FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 153781. September 24, 2003]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MATEO GREGORIO

y CARPIO a.k.a. Jhun Tayo, ALBERTO GREGORIO y
CARPIO a.k.a. Tonge(deceased) and JUANCHO OSORIO y
DELA PAZ, accused.
MATEO GREGORIO y CARPIO a.k.a. Jhun Tayo and JUANCHO
OSORIO y DELA PAZ, appellants.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Pasig City, Branch 265, in Criminal Case No. 113892-H, finding
appellants Mateo Gregorio and Juancho Osorio guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, and sentencing each of them
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of
the victim the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00
as moral damages.
[1]

On May 25, 1998, an Amended Information for Murder was filed

against Mateo Gregorio y Carpio, a.k.a. Jhun Tayo, Alberto Gregorio,
a.k.a. Tonge, and Juancho Osorio y Dela Paz.The Information reads:
On or about January 23, 1998, in Taguig, Metro Manila and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused conspiring and confederating
together and mutually helping and aiding one another, armed with guns, with
intent to kill, and with abuse of superior strength and by means of treachery, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and
shoot Juanito Regacho y Gamboa, thereby inflicting upon said Juanito Regacho
y Gamboa fatal shot wounds, which directly caused his death.
Contrary to law.

[2]

The three accused were arraigned on different dates and

pleaded not guilty. They filed a Petition for Bail, which was denied by
the trial court in its Order dated May 16, 2001.
[3]

[4]

In the meantime, accused Alberto Gregorio died on July 23, 2000,

while the Petition for Bail was being heard.
[5]

[6]

Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.

Prosecution witnesses Henry Ginez and Pablo Bihasa testified that
at 10:40 p.m. of January 23, 1998, they saw the victim, Juanito
Regacho, standing in front of a store owned by a certain Bobit on
Kalayaan Street, Ususan, Taguig, Metro Manila. They heard the victims
wife, Francisca, ask him to come inside their house, located three
meters away from the store. Juanito remained in front of the store.
Moments later, a tricycle pulled up and appellant Juancho Osorio
alighted. He drew a gun and fired at Juanito, but the latter was able to
parry Juanchos hand. Juanito then ran to the alley towards his house.
Juancho then pointed the gun at the bystanders, who scampered
towards a parked jeepney and hide.
Meanwhile, appellant Mateo Gregorio came out from a nearby alley
and fired his gun in the air. He approached appellant Juancho Osorio
and asked, Nasaan na? Both appellants followed the victim to the
alley. Thereafter, gunshots were heard.
Prosecution witness Ignacio Lopea, Jr. declared that earlier that day,
Alberto Gregorio and the victim had a heated altercation after they came
from a mahjongan on the day the crime happened. He heard Alberto
challenge the victim, Kung gusto mo, tapusin na natin ito.
Ignacio Lopea, Sr., testified that he was awakened when he heard a
gunshot. He went outside the house and saw Mateo Gregorio running
after the victim, who was his brother-in-law.Appellants followed the
victim into an alley. Thereafter, he heard gunshots coming from the
alley. Appellants came out of the alley still holding their guns.

The victim died in front of the door of his house. Ignacio, Sr. asked
the bystanders to help his sister-in-law bring the victim to the
hospital. The victim was brought to the Cruz-Rabe Hospital but he was
pronounced dead on arrival.
Dr. Emmanuel L. Aranas, who performed the post-mortem
examination, found that the victim sustained four gunshot wounds. The
wounds in the right lobe of the liver and the lower lobe of the right lung
were fatal. He testified that the cause of the victims death was the
gunshot wounds on the torso.
[7]

PO3 Conrado Mapili, the officer who responded to the shooting

incident, learned from the residents that Mateo Gregorio, Alberto
Gregorio and an unidentified person were the suspects in the killing of
the victim. He conducted a follow-up investigation and took the
statements of the prosecution witnesses which led to the filing of the
instant criminal case.
In his defense, appellant Mateo Gregorio narrated that on the night
of the crime, he was on his way home after getting the gun which
somebody pawned to him. He admitted that he fired said gun in the air
because Ignacio, Sr., brother-in-law of the victim, was meddling in a
heated altercation between the victim and Alberto Gregorio. He saw the
victim run away and afterwards he heard gunshots. He saw the gunman
board a tricycle. On the whole, he denied any participation in a
conspiracy to kill the victim.
Joemar Gregorio, nephew of Mateo, corroborated the latters
testimony. He learned from his mother that his uncle, Alberto Gregorio,
had an altercation with the victim. He saw Mateo Gregorio who had just
alighted from a tricycle. They heard gunshots and ran away.
Appellant Juancho Osorio denied involvement in the killing. He
testified that on January 23, 1998 at about 9:00 p.m., his family watched
the amateur singing contest and the gay beauty pageant at the fiesta in
their barangay (Wawa, Tuktukan, Taguig). He stayed until 1:00 a.m. the
following day. He testified that he could not afford to buy a gun because

he just drove a tricycle to earn a living for his family. He did not even
know how to use a gun. He claimed that he did not know Mateo
Gregorio and Alberto Gregorio at the time of the incident.
On February 26, 2002, the trial court rendered its decision, the
dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds accused MATEO
GREGORIO y CARPIO a.k.a. Jhun Tayo and Accused JUANCHO OSORIO y
DELA PAZ, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER for
the death of Juanito Regacho y Gamboa and hereby sentences each of them to
suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the heirs of the
deceased, Juanito Regacho y Gamboa, the sum of SEVENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND (P75,000.00) PESOS as indemnity; FIFTY THOUSAND
(P50,000.00) PESOS as moral damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.

[8]

Appellants raised the following assignment of errors:

I. THE LOWER COURTS FINDING AND CONCLUSION OF
FACTS ARE CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.
II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT BOTH ACCUSED FOR THE CRIME
OF MURDER.
[9]

The first assignment of error has no merit.

While there was no direct evidence of the commission of the crime,
the evidence presented by the prosecution constitute circumstantial
evidence sufficient to warrant appellants conviction. The following
requisites for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction were met,
to wit:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
[10]

The evidence for the prosecution established the following facts:

1. There was a heated altercation between Alberto Gregorio, brother of
appellant Mateo Gregorio, and the victim. Ignacio, Jr. heard Alberto challenge
the victim, Kung gusto mo tapusin na natin ito. Alberto went home while the
victim stayed in front of the store which was only three meters from their
house.
2. Juancho Osorio alighted from a tricycle, aimed the gun at the victim and
fired but the victim was able to parry his hand.
3. Juanito pointed the gun at the bystanders who ran and hid behind a parked
jeepney.
4. Mateo Gregorio came out of the alley and asked Juancho Osorio, Nasaan
na?
5. Mateo and Juancho followed the victim to the alley.
6. Witnesses heard gunshots coming from the alley.
7. Mateo and Juancho came out of the alley still holding their guns.
8. Appellants Mateo and Juancho ran away.
The above circumstances indeed form an unbroken chain which
leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that appellants were the
perpetrators of the crime. It has been held that facts and circumstances
consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence constitute evidence
which, in weight and probative force, may surpass even direct evidence
in its effect upon the court.
[11]

The Information charged the appellants with conspiracy in killing the

victim. Conspiracy must be proved as convincingly as the criminal act

itself. Like any element of the offense charged, conspiracy must be

established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Conspiracy may be
shown through circumstantial evidence; deduced from the mode and
manner in which the offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts
of the accused pointing to a joint purpose and design, a concerted
action, and a community of interest.
[12]

[13]

In the case at bar, the appellants undoubtedly showed unanimity in

purpose in attacking the victim. Juancho Osorio fired a gun at the victim.
Then, Mateo Gregorio approached Juancho Osorio and asked, Nasaan
na? Appellants together followed the victim who ran inside an
alley. Appellants came out from the alley. Afterwards, they ran away.
The prosecution was able to establish that appellants conspired in killing
the victim through these specific acts which unmistakably indicate a
common purpose and design.
Appellant Juancho Osorios contention that his identification was
merely suggested by the residents is without basis. The wife of the
victim and the prosecution witnesses positively identified him as one of
the perpetrators of the crime although they did not know his name when
they reported the incident. Witnesses need not know the names of the
accused as long as they recognized their faces. What is important is
that the witnesses are positive as to the perpetrators physical
identification from their own personal knowledge.
[14]

Notably, prosecution witnesses Henry Ginez and Pablo Bihasa

positively identified the appellants as the culprits, too. They were not in
any degree related to the victim. Positive identification by independent
witnesses who have not been shown to have any reason or motive to
testify falsely must prevail over simple denials and unacceptable alibi of
the appellants.
[15]

Moreover, appellants fled from the scene of the crime after the
shooting incident. Juancho Osorio was arrested on January 8, 1999 at
Tambak, Taguig, Metro Manila while Mateo Gregorio was arrested on
May 1, 1998 in Sucat, Paraaque City. It has been settled that flight of an
accused is an indication of his guilt or of a guilty mind. Indeed, the
[16]

wicked man flees though no man pursueth, but the righteous are as
bold as a lion.
[17]

Once again, we reiterate the rule that findings of fact of the trial court
carry great weight and are entitled to respect on appeal absent any
strong and cogent reason to the contrary, since it is in a better position
to decide the question of credibility of witnesses. In the determination of
the veracity of the testimony, the assessment by the trial court is
accorded the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on
appeal unless it is seen to have acted arbitrarily or with evident
partiality. We find no reason to reverse the conclusions of the trial
court as regards the guilt of the appellants.
[18]

However, appellants cannot be convicted of murder. The qualifying

circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength were not
sufficiently established by the prosecution.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by
an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real
chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk
to the aggressor, without the slightest provocation on the part of the
victim. Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous
for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the
commission of the crime. It must be shown by clear and convincing
evidence that this qualifying circumstance was consciously sought by
the assailants.
[19]

[20]

The actual killing of the victim occurred in an alley and was no

longer seen by the prosecution witnesses. Hence, there is no way of
determining whether the elements of treachery and abuse of superior
strength were met.
Undisputedly, there was no testimony as to how the attack was
initiated in the case at bar. In the same way that there was nothing in
the testimonies of the eyewitnesses for the prosecution which would

prove that appellants pondered upon the mode or method to insure the
killing.
Superiority in numbers is not necessarily superiority in
strength Although the two appellants used guns to kill the unarmed
victim, nonetheless, the prosecution failed to establish that there was
indeed a deliberate intent to take advantage of superior strength.
[21]

The crime committed by appellants is homicide. Under Article 249 of

the Revised Penal Code, homicide is punished by reclusion
temporal. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the
penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. Appellants are entitled to
the benefits under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and may thus be
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, the minimum term of which shall
be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, namely, prision
mayor. Thus, appellants may be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day
of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Finally, the trial court awarded to the heirs of the victim civil
indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 and moral damages in the
amount of P50,000.00. In accordance with prevailing judicial policy, the
civil indemnity must be reduced to P50,000.00. The award of moral
damages has no factual basis. However, the heirs of the victim should
be awarded temperate damages of P25,000.00, it appearing that they
are entitled to actual damages but the amount thereof cannot be
determined because of the absence of receipts to prove the same.
[22]

[23]

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision of

the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 265 in Criminal Case No.
113892-H, is MODIFIED. As modified, appellants Mateo Gregorio y
Carpio a.k.a. Jhun Tayo and Juancho Osorio y Dela Paz are found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of Homicide and are
each sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from eight
(8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day ofreclusion temporal, as

maximum. They are further ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the
heirs of the deceased the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and
P25,000.00 as temperate damages. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Azcuna, J., on leave.