How about the accused, where was the accused then when
A: They were still and they were talking, sir. the man in black stabbed the slim guy?
Q: Were you able to hear what they were talking about? A: There, and they were still convering (sic) with each other with
the slim guy, sir.
A: No, sir, because the place was quite cacophonic.
Q: And what did he do after the man in black stabbed the slim
Q: And what happened after that? [g]uy?
A: They were still talking when the one who urinated went back A: He ran away passing by the Apollo and (while the witness
to the table. was demonstrating by pressing his hand to his chest) that he
was hit.
Q: And what happened after this person who urinated went back
to the table? Q: How about you, what did you do after that?
A: They conversed with the one wearing black and after the A: When the commotion of the people subsided, I asked from
conversation he stood up and went to the slim guy. the people around there about the name of the man in black and
after getting the name of the said person, I called up the Police Cerilo failed to mention what weapon was used to stab Guilbert
Precinct I to inform them about the incident. or describe the manner Guilbert was stabbed. Cerilo also
appeared to have mixed-up the personalities in his narration. He
xxxx first identified the "slim guy" to be Guilbert who reprimanded the
person who urinated, but he subsequently referred to the "slim
Q: Now, this person whom you said who stabbed the victim, did guy" as the person who urinated. Moreover, Cerilo’s
you meet him before? identification of the purported assailant of Guilbert as a certain
"Dodong" is highly unreliable, given that Cerilo admitted that he
A: Not yet, sir. learned of said assailant’s name from an unidentified spectator
of the stabbing incident.
xxxx
The fact that it was accused-appellant who stabbed Guilbert to
Q: As such a police asset, did you endeavor to know the death on the night of May 5, 2000 was already established
personalities who were involved in that stabbing incident? beyond reasonable doubt. The next question is what crime for
which accused-appellant should be held liable: murder as held
A: Yes, sir. by the RTC or homicide as adjudged by the Court of Appeals.
Q: Now, did you get name? We agree with the Court of Appeals that accused-appellant is
guilty only of homicide in the absence of the qualifying
A: I only got one name only the name of that guy in black, sir. circumstance of treachery.
Q: Why, did you interview the man in black? In a number of cases, surveyed in People v. Rivera,28 we ruled
that treachery cannot be appreciated simply because the attack
A: I asked from those who were there hanging out if ever they was sudden and unexpected:
know that person.
[W]e agree with accused-appellant that the qualifying
Q: Did you not follow the assailant after the stabbing incident? circumstance of treachery was not established. Surveying the
leading decisions on this question, in People v. Romeo Magaro
A: No sir, because after I asked about his name from the we recently stated:
bystanders, I immediately called up.27 (Emphases supplied.)
In People v. Magallanes, this Court held:
"There is treachery when the offender commits any of the ". . . The circumstance that an attack was sudden and
crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or unexpected to the person assaulted did not constitute the
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially element of alevosia necessary to raise homicide to murder,
to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the where it did not appear that the aggressor consciously adopted
defense which the offended party might make. Thus, for such mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing
treachery or alevosia to be appreciated as a qualifying without risk to himself. Treachery cannot be appreciated if the
circumstance, the prosecution must establish the concurrence accused did not make any preparation to kill the deceased in
of two (2) conditions: (a) that at the time of the attack, the victim such manner as to insure the commission of the killing or to
was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) that the offender make it impossible or difficult for the person attacked to retaliate
consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of or defend himself. . . ."
attack employed by him. . . .
Applying these principles to the case at bar, we hold that the
. . . where the meeting between the accused and the victim was prosecution has not proven that the killing was committed with
casual and the attack was done impulsively, there is no treachery. Although accused-appellant shot the victim from
treachery even if the attack was sudden and unexpected. As behind, the fact was that this was done during a heated
has been aptly observed the accused could not have made argument. Accused-appellant, filled with anger and rage,
preparations for the attack, . . .; and the means, method and apparently had no time to reflect on his actions.1âwphi1 It was
form thereof could not therefore have been thought of by the not shown that he consciously adopted the mode of attacking
accused, because the attack was impulsively done. the victim from behind to facilitate the killing without risk to
himself. Accordingly, we hold that accused-appellant is guilty of
Treachery cannot also be presumed from the mere suddenness homicide only.29
of the attack. . . . In point is the following pronouncement we
made in People v. Escoto: Similar to Rivera and the cases cited therein, the prosecution in
the instant case merely showed that accused-appellant
We can not presume that treachery was present merely from attacked Guilbert suddenly and unexpectedly, but failed to
the fact that the attack was sudden. The suddenness of an prove that accused-appellant consciously adopted such mode
attack, does not of itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia, of attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to
even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was made himself. As aptly observed by the Court of Appeals:
all of a sudden and the victim's helpless position was accidental.
. . ." While it appears that the attack upon the victim was sudden, the
surrounding circumstances attending the stabbing incident, that
In People v. Bautista, it was held: is, the open area, the presence of the victim’s families and the
attending eyewitnesses, works against treachery. If accused- fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day, to
appellant wanted to make certain that no risk would come to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months; and that the
him, he could have chosen another time and place to stab the minimum should be within the range of prision mayor which has
victim. Yet, accused-appellant nonchalantly stabbed the victim a duration of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.
in a public market at 7:00 o’clock in the evening. The place was Thus, the imposition of imprisonment from twelve (12) years of
well-lighted and teeming with people. He was indifferent to the prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four
presence of the victim’s family or of the other people who could (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, is in order.
easily identify him and point him out as the assailant. He
showed no concern that the people in the immediate vicinity As to the award of damages to Guilbert’s heirs, we affirm the
might retaliate in behalf of the victim. In fact, the attack amounts of ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱50,000.00 as
appeared to have been impulsively done, a spur of the moment civil indemnity. Medical and burial expenses were indisputably
act in the heat of anger or extreme annoyance. There are no incurred by Guilbert’s heirs but the exact amounts thereof were
indications that accused-appellant deliberately planned to stab not duly proven. So in lieu of actual damages, we award
the victim at said time and place. Thus, we can reasonably Guilbert’s heirs ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages. Article
conclude that accused-appellant, who at that time was 2224 of the Civil Code provides that "[t]emperate or moderate
languishing in his alcoholic state, acted brashly and impetuously damages, which are more than nominal but less than
in suddenly stabbing the victim. Treachery just cannot be compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court
appreciated.30 finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount
can not, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty."32
Lastly, we review the penalty and damages imposed by the
Court of Appeals upon accused-appellant. WHEREFORE, the instant appeal of accused-appellant is
hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated February
The penalty prescribed by law for the crime of homicide is 14, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No.
reclusion temporal.31 Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, 00270 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-
the maximum of the sentence shall be that which could be appellant Vicente Vilbar is found GUILTY of the crime of
properly imposed in view of the attending circumstances, and HOMICIDE, for which he is SENTENCED to imprisonment of
the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen
to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, and ORDERED to pay the heirs of Guilbert Patricio
Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance in this case, the amounts of ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, ₱50,000.00 as
the maximum of the sentence should be within the range of civil indemnity, and ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages.
reclusion temporal in its medium term which has a duration of
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
MARIANO C. DEL
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
CASTILLO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify

that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Republic of the Philippines Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended,5 the
SUPREME COURT accusatory portion of which reads:
Manila
That on or about March 27, 2005 at around 8:40 o’clock [sic] in
FIRST DIVISION the evening at Iron Street, Twin Villa Subdivision, Brgy.
Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City, Philippines and within the
March 25, 2015 jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
while armed with a Beretta Caliber .9MM Pistol with Serial No.
G.R. No. 206381 3191M9, a deadly weapon, with intent to kill and with the
qualifying circumstance of treachery, did then and there willfully,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with said
vs. pistol one Enrico Clar de Jesus Duhan, while the latter was
DANIEL MATIBAG y DE VILLA @ "DANI" or completely defenseless, thereby hitting him and causing
"DANILO", Accused-Appellant. gunshot wounds at his head and chest, which directly resulted
to the victim’s death.
DECISION
That the special aggravating circumstance of the use of
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: unlicensed firearm is attendant in the commission of the
offense.
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by accused-
appellant Daniel Matibag y De Villa @ "Dani" or "Danilo" CONTRARY TO LAW.6
(Matibag) assailing the Decision2 dated September 13, 2012 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA- G.R. CR-HC No. 03759 which Matibag entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment. After
affirmed in toto the Decision3 dated August 1, 2008 of the the termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.7
Regional Trial Court of Pallocan West, Batangas City, Branch 3
(RTC) in Criminal Case No. 13941, finding Matibag guilty The prosecution asserted that at around 8:40 in the evening of
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. March 27, 2005, Enrico Clar de Jesus Duhan (Duhan), who just
came from a meeting with the other officers of the homeowners’
The Facts association of Twin Villa Subdivision, was walking along Iron
Street in Brgy. Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City when Matibag
In an Amended Information4 dated May 5, 2005, Matibag was confronted Duhan, and asked, "ano bang pinagsasasabi
charged with the crime of Murder defined and penalized under mo?" Duhan replied "wala," and without warning, Matibag
delivered a fist blow hitting Duhan on the left cheek and causing of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the heirs of
him to teeter backwards. Matibag then pulled out his gun and Duhan the amounts of 50,000.00 as civil indemnity, 50,000.00
shot Duhan, who fell face-first on the pavement. While Duhan as moral damages, 59,000.00 as actual damages, and
remained in that position, Matibag shot him several more times. 25,000.00 as exemplary damages.11
PO2 Tom Falejo, a member of the Philippine National Police,
positively identified Matibag and stated on record that he The RTC refused to give credence to Matibag’s claim of self-
arrested the latter on the night of March 27, 2005. Dr. Antonio defense as he failed to prove the presence of unlawful
S. Vertido who conducted an autopsy on Duhan confirmed that aggression on Duhan’s part, finding that: (a) Duhan’s words and
the latter suffered gunshot wounds in the head and chest which actions prior to Matibag’s attack could not be considered as a
led to his death.8 real threat against him; (b) no firearm was recovered from the
victim; (c) Matibag’s account that Duhan was about to pull
In his defense, Matibag alleged that on said date, he was at something from his waist, which thus led him to believe that he
the despedida party of his neighbor when Duhan arrived was about to be shot, remained uncorroborated; and (d) the
together with the other officers of the homeowners’ association. number of gunshot wounds Duhan sustained contradicts the
Wanting to settle a previous misunderstanding, Matibag plea of self-defense.12
approached Duhan and extended his hand as a gesture of
reconciliation. However, Duhan pushed it away and Separately, the RTC appreciated the existence of the qualifying
said, "putang ina mo, ang yabang mo," thereby provoking circumstance of treachery since the attack was sudden,
Matibag to punch him in the face. Matibag saw Duhan pull unprovoked, and without any warning on the victim who was
something from his waist and fearing that it was a gun and unarmed and in a defenseless position.13Likewise, the special
Duhan was about to retaliate, Matibag immediately drew his aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm was
own gun, shot Duhan, and hurriedly left the place. Matibag went appreciated since a firearm was used in the commission of a
to see his police friend, Sgt. Narciso Amante, to turn himself in, crime and, hence, considered unlicensed.14
but the latter was unavailable at the time. As Matibag headed
back home, he was stopped by police officers who asked if he Dissatisfied, Matibag appealed15 to the CA.
was involved in the shooting incident. He then readily admitted
his involvement.9 The CA Ruling
The RTC Ruling In a Decision16 dated September 13, 2012, the CA affirmed
Matibag’s conviction in toto.17
In a Decision10 dated August 1, 2008, the RTC convicted
Matibag as charged, sentencing him to suffer the penalty
The CA agreed with the RTC’s findings that: (a) treachery On this score, the Court now proceeds to resolve this case on
attended the killing of Duhan as the attack on him was points of law.
sudden;18 and (b) an unlicensed firearm was used in committing
the crime, which is considered as a special aggravating Matibag is charged with the crime of Murder, which is defined
circumstance.19 and penalized under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended. In
order to warrant a conviction, the prosecution must establish by
Hence, the instant appeal. proof beyond reasonable doubt that: (a) a person was killed; (b)
the accused killed him or her; (c) the killing was attended by any
The Issue Before the Court of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the
RPC; and (d) the killing is not Parricide or Infanticide.21
The sole issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the
CA correctly upheld the conviction of Matibag for Murder. Under Article 14 of the RPC, there is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
The Court’s Ruling employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without
The appeal is bereft of merit. risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make. In People v. Tan,22the Court explained that the
In the review of a case, the Court is guided by the long-standing essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack,
principle that factual findings of the trial court, especially when without the slightest provocation on the part of the person
affirmed by the CA, deserve great weight and respect. These attacked.23 In People v. Perez,24 it was explained that a frontal
factual findings should not be disturbed on appeal, unless there attack does not necessarily rule out treachery. The qualifying
are facts of weight and substance that were overlooked or circumstance may still be appreciated if the attack was so
misinterpreted and that would materially affect the disposition of sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no time to
the case. The Court has carefully scrutinized the records and prepare for his or her defense.25
finds no reason to deviate from the RTC and CA’s factual
findings. There is no indication that the trial court, whose In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that Matibag,
findings the CA affirmed, overlooked, misunderstood or who was armed with a gun, confronted Duhan, and without any
misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the provocation, punched and shot him on the chest.26 Although the
case. Hence, the Court defers to the trial court on this score, attack was frontal, the sudden and unexpected manner by
considering too that it was in the best position to assess and which it was made rendered it impossible for Duhan to defend
determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both himself, adding too that he was unarmed.27 Matibag also failed
parties.20 to prove that a heated exchange of words preceded the incident
so as to forewarn Duhan against any impending attack from his Evidently, the treacherous manner by which Matibag assaulted
assailant.28 The deliberateness of Matibag’s act is further Duhan negates unlawful aggression in the sense above-
evinced from his disposition preceding the moment of discussed. As mentioned, the prosecution was able to prove
execution. As the RTC aptly pointed out, Matibag was ready and that the attack was so sudden and unexpected, and the victim
destined to effect such dastardly act, considering that he had an was completely defenseless. On the other hand, Matibag’s
axe to grind when he confronted Duhan, coupled with the fact version that he saw Duhan pull something from his waist (which
that he did so, armed with a loaded handgun.29 Based on these thereby impelled his reaction), remained uncorroborated. In
findings, the Court concludes that treachery was correctly fact, no firearm was recovered from the victim.34 Hence, by
appreciated. these accounts, Matibag’s allegation of unlawful aggression
and, consequently, his plea of self-defense cannot be
This finding of treachery further correlates to Matibag’s plea of sustained. The foregoing considered, the Court upholds
self- defense. Note that by invoking self-defense, Matibag, in Matibag’s conviction for the crime of Murder, qualified by
effect, admitted to the commission of the act for which he was treachery, as charged.
charged, albeit under circumstances that, if proven, would have
exculpated him. With this admission, the burden of proof shifted Moreover, as the RTC and CA held, the special aggravating
to Matibag to show that the killing of Duhan was attended by the circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm, which was duly
following circumstances: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of alleged in the Information, should be appreciated in the
the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to imposition of penalty. Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1866,35 as
prevent or repel such aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8294,36 treats the
provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.30 unauthorized use of a licensed firearm in the commission of the
crimes of homicide or murder as a special aggravating
Among the foregoing elements, the most important is unlawful circumstance:
aggression. It is well-settled that there can be no self-defense,
whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had Section 1. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby
committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted further amended to read as follows:
to self-defense.31 Jurisprudence states that not every form or
degree of aggression justifies a claim of self- defense.32 For "Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition
unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual, or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used
sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not or Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or
merely a threatening or intimidating attitude,33 as against the Ammunition. – x x x.
one claiming self-defense.
xxxx
"If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an certainty;42 (c) moral damages;43 and (d) exemplary damages
unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
be considered as an aggravating circumstance. circumstances.44
x x x x (Emphasis supplied) In line with recent jurisprudence, civil indemnity in the amount
of 100,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of 100,000.00
Further, under Section 5 of RA 8294, the scope of the term are awarded to Duhan’s heirs without need of evidence other
"unlicensed firearm" has already been expanded as follows:37 than the commission of the crime and Duhan’s death.
Considering further that the crime was committed with
Sec. 5. Coverage of the Term Unlicensed Firearm. – The term treachery, exemplary damages in the sum of 100,000.00 is also
unlicensed firearm shall include: granted.45
1. firearms with expired license; or The award of P59,000.00 as actual damages should, however,
be deleted as the records do not show that the prosecution was
2. unauthorized use of licensed firearm in the able to prove the amount actually expended.1âwphi1 In lieu
commission of the crime. (Emphasis supplied) thereof, P25,000.00 as temperate damages is awarded to
conform with prevailing jurisprudence.46 In addition, interest at
Therefore, when Matibag killed Duhan with his firearm, the use the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality
thereof was unauthorized under the purview of RA 8294 and is of this Decision until fullyonpaid is imposed all monetary
equally appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance. As awards.47
a result, the imposition of the maximum penalty of death, which
is reduced to reclusion perpetua in light of RA 9346,38 stands WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated
proper. To this, the Court adds that Matibag is not eligible for September 13, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC
parole.39 No. 03759 finding accused-appellant Daniel Matibag y De Villa
@ "Dani" or "Danilo" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
Finally, case law provides that for death resulting from the crime crime of Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the
of Murder, the heirs of the victim are entitled to the following Revised Penal Code, as amended, is
awards: (a) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION sentencing him to
without need of evidence other than the commission of the suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for
crime;40 (b) actual or compensatory damages to the extent parole, and ordering him to pay the Heirs of Enrico Clar de
proved,41 or temperate damages when some pecuniary loss has Jesus Duhan the amounts of Pl 00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl
been suffered but its amount cannot be provided with 00,000.00 as moral damages, Pl 00,000.00 as exemplary
damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages, in lieu of

actual damages, all with legal interest at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the finality ofjudgment until full payment.
SO ORDERED.
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify

that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.

Chief Justice
Republic of the Philippines This culture of impunity must stop. There is no space in this
SUPREME COURT society for hooliganism disguised as fraternity rumbles. The
Manila perpetrators must stand and suffer the legal consequences of
their actions. They must do so for there is an individual who now
THIRD DIVISION lies dead, robbed of his dreams and the dreams of his family.
Excruciating grief for them will never be enough.
G.R. No. 196735 May 5, 2014
It is undisputed that on December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, 1:00 in the afternoon, seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho
vs. fraternity were eating lunch at the Beach House Canteen, near
DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA, the Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman,
CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, and when they were attacked by several masked men carrying
ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN ALVIR, Accused-appellants. baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of them sustained injuries
that required hospitalization. One of them, Dennis Venturina,
DECISION died from his injuries.
LEONEN, J.: An information1 for murder, docketed as Criminal Case No.

Q95-6113 3, was filed against several members of the Scintilla
It is in the hallowed grounds of a university where students, Juris fraternity, namely, Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor L.
faculty, and research personnel should feel safest. After all, this Medalla, Warren L. Zingapan, Robert Michael Beltran Alvir,
is where ideas that could probably solve the sordid realities in Christopher L. Soliva, Reynaldo G. Ablanida, Carlo Jolette
this world are peacefully nurtured and debated. Universities Fajardo, George Morano, Raymund E. Narag, Gilbert Merle
produce hope. They incubate all our youthful dreams. Magpantay, Benedict Guerrero, and Rodolfo Penalosa, Jr. with
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219. The
Yet, there are elements within this academic milieu that trade information reads:
misplaced concepts of perverse brotherhood for these hopes.
Fraternity rumbles exist because of past impunity. This has That on or about the 8th day of December 1994, in Quezon City,
resulted in a senseless death whose justice is now the subject Philippines, the above-named accused, wearing masks and/or
matter of this case. It is rare that these cases are prosecuted. It other forms of disguise, conspiring, confederating with other
is even more extraordinary that there are credible witnesses persons whose true names, identities and whereabouts have
who present themselves courageously before an able and not as yet been ascertained, and mutually helping one another,
experienced trial court judge. with intent to kill, qualified with treachery, and with evident
premeditation, taking advantage of superior strength, armed According to Leandro Lachica, Grand Archon of Sigma Rho
with baseball bats, lead pipes, and cutters, did then and there Fraternity, he looked around when Venturina shouted, and he
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ saw about ten (10) men charging toward them.10 The men were
personal violence upon the person of DENNIS F. VENTURINA, armed with baseball bats and lead pipes, and their heads were
by then and there hitting him on the head and clubbing him on covered with either handkerchiefs or shirts.11 Within a few
different parts of his body thereby inflicting upon him serious seconds, five (5) of the men started attacking him, hitting him
and mortal injuries which were the direct and immediate cause with their lead pipes.12 During the attack, he recognized one of
of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said the attackers as Robert Michael Beltran Alvir because his mask
DENNIS F. VENTURINA. (Emphasis supplied) fell off.13
Separate informations were also filed against them for the Lachica tried to parry the blows of.his attackers, suffering
attempted murder of Sigma Rho fraternity members Cesar scratches and contusions.14
Mangrobang, Jr.,2 Cristobal Gaston, Jr.,3 and Leandro
Lachica,4 and the frustrated murder of Sigma Rho fraternity He was, however, able to run to the nearby College of
members Mervin Natalicio5 and Amel Fortes.6 Only 11 of the Education.15 Just before reaching it, he looked back and saw
accused stood trial since one of the accused, Benedict Warren Zingapan and Julius Victor L. Medalla holding lead
Guerrero, remained at large. pipes and standing where the commotion was.16 Both of them
did not have their masks on.17 He was familiar with Alvir,
A trial on the merits ensued. Zingapan, and Medalla because he often saw them in the
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP) and
The facts, according to the prosecution, are as follows: Zingapan used to be his friend.18 The attack lasted about thirty
(30) to forty-five (45) seconds.19
Leandro Lachica, Amel Fortes, Derinis Venturina, Mervin
Natalicio, Cristobal Gaston, Jr., Felix Tumaneng,7 and Cesar According to Mervin Natalicio, the Vice Grand Archon of Sigma
Magrobang, Jr. are all members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity. Rho, he looked to his left when Venturina shouted.20He saw
On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1 :00 p.m., they were about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) men, most of who were wearing
having lunch at Beach House Canteen, located at the back of masks, running toward them.21 He was stunned, and he started
the Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, running.22 He stumbled over the protruding roots of a tree.23 He
Quezon City.8 Suddenly, Dennis Venturina shouted, "Brads, got up, but the attackers came after him and beat him up with
brods!"9 lead pipes and baseball bats until he fell down.24 While he was
parrying the blows, he recognized two (2) of the attackers as
Warren Zingapan and Christopher L. Soliva since they were not
wearing any masks.25 After about thirty (30) seconds, they Cesar Mangrobang, Jr. then saw Amel Fortes. Fortes
stopped hitting him.26 accompanied him to his car so they could bring Venturina to the
U.P. Infirmary.41 When they brought the car over, other people,
He was lying on his back and when he looked up, he saw presumably bystanders, were already loading Venturina into
another group of four (4) to five (5) men coming toward him, led another vehicle.42 They followed that vehicle to the U.P.
by Benedict Guerrero.27 This group also beat him up.28 He did Infirmary where they saw Natalicio.43 He stayed at the infirmary
not move until another group of masked men beat him up for until the following morning.44
about five (5) to eight (8) seconds.29
According to Cristobal Gaston, Jr., member of Sigma Rho, he
When the attacks ceased, he was found lying on the immediately stood up when he heard someone shout,
ground.30 Several bystanders brought him to the U.P. Infirmary "Brods!"45 He saw a group of men charging toward them
where he stayed for more than a week for the treatment of his carrying lead pipes and baseball bats.46 Most of them had
wounds and fractures.31 pieces of cloth covering their faces.47 He was about to run when
two (2) of the attackers approached him.48 One struck him with
According to Cesar Mangrobang, Jr., member of Sigma Rho, he a heavy pipe while the other stabbed him with a bladed
also looked back when Venturina shouted and saw a group of instrument.49 He was able to parry most of the blows from the
men with baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of them wore lead pipe, but he sustained stab wounds on the chest and on
pieces of cloth around their heads.32 He ran when they attacked, his left forearm.50
but two (2) men, whose faces were covered with pieces of cloth,
blocked his way and hit him with lead pipes.33 While running and He was able to run away.51 When he sensed that no one was
parrying the blows, he recognized them as Gilbert Merle chasing him, he looked back to Beach House Canteen and saw
Magpantay and Carlo Jolette Fajardo because their masks fell Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Warren Zingapan, and George
off.34 He successfully evaded his attackers and ran to the Main Morano.52 He decided to go back to the canteen to help his
Library.35 He then decided that he needed to help his fraternity fraternity brothers.53 When he arrived, he did not see any of his
brothers and turned back toward Beach House.36 There, he saw fraternity brothers but only saw the ones who attacked
Venturina lying on the ground.37 Danilo Feliciano, Jr. was them.54 He ended up going to their hang-out instead to meet
beating Venturina up with a lead pipe while Raymund E. Narag with his other fraternity brothers.55 They then proceeded to the
was aiming to hit Venturina.38 When they saw him, they went College of Law where the rest of the fraternity was already
toward his direction.39 They were about to hit him when discussing the incident.56
somebody shouted that policemen were coming. Feliciano and
Narag then ran away.40 According to Amel Fortes, member of Sigma Rho, he also ran
when he saw the group of attackers coming toward
them.57 When he looked back, he saw Danilo Feliciano, Jr. located at the back of the upper left arm and hematoma on the
hitting Venturina.58 He was also able to see Warren Zingapan back of both hands,"69 "two (2) lacerated wounds at the back of
and George Morano at the scene.59 the head,70 generalized hematoma on the skull,"71 "several
fractures on the head,"72 and "inter-cranial hemorrhage."73 The
Leandro Lachica, in the meantime, upon reaching the College injuries, according to Dr. Victoria, could have been caused by a
of Education, boarded a jeepney to the College of Law to wait hard blunt object.74 Dr. Victoria concluded that Venturina died of
for their other fraternity brothers.60 One of his fraternity brothers, traumatic head injuries.75
Peter Corvera, told him that he received information that
members of Scintilla Juris were seen in the west wing of the On December 12, 1994, Lachica, Natalicio, Mangrobang,
Main Library and were regrouping in SM North.61 Lachica and Fortes, and Gaston executed their respective affidavits76before
his group then set off for SM North to confront Scintilla Juris and the National Bureau of Investigation and underwent medico-
identify their attackers.62 legal examinations77 with their medicolegal officer, Dr. Aurelio
Villena. According to Dr. Villena, he found that Mervin Natalicio
When they arrived in SM North, pillboxes and stones were had "lacerated wounds on the top of the head, above the left
thrown at them.63 Lachica saw Robert Michael Beltran Alvir and ear, and on the fingers; contused abrasions on both knees;
Warren Zingapan and a certain Carlo Taparan.64 They had no contusion on the left leg and thigh,"78 all of which could have
choice but to get away from the mall and proceed instead to been caused by any hard, blunt object. These injuries required
U.P. where the Sigma Rho Fraternity members held a medical attendance for a period of ten (10) days to thirty (30)
meeting.65 days from the date of infliction.79
On the night of December 8, 1994, the officers of Sigma Rho Dr. Villena found on Amel Fortes "lacerated wounds on the head
advised the victims to lodge their complaints with the National and on the right leg which could have been caused by a blunt
Bureau of Investigation.66 Their counsel, Atty. Frank Chavez, instrument."80 These injuries required hospitalization for a
told the U.P. Police that the victims would be giving their period of ten (10) days to thirty (30) days from date of
statements before the National Bureau of Investigation, infliction.81 He also found on Cesar Mangrobang, Jr. a "healed
promising to give the U.P. Police copies of their statements. In abrasion on the left forearm which could possibly be caused by
the meantime, Venturina was transferred from the U.P. Infirmary contact with [a] rough hard surface and would require one (1) to
to St. Luke's Hospital on December 8, 1994. He died on nine (9) days of medical attention."82 He found on Leandro
December 10, 1994.67 On December 11, 1994, an autopsy was Lachica "contusions on the mid auxiliary left side, left forearm
conducted on the cadaver of Dennis Venturina.68 Dr. Rolando and lacerated wound on the infra scapular area, left side."83 On
Victoria, a medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Christopher Gaston, Jr. he found "lacerated wounds on the
Investigation, found that Venturina had "several contusions anterior chest, left side, left forearm; swollen knuckles of both
hands; contusions on the mid auxiliary left side, left forearm and Frisco Capilo,89 a utility worker of U.P. assigned to the Main
lacerated wound on the infra scapular area, left side."84 Library, was buying a cigarette at a vendor located nearby.
From there, he allegedly saw the whole incident. He testified
On September 18, 1997, after the prosecution presented its that ten (10) men, wearing either masks of red and black
evidence-in-chief, the court granted the demurrer to evidence bonnets or with shirts covering their faces, came from a red car
filed by Rodolfo Penalosa, Jr. on the ground that he was not parked nearby. He also saw three (3) men being hit with lead
identified by the prosecution's witnesses and that he was not pipes by the masked men. Two (2) of the men fell after being
mentioned in any of the documentary evidence of the hit. One of the victims was lifting the other to help him, but the
prosecution.85 attackers overtook him. Afterwards, the attackers ran away. He
then saw students helping those who were injured. He likewise
Upon the presentation of their evidence, the defense introduced helped in carrying one of the injured victims, which he later
their own statement of the facts, as follows: found out to be Amel Fortes.
According to Romeo Cabrera,86 a member of the U.P. Police, A U.P. student and member of the Sigma Alpha Nu Sorority,
he was on foot patrol with another member of the U.P. Police, Eda Panganiban,90 testified that she and her friends were in line
Oscar Salvador, at the time of the incident. They were near the to order lunch at the Beach House Canteen when a commotion
College of Arts and Sciences (Palma Hall) when he vaguely happened. She saw around fifteen (15) to eighteen (18) masked
heard somebody shouting, "Rumble!" They went to the place men attack a group of Sigma Rhoans. She did not see any mask
where the alleged rumble was happening and saw injured men fall off. Her sorority sister and another U.P. student, Luz
being helped by bystanders. They helped an injured person Perez,91 corroborated her story that the masked men were
board the service vehicle of the Beach House Canteen. They unrecognizable because of their masks. Perez, however,
asked what his name was, and he replied that he was Mervin admitted that a member of Scintilla Juris approached her to
Natalicio. When he asked Natalicio who hit him, the latter was make a statement.
not able to reply but instead told him that his attackers were
wearing masks. Oscar Salvador87 corroborated his testimony. Another sorority sister, Bathalani Tiamzon,92 testified on
substantially the same matters as Panganiban and Perez. She
Benjamin Lato,88 a utility worker of the Beach House Canteen, also stated that she saw a person lying on the ground who was
likewise testified that the identities of the attackers were being beaten up by about three (3) to five (5) masked men. She
unrecognizable because of their masks. He, however, admitted also stated that some of the men were wearing black masks
that he did not see the attack; he just saw a man sprawled on while some were wearing white t-shirts as masks. She did not
the ground at the time of the incident. see any mask fall off the faces of the attackers.
According to Feliciana Feliciano,93 accused-appellant Danilo Carlo Taparan, not to react to the Sigma Rhoans and just go
Feliciano, Jr.'s motlier, her son was in Pampanga to visit his sick home. Anna Cabahug,98 his girlfriend, corroborated his story.
grandfather at the time of the incident. She alleged that her son
went to Pampanga before lunch that day and visited the school Warren Zingapan99 also testified that he was not in U.P. at the
where she teaches to get their house key from her. time of the incident. He claimed to have gone to SM North to
buy a gift for a friend's wedding but ran into a fraternity brother.
According to Robert Michael Beltran Alvir,94 he had not been He also alleged that some Sigma Rhoans attacked them in SM
feeling well since December 5, 1994. He said that he could not North that day.
have possibly been in U.P. on December 8, 1994 since he was
absent even from work. He also testified that he wore glasses On February 28, 2002, the trial court rendered its
and, thus, could not have possibly been the person identified by decision100 with the finding that Robert Michael Alvir, Danilo
Leandro Lachica. He also stated that he was not enrolled in U.P. Feliciano, Jr., Christopher Soliva, Julius Victor Medalla, and
at the time since he was working to support himself. Warren Zingapan were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
murder and attempted murder and were sentenced to, among
According to Julius Victor Medalla,95 he and another classmate, other penalties, the penalty of reclusion perpetua.101 The trial
Michael Vibas, were working on a school project on December court, however, acquitted Reynaldo Ablanida, Carlo Jolette
8, 1994. He also claimed that he could not have participated in Fajardo, Gilbert Magpantay, George Morano, and Raymund
the rumble as he had an injury affecting his balance. The injury Narag.102 The case against Benedict Guerrero was ordered
was caused by an incident in August 1994 when he was struck archived by the court until his apprehension.103 The trial court,
in the head by an unknown assailant. His testimony was m evaluating the voluminous evidence at hand, concluded that:
corroborated by Jose Victor Santos96 who stated that after lunch
that day, Medalla played darts with him and, afterwards, they After a judicious evaluation of the matter, the Court is of the
went to Jollibee. considered view that of the ten accused, some were sufficiently
identified and some were not. The Court believes that out of the
Christopher Soliva,97 on the other hand, testified that he was amorphous images during the pandemonium, the beleaguered
eating lunch with his girlfriend and another friend in Jollibee, victims were able to espy and identify some of the attackers
Philcoa, on December 8, 1994. They went back to U.P. before etching an indelible impression in their memory. In this regard,
1:00 p.m. and went straight to their fraternity hang-out where he the prosecution eyewitnesses were emphatic that they saw the
was told that there had been a rumble at the Main Library. He attackers rush towards them wielding deadly weapons like
also met several Sigma Rhoans acting suspiciously as they baseball bats, lead pipes, pieces of wood and bladed ones, and
passed by the hang-out. They were also told by their head, pounce on their hapless victims, run after them, and being
present with one another at the scene of the crime during the
assault. Although each victim had a very strong motive to place On the basis, however, of the arguments presented to this court
his fraternity rivals permanently behind bars, not one .of them by both parties, the issue may be further refined, thus:
testified against all of them. If the prosecution eyewitnesses,
who were all Sigma Rhoans, were simply bent on convicting 1. Whether accused-appellants' constitutional rights
Scintilla Juris members for that matter, they could have easily were violated when the information against them
tagged each and every single accused as a participant in the contained the aggravating circumstance of the use of
atrocious and barbaric assault to make sure that no one else masks despite the prosecution presenting witnesses to
would escape conviction. Instead, each eyewitness named only prove that the masks fell off; and
one or two and some were candid enough to say that they did
not see who delivered the blows against them.104 2. Whether the Regional Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals correctly ruled, on the basis of the evidence,
Because one of the penalties meted out was reclusion perpetua, that accused-appellants were sufficiently identified.
the case was brought to this court on automatic appeal.
However, due to the amendment of the Rules on Appeal,105 the I
case was remanded to the Court of Appeals.106 In the Court of
Appeals, the case had to be re-raffled several Times107 before An information is sufficient
it was eventually assigned to Presiding Justice Andres B. when the accused is fully
Reyes, Jr. for the writing of the decision. apprised of the charge against
him to enable him to prepare
On December 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in a Special First his defense
Division of Five, affirmed108 the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, with three (3) members concurring109 an one (1) It is the argument of appellants that the information filed against
dissenting.110 them violates their constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against them. They argue
The decision of the Court of Appeals was then brought to this that the prosecution should not have included the phrase
court for review. "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the
information since they were presenting testimonial evidence
The issue before this court is whether the prosecution was able that not all the accused were wearing masks or that their masks
to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants fell off.
attacked private complainants and caused the death of Dennis
Venturina. It is enshrined in our Bill of Rights that "[n]o person shall be held
to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law."111 This includes the right of the accused to be presumed prosecution to state the aggravating circumstance of "wearing
innocent until proven guilty and "to be informed of the nature masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the information in order
and accusation against him."112 for all the evidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible
by the trial court.
Upon a finding of probable cause, an information is filed by the
prosecutor against the accused, in compliance with the due In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance
process of the law. Rule 110, Section 1, paragraph 1 of the because, like nighttime, it allows the accused to remain
Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that: anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out his crimes.
A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence that
the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; tends to prove that the accused were masked but the masks fell
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; off does not prevent them from including disguise as an
the name of the offended pary; the approximate date of the aggravating circumstance.116 What is important in alleging
commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was a
committed. concealment of identity by the accused. The inclusion of
disguise in the information was, therefore, enough to sufficiently
In People v. Wilson Lab-ea,113 this court has stated that: apprise the accused that in the commission of the offense they
were being charged with, they tried to conceal their identity.
The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a
person of common understanding to know the charge against The introduction of evidence which shows that some of the
him, and the court to render judgment properly. x x x The accused were not wearing masks is also not violative of their
purpose is to allow the accused to fully prepare for his defense, right to be informed of their offenses.
precluding surprises during the trial.114
The information charges conspiracy among the accused.
Contrary to the arguments of the appellants, the inclusion of the Conspiracy presupposes that "the act of one is the act of
phrase "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the all."117 This would mean all the accused had been one in their
information does not violate their constitutional rights. plan to conceal their identity even if there was evidence later on
to prove that some of them might not have done so.
It should be remembered that every aggravating circumstance
being alleged must be stated in the information. Failure to state In any case, the accused were being charged with the crime of
an aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder. All that is
be appreciated as such.115 It was, therefore, incumbent on the needed for the information to be sufficient is that the elements
of the crime have been alleged and that there are sufficient There are, of course, recognized exceptions to this rule. In
details as to the time, place, and persons involved in the People v. Leticia Labarias,120 this court stated that:
offense.
It is the policy of this Court to sustain the factual findings of the
II trial court on the reasonable assumption that it is in a better
position to assess the evidence before it, particularly the
Findings of the trial court, testimonies of the witnesses, who reveal much of themselves
when affirmed by the by their deportment on the stand. The exception that makes the
appellate court, are entitled rule is where such findings arc clearly arbitrary or erroneous as
to great weight and credence when they are tainted with bias or hostility or are so lacking in
basis as to suggest that they were reached without the careful
As a general rule, the findings of fact by the trial court, when study and perceptiveness that should characterize a judicial
affirmed by the appellate court, are given great weight and decision.121(Emphasis supplied)
credence on review. The rationale for this was explained in
People v. Daniel Quijada,118 as follows: In criminal cases, the exception gains even more importance
since the presumption is always in favor of innocence. It is only
Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court, upon proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt that a conviction is
especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great sustained.
weight and respect. For, the trial court has the advantage of
observing the witnesses through the different indicators of In this case, a total of eleven (11) witnesses for the prosecution
truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted and forty-two (42) witnesses for the defense were put on the
assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the stand from 1995 to 2001. In an eighty-three (83)-page decision,
tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of the trial court acquitted six (6) and convicted five (5) of the
a ready reply; accused. On the basis of these numbers alone, it cannot be said
that the trial court acted arbitrarily or that its decision was "so
or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the lacking in basis" that it was arrived at without a judicious and
hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, exhaustive study of all the evidence presented.
the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the
scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage Inasmuch, however, as the trial court's findings hold great
and mien.119 persuasive value, there is also nothing that precludes this court
from coming to its own conclusions based on an independent
review of the facts and the evidence on record.
The accused were sufficiently Penalosa during the onslaught. Gaston could have named any
identified by the witnesses for of the accused as the one who repeatedly hit him with a heavy
the prosecution pipe and stabbed him but he frankly said their faces were
covered. Like Natalicio, Fortes was repeatedly beaten by
The trial court, in weighing all the evidence on hand, found the several groups but did not name any of the accused as one of
testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution to be credible. those who attacked him. The persons he identified were those
In its decision, the trial court stated that: leading the pack with one of them as the assailant of Venturina,
and the two others who he saw standing while he was running
x x x. Although each victim had a very strong motive to place away. He added that he saw some of the accused during the
his fraternity rivals permanently behind bars, not one testified attack but did not know then their names.122 (Emphasis
against all of them. If the prosecution eyewitnesses, who were supplied)
all Sigma Rhoans, were simply bent on convicting Scintilla Juris
members for that matter, they could have easily tagged each We agree.
and every accused as a participant in the atrocious and barbaric
assault to make sure no one would escape conviction. Instead, The trial court correctly held that "considering the swiftness of
each eyewitness named only one or two and some were candid the incident,"123 there would be slight inconsistencies in their
enough to say that they did not see who delivered the blows statements. In People v. Adriano Cabrillas,124 it was previously
against them. observed that:
Thus, the prosecution witnesses, Ernest Paulo Tan, Dennis It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the
Gaio and Darwin Asuncion, testified to have seen it all but they occurrence of a crime to give varying details as there may be
could not, and did not, disclose any name. Lachica, on the other some details which one witness may notice while the other may
hand, said that he did not have the opportunity to see and not observe or remember. In fact, jurisprudence even warns
identify the person who hit him in the back and inflicted a two- against a perfect dovetailing of narration by different witnesses
inch cut. His forearm was also hit by a lead pipe but he did not as it could mean that their testimonies were prefabricated and
see who did it. Natalicio, one of the other three who were rehearsed.125 (Emphasis supplied)
hospitalized, was severely beaten by three waves of attackers
totalling more than 15 but he could only name 3 of them. He According to their testimonies, Lachica was able to identify Alvir,
added, however, that he would be able to recognize those he Zingapan, and Medalla;126
saw if he would see them again. Of them, Mangrobang pointed
to at least 5 but he stressed that he did not see Zingapan, Natalicio was able to identify Medalla, Zingapan, and
Soliva, Guerrero, Del Rosario, Daraoay, Denoista, and Soliva;127 and Fortes was able to identify Feliciano, Medalla, and
Zingapan.128 Their positive identification was due to the fact that Q During the incident of December 8, 1994, there were a lot of
they either wore no masks or that their masks fell off. people eating in the Beach House Canteen, and then running
towards different directions, is it not?
It would be in line with human experience that a victim or an
eyewitness of a crime would endeavor to find ways to identify A Yes, sir.
the assailant so that in the event that he or she survives, the
criminal could be apprehended. It has also been previously held Q And some people were wearing masks and some were not?
that:
A Yes, sir.134
It is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to
strive to see the looks and faces of their assailants and observe While the attack was swift and sudden, the victims would have
the manner in which the crime was committed. Most often the had the presence of mind to take a look at their assailants if they
face of the assailant and body movements thereof, creates a were identifiable. Their positive identification, in the absence of
lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from their evidence to the contrary, must be upheld to be credible.
memory.129
It has been argued that the trial court did not give Mangrobang's
In the commotion, it was more than likely that the masked testimony credence while Gaston's testimony was found to be
assailants could have lost their masks. It had been testified by "hazy." This argument is unmeritorious.
the victims that some of the assailants were wearing masks of
either a piece of cloth or a handkerchief and that It should be noted that it was the trial court itself that stated that
Alvir,130 Zingapan,131 Soliva,132 and Feliciano133 had masks on the acquittal of the Scintilla Juris members identified by
at first but their masks fell off and hung around their necks. Mangrobang "should not be. misinterpreted to mean that the
tt:'.stimony of Mangrobang was an absolute fabrication."135 The
Equally telling was the testimony of defense witness Frisco court went on to state that they "were exonerated merely
Capilo during cross-examination who observed that some of the because they were accorded the benefit of the doubt as their
attackers were wearing masks and some were not, thus: identification by Mangrobang, under tumultuous and chaotic
circumstances were [sic] not corroborated and their alibis, not
Q Mr. Capilo, do you know this Scintilla Juris Fraternity? refuted."136 There was, therefore, no basis to say that
Mangrobang was not credible; it was only that the evidence
A No, sir. presented was not strong enough to overcome the presumption
of innocence.
Gaston's testimony, on the other hand, was considered As a general rule, "[a] witness can testify only to the facts he
"hazy"137 by the trial court only with regard to his identification of knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived
Zingapan's companion. Gaston testified that he saw Zingapan from his own perception, x x x."140 All other kinds of testimony
with Morano, with Zingapan moving and Morano staying in are hearsay and are inadmissible as evidence. The Rules of
place. Fortes, however, testified that both Zingapan and Morano Court, however, provide several exceptions to the general rule,
were running after him. Lachica also testified that it was and one of which is when the evidence is part of res gestae,
Medalla, not Morano, who was with Zingapan. Because of this thus:
confusion, the trial court found that there was doubt as to who
was really beside Zingapan. The uncertainty resulted into an Section 42. Part of res gestae. - Statements made by a person
acquittal for Morano. Despite this, the court still did not" impute while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior
doubt in their testimonies that Zingapan was present at the or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
scene. thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. So,
also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the
Be that as it may, the acquittals made by the trial court further issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part
prove that its decision was brought about only upon a thorough of the res gestae.141
examination of the evidence presented: It accepted that there
were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victims but that In People v. Rodrigo Salafranca,142 this court has previously
these were minor and did not affect their credibility. It ruled that discussed the admissibility of testimony taken as part of res
"[s]uch inconsistencies, and even probabilities, are not unusual gestae, stating that:
'for there is no person with perfect faculties or senses."'138
A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res
Evidence as part of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the
gestae may be admissible but hearsay rule when the following requisites concur, to wit: (a) the
have little persuasive value in principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the
this case statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive
or devise; and (c) the statements must concern the occurrence
According to the testimony of U.P. Police Officer in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
Salvador,139 when he arrived at the scene, he interviewed the
bystanders who all told him that they could not recognize the xxxx
attackers since they were all masked. This, it is argued, could
be evidence that could be given as part of the res gestae. The term res gestae has been defined as "those circumstances
which are the undersigned incidents of a particular litigated act
and which are admissible when illustrative of such act." In a cannot expect the testimony of witnesses to a crime to be
general way, res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and consistent in all aspects because different persons have
declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate different impressions and recollections of the same incident. x x
its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous x145
with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and
fabrication. The rule on res gestae encompasses the (Emphasis supplied)
exclamations and statements made by either the participants,
victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or The statements made by the bystanders, although admissible,
immediately after the commission of the crime when the have little persuasive value since the bystanders could have
circumstances are such that the statements were made as a seen the events transpiring at different vantage points and at
spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of different points in time. Even Frisco Capilo, one of the
the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to bystanders at the time of the attack, testified that the attackers
deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. The test of had their masks on at first, but later on, some remained masked
admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, and some were unmasked.
whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately
interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it When the bystanders' testimonies are weighed against those of
characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction the victims who witnessed the entirety of the incident from
itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or beginning to end at close range, the former become merely
purpose to manufacture testimony.143 corroborative of the fact that an attack occurred. Their account
of the incident, therefore, must be given considerably less
There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group peacefully weight than that of the victims.
eating lunch on a school campus is a startling occurrence.
Considering that the statements of the bystanders were made The belated identification by
immediately after the startling occurrence, they are, in fact, the victims do not detract from
admissible as evidence given in res gestae. their positive identification of
the appellants
In People v. Albarido,144 however, this court has stated that "in
accord to ordinary human experience:" It is argued that the fact that the victims stayed silent about the
incident to the U.P. Police or the Quezon City Police but instead
x x x persons who witness an event perceive the same from executed affidavits with the National Bureau of Investigation
their respective points of reference. Therefore, almost always, four (4) days after the incident gives doubt as to the credibility
they have different accounts of how it happened. Certainly, we of their testimonies.
U.P. Police Officer Romeo Cabrera146 testified that on their way credibility since most of them had been hospitalized from their
to the U.P. Infirmary, he interviewed the victims who all told him injuries and needed to recover first.
they could not recognize the attackers because they were all
wearing masks. Meanwhile, Dr. Mislang147testified to the effect Since a fraternity moves as one unit, it would be understandable
that when she asked Natalicio who attacked them, Natalicio that they decided to wait until all of them were well enough to
answered that he did not know because they were masked. go to the National Bureau of Investigation headquarters in order
to give their statements.
It must be remembered that the parties involved in this case
belong to rival fraternities. While this court does not condone Seniority is also often the norm in fraternities. It was upon the
their archaic and oftentimes barbaric traditions, it is conceded advice of their senior "brads" and their legal counsel that they
that there are certain practices that are unique to fraternal executed their sworn statements before the National Bureau of
organizations. Investigation four (4) days after the incident.
It is quite possible that at this point in time, they knew the The decision to report the incident to the National Bureau of
identities of their attackers but chose not to disclose it without Investigation instead of to the U.P. Police was the call of their
first conferring with their other fraternity brothers. This legal counsel who might have deemed the National Bureau of
probability is bolstered by the actions of Sigma Rho after the Investigation more equipped to handle the investigation. This
incident, which showed that they confronted the members of does not, however, affect the credibility of the witnesses since
Scintilla Juris in SM North. Because of the tenuous relationship they were merely following the legal advice of their counsel.
of rival fraternities, it would not have been prudent for Sigma
Rho to retaliate against the wrong fraternity. Indeed, there is reason to believe that the National Bureau of
Investigation is better equipped than the U.P. Police to handle
Their act of not disclosing the correct information to the U.P. the investigation of the case. As stated in the U.P. College of
Police or to Dr. Mislang does not make the police officer or the Economics website:
doctor's testimonies more credible than that of the victims. It
should not be forgotten that the victims actually witnessed the The UP Diliman Police (UPDP) is tasked with maintaining
entire incident, while Officer Salvador, Officer Cabrera, and Dr. campus security. Their station is located in front of the College
Mislang were merely relaying secondhand information. of Architecture.
The fact that they went to the National Bureau of Investigation The primary missions of the UPDP are to maintain peace and
four (4) days after the incident also does not affect their order, secure and protect lives and property, enforce basic laws,
applicable Quezon City Ordinances, and University Rules and
Regulations including policies and standards; and to perform warrant the least credibility or none at all and cannot prevail over
such other functions relative to the general safety and security the positive identification of the appellant by the prosecution
of the students, employees, and residents in the U.P. Diliman witnesses. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that
Campus. x x x.148 (Emphasis supplied) appellant was somewhere else when the crime was committed;
he must also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for
It can be seen that the U.P. Police is employed by U.P. primarily him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its
for campus security. They are by no means an actual police commission. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing
force that is equipped to handle a full-blown murder proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving
investigation. Fraternity-related violence in U.P. has also of any weight in law. Denial, like alibi, as an exonerating
increasingly become more frequent, which might possibly have justification[,] is inherently weak and if uncorroborated
desensitized the U.P. Police in such a way that would prevent regresses to blatant impotence. Like alibi, it also constitutes
their objectivity in the conduct of their investigations. The self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded
victims' reliance on the National Bureau of Investigation, greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible
therefore, is understandable. witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.151
III In this case, the victims were able to positively identify their
attackers while the accused-appellants merely offered alibis
Alibi cannot prevail over the and denials as their defense. The credibility of the victims was
positive identification of the upheld by both the trial court and the appellate court while giving
victim little credence to the accused-appellants' alibis. There is, thus,
no reason to disturb their findings.
It is settled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the
positive identification of the victim.149 In People v. Benjamin Accused-appellants were
Peteluna,150 this court stated that: correctly charged with
murder, and there was
It is a time-honored principle that the positive identification of treachery in the commission
the appellant by a witness destroys the defense of alibi and of the crime
denial. Thus:
According to the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal
x x x. It is well-entrenched that alibi and denial are inherently Code, the accused-appellants were correctly charged with
weak and have always been viewed with disfavor by the courts murder. Article 248 states:
due to the facility with which they can be concocted. They
ART. 248. Murder.-Any person who, not falling within the There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the
murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense
which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift,
the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless,
defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or
escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must
xxxx concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives
the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or
It is undisputed that on December 8, 1994, a group of men retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or
armed with lead pipes and baseball bats attacked Dennis consciously adopted.154 (Emphasis supplied)
Venturina and his companions, which resulted in Venturina's
death. The appellate court, in affirming the conviction of the accused-
appellants, ruled that contrary to the findings of the trial court,
As correctly found by the trial court and the appellate court, the there was no treachery involved. In particular, they ruled that
offense committed against Dennis Venturina was committed by although the attack was sudden and unexpected, "[i]t was done
a group that took advantage of its superior strength and with the in broad daylight with a lot of people who could see them"155 and
aid of armed men. The appellate court, however, incorrectly that "there was a possibility for the victims to have fought back
ruled out the presence of treachery in the commission of the or that the people in the canteen could have helped the
offense. victims."156
It has been stated previously by this court that: This reasoning is clearly erroneous. The victims in this case
were eating lunch on campus. They were not at a place where
[T]reachery is present when the offender commits any of the they would be reasonably expected to be on guard for any
crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms sudden attack by rival fraternity men.
in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense The victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked with lead
which the offended party might make.152 pipes and baseball bats. The only way they could parry the
blows was with their arms. In a situation where they were
Similarly, in People v. Leozar Dela Cruz,153 this court stated that: unnamed and outnumbered, it would be impossible for them to
fight back against the attackers. The attack also happened in Thus, it concluded that the accused-appellants would have
less than a minute, which would preclude any possibility of the been guilty only of slight physical injuries.
bystanders being able to help them until after the incident.
This is erroneous.
The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no
opportunity for the victims to retaliate or even to defend It should be remembered that the trial court found that there was
themselves. Treachery, therefore, was present in this case. conspiracy among the accused-appellants160 and the appellate
court sustainedthis finding.161
The presence of conspiracy
makes all of the accused- Conspiracy, once proven, has the effect of attaching liability to
appellants liable for murder all of the accused, regardless of their degree of participation,
and attempted murder thus: Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of the
conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent
In the decision of the trial court, all of the accused-appellants and character of their respective active participation in the
were found guilty of the murder of Dennis Venturina and the commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of
attempted murder of Mervin Natalicio, Cesar Mangrobang, Jr. the conspiracy because in contemplation of law the act of one
Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, and Cristobal Gaston, Jr. The is the act of all. The foregoing rule is anchored on the sound
appellate court, however, modified their liabilities and found that principle that "when two or more persons unite to accomplish a
the accused-appellants were guilty of attempted murder only criminal object, whether through the physical volition of one, or
against Natalicio and Fortes, and not against Mangrobang, all, proceeding severally or collectively, each individual whose
Lachica, and Gaston. evil will actively contributes to the wrong-doing is in law
responsible for the whole, the same as though performed by
It is the appellate court's reasoning that because Lachica and himself alone." Although it is axiomatic that no one is liable for
Mangrobang "were no longer chased by the attackers,"157 it acts other than his own, "when two or more persons agree or
concluded that accused-appellants "voluntary desisted from conspire to commit a crime, each is responsible for all the acts
pursuing them and from inflicting harm to them, which shows of the others, done in furtherance of the agreement or
that they did not have the intent to do more than to make them conspiracy." The imposition of collective liability upon the
suffer pain by slightly injuring them."158 It also pointed out that conspirators is clearly explained in one case where this Court
the wound inflicted on Gaston "was too shallow to have been held that
done with an intent to kill."159
... it is impossible to graduate the separate liability of each
(conspirator) without taking into consideration the close and
inseparable relation of each of them with the criminal act, for the illogical to presume that despite the swiftness and suddenness
commission of which they all acted by common agreement ... of the attack, the attackers intended to kill only Venturina,
The crime must therefore in view of the solidarity of the act and Natalicio, and Fortes, and only intended to injure Lachica,
intent which existed between the ... accused, be regarded as Mangrobang, and Gaston. Since the intent to kill was evident
the act of the band or party created by them, and they are all from the moment the accused-appellants took their first swing,
equally responsible all of them were liable for that intent to kill.1âwphi1
Verily, the moment it is established that the malefactors For this reason, the accused-appellants should be liable for the
conspired and confederated in the commission of the felony murder of Dennis Venturina and the attempted murder of Mervin
proved, collective liability of the accused conspirators attaches Natalicio, Cesar Mangrobang, Jr., Leandro Lachica, Arnel
by reason of the conspiracy, and the court shall not speculate Fortes, and Cristobal Gaston, Jr.
nor even investigate as to the actual degree of participation of
each of the perpetrators present at the scene of the crime. x x A Final Note
x.162 (Emphasis supplied)
It is not only the loss of one promising young life; rather, it is
The liabilities of the accused-appellants m this case arose from also the effect on the five other lives whose once bright futures
a single incident wherein the accused-appellants were armed are now put in jeopardy because of one senseless act of
with baseball bats and lead pipes, all in agreement to do the bravado. There is now more honor for them to accept their
highest amount of damage possible to the victims. Some were responsibility and serve the consequences of their actions.
able to run away and take cover, but the others would fall prey There is, however, nothing that they can do to bring back Dennis
at the hands of their attackers. The intent to kill was already Venturina or fully compensate for his senseless and painful loss.
present at the moment of attack and that intent was shared by
all of the accused-appellants alike when the presence of This is not the first fraternity-related case to come to this court;
conspiracy was proven. It is, therefore, immaterial to distinguish neither will it be the last. Perhaps this case and many cases like
between the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victims it can empower those who have a better view of masculinity:
to determine the respective liabilities of their attackers. What is one which valorizes courage, sacrifice and honor in more life-
relevant is only as to whether the death occurs as a result of saving pursuits.
that intent to kill and whether there are qualifying, aggravating
or mitigating circumstances that can be appreciated. "Giting at dangal" are words of the anthem of the University of
the Philippines. It colors the stories of many who choose to
The appellate court, therefore, erred in finding the accused- expend their energy in order that our people will have better
appellants guilty only of slight physical injuries. It would be lives. Fraternity rumbles are an anathema, an immature and
useless expenditure of testosterone. It fosters a culture that See Dissenting Opinion

retards manhood. It is devoid of "giting at dangal." ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
This_ kind of shameful violence must stop.
ATTESTATION
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR N). 01158 dated November 26, 2010 is AFFIRMED insofar I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
as the accused-appellants Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
Medalla, Christopher Soliva, Warren L. Zingapan, and Robert writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
Michael Beltran Alvir are found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of Murder in. Criminal Case No. Q95-61133 with the DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
MODIFICATION that they be fouhd GUILTY beyond reasonable Associate Justice
doubt of Attempted Murder in Criminal Case Nos. Q95-61136, Acting Chairperson, Third Division
Q95-61135, Q95-61134, Q95-61138, and Q95-61137.
CERTIFICATION
SO ORDERED.
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions
Associate Justice in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
WE CONCUR: Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO* MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice Chief Justice
I join the dissent of J. Abad Certified True Copy

MARIANO C. DEL
DIOSDADO M.
CASTILLO*** WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
PERALTA**
Associate Justice Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Associate Justice
Third Division
June 6, 2014
Republic of the Philippines the victim's arms whereupon appellant stabbed him several
SUPREME COURT times. Fearing for his life, Eladio Jr. fled. The unidentified
Manila assailants pursued him. Fortunately, he was able to outrun them
and was able to reach their house. In the morning of the
SECOND DIVISION following day, Eladio Jr. went to the house of his sister and
informed her of the death of their father. They then reported the
G.R. No. 195525 February 5, 2014 incident to the police authorities who eventually arrested the
appellant. The body of the victim was recovered and post-
PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, mortem examinations revealed that he suffered multiple stab
vs. wounds which caused his death.
WILFREDO GUNDA alias FRED, Accused-Appellant.
Aside from Eladio Jr., Teofilo Ambal, Jr. (Ambal) who is a
DECISION brother-in-law of the appellant, also witnessed the crime. In the
afternoon of May 25, 1997, while Ambal was at his farm
DEL CASTILLO, J.: gathering feeds for his pigs, he saw appellant who was armed
with a wooden pole position himself at the back of the victim and
On appeal is the March 30, 2010 Decision1 of the Court of strike the latter’s head with the wood. The companions of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 00397 which appellant then held the victim’s arms whereupon appellant drew
affirmed with modification the May 20, 2005 Decision2 of the a bolo locally known as depang from his waist and stabbed the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Borongan, Eastern Samar, victim several times. Fearing for his life, Ambal likewise left the
Branch 2, finding appellant Wilfredo Gunda alias Fred crime scene.
(appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder. On July 31, 1997, an Information3 was filed charging appellant
and the John Does with the crime of murder. The accusatory
Factual Antecedents portion of the Information reads:
At about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of May 25, 1997, the That on May 25, 1997, at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon at
victim, Eladio Globio, Sr., and his son, Eladio Jr., were walking Sitio Candulungon, Barangay Cabay, Balangkayan, Eastern
along a trail at Sitio Candulungon, Barangay Cabay, Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Balangkayan, Eastern Samar. Suddenly, when Eladio Jr. was Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and
about 10 meters ahead of his father, the latter was waylaid by helping one another, with intent to kill and with evident
appellant and his unidentified companions. The John Does held premeditation and treachery, and without justifiable cause, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, SO ORDERED.7

assault, stab and wound Eladio Globio, Sr., with the use of a
sharp bladed weapon (Depang) which the accused provided The trial court disregarded the denial of the appellant. On the
themselves for the purpose, thereby inflicting injuries upon the other hand, it lent full credence to the testimonies of Eladio Jr.
latter, which injuries caused the death of the victim, to the and Ambal who both positively identified appellant as the
damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim. assailant. The RTC noted that their testimonies coincided with
the postmortem findings of Dr. Samuel Baldono that the victim
CONTRARY TO LAW, with aggravating circumstances that the suffered multiple stab wounds which caused his death. The
crime committed in an uninhabited place and the superior RTC likewise brushed aside the alibi of appellant. It noted that
strength [sic].4 although he claimed that he was in Barangay Camada at the
time of the incident, appellant failed to prove that it was
Arraigned on September 10, 1997, appellant pleaded not guilty physically impossible for him to be present at Barangay Cabay
to the charge.5 The other accused who have not been identified where the crime took place. Appellant even admitted that the
remained at large. distance between the two barangays could be traversed in an
hour or even less. The RTC also found that appellant conspired
Appellant denied the charge against him. He claimed that in the with the John Does in committing the crime. It also noted that
afternoon of May 25, 1997, he was at Barangay Camada treachery attended the commission of the crime because the
gathering and cleaning rattan poles. victim was unarmed and totally unaware of the impending
attack. The attack was sudden thus depriving the victim of any
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court opportunity to escape or defend himself.
On May 20, 2005, the RTC of Borongan, Eastern Samar, In imposing the death penalty, the RTC considered treachery
Branch 2, rendered its Decision6 finding appellant guilty as and conspiracy as qualifying circumstances.
charged. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
WHEREFORE, finding accused Wilfredo Gunda guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, he is sentenced to On March 30, 2010, the CA rendered its Decision, the
suffer the penalty of DEATH; and to pay the heirs of the victim dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
the sum of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, another sum of
₱50,000.00 as moral damages; and another sum of ₱25,000.00 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED.
as exemplary damages. The Decision dated May 20, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), 8th Judicial Region, Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern
Samar, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the lesser perpetua should be applied pursuant to the second paragraph
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua instead of Death be imposed of the Revised Penal Code.9
against appellant.
Aggrieved, appellant filed this appeal10 to which the CA gave
8
SO ORDERED. due course in its Resolution11 of December 1, 2010.
The CA affirmed the factual findings of the trial court that indeed, On March 21, 2011, we required the parties to file their
it was appellant, in conspiracy with the other John Does, who respective supplemental briefs.12 However, both parties opted
killed the victim. The CA also agreed with the findings of the trial not to file their briefs anymore considering that their arguments
court that the killing was done in a treacherous manner. had been amply discussed in the briefs that they filed before the
However, the CA noted that although the trial court properly CA.13
appreciated treachery and conspiracy to have attended the
commission of the crime, the presence of both would not Our Ruling
warrant the imposition of the death penalty. It ratiocinated that -
We dismiss the appeal.
Treachery in the present case is a qualifying, not a generic
aggravating circumstance. Its presence served to characterize Based on the above narrations, we find no cogent reason to
the killing as murder; it cannot at the same time be considered depart from the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the CA,
as a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
of the maximum penalty. Since treachery qualified the murder. Two prosecution witnesses positively identified him as
commission of the crime to murder, this circumstance could no the person who waylaid the victim, and with the help of his
longer be appreciated anew as a generic aggravating conspirators, stabbed the victim several times. According to the
circumstance to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. postmortem findings, the victim suffered 12 stab wounds which
Furthermore, although there was conspiracy in this case, it is caused his death. There is also no doubt in our mind that the
neither a qualifying circumstance [nor] a generic aggravating attack on the victim was attended by treachery. The victim was
circumstance to warrant the imposition of the supreme penalty unarmed and had no inkling of the impending attack on his
of death. person. In fact, he was just on his way home together with his
son Eladio Jr. The victim was attacked by appellant from behind
The penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to with a blow to his head with a wooden pole. His cohorts then
death. The two penalties being both indivisible, and there being held the victim’s arms rendering him helpless and immobile. In
neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the such position, there is no opportunity for the victim to escape or
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty of reclusion even offer a feeble resistance. Appellant then delivered the
coup de grâce by stabbing the victim multiple times. although the exact amount was not proved."19 "This award is
Undoubtedly, treachery qualified the killing to murder. "There is adjudicated so that a right which has been violated may be
treachery when the offender commits [a crime] against the recognized or vindicated, and not for the purpose of
person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution indemnification."20 In addition, all damages awarded shall earn
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the judgment until fully paid.21
offended party might make."14 As regards conspiracy, the CA
correctly ruled that it is not a circumstance which would WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The March 30, 2010
aggravate or qualify the crime. Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No.
00397 which affirmed with modification the May 20, 2005
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Borongan, Eastern
murder is reclusion perpetua to death.1âwphi1 There being no Samar, Branch 2, finding appellant Wilfredo Gunda alias Fred
other aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder is
circumstance of treachery, the CA correctly held that the proper AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. As modified, appellant is
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the lower of the two sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without
indivisible penalties. "It must be emphasized, however, that eligibility for parole and is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim
[appellant is] not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of the amounts of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, PS0,000.00 as
Republic Act No. 9346 which states that ‘persons convicted of moral damages, ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and
offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentence ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages. Interest on all damages
will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of this Act, shall awarded is imposed at the rate of 6% per annum from date of
not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known finality of this judgment until fully paid.
as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended’."15
SO ORDERED.
As regards the damages, the amount of civil indemnity must be
increased to ₱75,000.00 in line with prevailing MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
16
jurisprudence. Exemplary damages must likewise be Associate Justice
increased to ₱30,000.00.17 Moral damages in the amount of
₱50,000.00, however, was correctly awarded by the trial court WE CONCUR:
and the CA.18 Moreover, we note that the trial court and the CA
did not award actual damages. In lieu thereof, we award ANTONIO T. CARPIO
temperate damages in the amount of ₱25,000.00 "as it cannot Associate Justice
be denied that the heirs of the [victim] suffered pecuniary loss Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION

writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION

Division.

Chief Justice
Republic of the Philippines within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
SUPREME COURT accused, with intent to kill his wife Anna Liza Caparas-dela
Manila Cruz, with whom he was united in lawful wedlock, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, use
THIRD DIVISION personal violence and stab the said Anna Liza Caparas-dela
Cruz, hitting the latter on her trunk and on the different parts of
G.R. No. 187683 February 11, 2010 her body, thereby inflicting upon her serious physical injuries
which directly caused her death.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs. Contrary to law.
VICTORIANO DELA CRUZ y LORENZO, Appellant.
Upon arraignment, Victoriano, with the assistance of counsel,
DECISION pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.6 Thereafter, trial on
the merits ensued. In the course of the trial, two varying versions
NACHURA, J.: arose.
Before this Court is an Appeal,1 seeking the reversal of the Version of the Prosecution
Court of Appeals (CA) Decision2 dated October 31, 2008, which
affirmed with modification the Decision3 of the Regional Trial Joel Song (Joel) testified that between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m. on
Court (RTC) of Malolos, August 18, 2002, he and two others, including the aunt of
Victoriano, were playing a card game known as tong-its just
Bulacan, Branch 11, dated August 15, 2005, convicting three to four arms length away from the latter’s house.
appellant Victoriano dela Cruz y Lorenzo4 (Victoriano) of the
crime of Parricide. While playing, Joel saw Victoriano punching and kicking his
wife, herein victim Anna Liza Caparas-dela Cruz7(Anna), in front
The Facts of their house. Joel knew the wife’s name as "Joan." Victoriano
then dragged Anna inside the house by pulling the latter's hair,
Victoriano was charged with the crime of Parricide in an then slammed the door. Joel overheard the couple shouting
Information5 dated January 2, 2003, which reads: while they were already inside the house.8
That on or about the 18th day of August, 2002, in the Suddenly, Victoriano and Anna came out of the house, together
municipality of Malolos, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and with their young daughter. Victoriano was behind Anna, with his
arms wrapped around her. He asked for Joel’s help. Joel downwards, piercing the underlying tissues and muscle,
noticed blood spurting out of Anna’s mouth. He took the lacerating the upper lobe of the right lungs.
couple’s daughter and gave her to Victoriano's aunt. He then
went with them to the Bulacan Provincial Hospital (hospital) on xxxx
board a tricycle. However, Anna died.9
> There are about 2000 cc of blood and blood clots at
On the same day, at about 6:30 p.m., Senior Police Officers 1 the thoracic cavity.
Condrado Umali and Eligio Jose, responding to the call of duty,
went to the hospital for investigation. There, Victoriano was UPPER and LOWER EXTREMITIES:
turned over to the police officers by the hospital's security guard
on duty.10 1) Hematoma, distal 3rd of the left forearm, measuring 7
x 4 cm, bisected by its posterior midline, with
The Certificate of Death,11 prepared by Police Senior Inspector superimposed abrasion, measuring 1.5 x 7 cm, along its
and Medico-Legal Officer, Dr. Ivan Richard Viray (Dr. Viray), anterior midline.
showed that Victoriano’s wife died of "hemorrhagic shock as a
result of a stab wound, trunk." Moreover, in his Medico-Legal Version of the Defense
Report12 dated August 21, 2002, Dr. Viray had the following
findings: Victoriano testified that, at around 6:30 p.m. on August 18,
2002, he came home very drunk from a friend's house. Before
HEAD and NECK: he could enter their house, his wife, Anna, started nagging him
saying, "Hindi ka naman pala namamasada, nakipag-inuman ka
1) Hematoma, frontal region, measuring 3 x 3 cm, 3 cm pa." He asked her to go inside their house but she refused.
right of the anterior midline. Thus, Victoriano slapped Anna and dragged her inside their
house.
2) Hematoma, left orbital region, measuring 2 x 2 cm, 3
cm from the anterior midline. Due to the continuous nagging of Anna, Victoriano pushed her
aside so he could go out of the house. However, she fell on a
CHEST and ABDOMEN: jalousie window, breaking it in the process. When he helped her
stand up, Victoriano noticed that her back was punctured by a
1) Stab wound, penetrating, right shoulder region, piece of shattered glass of the jalousie. He brought her outside
measuring 2 x .5 cm, 2 cm right of the posterior midline, immediately and asked the help of his neighbors who were
about 12 cm deep, directed lateralwards and slightly
playing tong-its nearby. Victoriano admitted that Joel Aggrieved, Victoriano appealed to the CA.15
accompanied him and his wife to the hospital.
On October 31, 2008, the CA affirmed with modification the
At the hospital, Victoriano was taken into custody by policemen findings of the RTC, thus:
for questioning. It was only in the following morning that
Victoriano learned of his wife’s passing. WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 15 August 2005 of the
Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Malolos, Bulacan,
Victoriano also testified that he does not usually drink; that he Branch 11, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. The
consumed hard liquor at the time of the incident; that Anna was award of civil indemnity is reduced to ₱50,000.00 and the award
not immediately treated in the hospital; that he loved his wife; of exemplary damages is deleted.
and that he did not intentionally hurt her.13
SO ORDERED.16
The Lower Courts’ Ruling
Hence, this appeal.
On August 15, 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads: In its Manifestation17 filed before this Court, appellee, People of
the Philippines, as represented by the Office of the Solicitor
WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Victoriano L. dela General, intimated that it was no longer filing any Supplemental
Cruz Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Parricide under Art. 246 Brief in support of its position.
of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer
the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the heirs of the Meanwhile, in his Supplemental Brief,18 Victoriano, as
late Anna Liza Caparas-dela Cruz the following sums of money, represented by the Public Attorney's Office, claimed that the CA
to wit: erred in appreciating Joel's testimony, since the latter merely
testified on the non-mortal wounds that Anna suffered when the
1. ₱60,000.00 as civil liability couple were outside the house. Insofar as the actual killing was
concerned, Joel's testimony was merely circumstantial.
2. ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and Moreover, Victoriano averred that he did not intend to commit
so grave a wrong against his wife, evident from the facts that he
3. ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages. carried the injured body of his wife; that he sought for help after
the accident; and that he brought her to the hospital for medical
SO ORDERED.14 treatment. Furthermore, Victoriano asseverated that he was
very drunk at the time. Thus, he prayed that these mitigating Victoriano claims that Joel's testimony coincides with his own,
circumstances be appreciated in his favor. which refers to the slapping incident that occurred outside their
house. It does not at all point to him as the actual perpetrator of
Our Ruling the crime. Thus, Victoriano submits that Joel’s testimony is
merely circumstantial.
The instant appeal is bereft of merit.
But circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction, as we
The crime of Parricide is defined and punished under Article 246 ruled in People v. Castillo:20
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), to wit:
Direct evidence of the commission of the offense is not the only
Art. 246. Parricide. — Any person who shall kill his father, matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusions and
mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his finding of guilt. Conviction can be had on the basis of
ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of circumstantial evidence provided that: (1) there is more than
parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are
perpetua to death. derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
It is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is reasonable doubt. While no general rule can be laid down as to
killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, the quantity of circumstantial evidence which will suffice in a
mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a given case, all the circumstances proved must be consistent
legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused
legitimate spouse of the accused. The key element in Parricide is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis
― other than the fact of killing ― is the relationship of the that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis
offender to the victim. In the case of Parricide of a spouse, the except that of guilt. The circumstances proved should constitute
best proof of the relationship between the accused and the an unbroken chain which leads to only one fair and reasonable
deceased would be the marriage certificate. In this case, the conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is the
testimony of the accused that he was married to the victim, in guilty person. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean
itself, is ample proof of such relationship as the testimony can the degree of proof excluding the possibility of error and
be taken as an admission against penal interest.19 Clearly, then, producing absolute certainty. Only moral certainty or "that
it was established that Victoriano and Anna were husband and degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
wife. mind" is required.21
In this case, we note the presence of the requisites for error on the part of the RTC as would warrant a deviation from
circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction. First, this well-entrenched rule.23
immediately preceding the killing, Victoriano physically
maltreated his wife, not merely by slapping her as he claimed, Even if, for the sake of argument, we consider Victoriano’s claim
but by repeatedly punching and kicking her. Second, it was that the injury sustained by his wife was caused by an accident,
Victoriano who violently dragged the victim inside their house, without fault or intention of causing it, it is clear that Victoriano
by pulling her hair. Third, in Dr. Viray's Report, Anna sustained was not performing a lawful act at the time of the incident.
injuries in different parts of her body due to Victoriano's acts of Before an accused may be exempted from criminal liability by
physical abuse. Fourth, the location and extent of the wound the invocation of Article 12 (paragraph 4) of the RPC, the
indicated Victoriano's intent to kill the victim. The Report following elements must concur: (1) a person is performing a
revealed that the victim sustained a fatal stab wound, lacerating lawful act (2) with due care, and (3) he causes an injury to
the upper lobe of her right lung, a vital organ. The extent of the another by mere accident and (4) without any fault or intention
physical injury inflicted on the deceased manifests Victoriano's of causing it. For an accident to become an exempting
intention to extinguish life. Fifth, as found by both the RTC and circumstance, the act that causes the injury has to be
the CA, only Victoriano and Anna were inside the house, other lawful.24 Victoriano's act of physically maltreating his spouse is
than their young daughter.1avvphi1 Thus, it can be said with definitely not a lawful act. To say otherwise would be a travesty
certitude that Victoriano was the lone assailant. Sixth, we have -- a gross affront to our existing laws on violence against
held that the act of carrying the body of a wounded victim and women. Thus, we fully agree with the apt findings of the CA, to
bringing her to the hospital ― as Victoriano did ― does not wit:
manifest innocence.1avvphi1 It could merely be an indication of
repentance or contrition on his part.22 With the foregoing avowal, We find that the death of appellant’s
wife was not caused by mere accident. An accident is an
The foregoing circumstances are proven facts, and the Court occurrence that "happens outside the sway of our will, and
finds no reason to discredit Joel’s testimony and Dr. Viray's although it comes about through some act of our will, lies
Report. Besides, well-entrenched is the rule that the trial court's beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences." It
assessment of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great connotes the absence of criminal intent. Intent is a mental state,
respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, inasmuch as the the existence of which is shown by a person’s overt acts.
court below was in a position to observe the demeanor of the
witnesses while testifying. The Court does not find any In the case at bench, evidence disclosed that appellant started
arbitrariness or beating his wife outside their house and was even the one who
dragged her inside. This, to Our mind, contradicts his theory that
he only pushed her so as to go out of the house to avoid any
further quarrel. Such incongruity whittles down appellant’s exemplary damages, in the sum of ₱30,000.00, be awarded,
defense that he did not deliberately kill his wife.25 considering that the qualifying circumstance of relationship is
present, this being a case of Parricide.28
Finally, a person pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must
present proof of having taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient to produce the CR HC No. 01575, finding appellant, Victoriano dela Cruz y
effect of obfuscating reason.26 In short, the defense must show Lorenzo, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
that the intoxication is not habitual, and not subsequent to a plan Parricide, is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
to commit a felony, and that the accused's drunkenness Appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
affected his mental faculties. In this case, the absence of any perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim, Anna Liza Caparas-
independent proof that his alcohol intake affected his mental dela Cruz, the amounts of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
faculties militate against Victoriano’s claim that he was so ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary
intoxicated at the time he committed the crime to mitigate his damages. No costs.
liability.27
SO ORDERED.
In sum, Victoriano failed to sufficiently show that the CA
committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision. His guilt ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
was sufficiently established by circumstantial evidence. Associate Justice
The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, WE CONCUR:

considering that there was neither any mitigating nor
aggravating circumstance. The heirs of the victim are entitled to RENATO C. CORONA
a civil indemnity ex delicto of ₱50,000.00, which is mandatory Associate Justice
upon proof of the fact of death of the victim and the culpability Chairperson
of the accused for such death. Likewise, moral damages, in the
amount of ₱50,000.00, should be awarded even in the absence PRESBITERO J.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
of allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the victim's VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
heirs, because certainly the family suffered emotional pain Associate Justice
brought about by Anna's death.
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
However, the CA erred when it deleted the award of exemplary Associate Justice
damages. In line with current jurisprudence, it is but fitting that
ATTESTATION

RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION

Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Republic of the Philippines That on or about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of July 15, 2003,
SUPREME COURT in Poblacion, Municipality of Rosales, Province of Pangasinan,
Manila Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
THIRD DIVISION unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and
custody the following, to wit: one (1) piece of small transparent
G.R. No. 171018 September 11, 2009 plastic containing "Shabu" weighing more or less 0.4 grams
which he sold to a poseur-buyer designated by the police, and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, without having the necessary permit or license to possess the
vs. same.
ELLY NAELGA, Accused-Appellant.
Contrary to Article II, Sec. 5 and Sec. 11(3) of R.A. 9165.5
DECISION
Upon arraignment on 27 August 2003, accused-appellant
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: pleaded not guilty.6
For Review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is the A pre-trial conference was held on 16 September 2003 in the
Decision1 dated 30 November 2005 of the Court of Appeals in presence of the government prosecutor, the accused and his
CA-G.R. CR No. 00304 entitled People of the Philippines v. Elly counsel. Based on the pre-trial order issued by the trial court on
Naelga, affirming the Decision2 rendered by the Regional Trial 16 September 2003, the defense only admitted to the identity of
Court (RTC) of Rosales, Pangasinan, Branch 53, in Criminal the accused-appellant and the fact of his apprehension, but
Case No. 4649-R, finding Elly Naelga guilty of the illegal sale of denied any knowledge of the existence of a buy-bust operation.
methamphetamine hydrochloride, more popularly known as The defense limited its testimonial evidence to that of accused-
shabu. appellant himself. On the other hand, the prosecution limited its
testimonial evidence to the stipulations of Police Officer (PO) 2
By virtue of a Criminal Complaint, accused-appellant Elly Noe Sembran, PO1 Rosauro Valdez, and Forensic Chemist
Naelga y Bongay (accused-appellant) was indicted before the Emelda Besarra Roderos. The prosecution’s documentary
RTC of Rosales, Pangasinan, Branch 53, for violation of evidence included the following: (a) Affidavit executed by PO2
Sections 53 and 11(3),4 Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, Sembran who acted as poseur-buyer; (b) the marked
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act money/₱100 bill with Serial No. GW877766 recovered from
of 2002, the accusatory portion of which reads: accused-appellant; (c) confiscation receipt; (d) Chemistry
Report; and (e) sachet of shabu handed by accused-appellant awake while on duty as a security guard. Accused-appellant
to PO2 Sembran. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. suggested that he drink Red Bull. PO2 Sembran replied that he
already did, but this did not work, and that he was caught
The prosecution supported its version of the events through sleeping on his post. Accused-appellant then declared that he
documentary evidence and the testimonies of its two witnesses knew something more effective, as he passed his index finger
from the Rosales Police Station in Rosales, Pangasinan, under his nose as if sniffing something. When asked what he
namely: PO2 Noe Sembran and PO1 Rosauro Valdez. meant, accused-appellant told PO2 Sembran that he was
referring to bato or shabu. PO2 Sembran said he was willing to
PO2 Noe Sembran testified that upon receiving information try this and to buy Five Hundred Pesos (₱500.00) worth of
from a civilian asset that the accused Elly Naelga was peddling shabu. Accused-appellant told PO2 Sembran to give him the
illegal drugs at the public market of Rosales, Pangasinan, Police money and committed to return with the shabu. PO2 Sembran
Chief Inspector Policarpio Cayabyab, Jr. hatched a plan to gave appellant four One Hundred Pesos (₱400.00) in marked
conduct a buy-bust operation to apprehend the accused. PO2 bills. Upon receiving the money, accused-appellant left. PO2
Sembran was tasked to act as poseur-buyer, with PO1 Danilo Sembran went back to the police station to plan the arrest of
Asis, Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Jesus Caspillo, and PO1 accused-appellant.1avvphi1
Rosauro Valdez as backup operatives. The money used for the
buy-bust operation was provided by the Rosales Treasurer’s Police Chief Inspector Policarpio C. Cayabyab, Jr. instructed
Office and affixed thereto were his signature and that of the PO2 Sembran to act as a poseur-buyer and the other members
municipal treasurer of Rosales. of the team as backup. PO2 Sembran and his fellow police
officers returned to the public market almost an hour later. They
In his testimony, PO2 Sembran narrated that on 15 July 2003, waited for accused-appellant until he finally arrived, alighting
he was informed by an asset that accused-appellant Elly Naelga from a tricycle. PO2 Sembran followed him in an alley. There
was selling illegal drugs at the Rosales Public Market in were people sleeping on bamboo tables in the alley, and PO2
Pangasinan. Thereafter, at about three o’clock in the afternoon Sembran expressed apprehension at being noticed. Accused-
of the same day, PO2 Sembran went inside the public market appellant reassured him that they would not be disturbed and
and approached accused-appellant. PO2 Sembran was familiar immediately asked for the balance of One Hundred Pesos
with accused-appellant, because the police’s confidential agent (₱100.00). PO2 Sembran gave accused-appellant the marked
had been monitoring accused-appellant’s activities for several money. Thereupon, accused-appellant took out a sachet
weeks. PO2 Sembran talked to accused-appellant, who asked containing white granules and handed it to PO2 Sembran, who
the former if he was a security guard, to which he replied in the then revealed that he was a policeman. Accused-appellant tried
affirmative. While engaged in this conversation, PO2 Sembran to run, but PO2 Sembran held on to the former’s belt. They
asked the accused-appellant what he could use to keep him struggled and fell to the pavement. PO1 Valdez came to help
PO2 Sembran arrest accused-appellant. PO2 Sembran was compact discs (CDs) in a stall located inside the public market
able to recover the One-Hundred-Peso (₱100.00) bill from of Rosales, Pangasinan. PO2 Sembran, who introduced himself
accused-appellant, who had used the Four Hundred Pesos as a security guard, had previously been buying CDs from him.
(₱400.00) he earlier received to buy shabu. Accused-appellant One Saturday, the exact date of which he could not recall, PO2
was taken into custody, and PO2 Sembran executed an affidavit Sembran came at around 8:30 in the morning and bought a
of arrest. The plastic sachet containing 0.04 gram of white battery worth ₱5.00. On Tuesday of the following week or on 15
crystalline substance purchased from accused-appellant for July 2003, PO2 Sembran returned and asked accused-
₱500.00 was marked "EN" and taken to the Philippine National appellant to buy shabu for him saying, "We need that this
Police (PNP) Regional Crime Laboratory Office in Camp evening." He told PO2 Sembran that he did not know anybody
Florendo, San Fernando, La Union, for laboratory selling shabu; nonetheless, PO2 Sembran left ₱400.00, which
examination.7 The four marked One-Hundred-Peso bills earlier was placed beside him. He took the money, because it might
given to accused-appellant were no longer with him, but the last get lost. At around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day,
₱100.00 marked bill later paid to him was recovered. PO2 Sembran came back to the stall and waited for him. When
he arrived, he gave to PO2 Sembran what he bought. Accused-
PO1 Rosauro Valdez corroborated PO2 Sembran’s testimony, appellant admitted, although not certain, that what he bought
narrating how he acted as backup in connection with the buy- was shabu, which he gave to PO2 Sembran. After accused-
bust operation that led to the arrest of accused-appellant. appellant handed over the shabu and while he was leaving the
place, PO2 Sembran called him back uttering, "Pare, come
The parties agreed to dispense with the testimony of the here," and then handcuffed him. PO2 Sembran told him, "Pare,
Chemist, Police Inspector Emelda Besarra Roderos, who I am a policeman" (pulis ako). On cross examination, accused-
conducted the laboratory examination of the subject drug, appellant admitted buying the subject shabu in Urdaneta City.
considering that the defense admitted the existence,
authenticity and due execution of Chemistry Report Number D- After hearing, the trial court rendered judgment on the merits.
260-2003-U dated 16 July 2003, showing that the laboratory Finding that the prosecution had proven accused-appellant’s
examination of the drug confiscated from accused-appellant guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the RTC promulgated its
yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride or Decision on 21 June 2004 convicting him of the offense
shabu, a dangerous drug. 8 charged, sentencing him to Life Imprisonment, and imposing on
him a fine of ₱500,000.00, disposing as follows:
For the defense, accused-appellant took the witness stand.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds the accused Elly Naelga
Accused-appellant denied the accusations against him. He guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of
testified that he was employed by a Muslim named Khadi to sell Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu" as charged,
defined and penalized under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act parties as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are
(RA) No. 9165. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer life accorded by the appellate court high respect. In the absence of
imprisonment; to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos any showing that a judge’s factual findings were reached
(₱500,000.00); and, to pay the costs of suit.9 arbitrarily or without sufficient basis, these findings are to be
received with great respect by the Supreme Court, and indeed
Accused-appellant appealed the decision of the RTC to the are binding upon it.
Court of Appeals. On 30 November 2005, the Court of Appeals
rendered a Decision affirming the challenged decision of the trial Prescinding therefrom, We hold that the court a quo had
court, reasoning thus: sufficiently and clearly established both the factual and legal
basis that led to the verdict of conviction of accused-appellant
[T]here is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust Naelga. The Court a quo’s findings and pronouncement that the
operations. The choice of effective ways to apprehend drug police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation against
dealers is within the ambit of the police authority – police officers accused-appellant Naelga, did so pursuant to their lawful
have the expertise to determine which specific approaches are exercise of police functions should gain respect from Us. This is
necessary to enforce their entrapment operations. The court’s so because the defense miserably failed to produce any
duty in these cases is to ensure that the rights of the accused contrary evidence that would show even how remotely it was,
have not been violated during buy-bust operations. that police officers Sembran and Valdez were motivated with
grudge or ill-will to allow injustice to be committed against the
The failure of the police authorities to comply strictly with the person of accused-appellant if their accusation was
Dangerous Drugs Board’s Resolution on the chain of custody of fabricated.10
the seized shabu and its preservation, by itself, is not fatal to the
prosecution’s case. What is essential or necessary is that after Via a Notice of Appeal,11 accused-appellant elevated the case
the subject shabu was seized, the same was duly identified, to this Court, which thereafter resolved to require the parties to
marked or preserved, and duly submitted to the crime laboratory simultaneously file their respective supplemental briefs, if they
for examination. x x x. so desired, within 30 days from notice.12Both the prosecution
and the defense opted to adopt their respective supplemental
xxxx briefs filed before the Court of Appeals for purposes of
expediency.13
x x x We always adhere to the well-entrenched doctrine in our
jurisdiction that the findings of facts of the trial court, its In its brief, the defense raises the following issues for resolution
calibration of the collective testimonies of the witnesses, its by this Court:
assessment of the probative weight of the evidence of the
I. court was indeed the one retrieved from accused-appellant.

Thus, there can be no presumption of regularity.
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
CREDENCE TO THE INCONSISTENT AND INCREDIBLE On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General is for
TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES. sustaining accused-appellant’s conviction, arguing that the
alleged inconsistencies are minor and inconsequential and, in
II. fact, do not negate the occurrence of the buy-bust operation and
accused-appellant’s involvement.
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE The instant controversy involves no less than the liberty of
DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED BASED ON THE accused-appellant. The presumption of innocence of an
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT THE POLICE accused in a criminal case is a basic constitutional principle,
OFFICERS REGULARLY PERFORMED THEIR OFFICIAL fleshed out by procedural rules that place on the prosecution
FUNCTIONS. the burden of proving that the accused is guilty of the offense
charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. This being an
We sustain accused-appellant’s conviction. appeal of a criminal case, opening the entire case up for review,
we have carefully reviewed and evaluated the records and the
Accused-appellant denies the charges against him and attacks decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals and find no
the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. reason to deviate from their rulings.
The core issue for resolution is the issue of the credibility of the At the outset, it should be pointed out that prosecutions
witnesses. involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of the
police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.
Accused-appellant questions the trial court’s reliance on the Considering that this Court has access only to the cold and
credibility of the two prosecution witnesses in convicting him on impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon
several grounds. First, material inconsistencies and gross the assessment of the trial court.14 This Court will not interfere
contradictions in the testimonies of the police officers destroyed with the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses
their credibility. Second, accused-appellant alleges that the except when there appears on record some fact or
police officers failed to observe the proper guidelines in securing circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has
the chain of custody of the prohibited drugs; this alleged failure overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted.15 This rule is
to follow proper procedure raises doubts as to whether the consistent with the reality that the trial court is in a better position
specimen examined by the forensic chemist and presented in to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves
and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during The foregoing were not only undisputed but were, in fact,
the trial.16 Thus, factual findings of the trial court, its calibration admitted by accused-appellant himself in his testimony. Thus,
of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions there is no denying that the said transaction indeed took place.
anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court
high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by Desperate to get himself absolved from culpability, accused-
the Court of Appeals, as in this case. appellant submits in the alternative that the facts as presented
by the prosecution reveal that the law enforcers, specifically
A successful prosecution for the illegal sale of PO2 Sembran, instigated him to sell shabu. Accused-appellant
dangerous/prohibited drugs must establish the following claims that it was PO2 Sembran who approached and asked
elements: him to buy shabu, leaving the money even if he said he did not
know anybody selling shabu.
(1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the
consideration; and We find no instigation in this case. The general rule is that it is
no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the
therefor.17 criminal act was done upon the "decoy solicitation" of persons
seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning
As correctly found by the trial court, accused-appellant was complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting in its
caught in a buy-bust operation. He was caught in flagrante commission. This is particularly true in that class of cases where
delicto selling a dangerous drug, methamphetamine the offense is of a kind habitually committed, and the solicitation
hydrochloride or shabu, to PO2 Noe Sembran on 15 July 2003 merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. Mere
at the public market of Rosales, Pangasinan, established not deception by the detective will not shield defendant, if the
only by the clear, straightforward, and convincing testimony of offense was committed by him free from the influence or the
poseur-buyer PO2 Noe Sembran and corroborated by PO1 instigation of the detective.18
Rosauro Valdez, but also by accused-appellant’s testimony.
Here, the law enforcers received a report from their confidential
Accused-appellant himself confirmed and admitted to the informant that accused-appellant was engaged in illegal drug
occurrence of said transaction. Following his testimony, he trade in the public market of Rosales. Poseur-buyer PO2
admitted to taking the ₱400.00 left by PO2 Sembran for the Sembran then pretended to be engaged in the drug trade
purchase of shabu, thereafter going to his alleged source in himself and, with the help of his fellow buy-bust operatives,
Urdaneta City, and then returning with the shabu to the Rosales arrested accused-appellant in the act of delivering the shabu to
Public Market, and handing the sachet over to PO2 Sembran. him. In an entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the
purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the identified accused-appellant as the seller of the confiscated
execution of their criminal plan. In instigation, the instigator shabu. His testimony was corroborated by PO1 Rosauro
practically induces the would-be defendant into the commission Valdez. The object of the corpus delicti was duly established by
of the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal. Entrapment the prosecution. The sachet confiscated from accused-
is no bar to prosecution and conviction; in instigation, the appellant was positively identified, marked and preserved as
defendant would have to be acquitted. evidence, and upon laboratory examination yielded positive for
shabu.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, which in recent
years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of Accused-appellant’s assertion that the police operatives failed
arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. In a buy-bust to comply with the proper procedure in the chain of custody of
operation, the idea of committing a crime originates from the the seized drugs is premised on the idea that non-compliance
offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit with the procedure in Section 21(a), Article II of the
the offense.19 In the case at bar, the buy-bust operation was Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165
formed by the police officers precisely to test the veracity of the creates an irregularity and overcomes the presumption of
tip and in order to apprehend the perpetrator. regularity accorded police authorities in the performance of their
official duties.
While accused-appellant claims that it was PO2 Sembran who
approached and asked him to buy shabu for him, the same The argument fails.
cannot be considered as an act of instigation, but an act of
"feigned solicitation." Instigation is resorted to for purposes of Contrary to appellant’s claim, there is no broken chain in the
entrapment, based on the tip received from the police informant custody of the seized items, later on determined to be shabu,
that accused-appellant was peddling illegal drugs in the public from the moment of its seizure by the entrapment team, to its
market of Rosales. In fact, it was accused-appellant who delivery to the investigating officer, to the time it was brought to
suggested to PO2 Sembran to use shabu; and, despite the forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory
accused-appellant’s statement that he did not know anybody examination. It was duly established by documentary,
selling shabu, he still took the money from PO2 Sembran and testimonial, and object evidence, including the markings on the
directly went to Urdaneta, where he claimed to have bought the plastic sachet containing the shabu indicating that the
illegal drug. Then he returned to the Rosales public market and substance tested by the forensic chemist, whose laboratory
gave the drug to PO2 Sembran. tests were well-documented, was the same as that taken from
accused-appellant.
The records of the case disclose that PO2 Noe Sembran, the
designated poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, positively
Failure of the buy-bust team to strictly comply with the and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
provisions of said section did not prevent the presumption of preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render
regularity in the performance of duty from applying. 20 void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, The above provision further states that non-compliance with the
seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, among others, is stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render
provided under Section 21(1), Article II of Republic Act No. void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items,
9165: for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. The
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of evident purpose of the procedure provided for is the
the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the
of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were guilt or the innocence of the accused. Its absence, by itself, is
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, not fatal to the prosecution’s case and will not discharge
a representative from the media and the Department of Justice accused-appellant from his crime. What is of utmost importance
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the
Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and instant case, the integrity of the drugs seized remained intact,
Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, which implements said and the crystalline substance contained therein was later on
provision, reads: determined to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride
(shabu).
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and Before the enactment of Republic Act No. 9165, the
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in requirements contained in Section 21(1) were already present,
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such per Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979.
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative Despite such regulation and the non-compliance therewith by
or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department the buy-bust team, the Court still applied the presumption of
of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be regularity, holding:
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof; x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these The failure of the arresting police officers to comply with said
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity DDB Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979 is a matter strictly
between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the arresting officers shabu, was brought to the PNP crime laboratory for
and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case examination.22 The request for laboratory examination and
for the reason that the commission of the crime of illegal sale of transfer of the confiscated sachet to the PNP crime laboratory
a prohibited drug is considered consummated once the sale or was prepared by Chief of Police Policarpio C. Cayabyab,
transaction is established x x x and the prosecution thereof is Jr.23 The request indicated that the seized item was delivered
not undermined by the failure of the arresting officers to comply by PO3 Resuello, Jr. and received by Forensic Chemist P/Insp.
with the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board. 21 Emelda Besarra Roderos,24 the same person who conducted
laboratory tests on the substance. The transparent plastic
Assuming arguendo that the presumption of regularity in the sachet containing a white crystalline substance was later on
performance of official duty will not apply due to the failure to determined to be positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride
comply with Section 21(a), the same will not automatically lead or shabu.
to the exoneration of the accused. Accused-appellant’s
conviction was based not solely on said presumption, but on the PO2 Sembran positively identified the plastic sachet containing
documentary and real evidence; and, more importantly, on the shabu, which he had bought from accused-appellant in the buy-
oral evidence of prosecution witnesses, whom we found to be bust operation. Thus, the identity of the shabu taken from
credible. One witness is sufficient to prove the corpus delicti - accused-appellant had been duly preserved and established by
that there was a consummated sale between the poseur-buyer the prosecution. Besides, the integrity of the evidence is
and the accused - there being no quantum of proof as to the presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad
number of witnesses to prove the same. To emphasize, faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.
accused-appellant himself verified in his testimony that the The accused-appellant in this case bears the burden of making
said transaction took place. some showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with
to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of
The inconsistencies pointed out by the defense pertaining to exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public
whether or not he was already inside the public market of officers properly discharged their duties. There is no doubt that
Rosales at the time the operatives returned, or if the buy-bust the sachet marked "EN," which was submitted for laboratory
team saw him alighting from a tricycle, is an inconsistency examination and found to be positive for shabu, was the same
immaterial to the commission of the offense and, thus, cannot one sold by accused-appellant to the poseur-buyer PO2
affect the overall credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Sembran during the buy-bust operation.
The records of the case indicate that after his arrest, accused- Finally, accused-appellant’s claim that he is a victim of a frame-
appellant was taken into police custody. After the arrest, the up is viewed by this Court with disfavor, because being a victim
seized item, which had the marking "EN" and alleged to contain can easily be feigned and fabricated. There being no proof of ill
motive on the part of the police operatives to falsely accuse him Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00 is hereby
performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court with AFFIRMED.
respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over the claim
of the accused-appellant.25 While the presumption of regularity SO ORDERED.
in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents
should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence, MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
for the claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must be able Associate Justice
to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this
presumption of regularity, which the defense was not able to WE CONCUR:
proffer.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Accused-appellant was charged with the unauthorized sale and Associate Justice
delivery of a dangerous drug in violation of the provisions of Chairperson
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
PRESBITERO J.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the penalty VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Associate Justice
₱500,000.00 to ₱1,000,000.00 shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, ROBERTO A. ABAD*
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, Associate Justice
dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including
any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity ATTESTATION
and purity involved.
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached
Thus, the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of opinion of the Court’s Division.
₱500,000.00.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court Associate Justice
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00304 convicting accused- Chairperson, Third Division
appellant ELLY NAELGA of violation of Section 5, Article II of
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

Article 14 and 15 CRIM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 14 and 15 CRIM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 14 and 15 CRIM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UST

Faculty of Civil Law

penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Further, he is hereby SO ORDERED.14

xxxx A Yes, ma'am.

4. In Criminal Case No. 11722, appellant Tirso Sibbu is hereby

WE CONCUR: MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

grant to the heirs of Batulan ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, SO ORDERED.

In line with recent jurisprudence,36 interest of 6% per annum ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

A. In the kitchen. Q. Who are they?

A. No sir.16 Q. You said you fell down because of the blow of

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

16. Lacerated wound, lateral angle, right eye, 0.8 cm

xxxx Abuse of confidence could not also be appreciated as an

As a rule, conspiracy must be established with the same A: Second floor.

Hence, he should not be credited with the mitigating A Yes, sir.

Q When you said "lupaypay," will you describe to this xxxx

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. REYNATO S. PUNO

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is

A: Yes, sir. A: My child saw my husband arriving.

xxxx A: He cradled the child.

Q: What were you doing in the store? A: No, sir.

Q: How old was the child? A: They were drinking.

xxxx A: He was hit.

A: Without any word stabbed my husband. xxxx

A: He was alone. A: Yes, sir.

Q: So what happened after his arrival? Q: And so what happened?

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify

damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages, in lieu of

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

LEONEN, J.: An information1 for murder, docketed as Criminal Case No.

useless expenditure of testosterone. It fosters a culture that See Dissenting Opinion

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO* MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

I join the dissent of J. Abad Certified True Copy

then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, SO ORDERED.7

ARTURO D. BRION JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, WE CONCUR:

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

I. court was indeed the one retrieved from accused-appellant.

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

You might also like