[G.R. No. 155791.

March 16, 2005] CAUSE OF DEATH: Asphyxia by drowning; traumatic head injuries,
MELBA QUINTO, petitioner, vs. DANTE ANDRES and RANDYVER contributory.[9]
PACHECO, respondents.
The NBI filed a criminal complaint for homicide against
DECISION respondents Andres and Pacheco in the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor, which found probable cause for homicide by dolo against
CALLEJO, SR., J.: the two.

At around 7:30 a.m. on November 13, 1995, eleven-year-old An Information was later filed with the Regional Trial Court
Edison Garcia, a Grade 4 elementary school pupil, and his playmate, (RTC) of Tarlac, Tarlac, charging the respondents with homicide. The
Wilson Quinto, who was also about eleven years old, were at accusatory portion reads:
Barangay San Rafael, Tarlac, Tarlac. They saw respondents Dante
Andres and Randyver Pacheco by the mouth of a drainage culvert. That at around 8 oclock in the morning of November 13, 1995, in the
Andres and Pacheco invited Wilson to go fishing with them inside the Municipality of Tarlac, Province of Tarlac, Philippines, and within the
drainage culvert.[1] Wilson assented. When Garcia saw that it was jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused Dante Andres
dark inside, he opted to remain seated in a grassy area about two and Randyver Pacheco y Suliven @ Randy, conspiring, confederating,
meters from the entrance of the drainage system.[2] and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously attack, assault, and maul Wilson Quinto inside a culvert
Respondent Pacheco had a flashlight. He, along with where the three were fishing, causing Wilson Quinto to drown and
respondent Andres and Wilson, entered the drainage system which die.
was covered by concrete culvert about a meter high and a meter
wide, with water about a foot deep.[3] After a while, respondent
CONTRARY TO LAW.[10]
Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came out of the drainage system and
left[4]without saying a word. Respondent Andres also came out, went
back inside, and emerged again, this time, carrying Wilson who was After presenting Garcia, the prosecution presented Dr. Dominic
already dead. Respondent Andres laid the boys lifeless body down in Aguda, who testified on direct examination that the hematoma at the
the grassy area.[5] Shocked at the sudden turn of events, Garcia fled back of the victims head and the abrasion on the latters left forearm
from the scene.[6] For his part, respondent Andres went to the house could have been caused by a strong force coming from a blunt
of petitioner Melba Quinto, Wilsons mother, and informed her that instrument or object. The injuries in the larynx and trachea also
her son had died. Melba Quinto rushed to the drainage culvert while indicated that the victim died of drowning, as some muddy particles
respondent Andres followed her.[7] were also found on the lumina of the larynx and trachea (Nakahigop
ng putik). Dr. Aguda stated that such injury could be caused when a
The cadaver of Wilson was buried without any autopsy thereon person is put under water by pressure or by force.[11] On cross-
having been conducted. The police authorities of Tarlac, Tarlac, did examination, Dr. Aguda declared that the hematoma on the scalp was
not file any criminal complaint against the respondents for Wilsons caused by a strong pressure or a strong force applied to the scalp
death. coming from a blunt instrument. He also stated that the victim could
have fallen, and that the occipital portion of his head could have hit a
Two weeks thereafter, or on November 28, 1995, National
blunt object.
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) investigators took the sworn statements
of respondent Pacheco, Garcia and petitioner Quinto.[8] Respondent Dr. Aguda also declared that the 14x7-centimeter hematoma at
Pacheco alleged that he had never been to the drainage system the back of Wilsons head could have rendered the latter unconscious,
catching fish with respondent Andres and Wilson. He also declared and, if he was thrown in a body of water, the boy could have died by
that he saw Wilson already dead when he passed by the drainage drowning.
system while riding on his carabao.
In answer to clarificatory questions made by the court, the
On February 29, 1996, the cadaver of Wilson was exhumed. Dr. doctor declared that the 4x3-centimeter abrasion on the right side of
Dominic Aguda of the NBI performed an autopsy thereon at the Wilsons face could have also been caused by rubbing against a
cemetery and submitted his autopsy report containing the concrete wall or pavement, or by contact with a rough surface. He
following postmortem findings: also stated that the trachea region was full of mud, but that there was
no sign of strangulation.[12]
POSTMORTEM FINDINGS
After the prosecution had presented its witnesses and the
respondents had admitted the pictures showing the drainage system
Body in previously embalmed, early stage of decomposition, attired including the inside portions thereof,[13] the prosecution rested its
with white long sleeves and dark pants and placed inside a wooden case.
coffin in a niche-apartment style.
The respondents filed a demurer to evidence which the trial
Hematoma, 14.0 x 7.0 cms., scalp, occipital region. court granted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, per its Order
Abrasion, 4.0 x 3.0 cms., right face, 5.0 x 3.0 cms., left dated January 28, 1998. It also held that it could not hold the
forearm. respondents liable for damages because of the absence of
Laryngo tracheal lumina congested and edematous preponderant evidence to prove their liability for Wilsons death.
containing muddy particles with bloody path. The petitioner appealed the order to the Court of Appeals (CA)
Lungs hyperinflated, heavy and readily pits on pressure; insofar as the civil aspect of the case was concerned. In her brief, she
section contains bloody froth. averred that
Brain autolyzed and liquefied.
Stomach partly autolyzed.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE AND IN RULING Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
THAT NO PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE EXISTS TO HOLD ACCUSED- liable.[17] The civil liability of such person established in Articles 100,
APPELLEES CIVILLY LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM WILSON 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code includes restitution,
QUINTO.[14] reparation of the damage caused, and indemnification for
consequential damages.[18] When a criminal action is instituted, the
The CA rendered judgment affirming the assailed order of the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
RTC on December 21, 2001. It ruled as follows: charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it
separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
The acquittal in this case is not merely based on reasonable doubt but
action.[19] With the implied institution of the civil action in the criminal
rather on a finding that the accused-appellees did not commit the
action, the two actions are merged into one composite proceeding,
criminal acts complained of. Thus, pursuant to the above rule and
with the criminal action predominating the civil.[20]
settled jurisprudence, any civil action ex delicto cannot prosper.
Acquittal in a criminal action bars the civil action arising therefrom The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the
where the judgment of acquittal holds that the accused did not offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same
commit the criminal acts imputed to them. (Tan v. Standard Vacuum or similar offense, to isolate him from society, to reform and
Oil Co., 91 Phil. 672)[15] rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order. [21] The sole
purpose of the civil action is the restitution, reparation or
The petitioner filed the instant petition for review and raised indemnification of the private offended party for the damage or injury
the following issues: he sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act of the
accused.[22] While the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused
I beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged, it is required to
prove the cause of action of the private complainant against the
WHETHER OR NOT THE EXTINCTION OF RESPONDENTS CRIMINAL accused for damages and/or restitution.
LIABILITY, LIKEWISE, CARRIES WITH IT THE EXTINCTION OF THEIR CIVIL
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the
LIABILITY.
extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict
shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment
II in the civil action that the act or omission from where the civil liability
may arise does not exist.[23]
WHETHER OR NOT PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE EXISTS TO HOLD
RESPONDENTS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF WILSON Moreover, a person committing a felony is criminally liable for
QUINTO.[16] all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.[24] Natural refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of
The petitioner avers that the trial court indulged in mere human life or events, while logical means that there is a rational
possibilities, surmises and speculations when it held that Wilson died connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or
because (a) he could have fallen, his head hitting the stones in the damage. The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the
drainage system since the culvert was slippery; or (b) he might have resulting injury. Proximate cause is that cause which in natural and
been bitten by a snake which he thought was the prick of a fish fin, continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause,
causing his head to hit hard on the top of the culvert; or (c) he could produces the injury, and without which the result would not have
have lost consciousness due to some ailment, such as epilepsy. The occurred. The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing
petitioner also alleges that the trial court erred in ruling that the the injury, either immediately, or by setting other events in motion,
prosecution failed to prove any ill motive on the part of the all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having
respondents to kill the victim, and in considering that respondent a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor.[25]
Andres even informed her of Wilsons death.
There must be a relation of cause and effect, the cause being
The petitioner posits that the trial court ignored the testimony the felonious act of the offender, the effect being the resultant
of the Medico-Legal Expert, Dr. Aguda; the nature, location and injuries and/or death of the victim. The cause and effect relationship
number of the injuries sustained by the victim which caused his death; is not altered or changed because of the pre-existing conditions, such
as well as the locus criminis. The petitioner insists that the behavior as the pathological condition of the victim (las condiciones patologica
of the respondents after the commission of the crime betrayed their del lesionado); the predisposition of the offended party (la
guilt, considering that respondent Pacheco left the scene, leaving predisposicion del ofendido); the physical condition of the offended
respondent Andres to bring out Wilsons cadaver, while respondent party (la constitucion fisica del herido); or the concomitant or
Andres returned inside the drainage system only when he saw Garcia concurrent conditions, such as the negligence or fault of the doctors
seated in the grassy area waiting for his friend Wilson to come out. (la falta de medicos para sister al herido); or the conditions
The petitioner contends that there is preponderant evidence on supervening the felonious act such as tetanus, pulmonary infection or
record to show that either or both the respondents caused the death gangrene.[26]
of her son and, as such, are jointly and severally liable therefor. The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the
In their comment on the petition, the respondents aver that resulting injury when:
since the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to prove that (a) there is an active force that intervened between the
they committed the crime of homicide and caused the death of felony committed and the resulting injury, and
Wilson, they are not criminally and civilly liable for the latters death. the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely
The petition has no merit. foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
 (b) the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the not sufficient to sustain his cause of action. The plaintiff must rely on
victim.[27] the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that
of the defendants.[35]
If a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such a
manner as to put life in jeopardy and death follows as a consequence
of their felonious act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its Section 1, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Evidence provides how
criminality to prove that other causes cooperated in producing the preponderance of evidence is determined:
factual result. The offender is criminally liable for the death of the
victim if his delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed to the Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. In civil cases,
death of the victim.[28] A different doctrine would tend to give the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a
immunity to crime and to take away from human life a salutary and preponderance of evidence. In determining where the
essential safeguard.[29] This Court has emphasized that: preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved
lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstance of the case,
Amid the conflicting theories of medical men, and the uncertainties the witnesses manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
attendant upon the treatment of bodily ailments and injuries, it would opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the
be easy in many cases of homicide to raise a doubt as to the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability of their
immediate cause of death, and thereby to open a wide door by which testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal
persons guilty of the highest crime might escape conviction and credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial.
punishment. [30] The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.[36]

In People v. Quianzon,[31] the Supreme Court held:

In the present case, we rule that, as held by the trial court and
the CA, the prosecution failed to adduce preponderant evidence to
The Supreme Court of Spain, in a Decision of April 3, 1879, said in a prove the facts on which the civil liability of the respondents rest, i.e.,
case similar to the present, the following: Inasmuch as a man is that the petitioner has a cause of action against the respondents for
responsible for the consequences of his act and in this case, the damages.
physical condition and temperament of the offended party nowise
lessen the evil, the seriousness whereof is to be judged, not by the It bears stressing that the prosecution relied solely on the
violence of the means employed, but by the result actually produced; collective testimonies of Garcia, who was not an eyewitness, and Dr.
and as the wound which the appellant inflicted upon the deceased Aguda.
was the cause which determined his death, without his being able to
counteract its effects, it is evident that the act in question should be We agree with the petitioner that, as evidenced by the
qualified as homicide, etc.[32] Necropsy Report of Dr. Dominic Aguda, the deceased sustained a
14x7-centimeter hematoma on the scalp. But as to how the deceased
sustained the injury, Dr. Aguda was equivocal. He presented two
In the present case, the respondents were charged with possibilities: (a) that the deceased could have been hit by a blunt
homicide by dolo. In People v. Delim,[33] the Court delineated the object or instrument applied with full force; or (b) the deceased could
burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for have slipped, fell hard and his head hit a hard object:
homicide or murder:
COURT:
In the case at bar, the prosecution was burdened to prove the corpus
delicti which consists of two things: first, the criminal act and second, The Court would ask questions.
defendants agency in the commission of the act. Wharton says
that corpus delicti includes two things: first, the objective; second, the Q So it is possible that the injury, that is the hematoma,
subjective element of crimes. In homicide (by dolo) and in murder caused on the back of the head might be due to the
cases, the prosecution is burdened to prove: (a) the death of the party victims falling on his back and his head hitting a
alleged to be dead; (b) that the death was produced by the criminal pavement?
act of some other than the deceased and was not the result of A Well, the 14x7-centimeter hematoma is quite
accident, natural cause or suicide; and (c) that defendant committed extensive, so if the fall is strong enough and would
the criminal act or was in some way criminally responsible for the act fall from a high place and hit a concrete pavement,
which produced the death. To prove the felony of homicide or then it is possible.
murder, there must be incontrovertible evidence, direct or
circumstantial, that the victim was deliberately killed (with malice); in Q Is it possible that if the victim slipped on a concrete
other words, that there was intent to kill. Such evidence may pavement and the head hit the pavement, the
consist inter alia in the use of weapons by the malefactors, the injury might be caused by that slipping?
nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim and A It is also possible.
the words uttered by the malefactors before, at the time or
immediately after the killing of the victim. If the victim dies because Q So when the victim was submerged under water while
of a deliberate act of the malefactor, intent to kill is conclusively unconscious, it is possible that he might have taken
presumed.[34] in some mud or what?
A Yes, Sir.

Insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned, the Q So it is your finding that the victim was submerged
prosecution or the private complainant is burdened to adduce while still breathing?
preponderance of evidence or superior weight of evidence. Although A Yes, Your Honor, considering that the finding on the
the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is stronger than that presented lung also would indicate that the victim was still
by the defendant, he is not entitled to a judgment if his evidence is alive when he was placed under water.[37]
 The doctor also admitted that the abrasion on the right side of instrument that might have been used by any or both of the
the victims face could have been caused by rubbing against a concrete respondents in hitting the deceased.
wall or pavement:
It is of judicial notice that nowadays persons have killed or
Q The abrasion 4x3 centimeters on the right [side of the] committed serious crimes for no reason at all.[42] However, the
face, would it be caused by the face rubbing against absence of any ill-motive to kill the deceased is relevant and
a concrete wall or pavement? admissible in evidence to prove that no violence was perpetrated on
A Yes, Sir. Abrasion is usually caused by a contact of a skin the person of the deceased. In this case, the petitioner failed to
to a rough surface. adduce proof of any ill-motive on the part of either respondent to kill
the deceased before or after the latter was invited to join them in
Q Rough surface? fishing. Indeed, the petitioner testified that respondent Andres used
A Yes, Your Honor. to go to their house and play with her son before the latters death:
Q When you say that the trachea region was full of mud, Q Do you know this Dante Andres personally?
were there no signs that the victim was strangled? A Not much but he used to go to our house and play with
A There was no sign of strangulation, Your Honor.[38] my son after going from her mother who is
The trial court gave credence to the testimony of Dr. Aguda that gambling, Sir.
the deceased might have slipped, causing the latter to fall hard and Q But you are acquainted with him, you know his face?
hit his head on the pavement, thus: A Yes, Sir.
Q -Could it be possible, Doctor, that this injury might have Q Will you please look around this courtroom and see if
been caused when the victim fell down and that he is around?
portion of the body or occipital portion hit a blunt A (Witness is pointing to Dante Andres, who is inside the
object and might have been inflicted as a result of courtroom.)[43]
falling down?
A - If the fall if the victim fell and he hit a hard object, well, When the petitioners son died inside the drainage culvert, it
it is also possible.[39] was respondent Andres who brought out the deceased. He then
informed the petitioner of her sons death. Even after informing the
The trial court took into account the following facts: petitioner of the death of her son, respondent Andres followed the
petitioner on her way to the grassy area where the deceased was:
Again, it could be seen from the pictures presented by the
prosecution that there were stones inside the culvert. (See Exhibit D Q Did not Dante Andres follow you?
to D-3). The stones could have caused the victim to slip and hit his A He went with me, Sir.
head on the pavement. Since there was water on the culvert, the Q So when you went to the place where your son was
portion soaked with water must be very slippery, aside from the fact lying, Dante Andres was with you?
that the culvert is round. If the victim hit his head and lost A No, Sir. When I was informed by Dante Andres that my
consciousness, he will naturally take in some amount of water and son was there at the culvert, I ran immediately. He
drown.[40] [was] just left behind and he just followed, Sir.

The CA affirmed on appeal the findings of the trial court, as well Q So when you reached the place where your son was
as its conclusion based on the said findings. lying down, Dante Andres also came or arrived?
A It was only when we boarded the jeep that he arrived,
We agree with the trial and appellate courts. The general rule is Sir.[44]
that the findings of facts of the trial court, its assessment of probative
weight of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusion anchored on In sum, the petitioner failed to adduce preponderance of
such findings, affirmed no less by the CA, are given conclusive effect evidence to prove a cause of action for damages based on the
by this Court, unless the trial court ignored, misapplied or deliberate acts alleged in the Information.
misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered,
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for
would change the outcome of the case. The petitioner failed to show
lack of merit. No costs.
any justification to warrant a reversal of the findings or conclusions of
the trial and appellate courts. SO ORDERED.
That the deceased fell or slipped cannot be totally foreclosed
because even Garcia testified that the drainage culvert was dark, and
that he himself was so afraid that he refused to join respondents
Andres and Pacheco inside.[41] Respondent Andres had no flashlight;
only respondent Pacheco had one.

Moreover, Dr. Aguda failed to testify and explain what might

have caused the abrasion on the left forearm of the deceased. He,
likewise, failed to testify whether the abrasions on the face and left
forearm of the victim were made ante mortem or post mortem.

The petitioner even failed to adduce preponderance of

evidence that either or both the respondents hit the deceased with a
blunt object or instrument, and, consequently, any blunt object or
G.R. No. L-30801 March 27, 1974 executed a joint affidavit which was one of the bases of the
information for murder.1
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. It noted that Rufina Paler, the victim's widow, who was present in
DOMINGO URAL, accused-appellant. court, was a vital witness who should have been presented as a
witness to prove the victim's dying declaration or his statements
AQUINO, J.:p which were part of the res gestae.2

This is an appeal of defendant Domingo Ural from the decision of In this appeal appellant's three assignment of error may be
Judge Vicente G. Ericta of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga condensed into the issue of credibility or the sufficiency of the
del Sur, convicting him of murder, sentencing him to reclusion prosecution's evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
perpetua, and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Felix Napola in
the sum of twelve thousand pesos and to pay the costs (Criminal Case His story is that at around nine o'clock in the evening of July 31, 1966
No. 3280). he was in the municipal jail on guard duty. He heard a scream for help
from Napola. He entered the cell and found Napola's shirt in flames.
The judgment of conviction was based on the testimony of Brigido With the assistance of Ernesto Ogoc and Anecio Siton, Ural removed
Alberto, a twenty-six year old former detention prisoner in Buug, Napola's shirt. Ural did not summon a doctor because, according to
Zamboanga del Sur. He had been accused of murder and then set at Napola, the burns were not serious. Besides, he (Ural) was alone in
liberty on June 9, 1966 after posting bail. He went to Barrio Camongo, the municipal building.
Dumalinao where his father resided. On July 31, 1966, he intended to
go to his residence at Barrio Upper Lamari, Buug but night overtook Felicisima Escareal, Ogoc's common-law wife, whom the trial court
him in the town. He decided to sleep in the Buug municipal building branded "as a complete liar", testified that she heard Napola's scream
where there would be more security. for help. She saw that Napola's shirt was burning but she did not know
how it happened to be burned. She said that Ural and Siton removed
Upon arrival in the municipal building at around eight o'clock, he the shirt of Napola and put out the fire.
witnessed an extraordinary occurrence. He saw Policeman Ural (with
whom he was already acquainted) inside the jail. Ural was boxing the Teofilo Matugas, a policeman, declared that he was relieved as guard
detention prisoner, Felix Napola. As a consequence of the fistic blows, by Ural at eight-thirty in the evening of July 31st. Matugas denied that
Napola collapsed on the floor. Ural, the tormentor, stepped on his Alberio was in the municipal building at eight o'clock.
prostrate body.
The trial court held that Ural's denials cannot prevail over the positive
Ural went out of the cell. After a short interval, he returned with a testimony of Alberio. It observed that Ural's alleged act of removing
bottle. He poured its contents on Napola's recumbent body. Then, he Napola's burning shirt was at most an indication that he was
ignited it with a match and left the cell. Napola screamed in agony. He "belatedly alarmed by the consequence of his evil act" but would not
shouted for help. Nobody came to succor him. mean that he was not the incendiary.

Much perturbed by the barbarity which he had just seen, Alberto left Appellant Ural (he was thirty-four years old in March, 1969), in
the municipal building. Before his departure, Ural cautioned him: assailing the credibility of Alberio, pointed out that he was not listed
"You better keep quiet of what I have done" (sic). Alberto did not as a prosecution witness and that he was convicted of murder.
sleep anymore that night. From the municipal building, he went to the
crossing, where the cargo trucks passed. He hitchhiked in a truck Those circumstances would not preclude Alberio from being a
hauling iron ore and went home. credible witness. It should be noted that the accused was a
policeman. Ordinarily, a crime should be investigated by the police. In
Doctor Luzonia R. Bakil, the municipal health officer, certified that the this case, there was no police investigation. The crime was
thirty-year old victim, whom she treated twice, sustained second- investigated by a special counsel of the fiscal's office. That might
degree burns on the arms, neck, left side of the face and one-half of explain why it was not immediately discovered that Alberio was an
the body including the back (Exh. A). She testified that his dermis and eyewitness of the atrocity perpetrated by Ural.
epidermis were burned. If the burns were not properly treated, death
would unsue from toxemia and tetanus infection. "Without any The testimonies of Felicisima Escareal, Ogoc's common-law wife, and
medical intervention", the burns would cause death", she said. She Policeman Matugas are compatible with the prosecution's theory that
explained that, because there was water in the burnt area, secondary Ural burned Napola's shirt. Ultimately, the factual issue is: who should
infection would set in, or there would be complications. be given credence, Alberio or Ural? As already stated, the trial court
which had the advantage of seeing their demeanor and behavior on
Napola died on August 25, 1966. The sanitary inspector issued a the witness stand, chose to believe Alberio. This Court, after a
certificate of death indicating "burn" as the cause of death (Exh. B). searching scrutiny of the whole record, does not find any justification
for disbelieving Alberio.
The trial court fittingly deplored the half-hearted manner in which the
prosecution (represented by Fiscal Roque and the private prosecutor, This case is covered by article 4 of the Revised Penal code which
Delfin Agbu) handled the case. It bewailed the prosecution's failure to provides that "criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
present as witnesses Juanito de la Serna and Ernesto Ogoc, the committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
detention prisoners who saw the burning of Napola. They had different from that which he intended". The presumption is "that a
person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act" (Sec. court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the
5[c], Rule 131, Rules of Court). medium period of the penalty for murder (Arts. 64[4] and 248,
Revised Penal Code).
The rationale of the rule in article 4 is found in the doctrine that "el
que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado" (he who is the Finding no error in the trial court's judgment, the same is affirmed
cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused)."Conforme a dicha with costs against the appellant.
doctrina no alteran la relacion de causalidad las condiciones
preexistentes (como las condiciones patologicasdel lesionado, la So ordered.
predisposicion del ofendido, la constitucion fisica del herido, etc.); ni
las condiciones sobrevenidas (como el tetanos, la pulmonia, o la
gangrena sobrevenidos a consequencia de la herida)" (1 Cuello Calon,
Codigo Penal, 12th Ed., 1968, p. 335-336).

The similar rule in American jurisprudence is that "if the act of the
accused was the cause of the cause of death, no more is required" (40
C.J.S. 854). So, where during a quarrel, the accused struck the victim
with a lighted lamp, which broke and fell to the floor, causing the oil
to ignite and set fire to the rug, and, in the course of the scuffle, which
ensued on the floor, the victim's clothes caught fire, resulting in burns
from which he died, there was a sufficient causal relation between
the death and the acts of the accused to warrant a conviction of
homicide (Williams vs. U.S., 20 Fed. 2nd 269, 40 C.J.S. 854, note 90).

There is a rule that "an individual who unlawfully inflicts wounds upon
another person, which result in the death of the latter, is guilty of the
crime of homicide, and the fact that the injured person did not receive
proper medical attendance does not affect the criminal
responsibility" (U.S. vs. Escalona, 12 Phil. 54). In the Escalona case,
the victim was wounded on the wrist. It would not have caused death
had it been properly treated. The victim died sixty days after the
infliction of the wound. It was held that lack of medical care could not
be attributed to the wounded man. The person who inflicted the
wound was responsible for the result thereof.

The crime committed by appellant Ural was murder by means of

fire (incendio) (Par. 3, Art. 248, Revised Penal Code; People vs. Masin,
64 Phil. 757; U.S. vs. Burns, 41 Phil. 418, 432, 440).3

The trial court correctly held that the accused took advantage of his
public position (Par. 1, Art. 14, Revised Penal Code). He could not have
maltreated Napola if he was not a policeman on guard duty. Because
of his position, he had access to the cell where Napola was confined.
The prisoner was under his custody. "The policeman, who taking
advantage of his public position maltreats a private citizen, merits no
judicial leniency. The methods sanctioned by medieval practice are
surely not appropriate for an enlightened democratic civilization.
While the law protects the police officer in the proper discharge of his
duties, it must at the same time just as effectively protect the
individual from the abuse of the police." U.S. vs. Pabalan, 37 Phil.
352).

But the trial court failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance

"that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed" (Par. 3, Art. 13, Revised Penal Code). It is manifest
from the proven facts that appellant Ural had no intent to kill Napola.
His design was only to maltreat him may be because in his drunken
condition he was making a nuisance of himself inside the detention
cell. When Ural realized the fearful consequences of his felonious act,
he allowed Napola to secure medical treatment at the municipal
dispensary.

Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong offsets the generic

aggravating, circumstance of abuse of his official position. The trial
G.R. No. L-29066 March 25, 1970 circumstance under consideration must be considered in favor
of the accused (U.S. vs. Reyes, 36 Phil. 904, 906-907).
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Otherwise, it should not.
vs.
MARCELO AMIT, defendant-appellant. In the case at bar, the following excerpts taken from
appellant's extrajudicial confession (Exhibit A-1, translation)
PER CURIAM: give us an idea of the acts committed by him in executing the
crime:
Marcelo Amit was charged in the court below with the complex
crime of rape with homicide described and penalized in Article Q: And what did Rufina Arellano do to you when you made her
335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Arraigned with lay down and you immediately place yourself on top of her?
the assistance of a counsel de officio, he pleaded guilty.
A: She resisted a little, nevertheless I was able to do sexual
Due to the gravity of the offense charged, however, the Court intercourse with her, sir.
required additional evidence from the prosecution, which the
latter presented in the form of (1) the extrajudicial confession Q: In her act of resisting you, what did Rufina Arellano do to
of appellant in Ilocano (exhibit A) and its translation into you?
English (Exhibit A-1) wherein he narrated in detail how the
crime was committed; (2) the autopsy report (Exhibit B) A: She bit me and scratched me, sir.
describing the injuries suffered by the victim as she resisted
appellant's criminal advances against her honor; and (3) the Q: What part of your body did Rufina Arellano bit and
medical certificate (Exhibit C) describing the personal injuries scratched?
suffered by the appellant himself during the struggle put up
against him by the victim.
A: She bit me on a place a little below my shoulder and
scratched me on my breast, sir.
On the basis of appellant's plea of guilty and the
abovementioned evidence, the trial court rendered judgment
Q: When Rufina Arellano put up a little resistance when you
sentencing him "to suffer the supreme penalty of death, with
placed yourself on top of her, what did you do also?
the accessories prescribed by law; to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased Rufina Arellano in the amount of P6,000.00, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the A: I held her on the neck and pressed it downward, sir.
costs." Pursuant to the provisions of Section 9, Rule 122 of the
Revised Rules of Court, said judgment was elevated to us for xxx xxx xxx
review.
Q: The left cheek of Rufina Arellano even swelled, do you know
While appellant does not question the correctness of the how she sustained it that caused it to swell?
decision under review in so far as it finds him guilty of the crime
charged, he claims, through his counsel de officio, that the A: I boxed her when she resisted, sir.
penalty of death imposed upon him should be reduced to
reclusion perpetua in view of the presence of three mitigating Q: What hand of yours boxed the left cheek of Rufina Arellano?
circumstances which the trial court should have considered in
his favor, namely: (1) plea of guilty; (2) voluntary surrender, A: My left hand, sir, for my right hand was holding her neck.
and (3) lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as the one
actually committed. Q: So what was the position of Rufina Arellano when your right
hand was holding her neck as you boxed her on the cheek with
The Solicitor General admits that the mitigating circumstances your left hand?
of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender have been proven,
but denies that the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention A: Rufina Arellano was lying down on her back and I was on top
to commit so grave a wrong as the one actually committed was of her, sir. (pp. 23-24, rec.)
similarly established. We agree with this latter contention.
At the time of the commission of the crime, appellant was 32
Appellant's contention — because of its nature, must years of age, while his victim was 25 years his senior; his victim
necessarily be judged in the light of the acts committed by him resisted his attempt to rape her by biting and scratching him;
and the circumstances under which they were committed. to subdue her, appellant boxed her and then "held her on the
Should they show a great disproportion between the means neck and pressed it down" while she was lying on her back and
employed to accomplish the criminal act — on the one hand he was on top of her. These acts, We believe, were reasonably
— and its consequences — on the other — the mitigating sufficient to produce the result that they actually produced —
the death of appellant's victim. Consequently, what we said
in People vs. Yu, G.R. L-13780, promulgated on January 28,
1961, would seem to apply:

The lack of intention to commit so grave a

wrong as that committed cannot be
appreciated in favor of an accused who
employed brute force — choking a 6-year old
girl to death, who tried to shout while he was
raping her — intention being gathered from
and determined only by the conduct and
external acts of the offender, and the results
of the acts themselves.

The penalty of Death prescribed in the last paragraph of Article

335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Acts
Nos. 2632 and 4111 being an indivisible penalty, it has to be
imposed regardless of the presence of mitigating
circumstances, especially in a case like the present where,
according to the evidence of record, the crime was committed
with the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of
superior strength (first paragraph, Article 63, Revised Penal
Code).

Moreover, the civil indemnity awarded by the trial court must

be increased to P12,000.00.

MODIFIED AS ABOVE INDICATED, the judgment appealed from

is affirmed in all other respects. With costs.
G.R. No. L-58585 June 20, 1988 On January 8, 1981, Vicentica and Nicanora harvested corn from the
farm land. After the harvest was finished at around 1:00 o'clock in the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, afternoon of the same day, Vicentica called her son-in-law, the
vs. accused-appellant herein, who was then sleeping under the hammock
FLOREMAR RETUBADO, accused-appellant. and asked him to help bring Nicanora's share of the corn harvest to
the road where public transportation was available. The accused
refused unless he was paid P1.00 per sack he would carry. Later,
MEDIALDEA, J.:
Vicentica sought the aid of her daughter, Arcadia, in placing on top of
her head some bananas she wanted to bring to the road. Arcadia in
The accused-appellant was charged with the crime of parricide in an turn told Vicentica to wait for a while as she would first finish
information filed on July 1, 1981, with the Circuit Criminal Court, 1 XIV breastfeeding her son, Raul.
Judicial District, which reads:
Thereafter, Arcadia placed Raul inside the hammock preparatory to
That on or about the 8th day of January, 1981, at her leaving the hut in order to assist Vicentica. Raul began crying so
1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, more or less, at that Arcadia tarried a bit to swing the hammock. She even asked the
Barangay Sambag, Somosa, Municipality of accused who was then squatting under the hammock, smoking and
Tabogon, Province of Cebu, Philippines and within picking his teeth, to swing the hammock but the latter did not
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the respond. Arcadia and Vicentica had barely gone out of the door of the
above-named accused, with deliberate intent to hut when the accused immediately stood up and boxed Raul who was
kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and inside the hammock twice with his clenched fists. They immediately
feloniously attack and assault with the use of fistic went to the rescue of Raul who stopped crying and became
blows his five (5) month old child, named Raul R. unconscious. Arcadia took Raul in her arms and asked the accused,
Retubado, inflicting upon said child several What did you do to the child, Bay?" to which the latter retorted, "That
injuries in different parts of his body which caused is the prize of a child who cries too much, (he) must be killed."
his instantaneous death. Afterwards, Arcadia handed Raul to Vicentica. Sensing that Raul did
not regain consciousness, Vicentica asked the accused why he killed
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Page 1, Original Record) the child and the latter answered, "No one can command me, no. No
one can rule me because this is my child. No one can rule me."
Upon being arraigned on July 9, 1981, accused entered a plea of not
guilty. After trial on the merits, the court a quo rendered a decision In the meantime, Nicanora, who was then attending to her share of
on august 13, 1981, convicting the accused of the offense charged, the corn harvest a few meters away from the hut, rushed to the hut
the dispositive portion of which reads: after hearing Arcadia's call for help and found Vicentica carrying Raul.
Nicanora took Raul from her and massaged him thinking that he just
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused fainted. After a while, Nicanora noticed that only she, the accused and
Floremar Retubado guilty beyond reasonable the dead Raul were inside the hut as Arcadia and Vicentica left.
doubt of the crime of PARRICIDE defined and
penalized under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Having noticed the bluish discoloration on the left side of the head
Code. The aggravating circumstances of and behind the left ear of Raul, Nicanora asked the accused what he
treachery, abuse of superior strength, did to the child and the latter answered, "I boxed him inside the
relationship and disregard of tender age having hammock."
been proven, the said circumstances not having
been offset by any mitigating circumstance, the Afraid that the accused might leave the hut, Nicanora told him to
accused should be, as he is hereby sentenced to carry the dead child and said, "You hold him very close Mar, he might
suffer the extreme penalty of DEATH, with the revive after feeling the heat of your chest." Also, during the time when
accessory penalties of the law; to indemnify the they were inside the hut with the dead child, Nicanora asked the
heirs of the deceased baby, Raul Retubado, in the accused why he killed the child and the latter retorted, "Why is it Tiya,
sum of P12,000.00, and to pay the costs. will we be placed in jail if we (can) kill our own child?"

SO ORDERED. (Page 48, 0riginal Record). The accused was still holding the dead child Raul when Vicentica
arrived with the chief of police of Tabogon and two policemen. Shortly
The case is now before Us on appeal. thereafter, Arcadia also arrived with two PC soldiers. That same
afternoon, the police officers brought the accused to the municipal
The following facts appear from the record: building of Tabogon where he was detained. The following day,
January 9, 1981, Raul was buried without first being medically
examined. The police investigators took the sworn statements of
The accused-appellant, Floremar Retubado, and his wife, Arcadia Arcadia and Vicentica on January 10, 1981. The accused also gave his
Retubado, were legally married and had two children. The younger sworn statement to the police on January 12, 1981. The sworn
child was Raul who was born on August 8, 1980. The couple resided statement of Nicanora was taken on January 14, 1981.
in a small hut built on a farm land owned by Nicanora Codeniera and
located at Sambag, Somosa, Municipality of Tabogon, Province of
Cebu. Vicentica Robleca, mother of Arcadia, was the tenant of the On June 22, 1981, Raul's body was exhumed and autopsied by Dr.
farm land. Inside the hut was a hammock made of an empty fertilizer Tomas Refe, NBI CERVO Senior Medico-Legal Officer, who issued a
sack with both its ends tied with ropes. The hammock was made to report stating his findings, as follows:
hang a few feet above the floor of the hut.
POST MORTEM FINDINGS confirmed by the findings of the NBI Medico-Legal expert, Dr. Tomas
Refe, that the cause of the child's death was "skull fracture,
Body, in advanced stage of postmortem decomposition. traumatic" and who testified in open court that such injury could have
been caused by "a fistic blow applied with tremendous force."
Skin, and underlying soft tissues of the abdomen, both sides and
anterior aspect, both thighs, mummified; all the rest of the tissues are Not to be disregarded were the admissions made by the accused
almost gone. immediately after the commission of the offense which all tend to
show that he was wide awake and in full possession of his normal
senses when he killed his child. First, immediately after Arcadia went
Skeletal remains with bits of adherent markedly putrefied reddish soft
to assist the child, she asked the accused why he boxed the latter. The
tissue material.
accused replied angrily that death is the prize for a child who cried too
much. Second, when his mother-in-law asked him the same question,
Bone articulations are already separated by decomposition. the accused told her not to intervene and order him around because
the child is his. And third, he admitted to Nicanora Codeniera that he
Fracture, parietal bone, skull, left side. boxed his child while inside the hammock. He even inquired from
Nicanora whether a person may be imprisoned for killing his own
Heart, lungs, liver and other visceral organs, markedly autilyzed. child. Despite all these incriminating statements, the accused did not
bother to refute them while testifying in his defense. The most he did
was to make a bare denial of the testimony of Nicanora to the effect
Brain, liquefied, reduced to grayish-white pultaceous mass, and that he did not admit having boxed his child while inside the
admixed with clotted and liquid blood. hammock.

CAUSE OF DEATH: Skull fracture, traumatic. The violent nature of the accused was also satisfactorily proven. Clear
evidence was adduced to show that he also broke the arm of his other
The accused-appellant assigned three errors committed by the child, Floremar Rebutado, Jr., when the latter would not stop crying.
court a quo, as follows: He even made this child drink vinegar and fed him with hot pepper.

I Claiming that he was sleeping at the time his child, Raul, died, the
accused surmises that the latter may have died due to colic or by
IN CONVICTING APPELLANT OF PARRICIDE WITHOUT TAKING DUE holding his breath. As aptly observed by the court a quo, this is a mere
REGARD OF HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE WAS SLEEPING AT THE TIME OF conjecture. Besides, there is clear evidence showing that the child was
THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF THE CRIME, WITHOUT TAKING DUE healthy and never suffered from this disease before.
REGARD OF THE FACT THAT THE MOST "DAMAGING TESTIMONY
AGAINST HIM WAS VAGUE, INCONSISTENT, AND OF THE FACT AS The accused assails the court a quo for giving the testimony of Arcadia
WELL THAT THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES WERE BIASED. greater weight than his denial. He points out that this witness could
not have seen the actual delivery of the first blow because at that
II precise moment she was then on her way down the stairs with her
back towards the hammock. However, this was satisfactorily
explained by the witness who said that immediately prior to the
IN NOT TAKING DUE REGARD OF THE TEMPORARY INSANITY OR
delivery of the first blow, she looked back at the accused who told her
ABSENCE OF DISCERNMENT OF APPELLANT, ASSUMING HIS CLAIM TO
to go ahead. Besides, it is also clear that the hut where the incident
BEING ASLEEP WAS WEAK
took place was small and its stairs had only two steps so that Arcadia
could not have missed seeing what the accused actually did. The
III accused also assails the prosecution witnesses for being biased and
prejudiced against him. The only evidence adduced by him in support
STILL ASSUMING THAT HIS CLAIM TO BEING ASLEEP WAS WEAK, THE of this claim is his testimony that his mother-in-law was always
COURT STILL ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING IN APPELLANT'S FAVOR against his marriage with her daughter and even wanted that they live
THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND separately. Assuming that this contention is true, there is nothing in
LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT SO GRAVE AN OFFENSE, AS WELL AS IN the records showing that the mother-in-law is that wicked to impute
NOT FINDING THAT NO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IN FACT WAS to her son-in-law the killing of his own child for the sole purpose of
PROVEN, NOR DO THEY EXIST. (Page 35, Rollo) seeing him ultimately separated from her daughter. Likewise, his
allegation that his wife's testimony is biased has no factual basis. On
Being closely interrelated, we shall discuss the first and second the contrary, the accused testified that he did not know of any ulterior
assignments of error together. motive why his wife testified against him, as he had no quarrel or
misunderstanding with his wife immediately preceding the incident.
The same holds true with Nicanora Codeniera. No proof whatsoever
The accused's defense that he was asleep at the time of the death of
was adduced to prove that this witness had some motive to falsely
the child is untenable.
testify against the accused. Consequently, in the absence of credible
evidence to support the charge of bias and prejudice, it is presumed
The prosecution witnesses, namely, Arcadia Retubado, Vicentica that the prosecution Witnesses would not have imputed to the
Robleca and Nicanora Codeniera, categorically and positively appellant the crime of which he was charged unless he was guilty
declared that they actually saw the accused deliver the fistic blows on thereof (People vs. Ali, L-18512, October 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 756).
the child who was inside the hammock and/or the resulting injuries
inflicted on the latter. The severity of the blows delivered was
Lastly, the accused asserts that the court a quo erred in not giving him The court a quo considered four aggravating circumstances as having
the benefit of the exempting circumstances of temporary insanity or attended the commission of the offense, namely: 1) treachery; 2) use
total absence of discernment assuming, arguendo, that he was awake of superior strength; 3) relationship; and 4) disregard of tender age.
when he killed his child since no motive at all was shown on his part
to commit the crime charged. This claim is also untenable. As correctly Treachery attended the killing of the 5-month old Raul. In People vs.
pointed out by the Solicitor General, the accused did not invoke said Valerio, Jr., L-4116, February 25, 1982, 112 SCRA 231, this Court en
defense during the trial, much less present evidence in support banc, speaking through Mme. Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera,
thereof. His defense then was that he was asleep during the incident said:
and surmised that the baby may have died of colic or simply held his
breath.
Treachery, as alleged in the Information, must be
considered qualifying and must be appreciated
The third assignment of error is likewise devoid of merit. The fact against the accused. The killing of a child is
alone that the accused did not escape after killing his child but murder even if the manner of attacked was not
remained inside the hut where the crime was committed cannot be shown. The qualifying circumstances of treachery
considered voluntary surrender to the authorities. The police officers or "alevosia" exists in the commission of the
arrived at the scene of the crime not upon his behest but because crime of murder when an adult person illegally
they were called by his wife, Arcadia, and his mother-in-law, attacks a child of tender years and causes his
Vicentica. Moreover, when questioned by the police regarding the death.
circumstances surrounding the death of his child, the accused replied
that he did not know anything about it as he was then asleep. In
Clearly, there was abuse of superior strength by the accused over the
People vs. Canoy, 90 Phil. 633, this Court said:
defenseless child, but the same cannot be appreciated as an
additional aggravating circumstance, it being absorbed in treachery.
The court, in our opinion, erred in applying the (People vs. Layson, L-25177, October 31, 1969, 30 SCRA 92).
mitigating circumstance of surrender. Canoy did
not surrender himself within the meaning of
The circumstance of disregard of age cannot also be considered
Article 13, paragraph 7, of the Revised Penal
because it has neither been proved nor admitted by the accused that
Code. The Chief of Police placed Canoy under
in committing the crime he had intended to offend or insult the age
arrest in his employer's home to which that
of the victim. (People vs. Mangsant, 65 Phil. 548). Besides, this
officer was summoned and brought in Broce's
circumstance is included in that of treachery. (People vs. Limaro, 88
jeep on Juvencio Broce's initiative or request. It
Phil. 35, 42).
does not appear that it was Canoy's idea to send
for the police for the purpose of giving himself up.
Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, one guilty of parricide
shall be punished by the penalty ranging from reclusion perpetua to
The accused cannot be credited with the mitigating circumstance of
death. In view, however, of the abolition of the death penalty in the
lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. He ought to have known
1987 Constitution, the proper penalty for the offense now is
that boxing a 5-month old child twice with the full force of his
only reclusion perpetua.
clenched fists would necessarily result in great physical harm to the
child or even his death. Clearly, brute force was employed by the
accused. In People vs. Yu, L-13780, January 28,1961, 1 SCRA 199, this In the instant case, the crime was committed with the attendance of
Court said: one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance.
Conformably with the provisions of Article 63, paragraph 1, of the
Revised Penal Code, the proper penalty to be imposed on the accused
... Since intention partakes of the nature of a
is reclusion perpetua. The indemnity in the amount of Twelve
mental process, an internal act, it can, as a
Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) ordered by the court a quo to be paid
general rule, be gathered from and determined
by the accused to the heirs of the deceased, Raul Retubado, is
only by the conduct and external acts of the
increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).
offender, and the results of the acts themselves.
It is easy enough for the accused to say that he
had no intention to do great harm. But he knew ACCORDINGLY, with the modifications above indicated, the judgment
the girl was very tender in age (6 years old), weak appealed from is affirmed in all respects, with costs.
in body, helpless and defenseless. He did not only
cover her mouth to silence her, but choked her.
He knew or ought to have known the natural and
inevitable result of the act of strangulation,
committed by men of superior strength, specially
on an occasion when she was resisting the
onslaught upon her honor. The brute force
employed by the appellant, completely
contradicts the claim that he had no intention to
kill the victim. (People v. Orongon, 58 Phil. 421;
People v. Flores, 50 Phil. 549; People v. Reyes, 61
Phil. 341).
G.R. No. L-15308 | May 29, 1964 the Court, and the Court would like to see to it that the
proper penalty is meted the accused.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, FISCAL DELGRA:
vs. Yes, your Honor, we can present witnesses.
ROBERTO BOYLES and PIO MONTES, defendants-appellant. ATTY. TUPAS
Since the accused had already pleaded guilty there is no
PER CURIAM: need to present evidence.
COURT:
On January 27, 1959, Roberto Boyles and Pio Montes were charged in Under the Rules of Court the Court has discretion to let the
the Court of First Instance of Davao with the crime of robbery with prosecution present evidence for the purpose of satisfying
homicide, the information reciting three (3) a gravating the Court that the accused is really guilty of the offense,
circumstances, to wit: "1. superior strength, 2. dwelling, and 3. especially like this case when it is a capital offense. (pp. 3-4,
nighttime, the accused having purposely sought it to facilitate its t.s.n.)
commission."
In compliance with the foregoing discretion, the prosecution went to
Subsequently, on March 11, 1959, the information was amended to trial and established the following facts:
include a fourth aggravating circumstance, namely, "the fact of two
prior convictions of both accused." Early in the morning of November 28, 1959, at about 3:00 o'clock, the
spouses Eminiano Bayo and Brigida Misona of Barrio Monte Carlo,
Upon assignment, both defendants, duly represented by counsel de Asuncion, Davao, were awakened by the barking of dogs about their
oficio, Atty. Marcial Tupas, pleaded guilty to the charge. premises. Eminiano Bayo went down to investigate what the
commotion was all about and soon returned to sleep when he saw
that the dogs were just barking at some wild pigs foraging for root
ATTY. TUPAS:
crops in their yard. 1äwphï1.ñët
The accused are willing to enter a plea of guilty and they are
ready to be arraigned.
Because of the incident, however, the couple were unable to sleep
COURT:
anymore. At about 5:00 o'clock that same morning, while his wife was
Arraign the accused.
breast-feeding one of their children, Eminiano Bayo decided to start
INTERPRETER: the day and went down the house to prepare their breakfast. As he
Reading the information to the accused. opened the door, however, he was surprised to see a man, later
ACCUSED PIO MONTES: identified as Felizardo Soria, menacingly standing and all set to attack
I understand the information read to me and I PLEAD him, and, just as quickly as he could yell a warning to his wife that
GUILTY. there was an intruder in their abode, the man brokethrough their
ACCUSED ROBERTO BOYLES: door, grabbed and wrestled with Bayo. On seeing the scuffle, Brigida
I understand the information read to me and I PLEAD ran to the rescue of her husband. She tried to break the stranger away
GUILTY. from Bayo, but before she could be of any effective help, the man
COURT: (Soria) shouted for his companions, the herein two appellants, who
To the accused Pio Montes: came rushing to the house. Pio Montes was armed with a knife,
Q. Do you understand the nature of your plea? Roberto Boyles with a gun. Promptly, they joined the fray, and with
their quarry thus greatly outnumbered, Pio Montes stabbed Eminiano
A. Yes, sir.
Bayo in the neck.
Q. You insist on pleading guilty?
A. Yes, Your Honor, because I am at fault.
In panic, fear and terror, Brigida blindly sought the window and
To the accused Roberto Boyles:
jumped, the fall spraining her waist and breaking her legs.
Q. Do you understand the nature of your plea?
Immediately, the stranger who first confronted her husband run
A. Yes, sir. down the house, grabbed and dragged herback upstairs where then
Q. You insist on pleading guilty? A Yes, sir. the group demanded money from her. She opened a trunk and get
Q. You understand the charge against you? the empty tin can of Klim milk in which she and her husband kept their
A. Yes, sir. savings of about P100.00 and handed over the contents to Pio
COURT: Montes.
Ask the same question to Pio Montes.
INTERPRETER: The three, however, did not content themselves with the money-
Asking the accused Pio Montes. loot.Exhibiting one of the ugliest and most revolting criminal
PIO MONTES: perversity this Court has ever been made to pass judgment on, the
A. Yes, sir. (pp. 2-3, t.s.n.) trio forcibly brought Brigida near where her dead husband lay bathe
Taking into account the gravity of the offense charged and the lawful in blood, and completely insensitive to the painful, terrified anguish
penalty that may be imposed therefor, the trial judge directed the of the just-widowed mother, they forced her to lie beside the corpse
prosecution to go to triaI notwithstanding the plea. and there took turns raping her. After everyone had quenched his
COURT: lustful thirst, they tied her hands behind her back and left.
The Court would like the prosecution to present witnesses
to prove the aggravating circumstances because the As soon as her attackers had departed, Brigida worked to free herself
discretion as to the imposition of the proper penalty is with from the ropes. She then woke her 6-year old son and sent him out to
ask for help from their neighbors.
Upon their arrests, both appellants readily confessed to the crime. Vol. 1, p. 265, 1961 ed.) It matters not that the offense is capital for
Their sworn statements were first taken by the Davao Police the admission (plea of guilty) covers both the crime as well as its
authorities and later subscribed and sworn to before the Assistant attendant circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the crime
Provincial Fisca1 of Davao. There is no question whatsoever as to the (People v. Marcial Ama y Perez, L-14783, April 29, 1961; People v.
validity and voluntary execution of the said documents. They were Roger Perete y Manlapas, L-15515, April 29, 1961).
translated into their dialects and both appellants admit they executed
them upon their own free will and with null awareness of their Although the foregoing jurisprudence covers the whole scope of
contents and consequences. appellants' appeal, We shall discuss more extensively the various
points raised in their brief in recognition of the seriousness of the
The third man in the group. Felizardo Soria, was still at large when this penalty imposed and because one aspect of this case needs further
case was filed. clarification.

As both accused have pleaded guilty, only one issue is addressed to The lower court appreciated nocturnity against the appellants solely
this Court for review, and that is, the legality of imposing the capital on the basis of the fact on record that the crime was committed at
punishment on them. about 5:00 o'clock in the morning. This particular finding can stand
correction. By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating
Counsel for the appellants insists that the proceedings in the lower circumstance. It becomes so only when it is especially sought by the
court have established only two aggravating circumstances in the offender and taken advantage of by him to facilitate the commission
commission of the crime, i.e., dwelling and habituality, which are in of the crime to insure his immunity from capture (People v. Alcala, 46
turn, however, offset by the two mitigating circumstances borne out Phil. 739; People v. Matbagon 60 Phil. 887; People v. Pardo, 79 Phil.
by the records of this case, namely, plea of guilty and lack of intention 658). Stated differently, in default of any showing or evidence that the
to commit so grave a wrong. Consequently, it is urged that the death peculiar advantages of nighttime was purposely and deliberately
penalty may not be legally meted pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2 sought by the accused, the fact that the offense was committed at
of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to paragraph 4 of the same night will not suffice to sustain nocturnidad. It must concur with the
Article. intent or design of the offender to capitalize on the intrinsic impunity
afforded by the darkness of night.
ART. 63. Rules for application of indivisible penalties. ...
In the case presently on appeal, We note that other than the time of
the crime, nothing else whatsoever suggests the aggravating
In all cases in which the law prescribe a penalty composed
circumstance of nighttime. Not one of the prosecution evidence, oral
of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be
or documentary, makes the slightest indication that the protection of
observed in the application thereof:
night's darkness was deliberately availed of by the appellants. In view
of this deficiency in the case for the Government. We are constrained
1. ... to disallow the said circumstance even as, technically, it may have
been accepted by them when they pleaded guilty on arraignment.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser The appellant also question the lower court's finding that they
penalty be applied. employed superior strength in the commission of the crime. They
claim that the evidence on record show otherwise.
3. ...
We do not think so. In the first place, there is the uncontradicted
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances testimony of the wife of the victim, an eyewitness to the attack, that
attended the commission of the act, the courts shall the herein two accused jumped on the victim as he was wrestling with
reasonably allow them to offset one another in Felizardo Soria and that it was while they had him thus outnumbered
consideration of their number and importance, for the that Pio Montes delivered the fatal blow. Secondly, the signed
purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the confessions of the appellants substantially tally with and confirm the
preceding rules according to the result such of such above testimony of the wife. The records do show that had not the
compensation. appellants herein seized upon their greater number and greater
power to overwhelm the deceased, the latter might have defended
We regret to disagree with the position and theory advanced by the himself more successfully. His aggressors were armed, and he was
appellants. unarmed and only by himself. The number of the aggressors here
point to the aggravating circumstance of superior force (U.S. v.
Bañagalo, 24 Phil. 69; People v. Eustaquio Caroz, et al., 68 Phil. 521).
To begin with, the appellants are now bound to accept the existence
of four aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime
imputed against them because they have pleaded guilty to the Finally, the point is raised that "aside from the plea of guilty of the
information in which said four circumstances were expressly alleged. accused, the trial court should have also considered the mitigating
The jurisprudence is firmly settled that while a plea of guilty is circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
mitigating, at the same time, it constitutes an admission of all the committed." The argument is that the accused planned only to rob;
material facts alleged in the information, includingthe aggravating them never meant to kill.
circumstances alleged, such as no oppoturnity use of superior force,
dwelling, etc. (People v. Egido, L-4217, Jan. 31, 1952; People v. Santos The obvious fallacy of the above argument lies in the failure to
and Vicente, L-12448, Jan. 22, 1959; People v. Agaton Salazar, L- understand the true nature of the aforementioned mitigating
13371, Sept. 24, 1959, all cited in Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, circumstance. Article 13, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code
addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular
moment when he execute or commits the criminal act; not to his
intention during the planning stage. Therefore, when, as in the case
under review the original plan was only to rob, but which plan, on
account of the resistance offered by the victim, was compounded into
the more serious crime of robbery with homicide, the plea of lack of
intention to commit so grave a wrong cannot be rightfully granted. It
is utterly of no moment that the herein accused set out only to rob.
The irrefutable fact remains that when they ganged up on their victim,
they employed deadly weapons and inflicted on him mortal wounds
in his neck. At that precise moment, they did intend to kill their victim,
and that was the moment to which Article 13, paragraph 3 of the
Revised Penal Code refers.

While intent to kill is purely a mental process, it may be inferred from

the weapon used, the extent of the injuries sustained by the offended
party and the circumstances of the aggression (People v. Parana, 64
Phil. 331) as well as the fact that the accused performed all the acts
that should have resulted in the death (People v. Mercado, 51 Phil.
99). In the case at bar, the weapon used, the force of the blow, the
spot where the blow was directed and landed, and the cold-blood in
which it was inflicted, all tend to negative any motion that the plan
was any thing less than to finish their intended victim (People v.
Orongan, 58 Phil. 426). Hence, the charge that the extenuating
circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed was unjustly denied the appellants is completely
unfounded.

In summary, then, the crime committed was robbery with homicide;

aggravated by three (3) circumstances, namely, dwelling, use of
superior force and habituality. Only one mitigating circumstance,
voluntary plea of guilty, is legally assessible in appellants' favor. There
is absolutely neither basis nor justice for this Court to extend unto
them the extenuating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong, the records of this case having conclusively
demonstrated the contrary. It may be said, though, that even if We
were to credit the last mentioned circumstance in favor of the herein
accused, they still would have to be meted the death penalty since
the aggravating circumstances would still be one more than the
mitigating circumstances — a condition which under our penal system
makes mandatory the imposition of the greater penalty, death.

Our attention is called to the fact that the trial court sentenced the
appellants to pay, jointlly and severally, an indemnity of only
P3,000.00. As recommended by the Solicitor General's office, this
amount should be increased to P6,000.00 in line with the doctrine
first laid down in the case of People v. Amansec, G.R. No. L-927, March
11, 1948.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, and, with the sole modification

adverted to in the last paragraph, the decision appealed from is
hereby affirmed. Costs against the appellants.
G.R. No. L-74324 November 17, 1988 amount of P13,940.00 plus moral damages of
P10,000.00 and exemplary damages of P5,000.00.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. Let the preventive imprisonment of Pugay be
FERNANDO PUGAY y BALCITA, & BENJAMIN SAMSON y deducted from the principal penalty.
MAGDALENA, accused-appellants.
Cost against both accused.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
SO ORDERED (p. 248, Records).
For the death of Bayani Miranda, a retardate, FERNANDO PUGAY y
BALCITA and BENJAMIN SAMSON y MAGDALENA were charged with Not satisfied with the decision, both accused interposed the present
the crime of MURDER in Criminal Case No. L-175-82 of the Court of appeal and assigned the following errors committed by the court a
First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Cavite, under an quo:
information which reads as follows:
1. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN UTILIZING THE
That on or about May 19, 1982 at the town plaza STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED-APPELLANTS IN ITS
of the Municipality of Rosario, Province of Cavite, APPRECIATION OF FACTS DESPITE ITS ADMISSION
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WERE NOT
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ASSISTED BY A COUNSEL DURING THE CUSTODIAL
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping INVESTIGATION.
and assisting one another, with treachery and
evident premeditation, taking advantage of their
2. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT FINDING
superior strength, and with the decided purpose
THAT THE SUPPRESSION BY THE PROSECUTION
to kill, poured gasoline, a combustible liquid to
OF SOME EVIDENCE IS FATAL TO ITS CASE.
the body of Bayani Miranda and with the use of
fire did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, burn the whole body of said Bayani 3. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN LENDING
Miranda which caused his subsequent death, to CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF
the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the EDUARDO GABION WHO WAS ONE OF THE MANY
aforenamed Bayani Miranda. SUSPECTS ARRESTED BY THE POLICE (Accused-
appellants' Brief, p. 48, Rollo).
That the crime was committed with the qualifying
circumstance of treachery and the aggravating The antecedent facts are as follows:
circumstances of evident premeditation and
superior strength, and the means employed was The deceased Miranda, a 25-year old retardate, and the accused
to weaken the defense; that the wrong done in Pugay were friends. Miranda used to run errands for Pugay and at
the commission of the crime was deliberately times they slept together. On the evening of May 19, 1982, a town
augmented by causing another wrong, that is the fiesta fair was held in the public plaza of Rosario, Cavite. There were
burning of the body of Bayani Miranda. different kinds of ride and one was a ferris wheel.

CONTRARY TO LAW (p. 1, Records). Sometime after midnight of the same date, Eduardo Gabion was
sitting in the ferris wheel and reading a comic book with his friend
Upon being arraigned, both accused pleaded not guilty to the offense Henry. Later, the accused Pugay and Samson with several companions
charged. After trial, the trial court rendered a decision finding both arrived. These persons appeared to be drunk as they were all happy
accused guilty on the crime of murder but crediting in favor of the and noisy. As the group saw the deceased walking nearby, they
accused Pugay the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to started making fun of him. They made the deceased dance by tickling
commit so grave a wrong, the dispositive portion of which reads as him with a piece of wood.
follows:
Not content with what they were doing with the deceased, the
WHEREFORE, the accused Fernando Pugay y accused Pugay suddenly took a can of gasoline from under the engine
Balcita and Benjamin Samson y Magdalena are of the ferns wheel and poured its contents on the body of the former.
pronounced guilty beyond reasonable doubt as Gabion told Pugay not to do so while the latter was already in the
principals by direct participation of the crime of process of pouring the gasoline. Then, the accused Samson set
murder for the death of Bayani Miranda, and Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him.
appreciating the aforestated mitigating
circumstance in favor of Pugay, he is sentenced to The ferris wheel operator later arrived and doused with water the
a prison term ranging from twelve (12) years burning body of the deceased. Some people around also poured sand
of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) on the burning body and others wrapped the same with rags to
years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and extinguish the flame.
Samson to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua together with the accessories of the law The body of the deceased was still aflame when police officer Rolando
for both of them. The accused are solidarily held Silangcruz and other police officers of the Rosario Police Force arrived
liable to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the
at the scene of the incident. Upon inquiring as to who were Accused-appellants also attack the credibility of the eyewitness
responsible for the dastardly act, the persons around spontaneously Gabion alleging that not only was the latter requested by the mother
pointed to Pugay and Samson as the authors thereof. of the deceased to testify for the prosecution in exchange for his
absolution from liability but also because his testimony that he was
The deceased was later rushed to the Grace Hospital for treatment. reading a comic book during an unusual event is contrary to human
In the meantime, the police officers brought Gabion, the two accused behavior and experience.
and five other persons to the Rosario municipal building for
interrogation. Police officer Reynaldo Canlas took the written Gabion testified that it was his uncle and not the mother of the
statements of Gabion and the two accused, after which Gabion was deceased who asked him to testify and state the truth about the
released. The two accused remained in custody. incident. The mother of the deceased likewise testified that she never
talked to Gabion and that she saw the latter for the first time when
After a careful review of the records, We find the grounds relied upon the instant case was tried. Besides, the accused Pugay admitted that
by the accused-appellants for the reversal of the decision of the Gabion was his friend and both Pugay and the other accused Samson
court a quo to be without merit. testified that they had no previous misunderstanding with Gabion.
Clearly, Gabion had no reason to testify falsely against them.
It bears emphasis that barely a few hours after the incident, accused-
appellants gave their written statements to the police. The accused In support of their claim that the testimony of Gabion to the effect
Pugay admitted in his statement, Exhibit F, that he poured a can of that he saw Pugay pour gasoline on the deceased and then Samson
gasoline on the deceased believing that the contents thereof was set him on fire is incredible, the accused-appellants quote Gabion's
water and then the accused Samson set the deceased on fire. The testimony on cross-examination that, after telling Pugay not to pour
accused Samson, on the other hand, alleged in his statement that he gasoline on the deceased, he (Gabion) resumed reading comics; and
saw Pugay pour gasoline on Miranda but did not see the person who that it was only when the victim's body was on fire that he noticed a
set him on fire. Worthy of note is the fact that both statements did commotion.
not impute any participation of eyewitness Gabion in the commission
of the offense. However, explaining this testimony on re-direct examination, Gabion
stated:
While testifying on their defense, the accused-appellants repudiated
their written statements alleging that they were extracted by force. Q. Mr. Gabion, you told the
They claimed that the police maltreated them into admitting Court on cross-examination
authorship of the crime. They also engaged in a concerted effort to that you were reading comics
lay the blame on Gabion for the commission of the offense. when you saw Pugay poured
gasoline unto Bayani Miranda
Thus, while it is true that the written statements of the accused- and lighted by Samson. How
appellants were mentioned and discussed in the decision of the could you possibly see that
court a quo, the contents thereof were not utilized as the sole basis incident while you were
for the findings of facts in the decision rendered. The said court reading comics?
categorically stated that "even without Exhibits 'F' and 'G', there is still
Gabion's straightforward, positive and convincing testimony which A. I put down the comics
remains unaffected by the uncorroborated, self-serving and which I am reading and I saw
unrealiable testimonies of Pugay and Samson" (p. 247, Records). what they were doing.

Accused-appellants next assert that the prosecution suppressed the Q. According to you also
testimonies of other eyewitnesses to the incident. They claim that before Bayani was poured
despite the fact that there were other persons investigated by the with gasoline and lighted and
police, only Gabion was presented as an eyewitness during the trial of burned later you had a talk
the case. They argue that the deliberate non- presentation of these with Pugay, is that correct?
persons raises the presumption that their testimonies would be
adverse to the prosecution. A. When he was pouring
gasoline on Bayani Miranda I
There is no dispute that there were other persons who witnessed the was trying to prevent him
commission of the crime. In fact there appears on record (pp. 16- from doing so.
17, Records) the written statements of one Abelardo Reyes and one
Monico Alimorong alleging the same facts and imputing the Q. We want to clarify.
respective acts of pouring of gasoline and setting the deceased on fire According to you a while ago
to the accused-appellants as testified to by Gabion in open court. you had a talk with Pugay and
They were listed as prosecution witnesses in the information filed. as a matter of fact, you told
Considering that their testimonies would be merely corroborative, him not to pour gasoline. That
their non-presentation does not give rise to the presumption that is what I want to know from
evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. This you, if that is true?
presumption does not apply to the suppression of merely
corroborative evidence (U.S. vs. Dinola, 37 Phil.
A. Yes, sir.
797).<äre||anº•1àw> Besides, the matter as to whom to utilize as
witness is for the prosecution to decide.
Q. Aside from Bayani being A. Yes, sir (Tsn, July 30, 1983,
tickled with a stick on his ass, pp. 32-33).
do you mean to say you come
to know that Pugay will pour It is thus clear that prior to the incident in question, Gabion was
gasoline unto him? reading a comic book; that Gabion stopped reading when the group
of Pugay started to make fun of the deceased; that Gabion saw Pugay
A. I do not know that would get the can of gasoline from under the engine of the ferris wheel; that
be that incident. it was while Pugay was in the process of pouring the gasoline on the
body of the deceased when Gabion warned him not to do so; and that
Q. Why did you as(k) Pugay in Gabion later saw Samson set the deceased on fire.
the first place not to pour
gasoline before he did that However, there is nothing in the records showing that there was
actually? previous conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention
between the two accused-appellants immediately before the
A. Because I pity Bayani, sir. commission of the crime. There was no animosity between the
deceased and the accused Pugay or Samson. Their meeting at the
scene of the incident was accidental. It is also clear that the accused
Q. When you saw Pugay
Pugay and his group merely wanted to make fun of the deceased.
tickling Bayani with a stick on
Hence, the respective criminal responsibility of Pugay and Samson
his ass you tried according to
arising from different acts directed against the deceased is individual
you to ask him not to and
and not collective, and each of them is liable only for the act
then later you said you asked
committed by him (U.S. vs. Magcomot, et. al. 13, Phil. 386; U.S. vs.
not to pour gasoline. Did
Abiog, et. al. 37 Phil. 1371).
Pugay tell you he was going to
pour gasoline on Bayani?
The next question to be determined is the criminal responsibility of
the accused Pugay. Having taken the can from under the engine of the
A. I was not told, sir.
ferris wheel and holding it before pouring its contents on the body of
the deceased, this accused knew that the can contained gasoline. The
Q. Did you come to know..... stinging smell of this flammable liquid could not have escaped his
how did you come to know he notice even before pouring the same. Clearly, he failed to exercise all
was going to pour gasoline the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence
that is why you prevent him? arising from any act that may be committed by his companions who
at the time were making fun of the deceased. We agree with the
A. Because he was holding on Solicitor General that the accused is only guilty of homicide through
a container of gasoline. I reckless imprudence defined in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code,
thought it was water but it as amended. In U.S. vs. Maleza, et. al. 14 Phil. 468, 470, this Court
was gasoline. ruled as follows:

Q. It is clear that while Pugay A man must use common sense and exercise due
was tickling Bayani with a reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be
stick on his ass, he later got cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from
hold of a can of gasoline, is instinct, then through fear of incurring
that correct? punishment. He is responsible for such results as
anyone might foresee and for acts which no one
A. Yes, sir. would have performed except through culpable
abandon. Otherwise his own person, rights and
property, all those of his fellow-beings, would
Q. And when he pick up the ever be exposed to all manner of danger and
can of gasoline, was that the injury.
time you told him not to pour
gasoline when he merely pick
up the can of gasoline. The proper penalty that the accused Pugay must suffer is an
indeterminate one ranging from four (4) months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
A. I saw him pouring the as maximum. With respect to the accused Samson, the Solicitor
gasoline on the body of Joe. General in his brief contends that "his conviction of murder, is proper
considering that his act in setting the deceased on fire knowing that
Q. So, it is clear when you told gasoline had just been poured on him is characterized by treachery as
Pugay not to pour gasoline he the victim was left completely helpless to defend and protect himself
was already in the process of against such an outrage" (p. 57, Rollo). We do not agree.
pouring gasoline on the body
of Bayani? There is entire absence of proof in the record that the accused
Samson had some reason to kill the deceased before the incident. On
the contrary, there is adequate evidence showing that his act was
merely a part of their fun-making that evening. For the circumstance
of treachery to exist, the attack must be deliberate and the culprit
employed means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from any defense which the offended party might
make.

There can be no doubt that the accused Samson knew very well that
the liquid poured on the body of the deceased was gasoline and a
flammable substance for he would not have committed the act of
setting the latter on fire if it were otherwise. Giving him the benefit
of doubt, it call be conceded that as part of their fun-making he
merely intended to set the deceased's clothes on fire. His act,
however, does not relieve him of criminal responsibility. Burning the
clothes of the victim would cause at the very least some kind of
physical injuries on his person, a felony defined in the Revised Penal
Code. If his act resulted into a graver offense, as what took place in
the instant case, he must be held responsible therefor. Article 4 of the
aforesaid code provides, inter alia, that criminal liability shall be
incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

As no sufficient evidence appears in the record establishing any

qualifying circumstances, the accused Samson is only guilty of the
crime of homicide defined and penalized in Article 249 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended. We are disposed to credit in his favor the
ordinary mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave
a wrong as that committed as there is evidence of a fact from which
such conclusion can be drawn. The eyewitness Gabion testified that
the accused Pugay and Samson were stunned when they noticed the
deceased burning (Tsn, June 1, 1983, pp. 16-17).<äre||anº•1àw>

The proper penalty that the accused Samson must suffer is an

indeterminate one ranging from eight (8) years of prision mayor, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

The lower court held the accused solidarily liable for P13,940.00, the
amount spent by Miranda's parents for his hospitalization, wake and
interment. The indemnity for death is P30,000.00. Hence, the
indemnity to the heirs of the deceased Miranda is increased to
P43,940.00.

Both accused shall be jointly and severally liable for the aforesaid
amount plus the P10,000.00 as moral damages and P5,000.00 as
exemplary damages as found by the court a quo.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed with the modifications above-

indicated. Costs against the accused-appellants.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 39519 November 21, 1991 two automatic pistols. 2 The police had earlier undertaken a
surveillance of Bello on the basis of information it had received that
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellee he was conducting an "obstacle course" or training men for combat
vs. since October, 1970. 3
DANIEL PINTO, JR. and NARCISO BUENAFLOR, JR., defendants-
appellants. Upon receipt of the search warrant, the Chief of Police, Dr. Solomon Adornado, 4
called his
officers to a "confidential conference" at the residence of Mayor
FERNAN, C.J.: Gregorio Imperial. Present at the said conference were the mayor, his
secretary, and the officers of the patrol division, secret service and
the administration of the city police. The Chief of Police was assisted
As an aftermath of the mission of the Legazpi City Police Department
by Major Alfredo Molo, head of the intelligence division of the city
to serve on Christmas day in 1970 a search warrant on Francisco Bello
police, in briefing the group on how to serve the search warrant and
who was allegedly training a private army, patrolmen Daniel Pinto, Jr.
to arrest Bello as the latter had been identified as the one who shot
and Narciso Buenaflor, Jr. were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
Salustiano Botin the night before. At the time of the briefing, no
by the then Circuit Criminal Court in said city, of killing not only Bello
warrant of arrest had yet been issued against Bello. 5
but also 9-year-old Richard Tiongson and Rosalio Andes and seriously
wounding Maria Theresa Tiongson. The dispositive portion of the
The policemen were divided into three teams and around five members of the Philippine Constabulary
decision of June 13, 1974. 1 reads:
(PC) who were also present were assigned to the different teams. 6
Team 3 was placed
under the charge of Sgt. Salvador de la Paz with a policeman named
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Narciso
Luna and appellants Buenaflor and Pinto as members. Wilfredo
Buenaflor, Jr. and Daniel Pinto, Jr. GUILTY beyond
Romero was the PC member assigned to the team. 7 Except for
reasonable doubt of crime of:
Romero and Pinto who were each armed with a carbine, the
policemen of Team 3 each carried a .38 caliber pistol. 8
(a) MURDER in CCC-X-288-Albay, and hereby
sentences each of them to suffer imprisonment Loaded in four vehicles, the three teams proceeded from the residence of the Mayor to barrio Homapon
for the rest of their lives (Reclusion Perpetua); to arriving there at around seven o'clock in the evening. The four vehicles met at the junction of Homapon
indemnify the heir of Rosalie Andes in the amount and the road to Mariawa. They had decided to ride on the way to Mariawa when one of the jeeps bogged
of Twenty-five Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos, down because of the muddy road. Hence, the three teams had to walk in single file on the right side of
jointly and severally; and to pay the costs; the road with the teams had to walk in single file on the right side of the road with the teams maintaining
a distance o around ten meters between them. 9
(b) MURDER in CCC-X-289-Albay, and hereby
sentences each of them to suffer imprisonment Suddenly, Romero noticed the members of his team running. He ran with them and then he heard
for the rest of their lives (Reclusion Perpetua); to someone shout, "Pondo!" (stop). The shout was followed by a shot and then a burst of gunfire. The team
indemnify the heirs of Francisco Bello in the had by then deployed to the right side of the road. When Romero checked the men by shouting the
amount of Twenty-five Thousand (P25,000.00) agreed password of "bayawas" for which the person challenged answered "santol", 10
he found
Pesos, jointly and severally; and to pay the costs;
that Buenaflor was 5 meters in front of him "at the bank of the road",
Pinto was two meters to the right of Buenaflor, Sgt. de la Paz was two
(c) MURDER in CCC-X-298-Legazpi City, and meters to his (Romero's) right, Luna who was holding a walkie-talkie
hereby sentences each of them to suffer was to his left and another policeman was in front of Luna. 11 When
imprisonment for the rest of their lives (Reclusion Romero heard the gunburst, he saw "flashes of fire" "just in front" of
Perpetua); to indemnify the heirs of Richard him or from the place where Buenaflor was. 12
Tiongson in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand
(P25,000.00) Pesos, jointly and severally; and to The area where the team deployed was lower in elevation than the road but Romero heard the rumbling
pay the costs; of a jeep going towards the direction of Homapon when he heard the burst of gunfire and saw the flashes
of fire from the direction of Buenaflor. 13
(d) FRUSTRATED MURDER in CCC-X-299 Legazpi
City, and hereby sentences each of them to On the jeep which passed by the deployed policemen were Fr. Felix Cappellan, Mrs. Zenaida
imprisonment of from Six (6) Years and One (1) Stilianopolous Tiongson, her six children and the driver. They had just come from a lechonada party in
Day of Prision Mayor as Minimum, to Twelve (12) the hacienda in Mariawa of Mrs. Purificacion Napal Anduiza, the mother of Francisco Bello. Fr. Capellan
Years and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal as had celebrated mass to commemorate the death anniversary of Mrs. Anduiza's father. When Fr. Capellan
Maximum; to indemnify the victim, Maria decided to go back to his parish, the Anduiza's offered their jeep for his transportation. 14
Seated
Theresa Tiongson, in the amount of Eight
on the front seat of the "McArthur type" jeep which had only a
Thousand (P8,000.00) Pesos, jointly and severally;
canvass top but no cover on the sides and back, 15 were the driver,
and to pay the costs.
Mrs. Tiongson with a child on her lap and Fr. Capellan. 16 Richard
Tiongson was seated on the steel seat behind the driver while his
In addition to the foregoing the accused are sentenced to sister Maria Theresa was beside him. 17 The three other children were
suffer perpetual disqualification from public office. also seated at the back.

According to the prosecution, on December 25, 1970, the Legazpi City After crossing the creek on their way to Homapon and as the driver
Police secured from the City Court of Legazpi a warrant for the search "changed to high gear with a dual", 18 Mrs. Tiongson saw blinking
of the house and premises of Francisco Bello in Mariawa, Legazpi City lights some 300 yards ahead. 19 Fearing that there might be "people
on the ground that the police had probable cause to believe that Bello with bad intentions" or hold-uppers, Fr. Capellan told the driver to go
illegally possessed a garand rifle, a thompson submachinegun and faster. 20 Then Fr. Capellan heard one shot and after a few seconds
and around 50 meters ahead, there was rapid firing with some of the Meanwhile, according to Chief of Police Adornado, after the shooting incident involving the Tiongsons,

bullets hitting the jeep. 21 According to Mrs. Tiongson, the widow of the police pursued their mission to serve the search warrant on Bello. When they reached Bello's

Col. Angel Tiongson of the PC, the rapid firing sounded residence in Mariawa, they were met by a "volley of fire." Suddenly, the house was lighted and a certain

"automatic". 22 The firing came from the left rear side of the jeep. 23 Escober met him. Although Bello and his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Anduiza, were not around, the police
searched the area and found a Japanese Springfield rifle, ammunition of a garand rifle, ammunition of a
carbine, live ammunition for a .38 caliber pistol and 380 bullets for an automatic
Before they were fired upon, Maria Theresa saw a man lying flat on his stomach while holding a gun on
pistol. 42
Thereafter, the Chief of Police declared the search terminated
the left side of the road just ahead of the jeep. 24
Through the light of the jeep, Maria
Theresa noticed that the man was wearing a jacket and a hat and he and the entire searching party left for headquarters. 43 The following
was on the shoulder of the road. 25 After passing the man, the rapid day, he issued Special Order No. 24 which states:
firing ensued. Richard said "ugh" and fell on the floor of the jeep.
Maria Theresa was about to hold Richard when she felt herself hit at December 26, 1970
the buttocks. Then they all screamed. 26
To All Concerned:
The jeep continued its fast uphill climb until it reached a level area and almost fell into a ditch were it
not for a clump of banana plants. The jeep came to a full stop. Fr. Capellan saw three men with flashlights
The following men mentioned below are hereby assigned at
but he could not distinguish their faces as it was dark and their flashlights were focused on the
Homapon until their mission is accomplished, effective as of today,
ground. 27
Mrs. Tiongson saw a PC jeep and some cars and, believing that December 26, 1970:
one of the cars was that of the Mayor, she called Tia Citang, the
mother of the mayor, at the same time identifying herself. 28 She must
1 Sgt. Salvador de la Paz, In-charge
have managed to take Richard from the jeep and was cuddling him on
the ground near the left rear end of the jeep when she requested Fr.
Capellan to administer extreme unction on Richard. As Fr. Capellan 2. Pfc. Carlos Barbin, member
had no holy oil, he gave the boy absolution. 29
3. Pat. Eduardo Arcinue, member
Even after Mrs. Tiongson had identified herself as the widow of Col. Tiongson to the men around, nobody
listened to her appeal for help. When she approached Chief of Police Adornado, she hit him and asked
4. Pat. Juan Luna, member
him why they shot her and her companions. The Chief of Police replied that the shooting was no longer
his fault because Mrs. Tiongson and her companions did not stop when told to do so. She requested the
Chief of Police for a car in which to take Richard to the hospital or for a driver and even for a walkie-
5. Pat. Daniel Pinto, member
talkie so she could talk to Mayor Imperial but the Chief of Police did not heed her pleas. 30 (TSN,
February 9, 1972, pp. 17-22). 6. Pat. Celedonio Abordo, member

A few minutes later, a jeep driven by Fernando Anduiza arrived. Mrs. 7. Pat. Narciso Buenaflor, member
Tiongson and her children boarded the jeep. At the intersection of the
road to Legazpi City proper and the road to Mariawa, the area was Report progress of mission any time of day through the radio system.
brightly lighted and armed men ordered them to put their hands up. For strict compliance.
They were told to alight from the jeep to be searched but Mrs.
Tiongson begged the lieutenant manning the area to let them pass so (Sgd.)
they could bring her two children to the hospital. 31
SOLOMON B. ADORNADO
Richard and Maria Theresa were brought to the Sacred Heart Clinic in Legazpi City. Thirteen-year-old
Chief of Police
Maria Theresa was treated for a gunshot wound at the "right upper quadrant of the right
buttocks." 32
Her pelvis and abdomen were x-rayed. One of the x-ray
Copy furnished: The Honorable City Mayor, The Patrol Command,
plates 33 revealed an oval spot indicating a foreign body in Maria
LCPD, the OIC and file . 44
Theresa's pelvis. The attending physician decided not to extract the
foreign body as Maria Theresa was not a "very good surgical
The mission was to keep peace and order in the specified place and to determine the whereabouts of
risk". 34 The hospital charged P282.90 for Theresa's
Bello. 45
It was not necessary to specify the mission in the order itself
hospitalization. 35 She was later brought by an army plane to the PC
Station Hospital in Camp Crame, Quezon City for further treatment because the Chief of Police "had a close understanding with the squad
and hospitalization 36 but the foreign body was never removed from that went to Homapon". 46For a "convenient tactical deployment,"
her pelvic area. Sgt. De la Paz further divided Team 3 into three groups with
patrolmen Buenaflor and Pinto composing Group II. 47
Richard sustained a gunshot wound at the back about the level of the
At noontime of December 26, 1970, Francisco Bello, more popularly known as Paquito, arrived at the
5th lumbar vertebrae. The bullet travelled obliquely to the left kidney,
residence of Inocencia Malbas in sitio Ando, Talahib, Daraga, Albay. He was with Inocencia's brother,
the lesser sac, the liver and the right auricle. 37 Richard was operated
Francisco Andes, Francisco's son Ananias, and Leoncio Mostoles. Rosalio, another son of Francisco, also
at the hospital but he died at 8:45 the following morning due to
arrived with the group. 48
Bello requested Inocencia and her husband that he
massive hemorrhage caused by the gunshot wound. 38 When he was
autopsied, a lead slug was found embedded in his heart. 39 His mother and his group be allowed to spend the night in Inocencia's house. 49
paid P862.35 40 for his hospitalization and was charged P200 by the
church. Mayor Imperial paid P500 to Funeraria Oro for Richard's Inocencia woke up at around 5:00 o'clock in the morning of December 27, 1970. At the sala, on her way

burial. 41 from her room to the kitchen, she saw Bello sleeping alone. From the kitchen, Inocencia went to the
balcony through the sala. On her way back to the kitchen, she noticed that Bello, who was wearing a red
shirt and an underwear, had awakened. Bello opened the window, spat out and went to the balcony. He
reentered the sala and saying that it was cold, Bello put on his clothes and pants. He also wore his jacket. ramus of the right pubis. The slug was found at the gluteoperineal junction about 2 inches below the tip
He went back to the balcony and asked for water. Inocencia's husband gave Bello a glass of water. After of the coccys and 2 1/2 inches above the gluteal line. A third bullet entered the left knee and exited at
gurgling, Bello placed the glass on the window sill and ask Inocencia's husband for a cup of coffee. 50 the medial side of the leg. 61

Inocencia's husband was about to offer Bello a cup of coffee when she heard a successive burst of The slugs and parts of bullets which were extracted from the bodies of the victims were turned over to
gunfire. Bello, who was the balcony facing the copra kiln ("agonan") with his back towards the pili tree, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on December 29, 1970 by Fiscal Aquilino Bonto for safekeeping
gradually fell to the floor with his hands above his head. Then there was another burst of gunfire. From purposes. 62
The empty shells and slugs which both the PC and the
the kitchen, Inocencia rushed to the door from where she saw a man holding a long firearm, whom she Legazpi City police found in Talahib were also turned over to the
later identified as Pinto, near the pili tree which was around eight meters from where Bello was, and NBI 63 in the same manner that the four empty carbine shells 64 found
another man, also holding a gun, crouching near the stairs. 51 by the PC near the coconut tree a meter from the shoulder of the road
to Mariawa were also turned over to the NBI. 65 Also submitted to the
Inocencia, with her two-year-old child in her arms, 52
was about to rush to Bello when NBI for ballistic examination were twelve Smith & Wesson caliber .38
her husband pulled her. Just then a man, whom Inocencia identified revolvers, two Smith & Wesson "paltik" caliber .22, four Tell caliber
as Buenaflor, came up the house, pointed a gun at Inocencia and her revolvers, one Bosque automatic pistol caliber .380, four carbine
husband and told them to lay flat on the floor. The man asked them Inland rifles caliber .30, three US Springfield rifles caliber.30, one
where the gun was. Inocencia told him that there was no gun in the Thompson submachine gun caliber .45 and one Colt automatic pistol
house but then, when she looked around, she saw a long firearm with caliber.45. 66
its muzzle pointed upward leaning against the wall near the door
around two meters from where Bello laid flat on his back. Bello Defendants Pinto and Buenaflor both denied having fired at the jeep bearing the Tiongson

himself had a gun but it was in its holster tucked on his waist. 53 It was family. 67
Pinto, who admitted carrying a caliber .30 carbine during the
Buenaflor who took both the long firearm and the gun in Bello's incident, 68 testified that the shooting occurred because the
holster. 54 Tiongsons' jeep "was going towards" them. 69

When Francisco Andes went up the house, he told Inocencia that Rosalio was dead. 55
Inocencia According to Pinto, when they reached Mariawa, it was he who fired one shot in the air. 70
After the
went near the pili tree where Rosalio's body was, knelt down and search had been conducted in Bello's premises, Team 3 was instrued
asked the man with a long firearm why he killed Rosalio. The man by a "superior officer" "to remain and maintain peace and order in
answered that Rosalio fought back. However, Inocencia did not notice (the) vicinity including Mariawa". 71 While he and Buenaflor were
any weapon near Rosalio's body. 56 patrolling the area, at around midnight, they "chanced upon a house"
wherein Bello and his group were staying. They captured four of
Bello's hands and feet were tied together and a bamboo pole was inserted between them so that two Bello's bodyguards and tied them to a pili tree with the torn shirt of
men, one of them being Francisco Andes, could carry the cadaver. 57
Bello died because of one of the captives. 72
"shock secondary to massive hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot
wounds". 58 A former pilot and 28 years old at the time of his death, At daybreak, Pinto saw Bello smoking at the porch. Buenaflor, who was behind him, called Bello. Then a

Bello sustained a gunshot wound at the left temple, an inch above the single shot coming from the house rang out. It was answered by a burst of fire which Pinto "presumed"

highest point of the pinna of the left ear. The bullet which entered his came from Buenaflor. By reflex action, Pinto transferred from the pili tree to a nearby coconut tree. But

head through the squamous temporal bone travelled towards the before he reached the coconut tree, he saw a man with a bolo in his hand running towards him. As the

occipital region down to the floor of the left middle cranial fosa until man was menacingly near him, Pinto shot him. 73

it reached the base of the tongue.

After a lull in the firing, he went up the house to look for Bello's other companions. He saw the body of

Bello had three gunshot wounds on his chest. One bullet entered the Bello on the porch and "near" it was a garand which he took. He also got Bello's short firearm "from a

superior part of the right scapular area about the level of the third holster." He turned over both the garand and the short firearm to Buenaflor. One of the captured

thoracic vertebrae. The bullet travelled to the right inna in a slightly persons kicked Bello's body saying that if not for Bello, his son would not have been killed. Thereafter,

upward direction making its exit at the lateral part of the right the two dead persons were carried by the captured bodyguards to Mariawa. 74

supraclavicular fossa above the clavicle. The second gunshot wound

was at the left side interscapular area. The bullet travelled upwards In Mariawa, Pinto contacted (through the radio) police outpost No. 5 in Banquerohan and two jeeps
and to the right fracturing the 7th rib, entered the lower lobe of the arrived. When they reached the junction in Homapon, Major Molo, who was with Fiscal Benito Se, told
left lung, punctured the pulmonary conus, went through the junction Pinto to go back with him to Talahib. Although Pinto warned Major Molo that it would be dangerous to
of the right auricular appendage and the right auricle, the go back because one of Bello's men had escaped, they nevertheless proceeded to Talahib. With three
anteromedial side of the pericardium, grazed the medial surface of other policemen, they arrived there between eight and nine in the morning where they were instructed
the middle lobe of the right lung and exited at the right side of the to "look for evidence specifically . . . for a thompson." He found in the porch two shells and the others
chest. The third gunshot wound was below the right nipple. The bullet found a hat and a flashlight. Thereafter, they returned to Mariawa and later, to Legazpi City proper. 75
went to the chest cavity, the lower lobe of the right lung, the dome of
the diaphragm, the right lobe of the liver, the 8th thoracic vertebrae On cross-examination, Pinto stated that he did not know that they found Bello in an area which was
and exited at the left of the midline at the inferior interscapular beyond the jurisdiction of Legazpi City. He admitted that while they were instructed patrol the area, they
area. 59 were also told to effect the arrest of Bello even if no complaint had been lodged against
him. 76
According to Pinto, of the fifteen bullets in the magazine of his
While Bellos corpse was being autopsied, a slug fell from his jacket. A bullet jacket and lead fragments
carbine, only two remained. He fired "most" of the thirteen shots
were found at the base of his skull and a slug was extracted from the floor of his mouth. 60
during the "Bello incident". 77

Rosalio Andes, 23 years old, also died of shock due to multiple gunshot wounds. A bullet entered his right
Pinto shot the man later identified as Rosalio Andes when he was at a distance of around three meters.
temporal area, macerated the brain, fractured both parietal bones and exited at the left parietal bone. Rosalio was "face to face" with him when Pinto shot him. As Rosalio did not fall from the first shot, Pinto
Another bullet entered the left scapular area below the level of the 6th rib, travelled to the dome of the continued shooting him. 78 When he went up the porch he saw the garand
left diaphragm, the left lobe of the liver, the pancreas, the small intestines, and the perineum below the
"lying on the floor" but the gun tucked on Bello's waist was still in its Thompson submachinegun or automatic rifle in Talahib. 97 His service
holster. 79 revolver was still with him then. 98

On the Tiongson incident, Pinto asserted that he did not fire his
carbine. 80
When he saw the headlight of the Tiongsons' jeep, he also
saw a flashlight being waved. A little later, he heard a shout ordering As a result of this series of events, four separate informations were filed against Pinto and Buenaflor.
the jeep to stop. Then he heard one shot and immediately after, the The information charging Pinto and Buenaflor for the murder of Andes which was filed on July 26, 1971
volley of fire as the jeep was going towards his direction. As it passed reads:
by him, he heard the jeep's passengers shriek. 81
That on or about the 27th day of December, 1970, in sitio Ando, Barrio Talahib, Daraga,
For his part, Buenaflor declared that during the mission to serve the search warrant on Bello, he carried Albay and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the accused, conspiring and
the ".38 caliber revolver Tel." (sic) which had been issued to him by the Legazpi City Police Department. confederating together and mutually helping one another, without any justifiable cause
He did not fire his gun at the Tiongsons and, "as a matter of fact," he surrendered his firearm for ballistic or motive, with intent to kill, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
examination. 82
In the afternoon of December 26, however, Major Molo treachery and evident premeditation, accused Pat. Narciso Buenaflor, Jr. and Pat. Daniel
issued him a Thompson submachinegun. 83 Pinto, Jr., and by means of a Cal. 45 Thompson Sub-Machine Gun, SN-213436 and a US
Carbin Inland, Cal. 30, SN-5099407, owned respectively by said accused, shoot one Rosalio
While patrolling Homapon, he and Pinto "chanced upon" some persons who told them that they could Andes, inflicting upon him gunshot wounds as described in the attached Autopsy Report
guide them to where Bello was. At the place which they later found to be Talahib, they went near a pili marked as Annex "A" and being made an integral part of this Information, thereby causing
tree from where they saw a house "below." Then he saw a man who turned out to be Mostoles. upon said Rosalio Andes serious and mortal wounds which led to his instantaneous death.
Buenaflor apprehended Mostoles because the latter was Bello's bodyguard and he had a .22 caliber
firearm with him. He came by another man with a bolo, named "Banteque" and apprehended him also.
Contrary to law.
Then, from behind the pili tree, Pinto appeared with yet another man. They waited for a while until
another man, who turned out to be Francisco Andes, came within four meters of him. Buenaflor pointed
The information charging Pinto and Buenaflor with having murdered Bello contains basically the same
his submachinegun at him so Andes approached him. Buenaflor confiscated Andes' .22 caliber
allegations as the above and it was filed on the same date. On August 24, 1971 two other informations
firearm. 84
were filed against Pinto and Buenaflor: one for the murder of Richard Tiongson and another for the
frustrated murder of Maria Theresa Tiongson. On arraignment, Pinto and Buenaflor both pleaded not
From the group, Buenaflor learned that Bello provided them with firearms and that Bello himself had a guilty to all the charges.
pistol tucked in his holster as well as a garand. He and Pinto then tied the men to the pili tree. Later, he
saw a person in the balcony of the house below and Buenaflor shouted twice: "Paquito, mag-surrender
After trial, the trial court rendered the aforementioned judgment of conviction. For the killing of Bello
ka!" Then Buenaflor heard a "a shot coming from the direction of the balcony followed by successive
and Andes, the trial court appreciated evident premeditation as a qualifying circilmstance and treachery,
shots." He sought cover behind the pili tree and, while in a crouching position, fired his submachinegun
nighttime and use of public position as aggravating circumstances. For the incident involving the
towards the balcony. Pinto was then behind him. As Pinto shifted his position while firing his carbine,
Tiongson children, it considered the crimes as qualified by treachery and aggravated by the use of public
Buenaflor went down to the "elevated portion going down to the nipa shack" until he was near the
position.
coconut tree. There he found a person lying with his face down. He later found out that the person was
the son of Francisco Andes. 85
Pinto and Buenaflor instituted the instant appeal praying for exoneration mainly on the basis of their
claim that the killings were perpetrated in the course of the performance of their official duties as peace
After the firing had stopped, Pinto told him that Bello was dead. Pinto then went up the house. Buenaflor
officers in obedience to the lawful order of their superiors.
went back to the pili tree, untied the four persons they had captured, and told them to do something so
they could carry the bodies of Bello and (Rosalio) Andes. 86

Like Pinto, on cross-examination, Buenaflor also asserted that he did not fire his gun at the jeep carrying
the Tiongsons. 87 In order that the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty under Article 11 of the Revised Penal
While admitting that the person who led them to Bello
Code may be successfully invoked, the defense has to prove that these two requisites are present: (a)
had told them that the latter was in Talahib, Buenaflor did not know
the offender acted in the performance of a duty and (b) the injury or offense committed be the necessary
that Talahib was a barrio of Daraga, Albay and not of Legazpi
consequence of the due performance or lawful exercise of such duty. In the absence of the second
City. 88 He reiterated that he shouted at Bello urging him to
requisite, the justification becomes an incomplete one thereby converting it into a mitigating
surrender 89 but he was not able to fire a warning shot or identify
circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the same Code. 99
himself as a member of the police force "because after
the secondshot there was already a burst of gunfire". 90

Buenaflor affirmed that the first shot emanating from the balcony of the house in Talalib which was
around fifteen meters from the pili tree, came from a "high caliber firearm". 91After
they had Admittedly, the appellants and the rest of the police force involved, originally set out to perform a legal

found out that Bello was dead, Pinto went up the house. Later, Pinto duty: the service of a search warrant on Bello. In the process, however, appellants abused their authority

gave him Bello's 380 automatic pistol and garand. 92 Although he resulting in unauthorized and unlawful moves and consequences. Armed with only a search warrant and

looked at those firearms, he did not determine whether they had the oral order to apprehend Bello, they went beyond the ambit of their mission and deprived Bello and

been fired. 93 He noticed, however, that the magazine of the garand two other persons of their lives.

was "intact". 94 Aside from Bello's firearms, Buenaflor and Pinto

confiscated two .22 caliber revolvers and two bolos found on Bello's
bodyguards. 95
While the defense presented proofs that Bello had a string of record in the police blotter for misdeeds
Buenaflor stated that his Thompson submachinegun had two clips with each clip containing 30 bullets.
ranging from taking the harvest of their hacienda without the permission of his parents to assaulting his
When he gave back the firearm to Major Molo, only four bullets were left of the one clip he had
stepfather, and that he was "dangerous while under the influence of liquor", 100
there was no
used. 96 He remembered having squeezed twice the trigger of his proof that he had been convicted of any offense or that he was a
dangerous fugitive from justice which would warrant a "shoot to-kill" Then there are the four empty .30 caliber carbine shells which were found near the coconut tree where,

order from police authorities. Proof of bad moral character of the according to Romero, Pinto was deployed. While he himself carried a carbine, Romero did not fire it and

victim only establishes a probability that he committed a crime but it his testimony was never contradicted. The four empty shells were compared with the test shells which

certainly cannot be the reason for annihilating him nor may it prevail were fired from the US carbine, caliber .30 Inland Division, SN-5099407, which, according to the

over facts proven showing that the same victim had been cold- aforequoted information charging appellant with having killed Andes, was used by Pinto, they were

bloodedly killed. 101 As such, the suspicion that Bello was maintaining found to have "significant similar individual characteristics". 109

a private army was not a sufficient justification for his being rubbed
out without due process of law. While it is true that the ballistic report reveals that the lead bullet taken from the body of Richard was
fired from a Smith & Wesson type firearm 110
and Buenaflor was proven to be
The police theory that Bello authored the shooting of one Salustiano carrying a .38 caliber Tell revolver, the findings of expert witnesses or,
Botin on Christmas eve is neither a justification for his arrest without in this case, the ballistic report pointing to another kind of caliber .38
a warrant. It should be observed that while the police had obtained a weapon as the source of Richard's wound only serves as a guide for
search warrant for illegal possession of firearms against Bello even on the courts after considering all the facts of the case. 111 The
Christmas day which was supposed to be a holiday, no such effort was undisputed fact is that Buenaflor was specifically pointed by Romero
made in securing warrant of arrest for Bello's alleged frustrated killing as the one who fired his firearm as the Anduiza jeep bearing the
of Botin. The improbability of the defense evidence through the Tiongsons passed by. Inasmuch as no evidence that Romero would
testimony of Botin himself that Bello had shot him in the evening of prevaricate to pin responsibility on Buenaflor was ever presented,
December 24, 1970 is bolstered by the same testimony showing that there is, therefore, no reason to discredit his testimony. 112
while he was shot by Bello in the presence of the police force who
were converging at the junction of Homapon and Mariawa, the same In addition to all these, Buenaflor's motive for wanting to do away with Bello has been established. Such
law enforcers were unable to arrest Bello. Besides the fact that no motive provided a circumstantial evidence leading to the inference that indeed he fired his
other eyewitness corroborated Botin's testimony even in the face of gun. 113
According to the unrebutted testimony of Rogelio Escober, an
his own admission that Bello had no reason to shoot him, no overseer of the Napal hacienda and constant companion of Bello, on
complaint was ever lodged against Bello for the alleged shooting. 102 November 1, 1970, Buenaflor and another policeman named Santos
Urbana, Jr. borrowed Bello's jeep on the pretext that they needed it
On the other hand, the prosecution, through eyewitness Rogelio Escober, tried to establish that during to transfer Moscoso, the suspect in the Perez killing, to the Albay
said shooting incident the police were looking for Bello at the store of a certain Serrano. 103
Unable Police Headquarters. When it was returned, the jeep had bloodstains.
to find Bello, the police, specifically Pinto, mauled Escober while Bello and Escober later learned from a PC officer that the jeep had
asking him to testify against Bello for allegedly shooting Botin. 104 The been used in dumping in Guinobatan the body of Moscoso.
police had focused their vehicles' headlights near the bodega of ex- Confronted by the PC officer, Bello admitted that the jeep was
Mayor Los Baños in their effort to flush out Bello who, unknown to borrowed by Buenaflor and Urbina and agreed to execute a sworn
the police, had earlier left the vicinity. It was when the police fired at statement on the matter. Consequently, the PC authorities notified
the said bodega that Botin must have been accidentally shot. 105 This Mayor Imperial of the solution of the Moscoso killing.
story was uncorroborated but if true, would show the police's
dangerous propensity for using otherwise official operations in an Three days later, Escober and Bello met Urbina who warned Bello,
unlawful manner. "Kit, if you want to give your statement, just say that I borrowed your
jeep for thirty minutes. This is a brotherly advice because something
A propensity for rash judgment was likewise amply shown at the might happen to you." Bello retorted that he would do what was right
incident involving the Tiongson children. Since the jeep coming and that was to tell the truth. Urbina said that it was up to Bello but
towards them was owned by the Anduizas, the appellants acted he repeated that he was giving Bello a brotherly warning that
obviously in the belief that Bello was its passenger and posthaste they something might happen to him 114 (TSN, August 23, 1973, pp. 4-20).
fired upon it even without any inquiry as to the identity of its These facts were of course denied by Buenaflor. However, as between
passengers. 106Granting that the police indeed fired a warning shot, the positive declaration of a prosecution witness and the negative
sound discretion and restraint dictated that, there being no denial of the accused, the former deserves more credence. 115
responding shots from its passengers after the alleged warning shot
and considering the condition of the road which was not only muddy All these pieces of circumstantial evidence point to no other inference than that Pinto and Buenaflor
but uphill, instead of directing aimless gunburst at the jeep, the most fired their guns in defiance of their superior officer's order only "to find the whereabouts" of
that they could have done was to render the jeep immobile by Bello 116
and to desist from using their weapons "without clearance
shooting its tires. That way, they could have verified the identity of from the Chief of Police". 117 Since there is more than one
the passengers. As it were, they riddled the jeep with bullets injuring circumstance and the facts from which the inferences are derived are
in the process innocent passengers who were completely unaware of proven, the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
what they were up against. a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 118

Appellants' stark denial of firing their guns upon the Tiongson family The fact that the victims were different from the ones the appellants intended to injure cannot save
falls flat in the face of various circumstantial evidence which point to them from conviction. Aberratio ictus or mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as
their culpability. There is the unflinching testimony of Sgt. Romero when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim. The main reason behind this conclusion is the fact
that he saw "flashes of fire" from the direction of Buenaflor as the that the accused had acted with such a disregard for the life of the victim(s) — without checking carefully
jeep bearing the Tiongsons passed by. Said testimony was the latter's identity as to place himself on the same legal plane as one who kills another willfully,
corroborated by that of Rafael Jacob, the PC member of team 2, that unlawfully and feloniously. 119Neither
may the fact that the accused made a
while no one in his team fired his gun, the "sporadic firing" came from mistake in killing one man instead of another be considered a
team 3 after the first of fire which occurred while the jeep was mitigating circumstance. 120
"abreast of team 2". 107 Even defense witness Mariano Rico, a
policeman who led team 1, was "sure" that he heard gunshots at the
moment when "the jeep had just passed team 2". 108
It is not even necessary to pinpoint who between Pinto and Buenaflor actually caused the death of Appellants' claim of unlawful aggression on the part of Bello or his
Richard or the wounding of Maria Theresa in the presence of proof beyond reasonable doubt that they men would have been clarified had any of Bello's men whom they had
acted in conspiracy with each other. 121
Prior agreement between the appellants captured been presented in court. These men, Leoncio Mostoles,
to lull their intended victim is not essential to prove conspiracy as the Francisco Andes, Domingo Bantique and Ananias Andes had executed
same may be inferred from their own acts showing joint purpose and statements before the Legazpi City police to the effect that they heard
design. 122 In this case, such unity of purpose and design is shown by Buenaflor's call for Bello to surrender and that Bello fired his gun at
the fact that only the two of them fired their guns when the Anduiza the appellants. However, all four of them later executed statements
jeep with the Tiongsons passed by. This they did in defiance of the before the NBI retracting said earlier statements in view of the fact
order of their superior not to shoot unless ordered to do so. that the police had threatened them to make the statements
Conspiracy having been proved, the guilt or culpability is imposable favorable to the appellants. 130
on both appellants in equal degrees. 123
As regards the unlawful aggression of Rosalio Andes against Pinto, we find that if we are to believe Pinto,
we have to stamp full credibility on his statement alone. Even Buenaflor admitted that he did not see
Rosalio Andes attack Pinto. 131
Inocencia swore that she did not see any
The same conspiracy was evident in the killing of Bello and Andes. The appellants' concerted action was weapon near the fallen Rosalio. Indeed, if the aggression did occur,
shown by the manner by which they killed the two. In this incident, however, they invoke self-defense Pinto would not have lost time in presenting in court the bolo which
as a justifying circumstance. Evidence at hand, however, do not favor their claim. Andes threatened to use on him. But granting that Rosalio had a bolo,
Pinto was not justified in inflicting the wounds sustained by Rosalio
because a mere threatening attitude of the victim will not constitute
unlawful aggression. 132Moreover, Pinto's testimony that Rosalio
menacingly approached him with a bolo after Buenaflor had released
Under Article 11 (1) of the Rules of Court, an accused must prove the presence of all the following
a sunburst directed at the house where Bello was, is contrary to
elements of said exempting circumstance: (a) unlawful aggression, (b) reasonable necessity of the means
human behavior if not totally ridiculous. On the contrary, by his own
employed to prevent or repel it, and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
admission, Pinto continued firing until he saw Rosalio fell.
himself. 124
The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua
non. There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless
An accused who admits inflicting fatal injury on his victim and invokes
the victim has committed an unlawful aggression on the person
self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not
defending himself. 125
only on the weakness of that of the prosecution for, even if weak, the
prosecution evidence gains more credibility. 133 Unfortunately, in this
case, inspire of the fact that the prosecution had only one eyewitness
to the killing of Bello and Andes, the appellants had not presented
In this case, Buenaflor insists that he fired at Bello because, after calling out to him to surrender, his sufficiently strong evidence to shore up their claim of self-defense.
shout was answered by a gunshot. Pinto corroborates his story but the principal prosecution eyewitness
in this incident, Inocencia Malbas, swears that she heard no such shout to surrender nor a gunshot from
We agree with the trial court that treachery attended the commission
Bello's direction before Bello was fired upon by the appellants. Physical evidence as well as the
of all four crimes in this case. The killing of Richard Tiongson, Francisco
testimonies of Buenaflor himself and Pinto show that Inocencia, and not the appellants, was telling the
Bello and Rosalio Andes as well as the wounding of Maria Theresa
truth.
Tiongson were all so sudden that all of them were left defenseless.
This is shown not only by the testimonial evidence on the commission
of the crimes but also by the nature and location of the wounds of all
the victims. 134 The presence of treachery qualifies the killings to
Rafael Señora, the NBI agent who went to Talahib and the road to Mariawa to investigate as well as to murder and the wounding of Maria Theresa to frustrated murder.
take pictures, found no bullet marks at the crime scene which would pertain to a .22 caliber "paltik" Nighttime, however, may not be appreciated as there is no proof that
firearm which Bello's men allegedly used. 126
As no other "paltik" firearms were it was specifically sought in the commission of the crime and
recovered from the crime scene other than the two which Buenaflor therefore we deem it absorbed by treachery.
confiscated from Mostoles and Francisco Andes, the possibility of said
firearms or one of its kind having been used by Bello's men against Evident premeditation has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt
the appellant particularly the one who escaped is nil. in this case but we find that the appellants indeed took advantage of
their public position in perpetrating the crime. Under Article 248 of
Buenaflor claimed that the shot after his call to Bello belonged to a the Revised Penal Code, murder is punishable by reclusion
high-powered gun 127 obviously referring to the firearms recovered temporal in its maximum period to death. There being no mitigating
from Bello himself. According to Buenaflor however, when he found circumstance to temper the penalty and there being only the
the rifle, its magazine was "intact" and he did not manipulate the rifle aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of their public office
to know how many of its bullets had been used. 128 Moreover, if Bello under Article 14 (1) of the said Code, the proper penalty is
indeed fired a gun, it must be the firearm in his holster and not the death. 135 However, in view the constitutional abolition of the death
garand which was found a couple of meters from where Bello had penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed on the
fallen. That Bello did not fire any of his two firearms is buttressed by appellants for each of the three murders they committed.
Pinto's own testimony that Bello was smoking with his back towards
them when he was shot at and that at that moment, he did not see For the wounding of Maria Theresa, the penalty imposable, applying
Bello holding a gun. 129 We cannot help, therefore, but conclude that Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, is prision mayor maximum
the defense claim that Buenaflor's call to Bello was answered by a to reclusion temporal medium. There being no reason to further
gunshot is but a figment of their imagination designed for their own lower the penalty by one degree pursuant to the provision of Article
exoneration. 250, and there being one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating
circumstance, the penalty should be within the range of prision
mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, 136 the proper penalty for the frustrated
murder of Maria Theresa is six (6) years of prision
correccional maximum as minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor maximum as maximum. The indemnity of eight
thousand pesos imposed by the lower court should be respected
considering that while there is evidence as to the actual amount she
spent while confined at the Sacred Heart Hospital in Legazpi City,
there is no proof as to the expenses she incurred after she was
transferred to the Camp Crame Hospital in Quezon City.

As in all cases wherein peace officers are accused, this case creates a
feeling of frustration in everyone. The crimes committed here ought
to have no place in this democratic and civilized society. True it is that
a police officer is sometimes left in a quandary when faced with a
situation where a decisive but legal action is needed. But, as this Court
said in Calderon vs. People and Court of Appeals (96 Phil. 216, 225
[1954]), "(t)he judgment and discretion of public officers, in the
performance of their duties, must be exercised neither capriciously
nor oppressively, but within reasonable limits. In the absence of a
clear and legal provision to the contrary, they must act in conformity
with the dictates of a sound discretion, and with the spirit and
purpose of the law." Police officers must always bear in mind that
although they are dealing with criminal elements against whom
society must be protected, these criminals are also human beings
with human rights. In the words of then Justice Moran in
the Oanis case (Supra):

It is, however, suggested that a notorious criminal "must be

taken by storm" without regard to his right to life which he
has by such notoriety already forfeited. We may approve of
this standard of official conduct where the criminal offers
resistance or does something which places his captors in
danger of imminent attack. Otherwise, we cannot see how,
as in the present case, the mere fact of notoriety can make
the life of a criminal a mere trifle in the hands of officers of
the law. Notoriety rightly supplies a basis for redoubled
official alertness an vigilance; it never can justify precipitate
action at the cost of human life. Where, as here, the
precipitate action of the appellants has cost an innocent life
and there exist no circumstances whatsoever warrant
action of such character in the mind of a reasonably prudent
man, condemnation—not condonation— should be the
rule; otherwise we would offer a premium to crime in the
shelter of official actuation.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed

subject to the modifications that appellants shall solidarily be liable
for the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000) for each of the three
murders they committed and, for the frustrated murder of Maria
Theresa Tiongson, each of them shall suffer the indeterminate
penalty of from six (6) years of prision correccional maximum as
minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum
as maximum.

Inasmuch as appellant Daniel Pinto, Jr. had been a police officer for
only five months 137 when the crimes were committed, let a copy of
this decision be furnished the Office of the President for whatever
action may be proper to temper his penalty. 138

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 123485 August 31, 1998 jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, conspiring, confederating and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, mutually helping one another, armed with high-
vs. powered firearms, with intent to kill and
ROLUSAPE SABALONES alias "Roling," ARTEMIO TIMOTEO treachery, did [then] and there wilfully,
BERONGA, TEODULO ALEGARBES and EUFEMIO CABANERO, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
accused, ROLUSAPE SABALONES alias "Roling" and ARTEMIO shoot ALFREDO NARDO, who was riding on a jeep
TIMOTEO BERONGA, accused-appellants. and who gave no provocation, thereby inflicting
upon the latter several gunshot wounds, thereby
causing his instantaneous death.
PANGANIBAN, J.:

CONTRARY TO Article 248 of the Revised Penal

Factual findings of trial courts which are affirmed by the Court of
Code.
Appeals are, as a general rule, binding and conclusive upon the
Supreme Court. Alibi, on the other hand, cannot prevail over positive
identification by credible witnesses. Furthermore, alleged violations 3) Crim Case No. CBU-9259 for frustrated murder:
of constitutional rights during custodial investigation are relevant
only when the conviction of the accused by the trial court is based on That on the 1st day of June, 1985 at 11:45 o'clock
the evidence obtained during such investigation. in the evening, more or less, at Mansueto Village,
Barangay Bulacao, Municipality of Talisay,
The Case Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused conspiring, confederating and
These are the principles relied upon by the Court in resolving this
mutually helping one another, armed with high-
appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA)1 Decision 2dated September
powered firearms, with intent to kill and
28, 1995, convicting Rolusape Sabalones and Timoteo Beronga of
treachery, did and there wilfully, unlawfully and
murder and frustrated murder. The convictions arose from a shooting
feloniously attack, assault and shoot REY BOLO
incident on June 1, 1985 in Talisay, Cebu, which resulted in the killing
who was riding in a car and who gave no
of two persons and the wounding of three others, who were all riding
provocation, thereby inflicting upon the latter the
in two vehicles which were allegedly ambushed by appellants.
following injuries to wit:

After conducting a preliminary investigation, Second Assistant

laceration, mouth due to gunshot wound,
Provincial Prosecutor Juanito M. Gabiana Sr. filed before the Regional
gunshot wound (L) shoulder penetrating (L) chest;
Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 7, 3 five amended Informations
gunshot wound (R) hand (palm); open fracture (L)
charging four "John Does," who were later identified as Rolusape
clavicle (L) scapula; contusion (L) lung;
Sabalones, Artemio Timoteo Beronga, Teodulo Alegarbes and
Eufemio Cabanero, with two counts of murder and three counts of
frustrated murder. The Informations are quoted hereunder. thereby performing all the acts of execution
which would produce the crime of [m]urder as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, did not
1) Crim Case No. CBU-9257 for murder:
produce it by reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator, i.e. the timely medical
That on the 1st day of June, 1985, at 11:45 o'clock attendance.
in the evening, more or less, at Mansueto Village,
Bulacao, Municipality of Talisay, Province of Cebu,
IN VIOLATION of Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Code.
Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
one another, armed with high-powered firearms, 4) Criminal Case No. 9260 for frustrated murder:
with intent to kill and treachery, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, That on the 1st day of June, 1985 at 11:45 o'clock
assault and shoot GLENN TIEMPO, who was riding in the evening, more or less, at Mansueto Village,
[i]n a jeep and who gave no provocation, thereby Barangay Bulacao, Municipality of Talisay,
inflicting upon the latter several gunshot wounds, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
thereby causing his instantaneous death. jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused conspiring, confederating and
CONTRARY TO Article 248 of the Revised Penal mutually helping one another, armed with high-
Code. powered firearms, with intent to kill and
treachery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and shoot
2) Criminal Case No. 9258 for murder:
ROGELIO PRESORES, who was riding in a car and
who gave no provocation, thereby inflicting upon
That on the 1st day of June, 1985 at 11:45 o'clock the latter the following injuries, to wit:
in the evening, more or less at Mansueto Village,
Barangay Bulacao, Municipality of Talisay,
gunshot wound, thru and thru right chest
Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
 thereby performing all the acts of execution In Crim. Case No. CBU-9257, for MURDER, defined
which would produce the crime of [m]urder as a and penalized in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal
consequence but which, nevertheless, did not Code, hereby sentences each said accused to
produce it by reason of causes independent of the suffer the penalty of [f]ourteen (14) years, [e]ight
will of the perpetrator, i.e. the timely medical (8) months and [o]ne (1) day, as minimum, to
attendance. [s]eventeen (17) years, [f]our (4) months and
[o]ne (1) day, of [r]eclusion [t]emporal, as
IN VIOLATION of Article 248 of the Revised Penal maximum, to indemnify the heirs of deceased,
Code. Glenn Tiempo, the sum of P50,000.00;

5) Criminal Case No. 9261 for frustrated murder: In Crim. Case No. CBU-9258, for MURDER, defined
and penalized in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, hereby sentences each said accused to
That on the 1st day of June, 1985 at 11:45 o'clock
suffer the penalty of [f]ourteen (14) years, [e]ight
in the evening, more or less, at Mansueto Village,
(8) months and [o]ne (1) day, as minimum, to
Barangay Bulacao, Municipality of Talisay,
[s]eventeen (17) years, [f]our (4) months and
Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
[o]ne (1) day, of [r]eclusion [t]emporal, as
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
maximum, to indemnify the heirs of deceased,
named accused conspiring, confederating and
Alfredo Nardo, the sum of P50,000.00;
mutually helping one another, armed with high-
powered firearms, with intent to kill and
treachery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully In Crim. Case No. CBU-9259, for FRUSTRATED
and feloniously attack, assault and shoot NELSON MURDER, defined and penalized in Art. 248 in
TIEMPO, who was riding in a car and who gave no relation to Art. 50 of the Revised Penal Code,
provocation, thereby inflicting upon the latter the hereby sentences each said accused to suffer the
following injuries, to wit: penalty of [e]ight (8) years of prision mayor, as
minimum, to [f]ourteen (14) years and [e]ight (8)
months of [re]clusion [t]emporal, as maximum, to
Gunshot wound neck penetrating wound
indemnify the victim, Rey Bolo, the sum of
perforating trachea (cricoid) thereby performing
P20,000.00;
all the acts of execution which would produce the
crime of [m]urder as a consequence but which
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of In Crim. Case No. CBU-9260, for FRUSTRATED
causes independent of the will of the MURDER, defined and penalized in Art. 248 in
perpetrator, i.e. the timely medical attendance. relation to Art. 50 of the Revised Penal Code,
hereby sentences each said accused to suffer the
penalty of [e]ight (8) years of prision mayor, as
IN VIOLATION of Article 248 of the Revised Penal
minimum, to [f]ourteen (14) years and [e]ight
Code.
months of [r]eclusion [t]emporal, as maximum, to
indemnify the victim, Rogelio Presores, the sum
Of the four indictees in the five Informations, Teodulo Alegarbes and of P20,000.00;
Artemio Timoteo Beronga were the first to be arraigned. Upon the
arrest of the two, the Informations were amended by the public
In Crim. Case No. CBU-9261, for FRUSTRATED
prosecutor, with the conformity of the defense counsel, by
MURDER, defined and penalized in Art. 248 in
substituting the names of the two accused for the "John Does"
relation to Art. 50 of the Revised Penal Code,
appearing in the original Informations. When arraigned, said accused,
hereby sentences each said accused to suffer the
assisted by their respective lawyers, pleaded not guilty to the five
penalty of [e]ight (8) years of prision mayor, as
Informations.
minimum, to [f]ourteen (14) years and [e]ight (8)
months of [r]eclusion [t]emporal, as maximum, to
Alegarbes died in the course of trial; thus, the cases against him were indemnify the victim, Nelson Tiempo, the sum of
dismissed. Accused Cabanero remained at large. Sabalones, on the P20,000.00; and
other hand, was eventually arrested. Subsequently, he jumped bail
but was recaptured in 1988 and thereafter pleaded not guilty during
To pay the costs in all instances. The period of
his arraignment.
their preventive imprisonment shall be credited
to each accused in full.
The cases against Sabalones and Beronga were jointly tried.
Thereafter, the lower court found them guilty beyond reasonable
SO ORDERED. 4
doubt of the crimes charged. The RTC disposed as follows:

Appellants filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. Thereafter,

WHEREFORE, premises above-set forth, the Court
the CA affirmed their conviction but sentenced them to reclusion
finds accused ROLUSAPE SABALONES and
perpetua for the murders they were found guilty of. Accordingly, the
(ARTEMIO) TIMOTEO BERONGA, [g]uilty beyond
appellate court, without entering judgment, certified the case to the
reasonable doubt, as principals:
Supreme Court in accordance with Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules
of Court. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
 WHEREFORE, the Decision of the trial court Junior Villoria, they drove to the residence of
convicting accused-appellants Rolusa[p]e Stephen Lim at Mansueto Compound, Bulacao,
Sabalones and Artemio Timoteo Beronga for Talisay, Cebu. (p. 12, ibid.)
murder in Crim. Cases Nos. CBU-9257 and CBU-
9258, and [f]rustrated [m]urder in Crim. Cases Glenn Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Alfredo Nardo also
Nos. CBU-9259, CBU-9260, and CBU-9261 is went with them riding in an owner-type jeep,
hereby AFFIRMED; however, the penalties in the driven by the latter, in order to bring back the
[f]rustrated [m]urder and [m]urder cases are group [as] soon as the car of Mr. Lim was parked
hereby MODIFIED, such that both accused- in his home. (p. 21, ibid.)
appellants are each sentenced to imprisonment
of TEN (10) YEARS of [p]rision [m]ayormedium as
The two vehicles traveled in convoy with the jeep
minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4)
3 to 4 meters ahead of the car. When they arrived
MONTHS of [r]eclusion [t]emporalmedium as
at the gate of the house of Stephen Lim, they
maximum in each of the three [f]rustrated
were met with a sudden burst of gunfire. He
[m]urder cases (Crim. Cases Nos. CBU-9259, CBU-
looked at the direction where the gunfire came,
9260 and CBU-9261); and are each sentenced
and saw [the] persons [who] fired at the jeep. He
to [r]eclusion [p]erpetua in each of the two
identified accused, Teodulo Alegarbes, Rolusape
[m]urder cases (Crim. Cases Nos. CBU-9257 and
Sabalones and Timoteo Beronga as the persons
CBU-9258). The indemnity to the victim in each
who fired at the vehicle. Except for Teodulo
[f]rustrated [m]urder case shall remain. In
Alegarbes, who was naked from [the] waist up,
conformity with Rule 124, Section 13 of the Rules
the gunmen wore clothes. (pp. 21-23; 13-16;
of Court, however, this Court refrains from
33, ibid.)
entering judgment, and hereby certifies the case
and orders that the entire record hereof be
elevated to the Supreme Court for review. 5 After firing at the jeep, the assailants shot the ear
they were riding[,] hitting Nelson Tiempo on the
throat and Rogelio Presores on the breast.
After the Court of Appeals certified the case to this Court, we required
Despite the injury he sustained, Nelson Tiempo
appellants to file supplemental briefs. Appellants failed to comply
was able to maneuver the car back to their
within the prescribed period and were deemed to have waived their
residence. (pp. 17-19, ibid.)
right to do so. 6Thus, in resolving this case, this Court will address
primarily the arguments raised by the appellants in their Brief before
the Court of Appeals, which assailed the RTC Decision. He immediately informed Maj. Tiempo about the
incident and the lat[t]er brought the victims to
the Cebu Doctor's Hospital. (p. 20, ibid.)
The Facts

Rogelio Presores corroborated in substance the

Version of the Prosecution
testimony of Edwin Santos, being one of those
who were in the car driven by Nelson Tiempo to
The solicitor general 7 quoted the following factual findings of the trial the residence of Stephen Lim. (pp. 4-6, tsn, Aug.
court: 14, 1987)

Edwin Santos, a resident of Mambaling, Cebu City He further testified that when the jeep driven by
stated that on June 1, 1985 at 6:00 o'clock in the Alfredo Nardo with Rey Bolo and Glenn Tiempo as
evening, he was at the residence of Inday passengers arrived at the front gate of Lim's
Presores, sister of Rogelio Presores, located at residence and while their car was 3 meters from
Rizal Ave., Cebu City to attend a wedding. He the rear end of the jeep, there was a volley of
stayed until 9:00 o'clock in the evening and gunfire. He glanced at the direction of the gunfire
proceeded to the house of Maj. Tiempo at Basak, and saw the jeep being fired at by four persons,
Mambaling, Cebu City where a small gathering who were standing behind a concrete wall, 42
was also taking place. (pp. 3-6, tsn, April 7, 1987) inches in height, and armed with long firearms.
Thenceforth, he saw Alfredo Nardo, Glenn
Arriving thereat, he saw Nelson and Glenn Tiempo and Rey Bolo f[a]ll to the ground. (pp. 6-
Tiempo as well as Rogelio Presores, Rogelio 7, ibid.)
Oliveros, Junior Villoria, Rey Bolo and Alfredo
Nardo. (p. 7, ibid.) He recognized accused, Rolusape Sabalones, as
one of those who fired at the jeep. He also
At about 11:00 o'clock in the evening, Stephen identified in Court accused, Teodulo Alegarbes,
Lim, who was also at the party, called their group Timoteo Beronga and another person, whom he
and requested them to push his car. When the recognized only through his facial appearance.
engine started, the former asked them to drive his (pp. 7-8, ibid.)
car home. (pp. 7-11, ibid.)
When the shots were directed [at] their car[,]
Together with Nelson Tiempo, who was at the they were able to bend their heads low. When the
wheel, Rogelio Presores, Rogelio Oliveros and firing stopped, he directed Nelson Tiempo to back
out from the place. As the latter was maneuvering Arriving thereat, he saw the lifeless body of his
the car, the shooting continued and he was hit in son, Glenn. He immediately carried him in his
the breast while Nelson Tiempo, in the neck, and arms and rushed him to the hospital but the
the windshield of the vehicle was shattered. (p. victim was pronounced Dead on Arrival. (pp. 6-
10, ibid.) 7, ibid.)

Arriving at the house of Maj. Tiempo, they were They buried his son, who was then barely 14 years
brought to Cebu Doctor's Hospital. He and Nelson old, at Cebu Memorial Park and had incurred
Tiempo were operated on. He had incurred funeral expenses (Exhs. "K", "L", "O"). (pp. 7-
hospital expenses in the sum of P5,412.69, (Exh. 8, ibid.)
"I", "K"). (pp. 11-12, ibid.)
His other son, Nelson, then 21 years old and a
Ladislao Diola, Jr., [m]edico-[l]egal [o]fficer of the graduate of [m]edical [t]echology, was admitted
PC Crime Laboratory, Regional Unit 7 stationed at at the Cebu Doctor's Hospital for gunshot wound
Camp Sotero Cabahug, Cebu City remembered in the neck. The latter survived but could hardly
having performed a post-mortem examination on talk as a result of the injuries he sustained. He had
the dead body of Glenn Tiempo on June 2, 1985 incurred medical and hospitalization expenses in
at the Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Cebu City. the sum of P21,594.22, (Exh. "H"), (pp. 8-10, ibid.)
(p. 7, tsn, Nov. 11, 1987)
He had also incurred expenses in connection with
He issued the necessary Death Certificate, (Exh. the hospitalization of the injured victims, Rogelio
"D") and Necropsy Report, (Exh. "F") and Presores and Rey Bolo in the amount[s] of
indicated therein that the victim's cause of death P5,412.69, (exh. "I") and P9,431.10, (Exh. "J"),
was "[c]ardio respiratory arrest due to [s]hock respectively. (p. 11, ibid.)
and [h]emorrhage [s]econdary to [g]unshot
wounds to the trunk." (p. 8, ibid.) He further stated that he [was] familiar the
accused, Roling Sabalones, because the latter had
The victim sustained gunshot wounds in the right a criminal record in their office in connection with
chest and left lumbar area. (pp. 10-11, ibid.) the kidnapping of a certain Zabate and Macaraya.
(p. 16, ibid.)
He explained that in gunshot wound no. 1, the
wound entrance[,] which [was] characterized by xxx xxx xxx
invaginated edges and contusion collar[,] was
located in the right chest and the bullet went up Dr. Jesus P. Cerna, [m]edico-[l]egal [o]fficer of the
to the left clavicle hitting a bone which PC/INP, Cebu Metrodiscom, had conducted an
incompletely fractured it causing the navigation autopsy on the dead body of Alfredo Nardo, who
of the bullet to the left and to the anterior side of sustained two (2) gunshot wounds in the lower lip
the body. He recovered a slug, (Exh. "G") below and left intraclavicular region, upon the request
the muscles of the left clavicle. (p. 21, ibid.) of the [c]hief of the Homicide Section of Cebu
Metrodiscom. He issued the victim's Necropsy
Based on the trajectory of the bullet, the assailant Report, (Exh. "F:") and Death Certificate, (Exh.
could have been [o]n the right side of the victim "G"). (pp. 5-8, tsn, Dec. 4, 1987; pp. 4-6, tsn, Nov.
or in front of the victim but [o]n a lower level than 29, 1988)
the latter.
He stated that the wound of entrance in gunshot
In both gunshot wounds, he did not find any wound no. 1 was located in the lower lip, more or
powder burns which would indicate that the less[,] on the left side making an exit in the left
muzzle of the gun was beyond a distance of 12 mandibular region. (pp. 9-11, tsn, Dec. 4, 1987;
inches from the target. (p. 15, ibid.) pp. 6-8, tsn, Nov. 29, 1988)

At the time he conducted the autopsy, he noted In gunshot wound no. 2, the wound of entrance
that rigor mortis in its early stage had already set was in the left intraclavicular region exiting at the
in which denote[s] that death had occurred 5 to 6 back as reflected in the sketch, (Exh. "F-2"). This
hours earlier. (pp. 34-5, ibid.) wound was fatal and [could] almost cause an
instantaneous death considering that the bullet
Maj. Juan Tiempo, father of the victims, Glenn penetrated the thoracic cavity, lacerating the
and Nelson Tiempo, testified that when he lungs and perforating the heart before making an
learned about the incident in question, he exit. (pp. 11-13, tsn, Dec. 4, 1987; pp. 13-15, tsn,
immediately summoned military soldiers and Nov. 29, 1988)
together they proceeded to the scene. (pp. 4-6,
tsn, Nov. 12, 1988) He found no tattooing around the wound of
entrance in both gunshot wounds. (pp. 8-9, tsn,
Nov. 29, 1988)
He prepared and issued th[e] Necropsy Report, With respect to the patient, Rogelio Presores, the
(Exh. "F") and Death Certificate, (Exh. "G") of latter suffered [a] gunshot wound in the chest
Alfredo Nardo who was identified to him by the with the wound of entrance in the right anterior
latter's daughter, Anita Nardo. (pp. 26-27, ibid.) chest exiting at the back which was slightly lower
than the wound of entrance. He issued the
Rey Bolo, one of the victims, testified that when victim's Medical Certificate, (Exh. "M"). (pp. 34-
the jeep he was riding [in] together with Glenn 35, ibid.)
Tiempo and Alfredo Nardo, reached the gate of
the residence of Stephen Lim, they were suddenly Based on the location of the wound, the gunman
fired upon. (pp. 5-8, tsn, March 6, 1989) could have been in front of the victim but [o]n a
slightly higher elevation than the latter. (pp. 35-
He was hit in the right palm and left cheek. He 36, ibid.) 8
jumped out of the vehicle and ran towards the car
which was behind them but he was again shot at Version of the Defense
[,] [and hit] in the left scapular region. He was still
able to reach the road despite the injuries he Appellants interposed denial and alibi. Their version of the facts is
sustained and tried to ask help from the people summarized by the trial court9 thus:
who were in the vicinity but nobody dared to help
him, [they] simply disappeared from the scene,
. . . Timoteo Beronga, a cristo or bet caller in the
instead: (pp. 8-9, ibid.)
cockpit, testified that in the afternoon of June 1,
1985, he was in the Talisay Sports Complex
He took a passenger jeepney to the city and had located at Tabunok, Talisay, Cebu to attend a
himself treated at the Cebu Doctor's Hospital, and cock-derby.
incurred medical expenses in the sum of
P9,000.00. (p. 9, ibid.)
At about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, he was
fetched by his wife and they left taking a taxicab
He was issued a Medical Certificate, (Exh. "N") by going to their residence in Lapulapu City. After
his attending physician. passing by the market place, they took a tricycle
and arrived home at 8:00 o'clock in the evening.
Dr. Miguel Mancao, a [p]hysician-[s]urgeon,
recalled having attended [to] the victims, Nelson After taking his supper with his family, he went
Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Rogelio Presores at the home to sleep at 10:30 in the evening. The
Cebu Doctor's Hospital on June 2, 1985. (pp. 7-8, following morning, after preparing breakfast, he
11, 14, tsn, May 30, 1989) went back to sleep until 11:00 in the morning.

Nelson Tiempo sustained gunshot wound[s] in On February 24, 1987, while he was playing
the neck and in the right chest but the bullet did mahjong at the corner of R.R. Landon and D.
not penetrate the chest cavity but only the left Jakosalem Sts., Cebu City, complainant, Maj. Juan
axilla. He was not able to recover any slugs Tiempo with some companions, arrived and after
because the same disintegrated while the other knowing that he [was] "Timmy," [which was] his
was thru and thru. The wound could have proved nickname, the former immediately held him by
fatal but the victim miraculously survived. As a the neck.
consequence of the injury he sustained, Nelson
Tiempo permanently lost his voice because his
He ran away but the latter chased him and kicked
trachea was shattered. His only chance of
the door of the house where he hid. He was able
recovery is by coaching and speech therapy. He
to escape through the back door and took refuge
issued his Medical Certificate. (Exh. "O"). (pp. 8-
in Mandaue at the residence of Nito Seno, a driver
11, ibid.)
of Gen. Emilio Narcissi. (Tsn-Abangan, pp. 4-17,
October 19, 1989)
With regard to the patient, Rey Bolo, the latter
suffered multiple gunshot wounds in the left
On February 27, 1987, upon the advi[c]e of his
shoulder penetrating the chest and fracturing the
friend, they approached Gen. Narcissi and
2nd, 3rd, and 4th ribs in the process, in the right
informed him of the incident. The latter brought
hand fracturing the proximal right thumb and in
him to the Provincial Command Headquarters in
the mouth lacerating its soft tissues, per Medical
Lahug, Cebu City to confront Maj. Juan Tiempo.
Certificate, (Exh. "N") which he issued. (pp. 11-
16, ibid.)
After several days, he was brought by Maj.
Tiempo to the PC Headquarter[s] in Jones Ave.,
Based on the trajectory of the bullet, the gunman
Cebu City where he was provided with a lawyer to
could have been in front of the victim, when
defend him but he was instructed that he should
gunshot would no. 1 was inflicted. (p. 30, ibid.)
assent to whatever his lawyer would ask of him.
He was introduced to Atty. Marcelo Guinto, his question, while she was at the wake of Junior
lawyer, who made him sign an Affidavit, (Exh. "U") Sabalones, younger brother of Roling Sabalones,
the contents of which, co[u]ched in the dialect, who died on May 26, 1985, a sudden burst of
were read to him. gunfire occurred more or less 60 meters away.

He also testified that before he was detained at Frightened, she went inside a room to hide and
the CPDRC, complainant brought him inside the saw accused, Roling Sabalones, sound asleep.
shop of a certain Den Ong, where he was again
mauled after he denied having any knowledge of She came to know accused, Timoteo Beronga,
the whereabouts of Roling Sabalones and the only during one of the hearings of this case and
carbine. during the entire period that the body of the late
Junior Sabalones [lay] in state at his residence,
At the instance of Col. Medija, he was physically she never saw said accused.
examined at the Southern Islands Hospital, Cebu
City and was issued a [M]edical Certificate. (Tsn- She was requested to testify in this case by
Formentera, pp. 3-36, Jan. 18, 1990). Thelma Beronga, wife of Timoteo Beronga. (Tsn-
Abangan, pp. 9-13, February 28, 1990).
Justiniano Cuizon, [a]ccount [o]fficer of the
Visayan Electric Company (VECO) South Extension Dr. Daniel Medina, while then the [r]esident
Office, who is in charge of the billing, [p]hysician of Southern Islands Hospital, Cebu City
disconnection and reconnection of electric had treated the patient, Timoteo Beronga on
current, testified that based on the entries in their March 18, 1987.
logbook, (Exh. "3") made by their checker,
Remigio Villaver, the electrical supply at the
Upon examination, he found out that the patient
Mansueto Compound, Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu,
sustained linear abrasion, linear laceration and
particularly the Mansueto Homeowners covered
hematoma in the different parts of the body.
by Account No. 465-293000-0, (Exh. "4-B") was
Except for the linear laceration which he believed
disconnected on January 10, 1985, (Exh. "3-A") for
to have been inflicted two or three days prior to
non-payment of electric bills from March 1984 to
[the] date of examination, all the other injuries
January 1985 and was reconnected only on June
were already healed indicating that the same
17, 1985 (Exh. "4", "4-A"). (Tsn-Abangan, pp. 22-
were inflicted 10 to 12 days earlier.
27, Jan. 31, 1990).

He issued the corresponding Medical Certificate

Remigio Villaver, a checker of VECO, whose area
(Exh. "2") to the patient. (Tsn-Abangan, pp. 9-13,
of responsibility cover[ed] the towns of Talisay
May 21, 1990).
and San Fernando, Cebu had kept the record of
disconnection of electrical supply of Mansueto
Subdivision in Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu and the Atty. Jesus Pono, counsel for accused Beronga,
same showed that on January 10, 1985, (Exh. "3- mounted the witness stand and averred that he
A"), a service order was issued by their office to [was] a resident of Mansueto Compound,
the Mansueto Homeowners for the permanent Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu. As shown in the pictures,
disconnection of their electric lights due to non- (Exhs. "3", "4" & "5" with submarkings) his house
payment of their electric bills from March 1984 is enclosed by a concrete fence about 5 feet 6
until January 1985. The actual disconnection took inches tall. It is situated 6 meters from the
place on December 29, 1984. residence of accused, Roling Sabalones, which
was then being rented by Stephen Lim. Outside
the fence [are] shrubs and at the left side is a lamp
Witness Fredo Canete made efforts to
post provided with 200 watts fluorescent bulb.
corroborate their testimony. (Tsn-Formentera,
pp. 3-5, Apr. 20, 1990).
On June 1, 1985 at about 7:00 o'clock in the
evening, he saw Roling Sabalones, whom he
Vicente Cabanero, a resident of Mansueto
personally [knew] because they used to be
Compound in Talisay, Cebu since 1957 until the
neighbors in Talisay, Cebu, at the wake of his
present, remembered that on June 1, 1985,
brother, Federico Sabalones, Jr. or Junior
between 10:00 o'clock and 11:00 o'clock in the
Sabalones, as mentioned repeatedly hereabout.
evening, he heard a burst of gunfire about 15 to
They even had a talk and he noticed accused to be
20 armslength [sic] from his residence.
physically indisposed being gravely affected by
the loss of his only brother, who met a violent
He did not bother to verify because he was scared death in the hands of an unknown hitman on May
since the whole place was in total darkness. (Tsn- 26,1985.
Abangan, pp. 18-23, Feb. 22, 1990).
He went home after he saw accused [lie] down on
Marilyn Boc, another witness for the accused, a bamboo bench to rest.
stated that on the date and time of the incident in
At about 12:00 o'clock midnight, he was As part of their intelligence tradition, an
awakened by a rapid burst of gunfire which undercover agent is not allowed to carry his real
emanated near his house. He did not attempt to name. In the case of his nephew and accused,
go down or look outside. He [was] in no position Rolusape Sabalones, the latter chose the name
to tell whether or not the street light was lighted. "Paciano Laput" which name was recorded in
their code of names.
When he verified the following morning, he
noticed bloodstains on the ground as well as When he retired in 1968, the accused ceased to
inside the jeep which was parked 2 to 3 meters be an agent and . . . likewise ceased to have the
from his fence and 50 to 70 meters from the authority to use the name Paciano Laput. (Tsn-
house where Junior Sabalones [lay] in state. He Abangan, p. 12, July 23, 1990).
observed that the jeep was riddled with bullets
and its windshield shattered. (Tsn-Abangan, pp. Alfonso Allere, a distant relative of the accused,
3-16, June 6, 1990). remembered having received a call from Roling
Sabalones, one morning after the burial of the
He admitted that he used to be a counsel of latter's brother, asking for his advise because of
accused, Roling Sabalones, in several cases, the threats [to] his life which he received thru
among which involved the death of a certain telephone from the group of Nabing Velez and
Garces and Macaraya, which cases were however, the group of the military.
dismissed by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of
Cebu. (Tsn-Tumarao, pp. 2-3, June 13, 1990). After he had advised accused to lie low, he had
not heard of him, since then.
Doroteo Ejares, a relative of accused, testified
that when he attended the wake of Junior Godofredo Mainegro of the Public Assistance and
Sabalones on June 1, 1985 at 8:00 o'clock in the Complaint Action Office of the Regional Unified
evening, he saw accused lying on a bamboo bench Command 7, received a complaint from one
in the yard of the house of the deceased. Inocencia Sabalones on March 13, 1986.

At past 10:00 o'clock in the evening, accused He recorded the complaint in their Complaint
excused himself as he was not feeling well and Sheet, (Exh. "6") and let complainant affix her
entered a room to rest while he remained by the signature.
door and slept.
After the document was subscribed and sworn to
At almost 12:00 o'clock midnight, he was before him, (Exh. "6-C"), he indorsed it to their
awakened by a burst of gunfire which took place [c]ommanding [o]fficer, Apolinario Castano. (Tsn-
more or less 20 meters away and saw the people Formentera, pp. 3-10, July 24, 1990).
scamper[ing] for safety. He hid inside the room
where accused was sleeping and peeped thru the
Ret. Col. Apolinario Castano, recalled that while
door. Not long after, Marilyn Boc entered and in
he was then with the Regional Unified Command
a low voice talked about the incident.
7, his niece, Racquel Sabalones together with her
husband Roling Sabalones, came to him for
They decided to wake up the accused to inform advi[c]e because the latter was afraid of his life
him of what was happening, but the latter merely brought about by the rampant killings of which his
opened his eyes and realizing that accused was brother and the son of Maj. Tiempo were victims.
too weak, they allowed him to go back to sleep.
Considering that accused's problem matter, they
When he went home at past 5:00 o'clock in the approached Gen. Ecarma, the then [c]ommander
morning of June 2, 1985, he saw a jeep outside of of the PC/INP, Recom 7, and the latter referred
the compound. He did not bother to investigate them to his [c]hief of [s]taff, Col. Roger Denia,
or inquire about the incident as he was in a hurry who informed them that there was no case filed
to go home and prepare for the burial of Junior against the accused. Nevertheless, the latter was
Sabalones. advised to be careful and consult a lawyer.

He was requested to testify in this case by his aunt Inocencia Sabalones, mother of accused, Roling
and mother of accused Rolusape Sabalones. (Tsn- Sabalones, narrated that on March 12, 1986 at
Tumarao, pp. 10-15, June 13, 1990). past 10:00 o'clock in the evening, she was roused
from sleep by a shout of a man demanding for
Russo Sabalones, uncle of accused, Sabalones, Roling Sabalones.
averred that the latter was once, one of his
undercover agents while he was then the [c]hief Upon hearing the name of her son, she
of the Intelligence Service of the PC from 1966 immediately stood up and peeped through the
until 1968. door of her store and saw men in fatigue uniforms
carrying long firearms. Thenceforth, these men She believed that the reason why her husband
boarded a vehicle and left. was implicated in the killing of Nabing Velez was
because of the slapping incident involving her
On the following morning, she was again father-in-law, Federico Sabalones, Sr. and Nabing
awakened by the persistent shouts and pushing of Velez which took place prior to the death of Junior
the gate. When she verified, the man who Sabalones.
introduced himself to her as Maj. Tiempo,
ordered her to open the gate. Once opened, the After the funeral, she began to receive mysterious
men of Maj. Tiempo entered the house and calls at their residence in Sikatuna St., Cebu City
proceeded to search for Roling Sabalones, whom where they began staying since 1978. She also
Maj. Tiempo suspected to have killed his son and noticed cars with tinted windows strangely
shot another to near death. When she demanded parked in front of their residence.
for a search warrant, she was only shown a piece
of paper but was not given the chance to read its Frightened and cowed, they decided to seek the
contents. advice of Col. Apolinario Castano, who after
relating to him their fears, advised her husband to
Racquel Sabalones, wife of accused, Rolusape lie low and to consult a lawyer.
Sabalones, maintained that on June 1, 1985 at
1.00 o'clock in the afternoon, she was at the wake To allay their apprehension, accused, Roling
of her brother-in-law, Junior Sabalones, at his Sabalones, left Cebu City for Iligan, Manila and
residence in Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu. other cities to avoid those who were after him.
When she learned about the threat made by Maj.
At 11:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, Tiempo on her husband, she forewarned the
together with her 3 daughters as well as Marlyn latter not to return to Cebu.
Sabarita, Rose Lapasaran and Gloria Mondejar,
left the place in order to sleep in an unoccupied Marlyn Sabarita, an illegitimate daughter of
apartment situated 30 meters away from the Rolusape Sabalones, stated that in the night in
house where her deceased, brother-in-law, question, she was at the wake of Junior Sabalones
Junior, was lying in state, as shown in the Sketch, and saw her Papa Roling, the herein accused, lying
(Exh. "7" and submarkings) prepared by her. They on the lawn of the house of the deceased.
brought with them a flashlight because the whole
place was in total darkness.
She was already in the apartment with her Mama
Racquel when she heard a burst of gunfire. Upon
As they were about to enter the gate leading to instructions of the latter, she went out to call the
her apartment she noticed a sedan car coming police thru the phone located [in] the third
towards them. She waited for the car to come apartment occupied by a certain Jet. (Tsn-
nearer as she thought that the same belong[ed] Tumarao, pp. 3-15, Oct. 15, 1990).
to her friend, but the vehicle instead stopped at
the corner of the road, (Exh. "7-F") and then
Edward Gutang, [a]sst. lay-out [e]ditor and [a]sst.
proceeded to the end portion of Mansueto
[s]ports [e]ditor of Sun-Star Daily, while then a
Compound, (Exh. "7-G"). As it moved slowly
military and police reporter had covered the
towards the highway, she rushed inside the
shooting incident which took place on June 1,
apartment.
1985 at the Mansueto Compound, Bulacao,
Talisay, Cebu.
Few minutes later, she heard a burst of gunfire
outside their gate. She immediately gathered her
At past 1:00 o'clock dawn, together with their
children and instructed Marlyn Sabarita to use the
newspaper photographer, Almario Bitang, they
phone situated at the third door apartment and
went to the crime scene boarding the vehicle of
call the police.
the Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes. Arriving
thereat, they decided not to proceed inside the
After the lull of gunfire, she went to the terrace compound because of fear. The place was then
and saw people in civilian and in fatigue uniforms incomplete darkness.
with firearms, gathered around the place. One of
these men even asked her about the
Upon being informed that the victims were
whereabouts of her husband, whom she left
brought to Cebu City Medical Center, they rushed
sleeping in the house of the deceased.
to the place and met Maj. Tiempo hugging the
dead body of his 14-year old son. His
At 8:30 in the morning of June 2, 1985, during the photographer took a picture of that pathetic
burial of Junior Sabalones, they were informed by scene. (Exh. "8-B").
Pedro Cabanero that Roling Sabalones was a
suspect for the death of Nabing Velez and the son
Samson Sabalones, a retired [a]mbassador and
of Maj. Tiempo.
uncle of Rolusape Sabalones, posted a bail bond
for his nephew with Eastern Insurance Company,
when a warrant for his arrest was issued by the house of the deceased. Not long after, he felt
Municipal Court, on March 12, 1986 because he somebody waking him up but he merely opened
was bothered by the fact that the latter was being his eyes and went back to sleep as he was really
unreasonably hunted by several groups. He even exhausted.
advised the accused to appear in [c]ourt to clarify
the nature of the case filed against him. At 6:30 the following morning, he was roused by
his wife so he could prepare for the burial. He
Virgincita Pajigal, a resident of Butuan City, met came to know about the burst of gunfire which
accused, Rolusape Sabalones, who introduced took place the previous night upon the
himself to her as "Paciano Laput" nicknamed, information of his wife. He did not take the news
Ondo, in a massage clinic where she was working. seriously as he was busy preparing for the burial
of his deceased brother, Jun.
For less than a year, they lived together as
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage The funeral started at past 8:00 o'clock in the
because according to her the accused was morning and he noticed the presence of Maj.
married but separated from his wife, whose name Eddie Ricardo and his men, who were sent by Col.
was never mentioned to her. For such a short Castano purposely to provide the burial with
span of time being together, her love for the military security, upon the request of his wife.
accused developed to the extent that whatever
happen[ed] to him, she [would] always be there He had a conversation with Maj. Ricardo who
to defend him. inquired about the shooting incident which
resulted in the death of the son of Maj. Tiempo
With the help of Maj. delos Santos, who advised and others in his company. Also in the course of
her to always stay close [to] the accused, she was their conversation, he came to know that Nabing
able to board the same vessel. She saw the latter Velez was killed earlier on that same night in
clad in green T-shirt, (Exh. "14") and pants, Labangon, Cebu [C]ity.
handcuffed and guarded.
On the same occasion, Pedro Cabanero also
Reaching Cebu City, they took a taxicab and as the notified him that he was a suspect in the killing of
vehicle went around the city, she was instructed Nabing Velez, a radio commentator of ferocious
by Maj. Tiempo to place the towel, (Exh. "15") character, who was engaged in a protection
which she found inside her bag, on the head of racket with several under his control.
the accused. They stopped at the Reclamation
Area and Maj. Tiempo pulled them out of the He remembered that a month prior to the death
vehicle but she held on tightly to Ondo, ripping his of Nabing Velez, his father, Federico Sabalones,
shirt. This pulling incident happened for several Sr. and the deceased while matching their fighting
times but complainant failed to let them out of cocks at the Talisay Sports Complex, had an
the vehicle. altercation and the latter slapped his paralytic
father and challenged him to ask one of his sons
The accused was finally brought to the Provincial to avenge what he had done to him. He came to
Jail while she stayed in the residence of the know about the incident only after a week.
accused. She returned to Butuan after a week.
(Tsn-Formentera, pp. 5-33, Jan. 22, 1991). He did not deny the fact that he was hurt by the
actuation of the deceased for humiliating his
Accused, Rolusape Sabalones, alias "Roling", in father but it did not occur to him to file a case or
his defense, with ancillary incidental narrations, take any action against the deceased because he
testified, that on June 1, 1985 at 6:00 o'clock in was too busy with his business and with his work
the evening, he was at the wake of his only as a bet caller in the cockpit.
brother, Junior Sabalones, who was killed on May
26, 1985. He advised his father to stay in Bohol to avoid
further trouble because he knew that the latter
He had no idea as to who was responsible for the would frequent the cockpit[,] being a cockfight
killing of his brother inasmuch as the latter had aficionado.
plenty of enemies. He also did not exert effort to
look into the case and to place it under police Likewise, during the burial, he was informed by a
authority since he had lost faith in the capabilities PC soldier, Roger Capuyan, that he was also a
of the police. The matter was however reported suspect in the killing of the son of Maj. Tiempo
by his uncle, Ambassador Sabalones, to the and even advised him to leave the place.
authorities.
On the following days after the burial, his wife
He stayed at the wake until 10:00 o'clock in the started to notice cars suspiciously parked in front
evening because he was not feeling well. He of their house and [she] also received mysterious
retired in a small room adjacent to the sala of the calls.
Together with his wife, they decided to see Col. On October 23, 1988 while he was at the Octagon
Apolinario Castaño to seek his advise. The latter Cockpit in Butuan with Sgt. Tambok, he was
verified from the Cebu Metrodiscom and learned arrested by Capt. Ochate and was brought to the
that there was no case filed against him. PC Headquarter[s] in Libertad, Butuan City and
was detained. Among the papers confiscated
In the evening of June 6, 1985, he left for Iligan from him was his Identification Card No. 028-88,
and after a month, he transferred to Ozamis and (Exh. "21") issued by the PC Command bearing
ten to Pagadian. He likewise went to Manila the name Paciano Laput.
especially when he learned that his uncle, Samson
Sabalones, had arrived from abroad. The latter On October 26, 1988 he was taken from the City
posted a bond for his temporary liberty Jail by Capt. Ochate and some soldiers, one of
immediately after being informed that a case was whom was Maj. Tiempo whom he met for the first
filed against him, before the Municipal Court of time.
Talisay.
On their way to Nasipit to board a vessel bound
Despite . . . the bond put up his uncle, he did not for Cebu City, Maj. Tiempo made him lie flat on
return to Cebu City because it came to his his belly and stepped on his back and handcuffed
knowledge that Maj. Tiempo inquired from the him. He cried in pain because of his sprained
bonding company as to his address. shoulder. A certain soldier also took his watch and
ring.
He also stayed in Marikina in the house of his
friend and during his stay in the said place, he Arriving in Cebu at 7:00 o'clock in the morning, he
registered as a voter and was issue a Voter's and Virgie Pajigal, who followed him in the boat,
Affidavit, (Exh. "19"; Exh. "R" for the prosecution) were made to board a taxicab. Maj. Tiempo
which bore the name "Paciano Mendoza Laput" alighted in certain place and talked to a certain
which [was] his baptismal name. He explained guy. Thereafter, they were brought to the
that the name[s] Mendoza and Laput [were] the Reclamation Area and were forced to go down
middle name and surname, respectively of his from the vehicle but Virgie Pajigal held him
mother. The name "Rolusape" was given to him tightly. They were again pulled out of the taxi but
by his father and the same [was] not his they resisted.
registered name because during the old days,
priests would not allow parents to name their From the Capitol Building, they proceeded to
children with names not found in the Almanac; CPDRC and on their way thereto, Maj. Tiempo sat
thus, Paciano [was] his chosen name and the beside him inside the taxi and boxed him on the
same appeared in his Baptismal Certificate, (Exh. right cheek below the ear and pulled his cuffed
"20") issued by the Parish of the Blessed Trinity of hands apart.
Talibon, Bohol. In his Birth Certificate, it [was] the
name "Rolusape" which appeared based upon the
At the Provincial Jail, he was physically examined
data supplied by his father.
by its resident physician, Dr. Dionisio Sadaya, and
was also fingerprinted and photographed, (Exh.
He had used the name Paciano during the time "21"). He was issued a Medical Certificate, (Exh.
when he [was] still a secret agent under his uncle, "22").
Gen. Russo Sabalones, when the latter was still
the [c]hief of the C-2 in 1966 until 1967 and as
He further stated that he [was] acquainted with
such, he was issued a firearm. He likewise used
his co-accused Timoteo Beronga, known to him as
said name at the time he was employed at the
"Timmy" being also a bet caller in the cockpit.
Governor's Office in Agusan and when he
(Tsn-Formentera, pp. 5-23, Feb. 26, 1991; Tsn-
registered in the Civil Service Commission to
Abangan, pp. 3-33, Feb. 27, 1991; Tsn-Abangan,
conceal his identity to protect himself from those
pp. 4-18, Apr. 10, 1991).
who were after him.

As surrebuttal witness, accused Rolusape

From Marikina he proceeded to Davao and then
Sabalones denied that he bribed a certain soldier
to Butuan City where he was made to campaign
because at the time he was arrested, his wallet as
for the candidacy of Gov. Eddie Rama. When the
well as his wristwatch and ring worth P2,000.00
latter won in the election, he was given a job at
each were confiscated and his hands tied behind
the Provincial Capitol and later became an agent
his back.
of the PC in Butuan using the name, "Paciano
Laput."
He also denied the allegation of Maj. Tiempo that
he offered the latter the amount of P1,000,000.00
During his stay in Butuan, he met Virgie Pajigal, a
to drop the case against him, the truth being that
manicurist who became his live-in partner.
while they were on board a vessel bound for Cebu
City, Maj. Tiempo compelled him to tell [who] the
real killers of his son [were] because he knew that
 he (Rolusape Sabalones) was not responsible. The The court a quo erred in overlooking or
former also inquired from him as to the disregarding physical evidence that would have
whereabouts of the carbine. contradicted the testimony of prosecution
witnesses Edwin Santos and Rogelio Presores that
He also rebutted complainant's testimony that the gunmen were shooting at them from a
upon their arrival here in Cebu City and while on standing position.
board a taxicab, he directed the former [to] first
go around the city to locate a certain Romeo IV
Cabañero, whom he did not know personally. 10
The court a quo erred in holding that the instant
Ruling of the Court of Appeals case is "one of aberratio ictus", which is not a
defense, and that the "defense of alibi"
Giving full credence to the evidence of the prosecution, the Court of interposed by the accused may not be
Appeals affirmed the trial court's Decision convicting appellants of considered.
two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated murder. Like the
trial court, it appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery and V
rejected appellants' defense of alibi.
The court a quo erred in not finding that the
The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that the penalties imposed by evidence of the prosecution has not overcome
the trial court were erroneous. Hence, for each count of murder, it the constitutional presumption of innocence in
sentenced appellants to reclusion perpetua. For each count of favor of the accused.
frustrated murder, it imposed the following penalty: ten years (10)
of prision mayor (medium), as minimum, to seventeen years (17) VI
years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal (medium), as
maximum. Sustaining the trial court, the Court of Appeals awarded
The court a quo erred in not acquitting the
indemnity of P20,000 to each of the victims of frustrated murder.
accused on ground of reasonable doubt.
However, it was silent on the indemnity of P50,000 awarded by the
trial court to the heirs of each of the two deceased.
In a Manifestation dated December 20, 1995, Appellant Beronga,
through counsel, adopted as his own the Brief of Sabalones. 13
Having imposed reclusion perpetua on the appellants, the Court of
Appeals, as earlier noted, refrained from entering judgment and
certified the case to the Supreme Court for review, in conformity with The foregoing assignment of errors shall be reformulated by the Court
Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. into these three issues or topics: (1) credibility of the witnesses and
sufficiency of the prosecution evidence, (2) defense of denial and
alibi, and (3) characterization of the crimes committed and the
Hence, this appeal before this Court. 11
penalty therefor.

The Issues
The Court's Ruling

In his Brief, 12 Appellant Sabalones raised the following errors

The appeal is devoid of merit.
allegedly committed by the trial court:

First Issue:
I
Credibility of Witnesses and
Sufficiency of Evidence
The court a quo erred in finding that accused
Sabalones and his friends left the house where his
Well-entrenched is the tenet that this Court will not interfere with the
brother Sabalones Junior was lying in state and
trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, absent any
"went to their grisly destination amidst the dark
indication or showing that the trial court has overlooked some
and positioned themselves in defense of his turf
material facts or gravely abused its discretion, 14 especially where, as
against the invasion of a revengeful gang of the
in this case, such assessment is affirmed by the Court of Appeals. "As
supporters of Nabing Velez.
this Court has reiterated often enough, the matter of assigning values
to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently
II performed or carried out by a trial judge who, unlike appellate
magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the accused's
The court a quo erred in finding that accused behavior, demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial." 15 Giving
Sabalones and his two co-accused were identified credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the trial
as among the four gunmen who fired at the court concluded:
victims.
Stripped of unnecessary verbiage, this Court,
III given the evidence, finds that there is more
realism in the conclusion based on a keener and
realistic appraisal of events, circumstances and
 evidentiary facts on record, that the gun slaying place inside the courtroom,
and violent deaths of Glenn Tiempo and Alfredo indicating a distance of about
Nardo, and the near fatal injuries of Nelson 6 to 7 meters, making the
Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Rogelio Presores, resulted witness stand as the point of
from the felonious and wanton acts of the herein reference).
accused for mistaking said victims for the persons
[who were] objects of their wrath. 16 Q Were you able to know how
many persons fired towards
We stress that "factual findings of the lower courts, the trial court and you?
the Court of Appeals are, as a general rule, binding and conclusive
upon the Supreme Court." 17 We find nothing in the instant case to A I only saw 3 to 4 persons.
justify a reversal or modification of the findings of the trial court and
the Court of Appeals that appellants committed two counts of murder
Q How long did these persons
and three counts of frustrated murder.
fire the guns at you?

Edwin Santos, a survivor of the assault, positively pointed to and

A Until we went home. The
identified the appellants as the authors of the crime. His categorical
persons were still firing, until
and straightforward testimony is quoted hereunder: 18
we went home.

COURT:
Q You stated that you saw
these persons who were
Q You stated there was a gun firing at you. Do you know
fired. What happened next? these persons?

WITNESS: A I can identify [them] when I

[see] them.
A There was a rapid fire in
succession. Q Try to look around this
courtroom, if these persons
Q When you heard this rapid you saw who were firing at
firing, what did you do? you are present in the
courtroom[.]
A I tried to look from where
the firing came from. A Yes, sir.

Q After that, what did you Q Can you point to these

find? persons?

A I saw persons firing towards A Yes, sir.

us.
Q Point at them.
Q Where were these persons
situated when they were COURT INTERPRETER:
firing towards you?
The Court directed the
A Near the foot of the electric witness to go down from the
post and close to the witness stand and [point] at
cemented wall. them, Beronga and
Alegarbes.
Q This electric post, was that
lighted at that moment? FISCAL GABIANA:

A Yes, sir, it was lighted. I would like to make it of

record that on the bench of
Q How far were these persons prisoner, only the two
firing, to the place where you accused were seated.
were?
COURT:
A From here to there (The
witness indicating the
distance by pointing to a
 Make it of record that only Q What did you see?
two prisoners were present.
A We saw Alfredo Nardo and
Q Now, Mr. Santos, aside Glenn Tiempo and Rey Bolo
from these two accused you f[a]ll to the ground. There
identified as among those were only 3.
who fired [at] you on that
evening, were there other Q Who was driving the jeep at
persons that you saw on that that time?
particular occasion who fired
at you?
A Alfredo Nardo.

A Yes, sir, there were[;] if I can

Q What happened after that?
see them, I can identify them.

A So, I looked, whence the

Corroborating the foregoing, Rogelio Presores, another survivor, also
burst of gunfire came from.
pointed to Timoteo Beronga, Teodulo Alegarbes and Roling Sabalones
as the perpetrators of the crime. His testimony proceeded in this
manner: 19 Q What did you see from that
gunfire?
Q When you arrived at the
residence of Stephen Lim, can A I saw 4 persons standing at
you remember of any unusual the back of the fence.
incident that took place?
Q What were those 4 persons
A Yes, sir. doing when they were
standing at the back of the
fence?
Q What was that?

A They were bringing long

A When the jeep arrived, the
firearms.
car was following.

Q Did you recognize these

Q What happened next?
persons?

A When the jeep was near the

A I can clearly recognize one
gate, the car was following.
and the 3 persons[.] I can
identify them, if I can see
Q The car was following the them again.
jeep, at what distance?
Q If you are shown these
A 3 to 4 meters. persons, can you recognize
them? Can you name these
Q While the car was following persons?
the jeep at that distance of 3
to 4 meters, what happened? A No, sir. Only their facial
appearance.
A All of a sudden, we heard
the burst of gunfire. Q What about the 3 persons?

Q From what direction was A That's why the 3 persons, I

the gunfire? do not know them. I can
recognize only their facial
A Through the direction of the appearance.
jeep.
Q What about one person?
Q After hearing the gunfire,
what happened? A Yes, sir.

A We looked at the jeep. Q What is the name of the

person?
 A Roling Sabalones. Like Santos, Rogelio Presores also stooped down when the firing
started, but he raised his head during a break in the gunfire:
Q If Roling Sabalones is inside
the courtroom, can you Atty. Albino:
recognize Roling Sabalones?
Q So, what did you do when
A Yes, sir, he is around. you first heard that one shot?

Q Can you point to Roling A So, after the first shot, we

Sabalones? looked towards the direction
we were facing and when we
A Yes, he is there (The witness heard the second shot, that
pointing to the person who was the time we stooped
answered the name of Roling down. 21
Sabalones).
He further testified:
Q I would like [you] again to
please look around and see, if Atty. Acido: [Counsel for
those persons whom you Appellant Sabalones]
know through their faces, if
they are here around? Q And you said you stooped
down inside the car when you
A The two of them (The heard the first firing to the
witness pointing to the 2 jeep. Is that what you want
persons, who, when asked, the Court to understand[?]
answered that his name [was]
Teofilo Beronga and the other Presores:
[was] Alegarbes).
A Yes, sir.
Indeed, we have carefully waded through the voluminous records of
this case and the testimonies of all the fifty-nine witnesses, and we
Q So, you never saw who fired
find that the prosecution has presented the required quantum of
the successive shots to the
proof to establish that appellants are indeed guilty as charged.
car as you said you stooped
Appellants' arguments, as we shall now discuss, fail to rebut this
down inside the car?
conclusion.

A The bursts of gunfire

Positive Identification
stopped for a while and that
was the time I reared of [sic]
Appellants allege that the two witnesses could not have properly my head.
identified the appellants because, after the first burst of shooting,
they both crouched down, such that they could not have seen the
Q And that was the first time
faces of their assailants. This contention does not persuade. Both
you saw them?
eyewitnesses testified that the firing was not continuous; thus, during
a lull in the firing, they raised their heads and managed a peek at the
perpetrators. Edwin Santos testified as follows: A Yes, sir. 22

Atty. Albino, counsel for The records clearly show that two vehicles proceeded to the house of
accused Beronga: Stephen Lim on that fateful day. The first was the jeep where Alfredo
Nardo, Glenn Tiempo and Rey Bolo were riding. About three to four
meters behind was the second car carrying Nelson Tiempo, Guillermo
Q You mean to say that when
Viloria, Rogelio Oliveros and the two prosecution witnesses — Edwin
you bent you heard the
Santos and Rogelio Presores. 23 As stated earlier, said witnesses
successive shots, [and] you
attested to the fact that after the first volley of shots directed at the
again raised your head. Is that
jeep, they both looked at the direction where the shots were coming
correct?
from, and they saw their friends in the jeep falling to the ground, as
well as the faces of the perpetrators. 24 It was only then that a rapid
A There, were times that the succession of gunshots were directed at them, upon which they
shots were not in succession started crouching to avoid being hit.
and continuous and that was
the time I raised my head
Hence, they were able to see and identify the appellants, having had
again. 20
a good look at them after the initial burst of shots. We stress that the
normal reaction of a person is to direct his sights towards the source
of a startling shout or occurrence. As held in People v. Dolar, 25 "the Q What I mean is that, can the
most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence is to strive to see cutting be done by any
the looks and faces of their assailants and to observe the manner in ordinary electrician?
which the crime is committed.
A Yes, sir. 30
In bolstering their claim that it was impossible for the witnesses to
have identified them, appellants further aver that the crime scene Said witness even admitted that he could not recall if he did in fact
was dark, there being no light in the lampposts at the time. To prove cut the electrical connection of the Mansueto Compound. 31 The
that the service wire to the street lamps at the Mansueto Compound Court of Appeals further noted that "none of the above witnesses
was disconnected as early as December 1984 and reconnected only were at the crime scene at or about the exact time that the ambush
on June 27, 1985, they presented the testimonies of Vicente occurred. Thus, none was in a position to state with absolute certainty
Cabanero, 26 Remigio Villaver, 27 Fredo Canete 28 and Edward that there was allegedly no light to illuminate the gunmen when they
Gutang. 29 The trial court, however, did not lend weight to said rained bullets on the victims. 32
testimonies, preferring to believe the statement of other prosecution
witnesses that the place was lighted during that time.
Even assuming arguendo that the lampposts were not functioning at
the time, the headlights of the jeep and the car were more than
The Court of Appeals sustained said findings by citing the testimonies sufficient to illuminate the crime scene. 33 The Court has previously
of defense witnesses. Fredo Canete of the Visayan Electric Company held that the light from the stars or the moon, an oven, or a wick lamp
(VECO), for instance, admitted that it was so easy to connect and or gasera can give ample illumination to enable a person to identify
disconnect the lights. He testified thus: or recognize another. 34 In the same vein, the headlights of a car or a
jeep are sufficient to enable eyewitnesses to identify appellants at the
Atty. Kintanar: distance of 4 to 10 meters.

Q Now, as a cutter, what Extrajudicial Statement

instruments do you usually of Beronga
use in cutting the electrical
connection of a certain place? Appellants insist that Beronga's extrajudicial statement was obtained
through violence and intimidation. Citing theres inter alios acta rule,
Canete: they also argue that the said statement is inadmissible against
Sabalones. Specifically, they challenge the trial court's reliance on the
A Pliers and screw driver. following portions of Beronga's statement:

Q Does it need . . . very Q After Roling knew that

sophisticated instruments to Na[b]ing Velez was killed,
disconnect the lights? have you observed [if] Roling
and his companions prepared
themselves for any
A No, these are the only
eventuality?
instruments we use.

A It did not take long after we

Q Ordinary pliers and
knew that Na[b]ing was
ordinary screw driver?
killed, somebody called up by
telephone looking for Roling,
A Yes, sir. and this was answered by
Roling but we did not know
Q And does [one] need to be what they were conversing
an expert in electronic [sic] in about and then Roling went
order to conduct the back to the house of Junior
disconnection? after answering the phone.
And after more than two
A No, sir. hours, we heard the sound of
engines of vehicles arriving,
and then Meo, the man who
Q In other words, Mr. Canete, was told by Roling to guard,
any ordinary electrician can shouted saying: "They are
cut it? already here[;]" after that,
Roling came out carrying a
A That is if they are connected carbine accompanied by
with the Visayan Electric Tsupe, and not long after we
Company. heard gunshots and because
of that we ran towards the
house where the wake was.
But before the gun-shots, I
 heard Pedring Sabalones Beronga's statement was made afterthe termination of the
father of Roling saying: "You conspiracy; thus, it should not be admitted and used against
clarify, [t]hat you watch out Sabalones.
for mistake[n] in identity,"
and after that shout, The well-settled rule is that the extrajudicial confession of an accused
gunshots followed. [sic] Then is binding only upon himself and is nor admissible as evidence against
after the gun-shots Roling his co-accused, it being mere hearsay evidence as far as the other
went back inside still carrying accused are concerned. 41 But this rule admits of exception. It does
the carbine and shouted: not apply when the confession, as in this case, is used as
"GATHER THE EMPTY SHELLS circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation of the
AND MEO[,] YOU BRING A co-accused in the killing of the victims 42 or when the confession of
FLASHLIGHT," and then I was the co-accused is corroborated by other evidence. 43
called by Meo to help him
gather the empty shells of the
Beronga's extrajudicial statement is, in fact, corroborated by the
carbine and also our third
testimony of Prosecution Witness Jennifer Binghoy. Pertinent
companion to gather the
portions of said testimony are reproduced hereunder:
empty shells.

Q While you were at the wake

These arguments have no merit. In the first place, it is well to stress
of Jun Sabalones and the
that appellants were convicted based primarily on the positive
group were sitting with Roling
identification of the two survivors, Edwin Santos and Rogelio
Sabalones, what were they
Presores, and not only on the extrajudicial statement, which merely
doing?
corroborates the eyewitness testimonies. Thus, said arguments have
no relevance to this case. As the Court held in People vs.
Tidula: 35 "Any allegation of violation of rights during custodial A They were gathered in one
investigation is relevant and material only to cases in which an table and they were
extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from the accused conversing with each other.
becomes the basis of their conviction."
xxx xxx xxx
In any case, we sustain the trial court's holding, as affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, that the extrajudicial statement of Beronga was Q On that same date, time
executed in compliance with the constitutional and place, at about 10:00 [i]n
requirements. 36 "Extrajudicial confessions, especially those which the evening, can you
are adverse to the declarant's interests are presumed voluntary, and remember if there was
in the absence of conclusive evidence showing that the declarant's unusual incident that took
consent in executing the same has been vitiated, such confession shall place?
be upheld." 37
A I heard over the radio at the
The exhaustive testimony of Sgt. Miasco, who undertook the Sabalones Family that a
investigation, shows that the appellant was apprised of his certain Nabing Velez was
constitutional rights to remain silent and to have competent and shot.
independent counsel of his own choice. 38 Said witness also stated
that Beronga was assisted by Atty. Marcelo Guinto during the Q That [a] certain Nabing
custodial investigation. 39 In fact, Atty. Guinto also took the witness Velez was shot? What else . . .
stand and confirmed that Appellant Beronga was informed of his transpired?
rights, and that the investigation was proper, legal and not
objectionable. Indeed, other than appellants' bare allegations, there
was no showing that Beronga's statement was obtained by force or A I observed that their
duress. 40 reactions were so queer, — as
if they were running.
Equally unavailing is appellants' reliance on the res inter alios
acta rule under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which xxx xxx xxx
provides:
Q In that evening of June 1,
The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to 1985, when you went there at
the conspiracy and during its existence, may be the house of Jun Sabalones,
given in evidence against the co-conspirator after have you seen an armalite?
the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration. A Yes, sir.

Appellants assert that the admission referred to in the above Q Where aid you see this
provision is considered to be against a co-conspirator only when it is armalite?
given during the existence of the conspiracy. They argue that
 A At the table where they A I saw 5 to 6 persons coming
were conversing. from the highway and looking
to the jeep, and before they
Q How many armalites or reached the jeep, somebody
guns [did you see] that shouted that "it's ours".
evening in that place?
Q Who shouted?
A Two (2).
A The voice was very familiar
xxx xxx xxx to me.

Q This armalite that you saw, Q Whose voice?

— how far was this in relation
to the groups of Sabalones? A The voice of Roling
Sabalones.
A There (The witness
indicating a distance of about Q What else have you noticed
4 to 5 meters). during the commotion
[when] wives were advising
ATTY. KINTANAR: their husbands to go home?

Q When you looked . . . A They were really in chaos. 44

through the window and saw
there were two vehicles and A careful reading of her testimony buttresses the finding of the trial
there were bursts of gunfire, court that Rolusape Sabalones and his friends were gathered at one
what happened after that? table, conversing in whispers with each other, that there were two
rifles on top of the table, and that they became panicky after hearing
A I did not proceed to look . . of the death of Nabing Velez on the radio. Hence, the observation of
. through the window the trial court that "they went to their grisly destination amidst the
because I stooped down. dark and positioned themselves in defense of his turf against the
invasion of a revengeful gang of supporters of the recently slain
Nabing Velez." 45
Q When you stooped down,
what happened?
Alleged Inconsistencies
A After the burst of gunfire, I
again opened the window. Appellants also allege that the prosecution account had
inconsistencies relating to the number of shots heard, the interval
between gunshots and the victims' positions when they were killed.
Q And when again you
These, however, are minor and inconsequential flaws which
opened the window, what
strengthen, rather than impair, the credibility of said eyewitnesses.
happened?
Such harmless errors are indicative of truth, not falsehood, and do not
cast serious doubt on the veracity and reliability of complainant's
A I saw two persons going testimony. 46
towards the jeep.
Appellants further claim that the relative positions of the gunmen, as
Q What transpired next after testified to by the eyewitnesses, were incompatible with the wounds
[you saw] those 2 persons? sustained by the victims. They cite the testimony of Dr. Ladislao Diola,
who conducted the autopsy on Glenn Tiempo. He declared that the
A When they arrived there, victim must necessarily be on a higher level than the assailant, in the
they nodded their head[s]. light of the path of the bullet from the entrance wound to where the
slug was extracted. This finding, according to appellant, negates the
Q After that, what happened? prosecution's account that the appellants were standing side by side
behind a wall when they fired at the victims. If standing, appellants
must have been on a level higher than that of the occupants of the
A So, they went back to the vehicles; if beside each other, they could not have inflicted wounds
direction where they came which were supposed to have come from opposite angles.
from, going to the house of
Sabalones.
We are not persuaded. The defense presumes that the victims were
sitting still when they were fired upon, and that they froze in the same
Q While they were going to position during and after the shooting. This has no testimonial
the direction of the house of foundation. On the contrary, it was shown that the victims ducked
Sabalones, what transpired? and hid themselves, albeit in vain, when the firing began. After the
first volley, they crouched and tried to take cover from the hail of Court in the discussion above, that the guilt of the appellants was
bullets. It would have been unnatural for them to remain upright and proven beyond reasonable doubt.
still in their seat. Hence, it is not difficult to imagine that the
trajectories of the bullet wounds varied as the victims shifted their In any event, the trial court was not engaging in conjecture in so
positions. We agree with the following explanation of the Court of ruling. The conclusion of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that
Appeals: the appellants killed the wrong persons was based on the extrajudicial
statement of Appellant Beronga and the testimony of Jennifer
The locations of the entry wounds can readily be Binghoy. These pieces of evidence sufficiently show that appellants
explained, . . . Glenn Tiempo, after looking in the believed that they were suspected of having killed the recently slain
direction of the explosion, turned his body Nabing Velez, and that they expected his group to retaliate against
around; and since the ambushers were between them. Hence, upon the arrival of the victims' vehicles which they
the jeep and the car, he received a bullet in his mistook to be carrying the avenging men of Nabing Velez, appellants
right chest (wound no. 1) which traveled to the opened fire. Nonetheless, the fact that they were mistaken does not
left. As to wound No. 2, it can be explained by the diminish their culpability. The Court has held that "mistake in the
spot where Major Tiempo found his fallen son. identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused
zeroes in on his intended
Atty. Kintanar: victim." 48

Q: Upon being informed by Be that as it may, the observation of the solicitor general on this
these occupants who were point is well-taken. The case is better characterized as
ambushed and [you] were error personae or mistake in the identity of the victims, rather
able to return the car, what than aberratio ictus which means mistake in the blow, characterized
did you do? by aiming at one but hitting the other due to imprecision in the
blow.
Major Tiempo:
Second Issue:
Denial and Alibi
A: I immediately got soldiers
and we immediately
proceeded to the area or to Appellants decry the lower courts' disregard of their defense of alibi.
the place where my fallen son We disagree. As constantly enunciated by this Court, the established
was located and when we doctrine requires the accused to prove not only that he was at some
reached . . . the place, I saw other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but that it was
my fallen son [in] a kneeling physically impossible for him at the time to have been present at
position where both knees the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity. 49 This the appellants
[were] touching the ground miserably failed to do.
and the toes also and the
forehead was touching Appellant Beronga testified that, at the time of the incident, he was
towards the ground. (TSN, in his residence in Lapulapu City, which was not shown to be so
Feb. 12, 1988, p. 6) remote and inaccessible that it precluded his presence in Mansueto
Subdivision. The alibi of Sabalones is even more unworthy of belief;
In such position the second bullet necessarily he sought to establish that he was a mere 20-25 meters away from
traveled upwards in relation to the body, and thus the scene of the crime. He was allegedly in the house of his brother
the entry wound should be lower than the exit who was lying in state, which was so near the ambush site that some
wound. There is no showing that both wounds of the defense witnesses even testified that they were terrified by the
were inflicted at the same time. 47 gunfire. Clearly, appellants failed to establish the requisites of alibi.

In any event, the witnesses saw that the appellants were the gunmen Furthermore, the defense of alibi cannot overcome the positive
who were standing side by side firing at them. They could have been identification of the appellants. 50 As aptly held by this Court in People
in a different position and in another hiding place when they first v. Nescio: 51
fired, but this is not important. They were present at the crime scene,
and they were shooting their rifles at the victims. Alibi is not credible when the accused-appellant is
only a short distance from the scene of the crime.
Aberratio Ictus The defense of alibi is further offset by the
positive identification made by the prosecution
witnesses. Alibi, to reiterate a well-settled
Appellants likewise accuse the trial court of engaging in "conjecture"
doctrine, is accepted only upon the clearest proof
in ruling that there was aberratio ictus in this case. This allegation
that the accused-appellant was not or could not
does not advance the cause of the appellants. It must be stressed that
have been at the crime scene when it was
the trial court relied on the concept of aberratio ictus to explain why
committed.
the appellants staged the ambush, not to prove that appellants did in
fact commit the crimes. Even assuming that the trial court did err in
explaining the motive of the appellants, this does not detract from its Flight
findings, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals and sustained by this
Appellants further object to the finding that Sabalones, after the temporal, in its maximum period, to death. There being no
incident, "made himself scarce from the place of commission. He left aggravating or mitigating circumstance, aside from the qualifying
for Manila, thence Mindanao on the supposition that he want[ed] to circumstance of treachery, the appellate court correctly
escape from the wrath of Maj. Tiempo and his men for the death of imposed reclusion perpetua for murder.
Glenn Tiempo and the near fatal shooting of the other son or from
the supporters of Nabing Velez. . . . On his supposedly borrowed The Court of Appeals, however, erred in computing the penalty for
freedom, he jumped bail and hid himself deeper into Mindanao, each of the three counts of frustrated murder. It sentenced appellants
under a cloak of an assumed name. Why, did his conscience bother to imprisonment of ten years of prision mayor (medium) as minimum
him for comfort?" 52 to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal (medium)
as maximum. It modified the trial court's computation of eight (8)
Appellants rationalized that Sabalones was forced to jump bail in years of prision mayor (minimum), as minimum, to fourteen (14)
order to escape two groups, who were allegedly out to get him, one years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal(minimum) as
of Nabing Velez and the other of Major Tiempo. Their ratiocination is maximum.
futile. It is well-established that "the flight of an accused is competent
evidence to indicate his guilt, and flight, when unexplained, is a Under Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a
circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn." 53 It frustrated felony is the "next lower in degree than that prescribed by
must be stressed, nonetheless, that appellants were not convicted law for the consummated felony . . . ." The imposable penalty for
based on legal inference alone but on the overwhelming evidence frustrated murder, therefore, is prision mayor in its maximum period
presented against them. to reclusion temporal in its medium period. 58 Because there are no
aggravating or mitigating circumstance as the Court of Appeals itself
Third Issue: held, 59 the penalty prescribed by law should be imposed in its
Crime and Punishment medium period. With the application of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the penalty for frustrated murder should be 8 years of prision
We agree with the appellate court that accused-appellants are guilty mayor (minimum), as minimum, to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion
of murder for the deaths of Glenn Tiempo end Alfredo Nardo. The temporal (minimum) as maximum.
allegation of treachery as charged in the Information was duly proven
by the prosecution. "Treachery is committed when two conditions Although the Court of Appeals was silent on this point, the trial court
concur, namely, that the means, methods, and forms of execution correctly ordered the payment of P50,000 as indemnity to the heirs
employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself of each of the two murdered victims. In light of current jurisprudence,
or to retaliate; and that such means, methods and forms of execution this amount is awarded without need of proof other than the fact of
were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without the victim's death. 60 The trial court and the CA, however, erred in
danger to his person." 54These requisites were evidently present awarding indemnity of P20,000 each to Nelson Tiempo, Rogelio
when the accused, swiftly and unexpectedly, fired at the victims who Presores and Rey Bolo. There is no basis, statutory or jurisprudential,
were inside their vehicles and were in no position and without any for the award of a fixed amount to victims of frustrated murder.
means to defend themselves. Hence, they are entitled only to the amounts of actual expenses duly
proven during the trial.
The appellate court also correctly convicted them of frustrated
murder for the injuries sustained by Nelson Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Thus, Nelson Tiempo, who was treated for a gunshot wound on the
Rogelio Presores. As evidenced by the medical certificates and the neck which shattered his trachea, should be awarded indemnity of
testimony of Dr. Miguel Mancao who attended to the victims, Nelson P21,594.22 for his medical expenses. This is evidenced by a statement
Tiempo sustained a neck wound which completely shattered his of account from Cebu Doctor's Hospital. 61
trachea and rendered him voiceless, as well as a wound on the right
chest which penetrated his axilla but not his chest cavity. 55Rey Bolo Rogelio Presores, who was likewise treated for gunshot wound in the
sustained three injuries which affected his clavicle, ribs and same hospital, presented a statement of account amounting to
lungs. 56 Rogelio Presores, on the other hand, sustained an injury to P5,412.69 for his hospitalization. 62 Hence, he is likewise entitled to
his lungs from a bullet wound which entered his right chest and exited indemnity in the said amount.
through his back. 57
Rey Bolo, on the other hand, incurred an expense of P9,431.10 for the
The wounds sustained by these survivors would have caused their treatment of his gunshot wounds, as evidenced by a statement of
death had it not been for the timely medical intervention. Hence, we account from the same hospital. 63 This amount should be awarded to
sustain the ruling of the Court of Appeals that appellants are guilty of him as indemnity.
three counts of frustrated murder.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision is
We also uphold the Court of Appeals' modification of the penalty for AFFIRMED. However, the penalties are hereby MODIFIED as follows:
murder, but not its computation of the sentence for frustrated
murder.
1) In Crim. Case No. CBU-9257, for MURDER, the accused-appellants
are each hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify,
For each of the two counts of murder, the trial court imposed the jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased, Glenn Tiempo, in the
penalty of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day sum of P50,000;
of reclusion temporal (medium), as minimum, to seventeen (17)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion
2) In Crim. Case No. CBU-9258, for MURDER, the accused-appellants
temporal (maximum), as maximum. This is incorrect. Under Article
are each hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify,
248 of the Ravised Penal Code, the imposable penalty is reclusion
jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased, Alfredo Nardo, in the
sum of P50,000;

3) In Crim. Case No. CBU-9259, for FRUSTRATED MURDER, the

accused-appellants are each hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
of 8 years of prision mayor (minimum), as minimum, to 14 years and
8 months of reclusion temporal (minimum) as maximum; and to
jointly and severally pay the victim, Rey Bolo, in the sum of P9,431.10
as actual damages;

4) In Crim Case No. CBU-9260, for FRUSTRATED MURDER, the

accused-appellants are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 8
years of prision mayor (minimum), as minimum, to 14 years and 8
months of reclusion temporal (minimum) as maximum; and to jointly
and severally indemnify the victim, Rogelio Presores, in the sum of
P5,412.69 for actual damages;

5) In Crim. Case No. CBU-9261 for FRUSTRATED MURDER, the

accused-appellants are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 8
years of prision mayor (minimum), as minimum, to 14 years and 8
months of reclusion temporal (minimum) as maximum; and to jointly
and severally indemnify the victim, Nelson Tiempo, in the sum of
P21,594.22 as actual damages.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Secretary of Interior and

Local Government and the Secretary of Justice so that Accused
Eufemio Cabanero may be brought to justice.

Costs against appellants.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 166326 | January 25, 2006 mobile car arrived, Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo fled to their
house.
ESMERALDO RIVERA, ISMAEL RIVERA, EDGARDO
RIVERA, Petitioners, Ruben was brought to the hospital. His attending physician, Dr.
vs. Lamberto Cagingin, Jr., signed a medical certificate in which he
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. declared that Ruben sustained lacerated wounds on the parietal area,
cerebral concussion or contusion, hematoma on the left upper
DECISION buttocks, multiple abrasions on the left shoulder and hematoma
periorbital left.4 The doctor declared that the lacerated wound in the
parietal area was slight and superficial and would heal from one to
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
seven days.5 The doctor prescribed medicine for Ruben’s back pain,
which he had to take for one month.6
This is a petition for review of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 27215 affirming, with modification, the
Esmeraldo testified that at around 1:00 p.m. on May 3, 1998, Ruben
Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite, Branch 90, in
arrived at his house and banged the gate. Ruben challenged him and
Criminal Case No. 6962-99, entitled People of the Philippines. v.
his brothers to come out and fight. When he went out of the house
Esmeraldo Rivera, et al.
and talked to Ruben, the latter punched him. They wrestled with each
other. He fell to the ground. Edgardo arrived and pushed Ruben aside.
On April 12, 1999, an Information was filed in the RTC of Imus, Cavite, His wife arrived, and he was pulled away and brought to their house.
charging Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo, all surnamed Rivera, of
attempted murder. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
For his part, Ismael testified that he tried to pacify Ruben and his
brother Esmeraldo, but Ruben grabbed him by the hair. He managed
That on or about the 3rd day of May 1998, in the Municipality of to free himself from Ruben and the latter fled. He went home
Dasmariñas, Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the afterwards. He did not see his brother Edgardo at the scene.
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with
Edgardo declared that at about 1:00 p.m. on May 3, 1998, he was
intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and
throwing garbage in front of their house. Ruben arrived and he went
there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and hit with
inside the house to avoid a confrontation. Ruben banged the gate and
a piece of hollow block, one RUBEN RODIL who thereby sustained a
ordered him to get out of their house and even threatened to shoot
non-mortal injury on his head and on the different parts of his body,
him. His brother Esmeraldo went out of their house and asked Ruben
the accused thus commenced the commission of the felony directly
what the problem was. A fist fight ensued. Edgardo rushed out of the
by overt acts, but failed to perform all the acts of execution which
house and pushed Ruben aside. Ruben fell to the ground. When he
would produce the crime of Murder by reason of some causes other
stood up, he pulled at Edgardo’s shirt and hair, and, in the process,
than their own spontaneous desistance, that is, the said Ruben Rodil
Ruben’s head hit the lamp post.7
was able to ran (sic) away and the timely response of the policemen,
to his damage and prejudice.
On August 30, 2002, the trial court rendered judgment finding all the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated murder. The
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
dispositive portion of the decision reads:

Ruben Rodil testified that he used to work as a taxi driver. He stopped

WHEREFORE, premises considered, all the accused are found GUILTY
driving in April 1998 after a would-be rapist threatened his life. He
beyond reasonable doubt and are sentenced to an imprisonment of
was even given a citation as a Bayaning Pilipino by the television
six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years of prision mayor as the
network ABS-CBN for saving the would-be victim. His wife eked out a
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of
living as a manicurist. They and their three children resided in
the accused. Likewise, the accused are to pay, jointly and severally,
Barangay San Isidro Labrador II, Dasmariñas, Cavite, near the house
civil indemnity to the private complainant in the amount
of Esmeraldo Rivera and his brothers Ismael and Edgardo.
of P30,000.00.

At noon of May 2, 1998, Ruben went to a nearby store to buy food.

SO ORDERED.8
Edgardo mocked him for being jobless and dependent on his wife for
support. Ruben resented the rebuke and hurled invectives at
Edgardo. A heated exchange of words ensued. The trial court gave no credence to the collective testimonies of the
accused and their witnesses. The accused appealed to the CA, which
rendered judgment on June 8, 2004 affirming, with modification, the
At about 7:30 p.m. the next day, a Sunday, Ruben went to the store
appealed decision. The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
to buy food and to look for his wife. His three-year-old daughter was
with him. Momentarily, Esmeraldo and his two brothers, Ismael and
Edgardo, emerged from their house and ganged up on Ruben. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite,
Esmeraldo and Ismael mauled Ruben with fist blows and he fell to the Branch 90, is MODIFIED in that the appellants are convicted of
ground. In that helpless position, Edgardo hit Ruben three times with ATTEMPTED MURDER and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of
a hollow block on the parietal area. Esmeraldo and Ismael continued 2 years of prision correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day
mauling Ruben. People who saw the incident shouted: "Awatin sila! of prision mayor as maximum. In all other respects, the decision
Awatin sila!" Ruben felt dizzy but managed to stand up. Ismael threw appealed from is AFFIRMED.
a stone at him, hitting him at the back. When policemen on board a
SO ORDERED.9
The accused, now petitioners, filed the instant petition for review Esmeraldo "Baby" Rivera and the simultaneous attack of the two
on certiorari, alleging that the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision. other petitioners. It was also established that the victim was hit by
They insist that the prosecution failed to prove that they had the Edgardo "Dagul" Rivera, while he was lying on the ground and being
intention to kill Ruben when they mauled and hit him with a hollow mauled by the other petitioners. Petitioners could have killed the
block. Petitioners aver that, based on the testimony of Dr. Cagingin, victim had he not managed to escape and had the police not promptly
Ruben sustained only a superficial wound in the parietal area; hence, intervened.
they should be held criminally liable for physical injuries only. Even if
petitioners had the intent to kill Ruben, the prosecution failed to Petitioners also draw attention to the fact that the injury sustained by
prove treachery; hence, they should be held guilty only of attempted the victim was superficial and, thus, not life threatening. The nature
homicide. of the injury does not negate the intent to kill. The Court of Appeals
held:
On the other hand, the CA held that the prosecution was able to prove
petitioners’ intent to kill Ruben: As earlier stated by Dr. Cagingin, appellants could have killed the
victim had the hollow block directly hit his head, and had the police
On the first assigned error, intent to kill may be deduced from the not promptly intervened so that the brothers scampered away. When
nature of the wound inflicted and the kind of weapon used. Intent to a wound is not sufficient to cause death, but intent to kill is evident,
kill was established by victim Ruben Rodil in his testimony as follows: the crime is attempted. Intent to kill was shown by the fact that the
three (3) brothers helped each other maul the defenseless victim, and
Q: And while you were being boxed by Esmeraldo and Bong, what even after he had already fallen to the ground; that one of them
happened next? picked up a cement hollow block and proceeded to hit the victim on
the head with it three times; and that it was only the arrival of the
policemen that made the appellants desist from their concerted act
A: When I was already lying [down] xxx, Dagol Rivera showed up with
of trying to kill Ruben Rodil.11
a piece of hollow block xxx and hit me thrice on the head, Sir.

The petition is denied for lack of merit.

Q: And what about the two (2), what were they doing when you were
hit with a hollow block by Dagol?
An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their
consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the
A: I was already lying on the ground and they kept on boxing me while
offenders to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with
Dagol was hitting, Sir.
the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the
prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while
As earlier stated by Dr. Cagingin, appellants could have killed the general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony
victim had the hollow block directly hit his head, and had the police by dolo.
not promptly intervened so that the brothers scampered away. When
a wound is not sufficient to cause death, but intent to kill is evident,
In People v. Delim,12 the Court declared that evidence to prove intent
the crime is attempted. Intent to kill was shown by the fact that the
to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, in the means
(3) brothers helped each other maul the defenseless victim, and even
used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds
after he had already fallen to the ground; that one of them even
sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the
picked up a cement hollow block and proceeded to hit the victim on
time, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances
the head with it three times; and that it was only the arrival of the
under which the crime was committed and the motives of the
policemen that made the appellants desist from their concerted act
accused. If the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the
of trying to kill Ruben Rodil.10
malefactors, intent to kill is presumed.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for its part, asserts that the
In the present case, the prosecution mustered the requisite quantum
decision of the CA is correct, thus:
of evidence to prove the intent of petitioners to kill Ruben. Esmeraldo
and Ismael pummeled the victim with fist blows. Even as Ruben fell to
The evidence and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses defeat the the ground, unable to defend himself against the sudden and
presumption of innocence raised by petitioners. The crime has been sustained assault of petitioners, Edgardo hit him three times with a
clearly established with petitioners as the perpetrators. Their intent hollow block. Edgardo tried to hit Ruben on the head, missed, but still
to kill is very evident and was established beyond reasonable doubt. managed to hit the victim only in the parietal area, resulting in a
lacerated wound and cerebral contusions.
Eyewitnesses to the crime, Alicia Vera Cruz and Lucita Villejo clearly
and categorically declared that the victim Ruben Rodil was walking That the head wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial
along St. Peter Avenue when he was suddenly boxed by Esmeraldo and could not have produced his death does not negate petitioners’
"Baby" Rivera. They further narrated that, soon thereafter, his two criminal liability for attempted murder. Even if Edgardo did not hit the
brothers Ismael and Edgardo "Dagul" Rivera, coming from St. Peter II, victim squarely on the head, petitioners are still criminally liable for
ganged up on the victim. Both Alicia Vera Cruz and Lucita Villejo attempted murder.
recounted that they saw Edgardo "Dagul" Rivera pick up a hollow
block and hit Ruben Rodil with it three (3) times. A careful review of
The last paragraph of Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines an
their testimonies revealed the suddenness and unexpectedness of
attempt to commit a felony, thus:
the attack of petitioners. In this case, the victim did not even have the
slightest warning of the danger that lay ahead as he was carrying his
three-year old daughter. He was caught off-guard by the assault of There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission
of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause life. He had no chance to defend himself and retaliate. He was
or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. overwhelmed by the synchronized assault of the three siblings. The
essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on the
The essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows: victim.17 Even if the attack is frontal but is sudden and unexpected,
giving no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself,
there would be treachery.18 Obviously, petitioners assaulted the
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony
victim because of the altercation between him and petitioner Edgardo
directly by overt acts;
Rivera a day before. There being conspiracy by and among
petitioners, treachery is considered against all of them. 19
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony;
The appellate court sentenced petitioners to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of two (2) years of prision correccionalin its minimum period,
3. The offender’s act be not stopped by his own as minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor in its maximum
spontaneous desistance; period, as maximum. This is erroneous. Under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Since petitioners
cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.13 are guilty only of attempted murder, the penalty should be reduced
by two degrees, conformably to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code.
The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, Under paragraph 2 of Article 61, in relation to Article 71 of the Revised
namely: Penal Code, such a penalty is prision mayor. In the absence of any
modifying circumstance in the commission of the felony (other than
the qualifying circumstance of treachery), the maximum of the
(1) That there be external acts; indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the medium period
of prision mayor which has a range of from eight (8) years and one (1)
(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime day to ten (10) years. To determine the minimum of the
intended to be committed.14 indeterminate penalty, the penalty of prision mayor should be
reduced by one degree, prision correccional, which has a range of six
The Court in People v. Lizada15 elaborated on the concept of an overt (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.
or external act, thus:
Hence, petitioners should be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, penalty of from two (2) years of prision correccional in its minimum
indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a period, as minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision
mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete mayor in its medium period, as maximum.
termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by
external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED WITH THE
offense. The raison d’etre for the law requiring a direct overt act is MODIFICATION that petitioners are sentenced to suffer an
that, in a majority of cases, the conduct of the accused consisting indeterminate penalty of from two (2) years of prision correccional in
merely of acts of preparation has never ceased to be equivocal; and its minimum period, as minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4)
this is necessarily so, irrespective of his declared intent. It is that months of prision mayor in its medium period, as maximum. No costs.
quality of being equivocal that must be lacking before the act
becomes one which may be said to be a commencement of the SO ORDERED.
commission of the crime, or an overt act or before any fragment of
the crime itself has been committed, and this is so for the reason that
so long as the equivocal quality remains, no one can say with certainty
what the intent of the accused is. It is necessary that the overt act
should have been the ultimate step towards the consummation of the
design. It is sufficient if it was the "first or some subsequent step in a
direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the
preparations are made." The act done need not constitute the last
proximate one for completion. It is necessary, however, that the
attempt must have a causal relation to the intended crime. In the
words of Viada, the overt acts must have an immediate and necessary
relation to the offense.16

In the case at bar, petitioners, who acted in concert, commenced the

felony of murder by mauling the victim and hitting him three times
with a hollow block; they narrowly missed hitting the middle portion
of his head. If Edgardo had done so, Ruben would surely have died.

We reject petitioners’ contention that the prosecution failed to prove

treachery in the commission of the felony. Petitioners attacked the
victim in a sudden and unexpected manner as Ruben was walking with
his three-year-old daughter, impervious of the imminent peril to his