546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Magalona

G.R. No. 143294. July 17, 2003. *

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. CIRILO MAGALONA y ONOON

alias “WILLIAM,” appellant.
Witnesses; Relationship does not, by itself, impair a witness’ credibility.—Although
Avelina Mendoza is the aunt of complainant Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr., such relationship
does not, by itself, impair Mendoza’s credibility as a witness. On the contrary, her
relationship to Arimbuyutan would deter her from implicating innocent persons as her
natural interest would be to secure the conviction of the real culprit.”

Criminal Law; Circumstancial Evidence; Direct evidence of the commission of the crime
is not indispensable for convicting an accused when circumstancial evidence can sufficiently
establish his guilt.—The trial court convicted appellant based on circumstantial evidence.
Direct evidence of the commission of the crime is not indispensable for convicting an
accused when circumstantial evidence can sufficiently establish his guilt. There can be a
judgment of conviction when the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain of
events that leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pinpointing the accused, to the
exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator of the crime. Under Rule 133, Section 4 of the
Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (1) there is more than
one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3)
the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.

Same; Flight; Flight of an accused from the scene of the crime removes any remaining
shred of doubt on his guilt.—The culpability of appellant is strengthened by his flight from
the site of the explosion. The Court has ruled that flight of an accused from the scene of the
crime removes any remaining shred of doubt on his guilt. If appellant were not guilty, he
would not have fled but would have gone to the hut of Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr. after the
explosion and rendered assistance to the victims. Moreover, the testimony of Avelina
Mendoza established that appellant had a motive to harm Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr.,
which is a key element in the web of circumstantial evidence.

Same; Witnesses; The positive testimony of a credible witness is sufficient to support a

judgment of conviction because truth is established by the quality, not the quantity, of the
evidence.—There is no evidence showing that Sabater was impelled by improper motive in
testifying against appellant; hence, his testimony deserves full faith and credence. It is well
_______________

* EN BANC.

547

VOL. 406, JULY 17, 2003 54

7
People vs. Magalona
 settled that the positive testimony of a credible witness is sufficient to support a
judgment of conviction because truth is established by the quality, not the quantity, of the
evidence.

Same; Murder; Reckless Imprudence; Error in Personae; Where an unlawful act is

willfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as
reckless imprudence—where malice or intention to cause injury exists, the act should be
qualified by the felony it has produced.—Even if appellant, in detonating a hand grenade
under the hut of Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr., intended to kill Rosendo, but instead killed his
son, Resty, and seriously injured other family members, appellant is liable for all the
consequences of his unlawful act. Where such unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the
identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence. Where malice
or intention to cause injury exists, the act should be qualified by the felony it has produced.

Same; Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Explosion; The presence of the qualifying

circumstance of explosion is sufficient to qualify the killing to murder.—The trial court,
however, incorrectly stated that the killing was also attended by the qualifying
circumstance of treachery. Absent any particulars on the manner in which the aggression
was commenced, treachery cannot be appreciated to qualify the killing to murder.
Treachery cannot be presumed, but must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as
the crime itself. Nevertheless, the presence of the qualifying circumstance of explosion,
which was alleged in the Information, is sufficient to qualify the killing to murder.

Same; Same; Damages; Actual damages cannot be awarded based merely on a list of
expenses presented by the prosecution, as such claim must be adequately supported by
receipts.—The actual damages awarded by the trial court in the amount of P21,400 for the
funeral, burial and other expenses incurred by the Arimbuyutans due to the death of Resty
Arimubuyutan is deleted. Actual damages cannot be awarded based merely on a list of
expenses presented by the prosecution, as such claim must be adequately supported by
receipts. However, in lieu thereof, temperate damages under Article 2224 of the Civil Code
may be recovered as it has been shown that the family of the deceased suffered some
pecuniary loss, but the amount thereof cannot be proved with certainty. An award of
P15,000 should suffice.

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan

City, Nueva Ecija, Br. 29.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

548
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Magalona
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

PER CURIAM:
Before us, for automatic review, is the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
1

Nueva Ecija, Branch 29, Cabanatuan City, in Criminal No. 5899-AF, finding
appellant Cirilo Magalona guilty of the complex crime of Murder with Multiple
Frustrated Murder and Multiple Attempted Murder and sentencing him to suffer
the death penalty.
The Information filed against appellant reads:
2

“That on or about the 25th day of May, 1994, around 3:30 o’clock in the morning, at Sitio
Ablang, Brgy. Sta Lucia Old, Municipality of Zaragoza, Province of Nueva Ecija, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill,
evident premeditation, treachery, taking advantage of night time and with the use of a
hand grenade, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously throw the said hand
grenade under the hut of one ROSENDO ARIMBUYUTAN, SR. which exploded, thereby
hitting five (5) persons then sleeping in the said hut, namely: ROSARIO TORRES
ARIMBUYUTAN, ROSALYN ARIMBUYUTAN, ROSEMARIE ARIMBUYUTAN, ROLDAN
ARIMBUYUTAN AND RESTY ARIMBUYUTAN, which caused the instantaneous death of
the latter and multiple blasting injuries to the first four-named persons, thus, with respect
to them, the accused had performed all the acts of execution which could produce the crime
of MURDER, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of some causes independent of
the will of the perpetrator, that is, the timely medical attendance extended to them which
prevented their death, to the damage and prejudice of the herein victims.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”

When arraigned on August 5, 1994, appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.
3

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 16-22.

2 Records, p. 1.
3 Records, p. 27.

549
VOL. 406, JULY 17, 2003 549
People vs. Magalona
The Prosecution’s Evidence
On May 25, 1994, the spouses Rosendo and Rosario Arimbuyutan and their children
resided at Sitio Ablang, Barangay Sta. Lucia Old, Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija. Their hut,
including the floor, was made of bamboo, while the roof was made of “talahib.” The
floor of their hut was three feet above the ground. 4

At around 3:30 a.m. of said date, while the spouses Arimbuyutan and their
children, namely, Rommel, Rosendo, Jr., Rosalie, Rosemarie, Regina, Ruby, Roldan
and Resty, were sleeping in their hut, there was an explosion beneath the floor.
Said explosion killed Resty and injured Rosario, Roldan, Rosemarie and Rosalie. It 5

also caused a small crater on the ground and damage to the hut up to the roof. 6

The victims were first brought to the medical center of the neighboring town of
La Paz, Tarlac, and then to the Tarlac Provincial Hospital. On the way to the
7

hospital, Resty Arimbuyutan died of hemorrhage secondary to “multiple blasting

8

injury.” 9
 Rosario Arimbuyutan sustained “blastin[g] injury multiple with perforation of
the uterus.” Rosario Arimbuyutan testified that she sustained injuries from her
10

waist to her knees and underwent a surgical operation. 11

Rosalyn Arimbuyutan sustained a fracture over the left knee-cap. 12

Rosemarie Arimbuyutan sustained a “blasting injury left gluteal area (left

buttocks),” and was immediately given medicine for anti-tetanus. Dr. Renato Ang,
13 14

who attended to Rosemarie, testified that without said prompt medical treatment,
she could have
_______________

4 TSN, October 12, 1994, pp. 5-6.

5 TSN, October 12, 1994, p. 7.
6 Trial Court Decision, Rollo, p. 18.

7 TSN, October 12, 1994, p. 8.

8 TSN, July 28, 1995, p. 3.

9 TSN, February 17, 1995, p. 3; Exhibit “N”, Records, p. 12.

10 Exhibit “J”, Records, p. 13.

11 TSN, October 12, 1994, pp. 7-8.

12 TSN, November 25, 1994, p. 8; Exhibit “K-2”, Records, p. 14.

13 Exhibit “L”, Records, p. 15.

14 TSN, December 1, 1994, p. 5.

550
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Magalona
died of complications that could have arisen from the wound she sustained. 15

Roldan Arimbuyutan sustained “blasting injury multiple posterior chest

left.” He was given emergency treatment called “tube thoracostomy” to prevent his
16

lungs from collapsing. Dr. Renato Ang, who attended to Roldan, testified that
17

without said medical treatment, the patient would have died. 18

Rosario Arimbuyutan testified that they spent P21,400 for hospitalization, 19

medical expenses, as well as, the funeral and burial expenses of her son, Resty
Arimbuyutan. 20

At around 8 a.m. of May 25, 1994, Police Officer Rodolfo Gutierrez of the
Philippine National Police of Zaragoza, together with two police officers and a
photographer, investigated the grenade-throwing incident at Sitio Ablang,
Barangay Sta. Lucia Old, Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija. Gutierrez found a safety lever pin
(Exhibit “E”) and some grenade shrapnels (Exhibit “F”) near the post of the hut of
Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr. He was informed that the victims of the explosion were
already brought to the hospital. He made an investigation report of said 21

incident. He also entered the incident in the police blotter.

22 23

According to Gutierrez, based on the sworn statements of Rosendo Arimbuyutan,

Sr., Bienvenido Sabater and Adelina Mendoza, the suspect was appellant Cirilo
Magalona alias William. They did not search for appellant anymore because
Barangay Captain Florentino Almeda of Sta. Lucia, Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija,
24

brought him to the police station in the morning of May 25, 1994. Almeda told
Gutierrez that since appellant became a suspect of a rape case, appellant had
already been in his (Almeda) custody up to the time he was surrendered to the
police authorities. The rape
_______________

15 TSN, December 1, 1994, p. 6.

16 Exhibit “M”, Records, p. 16.
17 TSN, December 1, 1994, p. 7.

18 TSN, December 1, 1994, p. 7.

19 Exhibits “B”, “B-1,” Records, p. 171.

20 TSN, October 26, 1994, pp. 2-4.

21 Exhibit “H”, Records, p. 172.

22 TSN, October 26, 1994, pp. 6, 9.

23 Exhibit “I”, Records, p. 174; TSN, October 26, 1994, pp. 3-4, 6, 9.

24 Also spelled “Almayda” and “Almaida.”

551
VOL. 406, JULY 17, 2003 551
People vs. Magalona
incident was reported to the police authorities on May 24, 1994 at 2 p.m. 25

Bienvenido Sabater, 40 years old, a farmer and a resident of Barangay Patola,

26

Talugtug, Nueva Ecija, testified that on May 25, 1994, he was residing at Sitio
Ablang, Sta. Lucia Old, Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija. His immediate neighbor then was
Rosendo “Sendong” Arimbuyutan, Sr., whose hut was about five (5) to six (6) meters
away from his hut. Their huts were fronting each other. 27

Sabater narrated that at around 3:30 a.m. of May 25, 1994, he was inside his hut
sitting on a bamboo bed. He was pacifying his six-month-old child and, at the same
time, drinking coffee, while his wife was boiling water for his child’s milk. His child
was lying on his side while he was gently tapping him to stop him from crying.
Sabater demonstrated that he was seated on the bed, which was beside the window
on his left, while he was facing the open door. His door and window had no shutters
and were just open. The hut was not their permanent residence and they just stayed
there during the farming season. 28

While he was taking coffee, Sabater saw a person, named William, pass by in
front of his hut and the hut of Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr. He also saw William
hiding behind the acacia tree in front of his hut, which was about five (5) to six (6)
meters away. Said acacia tree was between his hut and the hut of Arimbuyutan.
Then he saw an explosion under the floor of the hut of Arimbuyutan and saw
William running towards the direction of the “flood control.” 29

Upon hearing the explosion, Sabater immediately took his child and lay face
down on the floor in front of the open door for four to five seconds. He was facing
their open door; hence, he saw William run away, and when he noticed that William
was not with somebody, he stood up. He heard the family of Rosendo Arimbuyutan,
Sr. crying. 30

Sabater testified that he recognized the person who passed by his hut and who
hid behind the acacia tree to be someone named
_______________

25 TSN, November 14, 1994, pp. 5-10.

 26 Referred to as “Sabatin” in the Decision of the Trial Court.
27 TSN, December 1, 1994, pp. 2-3.
28 TSN, December 1, 1994, pp. 4, 9-10.

29 TSN, December 1, 1994, pp. 4-6.

30 TSN, December 1, 1994, pp. 6, 12-13.

552
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Magalona
William, because the latter frequently went to their place in Sitio Ablang. He stated
that he also recognized William at 3:30 a.m., because the moon was bright and he
had a lighted kerosene lamp hanging by the post. Since the door of his hut was
open, the light from the kerosene lamp illuminated William who was hiding behind
the acacia tree near his hut. In the courtroom, he pointed to the person whom he
called “William,” who, when asked, identified himself as Cirilo Magalona. 31

Sabater testified that appellant was a farm worker of one Corazon Ramos on a
commission basis at Sitio Ablang. 32

Sabater admitted that he did not actually see who threw the grenade under the
hut of Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr. 33

Adelina Mendoza, 71 years old, a housekeeper, testified that she knew appellant
because he was her neighbor. At midnight of May 22, 1994, while she was drinking
coffee in her house at Sitio Ablang, appellant knocked at her door and conversed
with her. He told her that he was very angry at Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr. and that
he would return and kill him. 34

On cross-examination, Mendoza testified that she knew appellant for less than a
year. She had seen appellant many times but talked to him only once before the
grenade explosion. She admitted that Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr. was her nephew. 35

On December 2, 1996, Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr. executed an Affidavit of

Desistance. The Court disregarded said affidavit since the prosecution had already
36

rested its case and it was the turn of the defense to present its evidence.37

Appellant’s Escape Deemed Waiver

of His Right to Present Evidence
In the hearing scheduled on July 18, 1997, appellant did not appear in court. The
trial court ordered the Provincial Warden of
_______________

31 TSN, December 1, 1994, pp. 5-6.

32 TSN, December 1, 1994, pp. 6-7.
33 TSN, December 1, 1994, p. 13.

34 TSN, July 28, 1995, pp. 4-6.

35 TSN, October 26, 1995, pp. 3-4.

36 Records, p. 214.

37 Records, p. 239.

553
VOL. 406, JULY 17, 2003 553
People vs. Magalona
Nueva Ecija to explain why he should not be held in contempt for the non-
appearance of appellant during the said hearing. In his letter, the Provincial 38

Warden explained that pursuant to a COMELEC Resolution, the Provincial Jail

39

was under the control of the Philippine National Police (PNP) starting April 23,
1995. He stated that the policemen assigned to the Provincial Jail ordered appellant
to guard a co-detainee who was confined in the hospital and who died on July 8,
1997. After the detainee’s death, appellant did not return to the Provincial Jail.
The Court issued an Order dated August 21, 1997 directing the PNP Provincial
Director of Nueva Ecija to investigate the escape of appellant, which was reiterated
in another Order dated February 16, 1998. In the latter Order, the Court, as
40

prayed for by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, deemed the appellant to have
waived his right to present evidence. Consequently, the case was considered
submitted for decision.
The Trial Court’s Ruling
The trial court held that the testimony of Avelina Mendoza showed that appellant
had a motive to harm complainant Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr. It also ruled that the
41

testimony of Bienvenido Sabater established that appellant was responsible for the
explosion which killed Resty Arimbuyutan and injured Rosario, Rosemarie, Rosalyn
and Roldan, all surnamed Arimbuyutan. Moreover, the trial court considered
42

appellant’s escape from prison as persuasive evidence of his guilt. 43

On July 30, 1998, the trial court pronounced judgment, thus:

WHEREFORE, this court finds the accused CIRILO MAGALONA y ONOON guilty of the
crime of MURDER with Multiple Frustrated Murder and Multiple Attempted Murder, and
hereby sentences him to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH, and to pay the Spouses
Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr. and Rosario Arimbuyutan FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00) as indemnity for the death of their son Resty Arimbuyutan, moral damages
_______________

38 Records, p. 263.
39 Records, pp. 264-265.
40 Records, p. 272.

41 Rollo, p. 19.

42 Rollo, pp. 19-20.

43 Rollo, p. 21.

554
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Magalona
of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) and actual damages of TWENTY
ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED PESOS (P21,400.00).
INASMUCH as the accused Cirilo Magalona who has been sentenced to death penalty in
absencia because he escaped from the custody of members of the PNP who were then in
charge of the Provincial Jail of Nueva Ecija by assigning him to guard a co-detainee in a
hospital on or about July 8, 1997, furnish a copy of this Decision to the Chief of the
Philippine National Police, Camp Crame, Quezon City for a proper investigation of the
anomalous escape of said accused.
SO ORDERED. 44
On May 21, 1999, the Provincial Warden of the Provincial Jail of Nueva Ecija
informed the trial court that appellant had been arrested and was detained at the
Provincial Jail. 45

Appellant contends that the trial court erred, thus:

I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDIT TO THE TESTIMONIES OF

WITNESSES AVELINA MENDOZA AND BIENVENIDO SABATER; 46

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED CIRILO

MAGALONA. 47

The Court’s Ruling

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses Avelina Mendoza and Bienvenido Sabater.
Appellant asserts that the trial court should not have given any probative value
to Avelina Mendoza’s testimony in determining the motive behind the incident for
two reasons: First, the witness and appellant are not long-time acquaintances,
having talked to each other only once. The alleged revelation to kill Rosendo
Arimbuyutan, Sr. to a stranger during a visit at midnight is contrary to ordi-
_______________

44 Rollo, p. 22.
45 Records, p. 283.
46 Rollo, p. 40.

47 Rollo, p. 44.

555
VOL. 406, JULY 17, 2003 555
People vs. Magalona
nary human experience. Second, Mendoza is the aunt of complainant Rosendo
Arimbuyutan, Sr. 48

We disagree.
Appellant cannot consider Avelina Mendoza a stranger as Mendoza testified that
she knew appellant since he was her neighbor. Being neighbors, it is not contrary
49

to human experience for appellant to have visited Mendoza at midnight of May 22,
1994. It was incumbent on appellant to disprove said visit. Having failed to do so,
the positive testimony of Mendoza prevails.
Moreover, although Avelina Mendoza is the aunt of complainant Rosendo
Arimbuyutan, Sr., such relationship does not, by itself, impair Mendoza’s credibility
as a witness. On the contrary, her relationship to Arimbuyutan would deter her
50

from implicating innocent persons as her natural interest would be to secure the
conviction of the real culprit.” 51

The testimony of Avelina Mendoza established appellant’s motive to kill Rosendo

Arimbuyutan, Sr., thus:
Fiscal Beltran:
Q Mrs. Witness, do you know Cirilo Magalona alias
William?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why do you know him?
A He is my neighbor, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q On May 22, 1994 at around 12:00 midnight, do you
remember where were you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where were you at that time?
A In our house, sir.
Q Where is that house of yours located?
A At Sitio Ablang, sir.
Q What were you doing in your house at that time?
A I was drinking coffee, sir.
_______________

TSN, October 26, 1995, pp. 3-4.

48

TSN, July 28, 1995, p. 5.

49

50 People v. Ansowas, G.R. No. 140647, December 18, 2002, 394 SCRA 227;People v. Galapin, 293 SCRA

474, 487 (1998).

51 People v. Candare, 333 SCRA 338, 351 (2000), citing People v. Macuha, 310 SCRA 14, 21 (1999).

556
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Magalona
Q While you were drinking coffee on that date
and time, what happened?
A Somebody knocked at our door and had a
conversation with me, sir.
Q Who is that somebody who knocked at your
door and had a conversation with you?
A That man, sir. (Witness pointed to the
accused who when asked his name and [sic]
he answered as Cirilo Magalona).
Q Was Cirilo Magalona alone when he
knocked at your door and had a short
conversation with you?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you talk about?
A He told me that he is angry at Sendo
(Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr.)
Q Did you ask him why he is angry at Sendo
(Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr.)?
 A Yes, I asked him and he told me that he is
very angry with Rosendo Arimbuyutan and
that he will come back and kill Rosendo
Arimbuyutan, sir.
Q Did you ask him what x x x they talked
about with Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr.?
A No more, sir. He just told me that he is very
angry with Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr., sir. 52

On cross-examination, Avelina Mendoza further testified, thus:

Atty. R. Bansale—
x x x xx x x x x
Q Can you repeat again what was the exact words uttered by
Cirilo Magalona on that night of May 22, 1994?
A I remember some of the words uttered, that if “Sendong”
will report the matter he will return and there will be
something happened against to [sic] Sendong “you son of a
bitch.”
Q You said that Cirilo Magalona only had a [talk] with you
on the night of May 22, 1994, why do you think that he
will tell those remarks against [that] person to you?
A It has something to do with the one that he had raped and
he said that if Sendong will [complain] he will do
something against him, sir.
_______________

52 TSN, July 28, 1995, pp. 5-6.

557
VOL. 406, JULY 17, 2003 557
People vs. Magalona
Q On that night of May 22, 1994 when Cirilo Magalona
went to your house, how long did he stay in your
house?
A For a short period after he uttered those [remarks] he
already left, sir. 53

Appellant also asserts that prosecution witness Bienvenido Sabater admitted that
he did not actually see who threw the hand grenade under the hut of Rosendo
Arimbuyutan, Sr. He argues that Sabater only established that he saw him
54

(appellant) hiding behind an acacia tree and then running away from the place of
the explosion, which are insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
55

Hence, appellant prays for his acquittal.

The contention is without merit.
The trial court convicted appellant based on circumstantial evidence. Direct
evidence of the commission of the crime is not indispensable for convicting an
accused when circumstantial evidence can sufficiently establish his guilt. There 56

can be a judgment of conviction when the circumstances proved constitute an

unbroken chain of events that leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pinpointing
the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator of the crime. Under 57

Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances
is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, although prosecution witness Bienvenido Sabater did not see
appellant holding a hand grenade or throwing it under the hut of Rosendo
Arimbuyutan, Sr., the following chain of events points to appellant as the
perpetrator of the crime:
First, on May 22, 1994, appellant told Avelina Mendoza that he was very angry
at Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr. and would return and kill him. 58

_______________

53 TSN, October 26, 1995, p. 3.

54 TSN, December 1, 1994, p. 13.
55 TSN, December 1, 1994, p. 6.

56 People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 133737, January 13, 2003, 395 SCRA 52, citing People v. De Mesa, 354 SCRA

397, 401 (2001).

57Ibid.

58 TSN, July 28, 5-6.

558
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Magalona
Second, on May 25, 1994, at about 3:30 a.m., Bienvenido Sabater saw appellant
pass by his hut and the hut of Rosendo Arimbuyutan. 59

Third, Sabater saw appellant acting suspiciously as he went back and forth
between his hut and the hut of Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr., which were fronting each
other. 60

Fourth, Sabater saw appellant hiding behind the acacia tree in front of his hut. 61

Fifth, Sabater thereafter saw an explosion under the hut of Rosendo

Arimbuyutan, Sr. and saw appellant fleeing from the place of the incident as he was
running towards the direction of the “flood control” at the river. 62

Sixth, appellant was the only person seen near the hut of Rosendo Arimbuyutan,
Sr. before and after the explosion.
Sabater testified that he recognized appellant because he frequently visited their
place. He knew appellant for about two years since he began farming at Sitio
63

Ablang. Sabater also testified that at the time of the incident, the moon shone
64

brightly, and the light from the kerosene lamp near his open door illuminated
65

appellant who was hiding behind the acacia tree, which was about five (5) to six (6)
meters away from his hut. 66

The culpability of appellant is strengthened by his flight from the site of the
explosion. The Court has ruled that flight of an accused from the scene of the crime
removes any remaining shred of doubt on his guilt. If appellant were not guilty, he
67
would not have fled but would have gone to the hut of Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr.
after the explosion and rendered assistance to the victims. Moreover, the testimony
of Avelina Mendoza established that appellant
_______________

59 TSN, December 1, 1994, p. 4.

60 Exhibit “B”, Records, p. 8.
61 TSN, December 1, 1994, p. 5.

62 TSN, December 1, 1994, p. 5; Exhibit “B-2”, Records, p. 9.

63 TSN, December 1, 1994, p. 5.

64 TSN, December 1, 1994, p. 6.

65 TSN, December 1, 1994, 5.

66 TSN, December 1, 1994, p. 5; Exhibit “B-2”, Records, p. 9.

67 People v. Flores, 328 SCRA 461, 470 (2000), citing People v.Cahindo, 266 SCRA 554, 559 (1997).

559
VOL. 406, JULY 17, 2003 559
People vs. Magalona
had a motive to harm Rosendo Arimbuyutan, Sr., which is a key element in the web
of circumstantial evidence. 68

Further, there is no evidence showing that Sabater was impelled by improper

motive in testifying against appellant; hence, his testimony deserves full faith and
credence. It is well settled that the positive testimony of a credible witness is
69

sufficient to support a judgment of conviction because truth is established by the

quality, not the quantity, of the evidence. 70

It is also a well-entrenched rule that when it comes to the issue of credibility of

witnesses, the appellate court generally will not overturn the findings of the trial
court since the trial judge is in a better position to determine the issue of credibility,
having observed the deportment of witnesses during the trial. Thus, the trial 71

court’s findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance
which will alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case. We have 72

carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no reason to disturb the
findings of the trial court.
In addition, we agree with the trial court that the flight of appellant after the
death of the co-detainee he was guarding at the hospital is taken to signify a strong
sense of guilt and an awareness that he has no tenable defense. 73

Based on the foregoing, the trial court correctly found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Nature of the Offense
Even if appellant, in detonating a hand grenade under the hut of Rosendo
Arimbuyutan, Sr., intended to kill Rosendo, but instead killed his son, Resty, and
seriously injured other family members,
_______________

68 People v. Flores,supra, at p. 472.

69 People v. Patoc, G.R. No. 140217, February 21, 2003, 398 SCRA 62.
 70 People v. Acosta, et al., G.R. No. 140402, January 28, 2003, 396 SCRA 348; People v. Caloza, Jr., G.R.
No. 138404, January 28, 2003, 396 SCRA 329; People v. Silvestre, 307 SCRA 68, 83 (1999).
71 People v. Diaz, supra, note 56.

72 People v. Aliben, G.R. No. 140404, February 27, 2003, 398 SCRA 255;People v. Bamela, 301 SCRA 84,

90-91 (1999).
73 People v. Mercado, 190 SCRA 452, 459 (1990).

560
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Magalona
appellant is liable for all the consequences of his unlawful act. Where such unlawful
act is wilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be
considered as reckless imprudence. Where malice or intention to cause injury
74

exists, the act should be qualified by the felony it has produced. 75

The trial court correctly held that the death of Resty Arimbuyutan and the
injuries sustained by Rosario, Rosemarie, Rosalyn and Roldan, all surnamed
Arimbuyutan, were caused by an explosion, which qualified the killing to murder
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, thus:
Art. 248. Murder.—Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall
kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death
if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity.
xxx xxx xxx
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding or a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or
with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

The trial court, however, incorrectly stated that the killing was also attended by the
qualifying circumstance of treachery. Absent any particulars on the manner in
which the aggression was commenced, treachery cannot be appreciated to qualify
the killing to murder. Treachery cannot be presumed, but must be proved with the
76

same quantum of evidence as the crime itself. Nevertheless, the presence of the
77

qualifying circumstance of explosion, which was alleged in the Information, is

sufficient to qualify the killing to murder.
As stated by the trial court, the injuries of Rosario and Rosemarie Arimbuyutan
appeared to be fatal based on their medi-
_______________

74 People v. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307, 317 (1950).

75Ibid.
76 People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 133445, February 27, 2003, 398 SCRA 234;People v. Solis, 291 SCRA

529 (1998).
77 People v.Santiago,supra.

561
VOL. 406, JULY 17, 2003 561
People vs. Magalona
cal certificates and the fact that Rosario underwent an operation at the Tarlac
Provincial Hospital. The prosecutor, however, failed to ask Dr. Arnold Castro, who
attended to Rosario and Rosemarie, if their injuries would have caused their death
without prompt medical treatment. With respect to Roldan and Rosalyn
Arimbuyutan, Dr. Renato Ang testified that their wounds would have caused their
death without his prompt medical treatment. 78

Considering that the offenses committed against the victims were caused by a
single act of detonating a hand grenade, the trial court found appellant guilty of the
complex crime of murder with multiple frustrated murder and multiple attempted
murder under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. To be precise, appellant
committed the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder and double
attempted murder.
The Penalty
Under Article 48 (Penalty for complex crimes) of the Revised Penal Code, when a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, as in this case, the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period.
Applying the aforesaid provision of law in this case, the penalty for the most
serious crime (murder), which is reclusion perpetua to death, should be imposed in
the maximum period. The trial court, therefore, correctly imposed the death
penalty.
Three Justices of the Court maintain their position that Republic Act No. 7659 is
unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless, they
submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional, and that the
death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.
Damages
The actual damages awarded by the trial court in the amount of P21,400 for the
funeral, burial and other expenses incurred by the Arimbuyutans due to the death
of Resty Arimbuyutan is deleted. Actual damages cannot be awarded based merely
on a list of ex-
_______________

78 TSN, December 1, 1994, pp. 6-7.

562
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Magalona
penses presented by the prosecution, as such claim must be adequately supported
79

by receipts. However, in lieu thereof, temperate damages under Article 2224 of the
80 81

Civil Code may be recovered as it has been shown that the family of the deceased
suffered some pecuniary loss, but the amount thereof cannot be proved with
certainty. An award of P15,000 should suffice.
82 83

In addition, we award actual damages to the spouses Rosendo and Rosario

Arimbuyutan in the amount of P6,900.05 for the medical expenses of Rosario
Arimbuyutan and her children, Rosemarie, Rosalyn and Roldan, which were duly
supported by receipts. 84

The trial court correctly awarded civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim, Resty
Arimbuyutan, in the amount of P50,000, without need of proof other than the fact
that a crime was committed resulting in the death of the victim and that the
accused was responsible therefor. 85

The trial court also correctly awarded moral damages to the heirs of the victim,
Resty Arimbuyutan. However, the amount of P100,000 should be reduced to
P50,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. Moral damages is awarded
86

without need of proof other than the death of the victim. 87

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, of

Cabanatuan City, in Criminal Case No. 5899-AF, finding
_______________

79 Exhibit “B”, Records, p. 171.

80 People v. Rafael, G.R. Nos. 146235-36, May 29, 2002, 382 SCRA 753.
81 Civil Code, Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than

compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
82 People v. Caloza, supra, note 70, citing People v. Sumibcay, G.R. Nos. 132130-31, May 29, 2002, 382

SCRA 458; People v. Del Valle, G.R. No. 119616, December 14, 2001, 372 SCRA 297.
83 Ibid.

84 Exhibits “A” to “A-16”, Records, pp. 167-171.

85 People v. Diaz, supra, note 56, citing People v. Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, Sept. 17, 2002, 389 SCRA

277.
86 People v. Loreto, G.R. Nos. 137411-13, February 28, 2003, 398 SCRA 448.

87 People v. Loreto, supra;People v. Ortiz, 361 SCRA 274, 299-301 (2001); People v. Cortez, et al., 348

SCRA 663, 690-691 (2000).

563
VOL. 406, JULY 17, 2003 563
People vs. Magalona
appellant Cirilo Magalona GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime
of murder with double frustrated murder and double attempted murder and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death is hereby AFFIRMED with
modification. Appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Resty
Arimbuyutan, civil indemnity in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000);
temperate damages in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000) and moral
damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000). Appellant is also
ordered to pay the spouses Rosendo and Rosario Arimbuyutan actual damages in
the amount of Six
Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos and Five Centavos (P6,900.05). In accordance
with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal
Code, upon finality of this Decision, let the records of this case be forwarded to the
Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
 Davide, Jr., (C.J.), Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Ynares-
Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo,
Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., On official leave.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.—Mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when
accused zeroes in on his intended victim. (People vs. Sabalones, 294 SCRA
751 [1998])
Where the deaths resulted from the explosion of the grenade, the crime
committed may be more appropriately denominated as murder qualified by
explosion rather than by treachery. (People vs. Carpo, 356 SCRA 248 [2001])