People V Comiling

3/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Comiling
*
G.R. No. 140405. March 4, 2004.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs.MAJOR

EMILIO COMILING, GIL SALAGUBANG (acquitted),
MARIO CLOTARIO (acquitted), GERALDO GALINGAN,
EDDIE CALDERON (at large), BALOT CABOTAJE (at
large) and RICKY MENDOZA (at large), accused. MAJOR
EMILIO COMILING and GERALDO GALINGAN,
appellants.
Criminal Law; Robbery with Homicide; To sustain a

conviction for this crime, it is enough that the killing, which is
designated as “homicide,” has a direct relation to the robbery,
regardless of whether the latter takes place before or after the
killing; As long the killing occurs during or because of the heist,
even if the killing is merely accidental, robbery with homicide is
committed.—As correctly stressed by the Solicitor General,
robbery with homicide is a “special complex crime.” It is enough
that in order to sustain a conviction for this crime, the killing,
which is designated as “homicide,” has a direct relation to the
robbery, regardless of whether the latter takes place before or
after the killing. For as long as the killing occurs during or
_______________
* EN BANC.
699
VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 699
People vs. Comiling
because of the heist, even if the killing is merely accidental,

robbery with homicide is committed.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001622c204cdfd60708fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/31
Same; Same; Evidence; Witnesses; Between the positive

assertions of prosecution witnesses and the mere denials of the
accused, the former undisputedly deserve more credence and are
entitled to greater evidentiary value.—The time-tested rule is that,
between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the
mere denials of the accused, the former undisputedly deserve
more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary value.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Res Inter Alios Acta; The res inter
alios acta rule refers only to extrajudicial declarations or
admissions and not to testimony given on the witness stand where
the party adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-examine
the declarant.—According to Comiling, Naty’s testimony showed
that she was also a conspirator, thus, the existence of conspiracy
must be shown by evidence other than Naty’s admission. As there
was no independent proof of conspiracy except the testimony of
Naty, the latter’s testimony concerning appellant’s participation
in the conspiracy was inadmissible against him. This contention
is misplaced. The res inter alios acta rule refers only to
extrajudicial declarations or admissions and not to testimony
given on the witness stand where the party adversely affected has
the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. In the present
case, Naty’s admission implicating appellant Comiling was made
in open court and therefore may be taken in evidence against him.
Same; Same; Same; Alibi; To be given full faith and credit,
alibi must be clearly established and must not leave any room for
doubt as to its plausibility and verity.—In this case, Galingan did
not meet the settled requirements of time and place. He failed to
prove that he was indeed in Novaliches at the time of the
commission of the crime; his alleged presence therein was not
established by a positive declaration from an independent
witness. Likewise, the place where he claimed to be on the night
of the crime was not of such distance that it was impossible for
him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission
considering that either place could be reached in just about four
hours by land. The fact that he met his wife upon arrival on
September 4, 1995 was likewise inconsequential as it was two
days after September 2, 1995, the date material to this case. Alibi,
in order to be given full faith and credit, must be clearly
established and must not leave any room for doubt as to its
plausibility and verity.
Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; With respect to a witness in
both criminal and civil cases, evidence of his character, in order to
affect his credibility, must refer to his “general reputation for
truth, honesty and
700
People vs. Comiling
integrity”; Personal opinions on the moral character of a witness,

being usually too general, sweeping or subjective, are excluded.—
The fact that a witness is a person of unchaste character or even a
drug dependent does not per se affect her credibility. Character is
frequently used to refer to one’s reputation in the neighborhood. It
means the estimate attached to the individual by the community
and not the qualities of the individual as conceived by one person.
With respect to a witness in both criminal and civil cases,
evidence of his character, in order to affect his credibility, must
refer to his “general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity.”
Thus, testimonies attacking the character of a witness for the
purpose of impugning his credibility must relate and be confined
to the general reputation which such witness has in the
community or neighborhood where he lives or has lived. Personal
opinions on the moral character of a witness, being usually too
general, sweeping or subjective, are excluded.
Same; Same; Same; Hearsay Evidence; Dying Declarations;
The declaration of a dying person with the consciousness of
impending death may be received in any case wherein his death is
the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and the
surrounding circumstances of such death; Requisites before a
dying declaration may be admissible in evidence.—Under Rule
130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court, the declaration of a dying
person with the consciousness of impending death may be
received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as
evidence of the cause and the surrounding circumstances of such
death. There are four requisites which must concur in order that a
dying declaration may be admissible: (1) it must concern the
crime and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (2)
at the time it was made, the declarant was under the
consciousness of an impending death; (3) the declarant was
competent as a witness; and (4) the declaration is offered in any
criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide in which the
declarant was the victim.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; An ante-mortem statement
is evidence of the highest order; It is doctrinal that, when a person
is at the point of death, every motive of falsehood is silenced.—
Indubitably, PO3 Pastor’s dying declaration is complete in the
sense that it was a full expression of all that he wanted to say
with regard to the circumstances of his death. An ante-mortem
statement is evidence of the highest order. It is doctrinal that,
when a person is at the point of death, every motive of falsehood
is silenced. The mind is induced by the strongest of reasons to
speak the truth—the declarant’s impending meeting with his

Creator.
Same; Same; Same; Conspiracy; The rule is, whenever
homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a
robbery, all those who take part as principals in the robbery will
also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide.—The existence of conspiracy in this case
cannot be doubted. The rule is, whenever homicide
701
VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 701
People vs. Comiling
is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all

those who take part as principals in the robbery will also be held
guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial

Court of Tayug, Pangasinan, Br. 51.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff.
Amado Auditor Caballero and Isidro Sta. Maria for
appellant E. Comiling.
Alfonso Bince, Jr. for appellant G. Galingan.
CORONA,J.:
1
This is an automatic review of the decision dated
September 1, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 51,
Tayug, Pangasinan, convicting Maj. Emilio Comiling,
Geraldo Galingan alias “Bong” and Ricky Mendoza alias
“Leo” of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentencing
them to suffer the extreme penalty of death. The three
accused were charged under an information which alleged:
“The undersigned hereby accuses MAJOR EMILIO COMILING,

GIL SALAGUBANG, BONG CLOTARIO, GERALDO
GALINGAN, EDDIE CALDERON, BALOT CABOTAJE and
RICKY MENDOZA @ Leo of the crime of ROBBERY WITH
HOMICIDE and PHYSICAL INJURIES, committed as follows:
‘That on or about the 2nd day of September, 1995, in the evening, inside
the Masterline Grocery located at Bonifacio Street corner Quezon Blvd.,
municipality of Tayug, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused

including certain JOE, REY and PAUL, whose family names have not yet
been known, armed with firearms and handgrenade, aboard an owner-
type stainless jeep and motorized tricycle, with intent to gain and with
the use of violence against or intimidations upon persons, conspiring,
confederating and helping one another, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously enter the Masterline Grocery pretending to be
customers and once inside, poked their guns and intimidated the owner
of said grocery,
_______________
1 Penned by Judge Ulysses Raciles Butuyan, Rollo, pp. 40-95.
702

People vs. Comiling
MR. INCIONG CO, and his worker to open the drawers of the tables of
said grocery and when opened, took and carried away EIGHTY ONE
THOUSAND PESOS (P81,000.00) and three (3) pieces of Chinese gold
necklace worth TWENTY SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P26,000.00), and
afterwhich the above-named accused on their way out to escape with
their loot, shot and hit a responding Tayug Policeman, PO3 ERWIL V.
PASTOR, mortally wounding him on his face that subsequently led to his
untimely death, and when said accused were cornered by other
responding policemen, ran and passed to an adjacent store (Good Taste
Bakery) and used it as their exit and while there also shot, hit and
mortally wounded MRS. CONCHING CO, the owner of said bakery
causing her injuries, the accused having thus performed the acts of
execution which would have produced the crime of Homicide as a
consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the accused, and that is due to the timely and
able medical assistance rendered to the said MRS. CONCHING CO, to
her damage and prejudice and also to the heirs of PO3 ERWIL V.
PASTOR.’
2
“CONTRARY to Article 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code.”
Accused Eddie Calderon and Balot Cabotaje have remained

at large to this day. The remaining accused (Comiling,
Galingan, Mendoza, Salagubang and Clotario) pleaded not
guilty during their arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued
thereafter.
On March 28, 1997, Mendoza escaped from detention
and was thus tried in absentia.
The records show that at sundown on September 2,
1995, Ysiong Chua, the owner of Masterline Grocery and
his helper Mario were about to close the store when
someone knocked on the door to buy some cigarettes.

Masterline was located at the corner of Quezon Blvd. and
Bonifacio St. in Tayug, Pangasinan.
As soon as Mario opened the door, three masked, armed
men suddenly barged into the store and announced a hold-
up. One of the robbers shoved Ysiong into the recesses of
the grocery where he threatened to kill him if he did not
give them his earnings. Ysiong retorted that he only had a
small amount, which remark apparently irked the robber
who then hit Ysiong’s thumb with the butt of his gun. A
simultaneous kick made the grocer fall down in pain.
_______________
2 Rollo, pp. 16-17.
703
VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 703

People vs. Comiling
As Ysiong lay prostrate on the floor, he saw the two other

intruders, and a little later the robber who hit him,
ransacking the drawers of his desk. Fortunately, he was
able to quickly recover from the blows; whereupon he
darted to the adjacent Good Taste Bakery and out to the
Tayug Police Station farther west along Quezon Blvd. to
report the incident.
SPO1 Rolando Torio, PO3 Erwil Pastor and SPO4
Emilio Nagui of the Tayug Police Station rushed to the
crime scene where SPO1 Torio chanced upon Sonny Rimas,
a barangay councilman, and his friend Jessie Batalla at the
grocery entrance. He asked them if they knew what was
going on inside the store but the two did not answer. While
SPO1 Torio was standing outside the store’s door, he heard
three gunshots coming from inside the store, all directed
towards Bonifacio Street. PO3 Pastor was then on the
street while Nagui was some 50 meters away. PO3 Pastor
ran and hid behind a concrete marker, then moved
westward as if to return to the police headquarters.
Unfortunately, in his attempt to flee, PO3 Pastor was shot
in the face. He was rushed to the Eastern Pangasinan
District Hospital. On September 6, 1995, PO3 Pastor died
from the injury he suffered.
Meanwhile, Ysiong discovered that he lost three gold
necklaces worth P26,000 and cash amounting to P81,000.
On September 26, 1995, bothered by her conscience,
prosecution witness Naty Panimbaan decided to reveal to
police authorities what she knew about the case. During

the trial, she testified that she was present in all the four
meetings in which the plan to rob the Masterline Grocery
was hatched.
The first meeting was on June 30, 1995 at the Zariza
Inn in Tayug, Pangasinan. Among those present were
Comiling, Galingan, Salagubang, Calderon, Clotario and
Mendoza, along with two other persons known only as Paul
and Rey. Another meeting was held by the group in July
1995 in the house of a certain Lani Galingan also in Tayug,
Pangasinan. There were two other meetings in August
1995. Finally, on September 2, 1995, the group met at
Lani’s house where they received their final instructions
and the firearms they were to use from Comiling and
Galingan. The entire group headed for Masterline Grocery
at around 4:00 p.m. except for Naty who stayed behind in
Lani’s house.
At around 8:00 p.m., she met the group in the house of a
person named Joe. Galingan blamed a companion for
shooting the police-
704

People vs. Comiling
man. The group planned to escape to Manila. She and Lani

were given $50 by Galingan for their fare to Manila. Upon
arrival there on September 3, 1995, they, together with
Galingan, proceeded to Comiling’s house in Parañaque.
They discussed where she and Lani should stay as
Comiling did not want them around. Comiling decided that
the two of them should stay in Makati. It was while she
was hiding in Makati that she was able to reflect on the
events that transpired, gathering enough 3
courage to
confess the robbery to the police authorities.
On the other hand, all the accused denied culpability for
the felony. Each of them claimed to be somewhere else at
the time the crime happened on September 2, 1995. The
witnesses for the defense also tried to impugn the
credibility of the lead witness for the prosecution, Naty
Panimbaan.
On September 1, 1999, the trial court rendered its
decision, the dispositive portion of which read:
“WHEREFORE, the prosecution having failed to establish their

alleged guilt beyond moral certainty, a judgment of ACQUITTAL
is hereby rendered in favor of the accused Gil Salagubang and
Mario Clotario alias “Bong,” and their respective bail bonds are
hereby ordered released.
“However, on the basis of the evidence the prosecution has
adduced, which in the Court’s perception satisfies the requisite
proof beyond reasonable doubt as mandated by Section 2, Rule
133 of the Rules of Court, the Court hereby renders a judgment,
as to the accused MAJ. EMILIO COMILING of Block 18, Lot 3,
Camella Classic Phase II, Bicutan, Parañaque, Metro Manila,
GERALDO GALINGAN alias “Bong” of Iris, Brgy. “B,” Tayug,
Pangasinan and RICKY MENDOZA, said to be a resident of
Parañaque, Metro Manila, as per records of the BJMP district jail,
Balugnao, Pangasinan, finding them GUILTY of the special
complex crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE, defined and
penalized under paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended, and pursuant to paragraph 1, Article 63, same
Code, hereby sentences them to each suffer the penalty of
DEATH, and in solidum to restitute, when possible, to private
complainant Ysiong Chua his lost valuables, otherwise to make
reparation therefor and pay to him their value of P26,000.00, plus
the cash amount aggregating P81,000.00, and the heirs of PO3
Erwil Pastor, P50,000.00 for his death, and P100,000.00 for
consequential damages as naturally must have arisen therefrom;
and, to pay the costs.
_______________
3 TSN, December 13, 1996, pp. 10-34; January 31, 1997, pp. 3-18.
705
VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 705

People vs. Comiling
4
“SO ORDERED.”
Appellants Comiling and Galingan filed separate appeal

briefs.
Appellant Comiling, who was a major in the Philippine
Army, assails his conviction by asserting that the killing of
PO3 Erwil Pastor happened after the robbery took place,
hence the “homicide” could not have been a necessary
means of committing the robbery. Neither could it be said
that the robbery produced another offense.
The argument is specious. As correctly stressed by the
Solicitor General, robbery with homicide is a “special
complex crime.” It is enough that in order to sustain a
conviction for this crime, the killing, which is designated as
“homicide,” has a direct relation to the robbery, regardless
of whether the latter takes place before or after the killing.

For as long as the killing occurs during or because of the
heist, even if the killing is merely accidental, robbery with
homicide is committed.
Comiling also questions the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses, particularly Naty Panimbaan, who was
supposedly a polluted source since she was one of the
conspirators. The reasoning is out of line. This Court is not
a trier of facts. All we have to discern from the records to
believe the trial court’s findings is a reasonable basis for its
method of examining the credibility of witnesses and its
assessment thereof. We do not second-guess the court a quo
for as long as it does not gravely abuse such power.
In the case at bar, there is nothing to suggest that the
trial court was whimsical or capricious in the performance
of its tasks. Thus we have no recourse but to uphold its
findings on the credibility of Naty Panimbaan and of the
other prosecution witnesses. In any event, as correctly
stated by the Solicitor General, Naty Panimbaan was
examined three times not only under the close scrutiny of
two defense counsels but also, in some instances, under the
abrasive tirades of the trial judge who called her a “whore.”
Yet, despite the trial court’s apparent misgivings about her
character, it still gave full credence to her testimony:
None of their dark attributes dissuades the Court from giving

credence to their respective narratives, however. The Court
agrees that Panimbaan knew too much, for her open-court
testimony was abundantly detailed, generally consistent,
straightforward and credible.
_______________
4 Rollo, p. 95.
706

People vs. Comiling
x x x x x x x x x
The Court believes Panimbaan’s testimony that finally, at
around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of September 2, 1995 the
accused Comiling, Galingan, Calderon, Clotario and Mendoza,
together with Rimas, Paul, Rey and Jose left Lani’s place, while
she stayed behind.
The Court believes Panimbaan’s testimony that all throughout
the four meetings conducted before September 2, the accused
Comiling and Galingan 5presided, gave instructions and provided

firearms and explosives.
We find no compelling reason to disturb the factual

findings and conclusions of the trial court. Indeed,
prosecution witness Naty Panimbaan proved credible
during the trial. She never wavered in her testimony on the
details of the crime:
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q Since when was Geraldo Galingan your boyfriend, if you
can still remember?
A Since September 1994, sir.
Q You mentioned a while ago that they are going to talk
(sic) their plan to rob the Masterline Grocery, who are
these people whom you refer as they?
A Maj. Comiling, Gil Salagubang, Eddie Calderon, certain
Paul, Leo, Rey and Eddy, Bong Clotario and Sonny
Rimas.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q How about your boyfriend Geraldo Galingan? Would he
or would he not participate?
A He was there, sir. He was one.
Q And so Madam Witness, when you were there at Zariza
Village Inn, who were the persons whom you saw there,
if any?
A We were inside the hotel. When we arrived I saw the
group of Maj. Comiling.
Q You refer to a group of Maj. Comiling, will you be kind
enough to enumerate their names?
A Maj. Emilio Comiling, Bong Galingan, Eddie Calderon,
Gil Salagubang, Sonny Rimas, Bong Clotario, Rey and
Paul.
Q Madam Witness, when you said that you saw this group
when you arrived there, what did you do upon arrival
there?
_______________
5 Rollo, p. 219.
707
VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 707

People vs. Comiling
COURT:
When you said you whom you were (sic) referring to? He
or a bigger number?
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q What did you do? Specifically you, sir.
A I sat beside them.
Q Will you tell the Honorable Court your distance from the
members of the group when you sat beside them?
COURT:
That will be very difficult to answer, counsel. Since this
was a group you will have to measure the distance from
one person to another and up to the last member of the
group. Why don’t you refer to the group as a whole? And
probably establish who was nearest to her.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q Madam Witness, when you said you went and sat beside
the group, will you then describe the physical
arrangement of the group when you went and sat beside
them?
A I was beside Bong Galingan and the group was in a
circle formation.
Q And so what transpired when you were there within the
group, Madam Witness?
A Since I was beside them I overheard their conversation.
Q And what was the conversation all about, Madam
Witness?
A That they are going to stage a hold-up at the Masterline
Grocery, sir.
Q What was the result of that conversation?
A The others left.
Q Who specifically left?
A Eddie Calderon, Sonny Rimas.
Q Who else, if any?
A Bong Clotario.
Q And do you know the reason why these three persons
left?
A Yes, sir.
Q Please tell the reasons to the Court?
A They observed the Masterline Grocery if there are
policemen or people around and when they came back
they said it is not possible.
708

People vs. Comiling
COURT:
Q How did you come to the conclusion that the three
persons left in order to observe because you told that
you stayed behind?
WITNESS:
A We were all there, sir, when Maj. Comiling ordered that
they must go to the Masterline Grocery.
COURT:
Q For what purpose, if any?
A To stage a hold-up.
Q You mean Galingan and Comiling ordered them to go
and hold-up Masterline at that time when they were
about to leave?
A Bong Galingan and Maj. Comiling ordered these men
because they were the brains of that hold-up.
Q And whom did they order?
A Their men, sir.
Q Who?
A Clotario, Calderon and Rimas.
Q I am referring to the three whom (sic) according to you
left. Were they ordered by Galingan and Comiling to
leave?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know what for?
A Yes, sir.
Q What?
A They will observe the Masterline grocery.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q Madam Witness, you said that when the three persons
you just named came back and said it is not yet possible,
what was the consensus of the group, if any?
A They drank again.
COURT:
That was the consensus.

ATTY. CALPITO:
Q Madam Witness, you mentioned that the three left to
haze (sic) the Masterline grocery and when they came
back they said it is not yet possible. With respect to that
plan what was the consensus or decision of the group
then?
ATTY. STA. MARIA:
Objection, your Honor. Already answered.
709
VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 709

People vs. Comiling
COURT:
The objection is sustained not on that ground but on the
ground that there is still no premise. You are referring
to a consensus when there was still no evidence that a
consensus was being set up. Lay the basis.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q Madam Witness, when the three persons arrived or
came back and they said that it was not yet possible was
there any reply from the group that was left?
A None, sir.
Q How about a decision or a consensus from the group was
there any Madam Witness after they learned that it is
not yet possible?
ATTY. DANCEL:
Objection, your Honor. Leading.
COURT:
Sustain (sic).
Q What happened after the three allegedly reported back?
A When the three reported that it was not yet possible to
stage such plan because there were many policemen,
Maj. Comiling decided to forego.
COURT:
Q To forego what?
A Not to stage the hold-up yet because there were many
policemen.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q So what happened next Madam Witness after Comiling

said that?
A We just tarried along but they kept on planning.
Q You said that they kept on planning how did you know
that they kept on planning after that meeting in June
1995?
A Because I was always with them whenever they talk
with each other.
Q You said that you were always with them whenever
they plan. Are you telling the Honorable Court that it
was not only once that they planned, Madam Witness?
A Yes, sir. They planned several times.
COURT:
Q What did they plan?
A They kept on planning about the hold-up but it was not
continued.
710

People vs. Comiling
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q How many times did this group plan in your presence?
A Many times, sir.
Q Could you please give your estimate?
A Four times.
Q If you said that they planned for four times when was
the second time?
A July, but I cannot remember the date.
COURT:
Q What year?
A 1995, sir.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q Where was this that the group planned sometime in
July 1995?
A At the house of Lani Galingan at Iris, Tayug,
Pangasinan.
Q And who were present at that second meeting at the
place of Lani Galingan?
A Sonny Rimas, Eddie Calderon, Bong Clotario, Eddie

Tangkad, Rey, Paul, Leo, Gil Salagubang, Maj. Comiling
and Bong Galingan.
Q You just mentioned several persons whom you claimed
to be present at that second meeting at the house of
Lani Galingan. Why do you know that they were the
persons who were there, Madam Witness?
A Because I was fetched by Bong Galingan and I
overheard their plan to stage a hold-up at the
Masterline.
Q In short you are saying that you were there?
A Yes, sir. I was there.
Q And did the plan materialize at that time, Madam
Witness?
A No, sir.
Q And what was the reason, Madam Witness, if you know?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was the reason?
A Because there were many people at the Masterline
grocery.
Q And how did the group came (sic) to know that there
were a lot of people at the Masterline grocery?
ATTY. STA. MARIA:
Incompetent, your Honor.
COURT:
If you know.
711
VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 711

People vs. Comiling
WITNESS:
A Because that was being told after Comiling and Bong
Galingan ordered somebody.
COURT:
Q And who said that?
A Eddie Calderon and Bong Clotario.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q If you said that the plan did not materialize at that
second meeting when was the third meeting then, if you
know?
A August, sir. I cannot remember the date.
COURT:
Q What year?
A 1995.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q Will it be first week, second week or third week or 4th
week? I am referring to the third meeting.
A First week, sir.
Q And where was this meeting held?
A At the house of Lani Galingan, sir.
Q And who were the persons who were present at that
time, Madam Witness?
A The group of Maj. Comiling, sir.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q Please enumerate them.
A Bong Galingan, Maj. Comiling, Sonny Rimas, Gil
Salagubang, Eddie Calderon, Leo, Paul and Rey.
Q And what was the result of this third meeting?
A It did not materialize yet.
COURT:
Q What did not materialize the meeting or what?
A The meeting was held but the schedule of the hold-up
did not materialize.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q And when was the fourth meeting, Madam Witness?
A In the house of Lani Galingan.
Q When?
A I cannot remember the date.
Q How about the month?
A Last week of August, sir.
712

People vs. Comiling
COURT:
Q What year?
A 1995, sir.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q And how do you know that this 4th meeting was held on
the last week of August 1995 at the house of Lani
Galingan?
A Because I was in the house of Lani Galingan, sir.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q Why? Do you usually reside there or not?
A Bong Galingan made me resign at J-5 restaurant.
Q When was that?
A August 21, sir.
COURT:
Q How far was this J-5 from Lani Galingan’s place?
A Not too far.
Q In other words in response to the last question
propounded by the private prosecutor you were not
actually residing at Lani Galingan’s place?
A I was residing there at the time because Bong Galingan
made me resign.
Q You resigned from your job and your boyfriend lodged
you at Lani Galingan’s place. Is that what you are
saying?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you such a resident at Lani Galingan’s place
throughout the four alleged meetings that you testified
on?
A Yes, sir.
Q From the first meeting to the fourth you were already
residing or lodging at Lani Galingan’s place?
A No, sir.
Q So when did you start residing at Lani’s place?
A August 21, 1995.
COURT:
Q What makes you remember that?
A Because that is when Bong Galingan lodged me.
x x x x x x x x x
Q Madam Witness, you enumerated some names of
persons whom you claimed to be present in the last
week of August 21, 1995 at Lani Galingan’s residence.
Why do you know that these were the persons who were
there at the time for the 4th meeting?
A Because we usually went together.
713
VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 713

People vs. Comiling
Q So that Madam Witness during that particular time of

the 4th meeting where were you?
A I was at the house of Lani Galingan.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q And what happened at that time Madam Witness?
A They were talking about the supposed hold-up at the
Masterline.
Q And what else transpired, if any? I am referring to that
4th meeting?
A They were talking about the subject matter Masterline
grocery.
Q What about the Masterline grocery?
A Their staging of a hold-up.
Q And what was the result of that 4th meeting?
A It did not yet materialize.
Q You mentioned a while ago that there were four
meetings. You just mentioned now that in that 4th
meeting it resulted into the plan not pushing through.
Was there any other meeting, Madam Witness?
ATTY. STA. MARIA:
Objection, your Honor.
COURT:
Sustain (sic).
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q That was in the last week of August 25, 1995. So what
happened after that?
A The staging of the hold-up pushed through.
Q If you said that the plan of the hold-up of the Masterline
grocery pushed through when was that Madam
Witness?
A September 2, 1995, sir.
COURT:
Q What time?
A At 4:00 they were still at the house. Maybe that was at
6:00.
Q You mentioned 4:00 and 6:00, what was that?
A In the afternoon, sir.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q You said that at around 4:00 in the afternoon of
September 2, 1995 they were still there. Whom are you
referring to as the persons still there?
714

People vs. Comiling
A Bong Galingan, Maj. Comiling, Sonny Rimas, Eddie

Calderon, Bong Clotario, Joe, Gil Salagubang.
Q And what were these people doing there? By the way
Madam Witness, where is this place that you are
referring to?
A Lani Galingan’s place.
Q What were these people doing there at 4:00 in the
afternoon?
A They were just there waiting for the persons being sent
by Maj. Comiling.
COURT:
Q You have mentioned of four alleged meetings and you
even enumerated names. Could you tell the Court if
there was anybody who presided?
A Bong Galingan and Comiling.
Q How did you know that?
A I have known that and he said that all the orders of
Bong are being followed.
Q The orders of who?
A Bong, sir.
COURT:
Q I am asking you who presided, if any?
A Bong Galingan and Maj. Comiling.
Q How did you know that?
A Because all the orders of Maj. Comiling and Bong

Galingan are being followed by their men.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q And what time did these people leave Lani Galingan’s
place?
A 4:00 o’clock.
Q Where did they go?
A They proceeded towards Masterline.
Q How about you Madam Witness, what did you do?
A I was just there at the house of Lani.
Q So after they left at 4:00, what happened next? What
happened next as far as you are concerned?
A After some time there were shots at the town.
Q Around what time would that be when you heard
gunshots?
A 6:00 o’clock.
COURT:
Q And where were you then at 6:00 o’clock?
A I was at the house of Lani.
715
VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 715

People vs. Comiling
Q Did you ever stay put at Lani’s place at 6:00 o’clock?

A No, sir.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q Did you personally see those people leave Lani’s place
before the gunshots? Before you heard the gunshots?
A Yes, sir.
COURT:
Q About how many minutes or hours passed from the time
you allegedly saw the people leave Lani’s place from the
time you allegedly heard shots in town?
A I heard the gun fire at 6:30.
Q So are you saying that it was almost 2-1/2 hours?
A Yes, sir.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q If you say Madam Witness that you saw them when

they left Lani Galingan’s house, did they take any ride
with them or not?
ATTYS. DANCEL & STA. MARIA:
Leading.
COURT:
Answer.
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir. There was.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q How many rides were there?
A Three rides, sir.
Q And what were these rides?
A One owner-type and two tricycles.
COURT:
Q Owner type plane or what?
A Owner-type jeep.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q And who were the persons who rode on the owner-type
jeep, if you know?
A Bong Galingan, Leo, Paul and Rey.
Q And you said that there were two tricycles who rode on
the two tricycles?
A Maj. Comiling and Joe.
COURT:
Q One tricycle each you mean?
716

People vs. Comiling
A No, sir. The other tricycle were on board Sonny Rimas

and Bong Clotario.
ATTY. CALPITO:
Q If I will add the persons whom you named there were 8
whom you said boarded the three vehicles. Is that all,
Madam Witness?
A Eddie Calderon and Gil Salagubang.
Q And how about them? Where did they ride?

6
A Tricycle.
Naty’s tenacious insistence on the minute details of what

happened suggested nothing else except that she was
telling the truth. We do not doubt her credibility.
The time-tested rule is that, between the positive
assertions of prosecution witnesses and the mere denials of
the accused, the former undisputedly deserve 7more
credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary value.
Appellant Comiling likewise contends that Naty’s
testimony was inadmissible against him to prove
conspiracy because of the res inter alios acta rule under
Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides:
Admission by conspirator.—The act or declaration of a conspirator

relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given
in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
This rule prescribes that any declaration made by a

conspirator relating to the conspiracy is admissible against
him alone but not against his co-conspirators unless the
conspiracy is first shown by other independent evidence.
According to Comiling, Naty’s testimony showed that
she was also a conspirator, thus, the existence of conspiracy
must be shown by evidence other than Naty’s admission.
As there was no independent proof of conspiracy except the
testimony of Naty, the latter’s testimony concerning
appellant’s participation in the conspiracy was
inadmissible against him. This contention is misplaced.
_______________
6 TSN, Dec. 13, 1996, pp. 9-28.

7 People vs. Monteron, 378 SCRA 340 (2002); Tecson vs.
Sandiganbayan, 318 SCRA 80 (1999).
717
VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 717

People vs. Comiling
The res inter alios acta rule refers only to extrajudicial

declarations or admissions and not to testimony given on
the witness stand where the party adversely affected
8
has
the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. In the
present case, Naty’s admission implicating appellant
Comiling was made in open court and therefore may be

taken in evidence against him.
Lastly, Comiling asserts that he cannot be held liable for
robbery as he was not physically present at the Masterline
Grocery and had no ostensible participation therein. The
contention is offtangent. Although Comiling was never
tagged as one of the three robbers who entered the store of
Ysiong Chua nor the one who mauled the victim or who
shot PO3 Erwil Pastor to death, his participation was his
leadership in the conspiracy to commit robbery with
homicide and his inducement to his cohorts
9
to perpetrate
the same. As held in People vs. Assad, one who plans the
commission of a crime is a principal by inducement. As
testified to by Naty Panimbaan:
Q And what happened to this fourth meeting, Madam

Witness?
A They talked about the projected robbery and Major
Comiling decided that they will push through on
September 2.
Q What else happened during that fourth meeting?
A Major Comiling gave their respective assignments.
Q You said Major Comiling gave their respective
assignments to the members of this group, what
assignments if you know was given to Bong Galingan?
A Bong Galingan should be in front of the LBC.
Q How about Sonny Rimas?
COURT:
Your answer should be one at a time.
WITNESS:
A Sonny Rimas and Bong Clotario should be at the
tricycle.
ATTY. ESTRADA:
Q What about Gil Salagubang?
A Gil Salagubang and Eddie Calderon should be in front of
the Masterline Grocery.
_______________
8 People vs. Flores, 195 SCRA 295 (1991).

9 55 Phil. 697.
718

People vs. Comiling
Q What about Major Comiling?

A Major Comiling should10
be posted at the back of the
bakery including Joe.
Naty’s testimony showed that Comiling was determined to

commit the crime as early as June 1995. The fact that the
heist was finally executed only on September 2, 1995
indicated that Comiling had indomitably clung to his
determination. Principalship by inducement (or by
induction) presupposes that the offender himself is
determined to commit the felony and11 must have
persistently clung to his determination. In all the
meetings prior to the commission of the crime, Comiling
was seen and heard presiding over and leading the group.
He was even the one who assigned each of his men his
specific role in the robbery. Then, in the house where the
perpetrators regrouped after the commission of the crime,
Comiling was handed the money and jewelry stolen from
the grocery store. It was also Comiling who instructed Naty
and Lani to hide in Makati after the incident. He paid for
the monthly rental of the room where Naty and Lani
stayed. All this can only prove that Comiling was the
acknowledged leader of the group.
Moreover, another witness for the prosecution, Sonny
Rimas, testified that while serving beer to the accused at
Zariza Inn, he heard that Comiling was planning the
robbery of Masterline. He even heard Comiling say, “We
will enter the place of Isko,” referring to Ysiong Chua’s
store. Indeed, appellant Comiling was the undisputable
mastermind. The judgment of conviction of Emilio
Comiling must therefore be affirmed.
For his part, appellant Galingan interposed the defense
of alibi. He claimed that he was in the house of his uncle in
Novaliches, Metro Manila when the incident happened on
September 2, 1995. He was in Manila because his wife was
scheduled to arrive from Hong Kong on September 4, 1995.
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must
show that he was in another place for such period of time
that it was physically impossible for him to have been at
the place where
12
the crime was committed at the time of its
commission.
_______________
10 TSN, Jan. 31, 1997, pp. 3-4, Records, pp. 216-217.

11 Regalado, Criminal Law Conspectus, 2000 ed., p. 109.

12 People vs. Azugue, 268 SCRA 711 (1997).
719
VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 719

People vs. Comiling
In this case, Galingan did not meet the settled

requirements of time and place. He failed to prove that he
was indeed in Novaliches at the time of the commission of
the crime; his alleged presence therein was not established
by a positive declaration from an independent witness.
Likewise, the place where he claimed to be on the night of
the crime was not of such distance that it was impossible
for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission considering that either place could be reached
in just about four hours by land. The fact that he met his
wife upon arrival on September 4, 1995 was likewise
inconsequential as it was two days after September 2,
1995, the date material to this case. Alibi, in order to be
given full faith and credit, must be clearly established and
must not
13
leave any room for doubt as to its plausibility and
verity.
It should also be noted that Rimas testified that, while
he was standing near the door of Masterline Grocery at
around 6:30 p.m. on September 2, 1995, he noticed the
arrival of an owner-type jeep. Rimas positively identified
appellant Galingan as the driver thereof.
Galingan’s invocation of alibi should be disregarded not
only because of its inherent weakness but also because of
the circumstances pointing to its contrived nature and his
positive identification by prosecution witness Rimas as one
of those present during the Masterline Grocery robbery on
September 2, 1995.
Appellant Galingan also impugns the credibility of
prosecution witness Naty Panimbaan. He denies Naty’s
claim that they were lovers. He maintains that Naty was a
woman of ill-repute whom he paid P700 everytime they had
sex. Galingan insists that the only reason why Naty
implicated him in the offense was because she wanted him
to leave his wife which he did not want to do. Furthermore,
according to Galingan, Naty was a drug user and this
supposedly tainted her credibility.
These attacks on Naty’s character and reputation are
too flimsy and irrelevant to deserve serious consideration.
The fact that a witness is a person of unchaste character or
even a drug dependent does not per se affect her credibility.
Character is frequently used to refer to one’s reputation in

the neighborhood. It means the estimate attached to the
individual by the community and not the
_______________
13 People vs. Sagario, 14 SCRA 468 (1965).
720

People vs. Comiling
14
qualities of the individual as conceived by one person.
With respect to a witness in both criminal and civil cases,
evidence of his character, in order to affect his credibility,
must refer15 to his “general reputation for truth, honesty or
integrity.” Thus, testimonies attacking the character of a
witness for the purpose of impugning his credibility must
relate and be confined to the general reputation which such
witness has in the community or neighborhood where he
lives or has lived. Personal opinions on the moral character
of a witness, being usually too general, sweeping or
subjective, are excluded.
Measured against the foregoing standard, appellant
Galingan’s testimony on the alleged bad character and
unreliability as a witness of Naty Panimbaan deserves no
merit. Other than his adverse testimony, Galingan never
credibly established that Naty was reputed in the
community or neighborhood to be a woman of loose morals
or a drug user. Clearly, Galingan’s testimony and evidence
concerning Naty’s character was based solely on his own
self-serving claim or private opinion, and did not at all
reflect the general reputation by which Naty was held by
the community. We therefore remain convinced of Naty’s
credibility as a witness.
Besides, the credibility of a witness is left primarily to
the judgment of the trial judge. Given the direct
opportunity to observe the witness on the stand, the trial
judge is in a vantage position to assess the witness’
demeanor, 16conduct and attitude under grueling
examination.
In People vs. De Guzman, we held that:
In the resolution of the factual issues, the Court relies heavily on

the trial court for its evaluation of the witnesses and their
credibility. Having the opportunity to observe them on the stand,
the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between
fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of

the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading
of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record will
not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose
the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or
the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a
reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The
record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or looked
down in confession or
_______________
14 Francisco, Evidence, Vol. VII, 1990 ed., p. 743.

15 Rule 132, Section 11, Rules of Court.
16 People vs. Omar, 327 SCRA 221 (2000).
721
VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 721

People vs. Comiling
gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or

conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in
shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the
judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis 17
of his
observations arrive at an informed and reasoned verdict. (italics
ours)
Moreover, Galingan failed to substantiate his claim that

Naty was driven by ill will or false motive in testifying
against him. His vain attempt to portray Naty as a “woman
scorned by her lover” certainly did not constitute sufficient
reason for Naty to accuse him of a very serious crime where
the possible penalty could either be death or life
imprisonment. In fact, the trial court did not perceive such
improper motivation on the part of Naty and the other
prosecution witnesses as would make them falsely
implicate appellants in the commission of the very serious
crime. To us, the only plausible motivation for Naty was
her honest desire to speak the truth.
Our established doctrine is that the witness’ testimony
deserves full faith and credit where there exists no
evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive
why he should testify falsely against the accused,18or why he
should implicate the accused in a serious offense.
More importantly, PO3 Erwil Pastor identified Galingan
as the robber who shot him. In the emergency room of the
Eastern Pangasinan District Hospital, at around 7:00 p.m.
on September 2, 1995, Pastor moaned “I might die. I might
die.” in the presence of SPO1 Conrado Hidalgo and SPO4

Emilio Nagui. Hence, PO3 Pastor’s statements were taken
down by SPO1 Hidalgo who assisted PO3 Pastor in affixing
his thumbmark with his own blood:
Q Who shot you?

19
A Bong Galingan, x x x
Under Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court, the

declaration of a dying person with the consciousness of
impending death may be received in any case wherein his
death is the subject of
_______________
17 188 SCRA 407 (1990); italics supplied; see also People vs. Silvano,
378 SCRA 672 (2002); People vs. Estorco, 331 SCRA 38 (2000) and People
vs. Cayabyab, 274 SCRA 387 (1997).
18 People vs. Lomerio, 326 SCRA 530 (2000); People vs. Merino, 321
SCRA 199 (1999).
19 TSN, November 25, 1996, p. 49.
722

People vs. Comiling
inquiry, as evidence of the cause and the surrounding

circumstances of such death. There are four requisites
which must concur in order that a dying declaration may
be admissible: (1) it must concern the crime and
surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (2) at
the time it was made, the declarant was under the
consciousness of an impending death; (3) the declarant was
competent as a witness; and (4) the declaration is offered in
any criminal case for homicide, murder
20
or parricide in
which the declarant was the victim.
(1) The first requisite is present in the ante-mortem

statements of deceased PO3 Pastor. Certainly, the
narration made by Pastor at the hospital’s
emergency room before SPO1 Hidalgo and SPO4
Nagui concerned the cause and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant’s death. The two
policemen heard from the declarant’s own lips his
utterance of the name “Bong Galingan” as his
assailant. This fact was even testified to by these
policemen.
(2) The declarant, at the time he gave the dying

declaration, was conscious of his impending death.
PO3 Pastor knew at the time he was being
questioned that his chances of recovery were nil. In
fact, he uttered the words, “I might die. I might
die.” to signify his perception that death was
forthcoming.
(3) PO3 Pastor, at the time he uttered the dying
declaration, was competent as a witness. This fact
is too obvious to warrant further discussion.
(4) The dying declaration of PO3 Pastor was offered as
evidence in a criminal case for robbery with
homicide in which the declarant was the victim.
Indubitably, PO3 Pastor’s dying declaration is complete in

the sense that it was a full expression of all that he wanted
to say with regard to the circumstances of his death. 21An
ante-mortem statement is evidence of the highest order. It
is doctrinal that, when a person is 22at the point of death,
every motive of falsehood is silenced. The mind is induced
by the strongest of reasons to speak the truth—the
declarant’s impending meeting with his Creator.
_______________
20 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. V, 1980 ed., p. 294.

21 People vs. Montilla, 211 SCRA 119 (1992).
22 Moran, op cit., note 18, p. 304.
723
VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 723

People vs. Comiling
Insofar as Ricky Mendoza is concerned, the evidence

likewise confirms his responsibility for the offense. He was
positively identified by prosecution witness Rimas as one of
the men who alighted from the jeep, barged into the
Masterline Grocery and shot his way out therefrom. Naty
Panimbaan also positively confirmed his participation in
the crime. More than that, as shown by the records,
Mendoza flew the coop after he was arraigned and remains
at large up to the present. Flight from justice is evidence of
guilt.
The existence of conspiracy in this case cannot be
doubted. The rule is, whenever homicide is committed as a
consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who
take part as principals in the robbery will also be held

guilty as principals
23
of the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide.
While we are convinced that appellants are guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide, we
cannot impose the penalty of death on 24
them. Under Article
294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of robbery
carries the penalty of reclusion perpetuato death. In
imposing the death penalty, the trial court appreciated the
aggravating circumstances of band, evident premeditation,
craft and disguise against appellants. However, these
circumstances were not specifically alleged in the
information as required under Rule 110, Section 8 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Hence, inasmuch as
no aggravating and mitigating circumstances can be
deemed to have attended the commission of the offense, the
lower penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed on
them.
On the award of damages, this Court modifies the
amounts as well as the designations thereof. Thus,
appellants Emilio Comiling, Geraldo Galingan alias “Bong”
and accused Ricky Mendoza alias “Leo” must in solidum
restore to Ysiong Chua his lost valuables, and if impossible
to do so, must pay him as reparation the amount of
P26,000, plus the P81,000 in cash he lost, as actual
damages. They should also pay the heirs of PO3 Erwil
Pastor P50,000 as civil indemnity for his25
death as this is in
accord with prevailing jurisprudence. In addition, the
heirs of PO3 Pastor are entitled to P25,000 as temperate
damages in lieu of actual damages, pursuant
_______________
23 People vs. Nunag, 196 SCRA 206 (1991).

24 As amended by Section 9 of RA 7659.
25 People vs. Delim, 396 SCRA 386 (2003).
724

People vs. Comiling
26
to the case of People vs. Abrazaldo. However, we cannot
award moral damages to the heirs of PO3 Pastor because of
their failure to present any proof or testimony that they
suffered anguish and distress as a result of his death.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants Emilio
Comiling, Geraldo Galingan and accused Ricky Mendoza

are hereby found guilty of robbery with homicide and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
They are also ordered to return to Ysiong Chua his lost
valuables, and if this cannot be done, to pay him in solidum
its value of P26,000 as reparation, plus P81,000 which was
the amount of the cash stolen, as actual damages, and to
pay the heirs of PO3 Erwil Pastor P50,000 as civil
indemnity and P25,000 as temperate damages.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Vitug, Quisumbing, Ynares-

Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
Puno, J., On Leave.
Panganiban, J., On Official Leave.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
Note.—Dying declarations are considered an exception

to the hearsay rule. (People vs. Atrejenio, 310 SCRA 229
[1999])
——o0o——
_______________
26 People vs. Abrazaldo, 397 SCRA 137 (2003).
725
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People V Comiling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Comiling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Comiling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424

698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs.MAJOR

Criminal Law; Robbery with Homicide; To sustain a

VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 699

People vs. Comiling

because of the heist, even if the killing is merely accidental,

Same; Same; Evidence; Witnesses; Between the positive

700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Comiling

integrity”; Personal opinions on the moral character of a witness,

speak the truth—the declarant’s impending meeting with his

VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 701

People vs. Comiling

is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

“The undersigned hereby accuses MAJOR EMILIO COMILING,

the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused

1 Penned by Judge Ulysses Raciles Butuyan, Rollo, pp. 40-95.

702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“CONTRARY to Article 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code.”

Accused Eddie Calderon and Balot Cabotaje have remained

someone knocked on the door to buy some cigarettes.

2 Rollo, pp. 16-17.

VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 703

As Ysiong lay prostrate on the floor, he saw the two other

police authorities what she knew about the case. During

704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

man. The group planned to escape to Manila. She and Lani

“WHEREFORE, the prosecution having failed to establish their

VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 705

Appellants Comiling and Galingan filed separate appeal

of whether the latter takes place before or after the killing.

None of their dark attributes dissuades the Court from giving

706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Comiling and Galingan 5presided, gave instructions and provided

We find no compelling reason to disturb the factual

VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 707

they said it is not possible.

708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

That was the consensus.

VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 709

Q So what happened next Madam Witness after Comiling

710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

A Sonny Rimas, Eddie Calderon, Bong Clotario, Eddie

VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 711

712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 713

Q So that Madam Witness during that particular time of

714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

A Bong Galingan, Maj. Comiling, Sonny Rimas, Eddie

A Because all the orders of Maj. Comiling and Bong

VOL. 424, MARCH 4, 2004 715

Q Did you ever stay put at Lani’s place at 6:00 o’clock?

Q If you say Madam Witness that you saw them when

716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

A No, sir. The other tricycle were on board Sonny Rimas

Q And how about them? Where did they ride?