156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Guzman

*
G.R. No. 169246. January 26, 2007.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. NICOLAS GUZMAN y BOCBOSILA, accused-
appellant.

Criminal Law; Witnesses; Honest inconsistencies on

minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen, rather than
destroy, the credibility of witnesses, especially of witnesses to
crimes shocking to conscience and numbing to senses.—A
witness testifying about the same nerve-wracking incident
can hardly be expected to be correct in every detail and
consistent with other witnesses in every respect, considering
the inevitability of differences in perception, recollection,
viewpoint, or impressions, as well as in their physical,
mental, emotional, and psychological states at the time of the
reception and recall of such impressions. Thus, we have
followed the rule in accord with human nature and
experience that honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial
matters serve to strengthen, rather than destroy the
credibility of a witness, especially of witnesses to crimes
shocking to conscience and numbing to senses.

Same; Same; The testimony of one eyewitness would be

enough to support a conviction provided it is positive,
credible, clear and straightforward.—Appellant asserts that
the testimony of Danilo runs counter to the testimony of the
other prosecution witnesses. Even if we were to disregard as
evidence for the prosecution the testimony of Danilo, the
categorical and credible testimonies of the other prosecution
witnesses are sufficient to support the finding of guilt on the
part of appellant. It should be emphasized that the testimony
of one eyewitness would be enough to support a conviction
provided it is positive, credible, clear and straightforward.

Same; Alibi; For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the

accused to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime
was committed—he must likewise prove that it is physically
impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its
immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.—For alibi to
prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was
somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must
likewise prove that it is physically impossible

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

157

VOL. 513, JANUARY 26, 2007 157

People vs. Guzman

for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate

vicinity at the time of its commission. If appellant was, as he
claimed, inside his store at the time of the incident, then it
was not physically impossible for him to be at the crime
scene or in its immediate vicinity. His store is located just
beside Mactan Street, and that he witnessed the incident at a
distance of merely five arms’ length from his store.
Therefore, his defense of alibi must fail.

Same; Pre-Trial; Witnesses; Substitution of Witnesses;

The trial court may properly deny defense counsel’s motion for
substitution of witnesses since Section 4, Rule 118 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure mandates that the
matters agreed upon in the pre-trial conference and as stated
in the pre-trial order shall bind the parties.—The RTC was
correct in denying the defense counsel’s motion for
substitution of witnesses since Section 4, Rule 118 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure mandates that the
matters agreed upon in the pre-trial conference and as stated
in the pre-trial order shall bind the parties, to wit: SEC. 4.
Pre-trial order.—After the pretrial conference, the court shall
issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated,
and evidence marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit
the trial to matters not disposed of, and control the course of
the action during the trial, unless modified by the court to
prevent manifest injustice.

Same; Same; Same; Right to Compulsory Process; If two

witnesses of the accused were indeed afraid or hesitant to
testify, he should have moved the trial court to subpoena the
said witnesses to testify in court pursuant to his constitutional
right to compulsory process to secure the attendance of his
witnesses.—This is not to say, however, that such provision is
absolute. It can be relaxed in the greater interest of justice.
Nevertheless, the exception does not apply in favor of
appellant as the RTC had observed that his motion for
substitution of witnesses appears to be a “fishing expedition”
of evidence which is clearly unfair to the case of the
prosecution. Moreover, as aptly stated by the Solicitor
General, if the two other witnesses of appellant were indeed
afraid or hesitant to testify, he should have moved the RTC
to subpoena the said witnesses to testify in court pursuant to
his constitutional right to compulsory process to secure the
attendance of his witnesses. Unfortunately, appellant did not
avail himself of this remedy.

158

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Guzman

 Same; Murder; Aggravating Circumstances; Treachery;
Words and Phrases; Treachery is a sudden and unexpected
attack under the circumstances that renders the victim unable
and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the
suddenness and severity of the attack.—Treachery is a
sudden and unexpected attack under the circumstances that
renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself
by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. It is
an aggravating circumstance that qualifies the killing of a
person to murder. Article 14, paragraph (16) of the Revised
Penal Code states the concept and essential elements of
treachery as an aggravating circumstance, thus: ART. 14.
The following are aggravating circumstances: x x x x 16. That
the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). There is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in
the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.

Same; Same; Same; Same; When an adult person

illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists.—The fact that the
place where the incident occurred was lighted and many
people were walking then in different directions does not
negate treachery. It should be made clear that the essence of
treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an
unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation on his
part. This is even more true if the assailant is an adult and
the victim is a minor. Minor children, who by reason of their
tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. Thus,
when an adult person illegally attacks a minor, treachery
exists. As we earlier found, Michael was peacefully walking
and not provoking anyone to a fight when he was stabbed to
death by appellant and his two companions. Further,
Michael was a minor at the time of his death while appellant
and his two companions were adult persons.

Same; Same; Same; Evident Premeditation; The essence

of evident premeditation as an aggravating circumstance is
that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool
thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the
criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a
calm judgment.—With regard to the allegation in the
Information that the killing of Michael was attended by an
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, the RTC
and the Court of Appeals were correct in disregarding the
same

159

VOL. 513, JANUARY 26, 2007 159

People vs. Guzman

against appellant. The essence of evident premeditation as

an aggravating circumstance is that the execution of the
criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection
upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a
space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. It
implies a deliberate planning of the crime before executing it.
It must also be shown how and when the plan to kill was
hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out.
Further, there must be proof that the accused meditated and
reflected on his intention between the time when the crime
was conceived by him and the time it was actually
perpetrated. In the case at bar, there is no evidence to show
that appellant and his two companions had previously
planned and reflected in killing Michael. When appellant and
his two companions saw Michael on that fateful night, they
immediately pounced on him. The thought of killing Michael
came into the minds of appellant and his two companions
only when they saw Michael walking on the road. Indeed, the
killing of Michael was sudden and unplanned.

Same; Same; Penalties; If the penalty is composed of two

indivisible penalties, and there are no aggravating or
mitigating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
—We agree with the penalty imposed by the Court of
Appeals. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code states that
murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Article
63 of the same Code provides that if the penalty is composed
of two indivisible penalties, as in the instant case, and there
are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lesser
penalty shall be applied. Since there is no mitigating or
aggravating circumstance in the present case, and, treachery
cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance as it
was already taken as a qualifying circumstance, the lesser
penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.

Same; Same; Damages; If a crime is committed with an

aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an
award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified under
Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.—Exemplary damages
should also be awarded to the heirs of Michael since the
qualifying circumstance of treachery was firmly established
by the prosecution. If a crime is committed with an
aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an
award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified under
Article 2230 of the New Civil Code. This kind of damage is
intended to serve

160

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Guzman

as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication of

undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an
injured person or punishment for those guilty of outrageous
conduct.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Man is subject to innumerable pains and sorrows by the very

condition of humanity, and yet, as if nature had not sown evils
enough in life, we are adding grief to grief and aggravating the
common calamity by our cruel treatment of one another.—Joseph
Addison

The passage depicts the tragic fate of the deceased

victim in the case at bar. His ultimate dream was to
become a pilot so that he would have enough money to
shoulder the schooling and education expenses of his
younger siblings. Sadly, however, this dream will
never become a reality as his young life was brutally
snuffed out by certain violent individuals. He was a
minor at the time of his death. Now his family is
seeking justice for his untimely and senseless killing.
For review is the Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R.
1
C.R.-H.C. No. 00095, dated 28 February
2005, affirming with modification the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 69,
in Criminal
2
Case No. Q-99-88737, dated 12 November
2001, finding accused-appellant Nicolas Guzman y
Bocbosila guilty beyond reasonable doubt

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza with Associate

Justices Romeo A. Brawner and Edgardo P. Cruz, concurring; Rollo,
pp. 3-15.
2 Penned by Judge Elsa I. De Guzman; CA Rollo, pp. 29-40.

161

VOL. 513, JANUARY 26, 2007 161

People vs. Guzman

of the crime of murder, sentencing him to suffer the

penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay
the heirs of Michael Balber (Michael) the amount of
P35,470.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
On 29 November
3
1999, appellant was charged in an
Information with Murder allegedly committed as
follows:

“That on or about the 25th day of November 1999 in Quezon

City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating with two other persons, whose true
names/identities and whereabouts are still unknown, and
mutually helping one another with intent to kill, with
treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
employ personal violence upon the person of one MICHAEL
ANGELO BALBER Y CASTILLON, a minor, 17 years of age,
by then and there stabbing him on the trunk with the use of
a bladed weapon, thereby inflicting upon him serious and
grave wound which was the direct and immediate cause of
his untimely death to the damage and prejudice of the heirs
of Michael Angelo Balber y Castillon.”
4
When arraigned on 21 January 2000, appellant
pleaded “Not Guilty” to the charge therein. Trial on the
merits thereafter ensued.
In building its case against appellant, the
prosecution relied on the testimonies of its witnesses,
namely: Ronald Santiago (Ronald), Edgardo Bauto
(Edgardo), Danilo Balber (Danilo), Police Inspector
Alberto Malaza (Inspector Malaza), SPO3 Samuel
Quinto (SPO3 Quinto), and Dr. Francisco Supe, Jr. (Dr.
Supe). Their testimonies are summarized as follows:
Ronald is a jeepney driver and resident of Barangay
Commonwealth, Quezon City. He testified that on 25
November 1999, at about 9:00 in the evening, he
stopped by and ate at a carinderia located at the corner
of Sto. Nino Street and Mac-

_______________

3 CA Rollo, p. 13.
4 Records, pp. 14-15.
 162

162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Guzman

tan Street, Brgy. Commonwealth, Quezon City. After

eating, he sat on a bench just beside the carinderia and
rested. He noticed appellant and two other persons
having a drinking spree in a nearby grocery store. He
also saw Michael walking towards the direction of the
same grocery store. When Michael was passing in front
of the grocery store, appellant and his two companions
suddenly approached and surrounded Michael.
Appellant positioned himself at the back of Michael
while his two companions stood in front of Michael.
Suddenly, they grabbed the shoulders of Michael and
overpowered the latter. One of appellant’s companions,
whom he described as a male with long hair, drew out
a knife and repeatedly stabbed Michael at the stomach.
Afterwards, the appellant’s other companion, whom he
described as a male with flat top hair, took the knife
from the companion with long hair, and also stabbed
Michael at the stomach. Later, appellant went in front
of Michael, took the knife from the companion with flat
top hair, and likewise stabbed Michael at the stomach.
Appellant also kicked Michael when the latter was
already lying on the ground. He witnessed 5this
stabbing incident at a distance of five arms’ length.
Afraid and confused, he immediately went home.
The next day, however, he went to the house of
Michael’s family and narrated the incident to Michael’s
father, Danilo. Subsequently, he was accompanied by
Danilo to the Batasan Hills Police Station
6
6 where he
gave a statement about the incident.
Edgardo Bauto (Edgardo) is also a tricycle driver
and resident of Brgy. Commonwealth, Quezon City. He
narrated that on 25 November 1999, at around 9:00 in
the evening, he was standing at the corner of Sto. Nino
Street and Mactan Street, Brgy. Commonwealth,
Quezon City, when he heard a female voice shouting
“Sinasaksak!” When he glanced at the direc-

_______________

5 TSN, 3 August 2000, pp. 2-11.

6 Id., at pp. 8-11.

163

VOL. 513, JANUARY 26, 2007 163

People vs. Guzman

tion of the said shouts, he saw, at a distance of about

five arms’ length, appellant and the latter’s two
companions taking turns in stabbing Michael. One of
the appellant’s companions, whom he described as a
toothless male with a long hair, was the first one to
stab Michael. Afterwards, the appellant’s other
companion, whom he described as a male with flat top
hair, took the knife from the toothless male with a long
hair and stabbed Michael. Subsequently, appellant
also took the knife from his 7 companion with flat top
hair and stabbed Michael too.
Thereafter, he immediately ran and proceeded to
the house of Michael’s family and informed Michael’s
parents about the incident. Michael’s parents rushed to
the crime scene and took Michael to a hospital. The
next day, he was accompanied by Danilo and a certain
Ramiro Alfaro to Batasan Hills Police Station
8
6 where
he gave a statement about the incident.
Danilo, Michael’s father, testified that on 25
November 1999, at about 9:00 in the evening, he was
walking on his way home along the corner of Sto. Nino
Street and Mactan Street, Brgy. Commonwealth,
Quezon City, when he saw Michael lying along Sto.
Nino Street. He also saw appellant and the latter’s two
male companions near Michael’s body. When he was
about to approach them, they immediately ran away.
He chased and threw stones at them. Appellant and
his two companions proceeded to the former’s house
and locked the door. He tried to follow them all the
way to the house but appellant’s relatives blocked his
way to the door and told him to leave. Thereafter, he
went back 9
to Michael and took the latter to Fairview
Hospital. He was later informed by the doctors that
Michael was already dead.
The next day, he went to Batasan Hills Police
Station 6 and gave a statement about the incident. In
an effort to settle

_______________

7 TSN, 15 August 2000, pp. 2-4.

8 Id., at pp. 4-6.
9 TSN, 21 November 2000, pp. 2-7.

164

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Guzman

the instant case, appellant’s wife and daughter told

Danilo that they would sell a bus which they owned
and would turn over to him the proceeds thereof. He
also stated that Michael wanted to become a pilot so
that, as the eldest of the children, he would
10
be the one
to shoulder the education of his siblings.
Inspector Malaza is a member of the police force
assigned at Police Community Precinct No. 1, Batasan
Hills, Quezon City. He testified that on 25 November
1999, at about 9:00 in the evening, he was on his way
home on board his owner type jeep. Upon reaching the
corner of Sto. Nino Street and Mactan Street, Brgy.
Commonwealth, Quezon City, he noticed a commotion
nearby. He slowed down his vehicle and saw, at a
distance of five to ten meters, appellant stabbing and
kicking Michael. He also noticed that the appellant’s
two companions were armed with bladed weapons. He
alighted from his vehicle and approached appellant
and his two companions. After introducing himself as a
police officer, appellant and his two companions
scampered away. He ran after them but caught only
appellant. The two other companions of the appellant
successfully escaped. Thereafter, he handcuffed
appellant and brought him to Batasan Hills Police
Station 6. He turned him over to a police 11investigator
therein and executed an affidavit of arrest.
SPO3 Quinto is a police investigator at the Batasan
Hills Police Station 6. He was the one who investigated
the incident. After the incident was reported to his
station on 26 November 1999, he immediately went to
the crime scene upon the advice of the desk officer.
Since Michael was already brought to Fairview
Hospital at that time, he proceeded thereto. Upon
arriving at the Fairview Hospital, he was informed
that Michael was already dead. He then went back to
the station12 and took the statements of the prosecution
witnesses.

_______________

10 Id., at pp. 8-16.

11 TSN, 4 December 2000, pp. 17-23.
12 TSN, 12 February 2001, pp. 2-5.

165

VOL. 513, JANUARY 26, 2007 165

People vs. Guzman

Dr. Supe is a medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime

Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City. He conducted
the post mortem examination on Michael’s body. His
testimony evolved on the matters
13
stated in the Medico-
Legal Report No. M-3112-99, viz.:

“POSTMORTEM FINDINGS:
Fairly developed, fairly nourished male cadaver in rigor
mortis with postmortem lividity at the dependent portions of
the body. Conjunctivae are pale. Lips and nail beds are
cyanotic. Needle puncture mark is noted on the dorsum of
the right hand. There is fungal infection covering the entire
groin and extending to the buttocks.
“HEAD AND NECK:

1.) Abrasion, left superior orbital region, measuring 0.2 x

0.7 cm, 3.7 cm, from the anterior midline.
2.) Lacerated wound, left lateral orbital region,
measuring 0.5 x 0.8 cm, 5 cm from the anterior
midline.
3.) Abrasion, right inferior orbital region, measuring 0.6
x 2 cm, 1 cm from the anterior midline.

“CHEST AND ABDOMEN:

1.) Abrasion, left inferior or mammary region, measuring

0.5 x 8.5 cm. along the anterior midline.
2.) Stab wound, thru and thru, point of entry, left coastal
region, measuring 1 x 4 cm, 8 cm from the anterior
midline, directed posteriorwards and medialwards
making a point of exit at the left inferior mammary
region, measuring 0.7 x 2.5 cm, 5 cm from the
anterior midline, superficial.
3.) Stab wound, left subcostal region, measuring 0.7 x 2.3
cm, 14.2 cm from the anterior midline, 9 cm deep,
directed posteriorwards, slightly upwards and
medialwards, lacerating the mesentery, small
intestine, left hemidiaphragm.
4.) Lacerated wound, thru and thru, point of entry, left
inferior clavicular region, measuring 2 x 7 cm, 4.5 cm
from the posterior midline, extending to the right
inferior clavicular re-

_______________

13 TSN, 14 February 2001, pp. 2-16.

166
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Guzman

gion and making a point of exit thereat, measuring 1

x 3 cm, superficial.
5.) Two and a half liters of blood and blood clots were
evacuated from the abdominal cavity.
6.) The stomach is 250 ml full of billous fluid.

“Extremity:

1.) Lacerated wound, distal third of the right arm,

measuring 0.4 x 1 cm, 2.5 cm lateral to its anterior
midline.

“CONCLUSION:
Cause of death is hemorrhage 14and shock secondary to
multiple stab wounds of the trunk.”

On the other hand, the defense presented the

testimonies of appellant and Antonio Sulficiencia
(Antonio) to disprove the foregoing charges.
Appellant testified that on 25 November 1999, at
about 9:00 in the evening, he was inside his store
located at No. 886 Mactan St. Brgy. Commonwealth,
Quezon City, when he heard shouts outside. He peeped
through the window of his store and saw Danilo and
Ronald pulling out a certain Jesus de Guzman (Jesus)
from the latter’s tricycle. Danilo and Ronald punched
Jesus but the latter retaliated. Thereafter, a rumble
ensued. At the height of the brawl, he shouted “Hoy!
ano ba yan? Tama na yan! Itigil na ninyo yan! Awatin
na ninyo yan.” Minutes later, Michael passed by his
store and inquired as to what was happening. He told
Michael “Yung tatay mo at si Santiago (Ronald)
pinagtulungan si Rommel.” Michael rushed to Danilo
and pacified the latter. Edgardo, one of the
participants therein, threw stones at Michael. At this
point, a certain Lemuel Grans Querubin (Lemuel)
arrived and tried to join the fracas. Michael, however,
blocked Lemuel’s way. The two wrestled and both of
them fell to the ground. Moments later, Lemuel stood
up. Lemuel was holding

_______________

14 Records, pp. 172-172-A.

167

VOL. 513, JANUARY 26, 2007 167

People vs. Guzman

a knife and his hands were bloodied. Michael, on the

other hand, was still lying on the ground. Lemuel then
chased Danilo and Ronald but the two were able to
escape. Afterwards, Danilo, Ronald and five other
persons returned to the scene. Danilo was carrying a
big bolo while the others were armed with stones and
lead pipe. Lemuel and Jesus ran 15
towards the direction
of Sto. Nino in order to escape.
Appellant went outside his house to observe the
situation. Five minutes later, the group of Danilo,
together with two policemen, proceeded to appellant’s
house. The policemen forcibly entered appellant’s
house and pushed the latter against the wall. They
inquired as to the whereabouts of Lemuel and Jesus,
who happened to be appellant’s bus conductor and
driver, respectively. When they could not find the two,
the policemen invited him to the police station.
Appellant told them “Bakit ninyo ako dadalhin? wala
naman akong kinalaman diyan.” From 16
then on, the
policemen held appellant in custody.
Antonio was a former bus driver of appellant and a
resident of Paranaque City. He narrated that on 25
November 1999, at about 9:00 in the evening, he
parked a bus owned by appellant’s cousin named
Juanito Palmares (Juanito) just beside the appellant’s
store. He went to appellant’s store and conversed with
the latter who was inside the same store. Thereafter,
he saw a rumble nearby. He ran and hid inside the
parked bus while appellant stayed inside his store.
Later, the participants of the rumble began to stone
them. He alighted from the bus and went inside
Juanito’s house. He noticed that appellant was still
inside the store. Subsequently, he saw Lemuel running
and carrying a knife. He also heard Lemuel saying
“Tapos na ang laban, manahimik na kayo.” Thereupon,
he saw appellant 17
being apprehended by policemen in
civilian clothes.

_______________

15 TSN, 28 May 2001, pp. 2-15.

16 Id., at pp. 15-20.
17 Id., at pp. 2-12.

168

168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Guzman

On 12 November 2001, the RTC rendered

18
its Decision
convicting appellant of murder. It sustained the
“clear, direct and positive” testimony of the prosecution
witnesses who all declared that they saw appellant
stab Michael. It found no illmotive on the part of the
prosecution witnesses in testifying against appellant.
It also ruled that there was treachery in the killing of
Michael since the latter was unarmed, unsuspecting
and very young at the time of the attack. In ending,
the RTC held:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding accused

Nicolas Guzman Y Bocbosila guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of murder qualified by treachery. Accordingly, he
is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death and further ordered to pay the heirs of the late Michael
Angelo Balber the sum of Thirty-Five Thousand Four
hundred Seventy Pesos (P35,470.00), Philippine Currency, as
actual damages, excluding the Six Thousand Pesos
(P6,000.00) Bagbag Cemetery as there was no evidence to
justify the award of the same; Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00), as moral damages and the additional civil
indemnity of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).”

Appellant
19
filed a Notice of Appeal on 26 November
2001. On 28 February 2005, the Court Appeals
promulgated its Decision
20
affirming with modification
the RTC Decision. The modification pertains only to
the penalty imposed by the RTC, thus:

“WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Quezon City, Branch 89, in Criminal Case No. Q-99-88737 is
hereby AFFIRMED in all respects except that the sentence
be RECLUSION PERPETUA only.”

On automatic review before us, appellant assigned the

following errors of the lower court:

_______________

18 Supra note 2 at 39.

19 Records, p. 161.
20 Supra note 1 at 14.

169

VOL. 513, JANUARY 26, 2007 169

People vs. Guzman

I.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
[DOUBT] OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DESPITE THE
PALPABLE DISCREPANCIES AND INCONSISTENCIES
IN THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES.

II.
 THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING
EXCULPATORY WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE.

III.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO PRODUCE SUBSTITUTE OR
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES FOR HIS DEFENSE.

IV.

ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANT CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DEATH
OF THE VICTIM, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
APPRECIATING
21
THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
TREACHERY.

Anent the first issue, appellant claims that the

testimonies of the prosecution witnesses should not be
given any weight as the same are filled with
discrepancies and inconsistencies. According to him,
Ronald and Edgardo testified that appellant and his
two companions used only one knife in stabbing
Michael. Inspector Malaza, however, declared that
appellant and his two companions were armed with
separate knives during the stabbing incident. He also
avers that Inspector Malaza gave contradicting
versions of how the latter apprehended him after the
incident. Further, Edgardo testified that after the
incident, he immediately went to the house of Michael
and informed Danilo of what he witnessed. Danilo,
however, declared that while he was on his way home,
he saw Michael lying at the corner of Sto. Nino St. and
Mactan St., and, that the malefactors were running
away.

_______________

21 CA Rollo, pp. 63-64.

170
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Guzman

Appellant’s contention is bereft of merit.

A witness testifying about the same nerve-wracking
incident can hardly be expected to be correct in every
detail and consistent with other witnesses in every
respect, considering the inevitability of differences in
perception, recollection, viewpoint, or impressions, as
well as in their physical, mental, emotional, and
psychological states at the 22
time of the reception and
recall of such impressions. Thus, we have followed the
rule in accord with human nature and experience that
honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters
serve to strengthen, rather than destroy the credibility
of a witness, especially of witnesses to23
crimes shocking
to conscience and numbing to senses.
The inconsistencies cited by appellant refer to minor
and unimportant details which do not adversely affect
the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Although
the testimony of Ronald and Edgardo as to the number
of knives used in the stabbing incident differs with
that of Inspector Malaza, all of them declared under
oath during the trial that appellant stabbed Michael.
Thus, as aptly stated by the Court of Appeals, such
inconsistency should not be considered as a “fatal
error,” since what is important and decisive is that
they had seen appellant stab Michael and that they
testified on the fact during the trial.
Besides, their testimonies on material and relevant
points are substantially consistent with each other.
They testified that three persons, among whom was
the appellant, had stabbed Michael. Their descriptions
of the faces, physical attributes, and respective
positions of appellant and his two companions during
the attack are compatible. They also

_______________
 22 People v. Pateo, G.R. No. 156786, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 609,
615.
23 People v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 157669, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA
673, 681-682.

171

VOL. 513, JANUARY 26, 2007 171

People vs. Guzman

stated that appellant was the last person who stabbed

Michael.
As regards the alleged inconsistent testimony of
Inspector Malaza as to how the latter apprehended the
appellant, it should be borne in mind that the weight of
the eyewitness account should be on the fact that the
witness saw the accused commit the crime and was 24
positive of the latter’s physical identification.
Inspector Malaza had seen appellant stab Michael,
and, in fact, apprehended him right after the incident.
Hence, the details on the manner by which Inspector
Malaza apprehended the appellant would be
immaterial and irrelevant.
Appellant asserts that the testimony of Danilo runs
counter to the testimony of the other prosecution
witnesses. Even if we were to disregard as evidence for
the prosecution the testimony of Danilo, the categorical
and credible testimonies of the other prosecution
witnesses are sufficient to support the finding of guilt
on the part of appellant. It should be emphasized that
the testimony of one eyewitness would be enough to
support a conviction provided
25
it is positive, credible,
clear and straightforward.
Apropos the second issue, appellant denied any
liability and invoked alibi. He argued that he was
inside his store when the stabbing incident occurred,
and, that it was Lemuel who stabbed Michael. He also
presented Antonio to corroborate his testimony.
 For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused
to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime
was committed. He must likewise prove that it is
physically impossible for him to be present at the crime
scene or its immediate

_______________

24 People v. Alicnas, G.R. No. 142855, 17 March 2004, 425 SCRA

627, 641.
25 People v. Jubail, G.R. No. 143718, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 478,
495.

172

172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Guzman

26
vicinity at the time of its commission. If appellant
was, as he claimed, inside his store at the time of the
incident, then it was not physically impossible for him
to be at the crime scene or in its immediate vicinity.
27
His store is located just beside Mactan Street, and
that he witnessed the incident at a distance
28
of merely
five arms’ length from his store. Therefore, his
defense of alibi must fail.
Antonio testified that he and appellant, who was
inside his store, were having a conversation when the
incident occurred. A perusal of the records, however,
shows that appellant did not mention anything about
such conversation. In fact, appellant did not even
mention the name of Antonio in his entire testimony.
Given the foregoing, the testimony of Antonio cannot
be considered as credible.
In arguing the third issue, appellant avers that his
constitutional rights to produce evidence on his behalf
and to due process were violated when the trial court
denied the motion of his counsel to present substitute
witnesses.
 In the Pre-Trial Order of the RTC dated 29
February 2000, the defense named only four witnesses,
to wit: Antonio, 29Lizardo Dedase, Eduardo Bidia, and
accused himself. In the same order, the RTC stated
the following:

“All parties are informed that witnesses and documents

which were not mentioned in this pre-trial 30order shall not be
entertained during the trial on the merits.”

During the trial, only appellant and Antonio were able

to testify. When the two other witnesses in the pre-
trial order, namely, Lizardo Dedase and Eduardo
Bidia, failed to appear

_______________

26 People v. Abes, G.R. No. 138937, 20 January 2004, 420 SCRA

259, 274.
27 TSN, 28 May 2001, p. 7.
28 Id., at p. 8.
29 Records, pp. 18-19.
30 Id.

173

VOL. 513, JANUARY 26, 2007 173

People vs. Guzman

and testify in court several times, the defense counsel

moved to substitute them explaining that they were
hesitant to testify,
31
and, that one of them went home to
his province.
The RTC was correct in denying the defense
counsel’s motion for substitution of witnesses since
Section 4, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure mandates that the matters agreed upon in
the pre-trial conference and as stated in the pre-trial
order shall bind the parties, to wit:
SEC. 4. Pre-trial order.—After the pre-trial conference, the
court shall issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts
stipulated, and evidence marked. Such order shall bind the
parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of, and control
the course of the action during the trial, unless modified by
the court to prevent manifest injustice (Italics supplied).

The pre-trial order of the RTC dated 29 February 2000

clearly shows that the defense named only four
witnesses. The parties were also informed therein that
witnesses who were not mentioned in the pre-trial
order will not be entertained during the trial on the
merits. Thus, pursuant to the afore-stated provision
and its purpose of preventing undue delay in the
disposition of criminal cases and ensuring fair trial,
the denial of the defense counsel’s motion for
substitution of witnesses is justified. Moreover, if
appellant’s motion for substitution of witnesses is
given due course, it will amount to an unreasonable
disregard of solemn agreements submitted to and
approved by the court of justice and would make a
mockery of the judicial process.
This is not to say, however, that such provision is
absolute. It can be relaxed in the greater interest of
justice. Nevertheless, the exception does not apply in
favor of appellant as the RTC had observed that his
motion for substitution of witnesses appears to be a
“fishing expedition” of evidence which

_______________

31 TSN, 29 September 2001, p. 4.

174

174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Guzman

32
is clearly unfair to the case of the prosecution.
Moreover, as aptly stated by the Solicitor General, if
the two other witnesses of appellant were indeed afraid
or hesitant to testify, he should have moved the RTC to33
subpoena the said witnesses to testify in court
pursuant to his constitutional right to compulsory 34
process to secure the attendance of his witnesses.
Unfortunately, appellant did not avail himself of this
remedy.
As to the fourth issue, appellant contends that even
if he were held liable for the death of Michael, there
was no treachery which will qualify the killing as
murder. According to him, there is no evidence to show
that appellant and his two companions had
deliberately and consciously adopted their mode of
attack to ensure its execution without risk to
themselves. The stabbing incident occurred in a place
that was properly lighted. There were many people in
the area then walking in different directions. He
claims that if he and his two companions wanted to
ensure that no risk would come to them, then they
could have chosen another time and place to attack
Michael.
Treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack under
the circumstances that renders the victim unable and
unprepared to defend himself by reason 35
of the
suddenness and severity of the attack. It is an
aggravating circumstance that qualifies the killing of a
person to murder. Article 14, paragraph (16) of the
Revised Penal Code states the concept and essential
elements of treachery as an aggravating circumstance,
thus:

“ART. 14. The following are aggravating circumstances:

xxxx
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).

_______________

32 Supra note 29.

33 CA Rollo, p. 110.
34 Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution.
 35 People v. Santos, G.R. No. 127492, 16 January 2004, 420 SCRA
37, 49.

175

VOL. 513, JANUARY 26, 2007 175

People vs. Guzman

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the

crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.”

As can be gleaned from the foregoing, two essential

elements/conditions are required in order that
treachery may be appreciated: (1) The employment of
means, methods or manner of execution that would
ensure the offender’s safety from any retaliatory act on
the part of the offended party, who has, thus no
opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; (2)
deliberate or conscious choice of means, methods or
manner of execution. Further, it must always be
alleged in the information and proved
36
in trial in order
that it may be validly considered.
In the instant case, treachery37
was alleged in the
Information against appellant. Moreover, all the
essential elements/conditions of treachery were
established and proven during the trial.
After attending a worship service at the Iglesia ni
Kristo church in his barangay, Michael proceeded
home. While Michael was casually walking along the
corner of Sto. Nino Street and Mactan Street,
appellant and his two companions, who were drinking
nearby, suddenly approached and surrounded Michael.
Appellant positioned himself at the back of Michael
while his two companions stood in front of Michael. In
an instant, they grabbed the shoulders of Michael and
overpowered the latter. One of the appellant’s
companions, whom the prosecution witnesses described
as a male with long hair, drew out a knife and
repeatedly stabbed Michael on the stomach.
Unsatisfied, the appellant’s other companion, whom
the prosecution witnesses described as a male with flat

_______________

36 Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure.
37 Supra note 3.

176

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Guzman

top hair, took the knife and stabbed Michael on the

stomach. As the finale, appellant went in front of
Michael, took the knife and also stabbed Michael on
the stomach. When Michael fell on the ground,
appellant kicked him at the body. Upon noticing that
the bloodied Michael was no longer moving, appellant
and his two companions fled the scene.
As viewed from the foregoing, the suddenness and
unexpectedness of the attack of appellant and his two
companions rendered Michael defenseless, vulnerable
and without means of escape. It appears that Michael
was unarmed and alone at the time of the attack. 38
Further, he was merely seventeen years of age then.
In such a helpless situation, it was absolutely
impossible for Michael to escape or to defend himself
against the assault of appellant and his two
companions. Being young and weak, Michael is
certainly no match against adult persons like appellant
and his two companions. Michael was also
outnumbered since he had three assailants, and, was
unarmed when he was stabbed to death. Appellant and
his two companions took advantage of their size,
number, and weapon in killing Michael. They also
deliberately adopted means and methods in exacting
the cruel death of Michael by first surrounding him,
then grabbing his shoulders and overpowering him.
Afterwards, each of them repeatedly stabbed Michael
with a knife at the stomach until the latter fell lifeless
to the ground. The stab wounds sustained by Michael
proved to be fatal
39
as they severely damaged the latter’s
large intestine.
The fact that the place where the incident occurred
was lighted and many people were walking then in
different directions does not negate treachery. It
should be made clear that the essence of treachery is
the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting
victim without the slightest provocation

_______________

38 Records, p. 164 (Exh. “C”).

39 Supra notes 13 and 14.

177

VOL. 513, JANUARY 26, 2007 177

People vs. Guzman

40
on his part. This is even more true if the assailant is
an adult and the victim is a minor. Minor children,
who by reason of their tender years, cannot be
expected to put up a defense. Thus, when an adult 41
person illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists. As
we earlier found, Michael was peacefully walking and
not provoking anyone to a fight when he was stabbed
to death by appellant and his two companions.
Further, Michael was a minor at the time of his death
while appellant and his two companions were adult
persons.
With regard to the allegation in the Information
that the killing of Michael was attended by an
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation,
the RTC and the Court of Appeals were correct in
disregarding the same against appellant. The essence
of evident premeditation as an aggravating
circumstance is that the execution of the criminal act
was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the
resolution to carry out the criminal intent during 42 a
space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
It implies a deliberate planning of the crime before
executing it. It must also be shown how and when the
plan to kill was 43hatched or what time elapsed before it
was carried out. Further, there must be proof that the
accused meditated and reflected on his intention
between the time when the crime was conceived 44
by
him and the time it was actually perpetrated. In the
case at bar, there is no evidence to show that appellant
and his two companions had previously planned and
reflected in killing Michael. When appellant and his
two companions saw Michael

_______________

40 People v. Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, 4 March 2004, 424 SCRA

655, 674.
41 Id.
42 People v. Tagana, G.R. No. 133027, 4 March 2004, 424 SCRA
620, 643.
43 People v. Peñones, G.R. No. 71153, 16 August 1991, 200 SCRA
624, 635.
44 People v. Lacao, No. L-32078, 30 September 1974, 60 SCRA 89,
95.

178

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Guzman

on that fateful night, they immediately pounced on

him. The thought of killing Michael came into the
minds of appellant and his two companions only when
they saw Michael walking on the road. Indeed, the
killing of Michael was sudden and unplanned.
On another point, we agree with the penalty
imposed by the Court of Appeals. Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code states that murder is punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same
Code provides that if the penalty is composed of two
indivisible penalties, as in the instant case, and there
are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the
lesser penalty shall be applied. Since there is no
mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the present
case, and, treachery cannot be considered as an
aggravating circumstance as it was already taken as a
qualifying circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion
perpetua should be imposed. As regards the damages
awarded by the Court of Appeals, we rule that the sum
of P35,470.00 as actual damages should be reduced to
P25,670.00 since
45
the receipts on record amounts only
to P25,670.00. It is well-settled that only expenses
supported46 by receipts will be allowed for actual
damages. Furthermore, exemplary damages should
also be awarded to the heirs of Michael since the
qualifying circumstance of treachery 47
was firmly
established by the prosecution. If a crime is
committed with an aggravating circumstance, either
qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages 48is justified under Article 2230 of
the New Civil Code. This kind of damage is intended
to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as
a vindication of

_______________

45 Records, pp. 165-A (Exh. “E”) and 166 (Exh. “F”).

46 People v. Medina, G.R. No. 155256, 30 July 2004, 435 SCRA
610, 623.
47 People v. Manambay, G.R. No. 130684, 5 February 2004, 422
SCRA 73, 90.
48 People v. Simon, G.R. No. 130531, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 330,
356.
 179

VOL. 513, JANUARY 26, 2007 179

People vs. Guzman

undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of

an injured person or49
punishment for those guilty of
outrageous conduct.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. C.R.-H.C. No. 00095 dated 28 February
2005 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
Appellant is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder, for which, he is
accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Appellant is further ordered to pay the heirs
of Michael P25,670.00 as actual damages; P50,000.00
as moral damages; P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for
Michael’s death; and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages.
SO ORDERED.

          Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-

Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modifications.

Notes.—An accused is also denied his right to have

compulsory process where he was not provided the
services of a qualified and competent interpreter to
enable him to present his testimony. (People vs.
Cuizon, 256 SCRA 325 [1996]) The 1973 and 1987
Constitutions expanded the right to compulsory
process which now includes the right to secure the
production of evidence in one’s behalf. (People vs.
Chua, 356 SCRA 225 [2001])

——o0o——

_______________
 49 People v. Orilla, G.R. Nos. 148939-40, 13 February 2004, 422
SCRA 620, 643.

180

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.