SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 172357. March 19, 2010.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , appellee, vs . MARCELO BUSTAMANTE

y ZAPANTA, NEIL BALUYOT y TABISORA, RICHARD DELOS TRINO y
SARCILLA, HERMINIO JOSE y MONSON, n EDWIN SORIANO y DELA
CRUZ and ELMER SALVADOR y JAVALE , appellants.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO , J : p

The police authorities are the ones tasked to promote and maintain peace and
order in our country. Thus, it becomes doubly deplorable when they themselves commit
the criminal act. In this case, appellants insist on their innocence; they deny that they
killed the victim Romeleo Quintos on June 1, 1997 inside the detention cell of the Ninoy
Aquino International Airport (NAIA). But we are not persuaded. We took a second hard
look at the evidence presented and we hold that both the trial court and the appellate
court correctly found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellants are guilty of murder.
This is an appeal from the July 19, 2005 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00665 which af rmed in toto the March 17, 2000 Decision 2 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 109, nding the appellants guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. Also assailed is the March 6, 2006
Resolution 3 of the CA denying the separate motions for reconsideration led by the
appellants.
Factual Antecedents
On May 22, 1998, two Informations were led against the herein appellants,
together with Carlito Lingat and Mutalib Abdulajid, charging them with the crimes of
Murder and Arbitrary Detention. The Informations read:
Crim. Case No. 98-0547 (for Murder):
The undersigned Ombudsman Investigator, Of ce of the Deputy Ombudsman for
the Military, hereby accuses NEIL BALUYOT, RICHARD DELOS TRINO, HERMINIO
JOSE, EDWIN SORIANO, MARCELO BUSTAMANTE, CARLITO LINGAT, MUTALIB
ABDULAJID, AND ELMER SALVADOR of the crime of MURDER de ned and
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:

That in the early morning of June 01, 1997, between 2:00 to 3:00 o'clock [in the
morning], or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Pasay City, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused NEIL BALUYOT,
RICHARD DELOS TRINO, HERMINIO JOSE, EDWIN SORIANO, MARCELO
BUSTAMANTE, and CARLITO LINGAT, all public of cers, being then members of
the Philippine National Police (PNP) Force, assigned [at] the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport (NAIA), and accused ELMER SALVADOR and MUTALIB
ABDULAJID, security guards, also assigned at the NAIA, conspiring and
confederating with one another, with intent to kill and taking advantage of their
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously tie a
plastic nylon cord around the neck of one Romeleo A. Quintos, and hang him at
the end portion of the detention cell, which caused the instantaneous death of
said Romeleo A. Quintos to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said victim.
CIDcHA

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

Criminal Case No. 98-0548 (for Arbitrary Detention)

The undersigned Ombudsman Investigator, Of ce of the Ombudsman for the
Military, hereby accuses EDWIN D. SORIANO, MARCELO Z. BUSTAMANTE,
HERMINIO M. JOSE, CARLITO D. LINGAT and NEIL T. BALUYOT of the crime of
ARBITRARY DETENTION, de ned and penalized under Article 124 of the Revised
Penal Code, committed as follows:

That on or about June 01, 1997, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, all
public of cers, being then members of the Philippine National Police Force
assigned at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, conspiring and confederating
with each other, committing the offense in relation to their of ce, and without any
legal ground, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously detain and
restrain Romeleo A. Quintos of his personal liberty, without his consent and
against his will since midnight of May 31, 1997 until around 3:15 a.m. of June 01,
1997 when said Romeleo A. Quintos was found dead inside the detention cell.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

Neil Baluyot (Baluyot), Richard Delos Trino (Delos Trino), Herminio Jose (Jose),
Edwin Soriano (Soriano), Marcelo Bustamante (Bustamante), Carlito Lingat (Lingat) and
Elmer Salvador (Salvador), were arraigned on July 14, 1998 where they all entered a
plea of not guilty. 6 Mutalib Abdulajid (Abdulajid) remains at large.
The records show that at around midnight of May 31, 1997, Romeleo Quintos
(Romeleo) and his friend, Ancirell Sales (Ancirell), went to the NAIA to fetch Rolando
Quintos (Rolando), brother of Romeleo, who was arriving from the United States. At the
arrival extension area of the NAIA, Ancirell alighted from the car driven by Romeleo to
check whether Rolando had already arrived. Upon his return, he was surprised to see
Romeleo arguing with a man in uniform later identi ed as Soriano who arrested
Romeleo for expired license.
Romeleo vehemently denied the charge causing a heated altercation. Outraged,
Romeleo challenged Soriano to a gun duel. Thinking that Romeleo was a military man,
Soriano called for reinforcement. In a few minutes, Lingat and Bustamante arrived
followed by Jose. They asked Romeleo to hand over his license but the request went
unheeded. Thus, Jose seized the ignition key of the vehicle and ordered Romeleo to
alight from the vehicle but the latter refused. Thereupon, Soriano, Lingat, Bustamante
and Jose pulled Romeleo out of the vehicle and brought him to the Intelligence and
Investigation Division of the NAIA (IID-NAIA) supposedly for questioning. At the IID-
NAIA, it was decided that Romeleo be brought to the Pasay General Hospital for
examination where he was found positive for alcoholic breath. Thereafter, Romeleo was
brought back to the IID-NAIA for further investigation.
Romeleo was shoved into a cell already occupied by prosecution witness Noel
Gabornes (Gabornes), who had earlier been arrested for being an unauthorized porter.
Professing his innocence, Romeleo cursed and shouted at Baluyot, Delos Trino, Jose,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Soriano, Bustamante, Lingat, Salvador and Abdulajid to release him as he was only at
the airport to fetch his brother. Jose ordered him to stop but Romeleo persisted.
Infuriated, Jose entered the cell and kicked the victim hard on the stomach. Salvador
also entered the cell followed by Baluyot while Delos Trino stayed near the door.
Romeleo was still reeling from the blow delivered by Jose when Baluyot boxed him in
the abdomen. Salvador also punched him at the solar plexus causing the victim to
writhe in pain at a conger of the cubicle. To avoid being hit, Gabornes went outside the
cell. CAcEaS

Gasping for breath, Romeleo sought succor from Gabornes but the latter
declined, afraid to get involved. After a while, Gabornes asked Jose if he could go home
but the latter did not answer. Instead, Jose directed Salvador to transfer Gabornes to
an adjacent cell. Thereafter, Gabornes overheard Jose saying " tapusin na natin ito".
Intrigued, Gabornes peered through the iron grill to see what was happening. From his
vantage point, he saw Baluyot handing a piece of grayish plastic cord to Salvador.
Thereafter, he heard Romeleo coughing and gasping for breath as if he was being
strangled. Peering closely, the witness saw Salvador and Abdulajid twisting the cord
with a piece of wood, "garrote" style. Romeleo's hand could be seen trying to reach for
the piece of wood in a backward angle in a vain effort to stop the twisting. After a
couple of minutes, Gabornes saw a body being carried out of the cell. Delos Trino then
approached Gabornes and said: "Kung anong nakita mo, nakita mo lang. Kung anong
narinig mo, narinig mo lang. Sana huwag mo ng ikalat ito." Fearing for his life, Gabornes
promised not to tell anybody about the incident. Thereafter, he was released.
At about that time, the victim's brother, Rolando, had already arrived from the
United States. Informed by Ancirell of the detention of his brother Romeleo, Rolando set
out for home to deposit his luggage but immediately went back to the airport with
Ancirell and a cousin, Rabadon Gavino (Gavino), to check on Romeleo. At around 3:00
a.m. of the same day, they arrived at the IID-NAIA of ce and were met in the hallway by
Bustamante who told them that Romeleo was in the detention cell. Asking for
directions, the group was ushered towards a dark cell. When the lights were turned on,
they were horri ed to see the lifeless body of Romeleo hanging with a cord around his
neck with the other end tied around the iron grills of the cell window.
Rolando, Ancirell and Gavino, along with Soriano and Lingat, immediately brought
the victim to the San Juan De Dios Hospital aboard a police car. Rolando and his
companions carried the victim to the emergency room. Soriano and Lingat remained in
the vehicle but returned to the NAIA after a while. Romeleo was declared dead on arrival
by the attending physician. Gabornes later learned of the victim's identity through the
newspapers.
Baluyot, Delos Trino, Jose, Soriano, Bustamante, and Lingat, were all members of
the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned with the IID-NAIA, while Salvador and
Abdulajid were security guards of the Lanting Security Agency assigned at NAIA.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
After due proceedings, the trial court promulgated its Decision dated March 17,
2000, the decretal portion reads:
In view of all the foregoing, the Court nds the accused Neil Baluyot y Tabisora,
Richard delos Trino y Sarcilla, Herminio Jose y Mozon, Edwin Soriano y dela Cruz,
Marcelo Bustamante y Zapanta, Carlito Lingat y Salvador, Elmer Salvador y
Javale, and Mutalib Abdulajid guilty beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER in
Criminal Case No. 98-0457. It appearing on evidence that the accused voluntarily
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 surrendered at the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group as evidenced by
Exh. 21, the Court credits them with the mitigating circumstances of voluntary
surrender and hereby sentences each of them to RECLUSION PERPETUA and for
each accused to pay the heirs of the victim indemnity in the amount of
P50,000.00. CScTED

In Criminal Case No. 98-0548 for Arbitrary Detention, it appearing from the
evidence that the victim Romeleo Quintos was detained at the IID for three (3)
hours and fteen (15) minutes, the same is punished or penalized under Art. 124,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code which is herein below reproduced:

ART. 124. Arbitrary Detention. — Any public of cer or employee who,

without legal grounds, detains a person, shall suffer:

1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision

correctional in its minimum period if the detention has not exceeded three
days;
xxx xxx xxx

hence the case is not within the jurisdiction of this Court.

The OIC of this Court is hereby ordered to transmit the records of Criminal Case
No. 98-0548 for Arbitrary detention to the Metropolitan Trial Court.

The Petition for Bail led by all the accused is hereby considered moot and
academic.

Let an Alias Warrant of arrest be issued in so far as accused Mutalib Abdulajid is

concerned who remains at large.

SO ORDERED. 7

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC in a Decision dated July 19, 2005, thus:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto . Costs de officio.
SO ORDERED. 8

Aggrieved, appellants led their respective Motions for Reconsideration. In the

meantime, Lingat died. On March 6, 2006, the CA denied the motions for
reconsideration. 9
All the appellants, except Bustamante, led notices of appeal. Bustamante led
an Urgent Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration 1 0 but it was
denied by the CA in its Resolution 1 1 dated April 28, 2006. Thereafter, Bustamante led
a Petition for Review on Certiorari but the same was treated as an appeal in the
Resolution 1 2 dated January 15, 2007.
Issues
The issues raised are: (1) whether the uncorroborated testimony of the lone
eyewitness, Gabornes, is suf cient to produce a judgment of conviction; (2) whether
conspiracy was proven beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) whether appellants should be
held liable only for homicide, and not for murder. ASIDTa

Our Ruling
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Upon careful consideration of the evidence presented by both the prosecution
and the defense, we are unable to consider the appellants' appeal with favor.
The uncorroborated testimony of a
single witness, if credible, is enough to
warrant conviction.
We nd that the CA did not err in af rming the Decision of the trial court
convicting the appellants of murder based on the testimony of Gabornes, the lone
eyewitness. It is settled jurisprudence that the testimony of a single witness, if credible,
is enough to warrant conviction. Both the trial court and the CA found Gabornes to be
credible and whose testimony is entitled to full faith. We nd no cogent reason to
depart from said findings.
As borne out by the records, Gabornes positively identi ed and categorically
pointed to appellants as the ones who conspired with one another to kill Romeleo on
June 1, 1997. He narrated the incident in a clear and convincing manner. He testi ed on
the degree of participation of each of the accused with regard to the killing of Romeleo
inside the IID-NAIA detention cell in such a manner that only an unbiased eyewitness
could narrate. Gabornes was not shown to have had any ill motives to testify falsely
against the appellants. As correctly observed by both the trial court and the CA, the fact
that Gabornes was previously arrested for being an unauthorized porter is not enough
reason for him to falsely accuse appellants of a very grave offense.
We also hold that the CA correctly disregarded the af davit of recantation of
Gabornes dated February 21, 2005. In the said af davit, Gabornes denied that he was
inside the detention cell of the NAIA on June 1, 1997. Instead, he claimed that he was
under the y-over near the NAIA playing a card game. Consequently, he averred that
there is no truth to his testimony given before the trial court pointing to the appellants
as the perpetrators of the crime. We are not persuaded.
Our ruling in People v. Ballabare 1 3 is instructive:
It is absurd to disregard a testimony that has undergone trial and scrutiny by the
court and the parties simply because an af davit withdrawing the testimony is
subsequently presented by the defense. In the rst place, any recantation must be
tested in a public trial with suf cient opportunity given to the party adversely
affected by it to cross-examine the recanting witness. . . .

In the second place, to accept the new evidence uncritically would be to make a
solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous
witnesses. For even assuming that Tessie Asenita had made a retraction, this
circumstance alone does not require the court to disregard her original testimony.
A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration. For this reason,
courts look with disfavor upon retractions because they can easily be obtained
from witnesses usually through intimidation or for monetary considerations.
Hence, when confronted with a situation where a witness recants his testimony,
courts must not automatically exclude the original testimony solely on the basis
of the recantation. They should determine which testimony should be given
credence through a comparison of the original testimony and the new testimony,
applying the general rules of evidence. . . . 1 4
cEISAD

As we have already discussed, Gabornes' testimony given before the National

Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the trial court was replete with details that only a
person who witnessed such gruesome crime could narrate. Even during cross-
examination, he remained steadfast in his account that the appellants were the ones
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 who killed Romeleo. Also, both the trial court and the appellate court had several
opportunities of taking a hard look at the records of the case considering the motions
for reconsideration led by the appellants. Both the CA and the RTC found beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellants were indeed the authors of the crime.
The prosecution satisfactorily
established that appellants conspired
with each other in killing Romeleo.
We are not persuaded by the contention of the appellants that there was no
conspiracy considering that they were in different areas of the NAIA premises when the
crime took place. As correctly held by the CA:
At bar, appellants claimed that they were either at the NAIA parking lot or were at
the adjacent IID-NAIA of ce when the crime took place. These places, however,
are but a short distance away from the scene of the crime and one could travel to
and from these points in a little over a few seconds or minutes of leisure walking,
as readily admitted by appellants in their own version of the event. Verily, the
possibility of appellants to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission, is thus not farfetched. 1 5

Besides, it is not required for conspiracy to exist that there be an agreement for
an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. It is suf cient that at the time of the
commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its
execution. Direct proof of such agreement is not necessary. It may be deduced from
the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts
of the accused which point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and
community of interest. 1 6
This community of design is present among the appellants as deduced from
their individual acts. The RTC observed thus:
The act of the accused Elmer Salvador, Neil Baluyot y Tabisora, and Richard
Delos Trino y Sarcilla of boxing the victim on the stomach and the act of accused
Herminio Jose who said 'tapusin na natin ito' together with the act of accused
Neil Baluyot of handing a 'tale' or cord to Elmer Salvador who thereafter twisted
the cord which was around the neck of the victim with a piece of wood with the
help of accused Mutalib Abdulajid who up to the present remained at large, all
acts of which were done in the presence of all the accused namely: Neil Baluyot y
Tabisora, Richard Delos Trino y Sarcilla, Herminio Jose y Mozon, Edwin Soriano y
dela Cruz, Marcelo Bustamante y Zapanta, Carlito Lingat y Damaso and Elmer
Salvador (including the accused who is at large) clearly show that all accused
conspired, confederated and helped one another in murdering the victim with
abuse of superior strength by strangling and hanging the victim Romeleo Quintos
causing him to die of asphyxia. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
CTcSAE

xxx xxx xxx

Likewise, the act of accused Carlito Lingat y Damaso and Edwin Soriano y Dela
Cruz of not coming to the hospital to give the medical clerk the name and
circumstances of the victim including the facts surrounding the victim's death is
very suspicious indeed and is contrary to the SOP of of cers who bring victims to
the hospital. Also the failure of all the accused to immediately report to the police
investigator of Pasay City is quite unusual. In the same manner the acts of
accused Neil Baluyot y Tabisora, Herminio Jose y Mozon and Richard Delos Trino
y Sarcilla of leaving the IID of ce and cell which is the scene of the crime and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 then going to Biñan and to Atty. Augusto Jimenez is quite unusual for persons
who professed innocence. 1 7

Moreover, the doctrine is well settled that conspiracy need not be proved by
direct evidence but may be proven through the series of acts done by each of the
accused in pursuance of their common unlawful purpose. For collective responsibility
among the accused to be established, it is suf cient that at the time of the aggression,
all of them acted in concert, each doing his part to ful ll their common design to kill the
victim. 1 8
The CA correctly observed that:
A fortiori, appellants should be held liable for the death of Romeleo Quintos. Their
sequential attack, one after another, revealed their unlawful intent to kill the
victim. Herminio Jose's utterances of "tapusin na natin ito" only strengthens the
link that binds the acts of the appellants in their coordinated effort to kill
Romeleo. . . . 1 9

The circumstance of abuse of superior

strength qualified the killing to murder.
There is likewise no merit to appellants' contention that they should only be held
liable for homicide, and not for murder, because the qualifying circumstance of abuse
of superior strength was not specifically alleged in the Information.
Contrary to the assertion of the appellants, the Information speci cally alleged
that the appellants were —
. . . conspiring and confederating with one another, with intent to kill and taking
advantage of their superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously tie a plastic nylon cord around the neck of one Romeleo A. Quintos,
and hang him at the end portion of the detention cell, which caused the
instantaneous death of said Romeleo A. Quintos to the damage and prejudice of
the heirs of said victim.

It has been satisfactorily established that Baluyot, Delos Trino, Jose, Soriano,
Bustamante, and Lingat, were all members of the PNP assigned with the IID-NAIA, while
Salvador and Mutalib were security guards of the Lanting Security Agency assigned at
NAIA. The eight of them acted in concert and de nitely took advantage of their superior
strength in subduing and killing their lone victim who was unarmed. Thus, all the
appellants must be held liable for the crime of murder. ISCcAT

All told, appellants miserably failed to show convincing reasons to overturn the
Decision of both the trial court and the CA. In this case, the CA ascertained the factual
ndings of the trial court to be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt which led
to the conclusion that appellants acted in unison in killing Romeleo. It is worthy to
stress that ndings of fact of the CA, especially if they af rm factual ndings of the trial
court, will not be disturbed by this Court, unless these ndings are not supported by
evidence. 2 0
The liabilities of Carlito Lingat and
Mutalib Abdulajid
It has not escaped our notice that Abdulajid was not arraigned and remains at
large up to this time. However, in the Decision of the trial court which was af rmed by
the CA, Abdulajid was likewise found guilty as charged. This is erroneous considering
that without his having been arraigned, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 his person.
As regards Lingat, his death pending appeal and prior to the nality of conviction
extinguished his criminal and civil liabilities. 2 1 Moreover, the death of Lingat would
result in the dismissal of the criminal case against him. 2 2
Damages
We note that both the trial court and the CA awarded the heirs of the victim only
the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, 2 3 we
also award the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. Further, we also award the
amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages pursuant to our ruling in People v.
Angeles 2 4 where we held that "under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary
damages may be awarded in criminal cases when the crime was committed with one or
more aggravating circumstances, (in this case, abuse of superior strength). This is
intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as vindication of undue
sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as a punishment for those
guilty of outrageous conduct. The imposition of exemplary damages is also justi ed
under Article 2229 of the Civil Code in order to set an example for the public good." In
addition, and in lieu of actual damages, we also award temperate damages in the
amount of P25,000.00. 2 5
Likewise, we note that both the trial court and the CA overlooked the fact that
during the testimony of Clementina Quintos, the mother of the victim, suf cient
evidence was presented to show that the victim before his untimely death, was gainfully
employed in a private company with a monthly salary of P15,000.00.
Fiscal Barrera:
Q Would you describe Romeleo Quintos prior to his death?
A He was gainfully employed. He is an executive at IPC (International Product
Corporation), Makati as operation officer.
xxx xxx xxx
Q How much was your son Romeleo Quintos receiving as operation officer at
IPC?
A P15,000.00, sir, monthly.
Q Do you have any evidence to show that he earn Five Thousand pesos [sic]
(P15,000.00) a month as project engineer?
A Yes, sir. SDTIHA

Fiscal Barrera:

May I request that the Certification dated January 22, 1999 issued by IPC be
marked as Exh. "EEE"; the name appearing thereat that Romeleo Quintos
has been an employee of IPC from January 8, 1997 up to June 1, 1997
with the position of operation officer with monthly salary of P15,000.00 . . .
be marked as Exh. "EEE-1" and the signature of a person who issued the
certification be marked as Exh. "EEE-2". 2 6

The formula 2 7 for unearned income is as follows:

Life Expectancy x [Gross Annual Income (GAI) less Living Expenses (50% GAI)]
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Where Life Expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - age of the deceased)

Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 2206. That amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-
delict shall be at least Three Thousand Pesos, even though there may have been
mitigating circumstances. In addition:
(1) the defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the
deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter, such
indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the
deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the accused,
had no earning capacity at the time of his death;
xxx xxx xxx

Hence, the testimony of the victim's mother that Romeleo was earning
P15,000.00 per month is suf cient basis for an award of damages for loss of earning
capacity.
It is well settled that the factors that should be taken into account in determining
the compensable amount of lost earnings are: (1) the number of years for which the
victim would otherwise have lived; (2) the rate of loss sustained by the heirs of the
deceased.
The unearned income of Romeleo is computed as follows:
Unearned Income = 2/3 (80 - 30 2 8 ) [(P15,000.00 x 12) - 1/2 (P15,000.00 x 12)]
= 2/3 (50) (P180,000.00 - P90,000.00)
= 2/3 (50) (P90,000.00)
= 9,000,000.00/3
= P3,000,000.00
WHEREFORE , the July 19, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 00665 is MODIFIED . Appellants Neil Baluyot, Richard Delos Trino, Herminio
Jose, Edwin Soriano, Marcelo Bustamante, and Elmer Salvador, are hereby found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and are sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Romeleo Quintos the amounts
of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as
temperate damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P3,000,000.00 as lost
income. In view of the death of Carlito Lingat pending appeal and prior to the nality of
his conviction, Criminal Case No. 98-0547 is DISMISSED and the appealed Decision is
SET ASIDE insofar as Carlito Lingat is concerned. Insofar as Mutalib Abdulajid is
concerned, the March 17, 2000 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City,
Branch 109 in Criminal Case No. 98-0547 is NULLIFIED for failure of the trial court to
acquire jurisdiction over his person. Consequently, the appealed July 19, 2005 Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00665 is likewise SET ASIDE insofar as
Mutalib Abdulajid is concerned. AaIDHS

SO ORDERED .
Carpio, Brion, Abad and Perez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 1. CA rollo, pp. 786-803; penned by then Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and
concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Aurora Santiago
Lagman.
2. Id. at 128-179; penned by Judge Lilia C. Lopez.
3. Id. at 854-855.
4. Id. at 85-86.
5. Id. at 87.
6. Records, pp. 110-116.

7. CA rollo, pp. 178-179.

8. Id. at 802.
9. Id. at 854-855.
10. Id. at 858-867.
11. Id. at 871.
12. Rollo, p. 167.
13. 332 Phil. 384 (1996).
14. Id. at 396-397.
15. CA rollo, p. 801.
16. People v. Ricafranca, 380 Phil. 631, 642-643 (2000).
17. CA rollo, pp. 177-178.
18. People v. Magalang, G.R. No. 84274, January 27, 1993, 217 SCRA 571, 574.
19. CA rollo, p. 800.
20. Bañas, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 144, 154 (2000).
21. People v. Abungan, 395 Phil. 456, 458 (2000).
22. Id. at 462.
23. People v. Badriago, G.R. 183566, May 8, 2009.
24. G.R. No. 177134, August 14, 2009.
25. People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 185841, August 4, 2009.
26. TSN, February 25, 1999, pp. 4-5.
27. People v. Jabiniao, Jr., G.R. No. 179499, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 769, 787.
28. Romeleo was 30 years old at the time of his death on June 1, 1997.
n Note from the publisher: Copied verbatim from the official copy.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com