G.R. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910 THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AH CHONG, defendant-appellant.

Gibb & Gale, for appellant. Attorney-General Villamor, for appellee. CARSON, J.: The evidence as to many of the essential and vital facts in this case is limited to the testimony of the accused himself, because from the very nature of these facts and from the circumstances surrounding the incident upon which these proceedings rest, no other evidence as to these facts was available either to the prosecution or to the defense. We think, however, that, giving the accused the benefit of the doubt as to the weight of the evidence touching those details of the incident as to which there can be said to be any doubt, the following statement of the material facts disclose by the record may be taken to be substantially correct: The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook at !fficers" #uarters, $o. %&, 'ort (c )inley, *i+al ,rovince, and at the same place ,ascual -ualberto, deceased, was employed as a house boy or muchacho. !fficers" #uarters $o. %& as a detached house situates some ./ meters from the nearest building, and in August, 01/2&, was occupied solely as an officers" mess or club. $o one slept in the house e3cept the two servants, who 4ointly occupied a small room toward the rear of the building, the door of which opened upon a narrow porch running along the side of the building, by which communication was had with the other part of the house. This porch was covered by a heavy growth of vines for its entire length and height. The door of the room was not furnished with a permanent bolt or lock, and occupants, as a measure of security, had attached a small hook or catch on the inside of the door, and were in the habit of reinforcing this somewhat insecure means of fastening the door by placing against it a chair. 5n the room there was but one small window, which, like the door, opened on the porch. Aside from the door and window, there were no other openings of any kind in the room. !n the night of August 0., 01/2, at about 0/ o"clock, the defendant, who had received for the night, was suddenly awakened by some trying to force open the door of the room. 6e sat up in bed and called out twice, Who is there7 6e heard no answer and was convinced by the noise at the door that it was being pushed open by someone bent upon forcing his way into the room. 8ue to the heavy growth of vines along the front of the porch, the room was very dark, and the defendant, fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief, leaped to his feet and called out. 5f you enter the room, 5 will kill you. At that moment he was struck 4ust above the knee by the edge of the chair which had been placed against the door. 5n the darkness and confusion the defendant thought that the blow had been inflicted by the person who had forced the door open, whom he supposed to be a burglar, though in the light of after events, it is probable that the chair was merely thrown back into the room by the sudden opening of the door against which it rested. 9ei+ing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who, it afterwards turned out, was his roommate, ,ascual. ,ascual ran out upon the porch and fell down on the steps in a desperately wounded condition, followed by the defendant, who immediately recogni+ed him in the moonlight. 9eeing that ,ascual was wounded, he called to his employers who slept in the ne3t house, $o. %2, and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up ,ascual"s wounds. There had been several robberies in 'ort (c)inley not long prior to the date of the incident 4ust described, one of which took place in a house in which the defendant was employed as cook: and as defendant alleges, it was because of these repeated robberies he kept a knife under his pillow for his personal protection. The deceased and the accused, who roomed together and who appear to have on friendly and amicable terms prior to the fatal incident, had an understanding that when either returned at night, he should knock at the door and ac#uiant his companion with his identity. ,ascual had left the house early in the evening and gone for a walk with his friends, Celestino ;uiambao and (ariano 5ba<e+, servants employed at officers" #uarters $o. %2, the nearest house to the mess hall. The three returned from their walk at about 0/ o"clock, and Celestino and (ariano stopped at their room at $o. %2, ,ascual going on to his room at $o. %&. A few moments after the party separated, Celestino and (ariano heard cries for assistance and upon returning to $o. %& found ,ascual sitting on the back steps fatally wounded in the stomach, whereupon one of them ran back to $o. %2 and called =iuetenants >acobs and 6ealy, who immediately went to the aid of the wounded man. The defendant then and there admitted that he had stabbed his roommate, but said that he did it under the impression that ,ascual was a ladron because he forced open the door of their sleeping room, despite defendant"s warnings. $o reasonable e3planation of the remarkable conduct on the part of ,ascuals suggests itself, unless it be that the boy in a spirit of mischief was playing a trick on his Chinese roommate, and sought to frightened

him by forcing his way into the room, refusing to give his name or say who he was, in order to make Ah Chong believe that he was being attacked by a robber. 8efendant was placed under arrest forthwith, and ,ascual was conveyed to the military hospital, where he died from the effects of the wound on the following day. The defendant was charged with the crime of assassination, tried, and found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with e3tenuating circumstances, and sentenced to si3 years and one day presidio mayor, the minimum penalty prescribed by law. At the trial in the court below the defendant admitted that he killed his roommate, ,ascual -ualberto, but insisted that he struck the fatal blow without any intent to do a wrongful act, in the e3ercise of his lawful right of self-defense. Article 2 of the ,enal Code provides that ? The following are not delin#uent and are therefore e3empt from criminal liability: 333 333 333 . 6e who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided there are the following attendant circumstances: @0A 5llegal aggression. @%A *easonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. @BA =ack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Cnder these provisions we think that there can be no doubt that defendant would be entitle to complete e3ception from criminal liability for the death of the victim of his fatal blow, if the intruder who forced open the door of his room had been in fact a dangerous thief or ladron, as the defendant believed him to be. $o one, under such circumstances, would doubt the right of the defendant to resist and repel such an intrusion, and the thief having forced open the door notwithstanding defendant"s thrice-repeated warning to desist, and his threat that he would kill the intruder if he persisted in his attempt, it will not be #uestioned that in the darkness of the night, in a small room, with no means of escape, with the thief advancing upon him despite his warnings defendant would have been wholly 4ustified in using any available weapon to defend himself from such an assault, and in striking promptly, without waiting for the thief to discover his whereabouts and deliver the first blow. Dut the evidence clearly discloses that the intruder was not a thief or a ladron. That neither the defendant nor his property nor any of the property under his charge was in real danger at the time when he struck the fatal blow. That there was no such unlawful aggression on the part of a thief or ladron as defendant believed he was repelling and resisting, and that there was no real necessity for the use of the knife to defend his person or his property or the property under his charge. The #uestion then s#uarely presents it self, whether in this 4urisdiction one can be held criminally responsible who, by reason of a mistake as to the facts, does an act for which he would be e3empt from criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed them to be, but which would constitute the crime of homicide or assassination if the actor had known the true state of the facts at the time when he committed the act. To this #uestion we think there can be but one answer, and we hold that under such circumstances there is no criminal liability, provided always that the alleged ignorance or mistake or fact was not due to negligence or bad faith. 5n broader terms, ignorance or mistake of fact, if such ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient to negative a particular intent which under the law is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged @e.g., in larcerny, animus furendi: in murder, malice: in crimes intentA cancels the presumption of intent, and works an ac#uittal: e3cept in those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions touching criminal negligence: and in cases where, under the provisions of article 0 of the ,enal Code one voluntarily committing a crime or misdeamor incurs criminal liability for any wrongful act committed by him, even though it be different from that which he intended to commit. @Wharton"s Criminal =aw, sec. 2& and cases cited: (cClain"s Crim. =aw, sec. 0BB and cases cited: ,ettit vs. 9., %2 Te3. Ap., %./: Commonwealth vs. ,ower, & (et., E1F: Gates vs. ,eople, B% $.G., E/1: 5sham vs. 9tate, B2 Ala., %0B: Commonwealth vs. *ogers, & (et., E//.A The general proposition thus stated hardly admits of discussion, and the only #uestion worthy of consideration is whether malice or criminal intent is an essential element or ingredient of the crimes of homicide and assassination as defined and penali+ed in the ,enal Code. 5t has been said that since the definitions there given of these as well as most other crimes and offense therein defined, do not specifically and e3pressly declare that the acts constituting the crime or offense must be committed with malice or with criminal intent in order that the actor may be held criminally liable, the commission of the acts set out in the various definitions sub4ects the actor to the penalties described therein, unless it appears that he is e3empted from liability under one or other of the e3press provisions of article 2 of the code, which treats of e3emption. Dut while it is true that contrary to the general rule of legislative enactment in the Cnited 9tates,

the definitions of crimes and offenses as set out in the ,enal Code rarely contain provisions e3pressly declaring that malice or criminal intent is an essential ingredient of the crime, nevertheless, the general provisions of article 0 of the code clearly indicate that malice, or criminal intent in some form, is an essential re#uisite of all crimes and offense therein defined, in the absence of e3press provisions modifying the general rule, such as are those touching liability resulting from acts negligently or imprudently committed, and acts done by one voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor, where the act committed is different from that which he intended to commit. And it is to be observed that even these e3ceptions are more apparent than real, for There is little distinction, e3cept in degree, between a will to do a wrongful thing and indifference whether it is done or not. Therefore carelessness is criminal, and within limits supplies the place of the affirmative criminal intent @Dishop"s $ew Criminal =aw, vol. 0, s. B0BA: and, again, There is so little difference between a disposition to do a great harm and a disposition to do harm that one of them may very well be looked upon as the measure of the other. 9ince, therefore, the guilt of a crime consists in the disposition to do harm, which the criminal shows by committing it, and since this disposition is greater or less in proportion to the harm which is done by the crime, the conse#uence is that the guilt of the crime follows the same proportion: it is greater or less according as the crime in its own nature does greater or less harm @*uth. 5nts. C. 02, p. 00A: or, as it has been otherwise stated, the thing done, having proceeded from a corrupt mid, is to be viewed the same whether the corruption was of one particular form or another. Article 0 of the ,enal Code is as follows: Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and ommissions punished by law. Acts and omissions punished by law are always presumed to be voluntarily unless the contrary shall appear. An person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even though the wrongful act committed be different from that which he had intended to commit. The celebrated 9panish 4urist ,acheco, discussing the meaning of the word voluntary as used in this article, say that a voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act, and roundly asserts that without intention @intention to do wrong or criminal intentionA there can be no crime: and that the word voluntary implies and includes the words con malicia, which were e3pressly set out in the definition of the word crime in the code of 02%%, but omitted from the code of 02&/, because, as ,acheco insists, their use in the former code was redundant, being implied and included in the word voluntary. @,acheco, Codigo ,enal, vol. 0, p. &..A Hiada, while insisting that the absence of intention to commit the crime can only be said to e3empt from criminal responsibility when the act which was actually intended to be done was in itself a lawful one, and in the absence of negligence or imprudence, nevertheless admits and recogni+es in his discussion of the provisions of this article of the code that in general without intention there can be no crime. @Hiada, vol. 0, p. 0F.A And, as we have shown above, the e3ceptions insisted upon by Hiada are more apparent than real. 9ilvela, in discussing the doctrine herein laid down, says: 5n fact, it is sufficient to remember the first article, which declared that where there is no intention there is no crime . . . in order to affirm, without fear of mistake, that under our code there can be no crime if there is no act, an act which must fall within the sphere of ethics if there is no moral in4ury. @Hol. %, the Criminal =aw, folio 0F1.A And to the same effect are various decisions of the supreme court of 9pain, as, for e3ample in its sentence of (ay B0, 022%, in which it made use of the following language: 5t is necessary that this act, in order to constitute a crime, involve all the malice which is supposed from the operation of the will and an intent to cause the in4ury which may be the ob4ect of the crime. And again in its sentence of (arch 0F, 021%, wherein it held that considering that, whatever may be the civil effects of the inscription of his three sons, made by the appellant in the civil registry and in the parochial church, there can be no crime because of the lack of the necessary element or criminal intention, which characteri+es every action or ommission punished by law: nor is he guilty of criminal negligence. And to the same effect in its sentence of 8ecember B/, 021F, it made use of the following language: . . . Considering that the moral element of the crime, that is, intent or malice or their absence in the commission of an act defined and punished by law as criminal, is not a necessary #uestion of fact submitted to the e3clusive 4udgment and decision of the trial court. That the author of the ,enal Code deemed criminal intent or malice to be an essential element of the various crimes and misdemeanors therein defined becomes clear also from an e3amination of the provisions of article EF2, which are as follows: 6e who shall e3ecute through reckless negligence an act that, if done with malice, would constitute a grave crime, shall be punished with the penalty of arresto mayor in its ma3imum degree, to prision correccional in its minimum degrees if it shall constitute a less grave crime.

6e who in violation of the regulations shall commit a crime through simple imprudence or negligence shall incur the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and ma3imum degrees. 5n the application of these penalties the courts shall proceed according to their discretion, without being sub4ect to the rules prescribed in article 20. The provisions of this article shall not be applicable if the penalty prescribed for the crime is e#ual to or less than those contained in the first paragraph thereof, in which case the courts shall apply the ne3t one thereto in the degree which they may consider proper. The word malice in this article is manifestly substantially e#uivalent to the words criminal intent, and the direct inference from its provisions is that the commission of the acts contemplated therein, in the absence of malice @criminal intentA, negligence, and imprudence, does not impose any criminal liability on the actor. The word voluntary as used in article 0 of the ,enal Code would seem to appro3imate in meaning the word willful as used in Inglish and American statute to designate a form of criminal intent. 5t has been said that while the word willful sometimes means little more than intentionally or designedly, yet it is more fre#uently understood to e3tent a little further and appro3imate the idea of the milder kind of legal malice: that is, it signifies an evil intent without 4ustifiable e3cuse. 5n one case it was said to mean, as employed in a statute in contemplation, wantonly or causelessly: in another, without reasonable grounds to believe the thing lawful. And 9haw, C. >., once said that ordinarily in a statute it means not merely Jvoluntarily" but with a bad purpose: in other words, corruptly. 5n Inglish and the American statutes defining crimes malice, malicious, maliciously, and malice aforethought are words indicating intent, more purely technical than willful or willfully, but the difference between them is not great: the word malice not often being understood to re#uire general malevolence toward a particular individual, and signifying rather the intent from our legal 4ustification. @Dishop"s $ew Criminal =aw, vol. 0, secs. .%2 and .%1, and cases cited.A Dut even in the absence of e3press words in a statute, setting out a condition in the definition of a crime that it be committed voluntarily, willfully, maliciously with malice aforethought, or in one of the various modes generally construed to imply a criminal intent, we think that reasoning from general principles it will always be found that with the rare e3ceptions hereinafter mentioned, to constitute a crime evil intent must combine with an act. (r. Dishop, who supports his position with numerous citations from the decided cases, thus forcely present this doctrine: 5n no one thing does criminal 4urisprudence differ more from civil than in the rule as to the intent. 5n controversies between private parties the quo animo with which a thing was done is sometimes important, not always: but crime proceeds only from a criminal mind. 9o that ? There can be no crime, large or small, without an evil mind. 5n other words, punishment is the sentence of wickedness, without which it can not be. And neither in philosophical speculation nor in religious or mortal sentiment would any people in any age allow that a man should be deemed guilty unless his mind was so. 5t is therefore a principle of our legal system, as probably it is of every other, that the essence of an offense is the wrongful intent, without which it can not e3ists. We find this doctrine confirmed by ? Legal maxims. ? The ancient wisdom of the law, e#ually with the modern, is distinct on this sub4ect. 5t conse#uently has supplied to us such ma3ims as Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea , the act itself does not make man guilty unless his intention were so: Actus me incito factus non est meus actus, an act done by me against my will is not my act: and others of the like sort. 5n this, as 4ust said, criminal 4urisprudence differs from civil. 9o also ? oral science and moral sentiment teach the same thing. Dy reference to the intention, we inculpate or e3culpate others or ourselves without any respect to the happiness or misery actually produced. =et the result of an action be what it may, we hold a man guilty simply on the ground of intention: or, on the dame ground, we hold him innocent. The calm 4udgment of mankind keeps this doctrine among its 4ewels. 5n times of e3citement, when vengeance takes the place of 4ustice, every guard around the innocent is cast down. Dut with the return of reason comes the public voice that where the mind is pure, he who differs in act from his neighbors does not offend. And ? 5n the spontaneous 4udgment which springs from the nature given by -od to man, no one deems another to deserve punishment for what he did from an upright mind, destitute of every form of evil. And whenever a person is made to suffer a punishment which the community deems not his due, so far from its placing an evil mark upon him, it elevates him to the seat of the martyr. Iven infancy itself spontaneously pleads the want of bad intent in 4ustification of what has the appearance of wrong, with the utmost confidence that the plea, if its truth is credited, will be accepted as good. $ow these facts are only the voice of nature uttering one of her immutable truths. 5t is, then, the doctrine of the law, superior to all other doctrines, because first

in nature from which the law itself proceeds, that no man is to be punished as a criminal unless his intent is wrong. @Dishop"s $ew Criminal =aw, vol. 0, secs. %2F to %1/.A Compelled by necessity, the great master of all things, an apparent departure from this doctrine of abstract 4ustice result from the adoption of the arbitrary rule that !gnorantia "uris non excusat @ 5gnorance of the law e3cuses no man A, without which 4ustice could not be administered in our tribunals: and compelled also by the same doctrine of necessity, the courts have recogni+ed the power of the legislature to forbid, in a limited class of cases, the doing of certain acts, and to make their commission criminal without regard to the intent of the doer. Without discussing these e3ceptional cases at length, it is sufficient here to say that the courts have always held that unless the intention of the lawmaker to make the commission of certain acts criminal without regard to the intent of the doer is clear and beyond #uestion the statute will not be so construed @cases cited in Cyc., vol. 0%, p. 0E2, notes &F and &&A: and the rule that ignorance of the law e3cuses no man has been said not to be a real departure from the law"s fundamental principle that crime e3ists only where the mind is at fault, because the evil purpose need not be to break the law, and if suffices if it is simply to do the thing which the law in fact forbids. @Dishop"s $ew Criminal =aw, sec. B//, and cases cited.A Dut, however this may be, there is no technical rule, and no pressing necessity therefore, re#uiring mistake in fact to be dealt with otherwise that in strict accord with the principles of abstract 4ustice. !n the contrary, the ma3im here is !gnorantia facti excusat @ 5gnorance or mistake in point of fact is, in all cases of supposed offense, a sufficient e3cuse A. @Drown"s =eg. (a3., %d ed., 01/.A 9ince evil intent is in general an inseparable element in every crime, any such mistake of fact as shows the act committed to have proceeded from no sort of evil in the mind necessarily relieves the actor from criminal liability provided always there is no fault or negligence on his part: and as laid down by Daron ,arke, The guilt of the accused must depend on the circumstances as they appear to him. @*eg. vs. Thurborn, 0 8en. C., B2&: ,. vs. Anderson, .. Cal.., FE: ,. vs. =amb, E. Darb., B.%: Gates vs. ,., B% $. G., E/1: ,atterson vs. ,., .F Darb., F%E: *eg. vs. Cohen, 2 Co3 C. C., .0: ,. vs. (iles, EE Cal., %/&, %/1: $alley vs. 9., %2 Te3. Ap., B2&.A That is to say, the #uestion as to whether he honestly, in good faith, and without fault or negligence fell into the mistake is to be determined by the circumstances as they appeared to him at the time when the mistake was made, and the effect which the surrounding circumstances might reasonably be e3pected to have on his mind, in forming the intent, criminal or other wise, upon which he acted. 5f, in language not uncommon in the cases, one has reasonable cause to believe the e3istence of facts which will 4ustify a killing ? or, in terms more nicely in accord with the principles on which the rule is founded, if without fault or carelessness he does believe them ? he is legally guiltless of the homicide: though he mistook the facts, and so the life of an innocent person is unfortunately e3tinguished. 5n other words, and with reference to the right of self-defense and the not #uite harmonious authorities, it is the doctrine of reason and sufficiently sustained in ad4udication, that notwithstanding some decisions apparently adverse, whenever a man undertakes self-defense, he is 4ustified in acting on the facts as they appear to him. 5f, without fault or carelessness, he is misled concerning them, and defends himself correctly according to what he thus supposes the facts to be the law will not punish him though they are in truth otherwise, and he was really no occassion for the e3treme measures. @Dishop"s $ew Criminal =aw, sec. B/E, and large array of cases there cited.A The common illustration in the American and Inglish te3tbooks of the application of this rule is the case where a man, masked and disguised as a footpad, at night and on a lonely road, holds up his friends in a spirit of mischief, and with leveled pistol demands his money or his life, but is killed by his friend under the mistaken belief that the attack is a real one, that the pistol leveled at his head is loaded, and that his life and property are in imminent danger at the hands of the aggressor. $o one will doubt that if the facts were such as the slayer believed them to be he would be innocent of the commission of any crime and wholly e3empt from criminal liability, although if he knew the real state of the facts when he took the life of his friend he would undoubtedly be guilty of the crime of homicide or assassination. Cnder such circumstances, proof of his innocent mistake of the facts overcomes the presumption of malice or criminal intent, and @since malice or criminal intent is a necessary ingredient of the act punished by law in cases of homicide or assassinationA overcomes at the same time the presumption established in article 0 of the code, that the act punished by la# was committed voluntarily. ,arson, C.>., in the (assachusetts court, once said: 5f the party killing had reasonable grounds for believing that the person slain had a felonious design against him, and under that supposition killed him, although it should afterwards appear that there was no such design, it will not be murder, but it will be either manslaughter or e3cusable homicide, according to the

degree of caution used and the probable grounds of such belief. @Charge to the grand 4ury in 9elfridge"s case, Whart, 6om., .0&, .02, =loyd"s report of the case, p.&.A 5n this case, ,arker, >., charging the petit 4ury, enforced the doctrine as follows: A, in the peaceable pursuit of his affairs, sees D rushing rapidly toward him, with an outstretched arms and a pistol in his hand, and using violent menaces against his life as he advances. 6aving approached near enough in the same attitude, A, who has a club in his hand, strikes D over the head before or at the instant the pistol is discharged: and of the wound D dies. 5t turns out the pistol was loaded with po#der only, and that the real design of D was only to terrify A. Will any reasonable man say that A is more criminal that he would have been if there had been a bullet in the pistol7 Those who hold such doctrine must re#uire that a man so attacked must, before he strikes the assailant, stop and ascertain how the pistol is loaded ? a doctrine which would entirely take away the essential right of self-defense. And when it is considered that the 4ury who try the cause, and not the party killing, are to 4udge of the reasonable grounds of his apprehension, no danger can be supposed to flow from this principle. @=loyd"s *ep., p. 0F/.A To the same effect are various decisions of the supreme court of 9pain, cited by Hiada, a few of which are here set out in full because the facts are somewhat analogous to those in the case at bar. ;CI9T5!$ 555. When it is shown that the accused was sitting at his hearth, at night, in company only of his wife, without other light than reflected from the fire, and that the man with his back to the door was attending to the fire, there suddenly entered a person whom he did not see or know, who struck him one or two blows, producing a contusion on the shoulder, because of which he turned, sei+ed the person and took from his the stick with which he had undoubtedly been struck, and gave the unknown person a blow, knocking him to the floor, and afterwards striking him another blow on the head, leaving the unknown lying on the floor, and left the house. 5t turned out the unknown person was his father-in-law, to whom he rendered assistance as soon as he learned his identity, and who died in about si3 days in conse#uence of cerebral congestion resulting from the blow. The accused, who confessed the facts, had always sustained pleasant relations with his father-in-law, whom he visited during his sickness, demonstrating great grief over the occurrence. 9hall he be considered free from criminal responsibility, as having acted in selfdefense, with all the circumstances related in paragraph ., article 2, of the ,enal Code7 The criminal branch of the Audiencia of Halladolid found that he was an illegal aggressor, without sufficient provocation, and that there did not e3ists rational necessity for the employment of the force used, and in accordance with articles .01 and 2& of the ,enal Code condemned him to twenty months of imprisonment, with accessory penalty and costs. Cpon appeal by the accused, he was ac#uitted by the supreme court, under the following sentence: Considering, from the facts found by the sentence to have been proven, that the accused was surprised from behind, at night, in his house beside his wife who was nursing her child, was attacked, struck, and beaten, without being able to distinguish with which they might have e3ecuted their criminal intent, because of the there was no other than fire light in the room, and considering that in such a situation and when the acts e3ecuted demonstrated that they might endanger his e3istence, and possibly that of his wife and child, more especially because his assailant was unknown, he should have defended himself, and in doing so with the same stick with which he was attacked, he did not e3ceed the limits of self-defense, nor did he use means which were not rationally necessary, particularly because the instrument with which he killed was the one which he took from his assailant, and was capable of producing death, and in the darkness of the house and the consteration which naturally resulted from such strong aggression, it was not given him to known or distinguish whether there was one or more assailants, nor the arms which they might bear, not that which they might accomplish, and considering that the lower court did not find from the accepted facts that there e3isted rational necessity for the means employed, and that it did not apply paragraph . of article 2 of the ,enal Code, it erred, etc. @9entence of supreme court of 9pain, 'ebruary %2, 02&F.A @Hiada, Hol. 5, p. %FF.A . ;CI9T5!$ K5K. A person returning, at night, to his house, which was situated in a retired part of the city, upon arriving at a point where there was no light, heard the voice of a man, at a distance of some 2 paces, saying: 'ace down, hand over you moneyL because of which, and almost at the same money, he fired two shots from his pistol, distinguishing immediately the voice of one of his friends @who had before simulated a different voiceA saying, !hL they have killed me, and hastening to his assistance, finding the body lying upon the ground, he cried, (iguel, (iguel, speak, for -od"s sake, or 5 am ruined, reali+ing that he had been the victim of a 4oke, and not receiving a reply, and observing that his friend was a corpse, he retired from the place. 9hall he be declared e3empt in toto from responsibility as the author of this homicide, as having acted in 4ust self-defense under the circumstances defined in paragraph ., article 2, ,enal Code7 The criminal branch of the Audiencia of (alaga did not so find, but only found in favor of the accused two of the re#uisites of said article, but not that of the reasonableness of the means employed to repel the attack, and, therefore, condemned the accused to eight years and one day of prison mayor, etc. The supreme court

ac#uitted the accused on his appeal from this sentence, holding that the accused was acting under a 4ustifiable and e3cusable mistake of fact as to the identity of the person calling to him, and that under the circumstances, the darkness and remoteness, etc., the means employed were rational and the shooting 4ustifiable. @9entence supreme court, (arch 0&, 022E.A @Hiada, Hol. 5, p. 0BF.A ;CI9T5!$ H5. The owner of a mill, situated in a remote spot, is awakened, at night, by a large stone thrown against his window ? at this, he puts his head out of the window and in#uires what is wanted, and is answered the delivery of all of his money, otherwise his house would be burned ? because of which, and observing in an alley ad4acent to the mill four individuals, one of whom addressed him with blasphemy, he fired his pistol at one the men, who, on the ne3t morning was found dead on the same spot. 9hall this man be declared e3empt from criminal responsibility as having acted in 4ust self-defense with all of the re#uisites of law7 The criminal branch of the re#uisites of law7 The criminal branch of the Audiencia of Marago+a finds that there e3isted in favor of the accused a ma4ority of the re#uisites to e3empt him from criminal responsibility, but not that of reasonable necessity for the means, employed, and condemned the accused to twelve months of prision correctional for the homicide committed. Cpon appeal, the supreme court ac#uitted the condemned, finding that the accused, in firing at the malefactors, who attack his mill at night in a remote spot by threatening robbery and incendiarism, was acting in 4ust self-defense of his person, property, and family. @9entence of (ay %B, 02&&A. @5 Hiada, p. 0%2.A A careful e3amination of the facts as disclosed in the case at bar convinces us that the defendant Chinaman struck the fatal blow alleged in the information in the firm belief that the intruder who forced open the door of his sleeping room was a thief, from whose assault he was in imminent peril, both of his life and of his property and of the property committed to his charge: that in view of all the circumstances, as they must have presented themselves to the defendant at the time, he acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than e3ercising his legitimate right of self-defense: that had the facts been as he believed them to be he would have been wholly e3empt from criminal liability on account of his act: and that he can not be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent danger which he believe threatened his person and his property and the property under his charge. The 4udgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court should be reversed, and the defendant ac#uitted of the crime with which he is charged and his bail bond e3onerated, with the costs of both instance de oficio. 9o ordered. $ohnson oreland and %lliott, $$., concur. Arellano, &.$., and apa, $., dissent. Se ara!e O "#"o#$ TORRES, J., dissenting: The writer, with due respect to the opinion of the ma4ority of the court, believes that, according to the merits of the case, the crime of homicide by reckless negligence, defined and punishes in article EF2 of the ,enal Code, was committed, inasmuch as the victim was wilfully @ voluntariomenteA killed, and while the act was done without malice or criminal intent it was, however, e3ecuted with real negligence, for the acts committed by the deceased could not warrant the aggression by the defendant under the erroneous belief on the part of the accused that the person who assaulted him was a malefactor: the defendant therefore incurred responsibility in attacking with a knife the person who was accustomed to enter said room, without any 4ustifiable motive. Dy reason of the nature of the crime committed, in the opinion of the undersigned the accused should be sentenced to the penalty of one year and one month of prision correctional, to suffer the accessory penalties provided in article F0, and to pay an indemnify of ,0,/// to the heirs of the deceased, with the costs of both instances, thereby reversing the 4udgment appealed from.

&

G.R. No. L-%7722 &'() 27, 19%* THE +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO -. OANIS a#. AL/ERTO GALANTA, defendants-appellants. Antonio '. (anis in his o#n behalf . aximo L. Valen)uela for appellant Galanta. Acting *olicitor-General !ba+e) and Assistant Attorney ,orres for appellee. MORAN, J.0 Charged with the crime of murder of one 9erapio Tecson, the accused Antonio M. !anis and Alberto -alanta, chief of police of Cabanatuan and corporal of the ,hilippine Constabulary, respectively, were, after due trial, found guilty by the lower court of homicide through reckless imprudence and were sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty of from one year and si3 months to two years and two months of prison correccional and to indemnify 4ointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the amount of ,0,///. 8efendants appealed separately from this 4udgment. 5n the afternoon of 8ecember %., 01B2. Captain -odofredo (onsod, Constabulary ,rovincial 5nspector at Cabanatuan, $ueva Ici4a, received from (a4or -uido a telegram of the following tenor: 5nformation received escaped convict Anselmo Dalagtas with bailarina and 5rene in Cabanatuan get him dead or alive. Captain (onsod accordingly called for his first sergeant and asked that he be given four men. 8efendant corporal Alberto -alanta, and privates $icomedes !ralo, Henancio 9erna and 8. 'ernande+, upon order of their sergeant, reported at the office of the ,rovincial 5nspector where they were shown a copy of the above-#uoted telegram and a newspaper clipping containing a picture of Dalagtas. They were instructed to arrest Dalagtas and, if overpowered, to follow the instruction contained in the telegram. The same instruction was given to the chief of police !anis who was likewise called by the ,rovincial 5nspector. When the chief of police was asked whether he knew one 5rene, a bailarina, he answered that he knew one of loose morals of the same name. Cpon re#uest of the ,rovincial 5nspector, the chief of police tried to locate some of his men to guide the constabulary soldiers in ascertaining Dalagtas" whereabouts, and failing to see anyone of them he volunteered to go with the party. The ,rovincial 5nspector divided the party into two groups with defendants !anis and -alanta, and private 'ernande+ taking the route to *i+al street leading to the house where 5rene was supposedly living. When this group arrived at 5rene"s house, !anis approached one Drigida (allare, who was then stripping banana stalks, and asked her where 5rene"s room was. Drigida indicated the place and upon further in#uiry also said that 5rene was sleeping with her paramour. Drigida trembling, immediately returned to her own room which was very near that occupied by 5rene and her paramour. 8efendants !anis and -alanta then went to the room of 5rene, and an seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door where they were, simultaneously or successively fired at him with their .B% and ..E caliber revolvers. Awakened by the gunshots, 5rene saw her paramour already wounded, and looking at the door where the shots came, she saw the defendants still firing at him. 9hocked by the entire scene. 5rene fainted: it turned out later that the person shot and killed was not the notorious criminal Anselmo Dalagtas but a peaceful and innocent citi+en named 9erapio Tecson, 5rene"s paramour. The ,rovincial 5nspector, informed of the killing, repaired to the scene and when he asked as to who killed the deceased. -alanta, referring to himself and to !anis, answered: We two, sir. The corpse was thereafter brought to the provincial hospital and upon autopsy by 8r. *icardo de Castro, multiple gunshot wounds inflicted by a .B% and a ..E caliber revolvers were found on Tecson"s body which caused his death. These are the facts as found by the trial court and fully supported by the evidence, particularly by the testimony of 5rene *e#uinea. Appellants gave, however, a different version of the tragedy. According to Appellant -alanta, when he and chief of police !anis arrived at the house, the latter asked Drigida where 5rene"s room was. Drigida indicated the place, and upon further in#uiry as to the whereabouts of Anselmo Dalagtas, she said that he too was sleeping in the same room. !anis went to the room thus indicated and upon opening the curtain covering the door, he said: 5f you are Dalagtas, stand up. Tecson, the supposed Dalagtas, and 5rene woke up and as the former was about to sit up in bed. !anis fired at him. Wounded, Tecson leaned towards the door, and !anis receded and shouted: That is Dalagtas. -alanta then fired at Tecson. !n the other hand, !anis testified that after he had opened the curtain covering the door and after having said, if you are Dalagtas stand up. -alanta at once fired at Tecson, the supposed Dalagtas, while the latter was still lying on bed, and continued firing until he had e3hausted his bullets: that it was only thereafter that he, !anis, entered the door and upon seeing the supposed Dalagtas, who was then apparently watching and picking up something from the floor, he fired at him. The trial court refused to believe the appellants. Their testimonies are certainly incredible not only because they are vitiated by a natural urge to e3culpate themselves of the crime, but also because they are materially

contradictory. !asis averred that be fired at Tecson when the latter was apparently watching somebody in an attitudes of picking up something from the floor: on the other hand, -alanta testified that !asis shot Tecson while the latter was about to sit up in bed immediately after he was awakened by a noise. -alanta testified that he fired at Tecson, the supposed Dalagtas, when the latter was rushing at him. Dut !anis assured that when -alanta shot Tecson, the latter was still lying on bed. 5t is apparent from these contradictions that when each of the appellants tries to e3culpate himself of the crime charged, he is at once belied by the other: but their mutual incriminating averments dovetail with and corroborate substantially, the testimony of 5rene *e#uinea. 5t should be recalled that, according to *e#uinea, Tecson was still sleeping in bed when he was shot to death by appellants. And this, to a certain e3tent, is confirmed by both appellants themselves in their mutual recriminations. According, to -alanta, !anis shot Tecson when the latter was still in bed about to sit up 4ust after he was awakened by a noise. And !anis assured that when -alanta shot Tecson, the latter was still lying in bed. Thus corroborated, and considering that the trial court had the opportunity to observe her demeanor on the stand, we believe and so hold that no error was committed in accepting her testimony and in re4ecting the e3culpatory pretensions of the two appellants. 'urthermore, a careful e3amination of 5rene"s testimony will show not only that her version of the tragedy is not concocted but that it contains all indicia of veracity. 5n her cross-e3amination, even misleading #uestions had been put which were unsuccessful, the witness having stuck to the truth in every detail of the occurrence. Cnder these circumstances, we do not feel ourselves 4ustified in disturbing the findings of fact made by the trial court. The true fact, therefore, of the case is that, while Tecson was sleeping in his room with his back towards the door, !anis and -alanta, on sight, fired at him simultaneously or successively, believing him to be Anselmo Dalagtas but without having made previously any reasonable in#uiry as to his identity. And the #uestion is whether or not they may, upon such fact, be held responsible for the death thus caused to Tecson. 5t is contended that, as appellants acted in innocent mistake of fact in the honest performance of their official duties, both of them believing that Tecson was Dalagtas, they incur no criminal liability. 9ustaining this theory in part, the lower court held and so declared them guilty of the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence. We are of the opinion, however, that, under the circumstances of the case, the crime committed by appellants is murder through specially mitigated by circumstances to be mentioned below. 5n support of the theory of non-liability by reasons of honest mistake of fact, appellants rely on the case of -.*. v. Ah &hong, 0E ,hil., .22. The ma3im is ignorantia facti excusat, but this applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. 5n the Ah Chong case, defendant therein after having gone to bed was awakened by someone trying to open the door. 6e called out twice, who is there, but received no answer. 'earing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again., 5f you enter the room 5 will kill you. Dut at that precise moment, he was struck by a chair which had been placed against the door and believing that he was then being attacked, he sei+ed a kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his room-mate. A common illustration of innocent mistake of fact is the case of a man who was marked as a footpad at night and in a lonely road held up a friend in a spirit of mischief, and with leveled, pistol demanded his money or life. 6e was killed by his friend under the mistaken belief that the attack was real, that the pistol leveled at his head was loaded and that his life and property were in imminent danger at the hands of the aggressor. 5n these instances, there is an innocent mistake of fact committed without any fault or carelessness because the accused, having no time or opportunity to make a further in#uiry, and being pressed by circumstances to act immediately, had no alternative but to take the facts as they then appeared to him, and such facts 4ustified his act of killing. 5n the instant case, appellants, unlike the accused in the instances cited, found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate action. The person in the room being then asleep, appellants had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without ha+ard to themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim was unarmed, according to 5rene *e#uinea. This, indeed, is the only legitimate course of action for appellants to follow even if the victim was really Dalagtas, as they were instructed not to kill Dalagtas at sight but to arrest him, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or aggression is offered by him. Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is 4ustified in using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm @,eople vs. 8elima, .F ,hil, &B2A, yet he is never 4ustified in using unnecessary force or in treating him with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be effected otherwise @F C.>.9., par. 0B, p. F0%A. The doctrine is restated in the new *ules of Court thus: $o unnecessary or unreasonable force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be sub4ect to any greater restraint than is necessary for his detention. @*ule 0/1, sec. %,

par. %A. And a peace officer cannot claim e3emption from criminal liability if he uses unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest @E C.>., p. &EB: C.9. vs. (endo+a, % ,hil., 0/1A. 5t may be true that Anselmo Dalagtas was a notorious criminal, a life-termer, a fugitive from 4ustice and a menace to the peace of the community, but these facts alone constitute no 4ustification for killing him when in effecting his arrest, he offers no resistance or in fact no resistance can be offered, as when he is asleep. This, in effect, is the principle laid down, although upon different facts, in C.9. vs. 8onoso @B ,hil., %B., %.%A. 5t 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. !therwise 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 the officers of the law. $otoriety rightly supplies a basis for redoubled official alertness and vigilance: it never can 4ustify precipitate action at the cost of human life. Where, as here, the precipitate action of the appellants has cost an innocent life and there e3ist no circumstances whatsoever to warrant action of such character in the mind of a reasonably prudent man, condemnation ? not condonation ? should be the rule: otherwise we should offer a premium to crime in the shelter of official actuation. The crime committed by appellants is not merely criminal negligence, the killing being intentional and not accidental. 5n criminal negligence, the in4ury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. @,eople vs. 9ara, EE ,hil., 1B1A. 5n the words of Hiada, para #ue se celifi#ue un hecho de imprudencia es preciso #ue no haya mediado en el malicia ni intencion alguna de da<ar: e3istiendo esa intencion, debera calificarse el hecho del delito #ue ha producido, por mas #ue no haya sido la intencion del agente el causar un mal de tanta gravedad como el #ue se produ4o. @Tomo &, Hiada Codigo ,enal Comentado, E.a ed. pag. &A. And, as once held by this Court, a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence @,eople vs. $an#uil, .B ,hil., %B%: ,eople vs. Dindor, EF ,hil., 0FA, and where such unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence @,eople vs. -ona, E. ,hil., F/EA to support a plea of mitigated liability. As the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed is murder with the #ualifying circumstance of alevosia. There is, however, a mitigating circumstance of weight consisting in the incomplete 4ustifying circumstance defined in article 00, $o. E, of the *evised ,enal Code. According to such legal provision, a person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful e3ercise of a right or office. There are two re#uisites in order that the circumstance may be taken as a 4ustifying one: @ aA that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful e3ercise of a right: and @ bA that the in4ury or offense committed be the necessary conse#uence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful e3ercise of such right or office. 5n the instance case, only the first re#uisite is present ? appellants have acted in the performance of a duty. The second re#uisite is wanting for the crime by them committed is not the necessary conse#uence of a due performance of their duty. Their duty was to arrest Dalagtas or to get him dead or alive if resistance is offered by him and they are overpowered. Dut through impatience or over-an3iety or in their desire to take no chances, they have e3ceeded in the fulfillment of such duty by killing the person whom they believed to be Dalagtas without any resistance from him and without making any previous in#uiry as to his identity. According to article F1 of the *evised ,enal Code, the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall, in such case, be imposed. 'or all the foregoing, the 4udgment is modified and appellants are hereby declared guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance above mentioned, and accordingly sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from five @EA years of prision correctional to fifteen @0EA years of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of the law, and to pay the heirs of the deceased 9erapio Tecson 4ointly and severally an indemnity of ,%,///, with costs. .ulo, &.$., /ocobo, Generoso and Lope) Vito, A., concur. Se ara!e O "#"o#$ +ARAS, J., dissenting: Anselmo Dalagtas, a life termer and notorious criminal, managed to escape and flee form (anila to the provinces. *eceiving information to the effect that he was staying with one 5rene in Cabanatuan, $ueva Ici4a, the office of the Constabulary in (anila ordered the ,rovincial 5nspector in Cabanatuan by telegram dispatched on 8ecember %E, 01B2, to get Dalagtas dead or alive . Among those assigned to the task of carrying out the said order, were Antonio M. !anis, chief of police of Cabanatuan, and Alberto -alanta, a Constabulary corporal, to whom the telegram received by the ,rovincial 5nspector and a newspaper picture of Dalagtas were shown. !anis, -alanta and a Constabulary private, after being told by the ,rovincial

0/

5nspector to gather information about Dalagtas, to arrest him and, if overpowered, to follow the instructions contained in the telegram, proceeded to the place where the house of 5rene was located. Cpon arriving thereat, !anis approached Drigida (allari, who was then gathering banana stalks in the yard, and in#uired for the room of 5rene. After (allari had pointed out the room, she was asked by !anis to tell where 5rene"s paramour, Dalagtas, was, whereupon (allari answered that he was sleeping with 5rene. Cpon reaching the room indicated, !anis and -alanta, after the former had shouted 9tand up, if you are Dalagtas, started shooting the man who was found by them lying down beside a woman. The man was thereby killed, but Dalagtas was still alive, for it turned out that the person shot by !anis and -alanta was one 9erapio Tecson. Conse#uently, !anis and -alanta were charged with having committed murder. The Court of 'irst 5nstance of $ueva Ici4a, however, convicted them only of homicide through reckless imprudence and sentenced them each to suffer the indeterminate penalty of from 0 year and F months to % years and % months of prision correctional, to 4ointly and severally indemnify the heirs of 9erapio Tecson in the amount of ,0,///, and to pay the costs. !anis and -alanta have appealed. 5n accomplishing the acts with which the appellants were charged, they undoubtedly followed the order issued by the Constabulary authorities in (anila re#uiring the ,rovincial 5nspector in Cabanatuan to get Dalagtas dead or alive, in the honest belief that 9erapio Tecson was Anselmo Dalagtas. As the latter became a fugitive criminal, with revolvers in his possession and a record that made him e3tremely dangerous and a public terror, the Constabulary authorities were 4ustified in ordering his arrest, whether dead or alive. 5n view of said order and the danger faced by the appellants in carrying it out, they cannot be said to have acted feloniously in shooting the person honestly believed by them to be the wanted man. Conscious of the fact that Dalagtas would rather kill than be captured, the appellants did not want to take chances and should not be penali+ed for such prudence. !n the contrary, they should be commended for their bravery and courage bordering on recklessness because, without knowing or ascertaining whether the wanted man was in fact asleep in his room, they proceeded thereto without hesitation and thereby e3posed their lives to danger. The 9olicitor--eneral, however, contends that the appellants were authori+ed to use their revolvers only after being overpowered by Dalagtas. 5n the first place, the alleged instruction by the ,rovincial 5nspector to that effect, was in violation of the e3press order given by the Constabulary authorities in (anila and which was shown to the appellants. 5n the second place, it would indeed be suicidal for the appellants or, for that matter, any agent of the authority to have waited until they have been overpowered before trying to put our such a character as Dalagtas. 5n the third place, it is immaterial whether or not the instruction given by the ,rovincial 5nspector was legitimate and proper, because the facts e3ist that the appellants acted in conformity with the e3press order of superior Constabulary authorities, the legality or propriety of which is not herein #uestioned. The theory of the prosecution has ac#uired some plausibility, though #uite psychological or sentimental, in view only of the fact that it was not Dalagtas who was actually killed, but an innocent man . . . while he was deeply asleep. Anybody"s heart will be profoundly grieved by the trade, but in time will be consoled by the reali+ation that the life of 9erapio Tecson was not vainly sacrificed, for the incident will always serve as a loud warning to any one desiring to follow in the footsteps of Anselmo Dalagtas that in due time the duly constituted authorities will, upon proper order, enforce the summary forfeiture of his life. 5n my opinion, therefore, the appellants are not criminally liable if the person killed by them was in fact Anselmo Dalagtas for the reason that they did so in the fulfillment of their duty and in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose @*evised ,enal Code, art. 00, pars. E and FA. They also cannot be held criminally liable even if the person killed by them was not Anselmo Dalagtas, but 9erapio Tecson, because they did so under an honest mistake of fact not due to negligence or bad faith. @C.9. vs. Ah Chong, 0E ,hil., .22A. 5t is true that, under article . of the *evised ,enal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended: but said article is clearly inapplicable since the killing of the person who was believed to be Dalagtas was, as already stated, not wrongful or felonious. The case of -.*. vs. endieta @B. ,hil., %.%A, cited by the 9olicitor--eneral, is not in point, inasmuch as the defendant therein, who intended to in4ure 6ilario =auigan with whom he had a #uarrel, but killed another by mistake, would not be e3empted from criminal liability if he actually in4ured or killed 6ilario =auigan, there being a malicious design on his part. The other case involved by the prosecution is -.*. vs. 0onoso @B ,hil., %B.A. This is also not in point, as it appears that the defendants therein killed one ,edro Almasan after he had already surrendered and allowed himself to be bound and that the said defendants did not have lawful instructions from superior authorities to capture Almasan dead or alive.

00

The appealed 4udgment should therefore be reversed and the appellants, Antonio M. !anis and Alberto -alanta, ac#uitted, with costs de oficio. HONTI1EROS, J., dissenting: According to the opinion of the ma4ority, it is proper to follow the rule that a notorious criminal must be taken by storm without regard to his life which he has, by his conduct, already forfeited, whenever said criminal offers resistance or does something which places his captors in danger of imminent attack. ,recisely, the situation which confronted the accused-appellants Antonio M. !anis and Alberto -alanta in the afternoon of 8ecember %., 01B2, was very similar to this. 5t must be remembered that both officers received instructions to get Dalagtas dead or alive and according to the attitude of not only the said appellants but also of Capt. (onsod, constabulary provincial inspector of $ueva Ici4a, it may be assumed that said instructions gave more emphasis to the first part: namely, to take him dead. 5t appears in the record that after the shooting, and having been informed of the case, Capt. (onsod stated that !anis and -alanta might be decorated for what they had done. That was when all parties concerned honestly believed that the dead person was Dalagtas himself, a dangerous criminal who had escaped from his guards and was supposedly armed with a ..E caliber pistol Drigida (allari, the person whom the appellants met upon arriving at the house of 5rene *e#uinea, supposed mistress of Dalagtas, informed them that said Dalagtas was upstairs. Appellants found there asleep a man closely resembling the wanted criminal. !anis said: 5f you are Dalagtas stand up, Dut the supposed criminal showed his intention to attack the appellants, a conduct easily e3plained by the fact that he should have felt offended by the intrusion of persons in the room where he was peacefully lying down with his mistress. 5n such predicament, it was nothing but human on the part of the appellants to employ force and to make use of their weapons in order to repel the imminent attack by a person who, according to their belief, was Dalagtas 5t was unfortunate, however that an innocent man was actually killed. Dut taking into consideration the facts of the case, it is, according to my humble opinion, proper to apply herein the doctrine laid down in the case of C.9. vs. Ah Chong @0E ,hil., .22A. 5n the instant case we have, as in the case supra, an innocent mistake of fact committed without any fault or carelessness on the part of the accused, who having no time to make a further in#uiry, had no alternative but to take the facts as they appeared to them and act immediately. The decision of the ma4ority, in recognition of the special circumstances of this case which favored the accused-appellants, arrives at the conclusion that an incomplete 4ustifying circumstance may be invoked, and therefore, according to Article F1 of the *evised ,enal Code, the imposable penalty should be one which is lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law. This incomplete 4ustifying circumstance is that defined in Article 00, $o. E of the *evised ,enal Code, in favor of a person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful e3ercise of a right or office. 5 believe that the application of this circumstance is not proper. Article F1 of the *evised ,enal Code provides as follows: Art. F1. 1enalty to be imposed #hen the crime committed is not #holly excusable . ? A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly e3cusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions re#uired to 4ustify the same or to e3empt from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in articles 00 and 0%, provided that the ma4ority of such conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the period which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of the conditions of e3emption present or lacking. This provision has been copied almost verbatim from Article 2. of the old ,enal Code of the ,hilippines, and which was also taken from Article 2& of the 9panish ,enal Code of 02&/. >udge -uillermo -uevara, one of the members of the Committee created by Administrative !rder $o. 1. of the 8epartment of >ustice for the drafting of the *evised ,enal Code, in commenting on Article F1, said that the 4ustifying circumstances and circumstances e3empting from liability which are the sub4ect matter of this article are the following: self-defense, defense of relatives, defense of strangers, state of necessity and in4ury caused by mere accident. Accordingly, 4ustifying circumstance $o. E of Article 00 dealing with the fulfillment of a duty or the lawful e3ercise of a right, calling or office, cannot be placed within its scope. The eminent treatiser of criminal law (r. -roi+ard, in his commentary of Article 2& of the 9panish ,enal Code of 02&/ which is the source of Article F1 of our Code says: $i tratandose de la imbecilidad, ni de la locura, ni de la menor edad, ni del #ue obra violentado por una fuer+a inrresistible o impulsado por miedo insuperable de un mal igual o mayor, o en cumplimiento de un deber, o en el e4ercito legitimo de un derecho, oficio o cargo, o en virtud de obediencia debida, ni del #ue incurre en alguna omision hallandose impedido por causa legitima o insuperable, puede tener aplicacion al articulo #ue comentamos. G la ra+on es obvia. In ninguna de estas e3eciones hay pluralidad de re#uisitos. =a irrespondabilidad depende de una sola condicion. 6ay o no perturbacion de la ra+on: el autor del hecho

0%

es o no menor de nueve a<os: e3iste o no violencia material o moral irresistible, etc., etc.: tal es lo #ue respectivamente hay #ue e3aminar y resolver para declarar la culpabilidad o inculpabilidad. Is, por lo tanto, imposible #ue aconte+ca lo #ue el te3to #ue va al frente de estas lineas r#uiere, para #ue se imponga al autor del hecho la penalidad e3cepcional #ue establece: esto es, #ue falten algunos re#uisitos de los #ue la ley e3ige para e3imir de responsabilidad, y #ue concurran el mayor numero de ellos, toda ve+ #ue, en los casos referidos, la ley no e3ige multiples condiciones. 5t must be taken into account the fact according to Article F1 a penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly e3cusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions re#uired by the law to 4ustify the same or e3empt from criminal liability. The word conditions should not be confused with the word re#uisites . 5n dealing with 4ustifying circumstance $o. E >udge -uevara states: There are two re#uisites in order that this circumstance may be taken into account: @aA That the offender acted in the performance of his duty or in the lawful e3ercise of a right: and @ bA That the in4ury or offense committed be the necessary conse#uence of the performance of a duty or the lawful e3ercise of a right or office. 5t is evident that these two re#uisites concur in the present case if we consider the intimate connection between the order given to the appellant by Capt. (onsod, the showing to them of the telegram from (anila to get Dalagtas who was with a bailarina named 5rene, the conduct of said appellants in #uestioning Drigida (allari and giving a warning to the supposed criminal when both found him with 5rene, and the statement made by Capt. (onsod after the shooting. 5f appellant !anis is entitled to a reversal of the decision of the court below, there are more reasons in favor of the ac#uittal of appellant -alanta. According to the evidence no bullet from the gun fired by this accused ever hit 9erapio Tecson. -alanta was armed in the afternoon of 8ecember %., 01B2, with a ..E caliber revolver @I3hibit =A. 6e so testified and was corroborated by the unchallenged testimony of his superior officer 9gt. Haleriano 9erafica. According to this witness, since -alanta was made a corporal of the Constabulary he was given, as part of his e#uipment, revolver I3hibit = with a serial $o. B&0%0. This gun had been constantly used by -alanta, and, according to 9gt. ,edro (arasigan, who accompanied said accused when he took it from his trunk in the barracks on the night of 8ecember %., 01B2, upon order of Captain (onsod, it was the same revolver which was given to the witness with five ..E caliber bullets and one empty shell. 'ourteen unused bullets were also taken from -alanta by 9ergeant 9erafica, thus completing his regular e#uipment of twenty bullets which he had on the morning of 8ecember %., 01B2, when 9ergeant 9erafica made the usual inspection of the firearms in the possession of the noncommissioned officers and privates of the constabulary post at Cabanatuan. -alanta stated that he had fired only one shot and missed. This testimony is corroborated by that of a ballistic e3pert who testified that bullets e3hibits ' and !, ? the first being e3tracted from the head of the deceased, causing wound $o. B of autopsy report I3hibit C and the second found at the place of the shooting, ? had not been fired from revolver I3hibit = nor from any other revolver of the constabulary station in Cabanatuan. 5t was impossible for the accused -alanta to have substituted his revolver because when I3hibit = was taken from him nobody in the barracks doubted that the deceased was none other than Dalagtas. (oreover, I3hibit = was not out of order and therefore there was no reason why -alanta should carry along another gun, according to the natural course of things. !n the other hand, aside from wound $o. B as above stated, no other wound may be said to have been caused by a ..E caliber revolver bullet. 8octor Castro"s record gives the conclusion that wound $o. % must have been caused by a ..E caliber revolver bullet. 8octor Castro"s record gives the conclusion that wound $o. % must have been caused by a ..E caliber bullet, but inasmuch as the diameter of the wound"s entrance was only 2 mm., the caliber should be .B% and not ..E, because according to the medico-legal e3pert who testified in this case, a bullet of a ..E caliber will produce a wound entrance with either 00 mm. or 0% mm. diameter. All other wounds found by the surgeon who performed the autopsy appeared to have been caused by bullets of a lesser caliber. 5n conse#uence, it can be stated that no bullet fired by -alanta did ever hit or kill 9erapio Tecson and therefore there is no reason why he should be declared criminally responsible for said death.

0B

G.R. No. L-1%77 &a#'ar) 12, 1950 THE +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. &ULIO GUILLEN, defendant-appellant. ariano A. Albert for appellant. (ffice of the *olicitor General 2elix /autista Angelo and *olicitor 2rancisco A. &arreon for appellee. +ER CURIAM, J.0 This case is before us for review of, and by virtue of appeal from, the 4udgment rendered by the Court of 'irst 5nstance of (anila in case $o. %&.F, whereby >ulio -uillen y Corpus, or >ulio C. -uillen, is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder, as charged in the information, and is sentenced to the penalty of death, to indemnify the of the deceased 9imeon Halera @or DarrelaA in the sum of ,%,/// and to pay the costs. Cpon arraignment the accused entered a plea of not guilty to the charges contained in the information. Then the case was tried in one of the branches of the Court of 'irst 5nstance of (anila presided over by the honorable Duenaventura !campo who, after the submission of the evidence of the prosecution and the defense, rendered 4udgment as above stated. 5n this connection it should be stated that, at the beginning of the trial and before arraignment, counsel de oficio for the accused moved that the mental condition of -uillen be e3amined. The court, notwithstanding that it had found out from the answers of the accused to #uestions propounded to him in order to test the soundness of his mind, that he was not suffering from any mental derangement, ordered that >ulio -uillen be confined for 6ospital, there to be e3amined by medical e3perts who should report their findings accordingly. This was done, and, according to the report of the board of medical e3perts, presided over by 8r. 'ernande+ of the $ational ,sychopathic 6ospital, >ulio -uillen was not insane. 9aid report @I3hibit =A, under the heading 'ormulation and 8iagnosis, at pages 0B and 0., reads: '!*(C=AT5!$ A$8 85A-$!959 >ulio C. -uillen was placed under constant observation since admission. There was not a single moment during his whole %. hours daily, that he was not under observation. The motive behind the commission of the crime is stated above. The veracity of this motivation was determined in the $arcosynthesis. That the narco-synthesis was successful was checked up the day after the test. The narco-synthesis proved not only reveal any conflict or comple3 that may e3plain a delusional or hallucinatory motive behind the act. !ur observation and e3amination failed to elicit any sign or symptom of insanity in (r. >ulio C. -uillen. 6e was found to be intelligent, always able to differentiate right from wrong, fully aware of the nature of the crime he committed and is e#ually decided to suffer for it in any manner or form. 6is version of the circumstances of the crime, his conduct and conversation relative thereto, the motives, temptations and provocations that preceded the act, were all those of an individual with a sound mind. !n the other hand he is an man of strong will and conviction and once arriving at a decision he e3ecutes, irrespective of conse#uences and as in this case, the commission of the act at ,la+a (iranda. What is of some interest in the personality of >ulio C. -uillen is his commission of some overt acts. This is seen not only in the present instance, but sometime when an employee in la Clementina Cigar 'actory he engaged in a bo3ing bout (r. (an+ano, a 9pan-wanted to abuse the women cigar makers, and felt it his duty to defend them. !ne time he ran after a policeman with a knife in hand after being provoked to a fight several times. 6e even challenged Congressman $ueno to a fight sometime before when (r. $ueno was running for a seat in the (unicipal Doard of the City of (anila, after hearing him deliver one of his apparently outspoken speeches. All these mean a defect in his personality characteri+ed by a weakness of censorship especially in relation to rationali+ation about the conse#uences of his acts. 5n view of the above findings it is our considered opinion that >ulio C. -uillen is not insane but is an individual with a personality defect which in ,sychiatry is termed, Constitutional ,sychopathic 5nferiority. 2inal 0iagnosis $ot insane: Constitutional ,sychopathic 5nferiority, without psychosis. 5n view of the above-#uoted findings of the medical board, and notwithstanding the contrary opinion of one 8r. Alvare+, who was asked by the defense to give his opinion on the matter, the court ruled that -uillen, not being insane, could be tired, as he was tired, for the offenses he committed on the date in #uestion. T6I 'ACT9 Cpon careful perusal of the evidence and the briefs submitted by counsel for the accused, the 9olicitor -eneral and their respective memoranda, we find that there is no disagreement between the prosecution and

0.

the defense, as to the essential facts which caused the filing of the present criminal case against this accused. Those facts may be stated as follows: !n the dates mentioned in this decision, >ulio -uillen y Corpus, although not affirmed with any particular political group, has voted for the defeated candidate in the presidential elections held in 01.F. (anuel A. *o3as, the successful candidate, assumed the office of ,resident of the Commonwealth and subse#uently ,resident of the ,resident of the ,hilippine *epublic. According to -uillen, he became disappointed in ,resident *o3as for his alleged failure to redeem the pledges and fulfill the promises made by him during the presidential election campaign: and his disappointment was aggravated when, according to him, ,resident *o3as, instead of looking after the interest of his country, sponsored and campaigned for the approval of the so-called parity measure. 6ence he determined to assassinate the ,resident. After he had pondered for some time over the ways and means of assassinating ,resident *o3as, the opportunity presented itself on the night of (arch 0/, 01.&, when at a popular meeting held by the =iberal ,arty at ,la+a de (iranda, ;uiapo, (anila attended by a big crowd, ,resident *o3as, accompanied by his wife and daughter and surrounded by a number of ladies and gentlemen prominent in government and politics, stood on a platform erected for that purpose and delivered his speech e3pounding and trying to convince his thousand of listeners of the advantages to be gained by the ,hilippines, should the constitutional amendment granting American citi+ens the same rights granted to 'ilipino nationals be adopted. -uillen had first intended to use a revolver for the accomplishment of his purpose, but having lost said firearm, which was duly licensed, he thought of two hand grenades which were given him by an American soldier in the early days of the liberation of (anila in e3change for two bottles of whisky. 6e had likewise been weighing the chances of killing ,resident *o3as, either by going to (alaca<an, or following his intended victim in the latter"s trips to provinces, for instance, to Tayabas @now ;ue+onA where the ,resident was scheduled to speak, but having encountered many difficulties, he decided to carry out his plan at the pro-parity meeting held at ,la+a de (iranda on the night of (arch 0/, 01.&. !n the morning of that he went to the house of Amando 6ernande+ whom he re#uested to prepare for him a document @I3hibit DA, in accordance with their pervious understanding in the preceding afternoon, when they met at the premises of the (anila >ockey Club on the occasion of an anti-parity meeting held there. !n account of its materially in this case, we deem it proper to #uote hereunder the contents of said document. An Inglish translation @I3hibit D-%A from its original Tagalog reads: '!* T6I 9A)I !' A '*II ,65=5,,5$I9 5 am the only one responsible for what happened. 5 conceived it, 5 planned it, and 5 carried it out all by myself alone. 5t took me many days and nights pondering over this act, talking to my own conscience, to my -od, until 5 reached my conclusion. 5t was my duty. 5 did not e3pected to live long: 5 only had on life to spare. And had 5 e3pected to lives to spare, 5 would not have hesitated either ton sacrifice it for the sake of a principle which was the welfare of the people. Thousands have died in Dataan: many more have mourned the loss of their husbands, of their sons, and there are millions now suffering. Their deeds bore no fruits: their hopes were frustrated. 5 was told by my conscience and by my -od that there was a man to be blamed for all this: he had deceived the people, he had astounded them with no other purpose than to entice them: he even went to the e3tent of risking the heritage of our future generations. 'or these reasons he should not continue any longer. 6is life would mean nothing as compared with the welfare of eighteen million souls. And why should 5 not give up my life too if only the good of those eighteen million souls. These are the reasons which impelled me to do what 5 did and 5 am willing to bear up the conse#uences of my act. 5 t matters not if others will curse me. Time and history will show, 5 am sure, that 5 have only displayed a high degree of patriotism in my performance of my said act. 6urrah for a free ,hilippines. Cheers for the happiness of every 'ilipino home. (ay -od pity on me. Amen. A copy @I3hibit D-0A of the original in Tagalog @I3hibit DA, made at the re#uest of -uillen by his nephew, was handed to him only at about F o"clock in the afternoon of (arch 0/, 01.&, for which reason said I3hibit D-0 appears unsigned, because he was in a hurry for that meeting at ,la+a de (iranda. When he reached ,la+a de (iranda, -uillen was carrying two hand grenades concealed in a paper bag which also contained peanuts. 6e buried one of the hand grenades @I3hibit 8A, in a plant pot located close to the platform, and when he decided to carry out his evil purpose he stood on the chair on which he had been sitting and, from a distance of about seven meters, he hurled the grenade at the ,resident when the

0E

latter had 4ust closed his speech, was being congratulated by Ambassador *omulo and was about to leave the platform. -eneral Casta<eda, who was on the platform, saw the smoking, hissing, grenade and without losing his presence of mind, kicked it away from the platform, along the stairway, and towards an open space where the general thought the grenade was likely to do the least harm: and, covering the ,resident with his body, shouted to the crowd that everybody should lie down. The grenade fell to the ground and e3ploded in the middle of a group of persons who were standing close to the platform. Confusion ensued, and the crowd dispersed in a panic. 5t was found that the fragments of the grenade had seriously in4ured 9imeon Harela @or Darrela A ? who died on the following day as the result of mortal wounds caused by the fragments of the grenade @I3hibits ' and '-0A ? Alfredo Iva, >ose 'abio, ,edro Carrillo and Imilio (aglalang. -uillen was arrested by members of the ,olice 8epartment about two hours after the occurrence. 5t appears that one Angel -arcia, who was one spectators at that meeting, saw how a person who was standing ne3t to him hurled an ob4ect at the platform and, after the e3plosion, ran away towards a barber shop located near the platform at ,la+a de (iranda. 9uspecting that person was the thrower of the ob4ect that e3ploded, -arcia went after him and had almost succeeded in holding him, but -uillen offered stiff resistance, got loose from -arcia and managed to escape. -arcia pursued him, but some detectives, mistaking the former for the real criminal and the author of the e3plosion, placed him under arrest. 5n the meantime, while the City (ayor and some agents of the (anila ,olice 8epartment were investigating the affair, one (anuel *obles volunteered the information that the person with whom Angel -arcia was wrestling was >ulio -uillen: that he @(anuel *oblesA was ac#uainted with >ulio -uillen for the previous ten years and had seen each other in the pla+a a few moments previous to the e3plosion. The police operatives interrogated -arcia and *obles, and >ulio -uillen was, within two hours after the occurrence, found in his home at 0&%. >uan =una 9treet, (anila, brought to the police head#uarters and identified by Angel -arcia, as the same person who hurled towards the platform the ob4ect which e3ploded and whom -arcia tried to hold when he was running away. 8uring the investigation conducted by the police he readily admitted his responsibility, although at the same time he tried to 4ustify his action in throwing the bomb at ,resident *o3as. 6e also indicated to his captors the place where he had hidden his so called last will #uoted above and marked I3hibit D, which was then unsigned by him and subse#uently signed at the police head#uarters. *e-enacting the crime @I3hibit CA, he pointed out to the police where he had buried @I3hibit C-0A the other hand grenade @I3hibit 8A, and, in the presence of witnesses he signed a statement which contained his answers to #uestion propounded to him by (a4or A. ;uintos of the (anila ,olice, who investigated him soon after his arrest @I3hibit IA. 'rom a perusal of his voluntary statement, we are satisfied that it tallies e3actly with the declarations and made by him on the witness stand during the trial of this case. T6I 599CI9 5n the brief submitted by counsel de oficio for this appellant, several errors are assigned allegedly committed by the trial court, namely: first, in finding the appellant guilty of murder for the death of 9imeon Harela : second, in declaring the appellant guilty of the comple3 crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder : third, in applying sub-section 0 of article .1 of the *evised ,enal Code in determining the penalty to be imposed upon the accused : and fourth, in considering the concurrence of the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and of contempt of public authorities in the commission of crime. The evidence for the prosecution, supported by the bra+en statements made by the accused, shows beyond any shadow of doubt that, when -uillen attended that meeting, carrying with him two hand grenades, to put into e3ecution his preconceived plan to assassinate ,resident *o3as, he knew fully well that, by throwing one of those two hand grenades in his possession at ,resident *o3as, and causing it to e3plode, he could not prevent the persons who were around his main and intended victim from being killed or at least in4ured, due to the highly e3plosive nature of the bomb employed by him to carry out his evil purpose. -uillen, testifying in his own behalf, in answer to #uestions propounded by the trial 4udge @page 1F of transcriptA supports our conclusion. 6e stated that he performed the act voluntarily: that his purpose was to kill the ,resident, but that it did not make any difference to him if there were some people around the ,resident when he hurled that bomb, because the killing of those who surrounded the ,resident was tantamount to killing the ,resident, in view of the fact that those persons, being loyal to the ,resident being loyal to the ,resident, were identified with the latter. 5n other word, although it was not his main intention to kill the persons surrounding the ,resident, he felt no con4unction in killing them also in order to attain his main purpose of killing the ,resident. The facts do not support the contention of counsel for appellant that the latter is guilty only of homicide through reckless imprudence in regard to the death of 9imeon Harela and of less serious physical in4uries in regard to Alfredo Iva, >ose 'abio, ,edro Carrillo and Imilio (aglalang, and that he should be sentenced to

0F

the corresponding penalties for the different felonies committed, the sum total of which shall not e3ceed three times the penalty to be imposed for the most serious crime in accordance with article &/ in relation to article &. of the *evised ,enal Code. 5n throwing hand grenade at the ,resident with the intention of killing him, the appellant acted with malice. 6e is therefore liable for all the conse#uences of his wrongful act: for in accordance with article . of the *evised ,enal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing felony @ delitoA although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 5n criminal negligence, the in4ury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. @,eople vs. 9ara, EE ,hil., 1B1.A 5n the words of Hiada, in order that an act may be #ualified as imprudence it is necessary that either malice nor intention to cause in4ury should intervene: where such intention e3ists, the act should #ualified by the felony it has produced even though it may not have been the intention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced." @Hiada"s Comments on the ,enal Code, vol. &, Eth ed., p.&.A And, as held by this Court, a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence. @,eople vs. $an#uil, .B ,hil., %B%.A Where such unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence. @,eople vs. -ona, E. ,hil., F/EA 9#uarely on the point by counsel is the following decision of the 9upreme Court of 9pain: &uestion F%. 9e presenta A, a las ocho de la noche, en el estanco de D a comprar tabaco, y habiendose negado este a darselo al fiado, se retira a #uel sin mediar entre ambos disputa alguna: pero: trnscurrido un cuarto de hora, hallandose el estan#uero despachando a C, se oye la detonacion de un arma de fuego disparada por A desde la calle, #uedando muertos en el acto C y el estan#uero: supuesta la no intencion en A de matar a C y si solo al estan#uero, cabe calificar la muerte de este de homicidio y la de c de imprudencia temeraria7 ? =a 9ala de lo Criminal de la Auudiencia de -ranada lo estimo asi, y condeno al procesado a catorse anos de reclusion por el homivcidio y a un a<o de prision correctional por la imprudencia. Aparte de #ue la muerte del estan#uero debio calificarse de assesinato y no de homicidio, por haberse e4ecutado con aleviosa. es evidente #ue la muerte de C, suponiendo #ue no se propusiera e4ecutaria el procesado, no pudo calificarse de imprudencia teme raria, sino #ue tambien debio declararsele responsable de la misma, a tenor de lo puesto en este apartado ultimo del articulo: y #ue siendo ambas muertes producidas por un solo hecho, o sea por un solo disparo, debio imponerse al reo la pena del delito de asesinato en el grado ma3imo, a tenor de lo dispuesto en el art. 1/ del Codigo, o sea la pena de muerte. 9e ve, pues, claramente #ue en el antedicha sentencia, aparte de otros articulos del Codigo, se infringio por la 9ala la disposicion de este apartado ultimo del articulo muy principalmente, y asi lo declaro el Tribunal 9upremo en 9. de 02 4unio de 02&%. @-aceta de 0,/ de agosto.A @5 Hiada, Eth Id., p. .%.A Article .2 of the *evised ,enal Code provides as follows: Art. .2. 1enalty for &omplex &rimes. ? When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its ma3imum period. We think it is the above-#uoted article and not paragraph 0 of article .1 that is applicable. The case before us is clearly governed by the first clause of article .2 because by a single act, that a throwing highly e3plosive hand grenade at ,resident *o3as, the accused committed two grave felonies, namely: @0A murder, of which 9imeon Harela was the victim: and @%A multiple attempted murder, of which ,resident *o3as, Alfredo Iva, >ose 'abio, ,edro Carrillo and Imilio (aglalang were the in4ured parties. The killing of 9imeon Harela was attended by the #ualifying circumstance of treachery. 5n the case of 1eople vs. abug-at, supra, this court held that the #ualifying circumstance of treachery may be properly considered, even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill, if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up defense against the attack, or become aware of it. 5n the same case it was held that the #ualifying circumstance of premeditation may not be properly taken into the account when the person whom the defendant proposed to kill was different from the one who became his victim. There can be no #uestion that the accused attempted to kill ,resident *o3as by throwing a hand grenade at him with the intention to kill him, thereby commencing the commission of a felony by over acts, but he did not succeed in assassinating him by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. 'or the same reason we #ualify the in4uries caused on the four other persons already named as merely attempted and not frustrated murder. 5n this connection, it should be stated that , although there is abundant proof that , in violation of the provisions of article 0.2 of the *evised ,enal Code, the accused -uillen has committed among others the offense of assault upon a person in authority, for in fact his efforts were directed towards the e3ecution of his main purpose of eliminating ,resident *o3as for his failure to redeem his electoral campaign promises,

0&

by throwing at him in his official capacity as the Chief I3ecutive of the nation the hand grenade in #uestion, yet, in view of the appropriate allegation charging -uillen with the commission of said offense, we shall refrain making a finding to that effect. The comple3 crimes of murder and multiple attempted murder committed by the accused with the single act of throwing a hand grenade at the ,resident, was attended by the various aggravating circumstances alleged in the information, without any mitigating circumstance. Dut we do not deem it necessary to consider said aggravating circumstances because in any event article .2 of the *evised ,enal Code above#uoted re#uires that the penalty for the most serious of said crimes be applied in its ma3imum period. The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its ma3imum period to death. @Art. %.2.A 5t is our painful duty to apply the law and mete out to the accused the e3treme penalty provided by it upon the facts and circumstances hereinabove narrated. The sentence of the trial court being correct, we have no alternative but to affirm it, and we hereby do so by a unanimous vote. The death sentence shall be e3ecuted in accordance with article 20 of the *evised ,enal Code, under authority of the 8irector of ,risons, on such working day as the trial court may fi3 within B/ days from the date the record shall have been remanded. 5t is so ordered.

02

G.R. No. L-*0*07 A'3'$! 15, 197% +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. &ORGE ,ELICIANO 4 GARCIA AND A/RAHAM GARCIA 4 +URI,ICACION, defendants and appellants. (ffice of the *olicitor General 2elix V. a3asiar, Assistant *olicitor General &onrado ,. Limcaoco and *olicitor 1edro A. 4amire) for plaintiff-appellee. $ose *. *arte for defendants-appellants. . ESGUERRA, J.:p This case is before this Court for automatic review of the death sentence for *obbery with 6omicide imposed by the Court of 'irst 5nstance of (anila, Dranch KH555, in its Criminal Case $o. 2EE//, on accused Abraham ,urificacion -arcia and >orge -arcia 'eliciano, who were found guilty upon an 5nformation which reads as follows: That on or about 'ebruary 2, 01F&, in the City of (anila, ,hilippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating with three others whose true names and whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and by means of violence, take, steal and carry away the following motor vehicle, to wit: !ne @0A passenger 4eepney, 'ord with plate $o. ,C>-0B12 "FF (anila, (otor $o. -,W 0..&.0, 9teel top, painted maroon @bodyA with lining colored white, and with nickel plated words >erry on the lower center of the windshield frame, valued .... ,2,///.// belonging to one Alberto 5la alias Alberto 9alamat, against the latter"s consent, to the damage and pre4udice of said Alberto 5la alias Alberto 9alamat, in the said amount of ,2,///.//, ,hilippine currency: that on the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry away the said motor vehicle, said accused, in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with evident premeditation and taking advantage of their superior number and strength and with intent to kill, treacherously attack, assault and use personal violence upon said Alberto 5la alias Alberto 9alamat, by then and there shooting him and hitting him with an iron pipe and wooden clubs on the head and other parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him physical in4uries which were the direct and immediate cause of his death. All contrary to law, and with the generic aggravating circumstances of having been committed in the nighttime, in an uninhabited place and by a band which facilitated the commission of said offense. Cpon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereupon trial ensued and upon its termination, 4udgment was rendered finding the two accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged with the attendant aggravating circumstances of craft, nighttime, abuse of superior strength and use of motor vehicle and without any mitigating circumstance to offset any of them. The e3treme penalty of death was imposed on the accused and they were likewise sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of ,0%,///.// plus ,&,///.// representing the value of the 4eepney of the deceased which was never recovered. 5t is not disputed that the late Alberto 5la G =iongson alias Alberto 9alamat, alias Hicente 5la was, married to Hirginia 5la with whom he had two children: that they had ac#uired a 4eep which he used for transporting passengers for fare: that he took out this vehicle to the streets on 'ebruary 2, 01F&, to solicit passengers along the 8ivisoria-;uiapo route and earn for the day, but he never returned: that Hirginia grew apprehensive and she tried to locate him but failed: that she reported the matter to the police in the morning of 'ebruary 0/, 01F&: that thereupon a search was conducted and the ne3t day, 'idel 9antos, a ta3i-driver and neighbor of the victim, informed Hirginia that he saw her husband driving his 4eep northbound on the national highway near the 9an (iguel Drewery plant at Halen+uela, Dulacan, with B or . passengers aboard. @t.s.n. pp. B-F, >uly %., 01F&: pp. F-0B $ovember %/, 01F&A !n 'ebruary 00, 01F&, an unidentified body of a dead man was discovered in Darrio 9alangan, (unicipality of 9an (iguel, ,rovince of Dulacan, by one ;uintin Dautista who reported his discovery to the parochial priest. The latter together with the Darrio Captain reported the matter to the municipal authorities. Thereafter, ,at. *odrigue+ along with ,atrolmen 9anguyo and 9ala+ar and four detainees of the 9an (iguel municipal 4ail repaired to the scene where the cadaver was and found the body inside a burlap sack concealed among the tall grasses @talahibA. They waited for the arrival of 8r. Herde, the medico-legal officer, and in his presence slashed the sack open. They saw the victim naked with hands bound and face covered with cloth. The knees were bent close to the body and the arms bound to the knees with abaca twine and tie wire in a s#uatting position. @ t.s.n. pp. B-& 9eptember 0%, 01F&A 8uring the trial, ,at. *odrigue+ declared that he made a sketch of the place where the body was found and the position of the body. After an e3amination was conducted by the medico-legal officer, he @,at. *odrigue+A noted the

01

identifying marks of the victim and lifted his fingerprints. impressions of which he indorsed to 8et. (anuel >avier of the (anila ,olice 8epartment @I3h. I , I-0 ,, ' ,, >-0 , >-% and >-B pp. .1, E/, %E/-%EB *ecordA. (rs. Hirginia 5la widow of Alberto, upon learning that a dead man was found in 9an (iguel, Dulacan, went to the (unicipal Duilding of 9an (iguel, Dulacan, and in#uired about the discovered body. 9he was informed that sub4ect had been buried but she was asked if her husband had identifying marks and she answered that her missing husband had four false teeth with gold crown and a tattoo on his left leg with the name, Hirgie , and with the drawing of a woman. The authorities who earlier noted the dead man"s identifying marks informed (rs. 5la that they noted a tattoo mark on the dead man"s left leg. (rs. 5la then re#uested that the body be taken to (anila. An e3humation followed and a necropsy thereof was made @t.s.n. $ovember %/, 01F& pp. 0B-%/A. 8r. Cesar Herde, medico-legal officer of Dulacan, who conducted the autopsy of the deceased, testified that he found the marks around the right and left wrists and right and left ankles measuring /.E cm. which he said could have been caused by a rope tied around those parts of the body. 6e also found lacerated wound on the right occipital side measuring % 3 0 cm. which could have been caused by a blunt instrument and a gunshot wound on the right chest @I3h. ; p. 0B/ Criminal Case *ecord WrapperA 6e attributed the cause of death to hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wound. The retrieved slug was sent to the $D5 for ballistic e3amination. . *oberto -arcia, Chief. of the fingerprint section, Criminal 5nvestigation =aboratory of the (anila ,olice 8epartment, declared that on 'ebruary 0E, 01F&, he received from 8et. >avier a set of post mortem fingerprints with a re#uest that a study and comparison be made of said fingerprints lifted from the discovered cadaver with the standard fingerprints of one Alberto 9alamat which were on file with Central *ecords and 5dentification 8ivision of the (,8. -arcia caused enlarged reproductions of both fingerprints to be made, and after a study arrived at the conclusion that the fingerprint impressions from the dead body were the same as those of Alberto 5la alias Alberto 9alamat on file. 5n his study, he noted 0B identical characteristics obtaining in the middle right finger of both specimen and according to him @*oberto -arciaA modern authorities sustain the opinion that F to 2 characteristics are sufficient to warrant positive identification. @t.s.n. p. 0& 8ecember %&, 01F&A The evidence also shows that when (rs. Hirginia 5la reported the disappearance of her husband to the authorities, an investigation was initiated. 8etective Cano interviewed >ose =iongson alias Tisoy and 8anilo Isteban who told him that they heard the accused herein say that if it could be confirmed that it was Alberto 5la who was responsible for his @'elicianoA dismissal by *ene ,ayumo, operator of the 4eep he was driving, something would befall him @AlbertoA @t.s.n. pp. BB, B., >uly %., 01F&: pp. &/-&% t.s.n. 9eptember 00, 01F&A. 'eliciano was found to have been dismissed in >anuary 01F& @pp. &%, &B t.s.n. 9eptember 00, 01F&A. These in#uiries led to the apprehension of Abraham -arcia and >orge 'eliciano, herein accused who, when brought to the head#uarters of the (anila ,olice 8epartment @(,8A, signed statements. @I3h. A and D pp. BE, B2, *ecord WrapperA. They likewise e3ecuted a waiver of their rights against detention beyond the period provided for in Article 0%E of the *evised ,enal Code, as amended, while under investigation. @I3h. 5 p. 0BE *ecord WrapperA. Dased on their signed statements which were taken by 8etectives Duenaventura, Irfe and >avier, 8et. Cano who was given charge of the case proceeded to Halen+uela, Dulacan to check on the statements of defendants, particularly their claim that they brought Alberto 5la alias Alberto 9alamat to a house in said municipality and left the vehicle used in bringing him to the place to somebody also in that municipality @ t.s.n. p. 0B >uly %., 01F&A. Cnfortunately, he failed to find the person and the vehicle he was looking for. 6ence he con4ectured that the two were not telling the whole truth. With the discovery of a dead man in Dulacan, accused 'eliciano and -arcia readily admitted that their previous statements were not true and in subse#uent separate statements given before 8et. Cano, in the presence of ,at. 9an (iguel and >aranilla @ t.s.n. p. 0E >uly %., 01F&A they narrated in detail how they lured the victim to go to (arilao, Dulacan, on the prete3t of fetching a woman @I3h. C and 5 pp. B1-.2, *ecord, WrapperA, 5n his subse#uent statement, accused 'eliciano related that he had an a3e to grind against Alberto whom he suspected as having triggered his, dismissal from his 4ob. 6e also implication the names *ene and 8ing as their confederates in the plot of revenge. 6e mentioned that they brought the victim and his 4eepney somewhere on the national highway in 9an (iguel where he was divested of his 4eep and where he @'elicianoA struck the victim with an iron pipe, with -arcia and 8ing using pieces of wood also to strike Alberto. They pointed to *ene however as the gun-wielder, with all of them helping in, tying Alberto with abaca twine and tie wire and later slipping him into a burlap sock, tying the ends of the sack and leaving the victim in that pitiable state. They then fled back to (anila on a car painted white which was traced back to an auto repair shop owned by *afael Dondoc at =akas ng (ahirap, Caloocan @t.s.n. pp. 0&, 02 >uly %., 01F&: I3h. C , 8 pp. B1-.2 *ecord WrapperA. The 4eep of Alberto was

%/

allegedly sold by *ene to someone not personally known to them and they @-arcia and 'elicianoA were given their share of the loot. When the body was taken to (anila, the accused herein identified the deceased @I3h. 6 and 5 A. A few days thereafter, a re-enactment of the commission of the crime was made in the presence of =t. >esus Duenaventura, Assistant Chief of the 8etective and *obbery 8ivision, 9gts. (anguyo and Hillanueva and ,at. 8acanay, and the body was photographed. @I3h. (-!-0 A Accused >orge 'eliciano and Abraham -arcia during the trial repudiated the e3tra-4udicial confessions they made and signed. They now disown the documents purporting to be their confession. @I3h. A, D, C, 8, 6 and 5 pp. BE,BF, B&, B2, EB, E. record: pp. E, F, t.s.n. !ctober 0&, 01F2: pp. ., E t.s.n. 9eptember %., 01F2A and claim that the statements were e3tracted from them by force or through third degree methods. >orge 'eliciano declared that all he remembers was that he was forcibly made to sign many papers by the police officers who arrested him but did not know e3actly what they were all about @pp. F, 0B, 0., 02 t.s.n. !ctober 0&, 01F2A: and that he was brought to a hotel and to the 8etective Dureau where he was Brd degreed . @pp. F, 2, 1, 0/, 00, 0% t.s.n. !ctober 0&, 01F2A. !n the other hand, Abraham -arcia claimed that after he was arrested, he was brought to the (anila ,olice 6ead#uarters at 5saac ,eral @now Cnited $ations 9treetA was maltreated and, at the point of a gun, was made to sign statements @pp. 0-0E t.s.n. 9eptember %., 01F2A. They however admitted the genuineness of their signatures and that the signatures on the different statements are their normal signatures, a fact aptly noted by the trial 4udge, vi): Against their repeated admissions, the defendants entered a defense of complete denial. 8efendant -arcia alleged further by way of defense that has become a standard defense that he was maltreated. The claim of maltreatment, however, deserves no credence. Thus the defendant claims with respect to his statement I3h. D that he does not know anything about its contents. Get, he admitted on cross e3amination that many of the #uestions in the statement were asked of him. Again the defendant admitted that the signatures in the statements are his. 5f it were true as he said that he was maltreated every day for two weeks, his physical condition must have been such that his signatures in the said statements would surely show a marked difference from each other because of the tension and the pain he must have suffered. An e3amination of the signatures in his different statements taken after days of interval clearly show that they were written with the same sure and firm hand. The defendant claims that the re-enactment was not voluntary on their part. Get, the defendant admitted that they were told to pose as they pleased. 5n fact the defendant admitted that he was not actually forced. The defense in its ably-written brief e3erted mighty efforts to discredit the confessions by attempting to prove that they were e3torted by torture and maltreatment of the accused. The trial 4udge, however, after a careful deliberation did not view their contention of a forced confession with sympathy and re4ected their claim. !ur own study of the record reveals that no error was committed by the court a #uo in admitting the confessions of the accused. Their assertions of maltreatment are belied by their own testimonies. The facts contained in the written statements could not have been given by any one else who did not perform the acts narrated therein. They are so replete with details which the police officers could not have known if they merely concocted the confessions. 5nformation such as that >orge 'eliciano was without a drivers license a week before he was arrested or the fact that he had a #uarrel with one Tisoy , an uncle of the deceased, and during which fight Abraham -arcia, the other defendant, was also with him: or that he reached the &th grade at Tayuman Ilementary 9chool or the names of their teachers and other personal circumstances could not have been supplied by the police officers. =ikewise their sworn statements contained a narrative detail of how they went about the plot to avenge their grudges against Alberto: their use of the wires and abaca twine to tie the victim"s wrists and knees: their use of a burlap sack which contained the deceased and the gunning of the victim, these details dovetailed with the findings of the medico-legal officer. Well-settled is the rule that the findings of the trial 4udge are not to be disturbed on appeal unless there are substantial facts and circumstances which have been overlooked or which, if properly considered, might affect the result of the case. @,eople vs. ,are4a =-%01B&, $ovember %1, 01F1, B/ 9C*A, F1B, &/B: ,eople vs. Dautista =-%BB/B-/., (ay %/, 01F1, p. 02E, 01/A. We hold that the trial court did not err when it did not give credence to the accused"s claim of involuntary confession. !ne additional factor that militates against appellants" claim of maltreatment is that it appears that accused -arcia and 'eliciano were transferred to the custody of the $D5 in 01F2 on motion of the late 8elegate Inri#ue Holtaire -arcia in connection with the hearings of the 9enate Committee on >ustice on 9enate Dills $os. 2/0 and 2/% which were intended as a remedial legislation on the use of e3tra-4udicial confession in cases. 6owever counsel for appellants never bothered to secure and present in evidence a copy of the result of the Committee 5nvestigation to lend support to their claim of maltreatment. $either did counsel for

%0

appellants file a complaint or charge against the erring policemen inspite of alleged prior re#uests of accused. @t.s.n. pp. 00, 0% 9eptember %., 01F2: pp. 02, 01 !ctober 0&, 01F2A. We have observed too that during the trial defendants alleged that they knew the police officers who maltreated them and in fact they were so positive about their identity. !n cross e3amination, however, the prosecuting officer tried to let the accused identify a police officer through e3hibits /-%2 @photographs taken during the re-enactment which accused previously identified as having been taken on said occasionA. Accused -arcia identified the man with a hat on as ,at. 9an (iguel. The prosecuting officer noted that it was not 9an (iguel but ,at. >aranilia on the picture whom he identified @ t.s.n. p. 00, 9eptember %., 01F2: p. B !ctober 0&, 01F2A. 9imilarly, defendants" claim that they had been forced into signing their respective confessions loses weight in the face of the fact that they had re-enacted the crime before many spectators and before the camera. The trial 4udge, We have noted in the record, elicited during the hearing an admission from the accused that they were not really pressured into posing before the camera in the re-enactment of the crime. @ t.s.n. p. E !ctober 0&, 01F2A Appellants also #uestion the validity of the signed confessions by mentioning the fact that they were subscribed and sworn to before Col. (orales, Chief of the 8etective Dureau of the (,8, and not before a 'iscal or >udge. 6owever, as held in several cases @C.9. versus Corrales =-1%B/ $ovember 0/, 010., %2 ,hil. BF%, BFF: ,eople vs. >ose ,ardo =-EF%A, there is no provision of law which prescribes that either confessions or admissions are not competent evidence unless made under oath. 5t is the fact that they are voluntarily made by the accused and against his own interest which gives to them their evidentiary value. ,rovided that fact is established, it does not matter whether or not they are made under oath. (oreover, confessions are not even re#uired to be in writing as can be gleaned from our ruling in ,eople vs. Dantagan =-BB/.E, August 0E, 01B/,E. ,hil. 2B., 2B1, where it said: ... no e3planation is given of the failure of =uis Dantagan to sign the statement, but the fact that he did not accredit the statement with his signature does not render inadmissible the oral testimony of Crisologo and Alvare+ as to the substance of his previous admission. Also the fact that the confessions were made while the accused were under arrest does not render the same inadmissible @,eople vs. (arimpong =- .BE0., F% ,hil. &/A since the confessions were made and admitted prior to the adoption of the 01&B Constitution. !f significance too is the fact that the confessions were made in Tagalog, a dialect fully within the comprehension of, and well-spoken by, the accused, they being residents of Tondo, (anila. Appellants likewise contend that prosecution has failed to present any eye- witness to the perpetration of the crime, or to adduce any concrete evidence showing the motive of the accused in committing such a heinous crime as robbery with homicide. While the #uestion of motive is important to the person who committed the criminal act, yet when there is no longer any doubt that the defendant was the culprit, it becomes unimportant to know the e3act reason or purpose for the commission of the crime. The failure to establish motive in that case becomes inconse#uential @,eople vs. 8iva =-%%1.F, April %1, 01F2, %B 9C*A BB%, B.FA. 6ere We entertain no doubt that the defendants committed the crime. Accused also raised the issue of 4urisdiction, contending that since the cadaver of the deceased was found in a barrio in 9an (iguel, Dulacan, and there is no evidence as to where the victim was killed, it is doubtful whether the Court of 'irst 5nstance of (anila can take cogni+ance of the same. 9ection 0. @aA *ule 00/ of the *evised *ules of Court provides: 9ection 0. @aA ? 5n all criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place. 9ince the commission of the crime was started in (anila, in front of the Hista Theater along Claro (. *ecto Avenue, where the victim was lured into going with defendants to (arilao, Dulacan, on the prete3t of fetching a woman, then to 9an (iguel where he was li#uidated, the Court of 'irst 5nstance of (anila un#uestionably has 4urisdiction of the case. W6I*I'!*I, 4udgment of conviction against the accused, with the civil indemnities therein provided, is hereby affirmed. 6owever, for lack of the re#uired votes to impose the e3treme penalty of death, the penalty of reclusion perpetua@life imprisonmentA, with all the accessory penalties prescribed by law, shall be suffered by both accused. Costs against the accused.

%%

G.R. No. 12%751 Se !e67er 2, 2010 +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, Appellee, vs. &ULIUS GADIANA ) RE+OLLO, Appellant. 8IC595!$ CAR+IO MORALES, J.: >ulius -adiana y *epollo @appellantA was convicted of violation of 9ection 00, Article 55 of *epublic Act $o. 10FE @The Comprehensive 8angerous 8rugs ActA by the *egional Trial Court of Cebu City, Dranch 0E under what appears to be a form 5nformation0 reading: The undersigned ,rosecutor 55 of the City of Cebu accuses >ulius -adiana y *epollo, for Hiolation of 9ec. 00, Art. 10FE, committed as follows: That on or about the &th day of 'ebruary, %//., at about B:./ ,.(. in the City of Cebu, ,hilippines, and within the 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the said accused, 3 3 3, with deliberate intent, did then and there have in hisNher possession and under hisNher control the following: A O Two @%A heat-sealed transparent plastic packets of white crystalline substance with a total net weight of /./1 grams. locally known as P96ADCQ, containing methamphetamine hydrochloride a dangerous drugNs, without being authori+ed by law.% C!$T*A*G T! =AW. DA5= *IC!((I$8I8: ,%//./// Cebu City, ,hilippines, 'ebruary 01, %//.. >I9C9 ,. 'I=5C5A$! ,rosecutor 55, Cebu CityB @underscoring in the originalA At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated that the 'orensic !fficer >ude 8aniel (endo+a will testify, and affirm and confirm his findings and conclusion within the four corners of his forensic report with the clarification that what was admitted was the e3istence but not the source . of the two sachets. =one prosecution witness ,!0 >ulius Dusico @,!0 DusicoA adopted as his testimony at the witness stand the 'ebruary 1, %//. >oint Affidavit E which he and ,!B >oseph 8inauanao @,!B 8inauanaoA e3ecuted. 5n the >oint Affidavit, the police officers related the following version: At about B:./ ,.(. on 'ebruary &, %//., while ,!0 Dusico, along with ,!B 8inauanao, ,!% Irwin 'errer, and three other police officers, was conducting saturation drive at 9itio 9an *o#ue, Darangay (ambaling, Cebu City, he chanced upon appellant holding two small plastic sachets containing crystalline substances which he was about to place inside his pocket.F5avvphi5 The policemen, identifying themselves as such, apprehended appellant at once, confiscated the two sachets from his right hand, brought him with the confiscated sachets to their office, and turned over the sachets to the ,hilippine $ational ,olice @,$,A Crime =aboratory 9ervice which found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.& ,!0 Dusico added the following details at the witness stand: ,*!9IC. A-A$: ; After you recovered these Rtwo plastic sachetsS from the possession of the accused, what did you do7 A We submitted it to the ,$, Crime =aboratory. ; Can you still recall who prepared the letter re#uest for laboratory e3amination7 A ,!% Irwin 'errer. ; 5f shown to you would you be able to identify it7 A Ges. ; Are you referring to this letter re#uest dated 'ebruary 0& RsicS, %//.7 A Ges. ,*!9IC. A-A$: We re#uest, your 6onor, that the letter re#uest be marked as our e3hibit C. C!C*T: (ark it. ,*!9IC. A-A$: Who brought the letter re#uest to the ,$, Crime =aboratory7 A ,!% Irwin 'errer. ; 8o you know the result of the laboratory e3amination7 A. Ges. ; What was the result7

%B

A ,ositive. ,*!9IC. A-A$: We re#uest, your 6onor, that Chemistry *eport $o. 8-%.0-%//. be marked as our I3hibit 8. C!C*T: (ark it. ,*!9IC. A-A$: ; 8o you affirm and confirm to the truthfulness of the contents Rof theS 4oint affidavit7 A Ges maQam.2 @underscoring suppliedA Cpon the other hand, appellant, denying the accusation, gave the following version: While he was, on the date and time in #uestion, walking along an alley in 9itio Tromar, (ambaling, Cebu City @where his house is situatedA on his way to 9itio ,aglaum where he used to stand by, 1 after three of the si3 above-named policemen passed by him, the fourth, prosecution witness ,!0 Dusico, uttered This is the one, this is the one. This is very obvious. 0/ ,!0 Dusico at once held his arms and dipped into his @appellantQsA pocket00 upon which he @appellantA suggested that he @appellantA would 4ust be the one to do it,0% thereby catching the policemanQs ire. 6e was at once handcuffed by ,!0 Dusico who is familiar to him as he always saw him every 'riday afternoon Rwhen he and company wentS roving there. Appellant specifically denied the claim of ,!0 Dusico that he was holding two plastic packs of shabu which he was about to pocket. Dy 8ecision of !ctober 0%, %//E, Dranch 0E of the *egional Trial Court of Cebu City convicted appellant as charged, disposing as follows: 8HERE,ORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused >ulius -adiana y *epollo -C5=TG beyond reasonable doubt for violation of 9ection 00, Article 55 of *.A. 10FE and applying the 5ndeterminate 9entence =aw, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of I5-6T @2A GIA*9 A$8 !$I @0A 8AG !* ,*595!$ (AG!* A9 (5$5(C( T! TWI=HI @0%A GIA*9 A$8 !$I @0A 8AG !' *IC=C95!$ TI(,!*A= A9 (AK5(C( A$8 T! ,AG A '5$I !' T6*II 6C$8*I8 T6!C9A$8 @,B//,///.//A ,I9!9 together with all accessory penalties provided for by law. The physical evidence is hereby forfeited in favor of the government to be disposed of in accordance with law. 9! !*8I*I8.0B 5n convicting appellant, the trial court gave a one-paragraph ratiocination, vi+. With the bare and lame denials of the accused, ab4ectly uncorroborated and without substantiation, apart from his self-serving attempt at e3tenuation as against the positive testimony of the arresting police officer who en4oys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties, there being no showing of malicious motive to testify against the accused, it is the CourtQs view that the 9tate has successfully discharged its prosecutory function by sufficiently showing the concurrence of the elements of the offense charged.0. @emphasis and underscoring suppliedA !n appeal, the appellate court, by 8ecision of April B/, %//2,0E affirmed that of the trial courtQs but modified the penalty, holding that the nomenclature and periods of the penalties under the *evised ,enal Code should not have been used by the trial court in the determination thereof as it @the trial courtA should have been guided by the provisions of the 5ndeterminate 9entence =aw. Thus the appellate court disposed: 8HERE,ORE, the appealed 8ecision dated !ctober 0%, %//E of the *TC of Cebu City, in Criminal Case $o. CDC-F2F02 convicting accused-appellant >ulius -adiana y *epollo for violation of 9ection 00, Article 55 of *.A. 10FE, is A,,IRMED with MODI,ICATION. As modified, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from TWI=HI @0%A GIA*9 A$8 !$I @0A 8AG as minimum, to '!C*TII$ @0.A GIA*9 as ma3imum. 9! !*8I*I8.0F @underscoring suppliedA 6ence, the present appeal. Appellant maintains that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. As reflected above, the trial court credited the positive version of ,!0 Dusico in light of the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties and absent a showing of malice. *ecall, however, that during the pre-trial, the e3istence but not the source of the two sachets was stipulated on by the parties. 5t was thus incumbent on the prosecution to prove the chain of custody rule. Chain of custody establishes the identity of the sub4ect substance. 0& 5t re#uires that testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item is sei+ed up to the time it is offered in evidence. 02 When nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated is the same specimen e3amined and established to be prohibited drug,01 there can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug. I3cept for the charge sheet%/ prepared against appellant which stated that evidence consisted of two @%A heat-sealed clear plastic sachets containing shabu with markings P>-*-0Q and P>-*-%,Q nowhere in the record is a showing that the marking was done in the presence of appellant or his representatives or that a

%.

physical inventory and photograph of the sei+ed items were taken as re#uired under paragraph 0, 9ection %0, Article 55 of *.A. $o. 10FE reading: 0A The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs $ha((, immediately after sei+ure and confiscation, h)$"ca(() "#9e#!or) a#. ho!o3ra h !he $a6e "# !he re$e#ce o: !he acc'$e. or !he er$o#;$ :ro6 <ho6 $'ch "!e6$ <ere co#:"$ca!e. a#.;or $e"=e., or h"$;her re re$e#!a!"9e or co'#$e(, a re re$e#!a!"9e :ro6 !he 6e."a a#. !he De ar!6e#! o: &'$!"ce >DO&?, a#. a#) e(ec!e. '7("c o::"c"a( who shall be re#uired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. @emphasis suppliedA 3333 $on-compliance with the above-#uoted re#uirements does not of course necessarily render void and invalid the sei+ure of the dangerous drugs, provided that there are 4ustifiable grounds to warrant e3ception therefrom.%0 The prosecution must, therefore, e3plain the reasons behind the procedural lapses %% and must show that the integrity and value of the sei+ed evidence had been preserved.%B 5n their >oint Affidavit%. which served as part of ,!0 DusicoQs testimony, he and ,!B >oseph merely stated that they brought appellant, together with the confiscated evidence, to their office for proper documentation and filing of appropriate charges. $o statement was made that the allegedly sei+ed sachets were the same sachets which were sub4ect of the letter-re#uest for laboratory e3amination prepared and brought to the Crime =aboratory by ,!% 'errer per ,!0 Dusico. The general rule is that the trial courtQs findings, its assessment of probative weight of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusion anchored on such findings are entitled to great respect as, among other things, it has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses.%E 8uring his brief testimony earlier #uoted, aside from confirming the contents of the >oint Affidavit he e3ecuted with ,!B 8inauanao which served as his direct testimony, ,!0 Dusico declared that ,!% Idwin 'errer prepared and brought the letter-re#uest for laboratory e3amination to the ,$, Crime =aboratory. !n pages F-& of the *ecords which appear to be a segment of the police blotter reflecting the arrest on 'ebruary &, %//. of appellant, appears the following information: ANTaken: Ividence . . . submitted to the ,$, Crime =aboratory. *eceived by: 9,!0 Abundio C. Cabahug, ,$, $ot only was ,!0 DusicoQs testimony that 'errer prepared the letter-re#uest for laboratory e3amination hearsay as he did not claim having seen ,!B 8inauanao actually prepare it. The transcripts of stenographic notes do not show that the trial court tested the credibility of witness ,!0 Dusico and of his testimony. The trial courtQs conviction of appellant upon its above-#uoted one-paragraph ratiocination, which was affirmed by the appellate court, does not thus merit this CourtQs affirmance. 5avvphi5 ,arenthetically, appellantQs arrest, not to mention resulting confiscation of the alleged confiscation of the plastic sachets of crystalline substances in his possession, leaves nagging doubts on its validity in light of the fact that what ,!0 Dusico merely saw was appellantQs placing of the plastic sachets in his pocket which, without more, does not 4ustify his warrantless arrest under the *ules.%F 8HERE,ORE, the April B/, %//2 8ecision of the Court of Appeals is RE1ERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant, >ulius -adiana y *epollo, is AC@UITTED of the crime charged and ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause. The 8irector of the Dureau of Corrections is ORDERED to forthwith implement this decision and to IN,ORM this Court, within five days from receipt hereof, of action taken. =et a copy of this 8ecision be forwarded to the 9ecretary of >ustice, the ,$, 8irector, and the 8irector -eneral of the ,hilippine 8rug Inforcement Agency, for information and guidance. $o costs. 9! !*8I*I8.

%E

G.R. No. 25%5% Oc!o7er 12, 1990 THE +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARMEN LIM A BMAMENG LIMB, defendant-appellant. ,he *olicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. 6errera, Laurel, 0e los 4eyes, 4oxas & ,eehan3ee for defendant- appellant. This is an appeal from the decision of the *egional Trial Court of (asbate, Dranch .F, the dispositive portion of which reads: W6I*I'!*I, 4udgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Carmen =im guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentencing her to reclusion perpetua and to pay the costs. @*ollo, p. %%A The information filed against the accused and >ohn 8oe reads: 333 333 333 That on or about >uly 0, 012F, in the afternoon thereof, at Murbito 9treet, (unicipality of (asbate, ,rovince of (asbate, ,hilippines, within the 4urisdiction of this court, the said accused who are private persons conspired and mutually helped each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap Aida and Avelyn both minors and surnamed Hillanueva: separating them from their parental care: Aida Hillanueva was detained for about twenty @%/A days in the house of Carmen =im alias (ameng while Avelyn Hillanueva was detained and brought to Cebu City by the co-accused thereby depriving the two, Aida and Avelyn of their personal liberties. @*ecords, p.0A The prosecution evidence upon which the trial court based its finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is summari+ed as follows: 333 333 333 That in the morning of >uly 0, 012F, Aida Hillanueva and her younger sister Avelyn Hillanueva, 0/ and & years old, respectively, were sent on an errand by their father Charlito @should be CharitoA Hillanueva to buy rice in (asbate, (asbate. The Hillanuevas lived in (obo, a neighboring town of the capital of the province. Cpon their arrival at the poblacion of the capital town of (asbate at around 1:// o"clock in the morning, Aida and Avelyn went to the pier, staying there up to 0%:// noon, to meet their mother whom they thought would arrive by boat from (anila. They left the pier when their mother did not arrive and went to 6elen Theatre on Murbito 9treet, (asbate, (asbate, to see a picture. At around %:// o"clock in the afternoon of the same day while they were in front of the 6elen Theatre, they were called by the accused Carmen =im, in a loud voice. Come here $ene and asked them to go to her house 4ust infront of the moviehouse. Aida and Avelyn went to the house of the accused and got inside passing through the front door. After a brief conversation with the two children, the accused gave Aida and Avelyn rice and kangkong for lunch. After they had finished eating, Aida was told by the accused to take a bath. The accused gave Aida a dress to wear. 'rom >uly 0, 012F to >uly 0E, 012F, Aida Hillanueva was detained in the house of the accused doing household chores such as cleaning the kitchen, scrubbing the floor, washing the plates including removing lice from the head of the accused and fanning her. Avelyn, the younger sister of Aida, was brought by Carmen"s mother @should be sisterA in Cebu on the same day they arrived in the house of the accused. !n >uly 0E, 012F, Charito Hillanueva, father of the two minor children, found his daughter Aida in the house of the accused. 6e asked the accused to let Aida go home with him, but the accused refused. Charito came back to the house of the accused the following day, >uly 0F, 012F, accompanied this time by 9gt. Antonio Ariate of the %FFth ,C Company at Camp Donny 9errano, (asbate, (asbate, who had with him an armalite. After 5dentifying himself to the accused, the soldier told the accused that he was taking Aida with him. Without resistance but uttering slanderous remarks, the accused released Aida to 9gt. Ariate. Charito Hillanueva and his daughter Aida were brought by 9gt. Ariate to the %FFth ,C Company 6ead#uarters where the complaint of Charito was recorded in the blotter by C5C Hincent Illiot Has#ue+ of the 5 T 5 9ection. @*ollo, p. 0%A The appellant"s version, on the other hand, is summari+ed in her brief as follows: 333 333 333 !n or about 0:B/ in the afternoon of 5 >uly 012F, the sisters went to 6elen Theater, located along Murbito 9t., (asbate, (asbate, to look at the pictures displayed outside. 6elen Theater is located across the store and residence of the appellant. The sisters then proceeded to appellant"s store which she was tending at that time. Appellant noticed the sisters and caged them over. 9he in#uired from the sisters as to the whereabouts of their parents as they

%F

were apparently alone. The sisters replied that their parents had separated and that their mother had gone to (anila, and that their father was in Duenavista, Cson, (asbate. The sisters claimed that they were driven away by their father and that they were not given any food to eat. Taking pity on the sisters, appellant gave the sisters food and allowed them to take a bath. Concerned for their safety, appellant offered to shelter the sisters. As the younger sister of appellant was at that time visiting appellant, appellant proposed to Aida to let Avelyn accompany appellant"s sister to the latter"s home. Aida agreed, on condition that she and Avelyn could meet every week. Aida stayed in appellant"s residence for about two @%A weeks. To help in the house, Aida would go to the market to buy bread, fish and salt for appellant"s household. Aida also helped watch over appellant"s store from time to time. !n or about 1:// a.m. of 0E >uly 012F, Charito Hillanueva, the complainant and father of the sisters, went to appellant"s store. Charito introduced himself to appellant as the father of the two sisters and informed appellant that he was going to bring the sisters home. Charito talked to Aida and asked her to go home with him. Aida, however, refused to go with her father. As a result, Charito left. When asked by appellant why she refused to go with her father, Aida replied that she was afraid that her father would beat her up. !n 0F >uly 012F, Charito returned to appellant"s store, this time accompanied by 9gt. Antonio Ariate, >r. of the ,hilippine Constabulary, 9gt. Ariate introduced himself to appellant. Charito again talked to Aida to convince her to go home with him. This time, Aida agreed to go home with her father. @*ollo, pp. ..-.FA The appellant raises the following assignment of errors in her appeal, to wit: 5 T6I T*5A= C!C*T I**I8 5$ $!T 859(5995$- T6I CA9I A-A5$9T T6I A,,I==A$T 8I9,5TI T6I 8I959TA$CI !' T6I C!(,=A5$A$T 55 T6I T*5A= C!C*T I**I8 5$ -5H5$- C*I8I$CI T! T6I ,*!9ICCT5!$ W5T$I99I9" TI9T5(!$G W65C6 WI*I *I,=ITI W5T6 5$C!$959TI$C5I9 A$8 C!$T*A85CT5!$9 555 T6I T*5A= C!C*T I**I8 5$ C!$H5CT5$- T6I A,,I==A$T 8I9,5TI T6I 'ACT T6AT A58A H5==A$CIHA WA9 $!T 8ITA5$I8 DG T6I A,,I==A$T 5H T6I T*5A= C!C*T I**I8 5$ C!$H5CT5$- T6I A,,I==A$T 8I9,5TI T6I 'ACT T6AT A,,I==A$T 6A8 $! (!T5HI T! 8ITA5$ A58A A$8 AHI=G$ H5==A$CIHA @*ollo, pp. .&.2A The fundamental a3iom underlying a criminal prosecution is that before the accused may be convicted of any crime, his guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, if there are substantial facts which were overlooked by the trial court but which could alter the results of the case in favor of the accused, then such facts should be carefully taken into account by the reviewing tribunal. @,eople v. Torre, -.*. $o. =..1/E, April %E, 011/A 5n the case at bar, after a careful review of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we find the same to be insufficient to sustain a conviction. The uncorroborated testimony of the alleged kidnapped victim, Aida Hillanueva, which was mainly relied upon by the trial court in convicting the appellant, was not clear and convincing enough to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. There is no kidnapping in this case. The two minors voluntarily entered the appellant"s residence through the front entrance. The fact of detention which is an essential element in the crime charged, was not clearly established. There was no showing that there was actual confinement or restriction of the person of the offended party. @9ee ,eople v. (ercado, 0B0 9C*A E/0, E/F R012.S: C9 v. Cabanas, 2 ,hil. F., F& R01/&SA. The appellant"s residence has a store fronting the street where many customers presumably come and go. The place is busy with a movie house in front. There is no indication that Aida was locked up, physically restrained of her liberty or unable to communicate with anyone. There are other circumstances which create grave doubts in Aida"s version of her two week detention. 5n her testimony, Aida claimed that she attempted to escape three times but she was not able to do so. @T9$, >uly %0, 012&, p. B.A. >ust how she tried to escape or why she did not succeed is not e3plained clearly. When Aida saw her father for the first time on >uly 0E, 012F, she ine3plicably did not shout for help or run to him but 4ust observed him and the appellant talk for half an hour. @T9$, >uly %0, 012&, p. %BA The 9olicitor -eneral counters the appellant"s claim stating that Aida did ask for help from her father when the latter was about to leave, but the appellant pushed her and refused to let her go with her father. @T9$, >uly %0, 012&, pp. %E-%FA.

%&

The actuations of both Aida and her father are highly incredible. They are not the natural reactions of a tenyear old child who has been detained against her will for two weeks and who has tried unsuccessfully to escape three times. The fact that her father was already there was the perfect opportunity for Aida to try and get away from the appellant. 9he could have clung to him from the moment he came in instead of #uietly observing him and the appellant talk for some time. Aida did not go with her father because the appellant allegedly told her not to go. 'or someone who had been detained against her will, as between her father and her detainor, Aida would have disregarded the appellant"s order and would have run to her father. $either is it believable that a father who has been desperately looking for his two minor daughters for two weeks would 4ust calmly accept the appellant"s refusal to let go of his daughter. The Court is not unaware of previous pronouncements that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction. @,eople v. Aldeguer, -.*. $o. =-.&110, April B, 011/: ,eople v. 9alufrania, 0E1 9C*A ./0, .0E.0F R0122SA Dut as discussed above, the testimony of Aida Hillanueva does not inspire credibility. Well-settled is the rule that evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible itself. $o better test has yet been found to measure the value of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common e3perience of mankind. @,eople v. (aspil, -.*. $o. 2E0&&, August %/, 011/: ,eople v. (aribung, 0.1 9C*A %1%, %1& R012&SA The fact of detention is also denied by the testimony of one of the prosecution witnesses. 9gt. Ariate stated that: 333 333 333 ; Gou also saw Aida Hillanueva7 A Ges, sir. ; Where did you see her7 A Dy the door of her store ... going inside. @T9$, !ctober %%, 012&, p.0/A 5t is apparent that Aida had free access going in and out of the appellant"s residence. 5n fact, Aida could have escaped at that particular period of time. 9he was three feet away from the appellant when 9gt. Ariate saw her @T9$, !ctober %%, 012&, p. 0/A so she could have made a run for it if she really wanted to go. There is also the #uestion of 9gt. Ariate"s conflicting statements as to the answer of Aida"s father about his missing daughters which was dismissed by the trial court as a minor inconsistency. 5n his testimony, he stated that Aida"s father said that he 4ust sent his two daughters on an errand and they were already missing @T9$, !ctober %%, 012&, p. 1A while in his answer to the #uestions propounded to him he stated that Aida"s father admitted that his daughter ran away. @*ecords, p. 0EA 9uch conflicting statements taken together with the statement of Charito Hillanueva, the father of the victim that Aida Hillanueva and Avelyn Hillanueva, 0/ and F yrs. old were @sicA left their house without his consent, @*ecords, p. 0%FA recorded in the blotter dated >uly %B, 012F cast doubt on the criminal liability of the appellant. The answer of 9gt. Ariate to the #uestions propounded to him and the statement in the blotter corroborate the appellant"s testimony that the two children ran away from home. @T9$, April %%, 0122, pp. .-EA The unbelievable and conflicting evidence of the prosecution strengthens the version of the appellant that she took pity on the two runaway children and decided to give them food and shelter. Whether or not she treated them like unpaid servants is not in issue. What is apparent from the records is the absence of proof showing kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Another circumstance that belies the kidnapping charge is the une3plained delay in the lodging of the complaint against the appellant. An entire week passed before the complaint was lodged on >uly %B, 012F. @9ee ,eople v. Antonio, 0F0 9C*A &%, 20 R0122SA The fourth circumstance present which calls for the reversal of the conviction is that there is no motive whatsoever for the appellant to kidnap the two children. The appellant is a woman of sufficient means. 5t is undisputed that she is the owner of a store and was the employer of two maids at the time of the incident. 9he did not know the two children prior to the incident. 6ad she wanted to hire an additional maid, she could certainly afford to hire another one without going to the e3tent of committing a crime as serious as kidnapping. There was no need to kidnap a minor and force her to work against her will. The appellant had everything to lose and nothing to gain if it is true that she kidnapped the two children. $o motive was ever propounded by the prosecution. We are thus ushered to applying the precept that though proof of motive is not indispensable to conviction, yet a void in the evidence in this respect discloses a weakness in the case for the prosecution. @,eople v. (odesto, %E 9C*A BF, .F R01F2S 5t has also been held in ,eople v. Mamora, E1 ,hil. EF2, EF1, R01B.SA: 333 333 333

%2

5n the case at bar, no motive for the killing has been established, and granting that proof of particular motive for taking the life of a human being is not indispensable to conviction for homicide, the absence of such motive is nevertheless important in determining which of two conflicting theories is more likely to be true. @Imphasis suppliedA And finally, the e3ecution of the affidavit of desistance by Charito Hillanueva, complainant in the kidnapping case, stating that his daughters were not detained after all by the appellant taken together with the circumstances abovementioned has the effect of e3culpating the appellant from the charge of kidnapping. As held in Gome) v. !ntermediate Appellate &ourt @0BE 9C*A F%/, FB/ R012ESA: 333 333 333 5t is conceded that the 9tate has the sovereign right to prosecute criminal offenses under the full control of the fiscal and that the dismissal of criminal cases by the e3ecution of an affidavit of desistance by the complainant is not looked upon with favor. 6owever, it is also true that an affidavit of desistance may create serious doubts as to the liability of the accused. At the very least, it calls for a second hard look at the records of the case and the basis for the 4udgment of conviction. >urisprudence on the effect of desistance notwithstanding, the affidavit should not be peremptorily dismissed as a useless scrap of paper. @Imphasis suppliedA The instant case falls under the e3ception where an affidavit of desistance is given due consideration. 9ignificantly, the father of the two girls testified in open court on $ovember %., 012& that he was withdrawing the case and that his children were not detained. The prosecution had every opportunity to cross-e3amine or tear apart the retraction and prove that the facts were as earlier alleged. 5t failed to do so. The 9olicitor -eneral #uotes the trial court"s statement that: 333 333 333 5f the accused thought that the evidence of the prosecution was fabricated or false, the accused could have presented her two maids as witnesses to testify to rebut said evidence. 6er failure to introduce them as witnesses could only mean that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses about the detention of Aida in her house were all true. @*ollo, p. %0A 5t is a well-entrenched rule in our 4urisprudence that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence rather than on the weakness of the defense. @,eople v. de 8ios, -.*. $o. E20&., >uly F, 011/: ,eople v. 8omingo, 0FE 9C*A F%/, F%F R0122SA 5n this case, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. W6I*I'!*I, the 4udgment of the trial court is hereby *IHI*9I8 and 9IT A958I and appellant Carmen =im is AC;C5TTI8 of the crime charged for failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 9! !*8I*I8.

%1

G.R. No. L-*7%2* &'#e 2%, 192* THE +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, appellee, vs. ANTONIO O@UICO, ROMULO LAGARIO a("a$ BRo3e("o La3ar"oB, a#. ARNIDO CALOSOR, accused, ROMULO LAGARIO a("a$ BRo3e("o La3ar"oB, appellant. ,he *olicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. $ose ,. 7ery for appellant. +ER CURIAM0 This is an automatic review of the 4udgment of the Court of 'irst 5nstance of =eyte in Criminal Case $o. E2/ finding the accused, *omulo =agario alias *ogelio =agario, guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentencing him as follows: 5$ H5IW !' T6I '!*I-!5$-, in spite of a personal wish of the undersigned trial >udge, that he be not constrained so to do, but finding herein accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special comple3 crime of robbery with homicide, and considering the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, recidivism and habitual delin#uency, not having been offset by any mitigating circumstance, accused *omulo =agario is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of 0%A,6. The Court further orders the accused to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of ,0%,///.//: and to pay the costs. 9! !*8I*I8. 8one this 0/th day of >uly 01&B, in the City of Tacloban, ,hils. The information for robbery with homicide in the instant case was originally filed on $ovember 00, 01&0 charging three accused, namely: Antonio !#ui<o *omulo =agario alias *ogelio =agario and Arnido Calosor. An amended information was later filed on !ctober %B, 01&% likewise charging the said three accused but adding four @.A aggravating circumstances which reads as follows: That on or about the 0/th of !ctober, 01&0, in the City of Tacloban, ,hilippines, and within the 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the abovenamed accused conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, armed with bolos @pisaoA with deliberate intent and with intent to kill and with the use of violence and with intent to gain did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and carry away a wrist watch marked *A8! with serial $o. 00FE2 valued in the amount of ,FE/.// and by reason thereof and or on occasion thereof, attack, assault and stab one Anecito ,arades with a bolo @pisaoA which accused have provided for the purposes causing his instantaneous death. Contrary to Art. %1., par. 5 of the *evised ,enal Code, with the following aggravating circumstances: @0A That the crime was committed in the nighttime thereby facilitating its commission and enabling the accused to commit the crime with impunity. @%A That the accused all of whom were armed, took advantage of their superior strength: @BA That the accused is a recidivist, having been convicted by final 4udgment of three @BA counts of Theft which, together with the present charge, are embraced in the same title of the *evised ,enal Code: @.A That the accused, *omulo =agario is a habitual delin#uent, having been previously found guilty by final 4udgment in the City Court of Tacloban, in the following cases, to wit:

Crime Theft @*-0%,11&A Theft @*-0B,F21A Theft @*-0B,F10A

8ate Committed .-0E-F2 .-01-F1 B-%1-F1

1

Convicted E-%2-F2 &-%-F1 0/-%2-F1

8ate *eleased (arch %2, 01F1 'ebruary %, 01&0 'ebruary %, 01&0

Tacloban City, !ctober %B, 01&%. Accused Antonio !#ui<o died on 'ebruary E, 01&% 2 while accused Arnido Calosor was never apprehended and remained at large. * 6ence, only accused *omulo =agario was arraigned on !ctober %F, 01&%. 6e pleaded not guilty to the crime charged and trial on the merits followed. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is summari+ed in the ,eople"s brief as follows:

B/

At about &:%E o"clock in the evening of !ctober 0/, 01&0, (arina Cy and her deceased sweetheart, Aniceto ,arades, were strolling and conversing at the Children"s ,ark in Tacloban City. 5t rained. They took shelter in one of the miniature houses and sat on one of the protruding beams of the balcony facing the door. 9uddenly accused Calosor opened the door together with his co-accused, =agario @sicA and !#ui<o @pp. %-., tsn, Dugho, (arch 2, 01&BA. They went inside, brandished their boloes @pisaoan eight-inch knifeA and threatened them. 9urprised, the duo fell backward. !#ui<o held (arina"s right hand and dragged her away. =agario and Calosor took Aniceto to the side of the small house and wanted to take his wrist watch @pp. E1, tsn, !d.A. (arina was able to free herself from !#ui<os hold, for her hand was wet and slippery. !#ui<o 4oined =agario and Calosor. 6e took hold of Aniceto"s front T-shirt. Then, =agario stabbed Aniceto at the solar ple3us @chestA and Calosor at the back. The stab wound inflicted by =agario perforated the heart through and through and Calosor"s perforated the right lung @I3hibit A , p. 0// 'older of I3hibitsA. (arina saw the stabbing as the place was lighted with a (ercury lamp. After =agario and Calosor stabbed Aniceto, (arina ran away to ask for help. 9he went to the =eyte ,rovincial >ail accompanied by a man. 9omebody at the 4ail tdalked to the telephone. After about twenty @%/A minutes, she returned and found Aniceto wounded. 6is wrist watch was no longer with him @pp. 1-0B, tsn, !d.A 9he saw again !#ui<o and =agario in 4ail. ,at, de la ,e<a showed to her the wrist watch taken which was recovered from a whom =agario had asked to sell the watch @pp. 0.-0F, tsn. , !d.A. They took the bleeding Aniceto to the City 6ospital where he died @p. 02, tsn, !d.A. Accused =agario had three convictions for theft in Criminal Case $os. *-0BF10 dated !ctober %/, 01F1 @I3hibit 8 , p. 0/%, 'older of I3hibits *-0%11& dated (ay %2, 01F2 @I3hibit I , ,. 0/B, 5d.A and *-0BF21 dated >uly %, 01F1 @I3hibit ' p. 0/., !d.A. (arina was emphatic in saying that she actually saw !#ui<o help =agario and Calosor in subduing Aniceto and in attempting to take the latter"s wrist watch @pp. ./- .0, tsn, !d.A. ,atrolman Wilfredo de la ,e<a of the Tacloban City ,olice 'orce investigated the stabbing incident in which the victim was Aniceto ,arades. Among the three suspects, he apprehended only =agario and !#ui<o the latter, however, died before the case was terminated. The investigation was done in the presence of other police investigators and =agario"s relatives. At the instance of the two accused, ,at. de la ,e<a recovered the wrist watch of the deceased from one Agripino Aguilos, alias Agri , a bus driver @p. F, tsn, 9antos, April %E, 01&BA. They admitted that they took the wrist watch from the victim @pp. .%-.E, tsn, Dugho (arch 2, 01&%A. The cadaver of Aniceto *. ,arades was autopsied by 8r. >uanito C. de la Cru+, the assistant city fiscal health officer and medico-legal officer of Tacloban City @I3hibit A , p. 0//, 'older of I3hibitsA. The deceased received two @%A stab wounds: !ne @0A at the middle of the chest perforating the heart through and through and the other at the back perforating the right lung @I3hibit D , D-0 , and D-% , p. 0/0, 'older of I3hibitsA. Two @%A different sharp-pointed double-edged instruments were used in inflicting the two @%A fatal wounds @pp. %-&, tsn, 9antos, 'ebruary 01, 01&BA. And, considering the location of the wounds, the assailant"s were directly in front and directly at the back of the victim @p. 1, tsn, !d.A. The accused presented the following version of the inccident as submitted in his brief: At the hearing of April %E, 01&B, the accused *omulo =agario, %/ years old, single, laborer and a resident of Tacloban City, testified that on !ctober 0/, 01&0 at around &:// o"clock in the evening he was strolling with Tony !#ui<o at the children"s park at Tacloban City, when somebody was killed: that while they were strolling, it rained and they took shelter in a small hut at the children"s park @tsn, %-BA: that there he saw a man and a woman whose names he did not know: that !#ui<o talked to the man and thereafter he saw !#ui<o bo3ed the man and stabbed him in the middle part of the abdomen @tsn, .A: that the man slumped forward and he saw !#ui<o again stabbed the man on the back, that he then ran away leaving !#ui<o and the man there. 6e also testified that he met !#ui<o at the pier of Tacloban in the morning of the ne3t day aboard the motorboat 9amareno, who re#uested him to sell a watch @tsn EA: that he told !#ui<o he could not sell the watch himself but would look for someone to sell the watch for !#ui<o that he re#uested Agripino Aguilos to sell the watch: that Agripino was unable to sell the watch retaining possession of it @tsn, FA: that the watch came into the custody of the 9ecret 9ervice 8ivision because when he was apprehended he told the police where the watch was and they took possession of it @tsn, &A. 6e also testified that he did not know a woman named (arina Cy who testified against him although he had occasion to see the woman he mentioned in that incident of !ct. 0/, 01&0 in the courtroom. !n cross-e3amination, he admitted that he was present when !#ui<o stabbed the man he referred to in his direct e3amination @tsn, 2A, that after the stabbing he left !#ui<o at the place: that he e3ecuted an affidavit in connection with the case but he is not sure if I3h. - is the same affidavit he e3ecuted: that he did not subscribe and swear to the affidavit I3h. - , before 'iscal 9ano @tsn, 1-0/A: that Antonio !#ui<o gave him

B0

the wrist watch: that he did not know a person by the name of Arnido Calosor @tsn, 00-0%A. The accused was the only witness who testified in his behalf in view of the fact that at the time of the trial he was an inmate in the City >ail and, therefore, unable to sure a witness or at least contact them. The trial court as aforesaid, refused to give credence to the evidence of the defendant and convicted him of the crime of robbery with homicide. 5n the instant review, defendant"s counsel de oficio contends that trial court committed the following errors: 5 The lower court erred in giving fun faith and credence to the biased, unnatural, improbable and conflicting testimony of (arina Cy. 55 The lower court erred in finding that the accused is guilty of robbery. 555 The lower court erred in admitting I3hibit - an alleged sworn statement by the accused before 'iscal 9ano over the ob4ection of the accused. 5H The lower court erred in not believing the testimony of =agario and in not ac#uitting him of the offenses charged. Cnder the first assignment of error, accused-appellant seeks to discredit the testimony of (arina Cy, first, because she is the girl friend of the deceased victim, Anecito ,arades, second, because her testimony is uncorroborated, and third, because of the alleged inconsistencies that were attendant in her direct e3amination. The rule is well-established that a witness" relationship to the victim does not, by itself, impair his credibility. % !n the contrary, it would be unnatural for such persons interested in seeing retribution e3acted for the crime to impute the same to any person other than those responsible for the crime. 5 While it may be true that (arina Cy is embittered by the irreparable loss of a loved one, her declaration is firm, cogent, credible and straightforward. 5t is far from being tainted and pre4udiced. 5t has also been held that even assuming that the testimony of the principal eyewitness was not properly corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses, it is still sufficient to warrant the conviction of the accused, since it is also well-settled that the testimony of a single witness which satisfies the court in a given case, is sufficient to convict. 5 The accused-appellant points to the flaws or inconsistencies in (arina Cy"s testimony which refer to the weapon or criminal agency that caused ,arades" death, her distance from the alleged protagonists after the lapse of B minutes that she ran away to call for assistance, and her e3aggerated and contradictory assertion that she saw the knife penetrate the body of the deceased. 7 Appellant claims that it is doubtful whether the weapon used to lull ,arades was a pisao or a bolo or a knife because the principal eyewitness vacillated when she testified in court. At one time, she testified that the three accused threatened her and her deceased boyfriend with their pisao 2 only to admit later that she did not see the bolos brandished at the time. At another time, she claimed that the weapon was a pisao, about eight @2A inches long 9 only to claim later that she did not know what kind of weapon it was. 10 Then at another time, she testified that she actually saw the knife of Calosor enter the body of ,arades 11 only to contradict herself again by testifying that she did not actually the knife penetrate the body. 12 Appellant ne3t casts doubt on the claim of (arina Cy that she saw how ,arades was stabbed because she also claimed that she ran away after she was able to free herself from the hold of !#ui<o. The above inconsistencies are too trivial and unsubstantial to merit a reversal of the decision. !wing to the fast succession of the events in addition to the fear engendered by the same an eyewitness" inability to see the minute details of every se#uence, to measure by metes and bounds the distances between one point to another as well as tell the e3act minutes that have elapsed, is not unusual. Desides, the seeming contradictions are e3plainable. 5n general, the testimony of (arina Cy presents a credible set of facts. 9he testified that she and her boyfriend, while seated on one of the protruding beams of the balcony of a miniature house at the Children"s ,ark, were threatened by appellant together with two other companions. 9he may not have seen clearly the weapons when the three opened the door as she was taken aback as in fact she fell with her boyfriend to the ground but eventually saw the weapons. 1* As to the kind of weapons, it should be noted that she did not make a categorical answer that it was a pisao, about eight inches long. 9he preceded her statement with the 5 did not actually see it at that time. 1% Then on cross-e3amination, she e3plicitly declared that she did not actually know the kind of the weapons they had. 15 6ence, there is no basis for the alleged contradictions.

B%

With respect to the alleged inconsistency in the testimony of (arina Cy as to whether or not she saw the weapon actually penetrate the body of the victim, We find that her testimony in cross-e3amination is clear that she actually saw it. Whatever she may have said that she saw it because of the action of the forward thrust have been clarified in her later statements. Desides, whether she saw the actual penetration or the action of the forward thrust do not really matter as the latter does not mean any other thing. The stubborn fact remains that the defenseless victim was stabbed by a sharp-pointed instrument. 15 !n the contention of the accused that (arina Cy could not have seen the stabbing as she also claimed that she ran away after she freed herself from the clutch of !#ui<o suffice it to state that said argument departs from human nature. The knowledge that one is no longer pursued would naturally make him or her stop and look back especially when a loved one is left behind. This was what (arina did as clearly indicated in her testimony. 6ence, she saw the actual assailants. We disagree with appellant"s contention that there was no unlawful taking of the wrist watch and that the prosecution failed to prove the element of intent of gain. ,roof as to motive for the crime, that is, the accused intended to rob or only to kill the victim, is important or essential when the evidence on the commission of the robbery is purely circumstantial or inclusive, 17 as in this case. (otive may be inferred from the following circumstances: @0A that certain 4ewelry and money found to be missing from the house of the deceased a short time after the homicide was subse#uently found at a place indicated by the accused: 12 and @%A that the money which the deceased had at the beginning of the assault had disappeared when the body was being removed, although strewn above were a handkerchief, buttons torn from his shirt, and other articles. 19 9imilarly, the motive to rob was duly proven in this case by the categorical statement of (arina Cy that while appellant and Calosor were dragging Aniceto to the side of the hut, they wanted to take his watch 20 coupled with the disappearance of the wrist watch when she returned to the wounded Aniceto after seeking help and its subse#uent recovery from a certain Agripino Aguilos whose name was supplied to the police by the appellant and his co-accused, Antonio !#ui<o after their arrest. The intent to gain from the taking of the watch is clearly indicated in appellant"s testimony that he was asked by !#ui<o to sell the watch. 21 We likewise do not find merit in the contention of appellant that his sworn statement @I3hibit - A is inadmissible for the reason that he is illiterate and there is no evidence presented that he understood the same which was in the Inglish language. 9aid sworn statement was admitted because >ose 9ano, the Assistant City 'iscal of Tacloban before whom the same was subscribed and sworn to, 5dentified in court appellant"s right-hand thumbmark and declared that said thumbmark was affi3ed in the presence of a witness who also signed said statement. 6e also testified that prior to the g of the thumbmark, he e3plained to appellant the contents of the statement in a dialect he knew and understood. (oreover, in his testimony, appellant admitted having e3ecuted an affidavit in connection with this case. 22 6e merely denied having sworn to the truth of the statement. Dut never did he impugn the same from the time he e3ecuted it on !ctober 0., 01&0 up to the date he testified on April %E, 01&B. We #uote hereunder pertinent portions of the sworn statement of the accused bearing on his participation in the crime charged: 8uestion and Ans#er 7o. 9: ;uestion ? Why were you picked up by the police7 Answer ? Decause 5 had a participation in a robbing and stabbing incident. 8uestion and Ans#er 7o. ;: ; ? Who were your companions in this incident when happened7 A ? (y companions were Antonio !#ui<o and Arnido Calosor, alias Arnel and Arnul. 8uestion and Ans#er 7o. <: ; ? Where did this incident occur7 A ? !n or about &:%E p.m. !ctober 0/, 01&0 at ,la+a =ibertad, this City, inside the Children"s ,ark. @pp. %E-%F, *ecordsA The trial court in its decision made use of the said sworn statement to impeach the credibility of the accused in view of its inconsistency with his testimony in court on the time of the incident, the number of his companions, the person who gave him the watch as wen as on whether or not he witnessed the incident. Thus, the trial court correctly relied on the principle that the testimony of an accused does not merit credit or inspire confidence when it is inconsistent and incompatible with his statement on other occasions. 2* $evertheless, even without the sworn statement, it is clear in the testimony of the accused that he was at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed, that he was in the company of !#ui<o one of the perpetrators of the crime: and that the watch was recovered from the person indicated by him and !#ui<o

BB

All these show his complicity in the crime. 6is sheer defense that he had nothing to do with it cannot be believed as against the positive and interlocking testimony of (arina Cy who identified him and Calosor as the one who stabbed her boyfriend at the solar ple3us and the back, respectively, as corroborated by the testimony of the doctor who confirmed the possibility of the use of two different weapons and inevitably of two assailants, as well as by the testimony of 8etective Wilfredo de la ,e<a who successfully retrieved the watch e3actly from the person pointed to by the accused. The lower court correctly found the different testimonies of the prosecution witnesses far more credible than the sole and negative testimony of the accused. Desides, where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court are given great weight, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. That the crime of robbery with homicide was committed by the accused has, thus, been duly proven beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court properly took 4udicial notice of the documents marked as I3hibit I , I3hibit ' and I3hibit 8 , proving the aggravating circumstance of recidivism against the herein accused. Dy reason of his previous three convictions by final 4udgment for the crime of theft, the lower court also rightly considered him as a habitual delin#uent. The assault against the unarmed victim having been perpetrated by three armed men, there is no doubt that abuse of superior strength characteri+ed the crime. We agree with the trial court that there was no evidence to show that nighttime was sought purposely or taken advantage of to facilitate the perpetration of the offense. 'inding no error in the decision of the trial court, We hereby A''5*( the death sentence and the civil liability of ,0%,///.// due to the heirs of the victim, imposed on accused *omulo =agario owing to the presence of the aggravating circumstances of recidivism, habitual delin#uency and abuse of superior strength with no mitigating circumstance to offset the same. 9! !*8I*I8.

B.

G.R. No. 175592 Oc!o7er 29, 2002 ANGEL U/ALES ) 1ELE-, ,etitioner, vs. +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, *espondent. 8IC595!$ CHICO-NA-ARIO, J.: While the correctness of a 8ecision is not impaired solely by the fact that the writer took over from a colleague who had earlier presided at trial, it is the bounden duty of appellate courts to even more closely e3amine the testimonies of the witnesses whose deportment the writer was not able to observe. This is a ,etition for *eview on Certiorari under *ule .E of the *ules of Court seeking the reversal of the 8ecision0 of the Court of Appeals in CA--.*. C* $o. %220B dated B/ $ovember %//F. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the 8ecision of the *egional Trial Court of (anila, Dranch BB, in Criminal Case $o. /0-01F&0B finding petitioner Angel Cbales y Hele+ @CbalesA guilty of the crime of homicide. !n B/ !ctober %//0, the Assistant City ,rosecutor filed an 5nformation against petitioner Cbales for the crime of homicide allegedly committed as follows: That on or about !ctober 0&, %//0, in the City of (anila, ,hilippines, the said accused, armed with a .B2 caliber paltik revolver marked 9mith and Wesson, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon one (A*) TA$-=AW 9A$T!9 y !*,5A$A by then and there shooting the latter on the head, thereby inflicting upon him mortal gun shot wound which was the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter. % !n the same date, the I3ecutive >udge issued an !rder of *elease in view of a personal bail bond filed by Cbales. !n 01 $ovember %//0, petitioner Cbales, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty of the offense charged. The prosecution presented as witnesses Iduardo -alvan, 9,!0 Iduardo I. )o, =aila Cherry Cru+, 9,!% *osales (. 'ernande+, ,NChief 5nspector Carlos -. (ende+, and Ifigenia 9antos. The prosecution also presented as evidence (edico =egal *eport $o. W-&B&-%//0 and the receipt of the funeral e3penses incurred. =aila Cherry Cru+, the sister of (ark 9antos, testified that on 0F !ctober %//0, at about 2 p.m., petitioner Cbales and the deceased (ark 9antos @(arkA were drinking li#uor in front of the victimQs house at .BB. 5nterior E Albina 9treet, 9ta. (esa, (anila. They were with a group which included a certain >on->on, 9olo ,ere+, and >o4o 9antos. 5n the course of their carousal, Cbales and (ark engaged in an argument about the former calling the latterQs cousin a homose3ual. (ark told Cbales not to meddle because he @CbalesA did not know what was happening within his @(arkQsA family. The argument was soon apparently resolved, with Cbales patting the shoulders of (ark. The carousal ended at 0 a.m. the following day. (ark and Cbales went inside the house. Cbales asked permission from =aila Cru+ to use their comfort room. Defore Cbales went inside the comfort room, =aila Cru+ saw Cbales place his gun with black stripes on top of the dining table. (ark asked permission from his mother to bring Cbales to his house in >.,. =aurel 9treet and also asked for money so that they could eat lugaw on their way there. (ark and Cbales then left. Iduardo -alvan @-alvanA, a FE-year old balut vendor and the best friend of the deceased (ark 9antos, testified that at B a.m. in the morning of 0& !ctober %//0, while he was selling balut near the (alaca<ang area, he saw (ark and Cbales #uarreling around a meter away from him. The argument lasted for about three minutes, culminating with Cbales taking out his gun and shooting (ark on the head. -alvan is certain about this, as he was still only one meter away from (ark and Cbales when the former shot the latter, and the place was well-illuminated. When (ark fell, Cbales ran towards Atien+a 9treet. -alvan also testified that he was an ac#uaintance of Cbales for about five months prior to the incident. 9,!0 Iduardo )o testified that he was assigned as the night-shift investigator of the 6omicide 9ection of the Western ,olice 8istrict @W,8A when he received a report at around B:EE a.m. of 0& !ctober %//0 that a body was found at >ose ,. =aurel 9t. corner (atien+a 9t., 9an (iguel, (anila. Cpon arrival thereat, he, together with 9,!0 Denito Cabatbat, saw (arkQs body, which had no in4ury other than a gunshot wound on the forehead, lying on its left side. The gunshot appeared to have been fired at close range because it had powder burns around the entry of the wound. They proceeded to interview people at the scene, during which time a barangay official named Abraham 9ison turned over a .B2 Caliber snub nose paltik revolver with three live bullets and one empty shell. The gun was recovered several meters away from where the victimQs body was found. 9,!% *osales 'ernande+ testified that at around B p.m. of %E !ctober %//0, while he was at home, =aila Cru+ approached him and asked for his assistance in apprehending Cbales who was spotted near the

BE

(alaca<ang area. 9,!% 'ernande+ reported to the 6omicide 9ection of the W,8 that a murder suspect was seen in the vicinity of (alaca<ang. 9,!% 'ernande+ and =aila Cru+ then proceeded to >. ,. =aurel 9treet, where =aila Cru+ pointed at the person she identified to be the one who killed her brother. 9,!% 'ernande+, introducing himself as a police officer, approached Cbales. 9,!% 'ernande+ found out that Cbales was a former member of the ,hilippine $ational ,olice @,$,A 9pecial Action 'orce. 6e apprised Cbales of his rights and invited him to go to the ,$, 'ield 'orce for proper investigation. Cbales told 9,!% 'ernande+ that he would voluntarily 4oin him to prove to him that he was not in hiding. Defore going to the ,$, 'ield 'orce, 9,!% 'ernande+ and Cbales went to the ,hilippine -eneral 6ospital in order to have Cbales undergo a medical e3amination. 9,!% 'ernande+ and Cbales proceeded to the ,$, (alaca<ang 'ield 'orce to coordinate with them, since the latter made the initial investigation of the shooting incident. At the (alaca<ang 'ield 'orce, Cbales was brought to the 6omicide 9ection for investigation and description. 9,!% 'ernande+ admitted during cross e3amination that the arrest of Cbales came before witness -alvan appeared and e3ecuted a sworn statement. ,NChief 5nspector Carlos -. (ende+, a forensic firearm e3aminer, testified that on E $ovember %//0, he received a .B2 caliber paltik revolver with three bullets and one empty shell from 8esk !fficer ,!% =ope+. 6e e3amined it by firing the same. The gun was marked as I3hibit 6 . =aila Cru+ then testified that said gun was the same one she saw (ark place on the dining table the night before her brother was killed. The prosecution and the defense stipulated that the cause of death of (ark was a gunshot wound, frontal region, measuring /.E 3 /.. cm, B cm right of the anterior midline, with a uniform collar measuring /.% and an area of tattooing measuring F3E cm, directed posteriorward, downward and medialward, fracturing the frontal bone, lacerating both cerebral hemisphere of the brain, with a deformed slug recovered at the cerebellum as stated in the Crime =aboratory report prepared and signed by 8r. *omeo 9alen, the medicolegal officer of !5C W,8C=!, documented as (edico-=egal *eport $o. W-&B&-%//0. After the prosecution rested its case, Cbales filed a (otion to 'ile 8emurrer to Ividence on the ground that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to destroy the presumption of innocence of the accused. The trial court denied the (otion and accordingly set the hearing for presentation of the evidence of the defense. Cbales testified that on 0F !ctober %//0, at around F or & p.m., he went to the home of his friend -uido Almosera on Cli-Cli 9treet, where he saw >oseph )arunungan, *ico 9ison, Iric (ar#ue+ and 6enry ,once. The group was initially engaged in light conversation until -uido Almosera brought out some li#uor while they were playing the guitar. Cbales stayed with the group until 0/ p.m., when he left for 9ta. (esa to go to the house of a certain Ale3 to meet a man named Doy. 6e arrived at Ale3Qs house at around 00 p.m., but left immediately when he learned that Doy was already asleep. Along the way, he saw (ark who had been having a drinking spree with other persons. 6e decided to 4oin the group for a while before returning home. At around 0% midnight, Cbales bade leave to go home. (ark went along with him to the place where he could get a ride home. They parted ways and Cbales got on a 4eep which he rode to >.,. =aurel 9treet. 6e stopped by a &-Ileven convenience store and bought something to eat before proceeding home. !n the way home, Cbales saw the group of -uido Almosera still having drinks. 6e decided to 4oin them again until around 0 a.m. of 0& !ctober %//0. Cbales testified that although he is a former policeman, he no longer had a gun and that his sidearm is in the custody of the W,8. 6e stated further that he was arrested without a warrant. The defense also presented the testimonies of -uido Almosera and 6enry $orman ,once. Doth witnesses essentially corroborated the testimony of Cbales that he was with their group from & p.m. to 0/ p.m. on 0F !ctober %//0 and then from around 0%:B/ a.m. to % a.m. of 0& !ctober %//0. CbalesQ sister, 5rene *iparip, testified that her brother was at their home until around &:// p.m. on 0F !ctober %//0, and he returned around 0 a.m. in the morning of 0& !ctober %//0. 9he stated that Cbales did not leave the house after he returned because she stayed awake until . a.m. !n %/ >uly %//., the *egional Trial Court rendered its 8ecision finding Angel Cbales guilty of the crime of homicide, as follows: W6I*I'!*I, the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, 4udgment is hereby rendered C!$H5CT5$- the accused as principal in the crime of homicide and he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten @0/A years of ,rision (ayor as minimum, to fourteen @0.A years, eight @2A months and one @0A day medium of *eclusion Temporal, as ma3imum. The accused is also ordered to pay the heirs of the offended party the amount of ,E/,///.// as civil indemnity, ,E/,///.// as moral damages, and ,2,///.// as actual damages.B !n %2 >uly %//., the trial court issued an !rder giving provisional liberty to Cbales provided the bonding company agrees to the e3tension of the bond. !n B/ >uly %//., the bonding company manifested its assent to continue its undertaking as bondsman for Cbales during the pendency of his appeal. Cbales appealed to

BF

the Court of Appeals. The case was docketed thereon as CA--.*. C* $o. %220B. !n B/ $ovember %//F, the Court of Appeals rendered its 8ecision affirming with modification the 8ecision of the *egional Trial Court, as follows: W6I*I'!*I, premises considered, the 8ecision of the *egional Trial Court of (anila, Dranch BB in Criminal Case $o. /0-01F&0B finding the accused-appellant Angel Cbales y Hele+ guilty of the crime of 6omicide is A''5*(I8 with (!85'5CAT5!$. The heirs of the victim (ark Tanglaw 9antos are further awarded the amount of ,%E,///.// as temperate damages.. 6ence, this ,etition, where Cbales presents the following issues for our consideration: 5 W6IT6I* !* $!T T6I IH58I$CI '!* T6I ,*!9ICCT5!$ ,*!HI9 T6AT ,IT5T5!$I* C!((5TTI8 T6I C*5(I C6A*-I8 DIG!$8 *IA9!$AD=I 8!CDT. 55 W6IT6I* !* $!T T6I A885T5!$A= AWA*8 !' TWI$TG-'5HI T6!C9A$8 ,I9!9 @,6,%E,///.//A A9 TI(,I*ATI 8A(A-I9 59 5$ ACC!*8 W5T6 =AW A$8 T6I *I=IHA$T 8IC595!$9 !' T6I 6!$!*AD=I 9C,*I(I C!C*T.E ,etitioner Cbales claims that the prosecution has failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the Court of Appeals had erred in giving credence to -alvanQs testimony which allegedly defies common e3perience. After a meticulous review of the records of the case at bar, we are constrained to agree with petitioner Cbales. ,etitioner Cbales was arrested on %E !ctober %//0, eight days after (arkQs body was found. CbalesQ arrest was made by 9,!% *osales 'ernande+ at the insistence of =aila Cru+, who approached 9,!% 'ernande+ for assistance in apprehending Cbales. Cp to the time of this arrest, the only piece of evidence which remotely links Cbales to the killing of (ark 9antos is the recovery of a gun resembling a gun allegedly seen by =aila Cru+ in his @CbalesQA possession the night (ark was killed. This gun found several meters away from where (arkQs body was found but was never identified as the gun where the bullet that killed (ark came from. All that the forensic firearm e3aminer testified to about this gun was that this is a .B2 caliber paltik revolver with three bullets and one empty shell. The slug found in the head of (ark was never sub4ected to a ballistic e3amination, either. 5t was at this point, when Angel Cbales had already been arrested despite the lack of evidence clearly linking him to the crime, that (ark 9antosQ best friend, balut vendor Iduardo -alvan, appeared and e3ecuted a sworn statement that he was an eyewitness to the killing of (ark 9antos. 6e proceeded to identify Angel Cbales without the benefit of a police line-up. Thereafter, he became the star witness in the prosecution of Angel Cbales. 5n order to illuminate the analysis of Iduardo -alvanQs testimony against Angel Cbales, we reproduce its relevant portions as follows: ;: !n !ctober 0&, %//0 at about B:// in the morning, did you sell your balut7 A: Ges, sir. ;: At that time in what place were you7 A: $ear (alaca<ang. ;: What is the name of the street7 A: 5 forgot the name of the street. ATTG. (!*A=I9: ;: CanQt you recall the name of the street7 W5T$I99: A: Ges, sir. ;: Gou said the street near (alaca<ang7 A: Ges, sir. ;: $ow while selling balut near (alaca<ang, have you witnessed an incident7 A: Ges, sir. ;: What is that incident7 A: A #uarrel. ;: Who was #uarrelling at that time7 A: Angel. ;: And who7 A: (ark. ;: What is the surname of (ark7 A: 5 forgot the surname but the name is (ark.

B&

;: 6ow about Angel, what is the surname of Angel7 A: 5 cannot recall the surname. ;: 5f Angel is inside the courtroom will you please go down and approach him and point to him7 A: @witness tap shoulder of a person who when asked his name answered Angel CbalesA ;: $ow you said there was a #uarrel between Angel and (ark. Where were you when you saw them #uarreling, how far were you from them7 A: About one @0A meter more or less. ;: 6ow long did they #uarrel7 A: About three @BA minutes. ;: After three @BA minutes what happened7 A: Angel suddenly drew something. ;: What is that something that Angel drew7 A: -un, sir, a shining gun. ATTG. -A*I$A: (ay we put on record that witness is demonstrating his hand pulling a gun pointing upward. ATTG. (!*A=I9: ;: 'rom where did he pull the gun7 W5T$I99: A: 'rom his right waist and shot. ;: After Angel pulled out a gun what did he do7 C!C*T: 6e said he fired. ATTG. (!*A=I9: What did he do with the gun when he pulled it out from his waist7 A: 9hot and hit the victim. ;: Whom he shot7 A: (ark. ;: What part of the body was hit by the bullet7 A: 'orehead. ;: 6ow many times was (ark shot by Cbales7 A: !nly once. ;: What happened to (ark after he was shot7 A: 6e fell to the ground. ATTG. (!*A=I9: ;: 6ow far were you from these two @%A people Angel and (ark when Angel shot (ark7 W5T$I99: A: !nly one @0A meter away, 5 was near the flower bo3. ;: Gou said that it was B:// oQclock in the morning when the incident happened7 A: Ges, sir. ;: And what is the condition of the place, what @sicA it dark or bright7 A: 5t was lighted. ;: Why @sicA is the place7 A: There was a light there. ;: What kind of light was there7 A: There is an electric bulb. ;: 6ow far were these two people referring to (ark and Angel Cbales when Angel Cbales shot (ark7 A: About one @0A meter away. C!C*T: ;: 'acing each other7 W5T$I99: A: Ges, Gour 6onor. ATTG. (!*A=I9: ;: 6ow about the light, how far is the light from (ark Cbales7 A: About one @0A arm length. ;: Gou said that after Cbales shot (ark he fell down, what happened to Cbales7 A: 6e ran away.F @Imphasis supplied.A 5n the assessment of the testimonies of witnesses, this Court is guided by the rule that for evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in itself such

B2

as the common e3perience of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human testimony e3cept its conformity to our knowledge, observation, and e3perience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous, and is outside of 4uridical cogni+ance. & 9ince the alleged eyewitness was the best friend and ac#uaintance of the victim since childhood, -alvanQs testimony pointing to the accused as the perpetrator must be sub4ected to a rigid test which should demonstrate beyond cavil his truthfulness, honesty and rectitude as actual eyewitness to the perpetration of the criminal act.2 -alvanQs account is nowhere probable under the circumstances. As argued by the defense, there can be only two ways by which -alvan could have witnessed the altercation based on his testimony that he saw the whole thing within one meter from him. 'irst, -alvan walked towards the protagonists and stopped within one meter from them during their three minutes of altercation. 9econd, -alvan was already at the place where he saw the protagonists, who walked towards him, and stopped within one meter from him to engage in their #uarrel. Cpon further in#uiry from >udge *omulo =ope+, the 4udge who had heard the testimony of -alvan, but not the one who penned the *TC 8ecision, we learned from -alvan that it was the first of the two options: he was walking from the checkpoint at (alaca<ang towards =egarda 9treet before the incident. At the onset, we can easily see that -alvanQs version of the facts raises very serious #uestions. Why would Iduardo -alvan, a FE-year old man, stop one meter away from two #uarreling men at the very dangerous hour of B a.m. and stay there to watch for three minutes as if what he was witnessing is a movie scene7 6ow come neither Angel Cbales, nor -alvanQs best friend, (ark, acknowledge -alvanQs presence for the entire three minutes that they were all were barely one meter from each other, and in a well-illuminated place at that7 After Angel Cbales ran away following his shooting of (ark, why did -alvan simply leave his bloodied best friend to die on the pavement7 We should take note that Iduardo -alvan could not claim to be afraid at this point, as he had already seen Angel Cbales flee. 'urthermore, since it took an hour after the killing before the presence of the dead body of (ark 9antos was reported to the police, it can fairly be assumed that if -alvanQs version of the facts were true, there were no other people at the scene of the crime. Why was -alvan selling balut at a place with no pedestrian traffic at B a.m.7 5n reading Iduardo -alvanQs testimony, it is hard to ignore how he seemed not to remember a lot of things about the places involved in his testimony: C!C*T: ;: 6ow far is the place of the incident from the house of (ark7 A: 5 cannot estimate how far is the place of the incident and the house of (ark. ;: When you sell ballot, what time do you start7 A: 'rom 2:// oQclock in the evening up to B:// oQclock in the morning. ;: 6ow do you conduct your vending of balot7 A: 5 sell. ;: Where do you get your balot7 A: 5t was only delivered to me. ;: Where7 A: 5n the house of my friend. ;: Where is that house of your friend located7 A: ,alawan 9t. ;: Where is that ,alawan 9t. A: Dalik O Dalik. ;: 'rom ,alawan 9t. to Dalic-balic, you start selling from 2:// oQclock in the evening, how many balot have you sold7 A: About thirty @B/A pieces. ;: 'rom your house how far was that place of the incident7 A: 5 cannot estimate. ATTG. -A*I$A: 6ow many blocks from your house7 A: 5 cannot estimate, 5 4ust walk and walk. ;: !n !ctober 0&, %//0 when was the first time on !ctober 0&, %//0 you saw (ark the victim7 A: 5n the evening. C!C*T What time7 A: About B:// oQclock in the morning. ATTG. -A*I$A:

B1

That was the first time you saw (ark7 A: B:// oQclock in the morning. ;: 'rom where did you get the balot that night7 A: 5 do not know the owner of the balot, it was 4ust delivered to me. ;: 'rom your friend7 A: Ges, sir. ;: What is the name of your friend7 A: 5 cannot remember, sir. C!C*T: 8o you remember the place where this friend of yours resides when you took the balot that night7 A: 5 cannot remember. ;: 6ow many balot7 A: ./ pieces of balot. ;: And you started selling from 2:// oQclock in the evening to B:// oQclock in the morning7 A: Ges, your 6onor. ;: 6ow many pieces have you sold when the incident occurred7 A: About 0E pieces. ;: 8escribe the vicinity of the place where you took the balot7 A: 5 cannot remember. ;: ,rior to that night when you took ./ pieces of balot, you have been fre#uenting the place because you used to get your balot there7 A: The balot was delivered to me. ;: Dy your friend7 A: Ges, your 6onor. ;: 9o you are changing your previous statement that you took the balot from the place of your friend7 A: When 5 went to the place. ;: 9ince when you started selling balot which you get from that place7 A: About one year. ;: $ow (r. Witness, you said you know (ark the victim since childhood, is that correct7 A: Ges, sir. ;: 6ow about the parents of (ark, do you know them7 A: Ges, sir. ;: 6ow about the sisters and brothers, do you know them7 A: Ges, sir. ;: What is the name of (arkQs father7 A: 5 donQt know but 5 know his face. ;: 6ow about the mother7 A: Also 5 know her by face. ;: 6ow many brothers has this (ark7 A: 5 do not know Gour 6onor. ;: Gou also do not know if he has sister7 A: 6e has sister how many 5 do not know Gour 6onor. ;: When you know (ark since childhood, do you know if he is attending school7 A: Ges, Gour 6onor. ;: Where7 A: 5 do not know the school. ;: Gou also do not know what he finished7 A: 5 do not know. ;: (r. Witness, on !ctober 0&, %//0 at about B:B/ in the morning prior to that time where have you been7 A: 5 came from =egarda. ;: 8id you pass by (endiola7 A: Ges, sir. ;: 5n (endiola that is the time you are vending balot7 A: Ges, sir. ;: Gou usually shout balot7 A: Ges, sir. ;: That is from (endiola to (alaca<ang7 A: Ges, sir.

./

;: What time you were in (endiola at that time7 A: 5 cannot tell the time 5 was 4ust walking. ;: Were there still so many people in (endiola at that time7 C!C*T 6e do not know the e3act place. ATTG. -I*A$A: That is why 5 am asking leading #uestion to the witness Gour 6onor. C!C*T: 8o you know the gate of (alaca<ang7 A: Ges, Gour 6onor. ;: What gate is nearer to the place where (ark was shot7 A: 5 cannot remember the gate. ;: There are schools along (endiola proceeding towards gate 0 or gate @sicA. Which school is near to the place where (ark was shot7 A: 5 cannot remember because it was night time. ;: Dut you used to sell balot along (endiola going to the gate of (alaca<ang7 A: Ges, Gour 6onor. ;: 9o you are familiar with the schools along (endiola7 A: 5 do not know the schools. ATTG. -I*I$A: 8o you know 9t. >ude Church7 A: $o, sir. ;: Gou also do not know the hospital in front or opposite 9t. >ude church7 A: $o, sir. ;: 'acing (alaca<ang, do you know the first street by the right side facing (alaca<ang7 A: -ate 0. ;: 5 am asking you facing the gate of (alaca<ang, do you know the first street in the right when you are standing at (endiola7 A: $o, sir.1 The original 4udge himself, >udge *omulo =ope+, does not seem impressed with the testimony of Iduardo -alvan. >udge *omulo =ope+ asked several clarificatory #uestions in order to test -alvanQs credibility, and -alvan failed the test miserably. Iduardo -alvan repeatedly changed his answer on whether he told anyone about the incident before he e3ecuted his statement with the police station: C!C*T: ;: Cnder what circumstance were you able or you were make to e3ecute your statement7 A: 5 went to the police station myself. ;: What what @sicA reason do you have when you voluntarily went to the police station7 A: Decause 5 was bothered by my conscience. ;: That was the first time you narrated7 A: Ges, Gour 6onor. ;: 9o you are impressing the Court that from the time you saw (ark due to the shooting fall to the ground you did not relay the story you saw to any person7 A: $one, Gour 6onor. ;: 8espite the fact that you were neighbor of (ark and his family you did not relay the incident to (arkQs parents7 A: !n the following day 5 narrated it to them the incident. ;: The following day you were not brought by (arkQs parents to the police station to give your statement7 A: $o, Gour 6onor. ;: There was a wake following that in the residence of (ark7 A: $o, Gour 6onor. ;: Where was the wake held7 A: The wake was held at the Arlington. ;: 8id you attend the wake7 A: Ges, Gour 6onor. ;: 8id you talk to a member of (arkQs family in the wake7 A: $o, Gour 6onor.0/ Cpon reading -alvanQs testimony, we do not find the same sufficient to prove CbalesQ guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. While the correctness of a 8ecision is not impaired solely by the fact that the writer took

.0

over from a colleague who had earlier presided at trial, it is the bounden duty of appellate courts to even more closely e3amine the testimonies of the witnesses whose deportment the writer was not able to observe. The prosecution seeks to establish CbalesQ motive in killing (ark by the alleged altercation between the two during their drinking spree. 6owever, as testified by =aila Cru+ herself, the argument was soon apparently resolved, with Cbales patting the shoulders of (ark 9antos. 'urthermore, in both versions of the facts, (ark had been gracious enough to accompany Cbales after their carousal, clearly showing that whatever misunderstanding they had during their drinking spree was already resolved. 5f -alvanQs version of the facts is to be believed, Cbales and (ark had even been together for a several hours more before (ark was killed. We have ruled that though the general rule is that motive is not essential to a conviction especially where the identity of the assailant is duly established by other competent evidence or is not disputed, the absence of such motive is important in ascertaining the truth as between two antagonistic theories or versions of the killing. 00 ,roof as to motive is essential when the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial or inconclusive. 0% Herily, the dominating rule is that, with respect to the credibility of witnesses, this Court has always accorded the highest degree of respect to the findings of the trial court, unless there is proof of misappreciation of evidence O which is precisely the situation in the case at bar. We also take note of petitioner CbalesQ stance when he was confronted by =aila Cru+ and 9,!% 'ernande+.la#phi5 Cbales told 9,!% 'ernande+ that he would voluntarily 4oin him to prove to him that he was not in hiding. Cbales then cooperated fully with 9,!% 'ernande+, allowing himself to undergo a medical e3amination, which apparently yielded nothing as the findings thereof was not presented as evidence, and going with the 9,!% 'ernande+ to the ,$, (alaca<ang 'ield 'orce. 'light evidences guilt and guilty conscience: the wicked flee, even when no man pursues, but the righteous stand fast as bold as a lion.0B 5n all, we find it hard to lend credence to the testimony of the lone alleged eyewitness. We have said that it is better to ac#uit ten guilty individuals than to convict one innocent person. 0. Ivery circumstance against guilt and in favor of innocence must be considered. 0E Where the evidence admits of two interpretations, one of which is consistent with guilt, and the other with innocence, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt and should be ac#uitted. 0F 5n the instant case, while it is possible that the accused has committed the crime, there is also the possibility, based on the evidence presented, that he has not. 6e should be deemed to have not for failure to meet the test of moral certainty. 'inally, an accused should not be convicted by reason of the weakness of his alibi. 5t is fundamental that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and must not rely on the weakness of the evidence of the defense. 0& 9ince there are very serious doubts in the testimony of the lone eyewitness to the killing of (ark 9antos, we have no choice but to ac#uit petitioner Angel Cbales on the ground of reasonable doubt. 6aving ruled that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt, the second issue, which relates to the temperate damages which petitioner would have been liable for had he been found guilty, is now mooted. W6I*I'!*I, the 8ecision of the Court of Appeals in CA--.*. C* $o. %220B dated B/ $ovember %//F is *IHI*9I8 and 9IT A958I. ,etitioner Angel Cbales y Hele+ is hereby AC;C5TTI8 of the crime of homicide on account of reasonable doubt. 9! !*8I*I8.

.%

G.R. No. 1*25%5 &a#'ar) 15, 2001. +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES,appelle, vs. 8IL/ERT CA/ARECO, appellant. +ANGANI/AN, J.0 Treachery is appreciated when it is shown that an assailant deliberately and consciously adopted a means of attack without risk to himself. 5n the present case, it was not shown that the attack had been deliberately adopted, or that it had entailed no risk to appellant. The Case Wilbert Cabare<o appeals the $ovember %B, 0112 >udgement 0 of the *egional Trial Court @*TCA of 5loilo City in Criminal Case $o. .22E%, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. 5n an 5nformation dated >anuary %/, 0112, 9econd Asistant ,rovincial ,rosecutor ,ortia T. Cabalum charged appellant as follows: That on or about the 0B th day of 8ecember, 011&, in the (unicipality of =ambunao, ,rovince of 5loilo, ,hilippines, and within the 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with an unlicensed firearm, with deliberate intent and decided purpose to kill and by means of treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot $erio Casa#uite with the firearm which the accused was then provided, hitting the victim on the back portion of his body which caused his death. % Cpon hi arraignment of 'ebruary %&, 0112, B appellant, assisted by Atty. (anuel Casumpang, pleaded not guilty. After trial in due course, the court a quo rendered its 8ecision, the dispositive portion of which reads: W6I*I'!*I, premises considered, there being sufficient and satisfactory proof shown to establish the guilt of the accused, Wilbert Carabe<o alias Debot , beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder with which he stands charged, he is therefore hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with such accessory penalties as provided in Article .0 of the *evised ,enal Code and, moreover, to indemnity the family of the victim RinS the amount of ,E/,///.// as well as reimburse the family RinS the amount of ,21,///.// for the e3penses RforS the wake and burial of the victim, and RtoS pay the cost. . The 'acts Version of the 1rosecution 5n its Drief,E the !ffice of the 9olicitor -eneral presents the following narration of facts: 8ecember 0B, 011&, RwasS the barangay fiesta of >ayobo, =ambunao, 5loilo @T9$, April %., 0112, p. .A. At around 1:// RoSn the evening of the same day festivities, a disco was going on near the house of Darangay Chairman Aurelio Catedrilla @5bid., pp. E-FA. 9uddenly, there was a commotion near the store that was located a few arm"s length away form the venue of the disco @5bid., p.&A. 5t involved a certain ,estilo and the younger brother of a certain (anolo @5bid., pp.2-1A. The younger brother of (anolo splashed beer on ,estilo @5bid.,p. 1.A. Then, Aurelio Catedrilla went to the place where the trouble was to pacify them @5bid., pp. 1-0/A. 6e was followed by $erio Casa#uite @5bidA. When Aurelio Catedrilla reached the place, Wilbert Cabare<o, alias Debot , shot him at the back with 0/ inch long firearm @5bid., pp. 0/ and 0%A. 6owever, instead of the bullet hitting Aurelio Cabare<o was about two arm"s length away from them when he pulled the trigger @5bid., p.00A.5=#phi5.n>t $erio Casa#uite fell to the ground, while Wilbert Cabare<o fled the scene @5bid., p.0BA. The Darangay tanod came to $erio Casa#uite"s aid and brought him to the hospital @5bid.A. 6owever, $erio Casa#uite later succumbed to the gunshot wound he sustained @5bid., pp. %B-%EA. F Version of the 0efense 8enying the charge against him, appellant narrates the facts in the following manner: & !n 8ecember 0% and 0B, 011&, Darangay >ayobo, =ambunao, 5loilo, was celebrating its Darangay 'iesta. As additional come ons to liven the celebration, a disco dance was held every night from 8ecember 0% and 0B, 011& near the house of the incumbent RbSarangay RcSaptain, Aurelio Catedrilla. !n 8ecember 00B, 011& at about 1:// o"clock in the evening, while the disco dance was in progress, a certain Tayok Istiba and ,ablo 9anche+ were having a drinking spree at the nearby store about two @%A armslength RsicS from the discohan . ,robably as a sign of having reconciled after their #uarrel the night before 8ecember 0%, 011&, which was succesfully pacified by $erio Casa#uite and Darangay Captain Aurelio Catedrilla. At that particular time, accused-appellant while passing by the store towards the "discohan was invited by ,ablo 9anche+ and Tayok Istiva and RheS obliged himself to 4oin in their drinking spree. Thereafter, ,ablo 9anche+ and Tayok Istiva being drunk again #uarreled with each other. As before, $erio Casa#uite came to pacify themR:S however, this time, the protagonists would not listen to him. Conse#uently, he re#uested the RbSarangay RtSanod present to fetch the RbSarangay RcSaptain, Aurelio

.B

Catedrilla to help him in pacifying the #uarelling ,ablo 9anche+ and Tayok Istiva. A few minutes later, Darangay Captian Aurelio Catedrilla arrived with his tanods and a militray man. 5mmediately, the said military man hit Tayok Istiva with the butt of his armalite rifle, forcing Darangay Captain Aurelio Catedrilla to admonish him not to hurt Tayok Istiva being his grand nephew. 5n obedience, the said military man now turned his ire against ,ablo 9anche+. To prevent the latter from being further hurt by the military man, $erio Casa#uite now ushered ,ablo 9anche+ out of the store and persuaded him to go home. (eanwhile, Tayok Istiva, not yet fully assuaRgedS of his anger against ,ablo 9anche+, was seen grappling with his uncle, Darangay Captain Aurelio Catedrilla, for possession and control of a 0% gauge shot gun inside the store and in the presence of accused-appellant. White thus in that situation, the gun accidentally firedR,S hitting $erio Casa#uite at his back causing his death. Afterwards Darangay Captain Aurelio Catedrilla told his grand nephew, Tayok Istiva, to leave the place. When he finally left the scene of the accident, accused-appellant followed and also went home. The ne3t morning, Darangay Captain Aurelio Catedrilla was arrested at his house as the primary suspect in the shooting and killing of $erio Casa#uite on the night of 8ecember 0B, 011&. 8espite the said arrest of Darangay Captain Aurelio Catedrilla being duly witnessed by his cousin, guest Absalon =ego, however, the latter never told the arresting police authorities that it was accused-appellant who actually shot $erio Casa#uite. 5t was only B days later, and while Darangay Captain Aurelio was already 4ailed, when Absalon =ego, who was fetched from his house by the younger brother of the Darangay Captain, conveniently e3ecuted a sworn statement inculpating accused-appellant as the one who really shot $erio Casa#uite on the night of 8ecember 0B, 011&. As a result, accused-appellant, Wilbert Carabe<o was arrested on 8ecember 01, 011&. 8espite his protestation, however, the arresting police dismissed his claim of innocence, without even giving him the benefit of the doubt, in fairness and in the interest of law and 4ustice RwhichS the police were sworn to uphold and protect. *uling of the Trial Court 5n its 8ecision, the trial court found the testimony of the prosecution witness, Absalon =ego, to be positive and straightforward, hence persuasive and credible. 2 =ego, who personally knew appellant, positively identified him as the shooter. (oreover, the witness had a good view of the incident because he was only a few meters away from the locus criminis, which was well-lighted at the time. The trial court also re4ected appellant"s claim that Tayok Istiva was the killer. 5t held that this defense was improbable because the person in front of Istiva was Aurelio Catedrilla, not the deceased. 5t also ruled that the killing was #ualified by treachery. 6ence, this appeal.1 5ssues 5n his Drief, appellant cites the following alleged errors: 5 The lower court erred in finding the defense of accused-appellant that it was Tayok Istiva who fired the gun that hit $erio Casa#uite, highly improbable. 55 The lower court likewise erred in finding the uncorroborated testimony of prosecution witness, Absalon =ego, sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 0/ 5n the main, appellant #uestions the credibility of the prosecution eyewitness. The Court, in addition, will also determine the character of the crime and the presence of treachery as a #ualifying circumstance. The Court"s *uling The appeal is partly meritorious. Appellants should be convicted of homicide, not murder. (ain 5ssue: &redibility of Lone %ye#itness The defense assails the credibility of the lone prosecution witness, Absalon =ego, claiming that he was outside the store where the incident occurred. (oreover, his attention was focused on the nearby disco, not on the store, thus rendering his account highly improbable. (oreover, when he saw the police arrest Catedrilla, the former did not readily point to appellant as the malefactor. 5t was only three days later that he came forward, stating that he had seen what happened and that appellant had fired the fatal shot. Time and again, this Court has ruled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is a matter that particularly falls within the authority of the trial court, as it had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand. 'or this reason, appellate courts accord its factual findings and assessments of witnesses with great weight and even finality, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.00 5n this case, the trial court, which had the opportunity to hear and e3amine the testimony of the lone prosecution eyewitness, was convinced of his credibility. Iyewitness =ego narrated that he was only a few

..

meters away from the incident and positively stated that it was appellant who had fired the shot that killed the victim: ; Where RwasS this Aurelio going followed by $erio Casa#uite7 A 6e was intending to pacify the trouble. ; Was he able to go where the trouble was7 A Ges, sir. ; And when he reached the place what did Aurelio Catedrilla do7 A 6e was shot by Debot. ; When you said Debot are you referring to the accused in this case Wilbert Carabe<o7 A Ges, sir. 333 333 333 ; When Debot shot Aurelio who was hit7 A $ong $erio Casa#uite was hit. ; And what was $erio Cas#uite doing when he was hit7 A 6e had his back towards the accused also7 C!C*T: ; 6ow many times did the accused shoot Aurelio7 A !ne time. ; What kind of weapon did he use7 A A 0% gauge gun. ; 6ow long RwasS that gun which he used in shooting $erio7 A =ike this. 333A 333 333 C!C*T: ; 9o, there was no e3change of words between $erio and tha accused when the gun was fired7 A $o, there was none. ; And what happened to $erio when you said he was shot7 A 6e fell to the ground. ; *ight there at all place where he was shot7 A 6e was about to walk back first before he fell to the ground. ; 6ow far RwasS that place where he fell RfromS the place where he was shotN A About one @0A arm"s length. 333 333 333 ,*!9. -I8C9,A$: ; 6ow about Wilbert Cabare<o alias Debot, what did he do after shot Aurelio7 A 6e fled. ; And what happened to $erio Casa#uite after he fell down7 A The Darangay Tanods came to $erio"s aid. ; Where did they bring $erio Casa#uite7 A To the hospital. ; 6ow about you, what did you do7 A 5 also fled. 0% (oreover, =ego had a clear view of the incident, which happened, in a sufficiently illuminated area. ; 9o, the place where the trouble ensued was two @%A arms length RsicS away from youN A Ges, sir. ; Was that place near the store or near the dance hall7 A 5t was near the store and near the disco place. ; What about the place where the commotion took place, was that lighted7 A =ighted. ; What kind of light7 A 5t was lighted by an electric bulb. ; Where was that bulb placed in relation to the store7 A 5t was inside the store. 5ndeed, appellant has given us no sufficient reason to overturn the factual findings of the trial court. 'utile is his claim that =ego, whose attention ought to have been focused on the disco instead, could not have witnessed the shooting incident. 2irst, =ego had a clear view of the store because it was only a few meters away and was open on three sides, having only one wall at the back. *econd, it was natural for him to look in that direction, because of the commotion that had occurred prior to the actual shooting and the arrival of

.E

Catedrilla with three companions, one of whom had a long firearm. 5n fact, =ego"s attention would have been focused on the store, because Catedrilla even hit one ,ablo 9anche+ with the butt of a firearm. That =ego reported to the authorities what he had seen only after a delay of three days is of no moment. 5n 1eople v. Lapay, 5? this Court ruled that a witness" non-disclosure to police of crime is not entirely against human e3perience. 8elay in revealing the names of malefactors does not, by itself, impair the credibility of prosecution witnesses and their testimonies. 0. 5n this case, =ego readily admitted that he was afraid to report to the authorities. 6is failure to specify the ob4ect of his fear 0E did not make his testimony less credible. %stiva 7ot the *hooter Appellant further claims that it was Istiva who shot the victim and that the *TC erred in re4ecting this claim. Allegedly, the trial court merely stated that said defense was highly improbable because it was not the victim who should have been hit. *ather, it should have been Catedrilla, being directly in front of Istiva who was allegedly grappling for possession of the gun at the time. 5t must be pointed out that the conviction of appellant was based primarily on the testimony of ,rosecution Witness =ego, who had positively identified the former. The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the manner and demeanor of all the witnesses, gave credence to =ego"s testimony and re4ected appellant"s claim. 5ts ruling on this point is clear and unassailable. &rime and 1unishment ,aragraph 0, Article . of the *evised ,enal Code, provides: Art. . Criminal =iability.--- Criminal liability shall be incurred: 0. Dy any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 5n the present case, appellant is responsible for the death of $erio Casa#uite, even if the former"s intended target when he fired the gun was supposedly Catedrillo. Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony, although the actual victim be different from the one intended. 0F As held in -* v. 0iana 5@ decided by the Court as early as 010E, The same crime would have been committed if the in4ured man and the deceased had been 8ionisio =egara, instead of the defendant"s nephew, 333: the crime of homicide would have been committed 4ust the same and one man would have been deprived of his life by the criminal act of another. ,reachery The trial court ruled that the killing was #ualified by treachery. 02 5t failed to e3plain, however, the basis of said ruling. 5ndeed, the proven facts do not ade#uately establish the presence of this #ualifying circumstance. Treachery is present when the means, methods or form of e3ecution gives the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation. 5t must be proven that such means, method or form of e3ecution is deliberately and consciously adopted without danger to the accused. 01 5n this case, the prosecution proved that appellant fired at the back of the victim. 5t was not able to show, however, that appellant had deliberately adopted the attack, considering that it was e3ecuted during a commotion and a s result of it. (oreover, it could not be said that the attack was without risk to himself, because the victim was then in the company of three other persons, all of whom were alert and one was even armed. 5ndeed, the Court has held thus:%/ 333. The #ualifying circumstance of treachery can not logically be appreciated because the accused did not make any preparation to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the commission of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate. This circumstance can only be applied, according to the tenor of Article 0B, 9ub-section 0F of the *evised ,enal Code, when the culprit employs means, methods or forms of e3ecution which tend directly and specially to insure the commission of the crime and at the same time to eliminate or diminish the risk to his own person from defense which the other party might offer. 5$ Cnited 9tates vs. $amit, B2 ,hil. 1%F, it was held that the circumstance that an attack was sudden and une3pected to the person assaulted did not constitute the element of alevosia necessary to raise a homicide to murder, where it did not appear that the aggressor had consciously adopted a mode of attack intended to facilitate the perpetration of the homicide without risk to himself. Well-settled is the rule that a #ualifying circumstance must be established as clearly as the elements of a crime. %0 5n this case, treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Absent any other #ualifying circumstance, appellant should therefore be convicted only of homicide, %% not murder. &ivil Liability

.F

We affirm the award of ,E/,///.// as indemnity ex delicto, which is granted without need of proof other than the commission of a crime. %B =ikewise, the trial court correctly awarded the sum of ,21,///.// as actual damages, which we find to be supported by evidence.5=#phi5.n>t W6I*I'!*I, the appealed 8ecision is hereby (0!2!%0. Appellant is &(7V!&,%0 of homicide and *%7,%7&%0 to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as ma3imum. The award of civil indemnities is A22!4 %0. 9! !*I8I*I8

.&

G.R. No. 155791. March 15, 2005 MEL/A @UINTO, ,etitioners, vs. DANTE ANDRES a#. RAND41ER +ACHECO, *espondents. At around &:B/ a.m. on $ovember 0B, 011E, eleven-year-old Idison -arcia, a -rade . elementary school pupil, and his playmate, Wilson ;uinto, who was also about eleven years old, were at Darangay 9an *afael, Tarlac, Tarlac. They saw respondents 8ante Andres and *andyver ,acheco by the mouth of a drainage culvert. Andres and ,acheco invited Wilson to go fishing with them inside the drainage culvert. 0 Wilson assented. When -arcia saw that it was dark inside, he opted to remain seated in a grassy area about two meters from the entrance of the drainage system.% *espondent ,acheco had a flashlight. 6e, along with respondent Andres and Wilson, entered the drainage system which was covered by concrete culvert about a meter high and a meter wide, with water about a foot deep.B After a while, respondent ,acheco, who was holding a fish, came out of the drainage system and left. without saying a word. *espondent Andres also came out, went back inside, and emerged again, this time, carrying Wilson who was already dead. *espondent Andres laid the boyQs lifeless body down in the grassy area.E 9hocked at the sudden turn of events, -arcia fled from the scene. F 'or his part, respondent Andres went to the house of petitioner (elba ;uinto, WilsonQs mother, and informed her that her son had died. (elba ;uinto rushed to the drainage culvert while respondent Andres followed her.& The cadaver of Wilson was buried without any autopsy thereon having been conducted. The police authorities of Tarlac, Tarlac, did not file any criminal complaint against the respondents for WilsonQs death. Two weeks thereafter, or on $ovember %2, 011E, $ational Dureau of 5nvestigation @$D5A investigators took the sworn statements of respondent ,acheco, -arcia and petitioner ;uinto. 2 *espondent ,acheco alleged that he had never been to the drainage system catching fish with respondent Andres and Wilson. 6e also declared that he saw Wilson already dead when he passed by the drainage system while riding on his carabao. !n 'ebruary %1, 011F, the cadaver of Wilson was e3humed. 8r. 8ominic Aguda of the $D5 performed an autopsy thereon at the cemetery and submitted his autopsy report containing the following postmortem findings: ,!9T(!*TI( '5$85$-9 Dody in previously embalmed, early stage of decomposition, attired with white long sleeves and dark pants and placed inside a wooden coffin in a niche-apartment style. 6ematoma, 0../ 3 &./ cms., scalp, occipital region. Abrasion, ../ 3 B./ cms., right face, E./ 3 B./ cms., left forearm. =aryngo O tracheal lumina O congested and edematous containing muddy particles with bloody path. =ungs O hyperinflated, heavy and readily pits on pressure: section contains bloody froth. Drain O autoly+ed and li#uefied. 9tomach O partly autoly+ed. CAC9I !' 8IAT6: Asphy3ia by drowning: traumatic head in4uries, contributory. 1 The $D5 filed a criminal complaint for homicide against respondents Andres and ,acheco in the !ffice of the ,rovincial ,rosecutor, which found probable cause for homicide by dolo against the two. An 5nformation was later filed with the *egional Trial Court @*TCA of Tarlac, Tarlac, charging the respondents with homicide. The accusatory portion reads: That at around 2 oQclock in the morning of $ovember 0B, 011E, in the (unicipality of Tarlac, ,rovince of Tarlac, ,hilippines, and within the 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the said accused 8ante Andres and *andyver ,acheco y 9uliven U *andy, conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault, and maul Wilson ;uinto inside a culvert where the three were fishing, causing Wilson ;uinto to drown and die. C!$T*A*G T! =AW.0/ After presenting -arcia, the prosecution presented 8r. 8ominic Aguda, who testified on direct e3amination that the hematoma at the back of the victimQs head and the abrasion on the latterQs left forearm could have been caused by a strong force coming from a blunt instrument or ob4ect. The in4uries in the laryn3 and trachea also indicated that the victim died of drowning, as some muddy particles were also found on the lumina of the laryn3 and trachea @ 7a3ahigop ng puti3 A. 8r. Aguda stated that such in4ury could be caused when a person is put under water by pressure or by force. 00 !n cross-e3amination, 8r. Aguda declared that the hematoma on the scalp was caused by a strong pressure or a strong force applied to the scalp coming from a blunt instrument. 6e also stated that the victim could have fallen, and that the occipital portion of his head could have hit a blunt ob4ect.

.2

8r. Aguda also declared that the 0.3&-centimeter hematoma at the back of WilsonQs head could have rendered the latter unconscious, and, if he was thrown in a body of water, the boy could have died by drowning. 5n answer to clarificatory #uestions made by the court, the doctor declared that the .3B-centimeter abrasion on the right side of WilsonQs face could have also been caused by rubbing against a concrete wall or pavement, or by contact with a rough surface. 6e also stated that the trachea region was full of mud, but that there was no sign of strangulation.0% After the prosecution had presented its witnesses and the respondents had admitted the pictures showing the drainage system including the inside portions thereof,0B the prosecution rested its case. The respondents filed a demurer to evidence which the trial court granted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, per its !rder dated >anuary %2, 0112. 5t also held that it could not hold the respondents liable for damages because of the absence of preponderant evidence to prove their liability for WilsonQs death. The petitioner appealed the order to the Court of Appeals @CAA insofar as the civil aspect of the case was concerned. 5n her brief, she averred that O T6I T*5A= C!C*T I**I8 5$ 859(5995$- T6I CA9I A$8 5$ *C=5$- T6AT $! ,*I,!$8I*A$T IH58I$CI IK59T9 T! 6!=8 ACCC9I8-A,,I==II9 C5H5==G =5AD=I '!* T6I 8IAT6 !' T6I H5CT5( W5=9!$ ;C5$T!. 0. The CA rendered 4udgment affirming the assailed order of the *TC on 8ecember %0, %//0. 5t ruled as follows: The ac#uittal in this case is not merely based on reasonable doubt but rather on a finding that the accusedappellees did not commit the criminal acts complained of. Thus, pursuant to the above rule and settled 4urisprudence, any civil action ex delicto cannot prosper. Ac#uittal in a criminal action bars the civil action arising therefrom where the 4udgment of ac#uittal holds that the accused did not commit the criminal acts imputed to them. @,an v. *tandard Vacuum (il &o., A5 1hil. <@BA0E The petitioner filed the instant petition for review and raised the following issues: 5. W6IT6I* !* $!T T6I IKT5$CT5!$ !' *I9,!$8I$T9Q C*5(5$A= =5AD5=5TG, =5)IW59I, CA**5I9 W5T6 5T T6I IKT5$CT5!$ !' T6I5* C5H5= =5AD5=5TG. 55 .W6IT6I* !* $!T ,*I,!$8I*A$T IH58I$CI IK59T9 T! 6!=8 *I9,!$8I$T9 C5H5==G =5AD=I '!* T6I 8IAT6 !' W5=9!$ ;C5$T!. 0F The petitioner avers that the trial court indulged in mere possibilities, surmises and speculations when it held that Wilson died because @aA he could have fallen, his head hitting the stones in the drainage system since the culvert was slippery: or @bA he might have been bitten by a snake which he thought was the prick of a fish fin, causing his head to hit hard on the top of the culvert: or @cA he could have lost consciousness due to some ailment, such as epilepsy. The petitioner also alleges that the trial court erred in ruling that the prosecution failed to prove any ill motive on the part of the respondents to kill the victim, and in considering that respondent Andres even informed her of WilsonQs death. The petitioner posits that the trial court ignored the testimony of the (edico-=egal I3pert, 8r. Aguda: the nature, location and number of the in4uries sustained by the victim which caused his death: as well as the locus criminis. The petitioner insists that the behavior of the respondents after the commission of the crime betrayed their guilt, considering that respondent ,acheco left the scene, leaving respondent Andres to bring out WilsonQs cadaver, while respondent Andres returned inside the drainage system only when he saw -arcia seated in the grassy area waiting for his friend Wilson to come out. The petitioner contends that there is preponderant evidence on record to show that either or both the respondents caused the death of her son and, as such, are 4ointly and severally liable therefor. 5n their comment on the petition, the respondents aver that since the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to prove that they committed the crime of homicide and caused the death of Wilson, they are not criminally and civilly liable for the latterQs death. The petition has no merit. Ivery person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. 0& The civil liability of such person established in Articles 0//, 0/% and 0/B of the *evised ,enal Code includes restitution, reparation of the damage caused, and indemnification for conse#uential damages. 02 When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense 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 action. 01 With the implied institution of the civil action in the criminal action, the two actions are merged into one composite proceeding, with the criminal action predominating the civil.%/ The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, to reform and rehabilitate him or, in

.1

general, to maintain social order. %0 The sole purpose of the civil action is the restitution, reparation or indemnification of the private offended party for the damage or in4ury he sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act of the accused. %% While the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged, it is re#uired to prove the cause of action of the private complainant against the accused for damages andNor restitution. The e3tinction of the penal action does not carry with it the e3tinction of the civil action. 6owever, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed e3tinguished if there is a finding in a final 4udgment in the civil action that the act or omission from where the civil liability may arise does not e3ist. %B (oreover, a person committing a felony is criminally liable for all the natural and logical conse#uences resulting therefrom although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. %. $atural refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events, while logical means that there is a rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting in4ury or damage. The felony committed must be the pro3imate cause of the resulting in4ury. ,ro3imate cause is that cause which in natural and continuous se#uence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the in4ury, and without which the result would not have occurred. The pro3imate legal cause is that acting first and producing the in4ury, either immediately, or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor. %E There must be a relation of cause and effect, the cause being the felonious act of the offender, the effect being the resultant in4uries andNor death of the victim. The cause and effect relationship is not altered or changed because of the pre-e3isting conditions, such as the pathological condition of the victim @ las condiciones patologica del lesionadoA: the predisposition of the offended party @ la predisposicion del ofendidoA: the physical condition of the offended party @ la constitucion fisica del heridoA: or the concomitant or concurrent conditions, such as the negligence or fault of the doctors @ la falta de medicos para sister al heridoA: or the conditions supervening the felonious act such as tetanus, pulmonary infection or gangrene.%F The felony committed is not the pro3imate cause of the resulting in4ury when: @aA there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting in4ury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused: or @bA the resulting in4ury is due to the intentional act of the victim.%& 5f a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such a manner as to put life in 4eopardy and death follows as a conse#uence of their felonious act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to prove that other causes cooperated in producing the factual result. The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed to the death of the victim. %2 A different doctrine would tend to give immunity to crime and to take away from human life a salutary and essential safeguard.%1 This Court has emphasi+ed that: V Amid the conflicting theories of medical men, and the uncertainties attendant upon the treatment of bodily ailments and in4uries, it would be easy in many cases of homicide to raise a doubt as to the immediate cause of death, and thereby to open a wide door by which persons guilty of the highest crime might escape conviction and punishment. VB/ 5n 1eople v. 8uian)on,B0 the 9upreme Court held: V The 9upreme Court of 9pain, in a 8ecision of April B, 02&1, said in a case similar to the present, the following: 5nasmuch as a man is responsible for the conse#uences of his act O and in this case, the physical condition and temperament of the offended party nowise lessen the evil, the seriousness whereof is to be 4udged, not by the violence of the means employed, but by the result actually produced: and as the wound which the appellant inflicted upon the deceased was the cause which determined his death, without his being able to counteract its effects, it is evident that the act in #uestion should be #ualified as homicide, etc.B% 5n the present case, the respondents were charged with homicide by dolo. 5n 1eople v. 0elim,BB the Court delineated the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for homicide or murder: 5n the case at bar, the prosecution was burdened to prove the corpus delicti which consists of two things: first, the criminal act and second, defendantQs agency in the commission of the act. Wharton says that corpus delicti includes two things: first, the ob4ective: second, the sub4ective element of crimes. 5n homicide @by doloA and in murder cases, the prosecution is burdened to prove: @aA the death of the party alleged to be dead: @bA that the death was produced by the criminal act of some other than the deceased and was not the result of accident, natural cause or suicide: and @cA that defendant committed the criminal act or was in some way criminally responsible for the act which produced the death. To prove the felony of homicide or murder, there must be incontrovertible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the victim was deliberately killed @with maliceA: in other words, that there was intent to kill. 9uch evidence may consist

E/

inter alia in the use of weapons by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim and the words uttered by the malefactors before, at the time or immediately after the killing of the victim. 5f the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactor, intent to kill is conclusively presumed.B. 5nsofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned, the prosecution or the private complainant is burdened to adduce preponderance of evidence or superior weight of evidence. Although the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is stronger than that presented by the defendant, he is not entitled to a 4udgment if his evidence is not sufficient to sustain his cause of action. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of the defendantsQ.BE 9ection 0, *ule 0BB of the *evised *ules of Ividence provides how preponderance of evidence is determined: 9ection 0. ,reponderance of evidence, how determined. O 5n civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. 5n determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstance of the case, the witnessesQ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.BF 5n the present case, we rule that, as held by the trial court and the CA, the prosecution failed to adduce preponderant evidence to prove the facts on which the civil liability of the respondents rest, i.e., that the petitioner has a cause of action against the respondents for damages. 5t bears stressing that the prosecution relied solely on the collective testimonies of -arcia, who was not an eyewitness, and 8r. Aguda. We agree with the petitioner that, as evidenced by the $ecropsy *eport of 8r. 8ominic Aguda, the deceased sustained a 0.3&-centimeter hematoma on the scalp. Dut as to how the deceased sustained the in4ury, 8r. Aguda was e#uivocal. 6e presented two possibilities: @aA that the deceased could have been hit by a blunt ob4ect or instrument applied with full force: or @bA the deceased could have slipped, fell hard and his head hit a hard ob4ect: C!C*T: The Court would ask #uestions. ; 9o it is possible that the in4ury, that is O the hematoma, caused on the back of the head might be due to the victimQs falling on his back and his head hitting a pavement7 A Well, the 0.3&-centimeter hematoma is #uite e3tensive, so if the fall is strong enough and would fall from a high place and hit a concrete pavement, then it is possible. ; 5s it possible that if the victim slipped on a concrete pavement and the head hit the pavement, the in4ury might be caused by that slipping7 A 5t is also possible. ; 9o when the victim was submerged under water while unconscious, it is possible that he might have taken in some mud or what7 A Ges, 9ir. ; 9o it is your finding that the victim was submerged while still breathing7 A Ges, Gour 6onor, considering that the finding on the lung also would indicate that the victim was still alive when he was placed under water.B& The doctor also admitted that the abrasion on the right side of the victimQs face could have been caused by rubbing against a concrete wall or pavement: ; The abrasion .3B centimeters on the right Rside of theS face, would it be caused by the face rubbing against a concrete wall or pavement7 A Ges, 9ir. Abrasion is usually caused by a contact of a skin to a rough surface. ; *ough surface7 A Ges, Gour 6onor. ; When you say that the trachea region was full of mud, were there no signs that the victim was strangled7 A There was no sign of strangulation, Gour 6onor.B2 The trial court gave credence to the testimony of 8r. Aguda that the deceased might have slipped, causing the latter to fall hard and hit his head on the pavement, thus: ; -Could it be possible, 8octor, that this in4ury might have been caused when the victim fell down and that portion of the body or occipital portion hit a blunt ob4ect and might have been inflicted as a result of falling down7

E0

A - 5f the fall V if the victim fell and he hit a hard ob4ect, well, it is also possible. B1 The trial court took into account the following facts: Again, it could be seen from the pictures presented by the prosecution that there were stones inside the culvert. @9ee I3hibit 8 to 8-B A. The stones could have caused the victim to slip and hit his head on the pavement. 9ince there was water on the culvert, the portion soaked with water must be very slippery, aside from the fact that the culvert is round. 5f the victim hit his head and lost consciousness, he will naturally take in some amount of water and drown../ The CA affirmed on appeal the findings of the trial court, as well as its conclusion based on the said findings. We agree with the trial and appellate courts. The general rule is 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 such findings, affirmed no less by the CA, are given conclusive effect by this Court, unless the trial court ignored, misapplied or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, would change the outcome of the case. The petitioner failed to show any 4ustification to warrant a reversal of the findings or conclusions of the trial and appellate courts. That the deceased fell or slipped cannot be totally foreclosed because even -arcia testified that the drainage culvert was dark, and that he himself was so afraid that he refused to 4oin respondents Andres and ,acheco inside..0 *espondent Andres had no flashlight: only respondent ,acheco had one. (oreover, 8r. Aguda failed to testify and e3plain what might have caused the abrasion on the left forearm of the deceased. 6e, 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 ob4ect or instrument, and, conse#uently, any blunt ob4ect or instrument that might have been used by any or both of the respondents in hitting the deceased. 5t is of 4udicial notice that nowadays persons have killed or committed serious crimes for no reason at all. .% 6owever, the absence of any ill-motive to kill the deceased is relevant and admissible in evidence to prove that no violence was perpetrated on the person of the deceased. 5n this case, the petitioner failed to adduce proof of any ill-motive on the part of either respondent to kill the deceased before or after the latter was invited to 4oin them in fishing. 5ndeed, the petitioner testified that respondent Andres used to go to their house and play with her son before the latterQs death: ; 8o you know this 8ante Andres personally7 A $ot much but he used to go to our house and play with my son after going from her mother who is gambling, 9ir. ; Dut you are ac#uainted with him, you know his face7 A Ges, 9ir. ; Will you please look around this courtroom and see if he is around7 A @Witness is pointing to 8ante Andres, who is inside the courtroom.A .B When the petitionerQs son died inside the drainage culvert, it was respondent Andres who brought out the deceased. 6e then informed the petitioner of her sonQs death. Iven after informing the petitioner of the death of her son, respondent Andres followed the petitioner on her way to the grassy area where the deceased was: ; 8id not 8ante Andres follow you7 A 6e went with me, 9ir. ; 9o when you went to the place where your son was lying, 8ante Andres was with you7 A $o, 9ir. When 5 was informed by 8ante Andres that my son was there at the culvert, 5 ran immediately. 6e RwasS 4ust left behind and he 4ust followed, 9ir. ; 9o when you reached the place where your son was lying down, 8ante Andres also came or arrived7 A 5t was only when we boarded the 4eep that he arrived, 9ir... 5n sum, the petitioner failed to adduce preponderance of evidence to prove a cause of action for damages based on the deliberate acts alleged in the 5nformation. IN LIGHT O, ALL THE ,OREGOING, the petition is 8I$5I8 for lack of merit. $o costs. 9! !*8I*I8.

E%

G.R. No. L-*7507 &'#e 7, 1977 THE +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, plaintiff- appellee, vs. 8ILLIAM +AGE, defendantappellant. A@UINO, J.: chanrobles virtual law library William ,age appealed from the decision of the Court of 'irst 5nstance of *i+al dated >uly %0, 01&B, convicting him of robbery with homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the heirs of Heronica Hillaverde-Dalacapo an indemnity of ,0%,/// plus ,%/,/// as moral damages @Criminal Case $o. EB1FA. The 4udgment of conviction was based on the following facts: chanrobles virtual law library According to ,age"s confession @I3h. CA, at around four o"clock in the afternoon of 'ebruary 0B, 01&% Crisanto Camposano, alias Doy 9angkay, a resident of Dagong 5log, Daclaran, ,ara<a#ue , *i+al, went to the house of William ,age y Cbina located at 0.B ,ildira 9treet, near the (anila 5nternational Airport, ,asay City, They were friends since boyhood. ,age was an eighteen-year old third year high school student at the Arellano" Cniversity in ,asay City @I3h. 6A.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 'rom ,age"s house, the two went to Camposano"s house, where they met the latter"s father who was drinking with a companion. Camposano"s father gave ,age some li#uor to drink. ,age and Camposano stayed at the latter"s house up to ten o"clock in the evening @I3h. CA.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library At past ten o"clock, ,age and Camposano went to the rotonda or intersection of Taft Avenue and '. D. 6arrison Doulevard, where they boarded a (anila-bound 4eepney. ,age was armed with a balisong knife. Camposano had a revolver.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library According to ,age"s confession, he seated himself beside a male passenger who was near the driver on the front seat. Camposano took a seat at the back of the 4eepney where two female passengers were seated. @The male passenger turned out to be *andolf 9cot, a thirty-year old employee of the 6yatt *egency 6otel who was on his way to work. The female passengers were the sisters, Heronica Hillaverde-Dalacapo and Cesarean HillaverdeA.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library With the 4eepney was in front of the 9an Antonio 9avings Dank on 6arrison Doulevard, ,age and Camposano told the driver to turn left on *ussel Avenue, going to (. *o3as Doulevard, and then to turn left going to ,ara<a#ue . There, they held up the driver and the three passengers. They got the money and pieces of 4ewelry of the passengers and the driver. 'rom the rear view mirror of the 4eepney, ,age saw Camposano dumping the two female passengers on *o3as Doulevard in front of Casa (arcos. Then, the two directed the driver to proceed to the airport. They left the 4eepney at ,ildira 9treet @where ,age residedA. Camposano gave ,age a watch and a woman"s ring as his share of the loot.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library ,age admitted that he had been charged with theft but the case was dismissed in the municipal court. 6e knew certain hoodlums named *emy, (anoling, Cuerson and Idgar whose specialty was holding up ta3icabs @I3h. CA.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 9cot gave a slightly different version of the holdup. 6e testified that when the 4eepney reached that portion of 6arrison Doulevard in front of the 9an Antonio 9avings Dank, ,age pressed a knife at the neck of 9cot and shouted: This is a holdup. 8on"t move. ,age got 9cot"s diary book containing a one peso bill. ,age ordered the driver, Iduardo 8illa, to shut off the lights of the 4eepney, to turn left on *ussel Avenue, and to proceed to *o3as Doulevard. ,age and Camposano covered their faces with pieces of cloth.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Camposano told the women passengers to bring out their money and not to shout or else there will be shots . They replied that they had already given everything to Camposano.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library When the 4eepney was in front of Casa (arcos and Il ,residente 6otel, one of the women 4umped out of the 4eepney. @The husband of one of the women was a waiter at Casa (arcosA. The other woman shouted. Camposano kicked her, thus causing her to fall out of the 4eepney. Camposano noticed that a car was following the 4eepney. Delieving that it was a police car, he ordered Hilla @8illaA to drive at full speed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library According to 9cot, at an isolated place called Daltao 9treet near the airport, ,age and Camposano told the driver to stop. ,age robbed 9cot of his other one peso bill and divested the driver of his earnings after bo3ing him for making some resistance. Then, the two malefactors fled to a dark alley. 9cot and the driver reported the holdup to the police of ,ara<a#ue . 5t was already eleven o"clock.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

EB

=ieutenant Casiano Iugenio the precinct commander, showed them a photograph of Camposano. 8illa and 9cot 5dentified him as one of the two hoodlums. Iugenio and the two robbery victims repaired to the residence of Camposano at Dagong 5log Daclaran. They saw Camposano, whom 8illa fingered, but Camposano fired shots at them and was able to elude pursuit due to the darkness of the night. 6e was killed by the ,asay City policemen while he was committing another crime.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The ne3t day policemen went to ,age"s residence near the airport to apprehend him. 6e was not there. 6is father, in the presence of his aunt, promised to surrender him.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library ,age was arrested in the morning of 'ebruary %., 01&% at the >ose Abad 9antos 6igh 9chool of the Arellano Cniversity in ,asay City. 5n the afternoon of that day, his statement was taken down by ,atrolman C. ,repena and sworn to before the municipal 4udge @I3h. CA.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The woman, who 4umped from the 4eepney @according to 9cot"s storyA, was Heronica Dalacapo. 9he was brought to the ,hilippine -eneral 6ospital by a good 9amaritan, (anolo 8aval, 9antos. 9he was already dead when she reached the hospital.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The other woman, Cesarea Hillaverde @the sister of HeronicaA, who was pushed by Camposano out of the 4eepney, was brought to the !spital ng (aynila. The record is not clear as to whether she survived.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The postmortem e3amination of the body of Heronica Dalacapo, a forty-two year old married woman, revealed that she suffered @0A abrasions on the left eyebrow, left shoulder, left elbow and sacral region: @%A bilateral severe hematoma on the occipital region of the scalp: @BA fractures on the base of the cranial fossa and the fourth and fifth ribs along the midclavicular line, and @.A hemorrhage in the posterior cranial fossa. 8eath was caused by the severe and traumatic meningeal hemorrhage @I3h. A and 'A.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library !n 'ebruary 0E, 01&% or before ,age was arrested, the chief of police filed a complaint for robbery with murder in the municipal court of ,ara<a#ue against Camposano and >ohn 8oe @Criminal Case $o. B//B1A. The complaint was based on the investigation of 8illa and 9cot. ,age did not present any evidence at the preliminary investigation. The case was remanded to the Court of 'irst 5nstance where the fiscal filed an information for robbery with homicide against ,age and Camposano.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library After trial, the trial court rendered the 4udgment of conviction already mentioned.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 5n this appeal, appellant ,age contends that the trial court erred @0A in relying on his repudiated confession, @%A in convicting him although he was not 5dentified by *andolf 9cot, the prosecution"s eyewitness, and @BA in convicting him on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 0. ,atrolman ,repena who took ,age"s confession, testified on its voluntariness. =ieutenant Iugenia the precinct commander, and ,atrolmen (anolito (iranda and >ose Il#uiero, the arresting officer, denied that ,age was maltreated while he was in the custody of the police.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library ,age admitted that when he was brought before the municipal 4udge for the administration of the oath on his confession, he could have complained to the latter about the alleged maltreatment. 6e did not complain.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 6is aunt, ,rudencia Alupit, and his own lawyer visited him in 4ail. 6e allegedly confided to them that he was maltreated. 6e re#uested them to take action against the policemen. They did not complain to the proper authorities about the alleged maltreatment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The learned trial court made a searching and conscientious analysis of appellant"s evidence on the alleged duress employed by the police in e3tracting his confession. 5t concluded that the confession was voluntary.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library We find no error in that conclusion. ,age"s confession, having been taken before the new Constitution took effect, is admissible although the re#uisites in section %/ of article 5H were not observed @(agtoto vs. (anguera, =-B&%/0-%, (arch B, 01&E, FB 9C*A .A.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Certain details found in the confession are strong indicia of its authenticity. ,age specified therein that his residence was at 0.B ,ildira 9treet, an address which 4ibes with the address in his school record @I3h. 5A: that his maternal surname is Cbina: that he met Camposano at four o"clock in the afternoon of 'ebruary 0B, 01&%: that they went to Camposano"s residence, where he @,ageA was given li#uor by Camposano"s father:

E.

that he directed the driver to follow a certain route: that Camposano was from 9orsogon: that ,age was ac#uainted with some hoodlums, and that he @,ageA was charged with theft. These details would not have been embodied in the confession had not ,age freely disclosed them to the police.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library %. 5t is true that 9cot during the trial did not point to ,age as the person who sat beside him on the front seat of the 4eepney and who pressed an open knife at his neck. Testifying nine months after the occurrence, 9cot could not remember the face of ,age. 6e recalled only that ,age"s hair was thick.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library ,atrolman *uben Crue 9antiago, one of those who investigated ,age, testified that the latter was sporting long hair and looked like a hippie at the time of the investigation @% tsn $ovember %0, 01&%A. The photographs of ,age taken in >uly, 01&0, or about seven months before the holdup, when ,age was booked for theft, show that he had long hair @I3h. -A.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 9cot"s failure to identify ,age during the trial is of no moment because the crucial fact is that ,age in his own confession admitted his participation in the holdup. ,age stated in his confession: 5yong 4eep na pampasahero na aming sinakyan sa may *otonda ng Daclaran patungong (aynila, biaheng 6arrison, ay may sakay na dalawang babae sa hulihan at isang lalaki sa unahan sa tabi ng driver at ako ay naupo sa harapan katabi ko iyong lalaki at si Doy 9angkay @CamposanoA ay sa gawing hulihan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library ,agdating namin sa may tapat ng 9an Antonio Dank ay hinoldup namin iyong 4eep pati ng mga pasahero at pinaliko namin sa *ussel Avenue patungong (. *o3as Dlvd. ,agdating namin sa (. *o3as Dlvd., ay pinakaliwa namin patungong ,ara<a#ue at noong kami"y nasa (. *o3as Dlvd. na, ay kinuha namin ang mga pera at alahas noong mga pasahero at tsuper ng 4eep at matapos noon any nakita ko na lang sa salamin na inihulog ni Doy 9angkay iyong dalawang babae sa may tapat ng Casa (arcos sa (. *o3as Dlvd.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library At pagkatapos ay nagpahatid kami patungong (5A at bumaba kami sa ,ildira sa ,asay City. @$o. 0B, I3h. CA. 9cot"s testimony and the necropsy report @I3h. AA prove the corpus delicti or the fact that robbery with homicide was committed. ,age"s e3tra4udicial confession was corroborated by the evidence on the corpus delicti @9ec. B, *ule 0BB, *ules of CourtA.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library B. Appellant"s third contention that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, because the prosecution"s evidence is mainly circumstantial, is not meritorious.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library !nce it is conceded that his confession is voluntary then there cannot be any doubt as to his guilt. We have already shown that his confession was not vitiated by compulsion or constraint.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The alibi, which ,age interposed during the trial and which his counsel did not bother to discuss in his brief, appears to be a complete fabrication. ,age testified that at the time of the commission of the holdup, he was residing with his aunt at %F 9imbo 9treet, 'ort Donifacio, (akati, *i+al and that he was sick.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library That testimony was s#uarely belied by ,age"s school record @I3h. 0A which shows that, when the holdup was perpetrated, he was residing with his father at 0.B ,ildira 9treet, ,asay City near the airport @or at 0/0 5nterior *ivera Hillage near the airport, I3h. 6A and that on 'ebruary 00, 01&%, or two days before the holdup was committed, he was not sick because on that date he was not absent from school.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 5n any event, even if he was a (akati resident at the time of the holdup, that would not have precluded his participation in the commission of that offense at Daclaran, ,ara<a#ue , which is not very far from 'ort Donifacio.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library To establish an alibi, the accused must show that he was in another place for such a period of time that it was impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its commission @,eople vs. *esayaga, =-%B%B., 8ecember %F, 01&B, E. 9C*A BE/, BE.A. ,age"s alibi does not satisfy that re#uirement.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The more important point to consider is whether the trial court correctly ruled that ,age, as a fellow conspirator of Camposano, could be held liable for robbery with homicide or for robbery only. 5n his letters to this Court, ,age, not being a lawyer and not knowing the rules on conspiracy, insisted that he had nothing to do with the death of Heronica Hillaverde Dalacapo.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library !f course, it was Camposano alone who directly brought about Heronica"s death. Whether Heronica 4umped from the 4eepney, as testified by 9cot, or whether Camposano kicked and pushed her and her sister,

EE

Cesarean out of the 4eepney, as stated by ,age in his confession, Camposano"s culpability for that flagitious deed cannot be disputed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 5f Heronica 4umped out of the 4eepney, it must have been because she was in mortal dread that Camposano would shoot her. As fear gripped Heronica, she, in desperation, thought of scampering out of the moving 4eepney. 6er head struck the pavement. 5t was broken. A hemorrhage ensued. 9he died before medical assistance could be e3tended to her.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The rule is that if a man creates in another person"s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes such person to try to escape, and, in so doing, the latter in4ures himself, the man who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the resulting in4uries @,eople vs. Toling, =-%&/1&, >anuary 0&, 01&E, F% 9C*A 0&,BBA.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library We find that the trial court"s conclusion as to conspiracy is borne out by the evidence. ,age and Camposano were boyhood friends. About si3 hours before the crime was committed, they were already together. They were in the Daclaran rotonda at around ten o"clock in the evening or shortly before the holdup was committed. They boarded the 4eepney in that place. 5nside the 4eepney, they coordinated their actions. They directed the 4eepney driver to go near the airport or in the vicinity of ,age"s residence, a place which was well-known to the two malefactors. They left the 4eepney together and fled in the same direction.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library There is not a scintilla of doubt that a conspiracy to commit robbery e3isted between ,age and Camposano. The fact that the two armed themselves with deadly weapons, a knife and a revolver, signified that they were determined to kill their victims in order to consummate their nefarious ob4ective.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of ,age and Camposano. Those acts reveal that they had agreed to commit robbery inside a passenger 4eepney @Art. 2, *evised ,enal CodeA. This Court may take 4udicial notice that that kind of robbery has been fre#uently committed since the liberation when the 4eepney came into e3istence as a public conveyance.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library ,age and Camposano implemented their agreement when they waited for a passenger 4eepney at the Daclaran rotonda and boarded it at the same time. 5f they had no evil intention, they could have sat together at the back. Dut, they did not do so. !bviously, as previously planned by them, ,age took the front seat so that he could control the driver and at the same time e3tort money from him and the other passenger in the front seat. Camposano took a seat at the back of the 4eepney so that he could rob the two female passengers.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The behavior of ,age and Camposano inside the 4eepney disclosed a synchroni+ation of their actions, evincing a prior concert and plan to commit robbery with violence against and intimidation of persons. ,age should answer for all the conse#uences of the conspiracy, including the homicide which was intertwined with the robbery committed by his conspirator. The homicide was committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The rule is that where the conspirarcy to commit robbery was conclusively shown by the concurrent and coordinate acts of the accused, and homicide was committed as conse#uence, or on the occasion, of the robbery, all of the accused are guilty of robo con homicidio whether or not they actually participated in the killing @,eople vs. =ingad, 12 ,hil. E: ,eople vs. ,uno, =-B0E1., April %1, 01&., EF 9C*A FE1, FFBA.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library -enerally, when robo con homicidio has been proven. all those who had taken part int the robbery are guilty of the special comple3 crime unless it appears that they endoevored to prevent the homicide @C.9. vs. (acalalad, 1 ,hil. 0A. tha same rule is followed is 9panish 4urisprudence. 9on resonsables de este delito @robo con homicidioA en concepto de autor no solo todos los #ue cooperen a la muerte, si#uiera sea con supresencia, sino tabien todos los #ue intevienen en la e4ecucion del robo aun cuando no temon parte en el homicidio: @% Cuello Calon, 8erecho ,enal, 01&E Idition, p. 1&FA. &uestion 55. Comedio un robo con violencia e intimidacion e las personas por dos su4etos, uno de los cuales dispara un trbuco, de4ando muerto en el acto a un tercero #ue acude en au3ilo de llos rabalos, el #ue no disparo sera solo responsable del robo, o al igual #ue su consorte, incurrira en la pena del robo con homicido, previsto en el numero 0/ del art. E0F #ue comentamos7 chanrobles virtual law library Il Tribunal 9upremo ha declarado #ue siendo ambos procesados autores del robo, lo son igualmente del homicido #ue ocurrio en el ultimo delito esta de tal manera enla+ado con el de robo, #ue a no prestarselo el tercero hubiese sido muerto como lo fue: y #ue por ambos procesados, son autores uno y otro, segun el art. 0B del Codigo penal, y por lo lmismo responsables los dos de todas las conse#uencias de su accion. @9entencia de B/ de Abril de 02&%: B Hiada, Codigo ,enal B.&A.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

EF

Il propio Tribunal 9upremo ha resulto: "#ue si resulta probado la delincuencia del procesado en el hecho generador, #ue es el robo, con ocasion del #ue se cometio un homi4cidio, basta esto, en conformidad a lo dispuesto en, el num. 0. del art. E0F, para conderearle tambien responsable de homicidio: resolucion cuya 4usticia evidencia aun mas al parrafo segundo del art. E02, en el #ue se declara #ue los malchechores presentes a la e4ecucion de un robo en despoblado y en cuadrilla so autores de cual#uera de los atentados #ue esta cometa. si on constare #ue procuraron impedirios. @9entencia de %B de 'ebrero de 02&%: B Hiada, Codigo ,enal, Cuarta Idicion, p. B.&A. 5t may be added that the presence of ,age in the front seat, armed with a balisong, must have emboldened Camposano to threaten Heronica Dalacapo and to cause her death with impunity.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The lower court failed to order the accused to pay the sum of ,1E as the value of the things taken by Camposano from the deceased victim.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The case of ,age, a former high school student, now twenty four years old, the child of estranged parents @he lived with his fatherA, who, at the age of eighteen years, was implicated in robbery with homicide, undoubtedly by reason of poverty, should ordinarily e3cite some sympathy and might evoke compassionate 4ustice.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library ,ressed by his lawyer to e3amine his conscience and to state truthfully whether he was implicated in the holdup, ,age cried and said: Defore the eyes of -od, 5 really do not have anything to do with it. That is why 5 am very sad, sir. 5 am being charged for a crime which 5 have not done. 5 have been in 4ail. 5 have nothing to do with it @01 tsn 8ecember 01, 01&%A.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library !f course, he did not kill the victim. Dut, under the rules of conspiracy, he is deemed to be a co-principal in the robbery with homicide.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 6e testified that he was single, 6owever, *osita =are+a, claiming to be his wife, and Teresita Cordero, posing as his girl friend, filed written re#uests for the early disposition of his case @pp. 0%E and 0./, *olloA.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library We have already mentioned that he was charged with theft in the municipal court but the case was dismissed. At the time the instant case was filed in 01&%, he was charged also in the municipal court with simple robbery and two cases of robbery with murder @Criminal Cases $os. B////, B///0 and B//B2A @p. 0%, I3pediente of Criminal Case $o. EB1FA. 6e was also charged in Criminal Cases $os. EB1E and 1&FE of the Court of 'irst 5nstance of *i+al. @9ee 5. 9. $o. &B-E/E. for robbery filed in the fiscal"s office at ,asig, *i+al, pp. FB, &/ and &2 of *olloA. What happened to those cases is not shown in the record.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 6is behavior in prison has not been e3emplary. !n !ctober &, 01&E ,age and five other prisoners comandered the truck, which was delivering foodstuffs at the prison compound, held as hostages the driver and the kitchen supervisor, and tried to escape. ,age and four others were recaptured @p. 001, *olloA.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library ,age in his letter to the Chief >ustice dated April 0., 01&& manifested that, inasmuch as he could not endure the discomforts of prolonged confinement, he was amenable to be electrocuted @he was only sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the trial courtA.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library This is a case where considerations of leniency are out of place. The full force of retributive 4ustice should be brought to bear upon the accused. (any persons have been victimi+ed in e3tortions or holdups committed in buses, ta3icabs and 4eepneys. The court should cooperate with the agents of the law in making these public conveyances a safe means of travel.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library W6I*I'!*I, the lower court"s 4udgment is affirmed with slight modification that appellant should further pay-the heirs of the victim the sum of ,1E representing the value of the watch, earrings and necklace taken from her. Costs against the defendant-appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 9! !*8I*I8.

E&

G.R. No. L-27097 &a#'ar) 17, 1975 THE +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO TOLING ) RO1ERO a#. &OSE TOLING ) RO1ERO, defendants-appellants. (ffice of the *olicitor General 2elix V. a3asiar and *olicitor 0ominador L. 8uiro) for plaintiff-appellee. *antiago 2. Alidio as counsel de oficio for defendants-appellants. A@UINO, J.: Antonio Toling and >ose Toling, brothers, appealed from the decision of the Court of 'irst 5nstance of =aguna, finding them guilty of multiple murder and attempted murder, sentencing them to death and ordering them to indemnify each set of heirs of @0A Teresita D. Iscanan, @%A Antonio D. (abisa, @BA 5sabelo 9. 8ando, @.A Ilena D. Irminio @EA (odesta *. Drondial @FA 5sabel 'elices and @&A Teodoro '. Dautista in the sum of ,F,/// and to pay Amanda (apa the sum of ,E// @Criminal Case $o. 9C-1FFA. The 4udgment of conviction was based on the following facts: Antonio Toling and >ose Toling, twins, both married, are natives of Darrio $enita which is about eighteen @or nineA kilometers away from (ondragon, $orthern 9amar. They are illiterate farmers tilling their own lands. They were forty-eight years old in 01FF. Antonio is one hour older than >ose. Deing twins, they look alike very much. 6owever, Antonio has a distinguishing cut in his ear @.. tsn >an. 0., 01FFA. Antonio"s daughter, =eonora, was working in (anila as a laundrywoman since 9eptember, 01F.. >ose"s three children one girl and two boys, had stayed in (anila also since 01F.. Antonio decided to go to (anila after receiving a letter from =eonora telling him that she would give him money. To have money for his e3penses, Antonio killed a pig and sold the meat to >ose"s wife for si3ty pesos. >ose decided to go with Antonio in order to see his children. 6e was able to raise eighty-five pesos for his e3penses. !n >anuary F, 01FE, with a bayong containing their pants and shirts, the twins left Darrio $enita and took a bus to Allen. 'rom there, they took a launch to (atnog, 9orsogon. 'rom (atnog, they went to 8araga, Albay on board an Alatco bus, and from 8araga, they rode on the train, arriving at the ,aco railroad station in (anila at about seven o"clock in the morning of >anuary 2th. 5t was their first trip to the big city. At the ,aco station, the twins took a 4eepney which brought them to Tondo. Dy means of a letter which Aniano Ispenola a labor-recruiter, had given them, they were able to locate an employment agency where they learned the address of the Ing 6eng -lassware. Antonio"s daughter was working in that store. Accompanied by >uan, an employee of the agency, they proceeded to her employer"s establishment. =eonora gave her father fifty pesos. 9encio *ubis Antonio"s grandson, gave him thirty pesos. Antonio placed the eighty pesos in the right pocket of his pants. 5t was then noontime. >ose was not able to find any of his children in the city. The twins returned to the agency where they ate their lunch at >uan"s e3pense. 'rom the agency, >uan took the twins to the Tutuban railroad station that same day, >anuary 2th, for their homeward trip. After buying their tickets, they boarded the night Dicol e3press train at about five o"clock in the afternoon. The train left at si3 o"clock that evening. The twins were in coach $o. 1 which was the third from the rear of the dining car. The coach had one row of two-passenger seats and another row of three- passenger seats. Iach seat faced an opposite seat. An aisle separated the two rows. The brothers were seated side by side on the fourth three-passenger seat from the rear, facing the back door. >ose was seated between Antonio, who was near the window, and a three-year old boy. Deside the boy was a woman breast-feeding her baby who was near the aisle. That woman was Cora+on Dernal. There were more than one hundred twenty passengers in the coach. 9ome passengers were standing on the aisle. 9itting on the third seat and facing the brothers were two men and an old woman who was sleeping with her head resting on the back of the seat @I3h. %A. on the two-passenger seat across the aisle in line with the seat where the brothers were sitting, there were seated a fat woman, who was near the window, and one Cipriano *eganet who was on her left. !n the opposite seat were seated a woman, her daughter and Amanda (apa with an eight-month old baby. They were in front of *eganet. Two chico vendors entered the coach when the train stopped at Cabuyao, =aguna. The brothers bought some chicos which they put aside. The vendors alighted when the train started moving. 5t was around eight o"clock in the evening. $ot long after the train had resumed its regular speed, Antonio stood up and with a pair of scissors @I3h. DA stabbed the man sitting directly in front of him. The victim stood up but soon collapsed on his seat. 'or his part, >ose stabbed with a knife @I3h. AA the sleeping old woman who was seated opposite him. 9he was not able to get up anymore. 1

E2

Cpon seeing what was happening, Amanda (apa, with her baby, attempted to leave her seat, but before she could escape >ose stabbed her, hitting her on her right hand with which she was supporting her child @I3h. 8-%A. The blade entered the dorsal side and passed through the palm. 'ortunately, the child was not in4ured. (ost of the passengers scurried away for safety but the twins, who had run amuck, stabbed everyone whom they encountered inside the coach. 2 Among the passengers in the third coach was Constabulary 9ergeant Hicente M. *ayel, a train escort who, on that occasion, was not on duty. 6e was taking his wife and children to Calauag, ;ue+on. 6e was going to the dining car to drink coffee when someone informed him that there was a stabbing inside the coach where he had come from. 6e immediately proceeded to return to coach $o. 1. Cpon reaching coach 2, he saw a dead man sprawled on the floor near the toilet. At a distance of around nine meters, he saw a man on the platform separating coaches $os. 2 and 1, holding a knife between the thumb and inde3 finger of his right hand, with its blade pointed outward. 6e shouted to the man that he @*ayelA was a Constabularyman and a person in authority and *ayel ordered him to lay down his knife @I3h. AA upon the count of three, or he would be shot. 5nstead of obeying, the man changed his hold on the knife by clutching it between his palm and little finger @with the blade pointed inwardA and, in a suicidal impulse, stabbed himself on his left breast. 6e slowly sank to the floor and was prostrate thereon. $ear the platform where he had fallen, *ayel saw another man holding a pair of scissors @I3h. DA. 6e retreated to the steps near the platform when he saw *ayel armed with a pistol. *ayel learned from his wife that the man sitting opposite her was stabbed to death. Constabulary 9ergeant Hicente Aldea was also in the train. 6e was in the dining car when he received the information that there were killings in the third coach. 6e immediately went there and, while at the rear of the coach, he met (rs. (apa who was wounded. 6e saw Antonio stabbing with his scissors two women and a small girl and a woman who was later identified as Teresita D. Iscanan @I3h. 5 to 5-BA. Antonio was not wounded. Those victims were prostrate on the seats of the coach and on the aisle. Aldea shouted at Antonio to surrender but the latter made a thrust at him with the scissors. When Antonio was about to stab another person, Aldea stood on a seat and repeatedly struck Antonio on the head with the butt of his pistol, knocking him down. Aldea then 4umped and stepped on Antonio"s buttocks and wrested the scissors away from him. Antonio offered resistance despite the blows administered to him. When the train arrived at the Calamba station, four Constabulary soldiers escorted the twins from the train and turned them over to the custody of the Calamba police. 9ergeant *ayel took down their names. The bloodstained scissors and knife were turned over to the Constabulary Criminal 5nvestigation 9ervice @C59A. 9ome of the victims were found dead in the coach while others were picked up along the railroad tracks between Cabuyao and Calamba. Those who were still alive were brought to different hospitals for first-aid treatment. The dead numbering twelve in all were brought to 'uneraria ;uiogue, the official morgue of the $ational Dureau of 5nvestigation @$D5A in (anila, where their cadavers were autopsied @I3h. C to C-00A. A Constabulary photographer took some pictures of the victims @I3h. - to 5-%, >-0 and >-%A. !f the twelve persons who perished, eight, whose bodies were found in the train, died from stab wounds, namely: @0A 5sabel 'elices, F/, housewife, -inla4on, 9orsogon. @%A Antonio D. (abisa, %2, married, laborer, -uinayangan, ;ue+on. @BA 5sabelo 9. 8ando, .E, married, ,aracale, Camarines $orte. @.A 9usana C. 6ernande+, .F, married, housekeeper, >ose ,anganiban, Camarines $orte. @EA Teodoro '. Dautista, &%, married, $awasa employee, 9an >uan, *i+al. @FA (odesta *. Drondial E2, married, housekeeper, =egaspi City. @&A Ilena D. Irminio 0/, student, 0% =iberty Avenue, Cubao, ;ue+on City and @2A Teresita D. Iscanan, %E, housemaid, FF (enlo 9treet, ,asay City @I3h. C to C-B, C-&, C-2, C-1, C-00, = to =-%, $ to $-%, / to /-%, , to ,-%, ; to ;-%, * to *-% and T to T-%A 'our dead persons were found near the railroad tracks. Apparently, they 4umped from the moving train to avoid being killed. They were: @0A Timoteo C. 8imaano, EB married, carpenter, (iguelin, 9ampaloc, (anila. . @%A (iguel C. !riarte, .E, married, 8alagan, =ope+, ;ue+on. @BA 9alvador A. (a#ueda E%, married, farmer, =ope+, ;ue+on and @.A 9hirley A. Halenciano, %&, married, housekeeper, FE&-8 >orge 9treet, ,asay City @I3h. C-.. C-E, C-F, C-0/, >, >-0, >-%, ) to )-%, ( to (-B and 9 to 9-%A. Among the in4ured were =ucila ,anto4a, Daby K, (rs. K, (rs. Armanda (apa-8i+on, Drigida 9armiento,alma, Cipriano *eganet and Cora+on Dernal-Astrolavio @I3h. 8 to 8-EA. (rs. Astrolavio supposedly died later @.B tsn >anuary 0., 01FFA.

E1

(rs. (apa declared that because of the stab wound inflicted upon her right hand by >ose Toling, she was first brought to the Calamba Imergency 6ospital. =ater, she was transferred to the hospital of the ,hilippine $ational *ailways at Caloocan City where she was confined for thirteen days free of charge. As a result of her in4ury, she was not able to engage in her occupation of selling fish for one month, thereby losing an e3pected earning of one hundred fifty pesos. When she ran for safety with her child, she lost clothing materials valued at three hundred pesos aside from two hundred pesos cash in a paper bag which was lost. The case was investigated by the Criminal 5nvestigation 9ervice of the 9econd Constabulary Mone head#uarters at Camp Hicente =im, Canlubang, =aguna. !n >anuary 1, 01FE Constabulary investigators took down the statements of (rs. (apa-8i+on, Cipriano *eganet, Cora+on Dernal, Drigida de 9armiento and 9ergeant Aldea. !n that date, the statements of the Toling brothers were taken at the $orth -eneral 6ospital. 9ergeant *ayel also gave a statement. Antonio Toling told the investigators that while in the train he was stabbed by a person from the station who wanted to get his money. 6e retaliated by stabbing his assailant. 6e said that he stabbed somebody who might have died and others that might not . 6e clarified that in the train four persons were asking money from him. 6e stabbed one of them. 5t was a hold-up . 6e revealed that after stabbing the person who wanted to rob him, he stabbed other persons because, inasmuch as he C#as already bound to dieC, he #anted Cto 3ill everybodyC @I3h. K or 2, .1 tsn 9ept. B, 01FEA. >ose Toling, in his statement, said that he was wounded because he was stabbed by a person from Camarines who was taking his money. 6e retaliated by stabbing his assailant with the scissors. 6e said that he stabbed two persons who were demanding money from him and who were armed with knives and iron bars. When >ose Toling was informed that several persons died due to the stabbing, he commented that everybody was trying to kill each other @I3h. 5-AA. According to >ose Toling, two persons grabbed the scissors in his pocket and stabbed him in the back with the scissors and then escaped. Antonio allegedly pulled out the scissors from his back, gave them to him and told him to avenge himself with the scissors. !n >anuary %/, 01FE a Constabulary sergeant filed against the Toling brothers in the municipal court of Cabuyao, =aguna a criminal complaint for multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. Through counsel, the accused waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation. The case was elevated to the Court of 'irst 5nstance of =aguna where the ,rovincial 'iscal on (arch 0/, 01FE filed against the Toling brothers an information for multiple murder @nine victimsA, multiple frustrated murder @si3 victimsA and triple homicide @as to three persons who died after 4umping from the running train to avoid being stabbedA. At the arraignment, the accused, assisted by their counsel de oficio pleaded not guilty. After trial, >udge Arsenio $a<awa rendered the 4udgment of conviction already mentioned. The Toling brothers appealed. 5n this appeal, appellants" counsel de oficio assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, argues that the appellants acted in self-defense and contends, in the alternative, that their criminal liability was only for two homicides and for physical in4uries. According to the evidence for the defense @as distinguished from appellants" statements, I3hibits 0 and 2A, when the Toling twins were at the Tutuban *ailroad 9tation in the afternoon of >anuary 2, 01FE, Antonio went to the ticket counter to buy tickets for himself and >ose. To pay for the tickets, he took out his money from the right pocket of his pants and later put back the remainder in the same pocket. The two brothers noticed that four men at some distance from them were allegedly observing them, whispering among themselves and making signs. The twins suspected that the four men harbored evil intentions towards them. When the twins boarded the train, the four men followed them. They were facing the twins. They were talking in a low voice. The twins sat on a two passenger seat facing the front door of the coach, the window being on the right of Antonio and >ose being to his left. Two of the four men, whom they were suspecting of having evil intentions towards them, sat on the seat facing them, while the other two seated themselves behind them. 9ome old women were near them. When the train was already running, the man sitting near the aisle allegedly stood up, approached Antonio and pointed a balisong knife at his throat while the other man who was sitting near the window and who was holding also a balisong knife attempted to pick Antonio"s right pocket, threatening him with death if he would not hand over the money. Antonio answered that he would give only one-half of his money provided the man would not hurt him, adding that his @Antonio"sA place was still very far. When Antonio felt some pain in his throat, he suddenly drew out his hunting knife or small bolo @eight inches long including the handleA from the back pocket of his pants and stabbed the man with it, causing him to fall to the floor with his balisong. 6e also stabbed the man who was picking his pocket. Antonio

F/

identified the two men whom he had stabbed as those shown in the photographs of Antonio D. (abisa @I3h. =-0 and =-% or E-A and E-DA and 5sabelo 9. 8ando @I3h. $-0 and $-% or &-A and &-DA. While Antonio was stabbing the second man, another person from behind allegedly stabbed him on the forehead, causing him to lose consciousness and to fall on the floor @Antonio has two scars on his forehead and a scar on his chest and left forearm, 2E, 2& tsnA. 6e regained consciousness when two Constabulary soldiers raised him. 6is money was gone. 9eeing his brother in a serious condition, >ose stabbed with the scissors the man who had wounded his brother. >ose hit the man in the abdomen. >ose was stabbed in the back by somebody. >ose stabbed also that assailant in the middle part of the abdomen, inflicting a deep wound. 6owever, >ose did not see what happened to the two men whom he had stabbed because he was already weak. 6e fell down and became unconscious. 6e identified I3hibit A as the knife used by Antonio and I3hibit D as the scissors which he himself had used. 6e recovered consciousness when a Constabulary soldier brought him out of the train. The brothers presented 8octor =eonardo del *osario, a physician of the $orth -eneral 6ospital who treated them during the early hours of >anuary 1, 01FE and who testified that he found the following in4uries on Antonio Toling: Wound, incised, 0-0N. inches @suturedA, frontal, right: B-0N% inches each, mid-frontal @wound on the foreheadA and Wound, stabbed, BN. inch, 0 inch medial to anterior a3illary line level of Brd 5C9 right, penetrating thoracic cavity @chest wound @I3h. 00A. and on >ose Toling a stab wound, one inch long on the paravertebral level of the fifth rib on the left, penetrating the thoracic cavity @I3h. 0/A. The wound was on the spinal column in line with the armpit or about one inch from the midline to the left @00B tsnA. The twins were discharged from the hospital on >anuary 0&th. The trial court, in its endeavor to ascertain the motive for the twins" rampageous behavior, which resulted in the macabre deaths of several innocent persons, made the following observations: What could be the reason or motive that actuated the accused to run amuck7 5t appears that the accused travelled long over land and sea spending their hard earned money and suffering privations, even to the e3tent of foregoing their breakfast, only to receive as recompense with respect to Antonio the meager sum of ,E/ from his daughter and ,B/ from his grandson and with respect to >ose to receive nothing at all from any of his three children whom he could not locate in (anila. 5t also appears that the accused, who are twins, are #ueerly alike, a fact which could easily invite some people to stare or ga+e at them and wonder at their very close resemblance. =ike some persons who easily get angry when stared at, however, the accused, when stared at by the persons in front of them, immediately suspected them as having evil intention towards them @accusedA. To the mind of the Court, therefore, it is despondency on the part of the accused coupled with their unfounded suspicion of evil intention on the part of those who happened to stare at them that broke the limit of their self-control and actuated them to run amuck. We surmise that to the captive spectators in coach $o. 1 the spectacle of middle-aged rustic twins, whom, in the limited space of the coach, their co-passengers had no choice but to notice and ga+e at, was a novelty. Through some telepathic or e3tra-sensory perception the twins must have sensed that their co-passengers were talking about them in whispers and making depreciatory remarks or 4okes about their humble persons. 5n their parochial minds, they might have entertained the notion or suspicion that their male companions, taking advantage of their ignorance and naivete, might victimi+e them by stealing their little money. 6ence, they became hostile to their co-passengers. Their pent-up hostility erupted into violence and murderous fury. A painstaking e3amination of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the trial court and the prosecution witnesses confounded one twin for the other. 9uch a confusion was unavoidable because the twins, according to a Constabulary investigator, are very identical . Thus, on the witness stand C59 9ergeants Alfredo C. !rbase and =iberato Tamundong after pointing to the twins, refused to take the risk of identifying who was Antonio and who was >ose. They confessed that they might be mistaken in making such a specific identification @%2 tsn 9eptember B, 01FE: B% tsn $ovember E, 01FEA. 5n our opinion, to ascertain who is Antonio and who is >ose, the reliable guides would be their sworn statements @I3h. 0 and 2A, e3ecuted one day after the killing, their own testimonies and the medical certificates @I3h. 0/ and 00A. Those parts of the evidence reveal that the one who was armed with the knife was Antonio and the one who was armed with the scissors was >ose. The prosecution witnesses and the trial court assumed that Antonio was armed with the scissors @I3h. DA and >ose was armed with the knife @I3h. AA. That assumption is erroneous.

F0

5n his statement and testimony, Antonio declared that he was armed with a knife, while >ose declared that he was armed with the scissors which Antonio had purchased at the Tutuban station, before he boarded the train and which he gave to >ose because the latter is a barber whose old pair of scissors was already rusty. As thus clarified, the person whom 9ergeant *ayel espied as having attempted to commit suicide on the platform of the train by stabbing himself on the chest would be Antonio @not >oseA. That conclusion is confirmed by the medical certificate, I3hibit 00, wherein it is attested that Antonio had a wound in the chest. And the person whom 9ergeant Aldea subdued after the former had stabbed several persons with a pair of scissors @not with a knifeA was >ose and not Antonio. That fact is contained in his statement of >anuary 1, 01FE @p. 1, *ecordA. The mistake of the prosecution witnesses in taking Antonio for >ose and vice-versa does not detract from their credibility. The controlling fact is that those witnesses confirmed the admission of the twins that they stabbed several passengers. Appellants" counsel based his arguments on the summaries of the evidence found in the trial court"s decision. 6e argues that the testimonies of 9ergeants *ayel and Aldea are contradictory but he does not particulari+e on the supposed contradictions. The testimonies of the two witnesses do not cancel each other. The main point of *ayel"s testimony is that he saw one of the twins stabbing himself in the chest and apparently trying to commit suicide. Aldea"s testimony is that he knocked down the other twin, disabled him and prevented him from committing other killings. 5t may be admitted that *ayel"s testimony that Aldea took the knife of >ose Toling was not corroborated by Aldea. $either did Aldea testify that Antonio was near >ose on the platform of the train. Those discrepancies do not render *ayel and Aldea unworthy of belief. They signify that Aldea and *ayel did not give rehearsed testimonies or did not compare notes. Where, as in this case, the events transpired in rapid succession in the coach of the train and it was nighttime, it is not surprising that *ayel and Aldea would not give identical testimonies @9ee F (oran"s Comments on the *ules of Court, 01&/ Id. 0B1-0./: ,eople vs. *esayaga, =-%B%B., 8ecember %F, 01FB, E. 9C*A BE/A. There is no doubt that Aldea and *ayel witnessed some of the acts of the twins but they did not observe the same events and their powers of perception and recollection are not the same. Appellants" counsel assails the testimony of (rs. (apa. 6e contends that no one corroborated her testimony that one of the twins stabbed a man and a sleeping woman sitting on the seat opposite the seat occupied by the twins. The truth is that (rs. (apa"s testimony was confirmed by the necropsy reports and by the twins themselves who admitted that they stabbed some persons. !n the other hand, the defense failed to prove that persons, other than the twins, could have inflicted the stab wounds. There is no doubt as to the corpus delicti. And there can be no doubt that the twins, from their own admissions @I3h. 0 and 2A and their testimonies, not to mention the testimonies of *ayel, Aldea, (rs. (apa and the C59 investigators, were the authors of the killings. Apparently, because there was no doubt on the twins" culpability, since they were caught in flagrante delicto the C59 investigators did not bother to get the statements of the other passengers in Coach $o. 1. 5t is probable that no one actually saw the acts of the twins from beginning to end because everyone in Coach $o. 1 was trying to leave it in order to save his life. The ensuing commotion and confusion prevented the passengers from having a full personal knowledge of how the twins consummated all the killings. !n the other hand, the twins" theory of self-defense is highly incredible. 5n that crowded coach $o. 1, which was lighted, it was improbable that two or more persons could have held up the twins without being readily perceived by the other passengers. The twins would have made an outcry had there really been an attempt to rob them. The in4uries, which they sustained, could be attributed to the blows which the other passengers inflicted on them to stop their murderous rampage. Appellants" view is that they should be held liable only for two homicides, because they admittedly killed Antonio D. (abisa and 5sabelo 9. 8ando, and for physical in4uries because they did not deny that >ose Toling stabbed (rs. (apa. We have to re4ect that view. Confronted as we are with the grave task of passing 4udgment on the aberrant behavior of two yokels from the 9amar hinterland who reached manhood without coming into contact with the mainstream of civili+ation in urban areas, we e3ercised utmost care and solicitude in reviewing the evidence. We are convinced that the record conclusively establishes appellants" responsibility for the eight killings. To the seven dead persons whose heirs should be indemnified, according to the trial court, because they died due to stab wounds, should be added the name of 9usana C. 6ernande+ @I3h. ,, ,-0 and ,-%A. The omission of her name in 4udgment was probably due to inadvertence. According to the necropsy reports, four persons, namely, 9hirley A. Halenciano, 9alvador A. (a#ueda, (iguel C. !riarte and Timoteo C.

F%

8imaano, died due to multiple traumatic in4uries consisting of abrasions, contusions, lacerations and fractures on the head, body and e3tremities @I3h. > to >-%, ) to )-%, ( to (-% and 9 to 9-%A. The con4ecture is that they 4umped from the moving tracing to avoid being killed but in so doing they met their untimely and horrible deaths. The trial court did not ad4udge them as victims whose heirs should be indemnified. As to three of them, the information charges that the accused committed homicide. The trial court dismissed that charge for lack of evidence. $o one testified that those four victims 4umped from the train. 6ad the necropsy reports been reinforced by testimony showing that the pro3imate cause of their deaths was the violent and murderous conduct of the twins, then the latter would be criminally responsible for their deaths. Article . of the *evised ,enal Code provides that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony @delitoA although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended . The presumption is that a person intends the ordinary conse#uences of his voluntary act @9ec. ERcS, *ule 0B0, *ules of CourtA. The rule is that if a man creates in another man"s mind an immediate sense of danger which causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing he in4ures himself, the person who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the in4uries which result @*eg. vs. 6alliday F0 =. T. *ep. R$.9.S &/0, cited in C.9. vs. Halde+, .0 ,hil. .100, E//A. 'ollowing that rule, is was held that if a person against whom a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape 4umps into the water, impelled by the instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is responsible for homicide in case death results by drowning @9yllabus, C.9. vs. Halde+, supra, 9ee ,eople vs. Duhay, &1 ,hil. B&0A. The absence of eyewitness-testimony as to the 4umping from the train of the four victims already named precludes the imputation of criminal responsibility to the appellants for the ghastly deaths of the said victims. The same observation applies to the in4uries suffered by the other victims. The charge of multiple frustrated murder based on the in4uries suffered by Cipriano ,anto4a, 8inna $osal, Cora+on Dernal and Drigida 9armiento @I3h. 8, 8-B to 8-EA was dismissed by the trial court for lack of evidence. Cnlike (rs. (apa, the offended parties involved did not testify on the in4uries inflicted on them. The eight killings and the attempted killing should be treated as separate crimes of murder and attempted murder #ualified be treachery @alevosiaA @Art. 0.R0FS, *evised ,enal CodeA. The une3pected, surprise assaults perpetrated by the twins upon their co-passengers, who did not anticipate that the twins would act like "uramentados and who were unable to defend themselves @even if some of them might have had weapons on their personsA was a mode of e3ecution that insured the consummation of the twins" diabolical ob4ective to butcher their co-passengers. The conduct of the twins evinced conspiracy and community of design. The eight killings and the attempted murder were perpetrated by means of different acts. 6ence, they cannot be regarded as constituting a comple3 crime under article .2 of the *evised ,enal Code which refers to cases where a single act constitutes two or more grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other . As noted by Cuello Calon, the so-called concurso formal o ideal de delitos reviste dos formas: @aA cuando un solo hecho constituye dos o mas delitos @el llamado delito compuestoA: @bA cuando uno de ellos sea medio necesario para cometer otro @el llamado delito comple4oA. @0 8erecho ,enal, 0%th Id. FE/A. !n the other hand, en al concurso real de delitos , the rule, when there is acumulacion material de las penas , is that si son varios los resultados, si son varias las acciones, esta conforme con la logica y con la 4usticia #ue el agente soporte la carga de cada uno de los delitos @ !bid, p. FE%, ,eople vs. (ori, =-%BE00, >anuary B0, 01&., EE 9C*A B2%, ./BA. The twins are liable for eight @2A murders and one attempted murder. @9ee ,eople vs. 9ala+ar, 0/E ,hil. 0/E2 where the accused (oro, who ran amuck, killed si3teen persons and wounded others, was convicted of si3teen separate murders, one frustrated murder and two attempted murders: ,eople vs. (ortero, 0/2 ,hil. B0, the ,anampunan massacre case, where si3 defendants were convicted of fourteen separate murders: ,eople vs. *emollino, 0/1 ,hil. F/&, where a person who fired successively at si3 victims was convicted of si3 separate homicides: C. 9. Deecham, 0E ,hil. %&%, involving four murders: ,eople vs. (acaso, 2E ,hil. 201, 2%2, involving eleven murders: C.9. vs. >amad, B& ,hil. B/E: C.9. vs. Dalaba, B& ,hil. %F/, %&0. &ontra: ,eople vs. Cabrera, .B ,hil. 2%, 0/%-0/B: ,eople vs. 'loresca, 11 ,hil. 0/..: ,eople vs. 9akam, F0 ,hil. %&: ,eople vs. =awas, 1& ,hil. 1&E: ,eople vs. (anantan, 1. ,hil. 2B0: ,eople vs. Cmali, 1F ,hil. 02E: ,eople vs. Cu Cn4iengi, F0 ,hil. %BF: ,eople vs. ,enas, FF ,hil. F2%: ,eople vs. 8e =eon, .1 ,hil. .B&, where the crimes committed by means of separate acts were held to be comple3 on the theory that they were the product of a single criminal impulse or intentA.

FB

As no generic mitigating and aggravating circumstances were proven in this case, the penalty for murder should be imposed in its medium period or reclusion perpetua @Arts. F.RlS and %.2, *evised ,enal Code. The death penalty imposed by the trial court was not warranted. A separate penalty for attempted murder should be imposed on the appellants. $o modifying circumstances can be appreciated in the attempted murder case. W6I*I'!*I, the trial court"s 4udgment is modified by setting aside the death sentence. 8efendantsappellants Antonio Toling and >ose Toling are found guilty, as co-principals, of eight @2A separate murders and one attempted murder. Iach one of them is sentenced to eight @2A reclusion perpetuas for the eight murders and to an indeterminate penalty of one @0A year of prision correccional as minimum to si3 @FA years and one @0A day of prision mayor as ma3imum for the attempted murder and to pay solidarily an indemnity of ,0%,/// to each set of heirs of the seven victims named in the dispositive part of the trial court"s decision and of the eight victim, 9usana C. 6ernande+, or a total indemnity of ,1F,///, and an indemnity of ,E// to Amanda (apa. 5n the service of the penalties, the forty-year limit fi3ed in the penultimate paragraph of article &/ of the *evised ,enal Code should be observed. Costs against the appellants. 9! !*8I*I8. ,oo!#o!e$ 0 That initial stabbing was described by Cora+on Dernal-Astrolavio in her statement dated >anuary 1, 01FE in this manner @page 0F of the *ecordA: .. T: (ay nasaksihan ba kayong hindi pangkaraniwang pangyayari na naganap nang gabing iyon at kung mayroon maaari ba ninyong maisalaysay sa maikli ngunit maliwanag na pananalita7 9: (ayroon po. $akaupo ako nuon sa bandang hulihan nang tren. $agpapasuso ako nuon nang aking anak nang biglang nagkagulo. !yong 3atabi 3ong lala3i na may 3atandaan na ay biglang sinaksak iyong kaharap kong babae sa upuan. $abuwal iyong kanyang sinaksak, at ako naman ay nagtatakbo na dala ko iyong dalawa kong anak. 9umiksik kami doon sa may kubeta nang tren na nang mangyari iyon ay lumalakad. 6indi ko alam na iyong aking kanan sintido ay nagdurugo. $ang tahimik na ay dinala kami sa ospital sa Calamba at doon ay ginamot ako roon. E. T: 9inabi ninyo na nang biglang magkagulo samantalang lumalakad ang tren ay iyong katabi ninyong lalaki na may katandaan na ay biglang sinaksak iyong kaharap ninyong babae sa upuan, nakita ba ninyo kung ano ang ipinanaksak nang lalaking ito7 9: 6indi ko na po napansin dahil sa aking takot. % (rs. (apa"s statement @I3h. IA reads: .. T: 9ino po ang sumaksak sa inyo7 9: 5yon pong lalaking mataas na payat na bisaya. 6indi ko po kilala pero kung makikita ko ay makikilala ko. 5to pong sumaksak sa akin na ito ay dinala rin sa ospital sa Calamba, =aguna. $auna po lamang ako at nakita kong siya ang isinunod na may saksak din. E. T: Dakit naman ninyo namukhaan itong sumaksak sa inyong ito7 9: Dahelera po namin iyan sa upuan. F. T: (aaari po ba ninyong isalaysay sa maikli ngunit maliwanag na pananalita ang buong pangyayaring inyong nasaksihan7 9: !po. $agpapasuso ako nuon nang aking anak, nang walang ano-ano ay nakita ko na lamang iyong nakasaksak sa akin na biglang tumayo sa kanyang kinauupuan at biglang sinaksak iyong kaharap niyang sa upuan na babae na natutulog. 5tong katabi nang nanaksak na ito ay tumayo rin at nana3sa3 din nang nana3sa3 at ang lahat nang ma3itang tao ay hinahabol at sinasa3sa3 . Data, matanda ay sinasaksak nang dalawang ito at madaanan. $ang bigla kong tayo ay natamaan iyong aking kanang kamay nang kabig niya nang saksak. $agtuloy ako sa kubeta sa tren at doon ako sumiksik. $ang payapa na ang lahat ay dinala ako sa Calamba sa ospital doon, at ako"y ginamot nang pangunang lunas. &. T: 5tong katabi na lalaking sinasabi ninyong nanaksak din ay kung makita ninyong muli ay makikilala pa ninyo7 9: a3i3ilala 3o rin po. ag3aha#ig po sila nang na3asa3sa3 sa a3in. The statement of Cipriano *eganet who was wounded @I3h. 8-.A, in a way corroborates (rs. (apa"s statement. *eganet"s statement reads in part as follows @I3h. 'A: B. T: (aaari po ba ninyong masabi kung bakit kayo naririto ngayon sa ,$* 6ospital dito sa Caloocan City7 9: 8ahil po sa mga saksak na tinamo ko nang magkaroon nang gulo sa loob nang tren kagabing humigit kumulang sa mga alas nueve @1:// ,.(.A petcha 2 nitong Inero 01FE. .. T: 9ino po ang sumaksak sa inyo kung inyong nakikilala7

F.

9: 6indi ko po alam ang pangalan pero mamumukhaan ko kung ihaharap sa akin. Ang sumaksak po sa akin ay iyong kasama ko sa ambulancia na nagdala saamin dito sa ospital na ito. E. T: Dakit naman ninyo natiyak na ang sumaksak sa inyo ay iyong kasama ninyo sa ambulancia na nagdala sa inyo sa ospital na ito7 9: alapit po lamang ang 3anyang inuupuan sa a3ing inuupuan sa loob nang tren 3aya namu3haan 3o siya. F. T: 5lan beses kayong sinaksak nang taong ito7 9: 8alawang beses po. &. T: 9aan-saan panig nang katawan kayo nagtamo nang saksak7 9: 9a aking noo at sa kanang kamay nang sangahin ko ang kanyang pangalawang saksak. 2. T: Dakit po naman kayo sinaksak nang taong ito7 9: 6indi ko po alam. 1rimero nana3sa3 siya sa 3anyang 3aharap sa upuan at sa3sa3 nang sa3sa3 sa mga taong 3anyang ma3ita. 1. T: 5lan ang nakita ninyong nananaksak7 9: 0ala#a pong mag3atabi na mag3aha#ig ang mu3ha. 0/. T: $ang mangyari po ba ito ay tumatakbo ang tren7 9: Tumatakbo po. 00. T: ,apaano kayo nakaligtas7 9: Tumakbo po ako at kumabit sa rampa at nang medyo tahimik na balak kong magbalik sa loob nang tren. $akita ko na maraming sugatan at sa wari ko ay patay na. 9a mga nakita ko sa loob nang tren ay iyong sumaksak sa akin, na nakasandal at nang makita ako ay tinanganan iyong kanyang panaksak at tinangka akong habulin. Tumakbo ako at tumalon sa lupa. 9a pagtalon kong iyon ay napinsala ang aking kaliwang balikat. 0%. T: Ano po ang ipinanaksak sa inyo7 9: ,ara pong punyal na ang haba ay kumulang humigit sa isang dangkal . (rs. Drigida 9armiento-,alma, who was also wounded @I3h. 8-BA e3ecuted a statement which reads in part as follows @page %/, *ecordA: .. T: (aaari po ba ninyong ysay sa maikli ngunit maliwanag na pananalita ang buong pangyayari7 9: !po. $akaupo po ako nuon kaharap papuntang Dicol. Walang ano-ano ay bigla na lamang nakita ko na may sinaksak at pagkatapos nakita ko na lahat nang makita babae o lalaki at sinaksak. $ang ako"y tumayo para tumakbo ay nilapitan ako at ako naman ang sinaksak. 9umigaw ako at humingi nang saklolo at nakiusap sa isang tao na tagpan nang tualya iyong tinamo kong saksak sa kaliwang puson na tumama sa buto. (akalipas ang ilang sandali ay dinala na ako sa ospital. E. T: $akikilala ba ninyo iyong sumaksak sa inyo7 9: )ilala ko po sa mukha at kasama ko pa kahapon nang dalhin ako sa ospital na ito. F. T: 5lan po itong nakita ninyong nanaksak7 9: 0ala#a po sila na mag3aha#ig ang mu3ha.

FE

THE +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. +A/LO RELO& a("a$ AM/O4, defendant-appellant. (ffice of the *olicitor General 2elix 8. Antonio, Acting Assistant *olicitor General 0ominador L. 8uiro) and *olicitor Vicente 1. %vangelists for plaintiff-appellee. $uan L. 1astrana and Adolfo . !ligan for defendant-appellant. CONCE+CION, C.J.:p Appeal by ,ablo *elo4 from a decision of the Court of 'irst 5nstance of Aklan convicting him of the crime of murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment, with the corresponding accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of >ustiniano 5sagan 9r., in the sum of ,0%,///, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and without costs. . 5t is not disputed that, on >uly &, 01FB, at about B:// p.m., >ustiniano 5sagan 9r., was stabbed by appellant ,ablo *elo4, with an ice pick wrapped in a piece of paper, outside the cockpit in =ibtong, Darrio of Istancia, (unicipality of )alibo, ,rovince of Aklan: that, soon thereafter, >ustiniano 9r. was brought to the Aklan ,rovincial 6ospital, where a surgical operation was performed upon him: and that, although the operation was successful and >ustiniano 9r. seemed to be in the process of recovery, he developed, five @EA days later, a paralytic ileum ? which takes place, sometimes, in conse#uence of the e3posure of the internal organs during the operation ? and then died. The corresponding information for murder having been filed, the Court of 'irst 5nstance of Aklan rendered, after appropriate proceedings, the aforementioned 4udgment of conviction. 6ence, this appeal by the defendant, who maintains that the lower court has erred: aA in giving full credence to the testimony of the main witnesses for the prosecution: bA in not finding that he had no intent to kill: cA in holding him responsible for the death of >ustiniano 9r.: dA in holding that the crime committed by him is murder #ualified by treachery: eA in not considering in his favor the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense: fA in not considering in his favor the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed: gA in not considering in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the authorities: and hA in sentencing him to life imprisonment. The main evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimony of >ustiniano 5sagan >r., and 6ermie Mante and the ante-mortem declaration, I3hibit I, of the deceased. >ustiniano >r. testified that his father and he went to the cockpit in =ibtong on >uly &, 01FB, at about B: // p.m.: that, while his father was standing, under a mango tree, outside the cockpit, watching 6ermie Mante as he was tying a gaff on a fighting cock, defendant approached him @>ustiniano 9r.A from behind and placing his @defendant"sA right hand on the left shoulder of >ustiniano 9r., stabbed him, with the left hand, on the left side of the abdomen, with an ice pick wrapped in a piece of paper: that, as >ustiniano >r. ? who was several steps away from his father ? tried to approach him, appellant rushed at him @>ustiniano >r.A saying, And you also : that, accordingly, he @>ustiniano, >r.A ran away pursued by appellant: that the latter soon gave up the chase, and, throwing away the ice pick, went to a store nearby, where a policeman later arrested him: that >ustiniano >r. then went back to where his father was wounded: and that, on the way thereto, he picked up appellant"s ice pick. This testimony was corroborated by 6ermie Mante who stated that, while he was arming the aforementioned fighting cock, and >ustiniano 9r., was watching it about 0-0N% bra)as @fathomsA away, for he wanted to bet on said cock, he @ManteA heard >ustiniano 9r. groan that, as he @ManteA looked at him @>ustiniano, 9r.A, he @ManteA noticed the latter holding appellant"s left hand, which, in turn, held an ice pick pointed at the belly of >ustiniano 9r.: that, wresting himself from the latter"s hold, appellant chased >ustiniano >r., with the ice pick still in his @appellant"sA hand, saying, And you also : and that >ustiniano >r. ran away, but came back, soon later, and then picked up the ice pick thrown away by appellant, who had, meanwhile, gone to the aforesaid store nearby, where ,atrolman $acion arrested him. Apart from the foregoing, the prosecution introduced the ante-mortem declaration, I3hibit I, taken by ,olice 9ergeant Angelo Hillanueva in the Aklan ,rovincial 6ospital, in the presence of ,olice 9ergeant $. Cordova and 8r. Ciriaco 5camina, soon after >ustiniano 9r. had been brought to said institution on >uly &, 01FB, at about .:// p.m. >ustiniano 9r. stated in I3hibit I that appellant had stabbed him suddenly in the abdomen, with a weapon covered by a paper, which turned out to be an ice pick, with which appellant, likewise, tried to attack >ustiniano >r. The prosecution, likewise, introduced the testimony of *ogelio 5bardola+a and Angel de la Cru+. The former testified that, on >uly &, 01FB, at about 0/:// a.m., he was in the store of one *icamonte, in 8aguitan, (adalag, Aklan: that appellant was then in the store drinking beer with two companions: and that 5bardola+a then heard appellant say that he would first kill >ustiniano 9r. and then go to (untinglupa. Cpon the other hand, Angel de la Cru+ affirmed that, on said date, at noontime, he boarded a truck headed

FF

for the cockpit at =ibtong: that appellant was then in the seat in front of him @8e la Cru+A: that he heard appellant tell his companion that he @appellantA was going to kill >ustiniano 9r.: that appellant"s companion advised him to cool off : that appellant replied: Ah, linti, this 5sagan, they interfere with what is not theirs : that appellant alighted in front of the cockpit, whereas 8e la Cru+ proceeded to the house of >ustiniano 9r. to warn him, but he @8e la Cru+A was informed that he @>ustiniano 9r.A was already in the cockpit: and that, when he @8e la Cru+A went to the cockpit, at about B:// p.m., >ustiniano 9r. had already been wounded and taken to the Aklan ,rovincial 6ospital. Testifying in his own behalf, appellant contradicted the testimony of 5bardola+a, 8e la Cru+ and >ustiniano >r., and stated that, on >uly &, 01FB, from E:// a.m. to 0:// p.m., he was in his store, in the market of )alibo, Aklan: that he left the same and headed for the cockpit, around 0:// p.m.: that, at about %:B/ p.m., >ustiniano 9r. and he bet against each other the sum of ,0/: that he, likewise, had bets against three other persons, whose names he did not remember: that he won the bets, whereupon he collected what was due from his opponents: that, noticing that >ustiniano 9r. was not around, he @appellantA looked for him and found him outside the cockpit: that, when he demanded payment of the ,0/ due from >ustiniano 9r., the latter got mad and gave him several fist blows, but he did not retaliate: that, when he was almost groggy, he drew out the ice pick in his pocket and stabbed >ustiniano 9r. in the belly: and that, thereupon, he threw the ice pick away and proceeded to a nearby store where he waited for a policeman and voluntarily surrendered to him. The first assignment of error is untenable. 5ndeed, appellant"s version - that his demand for payment of the bet he had won from >ustiniano 9r. sufficed to so enrage the latter that he bo3ed appellant to the e3tent of causing two @%A contusions and two @%A abrasions in his face and one @0A contusion in the small finger of his right hand is inherently incredible. Desides, appellant"s testimony to this effect is not only uncorroborated. 5t is, also, contradicted by no less than 8r. =uvisminda )apunan, who e3amined him on >uly 2, 01FB, and asserted that said in4uries had been caused over 9E hours before, or prior to >uly &, 01FB, thus belying appellant"s story, as well as underscoring his lack of veracity. Desides, >ustiniano >r. and 6ermie Mante, who were a few paces away from >ustiniano 9r., would have noticed the attack allegedly made by the latter upon appellant, had it really taken place. $either Mante nor >ustiniano >r., however, had seen it. What is more, both stated that appellant was not there: and that he forthwith stabbed >ustiniano 9r. as he @appellantA appeared thereat so suddenly that Mante did not notice his arrival. Deing a son of the deceased, >ustiniano >r. may not be a disinterested witness, but, certainly, Mante had no possible reason to falsely incriminate appellant herein. What is more, his testimony was corroborated by that of >ustiniano 9r. Then, too, it appears that the latter was one of the witnesses against appellant in a criminal action and a civil case filed by Crisanta Creta and Idecio Henturan+a, although the criminal case was dismissed before >uly &, 01FB, and the hearing of the civil case did not take place until later and was eventually dismissed. The theory of the prosecution was further corroborated by the fact that, five @EA hours before the occurrence, appellant had told his two @%A companions, in the store of one *icamonte in 8aguitan, (adalag, Aklan, that he would first kill >ustiniano 9r. and then go to prison, and that two @%A hours later, appellant told his seatmate, in a truck headed for the cockpit at =ibtong, that he @appellantA would kill >ustiniano 9r., in view of which his aforementioned seatmate advised him to cool-off. Although manifestly imprudent, We do not regard these statements as improbable, considering that appellant had apparently been drinking in said store. Then, again, the fact that appellant brought with him the ice pick -- which he could have and would have left in his store in the market, whence he allegedly came -- and that he had it wrapped in a piece of paper, strongly suggests that he took it with him for the purpose of making use of it. As regards the second assignment of error, the manifestly deadly ? nature of appellant"s ice pick ? with a blade almost five @EA inches long ? with which he stabbed a vital part of the victim"s body @the abdomenA, and the statements made by him in the store of *icamonte ? 5 will first 3ill him and then go to (untinglupa ? and then in the truck on the way to the cockpit ? reiterating his intent to 3ill >ustiniano 9r. ? as well as the manner in which appellant proceeded in attacking his victim, leave no room for doubt about his intent to slay the latter. The third assignment of error is predicated upon the fact that the immediate cause of the death of >ustiniano 9r. was a paralysis of the ileum that supervened five @EA days after the occurrence, when he appeared to be on the way to full recovery. 5t has been established, however, that the e3posure of the internal organs in conse#uence of a surgical operation in the abdomen sometimes results in a paralysis of the ileum and that said operation had to be performed on account of the abdominal in4ury inflicted by appellant. 5t is well settled that: . ... every person is to be held to contemplate and to be responsible for the natural conse#uences of his own acts. 5f a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such a manner as to put life in 4eopardy, and

F&

death follows as a conse#uence of this felonious and wicked act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to prove that other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result. 5ndeed, it may be said that neglect of the wound or its unskillful and improper treatment, which are of themselves conse#uences of the criminal act, which might naturally follow in any case, must in law be deemed to have been among those which were in contemplation of the guilty party, and for which he is to be held responsible. Dut, however, this may be, the rule surely seems to have its foundation in a wise and practical policy. A different doctrine would tend to give immunity to crime and to take away from human life a salutary and essential safeguard. Amid the conflicting theories of medical men, and the uncertainties attendant upon the treatment of bodily ailments and in4uries, it would be easy in many cases of homicide to raise a doubt as to the immediate cause of death, and thereby to open a wide door by which persons guilty of the highest crime might escape conviction and punishment. 1 Considering that appellant"s attack upon >ustiniano 9r. was made suddenly from behind, so that the victim had no opportunity to defend himself, it is clear that the lower court did not err in finding that the offense was #ualified by treachery and that the fourth assignment of error is untenable. I#ually devoid of merit is the incomplete self-defense invoked by appellant, under his fifth assignment of error, the same being based upon his uncorroborated testimony, which, as above indicated, is unworthy of credence and inconsistent with the treachery with which he had attacked >ustiniano 9r. Then, again, the circumstances adverted to above, evincing appellant"s intent to kill >ustiniano 9r., suffice to show that there is no merit in the si3th assignment of error. 5t has been established, however, that appellant had voluntarily surrendered to the authorities and that his seventh assignment of error is, accordingly, well taken. And so is his last assignment of error, for there being no aggravating circumstance to offset the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the authorities, the penalty prescribed by law for the crime of murder committed by appellant should be meted out in its minimum period and he should, accordingly, be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 0/ years and 0 day of prision mayor to 0& years, . months and 0 day of reclusion temporal, with the corresponding accessory penalties, and the costs, apart from the indemnity imposed in the lower court"s decision. Thus modified as to the penalty, the decision appealed from should be as it is hereby affirmed, therefore, in all other respects, with costs against appellant ,ablo *elo4. 5t is so ordered.

F2

G.R. No. 155%01 Oc!o7er *0, 2005 D,or6er() G.R. No$. 152550-57E +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, appellee, vs. AL,REDO /ON, appellant. 8IC595!$ TINGA, J.0 Two critical issues emerge in this case. The first relates to whether the Court should affirm the conviction of appellant Alfredo Don @appellantA for si3 counts of rape and two counts of attempted rape, the victims being his then-minor nieces. !n that score, we affirm. A$ a co#$eF'e#ce !ho'3h, <e are '(!"6a!e() "6 e((e. !o co#:ro#! a F'e$!"o# 6'ch 7roa.er "# 7o!h $co e a#. "6 or!. 8h"(e !he Co'r! ha. re9"o'$() .ec("#e. !o acG#o<(e.3e !he co#$!"!'!"o#a( a7o("!"o# o: !he .ea!h e#a(!) !hro'3h !he 1927 Co#$!"!'!"o#,0 we now find it necessary to determine whether the enactment of *epublic Act $o. 1B.F resulted in the statutory interdiction of the death penalty. The second issue arises as we are compelled to review the ma3imum term of reclusion temporal in the sentence imposed on appellant by the Court of Appeals for the two counts of attempted rape. The sentence was prescribed by the appellate court prior to the enactment of *epublic Act $o. 1B.F which ended the imposition of the death penalty in the ,hilippines. The pro3imate concern as to appellant is whether his penalty for attempted #ualified rape, which under the penal law should be two degrees lower than that of consummated #ualified rape, should be computed from death or reclusion perpetua. 'irst, the antecedent facts. !. Iight @2A 5nformations% were filed within the period from %0 August %/// to %B 'ebruary %//0 by the Assistant ,rovincial ,rosecutor of -umaca, ;ue+on against appellant, charging him with the rape of AAA B and DDD,. the daughters of his older brother. Appellant was accused of raping AAA in Criminal Case $os. F211--, F1/%--, F1/F--, and F1/2--: while he was accused of raping DDD in Criminal Case $os. FF21-, F1/B--, F1/E--, and F1/&--.E All these cases were consolidated for trial. The rapes were alleged to have been committed in several instances over a span of si3 @FA years. Doth AAA and DDD testified against appellant, their uncle, and both identified him as the man who had raped them. 8uring trial, their respective birth certificates and the medical certificates e3ecuted by the doctor who physically e3amined them were entered as documentary evidence. AAA testified that she was only si3 @FA years old when she was first molested in 011. in the house appellant had shared with her grandmother. F 9he recounted that the incident took place when she and appellant were alone in the house. Appellant touched her thighs and vagina, removed her clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina. Appellant threatened that she and her parents would be killed should she disclose the incident to anyone. 9he thereafter stopped sleeping in the house of her grandmother. 5t was only three @BA years after, in 011&, that she slept in the said house, yet again she was se3ually abused by appellant. 9he was then nine @1A years old.& AAA recounted that at age eleven @00A in 0111, she was raped by appellant for the third time, again at the house of her grandmother.2 The following year, when she was twelve @0%A, she was abused for the fourth time by appellant. This time, she was raped in an outdoor clearing 1 after having been invited there by appellant to get some vegetables. While at the clearing, appellant forced her to lie down on a grassy spot and tried to insert his penis in her vagina. As she cried in pain, appellant allegedly stopped.0/ 5t was only on 0% >une %/// that she decided to reveal to her mother, CCC, 00 the brutish acts appellant had done to her.0% 6er mother thus filed a complaint against her uncle. AAA identified appellant in open court and presented as documentary evidence her birth certificate to prove that she was born on B 9eptember 0122.0B DDD, on the other hand, testified that she was first raped by appellant in 011& when she was ten @0/A years old, also at the house appellant shared with her grandmother. While alone in the house, appellant poked a knife at her, removed her clothes and inserted his penis in her vagina. 8espite the pain she felt, she could not resist appellant as he was holding a knife. 9he did not report the rape to her parents out of fear of appellant"s threat that he would kill her. 0. DDD further testified that in 0112 and 0111, she was raped again by appellant on several occasions, the rapes occurring under threat of a bladed weapon, and regardless of the time of day.0E DDD stated that she was last raped by appellant on 0E >anuary %///. 0F !n that night, she was sleeping beside her sister AAA in the house of her grandmother when she felt appellant touching her body. 9he

F1

pushed him away but appellant pulled her three @BA meters away from AAA towards the door. As appellant was holding a knife, DDD could not make any noise to alert her sister. Appellant ordered her to remove her clothes and forced her to lie down. After he took off his clothes, appellant placed himself on top of DDD and stayed there for three @BA minutes moving up and down. Thereafter, she put on her clothes and returned to where her sister was. 9he added that although it was dark, she knew it was appellant who had molested her as she was familiar with his smell. 9ince then, she never slept in her grandmother"s house again.0& 5t was on 0. >une %/// that DDD disclosed her harrowing e3perience to her mother. ,rior to that, however, she had already revealed the se3ual abuses she had underwent to her sister AAA. Cpon learning of the same, her mother brought her to the police station and her statement was taken. Thereafter, she was brought to the hospital to be e3amined. 'urthermore, DDD e3plained that she only reported the abuses done to her on 0. >une %/// or five @EA months after the last rape because she was afraid of appellant"s threat of killing her and her family.02 The third witness for the prosecution was the mother, CCC. 9he testified that she only knew of the abuses done on her daughters on 0E >une %///. 'ive months earlier, CCC became concerned after observing that DDD, on the prete3t of preparing clothes for a game, was packing more than enough clothes. 9he asked her other daughter, 888, to dig into the matter and the latter told her that DDD was planning to leave their house. Cpon learning this, she sent somebody to retrieve DDD. 6owever, it was only five months after that incident that DDD confided to her mother that she was raped by appellant. CCC lost no time in reporting the matter to the authorities and had DDD and AAA e3amined in the hospital. After e3amination, it was confirmed that DDD was indeed se3ually molested.01 CCC initially did not tell her husband about what had happened to their daughters because she was afraid that her husband might kill appellant. 5t was only after appellant was arrested that she disclosed such fact to her husband. After the arrest of appellant, his relatives became angry at CCC, and her mother-in-law avoided talking to her since then.%/ The physician who e3amined DDD and AAA also testified for the prosecution. 8r. ,urita T. Tullas @8r. TullasA, medical officer of -umaca 8istrict 6ospital, testified that she was the one who e3amined DDD and AAA, and thereafter, issued medical certificates for each child. These medical certificates were presented in court.%0 The medical certificate of DDD revealed that at the time of e3amination, there were no e3ternal sign of physical in4ury found on her body. 6owever, 8r. Tullas found that the labia ma"ora and minora of DDD was slightly gaping, her vaginal orifice was admitting two fingers without resistance and there were hymenal lacerations at three @BA o"clock and eight @2A o"clock which might have happened a long time before her e3amination. 8r. Tullas concluded that there might have been se3ual penetration caused by a male se3 organ for several times.%% AAA"s medical certificate stated that at the time of e3amination, there were no e3ternal physical in4uries apparent on her body. AAA"s labia ma"ora and minora were well coaptated and the hymen was still intact. !n direct e3amination, 8r. Tullas said that it could happen that the hymen would still be intact despite se3ual penetration with a person having an elastic hymen. !n the other hand, when asked on crosse3amination, she stated that there was also the possibility that no foreign body touched the labia of the pudendum of AAA.%B !nly appellant testified for his defense, offering denial and alibi as his defense. 6e averred in court that from 011. to %///, he lived in the house of his parents which was about thirty @B/A arm stretches away from the house of DDD and AAA. 6e denied having raped DDD on 0E >anuary %/// because on said date he was at the house of his sister, two @%A kilometers away from the house of his parents where the rape occurred, from 00:B/ in the morning and stayed there until early morning of the following day. %. 6e offered a general denial of the other charges against him by DDD and AAA. 6e claimed that he seldom saw the two minors. 6e further asserted that prior to the institution of the criminal case against him he had a smooth relationship with his nieces and the only reason the case was filed against him was that CCC, his sister-in-law and the mother of his nieces, harbored ill-feelings towards his deceased father, who would call CCC la+y within earshot of other family members.%E The *TC convicted appellant on all eight @2A counts of rape. %F The *TC pronounced appellant"s defense of denial and alibi as unconvincing, citing 4urisprudence declaring denial and alibi as intrinsically weak defenses. The *TC concluded that appellant failed to controvert the clear, candid and straightforward testimonies of his nieces. 5t further considered the #ualifying circumstances of minority of the victims and the relationship of the victims and appellant, the latter being the former"s relative by consanguinity within the third degree.

&/

As the penalty imposed consisted of eight @2A death sentences, the records of the case were automatically elevated to this Court for review. 6owever, in the aftermath of the pronouncement of the Court in 1eople v. ateo%& the present case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition. !n %1 8ecember %//., the Court of Appeals agreed with the rulings of the *TC in regard to si3 @FA of the eight @2A death sentences imposed on appellant.%2 The appellate court ratiocinated, thus: We have painstakingly gone over the record of these cases and find no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court e3cept in at least two @%A cases. The prosecution"s case which was anchored mainly on the testimonies of private complainants RDDDS and RAAAS, deserve full faith and credit for being clear, precise and straightforward. =ike the trial court, We find no reason to disbelieve the private complainants. 5t was established with certitude that the accused on several occasions se3ually assaulted his nieces. The perpetration of the crimes and its authorship were proved by the victims" candid and unwavering testimonies both of whom had the misfortune of sharing the same fate in the hands of their own uncle. The sincerity of RAAAS was made more evident when she cried on the witness stand in obvious distress over what their uncle had done to her and her sister.%1 The Court of Appeals downgraded the convictions in Criminal Case $os. F1/F and F1/2 to attempted rape. 5n these two @%A cases, it was alleged that appellant had raped AAA in 0111 and on 00 >une %///, respectively. According to the appellate court, it could not find evidence beyond reasonable doubt in those two @%A cases that appellant had accomplished the slightest penetration of AAA"s vagina to make him liable for consummated rape. 5t stressed that there was not even moral certainty that appellant"s penis ever touched the labia of the pudendum, #uoting portions of the transcript of the stenographic notes where AAA was asked if appellant was then successful in inserting his penis into her vagina and she answered in the negative.B/ Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reduced the penalties attached to the two @%A counts of rape from death for consummated #ualified rape to an indeterminate penalty of ten @0/A years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen @0&A years and four @.A months of reclusion temporal, as ma3imum, for attempted rape. Appellant, in his 9upplemental DriefB0 before this Court, assails the findings of the Court of Appeals. 6e cites inconsistencies in the testimony of DDD as to what really transpired on 0E >anuary %///. ,articularly, appellant observes that DDD testified on F >une %//0 as to her rape on 0E >anuary %///. DDD, her sister and appellant had been sleeping side by side. 6owever, when DDD again testified on B >uly %//%, this time she stated that on that night, as she and her sister AAA were sleeping in their room at their parents" house @and not at her grandmother"sA, the accused passed through a window, entered their room and raped her again.B% Appellant also latches on the inconsistencies in DDD"s testimony as to the length of the duration of her rape on that day. 5n DDD"s testimony on F >une %//0, she said that appellant was atop her for three @BA minutes while in the B >uly %//% hearing, DDD stated that the rape lasted for only half a minute. 5t must be observed though that DDD was at a tender age when she was raped in %//0. (oreover, these inconsistencies, which the *TC and the Court of Appeals did not consider material, were elicited while DDD was testifying in open court. !ur observations in 1eople v. 1ere)BB on the appreciation of alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of rape victims who happen to be minors are instructive, thus: We note that these alleged inconsistencies refer, at best, only to trivial, minor, and insignificant details. The) 7ear #o 6a!er"a("!) !o !he co66"$$"o# o: !he cr"6e o: ra e o: <h"ch acc'$e.-a e((a#! <a$ co#9"c!e..RB.S As pointed out by the 9olicitor -eneral in the Appellee"s Drief, the seeming inconsistencies were brought about by confusion and merely represent minor lapses during the rape victim"s direct e3amination and cannot possibly affect her credibility. (inor lapses are to be e3pected when a person is recounting details of a traumatic e3perience too painful to recall. The rape victim was testifying in open court, in the presence of strangers, on an e3tremely intimate matter, which, more often than not, is talked about in hushed tones. Cnder such circumstances, it is not surprising that her narration was less than letterperfect.RBES (oreover, the inconsistency may be attributed to the well-known fact that a courtroom atmosphere can affect the accuracy of testimony and the manner in which a witness answers #uestions. RBFSB& 'urther, the public prosecutor offered a convincing e3planation on why DDD was confused on some points of her two testimonies. ,articularly in the (emorandum for the ,eople B2 filed with the *TC, the public prosecutor creditably e3plained the inconsistencies, thus: RDDDS"s testimony on >uly B, %//% might be contradictory to her first testimony on >une F, %//0, with respect to the last rape on >anuary 0E, %///, as regards the place of commission?house of her parents or house of accused: and the length of time he stayed on her top O B minutes or half-minute. Dut she remained consistent in her declaration that on >anuary 0E, %///, her uncle inserted his penis into her vagina, and he was moving while on her top then she felt something came out from him. 6e was able to rape her because he threatened her with a knife or bladed weapon. 'urther, the first she took the witness stand on >une F,

&0

%//0, she was made to recall the last rape, the first rape and many acts of se3ual abuses RsicS against her. 9he was even confused about her age when she was first raped by her uncle. After she testified on $ovember 0., %//0, for the separate charges of rapes in 011&, 0112 and 0111, she was able to recall more clearly the last rape on >anuary 0E, %///, which happened in her own house. These noted discrepancies as to the e3act place of commission O accused"s house or victim"s house O is not an essential element of the crime of rape and both houses are situated in Drgy. Hilla ,adua 5laya, -umaca, ;ue+on, which is within the territorial 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court. 3 3 3 B1 5n addition, we share the lower court"s disbelief of appellant"s proffered defenses of denial and alibi. These two defenses are inherently the weakest as they are negative defenses. (ere denials of involvement in a crime cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party. 'or alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the defendant to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed: he must likewise demonstrate that it is physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time../ 5n the case at bar, appellant"s alibi that he was at his sister"s house barely two @%A kilometers away when the rape took place on 0E >anuary %/// cannot be given credence by this Court. 5f we are to thread this line of reasoning, appellant could have easily left his sister"s house in the middle of the night, raped DDD, and then returned to his sister"s house without much difficulty and without anybody noticing his absence. Well-settled is the rule that a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial. .0 The defenses of denial and alibi deserve scant consideration when the prosecution has strong, clear and convincing evidence identifying appellant as the perpetrator. .% 5n this case, both DDD and AAA, minors and relatives of appellant, positively identified him as their rapist in open court. The lower courts found no issue detracting from the credibility of such identification. 5t is worthy to note that the alibi presented by appellant is limited to the 0E >anuary %/// rape of DDD. 6e offers nothing to counteract the accusations against him involving the seven @&A other specific acts of rape other than the averment that he did not know anything about the allegations propounded on him, an infinitesimal defense considering the evidence against him. Appellant does claim that the present case was merely instituted because of the grudge of CCC towards his deceased father. 5t is outrageous to even suggest that a mother will sub4ect her daughters to the humiliating e3perience of coming before the court and narrating their harrowing e3perience 4ust because she was tagged by her father-in-law as la+y. 5n addition, CCC"s father-in-law had died several years before the criminal charges against appellant were ever instituted. 5f CCC truly wanted to retaliate and damage the reputation of her father-in-law, she could have done so when the latter was still alive. $o member of a rape victim"s family would dare encourage the victim to publicly e3pose the dishonor of the family, more specifically if such accusation is against a member of the family, unless the crime was in fact committed. .B Desides, no sane woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an e3amination of her private parts and sub4ect herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek 4ustice for the wrong done to her. Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed. Gouth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. .. The weight of such testimonies may be countered by physical evidence to the contrary, or indubitable proof that the accused could not have committed the rape, but in the absence of such countervailing proof, these testimonies shall be accorded utmost value. The twin aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship were properly appreciated in this case. The minority of the victims and their relationship with appellant were aptly established in the lower court proceedings. $ot only did the prosecution allege in the 5nformations the ages of the victims when they were raped but the prosecution also presented the birth certificates of DDD and AAA in court as documentary evidence to prove that they were both minors when appellant raped them. Appellant, in open court, also admitted that that he was the uncle of both victims being the brother of the victims" father, and thus, a relative of the victims within the third degree of consanguinity. 'urthermore, the delay in reporting the repulsive acts of appellant to DDD and AAA is understandably 4ustified, considering that appellant repeatedly threatened to kill them and their family should they disclose the incidents to anyone. 5t has been held time and again that delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge..E 9uch intimidation must be viewed in light of the victim"s perception and 4udgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule. 5t is enough that the intimidation produces a fear that if the victim does not yield to the perverse impulses of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment, or even thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she would report the incident..F

&%

At the same time, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the two counts of rape in Criminal Case $os. F1/F-- and F1/2-- were not proven beyond reasonable doubt, but only the two separate incidents of attempted rape. 5t is to be noted that there is an attempt to commit rape when the offender commences its commission directly by overt acts but does not perform all acts of e3ecution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. .& 5n Criminal Case $o. F1/F--, the records show that there was no penetration or any indication that the penis of appellant touched the labia of the pudendum of AAA. This was evident in AAA"s testimony at the hearing on 0& !ctober %//0, to wit: ; O 8o you remember of any unusual incident that happened to you when you were eleven years old7 A O Ges, (am. RsicS ; O What was that7 A O 6e also touched my vagina and my other private parts and he inserted also his penis @intoA my vagina. RsicS ; O Was he able to insert his penis into your vagina7 A O $o, (am. RsicS ; O Why7 A O 5t was painful, (am. RsicS 3333 ; O 6ow many times did he try to insert his penis into your vagina7 A O (any times, (am..2 RsicS AAA also testified in the same vein in Criminal Case $o. F1/2--. ; O 5 am now through with Criminal Case $o. F1/F--. 5n Criminal Case $o. F1/2--, also for *ape. When was the last time that this se3ual abuse was committed by your Cncle7 A O >une 00, (am. RsicS ; O What year7 A O >une 00, %///, (am. RsicS 3333 ; O What did your Cncle do to you on >une 00, %///7 A O 6e also removed my clothes, (am. RsicS ; O And after removing your clothes, what did he do to you7 A O 6e was trying to insert his penis into my vagina, (am. RsicS 3333 ; O And what did you feel when he was trying to insert his penis in your vagina7 A O ,ainful, (am. RsicS ; O And what did you do when you feel painful7 A O 5 cried, (am. RsicS ; O When you cried, what did your Cncle do, if any7 A O 6e did not pursue what he was doing, (am. RsicS 3333 ; O And your Cncle was not able to penetrate his penis to your vagina7 A O $o, (am..1 RsicS 5n downgrading the offense committed and conse#uently decreasing the penalty, the CA declared: 5t is carnal knowledge, not pain, that is the element to consummate rape. 5ndeed pain may be deduced from the se3ual act but accused cannot be convicted of rape by presuming carnal knowledge out of pain. 5t is well-settled that complete penetration of the penis into the vagina is not necessary to convict for consummated rape since the slightest penetration of one into the other will suffice. 6owever, in ,eople v. Campuhan, the term slightest penetration was clarified to mean that there must be sufficient and convincing proof of the penis indeed touching at the very least the labias of the female organ. (ere epidermal contact between the penis and the e3ternal layer of the victim"s vagina @the stroking and the gra+ing of the male organ upon the female organ or the mons pubisA categori+es the crime as attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness. There must be positive proof of even the slightest penetration, more accurately, the touching of the labias by the penis, before rape could be deemed consummated. We, therefore, take e3ception to the finding of the trial court that when the accused was trying to insert his penis into the child"s vagina, the act proved painful to RAAA,S which made the accused stop from further e3ecuting the act. 'rom the testimony of private complainant, RAAAS in the afore-numbered cases, the prosecution failed to demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that accused-appellant"s penis reached the labia of the pudendum of AAA"s vagina. There is no basis then to apply the rule that the introduction of the

&B

penis into the aperture of the female organ @thereby touching the labia of the pudendumA already consummates the case of rape. 3 3 3 E/ 5t should be added that under Article F of the *evised ,enal Code, 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 e3ecution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. 5n the crime of rape, penetration is an essential act of e3ecution to produce the felony. Thus, for there to be an attempted rape, the accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his se3ual organ to the vagina of the victim but for some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the penetration, however slight, is not completed. E0 The Court thus affirms the conclusions of the Court of Appeals that it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of si3 @FA counts of rape and two @%A counts of attempted rape. 6owever, in light of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F, the appropriate penalties for both crimes should be amended. !!. We shall not dwell at length on the proper penalty imposable on appellant for the si3 @FA counts of rape. The sentence of death imposed by the *TC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals can no longer be affirmed in view of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F, titled An Act ,rohibiting the 5mposition of 8eath ,enalty in the ,hilippines. 9ection % of the law mandates that in lieu of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. Correspondingly, the Court can no longer uphold the death sentences imposed by lower courts, but must, if the guilt of the accused is affirmed, impose instead the penalty of reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment when appropriate. 9ince the passage of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F, the Court has had occasion to effectuate such reduction in recent cases such as 1eople v. ,ubongbanuaE% and 1eople v. &abalquinto.EB !!!. The #uestion of what should be the appropriate penalty for the two @%A counts of attempted rape proves to be the more challenging but interesting #uestion facing the Court. The Court of Appeals had sentenced appellant, for the attempted rape of AAA, to an indeterminate penalty of ten @0/A years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen @0&A years and four @.A months of reclusion temporal as ma3imum, for each count of attempted rape. There is no doubt as to the validity of this sentence at the time it was meted prior to the enactment of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F. Article E0 of the *evised ,enal Code establishes the penalty to be imposed upon the principals of an attempted felony: A*T. E0. 333 ? A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony. E. What is the penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for attempted rape7 Article %FF-D of the *evised ,enal Code, which incorporates the amendments introduced by *ep. Act $o. 2BEB, prescribes: The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravatingN#ualifying circumstances: 0. When the victim is under eighteen @02A years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim. 3 3 3EE The prescribed penalty for the consummated rape of a victim duly proven to have been under eighteen years of age and to have been raped by her uncle, is death under Article %FF-D of the *evised ,enal Code. The determination of the penalty two degrees lower than the death penalty entails the application of Articles F0 and &0 of the *evised ,enal Code: Art. F0. 4ules of graduating penalties.?'or the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to the provisions of Articles E/ to E&, inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall be observed: 0. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty ne3t lower in degree shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in Article &0 of this Code.EF 3333 Article &0 of the *evised ,enal Code @Article &0A warrants special attention, crucial as it is to our disposition of this #uestion. The provision reads: Art. &0. Graduated scales. ? 5n the case in which the law prescribes a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article F0 shall be observed in graduating such penalty.

&.

The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty: The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales: 9CA=I $!. 0 1. Dea!h %. 4eclusion perpetua B. 4eclusion temporal .. 1rision mayor E. 1rision correctional F. Arresto mayor &. 0estierro 2. Arresto menor 1. ,ublic censure 0/. 'ineE& 3333 'ollowing the scale prescribed in Article &0, the penalty two degrees lower than death is reclusion temporal, which was the ma3imum penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals on appellant for attempted rape. *eclusion temporal is a penalty comprised of three divisible periods, a minimum, a medium and a ma3imum. At the same time, the 5ndeterminate 9entence =aw prescribes that the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the ma3imum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty ne3t lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. The purpose of the prescription of minimum and ma3imum periods under the 5ndeterminate 9entence =aw is to effect the privilege granted under the same law, for prisoners who have served the minimum penalty to be eligible for parole per the discretion of the Doard of 5ndiscriminate 9entence. E2 Thus, convicts sentenced to suffer death penalty or life-imprisonment are ineligible under that law, as are persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua, an indivisible penalty without minimum or ma3imum periods.E1 6ence, the Court of Appeals sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty for attempted rape, with a ma3imum penalty within the range of reclusion temporal, and a minimum penalty within the range of the penalty ne3t lower, or prision mayor. 5f *ep. Act $o. 1B.F had not been enacted, the Court would have affirmed such sentence without complication. 6owever, the enactment of the law has given rise to the problem concerning the imposable penalty. Appellant was sentenced to a ma3imum term within reclusion temporal since that is the penalty two degrees lower than death. With the elimination of death as a penalty, does it follow that appellant should now be sentenced to a penalty two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua, the highest remaining penalty with the enactment of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F7 5f it so followed, appellant would be sentenced to prision mayor in lieu of reclusion temporal. !V. !bviously, our ruling on the appropriate penalty on appellant for attempted rape will affect not only appellant, but several classes of convicts as well. Defore we proceed with the discussion, the Court finds it necessary to make the following #ualification. ,rior to the enactment of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F, the death penalty was imposable under two different frames of reference. This was especially made clear with the 011B amendments to the *evised ,enal Code through *ep. Act $o. &FE1, or the 8eath ,enalty =aw. Cnder the *evised ,enal Code, as amended, the death penalty was provided for in two ways, namely: as the ma3imum penalty for reclusion perpetua to death, and death itself as an automatic and e3clusive penalty. 8eath as the automatic penalty was mandated for the crimes of #ualified bribery if it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present: F/ kidnapping or detention for the purpose of e3torting ransom from the victim or any other person: F0 destructive arson wherein death results: F% and rape #ualified by any of the several circumstances enumerated under the law. !n the other hand, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death was imposable on several crimes, including murder,FB #ualified piracy, F. and treason.FE The imposition of the death penalty for crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death depended on the appreciation of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances generally outlined in Articles 0B and 0. of the *evised ,enal Code. *eference to those two provisions was unnecessary if the penalty imposed was death, as opposed to reclusion perpetua to death. There is no need for now to discuss the effects of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F on the penalties for frustrated and attempted felonies which were punishable by reclusion perpetua to death if consummated, or on

&E

accomplices and accessories to such felonies. 9uch situations do not relate to the case of appellant, who was convicted of two @%A counts of attempted rape, which, if consummated, of course would have carried prior to the enactment of *ep. Act 1B.F the penalty of death, and not reclusion perpetua to death. The Court also recogni+es that the graduation of penalties reckoned from reclusion perpetua to death differs from that based on the e3clusive penalty of death. 'or e3ample, it has been held that the penalty two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua to death is prision mayor.FF 5n contrast, the Court has likewise held that for #ualified rape in the attempted stage, the penalty 3 3 3 two @%A degrees lower than the imposable penalty of death for the offense charged 3 3 3 is reclusion temporal. F& 5n 1eople v. ,olentino,F2 we ruled that the accused, who had been sentenced to die for the rape of his nine @1A-year old stepdaughter, was guilty only of attempted rape. 5n e3plaining that reclusion temporal was the proper penalty, the Court, through then Chief >ustice 8avide, e3plained: Cnder Article E0 of the *evised ,enal Code, the penalty for an attempted felony is the penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony. 5n this case, the penalty for the rape if it had been consummated would have been death, pursuant to Article BBE of the *evised ,enal Code, as amended by *.A. $o. &FE1, since R*T F1S was eight years old and T!=I$T5$! was the common-law spouse of R*T"sS mother. The last paragraph thereof provides: The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 0. When the victim is under eighteen @02A years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. 3333 The penalty in this case should have been reclusion temporal, which is the penalty lower by two degrees than death. 6owever, with the application of the 5ndeterminate 9entence =aw, T!=I$T5$! may be sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment penalty whose minimum shall be within the range of prision mayor and whose ma3imum shall be within the range of reclusion temporal in its medium period pursuant to Article F. @0A of the *evised ,enal Code.&/ This dichotomy results from the application of Article F0 of the *evised ,enal Code. Doth reclusion perpetua and death are indivisible penalties. Cnder Article F0 @%A of the *evised ,enal Code, RwShen the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties V the penalty ne3t lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale. 6ence, in passing sentence on those convicted of attempted felonies which warranted the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death if consummated, the Court has consistently held that penalty two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua to death is prision mayor. 5n contrast, if the penalty for the consummated crime is the single indivisible penalty of death, as was prescribed for several crimes under *ep. Act $o. &FE1, Article F0@0A of the *evised ,enal Code provides that the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty ne3t lower in degree shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in Article &0 . Thus, the proper penalty two degrees lower than death is reclusion temporal. 5t is also for this reason that the controversy we are now addressing did not similarly arise after the enactment of the 012& Constitution, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty sub4ect to its subse#uent readoption at the choice of Congress. -enerally, the highest penalty imposed under the *evised ,enal Code was reclusion perpetua to death, a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties. As a result, the Court had no occasion, after the passage of the 012& Constitution, to consider the effect of the charter on penalties downgraded from a single indivisible penalty. 5t was under *ep. Act $o. &FE1, passed in 011B, that some commonly occurring crimes, such as #ualified rape and kidnapping for ransom, were penali+ed with the single indivisible penalty of death. The discussion for purposes of this decision will only center on crimes, such as #ualified rape as defined in the *evised ,enal Code, as amended, for which the imposable penalty was death alone. Thus, our ruling will bear no direct effect on the sentencing of accomplices and accessories or persons guilty of the attempted or frustrated stage of felonies for which the imposable penalty was reclusion perpetua to death. He#ce, "! $ho'(. 7e '#.er$!oo. !ha! a#) re:ere#ce :or!h<"!h !o !he e#a(!) o: .ea!h .oe$ #o! re:er !o !he e#a(!) o: Breclusion perpetua !o .ea!h.B V. 5f there was a clear intent in *ep. Act $o. 1B.F to downgrade the penalties for convicts whose sentences had been graduated beginning from death pursuant to Article &0, the Court would not hesitate to enforce such downgrading based on clear statutory intent. 6owever, nothing in *ep. Act $o. 1B.F e3pressly refers to those penalties imposed on frustrated or attempted felonies, or on accessories and accomplices.

&F

9ection 0 of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F bears e3amination: 9ection 0. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, *epublic Act $o. Iight Thousand !ne 6undred 9eventy-9even @*.A. $o. 20&&A, otherwise known as the Act 8esignating 8eath by =ethal 5n4ection, is hereby repealed. *epublic Act $o. 9even Thousand 9i3 6undred 'ifty-$ine @*.A. $o. &FE1A, otherwise known as the 8eath ,enalty =aw, and all other laws, e3ecutive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. 5f the penalties for attempted rape of a minor,&0 among others, were deemed to have been amended by virtue of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F, such amendment can be 4ustified under the ambit of the repealing clause, which reads, all other laws, e3ecutive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. While this clause may, given its breadth, initially impress as the nature of a general repealing clause, it is in actuality an e3press repealing clause. 9ection 0 specifically repeals all laws, e3ecutive orders and decrees insofar as they impose the death penalty, and not merely such enactments which are inconsistent with *ep. Act $o. 1B.F. 9ection 0 arguably presents more problems in that regard with its utili+ation of the particular phrase insofar as they impose the death penalty. We can entertain two schools of thought in construing this provision, both of them rooted in literalist interpretations. 'irst, it can be claimed that the present application of the penalties for attempted rape of a minor @among many e3amplesA does not impose the death penalty, since none of the convicts concerned would face e3ecution through the application of the penalty for attempted rape. 6ence, the statutory provisions enforced in determining the penalty for attempted rape, or other crimes not punishable by death, are not amended by *ep. Act $o. 1B.F. !n the other hand, the operation of the provisions imposing the penalty for attempted rape of a minor necessarily calls for the application, if not its literal imposition, of death as a penalty, in the conte3t of applying the graduated scale of penalties under Article &0 of the *evised ,enal Code. 5f we were to construe impose as to mean apply, then it could be argued that Article &0 was indeed amended by *ep. Act $o. 1B.F. After all, the application of Article &0 to crimes such as attempted rape of a minor call for the actual operation of the death penalty not only in theory, but as a means of determining the proper graduated penalty. !n face value, the attractive worth of the firstly offered line of thinking is enhanced by its innate conservatism, limiting as it would the effects of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F. 5t also can be understood if confronted with the option of employing either a liberal or a conservative construction, there is a natural tendency to employ the conservative mode. 'urther, the reasoning is seemingly consistent with that employed by the Court in 1eople v. u+o),&% a decision which will be thoroughly analy+ed in the course of this discussion. 5f the true intent of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F was to limit the e3tent of the imposition of the death penalty to actual e3ecutions, this could have been accomplished with more clarity. 'or e3ample, had 9ection 0 read instead insofar as they sentence an accused to death, there would have been no room for doubt that only those statutory provisions calling for actual e3ecutions would have been repealed or amended. The inability of Congress to shape the repealing clause in so specific a fashion does leave open the #uestion whether Congress did actually intend to limit the operation of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F to actual e3ecutions only. Dut let us for now test that premise by assuming for the nonce that the legislative intent of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F was to limit the prohibition of the law to the physical imposition of the death penalty, without e3tending any effect to the graduated scale of penalties under Article &0 of the *evised ,enal Code. V!. There are troubling results if we were to uphold, based on legislative intent, the interpretation of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F that limits its effects only to matters relating to the physical imposition of the death penalty. 5llustrations are necessary. The easy demonstration of ini#uitous results is in the case of accomplices. Cnder Article %F& of the *evised ,enal Code, as amended, kidnapping for ransom was punishable by death. =et us say K and G were tried for the crime. K was charged as a principal for having directly participated in the kidnapping. G was charged as an accomplice for having allowed K to use his house to detain the victim, even though G was abroad at the time of the crime and otherwise had no other participation therein. Doth K and G were convicted by final 4udgment. 9ince K could no longer be meted the death penalty, he is sentenced instead to reclusion perpetua. !rdinarily, G as an accomplice should receive the penalty ne3t lower in degree, or reclusion temporal. Get following the conservative interpretation of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F, the graduation of penalties remains unaffected with the enactment of the new law. Thus, under Article &0, which would still take into account the death penalty within the graduated scale, G, as an accomplice, would be sentenced to reclusion perpetua, the same penalty as the principal. 5t might be countered that part of the legislative intent of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F, by retaining the graduated scale of penalties under Article &0, was to e#uali+e the penalties of principals and accomplices for crimes

&&

previously punishable by death. We do not doubt that the legislature has the theoretical capability to amend the penal law in such fashion. Get given the drastic effects of e#uali+ing the penalties for principals and accomplices, a step that runs contrary to entrenched thought in criminal law, one could reasonably assume that a legislature truly oriented to enact such change would have been candid enough to have e3plicitly stated such intent in the law itself. !f course, nothing in *ep. Act $o. 1B.F, either in the caption or in the provisions, e3plicates the intention to e#uali+e the penalties for principals and accomplices in any crime at all. (oreover, it cannot be denied that it would, at bare minimum, seem strange that the penalties for principals and accomplices are e#uali+ed in some crimes, and not in others. =et us return to our previous e3ample of K and G, but this time, assume that they were charged for simple kidnapping, with no #ualifying circumstance that would have resulted in the imposition of the death penalty. 9ince the crime is not punishable by death, *ep. Act $o. 1B.F would have no effect in the imposition of the penalty for simple kidnapping. Accordingly, K would have been sentenced to reclusion perpetua as the principal, while G would have been sentenced to reclusion temporal as an accomplice. 9ince simple kidnapping is a comparatively lighter crime than kidnapping for ransom, the lesser penalties are 4ustified. 9ince G was merely an accomplice to the crime of simple kidnapping, the imposition on him of a lighter penalty than K is in accord with the *evised ,enal Code and established 4uridical and legal thought. =ess 4ustifiable would be the notion that in kidnapping for ransom, the principal and the accomplice would receive the same penalty, while in simple kidnapping, the principal suffers a higher penalty than the accomplice. 'rankly, there is no rational e3planation for such a disparity, and no legal 4ustification other than the recognition that Congress has the power to will it so. Admittedly, the impact of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F is less dramatic in relation to frustrated and attempted felonies which were punishable by death if consummated. The consummated felony previously punishable by death would now be punishable by reclusion perpetua. At the same time, the same felony in its frustrated stage would, under the foregoing premise in this section, be penali+ed one degree lower from death, or also reclusion perpetua. 5t does not seem right, of course, that the same penalty of reclusion perpetua would be imposed on both the consummated and frustrated felony. 6owever, the anomaly would be mainly in theory, as we recogni+e that those felonies previously punishable by death are improbable of commission in their frustrated stage, unlike several felonies punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, &B such as murder, which may be frustrated. 9till, it cannot be denied that these felonies previously punishable by death are capable of commission in their attempted stages and that the *evised ,enal Code provides that the penalty for attempted felonies is a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony. The Court has thus consistently imposed reclusion temporal, the penalty two degrees lower than death, as the ma3imum term for attempted felonies which, if consummated, would have warranted the death penalty. &. 5f it were to be insisted that *ep. Act $o. 1B.F did not affect at all the penalties for attempted felonies, then those found guilty of the sub4ect attempted felonies would still be sentenced to reclusion temporal, even though the penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony would now be prision mayor. 5t should be pointed out that the interpretation of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F that would sanction a penalty for some attempted felonies that is only one degree lower than the consummated crime would, again, be disharmonious and inconsistent with the *evised ,enal Code and established thought in criminal law. Conceding again that the legislature has the discretion to designate the criminal penalties it sees fit, a regime that foists a differential theoretical basis for the punishment of different attempted felonies resulting in discriminatory penalties is not only irrational but also, to say the least, highly suspect. Considering that physical liberties are at stake, it would be a most cruel 4oke if such discriminatory effects ensued not from deliberate legislative will, but from oversight. V!!. The implementation of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F in a way that leaves e3tant the penalties for accomplices, accessories, frustrated and attempted felonies, clearly results in illogical, ini#uitous and inconsistent effects. 5n contrast, no similar flaws ensue should we construe *ep. Act $o. 1B.F instead as not having barred the application of the death penalty even as a means of depreciating penalties other than death. 5n particular, the operative amendment that would assure the integrity of penalties for accomplices, accessories, frustrated and attempted felonies lies in Article &0, which ranks death at the top of the scale for graduated penalties. 9imply put, the negation of the word death as previously inscribed in Article &0 will have the effect of appropriately downgrading the proper penalties attaching to accomplices, accessories, frustrated and attempted felonies to the level consistent with the rest of our penal laws. *eturning to our previous

&2

e3amples, G, the convicted accomplice in kidnapping for ransom, would now bear the penalty of reclusion temporal, the penalty one degree lower than that the principal K would bear @ reclusion perpetuaA. 9uch sentence would be consistent with Article E% of the *evised ,enal Code, as well as Article &0, as amended, to remove the reference to death. (oreover, the prospect of the accomplice receiving the same sentence as the principal, an anomalous notion within our penal laws, would be eliminated. Thus, the same standard would prevail in sentencing principals and accomplices to the crime of kidnapping in ransom, as that prescribed to the crime of simple kidnapping. The harmoni+ation that would result if *ep. Act $o. 1B.F were construed as having eliminated the reference to death in Article &0 would run across the board in our penal laws. Consistent with Article E0 of the *evised ,enal Code, those convicted of attempted #ualified rape would receive the penalty two degrees lower than that prescribed by law, now *ep. Act $o. 1B.F, for #ualified rape. There are principles in statutory construction that will sanction, even mandate, this e3pansive interpretation of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F. The ma3im interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi embodies the principle that a statute should be so construed not only to be consistent with itself, but also to harmoni+e with other laws on the same sub4ect matter, as to form a complete, coherent and intelligible system?a uniform system of 4urisprudence. &E 5nterpreting and harmoni+ing laws with laws is the best method of interpretation. 3 3 3 3 This manner of construction would provide a complete, consistent and intelligible system to secure the rights of all persons affected by different legislative and #uasilegislative acts. &F There can be no harmony between *ep. Act $o. 1B.F and the *evised ,enal Code unless the later statute is construed as having downgraded those penalties attached to death by reason of the graduated scale under Article &0. !nly in that manner will a clear and consistent rule emerge as to the application of penalties for frustrated and attempted felonies, and for accessories and accomplices. 5t is also a well-known rule of legal hermeneutics that penal or criminal laws are strictly construed against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. && 5f the language of the law were ambiguous, the court will lean more strongly in favor of the defendant than it would if the statute were remedial, as a means of effecting substantial 4ustice.&2 The law is tender in favor of the rights of an individual. &1 5t is this philosophy of caution before the 9tate may deprive a person of life or liberty that animates one of the most fundamental principles in our Dill of *ights, that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. *esort to the aforementioned principles in statutory construction would not have been necessary had *ep. Act $o. 1B.F ineluctably stated that the repeal of all laws imposing the death penalty did not engender the corresponding modification of penalties other than death, dependent as these are on death as a measure under the graduated scale of penalties under Article &0. Admittedly, if this were indeed the intent of Congress, and such intent were une#uivocally e3pressed in *ep. Act $o. 1B.F, the resulting ine#uities and inconsistencies we had earlier pointed out would have remained. 5f that were to be the case, we would have acknowledged, perhaps tacitly, that such ine#uities and inconsistencies fell part of the legislative intent. 5t does not speak well of a Congress to be deliberately inconsistent with, or ignorant of its own prior enactments. Get ultimately, 9ection 0 of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F is not e3pressive of such rash or in4udicious notions, as it is susceptible to a reading that would harmoni+e its effects with the precepts and practices that pervade our general penal laws, and in a manner that does not defy the clear will of Congress. V!!!. !ne who would like to advocate that *ep. Act $o. 1B.F did not correspondingly amend any of the penalties other than death in our penal laws would most certainly invoke our ruling in 1eople v. u+o),2/ decided in 0121. Therein, a divided Court ruled in that the constitutional bar on the imposition of the death penalty did not enact a corresponding modification in the other periods Rin penaltiesS , there being no e3pression of such a re#uirementV in Article 555, 9ection 01@0A of the Constitution or indicatRionS therein by at least clear and unmistakable implication. 20 5n so concluding, the Court made the oft-cited pronouncement that there was nothing in the 012& Constitution which e3pressly declares the abolition of the death penalty. 2% 5t is time to re-e3amine u+o) and its continued viability in light of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F. (ore precisely, would u+o) as precedent deter the Court from ruling that *ep. Act $o. 1B.F conse#uently downgraded penalties other than death7 5t can be recalled that the accused in u+o) were found guilty of murder, which under the *evised ,enal Code, carried the penalty of reclusion temporal in its ma3imum period to death. The sub4ect murders therein were not attended by any modifying circumstance, and thus penali+ed in the penalty"s medium term. >urisprudence previous to u+o) held that the proper penalty in such instances should be the higher half of reclusion temporal ma3imum, with reclusion temporal ma3imum, divided into two halves for that purpose. u+o) re4ected this formulation, holding instead that the penalty should be reclusion perpetua.

&1

Towards this conclusion, the Court made the above-cited conclusions relating to the constitutional abolition of the death penalty, and the charter"s effects on the other periods. 9i3 4ustices dissented from that ruling, and as recently as 011&, a member of the Court felt strongly enough to publish a view urging the ree3amination of u+o).2B 5t would be disingenuous to consider u+o) as directly settling the #uestion now befacing us, as the legal premises behind u+o) are different from those in this case. (ost pertinently, u+o) in#uired into the effects of the Constitution on the proper penalty for murder: while herein, we are ascertaining the effects of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F on the proper penalty for attempted #ualified rape. Muoz 6a) ha9e ro#o'#ce. !ha! !he Co#$!"!'!"o# .". #o! a7o("$h !he .ea!h e#a(!), 7'! !ha! "$$'e #o (o#3er :a(($ "#!o co#$".era!"o# here"#, !he correc! F'er) #o< 7e"#3 <he!her Co#3re$$ ha$ 7a##e. !he .ea!h e#a(!) !hro'3h Re . Ac! No. 9*%5. O!her<"$e :ra6e., Muoz .oe$ #o! rec('.e !he Co'r! :ro6 co#c('."#3 !ha! <"!h !he eH re$$ roh"7"!"o# o: !he "6 o$"!"o# o: !he .ea!h e#a(!) Co#3re$$ ha$ '#eF'"9oca(() 7a##e. !he $a6e. u+o) made hay over the peculiar formulation of 9ection 01@0A, Article 555, which provided that RnSeither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. u+o) and its progenies, have interpreted that provision as prohibiting the actual imposition of the death penalty, as opposed to enacting an amendatory law that eliminates all references and applications of the death penalty in our statutes. 5t can also be understood and appreciated that at the time u+o) was decided, it would have been polemical to foster an une#uivocal pronouncement that 9ection 01@0A, Article 555 abolished the death penalty, since the very provision itself acknowledged that Congress may nonetheless subse#uently provide for the penalty for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, as Congress very well did 4ust four @.A years after u+o). $o such language e3ists in *ep. Act $o. 1B.F. !f course, the legislature has the inherent and constitutional power to enact laws prescribing penalties for crimes, and the Constitution will not prohibit Congress from reenacting the death penalty for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. Get it was that e3press stipulation in the Constitution that dissuaded the Court from recogni+ing the constitutional abolition of the death penalty: and there is no similar statutory e3pression in *ep. Act $o. 1B.F, which could be construed as evocative of intent similar to that of the Constitution. The doctrine in u+o) that the constitutional prohibition on the imposition of the death penalty did not enact a corresponding modification of other penalties is similarly irrelevant to this case, which calls for an e3amination as to whether such corresponding modifications of other penalties arose as a conse#uence of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F, and not the Constitution. 'or purposes of legal hermeneutics, the critical #uestion is whether *ep. Act $o. 1B.F intended to delete the word death as e3pressly provided for in the graduated scale of penalties under Article &0. u+o) did not engage in an analogous in#uiry in relation to Article &0 and the Constitution, for what was relevant therein was not the general graduated scale of penalties, but the range of the penalties for murder. 6erein, at bare minimum, no provision in *ep. Act $o. 1B.F provides a conte3t within which the concept of death penalty bears retentive legal effect, especially in relation to Article &0. U#("Ge !he Co#$!"!'!"o#, *ep. Act $o. 1B.F does e3pressly stipulate the amendment of all e3tant laws insofar as they called for the imposition of the penalty of death. The impression left by u+o) was that the use of the word imposition in the Constitution evinced the framer"s intent to retain the operation of penalties under the *evised ,enal Code. 5n the same vein, one might try to construe the use of imposition in *ep. Act $o. 1B.F as a means employed by Congress to ensure that the death penalty , as applied in Article &0, remain e3tant. 5f the use of imposition was implemented as a means of retaining death under Article &0, it would have been a most curious, roundabout means indeed. The Court can tolerate to a certain degree the deliberate vagueness sometimes employed in legislation, yet constitutional due process demands a higher degree of clarity when infringements on life or liberty are intended. We have ruled, on due process grounds, as arbitrary and oppressive a ta3 assessed on a standard characteri+ed as nothing but blather in search of meaning. 2. 5n the matter of statutes that deprive a person of physical liberty, the demand for a clear standard in sentencing is even more e3acting. Get in truth, there is no material difference between imposition and application, for both terms embody the operation in law of the death penalty. 9ince Article &0 denominates death as an element in the graduated scale of penalties, there is no #uestion that the operation of Article &0 involves the actual a ("ca!"o# of the death penalty as a means of determining the e3tent which a person"s liberty is to be deprived. 9ince *ep. Act $o. 1B.F une#uivocally bars the application of the death penalty, as well as e3pressly repeals all such statutory provisions re#uiring the application of the death penalty, such effect necessarily e3tends to its relevance to the graduated scale of penalties under Article &0.

2/

We cannot find basis to conclude that *ep. Act $o. 1B.F intended to retain the operative effects of the death penalty in the graduation of the other penalties in our penal laws. uno) cannot en4oin us to adopt such conclusion. *ep. Act $o. 1B.F is not swaddled in the same restraints appreciated by u+o) on 9ection 01@0A, Article 555. The very Congress empowered by the Constitution to reinstate the imposition of the death penalty once thought it best to do so, through *ep. Act $o. &FE/. Within the same realm of constitutional discretion, Congress has reversed itself. 5t must be asserted that today, the legal status of the suppression of the death penalty in the ,hilippines has never been more secure than at any time in our political history as a nation. 'ollowing u+o), the sovereign people, through the 012& Constitution, might not have willed the abolition of the death penalty and instead placed it under a suspensive condition. As such, we affirmed the characteri+ation of the death penalty during the interregnum between the 012& Constitution and its reimposition through law as being in a state of hibernation. 2E $o longer. 5t reawakened ? then it died: because the sovereign people, through *ep. Act $o. 1B.F, banned the death penalty. !nly by an Act of Congress can it be reborn. Defore that day, the consideration of death as a penalty is bereft of legal effect, whether as a means of depriving life, or as a means of depriving liberty. 8espite our present pronouncement on the ban against of the death penalty, we do not acknowledge that u+o) lacked legal 4ustification when it was decided: that its application as precedent prior to *ep. Act $o. 1B.F was erroneous: or that previous sentences imposed on convicts on the basis of u+o) were wrong. u+o) properly stood as the governing precedent in the matter of sentences that passed finality prior to *ep. Act $o. 1B.F: and the consistent reliance by the courts on its doctrines entrenched its footing in criminal law 4urisprudence. !F. *ep. Act $o. &FE1, in the course of reintroducing the death penalty in the ,hilippines, also effectively classified the crimes listed therein as heinous, within constitutional contemplation. 9uch reclassification under *ep. Act $o. &FE1 was accompanied by certain legal effects other than the imposition of the death penalty, such as the increase in imposable fines attached to certain heinous crimes. 2F The categori+ation of certain crimes as heinous , constituting as it does official recognition that some crimes are more odious than others, has also influenced this Court in ad4udging the proper pecuniary indemnities awarded to the victims of these crimes. 6ence, a general inclination persists in levying a greater amount of damages on accused found guilty of heinous crimes. 5t should be understood that the debarring of the death penalty through *ep. Act $o. 1B.F did not correspondingly declassify those crimes previously catalogued as heinous . The amendatory effects of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F e3tend only to the application of the death penalty but not to the definition or classification of crimes. True, the penalties for heinous crimes have been downgraded under the aegis of the new law. 9till, what remains e3tant is the recognition by law that such crimes, by their abhorrent nature, constitute a special category by themselves. Accordingly, *ep. Act $o. 1B.F does not serve as basis for the reduction of civil indemnity and other damages that adhere to heinous crimes. F. 6aving pronounced the statutory disallowance of the death penalty through *ep. Act $o. 1B.F and the corresponding modification of penalties other than death through that statute, we now proceed to discuss the effects of these rulings. As to sentences not yet handed down, or affirmed with finality, the application is immediate. 6enceforth, death, as utili+ed in Article &0 of the *evised ,enal Code, shall no longer form part of the e#uation in the graduation of penalties. 'or e3ample, in the case of appellant, the determination of his penalty for attempted rape shall be reckoned not from two degrees lower than death, but two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua. 6ence, the ma3imum term of his penalty shall no longer be reclusion temporal, as ruled by the Court of Appeals, but instead, prision mayor. There should be little complication if the crime committed was punishable by the free-standing penalty of death, as utili+ed in *ep. Act $o. &FE1, as opposed to the ranged penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, as often used in the *evised ,enal Code and other penal laws. The facts of the present case do not concern the latter penalty, hence our reluctance to avail of an e3tended discussion thereof. 6owever, we did earlier observe that both reclusion perpetua and death are indivisible penalties. Cnder Article F0 @%A of the *evised ,enal Code, RwShen the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties 3 3 3 3 the penalty ne3t lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale. 6ence, as we earlier noted, our previous rulings that the penalty two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua to death is prision mayor. Then there is the matter of whether retroactive effect should be e3tended to this new ruling, favorable as it is to persons previously convicted of crimes which, if consummated or participated in as a principal, would

20

have warranted the solitary penalty of death. We see no choice but to e3tend the retroactive benefit. Article %% of the *evised ,enal Code states that RpSenal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminalR 2&S 3 3 3 3 although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. -iven that we have ruled that *ep. Act $o. 1B.F downgraded the penalties for such crimes, the benefit of Article %% has to apply, e3cept as to those persons defined as habitual criminalRsS. 5ndeed, *ep. Act $o. 1B.F e3pressly recogni+ed that its enactment would have retroactive beneficial effects, referring as it did to persons 3 3 3 whose sentences were reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of this Act. 22 5t cannot be discounted that by operation of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F and Article %% of the *evised ,enal Code, there may be convicts presently serving their original sentences whose actual served terms e3ceed their reduced sentences. I! $ho'(. 7e '#.er$!oo. !ha! !h"$ .ec"$"o# .oe$ #o! 6aGe o era!"9e !he re(ea$e o: $'ch co#9"c!$, e$ ec"a(() a$ !here 6a) 7e o!her rea$o#$ !ha! eH"$! :or !he"r co#!"#'e. .e!e#!"o#. There are remedies under law that could be employed to obtain the release of such prisoners, if warranted. !ffices such as the ,ublic Attorney"s !ffice and non-governmental organi+ations that fre#uently assist detainees possess the capacity and acumen to help implement the release of such prisoners who are so entitled by reason of this ruling. F!. We close by returning to the matter of appellant Alfredo Don. Dy reason of *ep. Act $o. 1B.F, he is spared the death sentence, and entitled to the corresponding reduction of his penalty as a conse#uence of the downgrading of his offense from two @%A counts consummated rape to two @%A counts of attempted rape. 'or the si3 @FA counts of rape, we downgrade the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole, pursuant to *ep. Act $o. 1B.F. 'or each of the two @%A counts of attempted rape, we downgrade by one degree lower the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. We hold that there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty of prision mayor should be imposed in it medium period. Conse#uently, we impose the new penalty of two @%A years, four @.A months and one @0A day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight @2A years and one @0A day of prision mayor as ma3imum. =astly, as to damages, the Court awards AAA ,B/,///.// as civil indemnity, ,%E,///.// as moral damages and ,0/,///.// as e3emplary damages for each count of attempted rape, it being the prevailing rate of indemnity as pronounced in the recent case of 1eople v. iranda.21 9eparately, the Court applies prevailing 4urisprudence 1/ in awarding to DDD and AAA ,&E,///.// as civil indemnity, ,&E,///.// as moral damages and ,%E,///.// as e3emplary damages, for each count of consummated rape. W6I*I'!*I, in light of the foregoing, the 8ecision of the Court of Appeals is hereby A''5*(I8 W5T6 (!85'5CAT5!$. The Court sentences appellant Alfredo >. Don to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with no possibility of parole for each of the si3 @FA counts of consummated rape committed against AAA in Criminal Case $os. FF11, F1/%, and against DDD in Criminal Case $os. FF21, F1/B, F1/E, and F1/&. Appellant is further !*8I*I8 to indemnify AAA and DDD for the crime of consummated rape, in the amounts of ,E/,///.// as civil indemnity, ,E/,///.// as moral damages and ,%E,///.// as e3emplary damages for each of them. 'or the two @%A counts of attempted rape of AAA in Criminal Cases $o. F1/F and F1/2, appellant is hereby 9I$TI$CI8 to an indeterminate penalty of two @%A years, four @.A months and one @0A day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight @2A years and one @0A of prision mayor as ma3imum for each count of attempted rape. 5n addition, appellant is !*8I*I8 to indemnify AAA for each of the two @%A counts of attempted rape in the amounts of ,B/,///.// as civil indemnity, ,%E,///.// as moral damages and ,0/,///.// as e3emplary damages. 9! !*8I*I8. ,oo!#o!e$ B ,ursuant to *epublic Act $o. 1%F%, otherwise known as the Anti-Hiolence Against Women and Their Children Act of %//., and its implementing rules, the real names of the victims, as well those of their immediate family or household members, are withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent them, to protect their privacy. 9ee 1eople v. &abalquinto, -.*. $o. 0F&F1B, 01 9eptember %//F. . 5d. E There are eight @2A 5nformations in all against appellant, all of them accusing him of #ualified rape, the victim being a minor and a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree. We are not reproducing them all in full for reasons of brevity. All eight @2A 5nformations are generally styled in the same fashion, the variables being the dates of the rape, the weapon used in committing the rape, the names of the victims, and their ages at the time of the rape. !therwise, they more or less commonly provide as follows:

2%

That on or about @dateA day of @monthA @yearA, in the (unicipality of -umaca, ,rovince of ;ue+on, ,hilippines and within the 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the said accused, armed with @kitchen knifeNa bladed weaponNa fan knifeA, with lewd designs, by means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one @AAANDDDA, a minor, @ageA years of age, against her will. That accused Alfredo Don is a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree of victim @AAANDDDA @*ollo, pp. .-FA. The 5nformation in Criminal Case $o. FF21-- omitted the second paragraph cited above, but did state that DDD was his niece. 5d. at 0F2. &/ 1eople v. ,olentino, supra note F2 at &FE, &F&. 9ee also, e.g., 1eople v. &ampuhan, B2E ,hil. 10% @%///A, where the Court stated: The penalty for attempted rape is two @%A degrees lower than the imposable penalty of death for the offense charged, which is statutory rape of a minor below seven @&A years. Two @%A degrees lower is reclusion temporal, the range of which is twelve @0%A years and one @0A day to twenty @%/A years. 3 3 3: 5d. at 1%&. &0 'or purposes of the succeeding academic discussion, attempted rape of a minor refers to the attempted rape of a minor which if consummated, would be sub4ect to the death penalty, pursuant to Article %FF-D of the *evised ,enal Code, as amended. 5n other words, the so-called #ualified rape. 5t should be understood that not all rapes, even of minors, were automatically covered by the death penalty, which was imposable if any of the aggravatingN#ualifying circumstances enumerated in Article %FF-D were present. 5t would of course be futile, in discussing the effect of the law abolishing the death penalty, if the above-discussion also applies to those rapes which were not covered by the death penalty. 5n appellant"s case, he would have been liable for the death penalty for the rape of a victim under eighteen @02A years of age, who happened to be a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. 9ee *evised ,enal Code, Art. %FF-D, par. @0A. &% 9upra note 0. &B 9ee e.g., 1eople v. (rita, -.*. $o. 22&%., B April 011/, 01. 9C*A 0/E, 00E, wherein the Court recogni+ed it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be committed. 6owever, an e3ception may lie in theory as to #ualified arson, considering that the Court recogni+ed the filing of frustrated arson in ,eople v. Haldes, B1 ,hil. %./, %.B @0102A. &. 9ee 1eople v. 2rancisco, supra note F&: 1eople v. ,olentino, supra note F2: 1eople v. &ampuhan, supra note F2. 9ee also 1eople v. ariano, .%/ ,hil. &%&, &.B @%//0A, 1eople v. 8uarre, .%& ,hil. .%%, .B1 @%//%A: 1eople v. endo)a, -.*. $os. 0E%E21 T 0E%&E2, %. !ctober %//B, .0. 9C*A .F0, .&0: 1eople v. iranda, -.*. $o. 0F1/&2, 0/ (arch %//F, .2. 9C*A EEE, EF1. &E 9ee e.g., &orona v. &ourt of Appeals, -.*. $o. 1&BEF, 9eptember B/, 011%, %0. 9C*A B&2, B1%: Loyola Grand Villas 6omeo#ners Association v. 6on. &ourt of Appeals , B.% ,hil. FE0, FF& @011&A: (>C5 v. Court of Appeals, BF/ ,hil. B2/-B20 @0112A. 2B 5n 1eople v. u+o), 0&/ 9C*A 0/&, 'ebruary 1, 0121, the Court, prior to the enactment and effectivity of *A &FE1, ruled by a vote of 1-F @>. Cru+, ponente, C.>. 'ernan, >>. -utierre+, >r., 'eliciano, -ancayco, ,adilla, Didin, -ri<o-A#uino and (edialdea, concurringA that the death penalty was not abolished but only prohibited from being imposed. Dut see also the persuasive 8issenting !pinion of (me. >ustice Ameurfina (elencio-6errera @4oined by >>. $arvasa, ,aras, 9armiento, Cortes and *egaladoA who contended that the Constitution totally abolished the death penalty and removed it from the statute books. 1eople v. u+o) reversed the earlier abolition doctrine uniformly held in ,eople v. -avarra, $o. =-B&F&B, 0EE 9C*A B%&, !ctober B/, 012&, @per C.>. GapA: 1eople v. asang3ay, $!. =-&B.F0, 0EE 9C*A 00B, !ctober %&, 012&, @per $. (elencio-6erreraA and 1eople v. Atencio, $os. =-F&&%0-%%, 0EF 9C*A %.%, 8ecember 0/, 012& @per C.>. $arvasaA. 5t is time that these cases are revisited by this Court. 9ee footnote no. E, 9eparate !pinion, 1eople v. %chegaray, BBE ,hil. B.B, B1% @011&A.

2B

G.R. No. 1*5919 Ma) 9, 200* +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, appellee, vs. DANN4 DELOS SANTOS 4 ,ERNANDE-, appellant. SANDO1AL-GUTIERRE-, J.0 'or automatic review is the 8ecision 0 dated !ctober %, 0112 of the *egional Trial Court, Dranch %0, (alolos, Dulacan, in Criminal Case $o. BEE0&12, finding appellant 8anny delos 9antos guilty of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death. 5n the 5nformation% dated 'ebruary %B, 0112, appellant was charged with murder, thus: That on or about the Fth day of $ovember 011&, in the (unicipality of 9an >ose, 8el (onte, ,rovince of Dulacan, ,hilippines, and within the 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a kitchen knife, with intent to kill one *od 'lores y >uanitas, with e9".e#! re6e."!a!"o#, !reacher) a#. !aG"#3 a.9a#!a3e o: $' er"or $!re#3!h , did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said kitchen knife said *od 'lores y >uanitas, hitting him on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which directly caused his death. Cpon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. B Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented (arcelino de =eon, (arvin Tablate, 8r. Denito Caballero and *omeo 'lores as its witnesses. Appellant and 9onny Dautista took the witness stand for the defense. (arcelino 8e =eon testified that at around 2:// p.m. of $ovember F, 011&, he saw *od 'lores drinking gin with $arciso 9alvador, (arvin Tablate and >ayvee *ainier at the latter"s house in 9armiento 6omes, 9an >ose del (onte, Dulacan. . As he was about to fetch water from a nearby faucet, he approached them and borrowed 'lores" cart.E While waiting for the cart, he stood across 'lores who was then seated and conversing with the group.F 9uddenly, appellant emerged from the back of 'lores and stabbed him with a knife,& making an upward and downward thrust.2 'lores ran after he was stabbed twice.1 Appellant pursued him and stabbed him many times.0/ As a result, 'lores" intestines bulged out of his stomach. 00 Appellant ceased stabbing 'lores only after he saw him dead. Thereafter, he turned his ire against >ayvee *ainier and chased him. 'earful for his life, witness 8e =eon hid himself and later on reported the incident to the police.0% (arvin Tablate corroborated 8e =eon"s testimony. !n cross-e3amination, Tablate testified that he tried to help 'lores by separating him from the appellant who ran away. 0B 6e also testified that the latter 4oined his group at about 00:// a.m. and kept on coming back and forth. 8r. Caballero declared on the witness stand that 'lores suffered twenty-one @%0A stab wounds in the frontal, posterior and lateral side of his body, eleven @00A of which were fatal. 8r. Caballero said it was possible that appellant was behind 'lores considering the stab wounds inflicted at his back. 0. According to the doctor, 'lores died because of massive e3ternalNinternal hemorrhages due to multiple stab wounds in the thora3 and abdomen penetrating both lungs, heart, stomach, liver, spleen and intestines. 0E *omeo 'lores testified that his son *od 'lores was then working at Hitarich, (arilao, Dulacan, earning ,F//.// every 0Eth day of the month:0F that he spent ,0//,///.// for his son"s burial and wake: that he has receipts in the amount of ,01,00/.// spent for the funeral services and the cost of the cemetery lot 0& and a list of other e3penses in the amount of ,BE,1F/.//: 02 and that his family has been grieving for the loss of a loved one. Appellant had a different version of the events. 6e denied the accusation and declared that on $ovember F, 011& at 2:// p.m., he was in his auntie"s house in (uson, 9an >ose del (onte, Dulacan, 01 forty @./A meters away from the scene of the crime. 6e was then fetching water. %/ Iarlier, at about E:B/ p.m., he and 'lores met but they did not greet each other. There was no altercation between them. 6ence, he could not understand why 8e =eon and Tablate testified against him. 9onny Dautista testified that on that particular date and time, he and appellant were in their auntie"s house in 9an >ose del (onte, Dulacan. %0 They watched television up to 2:B/ p.m. and then went home. At about 0/:// p.m., appellant was arrested. Dautista did not inform the policemen that they were watching television in their auntie"s house at the time the crime took place. $either did he accompany appellant to the police station.%% !n !ctober %, 0112, the trial court rendered a 8ecision, the dispositive portion of which reads: All premises considered, this Court resolves and so holds that the prosecution has been able to establish the criminal culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, 8anny delos 9antos is hereby found guilty of the crime of (urder with the #ualifying circumstance of treachery. 5n the imposition of the penalty, the Court hereby takes into account the brutality in the manner by which the life of the victim was taken, and if only to serve as deterrent to others who might be similarly obsessed, it is believed that the higher of the two penalties provided should be meted to the accused herein. Absent

2.

any circumstance that would mitigate the severity of his criminal act and pursuant to Articles %.2 of the *evised ,enal Code, as amended by 9ection F, *epublic Act no. &FE1, the accused 8anny delos 9antos y 'ernande+ is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 8eath by lethal in4ection. 'urther, the accused is condemned to indemnify the heirs of the deceased the amount of ,E/,///.// for the victim"s death. (oreover, accused delos 9antos is ordered to pay the said heirs of the deceased *od 'lores the following sums of money: 0. ,%F.,///.// for loss of earning capacity: %. ,EE,/&/.// for actual and compensatory damages: B. ,E/,///.// for moral damages: .. ,E/,///.// for e3emplary damages. With costs against the accused. 9! !*8I*I8. 5n his Appellant"s brief, appellant ascribes to the trial court the following errors: I THE COURT A @UO GRA1EL4 ERRED IN GI1ING ,ULL ,AITH AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMON4 O, THE ALLEGED E4E8ITNESSES, AND IN NOT AC@UITTING ACCUSEDA++ELLANT ON GROUND O, REASONA/LE DOU/T. II THE COURT A @UO ERRED IN ORDERING ACCUSED-A++ELLANT TO INDEMNI,4 THE HEIRS O, 1ICTIM THE AMOUNT O, +50,000.00 ,OR 1ICTIMIS DEATHJ +25%,000.00 ,OR LOSS O, EARNING CA+ACIT4J +55,070.00 ,OR ACTUAL AND COM+ENSATOR4 DAMAGESJ +50,000.00 ,OR MORAL DAMAGESJ AND +50,000.00 ,OR EKEM+LAR4 DAMAGES. %B Appellant contends that there are some inconsistencies between the testimonies of 8e =eon and Tablate, the prosecution witnesses. Also, there is no evidence that he has a motive to kill 'lores. 5n fact, there was no previous heated argument or altercation between them. That the prosecution witnesses e3ecuted their sworn statements only after two months from the commission of the crime raises doubt as to their credibility. 'inally, the evidence for the prosecution failed to meet the e3acting test of moral certainty, hence, the trial court should not have ordered him to indemnify the heirs of 'lores. The 9olicitor -eneral, in the Appellee"s brief, counters that: @ aA the inconsistencies pointed out by appellant are minor and do not vitiate the fact that he was the one who killed 'lores: @ 7A appellant"s defenses of alibi and denial are worthless since he was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses: @ cA he failed to proffer any e3planation why the prosecution witnesses implicated him: @ .A the crime was aggravated by cruelty because he butchered 'lores until his intestines bulged out of his stomach: and @ eA the heirs of 'lores are entitled to indemnification as it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that appellant killed him. The first assigned error involves a determination of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. 9ettled is the rule that when it comes to credibility of witnesses, appellate courts generally do not overturn the findings of trial courts. The latter are in a best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses" manner of testifying, demeanor and behavior in court.%. We see no reason to deviate from this rule. Appellant maintains that there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of 8e =eon and Tablate. While 8e =eon testified that appellant did not 4oin 'lores" group, however, Tablate declared that he was drinking gin with them at about 00:// a.m. 8e =eon testified that no one assisted 'lores when he was being attacked by appellant. 6owever, Tablate stated that he attempted to separate 'lores from appellant after the former had sustained two stab wounds. The first alleged inconsistency is understandable. Cnlike Tablate who was with the group in a drinking spree, 8e =eon approached 'lores only when he borrowed the cart from the latter at about 2:// p.m. 6e stayed with 'lores" group only for about thirty minutes, %E or up to 2:B/ p.m. Thus, he could not have observed that appellant 4oined the group earlier, or at about 00: // a.m. The second alleged inconsistency is a minor one that does not enfeeble the prosecution"s theory that appellant killed 'lores. Ivident from 8e =eon"s testimony is the fact that he was so shocked in witnessing the gruesome killing of his companion. With such a state of mind, it would be too much to demand from him a full recollection of the details surrounding the event. (any times we have ruled that inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses when referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. %F They only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses for they erase the suspicion of a rehearsed

2E

testimony.%& What we find important in the case at bar is that the two prosecution witnesses were one in saying that it was appellant who stabbed 'lores with a knife. We #uote the clear and straightforward account of the incident by 8e =eon and Tablate. 8uring cross-e3amination, 8e =eon testified as follows: A!!). De (a Cr'=0 ; 4o' .". #o! $ee !he acc'$e. 7eca'$e "! <a$ .arG "# !ha! (ace, "$ "! #o!L A No, $"r, he $'..e#() a eare. :ro6 !he 7acG o: Ro. ,(ore$ a#. $!ar!e. $!a77"#3 Ro. !ha! "$ <h) <e <ere $'r r"$e.. Court: ; Ho< .". !he acc'$e. !hr'$! !he <ea o# !o !he 9"c!"6L A >8"!#e$$ .e6o#$!ra!"#3 7) 6aG"#3 ' <ar., .o<#<ar. !hr'$! a! !he 7acG o: !he 9"c!"6? A!!). De (a Cr'=0 ; 8here <a$ Ro. ,(ore$ h"!, ": )o' G#o<L A A! !he 7acG, $"r. ; Ho< 6a#) !"6e$L A A! :"r$!, !<"ce, $"r. Court: ; That was the time when *od 'lores ran away after having been stabbed twice. A Ges, Gour 6onor. 333 333 333 Court: ; 6ow did the accused thrust for the second time the weapon at the back of the victim. A Doth at the back, sir. 333 333 333 Atty. 8e la Cru+: ; Was *od 'lores able to ran away7 A Ges, sir. ; Where were you when *od 'lores was running away7 A We were left behind, sir. 5 was not able to move anymore. ; And was the accused able to reach 'lores7 A Ges, sir. ; 8ha! .". !he acc'$e. .oL A A3a"#, he $!ar!e. $!a77"#3 a! !he 7acG, $"r. ; So !he $!a77"#3 <a$ "#:("c!e. a! !he 7acG o: !he 9"c!"6L A No! a((, $"r, 7eca'$e he !'r#e. h"6 :ace ' a#. $!a77e. h"6 a3a"#, $"r.B%2 Tablate"s direct testimony reads: 'iscal Hicente: 333 333 333 ; Ho< .". Da##) .e(o$ Sa#!o$ $!a7 Ro. ,(ore$L A B+a!a("Go.,B $"r. ; 8ha! .o )o' 6ea#L A Da##) .e(o$ Sa#!o$ $!a77e. Ro. ,(ore$ a! !he 7acG, $"r. ; 8he# )o' $a". Da##) .e(o$ Sa#!o$ $!a77e. Ro. ,(ore$ a! !he 7acG, are )o' $a)"#3 !ha! Da##) .e(o$ Sa#!o$ <a$ a! !he 7acG o: Ro. ,(ore$ a! !he !"6eL A 4e$, $"r. ; Ho< 6a#) !"6e$ .". !he acc'$e. $!a7 Ro. ,(ore$L A I $a< h"6 $!a77e. !he 9"c!"6 !<"ce, $"r. >8"!#e$$ .e6o#$!ra!e. "# .o<#<ar. o$"!"o# a$ ": he <a$ ho(."#3 $o6e!h"#3?. ; 8ha! <a$ he ho(."#3L A A G#":e, $"r. 333 333 333 Court: 333 333 333 ; Are )o' $'re !ha! <he# Ro. ,(ore$ :e(( !o !he 3ro'#., he <a$ #o! a7(e !o r"$e #or <a$ he a7(e !o r'# a<a)L A He <a$ a7(e !o r'# 7'! !he# he <a$ .r'#G a#. !he acc'$e. <a$ a7(e !o ca!ch a#. $!a7 h"6 a3a"#, $"r. 333 333 333

2F

; Are )o' o$"!"9e !o !he ".e#!"!) o: Da##) .e(o$ Sa#!o$ !ha! he <a$ !he o#e <ho $!a77e. Ro. ,(ore$L A 4e$, $"r.B %1 Appellant argues that since the prosecution witnesses testified that there was no altercation between him and 'lores, it follows that no motive to kill can be attributed to him. This is an inconse#uential argument. +roo: o: 6o!"9e "$ #o! "#."$ e#$a7(e :or a co#9"c!"o#, ar!"c'(ar() <here !he acc'$e. "$ o$"!"9e() ".e#!":"e. 7) a# e)e<"!#e$$ a#. h"$ ar!"c" a!"o# "$ a.eF'a!e() e$!a7("$he. .B/ 5n 1eople vs. Galano,B0 we ruled that in the crime of murder, motive is not an element of the offense, it becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is some doubt on whether the accused had committed it. 5n the case before us, no such doubt e3its as 8e =eon and Tablate positively identified appellant. 5n a last-ditch attempt to cast doubt on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant #uestions why their statements were taken only on >anuary %1, 0112 when the incident happened on $ovember F, 011&. The two-month delay is hardly an indicium of a concocted story. 5t is but natural for witnesses to avoid being involved in a criminal proceeding particularly when the crime committed is of such gravity as to show the cruelty of the perpetrator. Dorn of human e3perience, the fear of retaliation can have a paraly+ing effect to the witnesses.B% Thus, in 1eople vs. 0acibar,BB we held that the initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information about a criminal case is of common knowledge and has been 4udicially declared as insufficient to affect credibility, especially when a valid reason e3ists for such hesitance. Anent the second error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in indemnifying the heirs of 'lores since his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 9uffice it to state at this point that the evidence for the prosecution produces moral certainty that appellant is guilty of the crime charged, hence, should be answerable for all its conse#uences. As earlier mentioned, appellant"s defenses are mere alibi and denial. 6e testified that at the time the crime took place, he was in his auntie"s house in (uson: 9an >ose del (onte, Dulacan. When probed by the trial court, he categorically stated that the house is only ./ meters away from the scene of the crime and may be traveled in about three or five minutes. B. 'or the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be convincing enough to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis at the time of the incident.BE Certainly, the re#uired impossibility does not e3ist here. Weighing the evidence of the prosecution vis-W-vis that of the defense, the scale of 4ustice must tilt in favor of the former. Time and again, we ruled that positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. BF With marked relevance is the fact that appellant did not present any evidence to show that the prosecution witnesses, in testifying against him, have improper motive. The prosecution was able to establish that appellant"s attack on 'lores was from behind without any slightest provocation on his part B& and that it was sudden and une3pected. This is a clear case of treachery. Where the victim was totally unprepared for the une3pected attack from behind with no weapon to resist it, the stabbing could only be described as treacherous. B2 There being treachery, appellant"s conviction for murder is in order. 6owever, in the imposition of penalty, we cannot appreciate the aggravating circumstance of cruelty considered by the trial court. ,ursuant to the BGGG 4evised 4ules of &riminal 1rocedure , every 5nformation must state not only the #ualifying but also the aggravating circumstances. B1 This rule may be given retroactive effect in the light of the well-established rule that statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. ./ The aggravating circumstance of cruelty, not having been alleged in the 5nformation, may not be appreciated to enhance the liability of appellant. Cnder Article %.2.0 of the *evised ,enal Code, the penalty for the consummated crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. 5n this case, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed, there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attending the crime. .% 5n keeping with the current 4urisprudence, the heirs of 'lores are entitled to the amount of ,E/,///.// by way of civil indemnity ex delicto..B As regards the actual damages, it appears that out of the ,EE,/&/.// awarded by the trial court, only ,01,0&/.// .. was actually supported by receipts. The other amounts were based solely on a list prepared by *omeo 'lores. To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable to the in4ured party. .E 5n the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present receipts for the other e3penses incurred. Thus, in light of the recent case of 1eople vs. Abra)aldo,.F we grant the award of ,%E,///.// as temperate damages inasmuch as the proven actual damages is less than ,%E,///.//.

2&

The moral damages awarded in the amount of ,E/,///.// is affirmed, there being proofs that because of 'lores" death, his heirs suffered wounded feelings, mental anguish, an3iety and similar in4ury. .& 6owever, we reduce to ,%E,///.// only the trial court"s award of ,E/,///.// as e3emplary damages..2 The amount of indemnity for loss of earning capacity is based on the income at the time of death and the probable life e3pectancy of the victim. 5n the case at bar, the trial court found that 'lores" annual gross income is ,0.,.//.// computed at the rate of ,0,%//.// a month for twelve @0%A months. 'rom this amount is deducted the necessary and incidental e3penses, estimated at E/X, leaving a balance of ,&,%//.//. 6is net income would then be multiplied by his life e3pectancy, using the following formula: %NB 3 2/ - %E @age of the victim at time of deathA. Considering that he was %E years old when he died, his life e3pectancy would be B&. (ultiplying the net balance of his annual income by his life e3pectancy, the loss of his earning is ,%FF,.//.//, thus: 5n computing the life e3pectancy and loss of earning capacity of a person the following formula is used: =ife e3pectancy %NB 3 @2/ - the age of the victim at the time of deathA %NB 3 @2/ - %EA %NB 3 EE Y *5.55 or *7 =oss of earning capacity net annual income 3 life e3pectancy ,&,%// 3 B& Y +255,%00.00B .1 8HERE,ORE, the 8ecision dated !ctober %, 0112 of the *egional Trial Court, Dranch %0, (alolos, Dulacan, in Criminal Case $o. BEE0&12, finding appellant 8anny delos 9antos y 'ernande+ guilty of the crime of murder is A''5*(I8 with (!85'5CAT5!$ in the sense that he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the late *od 'lores y >uanitas the amounts of ,E/,///.// as civil indemnity, ,%E,////.// as temperate damages, ,E/,///.// as moral damages, ,%E,///.// as e3emplary damages, and ,%FF,.//.// for loss of earning capacity. Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED. 0avide, $r ., & .$ ., /ellosillo, 1uno, Vitug, 1anganiban, 8uisumbing, .nares-*antiago, &arpio, Austriaartine), &orona, &arpio- orales, &alle"o, *r., and A)cuna, $$ ., concur.
B/

1eople vs. Lo)ada, -.*. $o. 0B/E21, >une %1, %///, BB. 9C*A F/%: =ack of motive for committing the crime does not preclude conviction for such crime when the crime and participation of the accused are definitely proved. 1eople vs. 8uillosa, B2% ,hil. FB2 @%///A. B% 'ear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case are sufficient e3planations for a witness" delay in reporting a crime to the authorities. @,eople vs. -alido, B2B ,hil. F0 @%///A. ./ 1eople vs. Antonio, -.*. $o. 0..%FF, $ovember %&, %//%: 1eople vs. Arro"ado, -.*. $o. 0B/.1%, >anuary B0, %//0, BE/ 9C*A F&1. .0 Article %.2 of the *evised ,enal Code provides: A*T. %.2. urder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article %.F shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death . . . .

22

G.R. No. 152527 Oc!o7er 20, 2005 &OE4 GUI4A/ ) DANAO, ,etitioner, vs. +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, *espondent. 8IC595!$ @UISUM/ING, J.: This petition for review seeks to set aside the Dec"$"o#0 dated 9eptember %&, %//0 of the Court of Appeals in CA--.*. C* $o. %B&/B, affirming the 8ecision of the *egional Trial Court, Dranch %%, Cabagan, 5sabela, in Criminal Case $o. %%-0/&., convicting >oey -uiyab of 6omicide, and the Re$o('!"o#% dated 'ebruary %F, %//% denying his motion for reconsideration. !n (arch 00, 011B, petitioner >oey -uiyab was charged with 6omicide before the *egional Trial Court of Cabagan. The I#:or6a!"o# reads: That on or about the 0%th day of 8ecember, 011%, in the R(Sunicipality of Tumauini, R,Srovince of 5sabela, ,hilippines, and within the 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and without any 4ust motive, assault, attack and stab with a bladed pointed instrument one *afael Dacani, inflicting upon him, a stab wound on the right anterior back wall, which directly caused his death. C!$T*A*G T! =AW. B !n arraignment, petitioner, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued. ,rosecution witness >!9I,6 (A8*5A-A testified that on 8ecember 0%, 011% at about 1:// p.m., while the victim *afael Dacani and he were conversing in front of the Community Center in Tumauini, a certain >uan 9anche+ approached and kicked them. As they posed for a fist fight, petitioner >oey -uiyab uttered 1ureban nu ta inanna nu @Gou try and you will see.A while brandishing a knife. 6e recalled that he retreated and 4umped over the fence. 6e then picked up a stone, grabbed >uan 9anche+ by the hair and struck him in the head. 5t was then that petitioner chased him. 'ailing to catch him, petitioner turned to *afael who was following them. ,etitioner stabbed *afael once on the right chest. *afael ran a few meters before he fell. >oseph and *afaelQs brother, Dong (atias, brought the victim to the hospital. 8*. I*A9(! A. C*CM, the resident physician of 5sabela 5ntegrated ,rovincial 6ealth !ffice @otherwise known as the 5sabela ,rovincial 6ospitalA, testified that at around 0/:.E in the evening of 8ecember 0%, 011%, he attended to *afael Dacani. *afael had a 0.E centimeter stab wound located on the fourth interpostal state @middle part of the chest above the nippleA. The victim died, according to the medical certificate, of cardiorespiratory arrest, the antecedent cause of which is hypovolemic shock and the underlying cause is the stab wound at the anterior chest. 6e died at about F:%E a.m. the ne3t day. H595TAC5!$ (AT5A9 H8A. 8I DACA$5, the victimQs mother, testified that she spent ,0/,/// for the medical e3penses, ,02,/// for the coffin and ,B/,/// for the other funeral e3penses. 'or his part, petitioner raised the defense of alibi. >!IG -C5GAD testified that he was not at Tumauini Cultural and 9ports Center at the time the incident happened. 6e averred that he was farming until E:// p.m. at 9itio Dayabo, Camasi, and slept at around 1:// p.m. in their house at 9itio Dayabo. 6is testimony was corroborated by 8omingo -umaru, and petitionerQs parents, 9ilvino and Hicenta -uiyab. 8!(5$-! -C(A*C, petitionerQs neighbor, testified that he saw the petitioner at 9itio Dayabo at F:// p.m. on 8ecember 0%, 011% and again at 2:// a.m. of 8ecember 0B, 011%. 6e also testified that to go to the Centro @the town center of TumauiniA from Camasi, one has to go to Cumabao and take a 4eep there to the Centro. 5n 011%, there were only three passenger vehicles plying Cumabao to Centro and the last trip was at around .:// p.m. As rebuttal, the prosecution presented 9,/. *!(I! TC(!=HA who swore that he personally knows the petitioner as he is a compadre of the petitionerQs parents. 6e testified seeing the petitioner along the fenced area of the Community Center at the night of the incident. !n >uly &, 0111, the trial court rendered 4udgment,. the decretal portion of which reads: W6I*I'!*I, the Court hereby renders 4udgment finding the accused >oey -uiyab -C5=TG beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of 6omicide as defined and penali+ed under Article %.1 of the *evised ,enal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of prision mayor medium to reclusion temporal minimum or from eight @2A years and one @0A day to fourteen @0.A years and eight @2A months, to pay the 6eirs of *afael Dacani ,E/,///.// as death indemnity, plus ,B/,///.// for actual damages and ,02,///.// for funeral e3penses, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Costs de officio. 9! !*8I*I8.E The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the trial courtQs decision and denied petitionerQs motion for reconsideration. ,etitioner now comes before us raising the following issues:

21

5. W6IT6I* !* $!T T6I -C5=T !' T6I ,IT5T5!$I* WA9 ,*!HI$ DIG!$8 *IA9!$AD=I 8!CDT T! C!$H5CT 65( !' T6I C*5(I C6A*-I8. 55. W6IT6I* !* $!T T6I 58I$T5TG !' T6I ACCC9I8 A9 T6I A99A5=A$T WA9 'C==G I9TAD=596I8 DG T6I ,*!9ICCT5!$.F The core issue of the present case is whether the guilt of the petitioner was established beyond reasonable doubt. We must likewise in#uire as to whether the petitioner was ade#uately identified. ,etitioner claims that the real identity of the assailant was not fully established by the prosecution since the lone eyewitness learned the name of the petitioner only after it was fed to him by ,olice !fficer Armando =ugo. ,etitioner contends that the identification of the petitioner was tainted with con4ecture and speculation. The 9olicitor -eneral counters that >oseph (adriaga witnessed the whole incident and positively identified the petitioner. This is sufficient to convict petitioner. We have carefully e3amined the records and find nothing in them that supports petitionerQs claim that his identification was tainted with con4ectures and speculation. !ur review of the transcript shows that >oseph (adriaga testified in a categorical and straightforward manner on the events leading to the death of *afael Dacani. We #uote: ;: 8o you know >oey -uiyab7 A: Ges, sir. ;: Tell the Court why you know him7 A: 5 know him to be a resident of 9an Hicente and 5 often see his face. ;: 5f >oey -uiyab is in Court, could you point him7 A: Ges, sir. ;: ,lease point to him. Court 5nterpreter: Witness pointing to a person who when asked gave his name as >oey -uiyab. ... ;: After >uan 9anche+ hit you with @sicA *afael Dacani with one single kick, what did you do7 A: Decause we were surprised by the kick of >uan 9anche+ we acted by preparing our fists to fight back but this >oey -uiyab took his knife and said in the 5banag dialect ,ureban nu ta inanna nu which means you try and you will see. ;: After >oey -uiyab brought out a knife and said to you, you try and you will see, what happened ne3t7 A: 5 moved back and 4umped over the fence. ;: Will you please tell the 6onorable Court why you 4umped over the fence7 A: Decause >oey -uiyab is trying to attack me with his balisong. ;: While @sicA you 4umped over the fence what happened ne3t7 A: After 4umping over the fence, 5 picked up a stone and when 5 saw >uan 9anche+ 5 hit him with a stone. ;: When you went over that fence, where was *afael Dacani7 A: 6e ran inside the premises. ;: After you hit >uan 9anche+ with a stone what happened ne3t7 A: Then >oey -uiyab chased me. ;: 8id he overtake you when he chased you7 A: $o, sir. ;: $ow, when he was not able to overtake you, what did he do7 A: Decause he was not able to chase me he was able to get hold of *afael Dacani and that was the time he stabbed him. ;: When >oey -uiyab stabbed *afael Dacani was *afael Dacani hit7 A: Ges, sir. ;: What part of his body7 A: 6ere, sir. Court 5nterpreter: Witness pointing to a portion of his right chest near the nipple. ... ;: When *afael Dacani was hit and stabbed with a knife, how far were you7 A: 'ive @EA meters. ... ;: Gou saw the accused stabbed @sicA *afael Dacani, is it not7

1/

A: Ges, sir.& As a rule, appellate courts will not interfere with the 4udgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of a witness, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked, or the significance of which has been misinterpreted or misapprehended.2 That general rule holds true in this case. We do not doubt >osephQs identification of >oey -uiyab. Iven if he did not know the name of the petitioner prior to the incident, he was able to identify him in open court. Desides, >oseph maintained that although he did not know the name of the petitioner, he knew him by his face. 1 There is nothing in law or 4urisprudence which re#uires, as a condition sine qua non, that, for a positive identification of a felon by a prosecution witness to be good, the witness must first know the former personally. 0/ The witness need not have to know the name of the accused for so long as he recogni+es his face. 00 We ruled that knowing the identity of an accused is different from knowing his name. 6ence, the positive identification of the malefactor should not be disregarded 4ust because his name was supplied to the eyewitness. The weight of the eyewitness account is premised on the fact that the said witness saw the accused commit the crime, and not because he knew his name. 0% 8HERE,ORE, the petition is DENIED. The Dec"$"o# dated 9eptember %&, %//0 and the Re$o('!"o# dated 'ebruary %F, %//% of the Court of Appeals in CA--.*. C* $o. %B&/B, which sustained the 4udgment of the *egional Trial Court, finding petitioner >!IG -C5GAD guilty of 6omicide and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of prision mayor medium to reclusion temporal minimum or from eight @2A years and one @0A day to fourteen @0.A years and eight @2A months, and to +A4 the heirs of *afael Dacani ,E/,///.// as death indemnity, plus ,B/,///.// for actual damages and ,02,///.// for funeral e3penses, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, are A,,IRMED. Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED.

10

G.R. No. 1552%2 No9e67er 29, 2005 EDUARDO +. MANUEL, ,etitioner, vs. +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, *espondent. 8IC595!$ CALLE&O, SR., J.0 Defore us is a petition for review on certiorari of the 8ecision0 of the Court of Appeals @CAA in CA--.*. C* $o. %F2&&, affirming the 8ecision% of the *egional Trial Court @*TCA of Daguio City, Dranch B, convicting Iduardo ,. (anuel of bigamy in Criminal Case $o. 01EF%-*. Iduardo was charged with bigamy in an 5nformation filed on $ovember &, %//0, the accusatory portion of which reads: That on or about the %%nd day of April, 011F, in the City of Daguio, ,hilippines, and within the 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the above-named accused I8CA*8! ,. (A$CI=, being then previously and legally married to *CDG=C9 R-AZAS and without the said marriage having been legally dissolved, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with T5$A -A$8A=I*A(A$CI=, herein complainant, who does not know the e3istence of the first marriage of said I8CA*8! ,. (A$CI= to *ubylus R-a<aS. C!$T*A*G T! =AW. B The prosecution adduced evidence that on >uly %2, 01&E, Iduardo was married to *ubylus -a<a before (sgr. 'eliciano 9antos in (akati, which was then still a municipality of the ,rovince of *i+al. . 6e met the private complainant Tina D. -andalera in 8agupan City sometime in >anuary 011F. 9he stayed in Donuan, 8agupan City for two days looking for a friend. Tina was then %0 years old, a Computer 9ecretarial student, while Iduardo was B1. Afterwards, Iduardo went to Daguio City to visit her. Iventually, as one thing led to another, they went to a motel where, despite TinaQs resistance, Iduardo succeeded in having his way with her. Iduardo proposed marriage on several occasions, assuring her that he was single. Iduardo even brought his parents to Daguio City to meet TinaQs parents, and was assured by them that their son was still single. Tina finally agreed to marry Iduardo sometime in the first week of (arch 011F. They were married on April %%, 011F before >udge Antonio C. *eyes, the ,residing >udge of the *TC of Daguio City, Dranch F0. E 5t appeared in their marriage contract that Iduardo was single. The couple was happy during the first three years of their married life. Through their 4oint efforts, they were able to build their home in Cypress ,oint, 5risan, Daguio City. 6owever, starting 0111, (anuel started making himself scarce and went to their house only twice or thrice a year. Tina was 4obless, and whenever she asked money from Iduardo, he would slap her. F 9ometime in >anuary %//0, Iduardo took all his clothes, left, and did not return. Worse, he stopped giving financial support. 9ometime in August %//0, Tina became curious and made in#uiries from the $ational 9tatistics !ffice @$9!A in (anila where she learned that Iduardo had been previously married. 9he secured an $9!certified copy of the marriage contract. & 9he was so embarrassed and humiliated when she learned that Iduardo was in fact already married when they e3changed their own vows.2 'or his part, Iduardo testified that he met Tina sometime in 011E in a bar where she worked as a -uest *elations !fficer @-*!A. 6e fell in love with her and married her. 6e informed Tina of his previous marriage to *ubylus -a<a, but she nevertheless agreed to marry him. Their marital relationship was in order until this one time when he noticed that she had a love-bite on her neck. 6e then abandoned her. Iduardo further testified that he declared he was single in his marriage contract with Tina because he believed in good faith that his first marriage was invalid. 6e did not know that he had to go to court to seek for the nullification of his first marriage before marrying Tina. Iduardo further claimed that he was only forced to marry his first wife because she threatened to commit suicide unless he did so. *ubylus was charged with estafa in 01&E and thereafter imprisoned. 6e visited her in 4ail after three months and never saw her again. 6e insisted that he married Tina believing that his first marriage was no longer valid because he had not heard from *ubylus for more than %/ years. After trial, the court rendered 4udgment on >uly %, %//% finding Iduardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy. 6e was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from si3 @FA years and ten @0/A months, as minimum, to ten @0/A years, as ma3imum, and directed to indemnify the private complainant Tina -andalera the amount of ,%//,///.// by way of moral damages, plus costs of suit.1 The trial court ruled that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of bigamy under Article B.1 of the *evised ,enal Code. 5t declared that IduardoQs belief, that his first marriage had been dissolved because of his first wifeQs %/-year absence, even if true, did not e3culpate him

1%

from liability for bigamy. Citing the ruling of this Court in 1eople v. /itdu,0/ the trial court further ruled that even if the private complainant had known that Iduardo had been previously married, the latter would still be criminally liable for bigamy. Iduardo appealed the decision to the CA. 6e alleged that he was not criminally liable for bigamy because when he married the private complainant, he did so in good faith and without any malicious intent. 6e maintained that at the time that he married the private complainant, he was of the honest belief that his first marriage no longer subsisted. 6e insisted that conformably to Article B of the *evised ,enal Code, there must be malice for one to be criminally liable for a felony. 6e was not motivated by malice in marrying the private complainant because he did so only out of his overwhelming desire to have a fruitful marriage. 6e posited that the trial court should have taken into account Article B1/ of the $ew Civil Code. To support his view, the appellant cited the rulings of this Court in -nited *tates v. 1e+alosa00 and anahan, $r. v. &ourt of Appeals.0% The !ffice of the 9olicitor -eneral @!9-A averred that IduardoQs defense of good faith and reliance on the CourtQs ruling in -nited *tates v. %nrique)0B were misplaced: what is applicable is Article .0 of the 'amily Code, which amended Article B1/ of the Civil Code. Citing the ruling of this Court in 4epublic v. 7olasco,0. the !9- further posited that as provided in Article .0 of the 'amily Code, there is a need for a 4udicial declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse to enable the present spouse to marry. Iven assuming that the first marriage was void, the parties thereto should not be permitted to 4udge for themselves the nullity of the marriage: the matter should be submitted to the proper court for resolution. (oreover, the !9- maintained, the private complainantQs knowledge of the first marriage would not afford any relief since bigamy is an offense against the 9tate and not 4ust against the private complainant. 6owever, the !9- agreed with the appellant that the penalty imposed by the trial court was erroneous and sought the affirmance of the decision appealed from with modification. !n >une 02, %//., the CA rendered 4udgment affirming the decision of the *TC with modification as to the penalty of the accused. 5t ruled that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of bigamy. Contrary to the contention of the appellant, Article .0 of the 'amily Code should apply. Defore (anuel could lawfully marry the private complainant, there should have been a 4udicial declaration of -a<aQs presumptive death as the absent spouse. The appellate court cited the rulings of this Court in ercado v. ,an0E and 0omingo v. &ourt of Appeals0F to support its ruling. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: W6I*I'!*I, in the light of the foregoing, the 8ecision promulgated on >uly B0, %//% is hereby MODI,IED to reflect, as it hereby reflects, that accused-appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two @%A years, four @.A months and one @0A day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten @0/A years of prision mayor as ma3imum. 9aid 8ecision is A,,IRMED in all other respects. 9! !*8I*I8.0& Iduardo, now the petitioner, filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, insisting that: 5 T6I C!C*T !' A,,IA=9 C!((5TTI8 *IHI*95D=I I**!* !' =AW W6I$ 5T *C=I8 T6AT ,IT5T5!$I*Q9 '5*9T W5'I CA$$!T DI =I-A==G ,*I9C(I8 8IA8 C$8I* A*T5C=I B1/ !' T6I C5H5= C!8I A9 T6I*I WA9 $! >C85C5A= 8IC=A*AT5!$ !' ,*I9C(,T5HI 8IAT6 A9 ,*!H58I8 '!* C$8I* A*T5C=I .0 !' T6I 'A(5=G C!8I. 55 T6I C!C*T !' A,,IA=9 C!((5TTI8 *IHI*95D=I I**!* !' =AW W6I$ 5T A''5*(I8 T6I AWA*8 !' ,6,%//,///.// A9 (!*A= 8A(A-I9 A9 5T 6A9 $! DA959 5$ 'ACT A$8 5$ =AW.02 The petitioner maintains that the prosecution failed to prove the second element of the felony, i.e., that the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case hisNher spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead under the Civil Code. 6e avers that when he married -andalera in 011F, -a<a had been absent for %0 years since 01&E: under Article B1/ of the Civil Code, she was presumed dead as a matter of law. 6e points out that, under the first paragraph of Article B1/ of the Civil Code, one who has been absent for seven years, whether or not heNshe is still alive, shall be presumed dead for all purposes e3cept for succession, while the second paragraph refers to the rule on legal presumption of death with respect to succession. The petitioner asserts that the presumptive death of the absent spouse arises by operation of law upon the satisfaction of two re#uirements: the specified period and the present spouseQs reasonable belief that the absentee is dead. 6e insists that he was able to prove that he had not heard from his first wife since 01&E and that he had no knowledge of her whereabouts or whether she was still alive: hence, under Article .0 of the 'amily Code, the presumptive

1B

death of -a<a had arisen by operation of law, as the two re#uirements of Article B1/ of the Civil Code are present. The petitioner concludes that he should thus be ac#uitted of the crime of bigamy. The petitioner insists that e3cept for the period of absences provided for in Article B1/ of the Civil Code, the rule therein on legal presumptions remains valid and effective. $owhere under Article B1/ of the Civil Code does it re#uire that there must first be a 4udicial declaration of death before the rule on presumptive death would apply. 6e further asserts that contrary to the rulings of the trial and appellate courts, the re#uirement of a 4udicial declaration of presumptive death under Article .0 of the 'amily Code is only a re#uirement for the validity of the subse#uent or second marriage. The petitioner, likewise, avers that the trial court and the CA erred in awarding moral damages in favor of the private complainant. The private complainant was a -*! before he married her, and even knew that he was already married. 6e genuinely loved and took care of her and gave her financial support. 6e also pointed out that she had an illicit relationship with a lover whom she brought to their house. 5n its comment on the petition, the !9- maintains that the decision of the CA affirming the petitionerQs conviction is in accord with the law, 4urisprudence and the evidence on record. To bolster its claim, the !9- cited the ruling of this Court in 4epublic v. 7olasco.01 The petition is denied for lack of merit. Article B.1 of the *evised ,enal Code, which defines and penali+es bigamy, reads: Art. B.1. /igamy. H The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subse#uent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a 4udgment rendered in the proper proceedings. The provision was taken from Article .2F of the 9panish ,enal Code, to wit: %l que contra"ere *egundo o ulterior matrimonio sin hallarse legItimamente disuelto el anterior, serJ castigado con la pena de prision mayor. 333 The reason why bigamy is considered a felony is to preserve and ensure the 4uridical tie of marriage established by law.%/ The phrase or before the absent spouse had been declared presumptively dead by means of a 4udgment rendered in the proper proceedings was incorporated in the *evised ,enal Code because the drafters of the law were of the impression that in consonance with the civil law which provides for the presumption of death after an absence of a number of years, !he M'."c"a( .ec(ara!"o# o: re$'6e. .ea!h ("Ge a##'(6e#! o: 6arr"a3e should be a 4ustification for bigamy. %0 'or the accused to be held guilty of bigamy, the prosecution is burdened to prove the felony: @aA heNshe has been legally married: and @bA heNshe contracts a subse#uent marriage without the former marriage having been lawfully dissolved. The felony is consummated on the celebration of the second marriage or subse#uent marriage.%% 5t is essential in the prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential re#uirements, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. %B Hiada avers that a third element of the crime is that the second marriage must be entered into with fraudulent intent >intencion fraudulenteA which is an essential element of a felony by dolo.%. !n the other hand, Cuello Calon is of the view that there are only two elements of bigamy: @0A the e3istence of a marriage that has not been lawfully dissolved: and @%A the celebration of a second marriage. 5t does not matter whether the first marriage is void or voidable because such marriages have 4uridical effects until lawfully dissolved by a court of competent 4urisdiction.%E As the Court ruled in 0omingo v. &ourt of Appeals%F and ercado v. ,an,%& under the 'amily Code of the ,hilippines, the 4udicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is a defense. 5n his commentary on the *evised ,enal Code, Albert is of the same view as Hiada and declared that there are three @BA elements of bigamy: @0A an undissolved marriage: @%A a new marriage: and @BA fraudulent intention constituting the felony of the act.%2 6e e3plained that: V This last element is not stated in Article B.1, because it is undoubtedly incorporated in the principle antedating all codes, and, constituting one of the landmarks of our ,enal Code, that, where there is no willfulness there is no crime. There is no willfulness if the sub4ect believes that the former marriage has been dissolved: and this must be supported by very strong evidence, and if this be produced, the act shall be deemed not to constitute a crime. Thus, a person who contracts a second marriage in the reasonable and well-founded belief that his first wife is dead, because of the many years that have elapsed since he has had any news of her whereabouts, in spite of his endeavors to find her, cannot be deemed guilty of the crime of bigamy, because there is no fraudulent intent which is one of the essential elements of the crime.%1 As gleaned from the 5nformation in the *TC, the petitioner is charged with bigamy, a felony by dolo @deceitA. Article B, paragraph % of the *evised ,enal Code provides that there is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent. 5ndeed, a felony cannot e3ist without intent. 9ince a felony by dolo is

1.

classified as an intentional felony, it is deemed voluntary. B/ Although the words with malice do not appear in Article B of the *evised ,enal Code, such phrase is included in the word voluntary. B0 (alice is a mental state or condition prompting the doing of an overt act without legal e3cuse or 4ustification from which another suffers in4ury. B% When the act or omission defined by law as a felony is proved to have been done or committed by the accused, the law presumes it to have been intentional. BB 5ndeed, it is a legal presumption of law that every man intends the natural or probable conse#uence of his voluntary act in the absence of proof to the contrary, and such presumption must prevail unless a reasonable doubt e3ists from a consideration of the whole evidence.B. 'or one to be criminally liable for a felony by dolo, there must be a confluence of both an evil act and an evil intent. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.BE 5n the present case, the prosecution proved that the petitioner was married to -a<a in 01&E, and such marriage was not 4udicially declared a nullity: hence, the marriage is presumed to subsist. BF The prosecution also proved that the petitioner married the private complainant in 011F, long after the effectivity of the 'amily Code. The petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice or evil intent when he married the private complainant. As a general rule, mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo: such defense negates malice or criminal intent. 6owever, ignorance of the law is not an e3cuse because everyone is presumed to know the law. !gnorantia legis neminem excusat. 5t was the burden of the petitioner to prove his defense that when he married the private complainant in 011F, he was of the well-grounded belief that his first wife was already dead, as he had not heard from her for more than %/ years since 01&E. 6e should have adduced in evidence a decision of a competent court declaring the presumptive death of his first wife as re#uired by Article B.1 of the *evised ,enal Code, in relation to Article .0 of the 'amily Code. 9uch 4udicial declaration also constitutes proof that the petitioner acted in good faith, and would negate criminal intent on his part when he married the private complainant and, as a conse#uence, he could not be held guilty of bigamy in such case. The petitioner, however, failed to discharge his burden. The phrase or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a 4udgment rendered on the proceedings in Article B.1 of the *evised ,enal Code was not an aggroupment of empty or useless words. The re#uirement for a 4udgment of the presumptive death of the absent spouse is for the benefit of the spouse present, as protection from the pains and the conse#uences of a second marriage, precisely because heNshe could be charged and convicted of bigamy if the defense of good faith based on mere testimony is found incredible. The re#uirement of 4udicial declaration is also for the benefit of the 9tate. Cnder Article 55, 9ection 0% of the Constitution, the 9tate shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. (arriage is a social institution of the highest importance. ,ublic policy, good morals and the interest of society re#uire that the marital relation should be surrounded with every safeguard and its severance only in the manner prescribed and the causes specified by law. B& The laws regulating civil marriages are necessary to serve the interest, safety, good order, comfort or general welfare of the community and the parties can waive nothing essential to the validity of the proceedings. A civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones: it enhances the welfare of the community. 5n a real sense, there are three parties to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving 9tate. !n marriage, the parties assume new relations to each other and the 9tate touching nearly on every aspect of life and death. The conse#uences of an invalid marriage to the parties, to innocent parties and to society, are so serious that the law may well take means calculated to ensure the procurement of the most positive evidence of death of the first spouse or of the presumptive death of the absent spouse B2 after the lapse of the period provided for under the law. !ne such means is the re#uirement of the declaration by a competent court of the presumptive death of an absent spouse as proof that the present spouse contracts a subse#uent marriage on a well-grounded belief of the death of the first spouse. 5ndeed, men readily believe what they wish to be true, is a ma3im of the old 4urists. To sustain a second marriage and to vacate a first because one of the parties believed the other to be dead would make the e3istence of the marital relation determinable, not by certain e3trinsic facts, easily capable of forensic ascertainment and proof, but by the sub4ective condition of individuals.B1 !nly with such proof can marriage be treated as so dissolved as to permit second marriages. ./ Thus, Article B.1 of the *evised ,enal Code has made the dissolution of marriage dependent not only upon the personal belief of parties, but upon certain ob4ective facts easily capable of accurate 4udicial cogni+ance, .0 namely, a 4udgment of the presumptive death of the absent spouse. The petitionerQs sole reliance on Article B1/ of the Civil Code as basis for his ac#uittal for bigamy is misplaced.

1E

Articles B1/ and B10 of the Civil Code provide O Art. B1/. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not, the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all purposes, e3cept for those of succession. The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. 5f he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. Art. B10. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of the estate among the heirs: @0A A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane: @%A A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing for four years: @BA A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his e3istence has not been known for four years. The presumption of death of the spouse who had been absent for seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, is created by law and arises without any necessity of 4udicial declaration. .% 6owever, Article .0 of the 'amily Code, which amended the foregoing rules on presumptive death, reads: Art. .0. A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subse#uent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. 5n case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article B10 of the Civil Code, an absence of only t#o years shall be sufficient. 2or the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this &ourt for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, #ithout pre"udice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse ..B With the effectivity of the 'amily Code, .. the period of seven years under the first paragraph of Article B1/ of the Civil Code was reduced to four consecutive years. Thus, before the spouse present may contract a subse#uent marriage, he or she must institute summary proceedings for the declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee spouse,.E without pre4udice to the effect of the reappearance of the absentee spouse. As e3plained by this Court in Armas v. &alisterio:.F 5n contrast, under the 0122 'amily Code, in order that a subse#uent bigamous marriage may e3ceptionally be considered valid, the following conditions must concur, vi).: @aA The prior spouse of the contracting party must have been absent for four consecutive years, or two years where there is danger of death under the circumstances stated in Article B10 of the Civil Code at the time of disappearance: @bA the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead: and @cA there is, unlike the old rule, a 4udicial declaration of presumptive death of the absentee for which purpose the spouse present can institute a summary proceeding in court to ask for that declaration. The last condition is consistent and in consonance with the re#uirement of 4udicial intervention in subse#uent marriages as so provided in Article .0, in relation to Article ./, of the 'amily Code. The Court re4ects petitionerQs contention that the re#uirement of instituting a petition for declaration of presumptive death under Article .0 of the 'amily Code is designed merely to enable the spouse present to contract a valid second marriage and not for the ac#uittal of one charged with bigamy. 9uch provision was designed to harmoni+e civil law and Article B.1 of the *evised ,enal Code, and put to rest the confusion spawned by the rulings of this Court and comments of eminent authorities on Criminal =aw. As early as (arch F, 01B&, this Court ruled in $ones v. 6ortiguela.& that, for purposes of the marriage law, it is not necessary to have the former spouse 4udicially declared an absentee before the spouse present may contract a subse#uent marriage. 5t held that the declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose the taking of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee. 'or the celebration of civil marriage, however, the law only re#uires that the former spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage, that the spouse present does not know his or her former spouse to be living, that such former spouse is generally reputed to be dead and the spouse present so believes at the time of the celebration of the marriage..2 5n !n 4e *)atra#,.1 the Court declared that a 4udicial declaration that a person is presumptively dead, because he or she had been unheard from in seven years, being a presumption "uris tantum only, sub4ect to contrary proof, cannot reach the stage of finality or become final: and that proof of actual death of the person presumed dead being unheard from in seven years, would have to be made in another proceeding to have such particular fact finally determined. The Court ruled that if a 4udicial decree declaring a person presumptively dead because he or she had not been heard from in seven years cannot become final and e3ecutory even after the lapse of the reglementary period within which an appeal may be

1F

taken, for such presumption is still disputable and remains sub4ect to contrary proof, then a petition for such a declaration is useless, unnecessary, superfluous and of no benefit to the petitioner. The Court stated that it should not waste its valuable time and be made to perform a superfluous and meaningless act. E/ The Court also took note that a petition for a declaration of the presumptive death of an absent spouse may even be made in collusion with the other spouse. 5n Lu3ban v. 4epublic of the 1hilippines,E0 the Court declared that the words proper proceedings in Article B.1 of the *evised ,enal Code can only refer to those authori+ed by law such as Articles B1/ and B10 of the Civil Code which refer to the administration or settlement of the estate of a deceased person. 5n Gue v. 4epublic of the 1hilippines ,E% the Court re4ected the contention of the petitioner therein that, under Article B1/ of the Civil Code, the courts are authori+ed to declare the presumptive death of a person after an absence of seven years. The Court reiterated its rulings in *)atra#, Lu3ban and $ones. 'ormer Chief >ustice *amon C. A#uino was of the view that the provision of Article B.1 or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a 4udgment reached in the proper proceedings is erroneous and should be considered as not written. 6e opined that such provision presupposes that, if the prior marriage has not been legally dissolved and the absent first spouse has not been declared presumptively dead in a proper court proceedings, the subse#uent marriage is bigamous. 6e maintains that the supposition is not true. EB A second marriage is bigamous only when the circumstances in paragraphs 0 and % of Article 2B of the Civil Code are not present. E. 'ormer 9enator Ambrosio ,adilla was, likewise, of the view that Article B.1 seems to re#uire 4udicial decree of dissolution or 4udicial declaration of absence but even with such decree, a second marriage in good faith will not constitute bigamy. 6e posits that a second marriage, if not illegal, even if it be annullable, should not give rise to bigamy. EE 'ormer >ustice =uis D. *eyes, on the other hand, was of the view that in the case of an absent spouse who could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code, the spouse present cannot be charged and convicted of bigamy in case heNshe contracts a second marriage.EF The Committee tasked to prepare the 'amily Code proposed the amendments of Articles B1/ and B10 of the Civil Code to conform to Article B.1 of the *evised ,enal Code, in that, in a case where a spouse is absent for the re#uisite period, the present spouse may contract a subse#uent marriage only after securing a 4udgment declaring the presumptive death of the absent spouse to avoid being charged and convicted of bigamy: the present spouse will have to adduce evidence that he had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead.E& 9uch 4udgment is proof of the good faith of the present spouse who contracted a subse#uent marriage: thus, even if the present spouse is later charged with bigamy if the absentee spouse reappears, he cannot be convicted of the crime. As e3plained by former >ustice Alicia 9empio-8iy: V 9uch rulings, however, conflict with Art. B.1 of the *evised ,enal Code providing that the present spouse must first ask for a declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse in order not to be guilty of bigamy in case he or she marries again. The above Article of the 'amily Code now clearly provides that for the purpose of the present spouse contracting a second marriage, he or she must file a summary proceeding as provided in the Code for the declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee, without pre4udice to the latterQs reappearance. This provision is intended to protect the present spouse from a criminal prosecution for bigamy under Art. B.1 of the *evised ,enal Code because with the 4udicial declaration that the missing spouses presumptively dead, the good faith of the present spouse in contracting a second marriage is already established. E2 !f the same view is former 8ean Irnesto =. ,ineda @now Cndersecretary of >usticeA who wrote that things are now clarified. 6e says 4udicial declaration of presumptive death is now authori+ed for purposes of remarriage. The present spouse must institute a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, where the ordinary rules of procedure in trial will not be followed. Affidavits will suffice, with possible clarificatory e3aminations of affiants if the >udge finds it necessary for a full grasp of the facts. The 4udgment declaring an absentee as presumptively dead is without pre4udice to the effect of reappearance of the said absentee. 8ean ,ineda further states that before, the weight of authority is that the clause before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead 3 3 3 should be disregarded because of Article 2B, paragraph B of the Civil Code. With the new law, there is a need to institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee, otherwise, there is bigamy. E1 According to *etired 9upreme Court >ustice 'loren+ 8. *egalado, an eminent authority on Criminal =aw, in some cases where an absentee spouse is believed to be dead, there must be a 4udicial declaration of presumptive death, which could then be made only in the proceedings for the settlement of his estate. F/ Defore such declaration, it was held that the remarriage of the other spouse is bigamous even if done in good faith.F0 >ustice *egalado opined that there were contrary views because of the ruling in $ones and the provisions of Article 2B@%A of the Civil Code, which, however, appears to have been set to rest by Article

1&

.0 of the 'amily Code, which re#uires a summary hearing for the declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse before the other spouse can remarry. Cnder Article %B2 of the 'amily Code, a petition for a declaration of the presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article .0 of the 'amily Code may be filed under Articles %B1 to %.& of the same Code.F% !n the second issue, the petitioner, likewise, faults the trial court and the CA for awarding moral damages in favor of the private complainant. The petitioner maintains that moral damages may be awarded only in any of the cases provided in Article %%01 of the Civil Code, and bigamy is not one of them. The petitioner asserts that the appellate court failed to apply its ruling in 1eople v. /ondoc,FB where an award of moral damages for bigamy was disallowed. 5n any case, the petitioner maintains, the private complainant failed to adduce evidence to prove moral damages. The appellate court awarded moral damages to the private complainant on its finding that she adduced evidence to prove the same. The appellate court ruled that while bigamy is not included in those cases enumerated in Article %%01 of the Civil Code, it is not proscribed from awarding moral damages against the petitioner. The appellate court ruled that it is not bound by the following ruling in 1eople v. /ondoc: ... 1ero si en dichos asuntos se ad"udicaron da+os, ello se debiK indedublamente porque el articulo BB5A del &Kdigo &ivil de 2ilipinas autori)a la ad"udicaciKn de da+os morales en los delitos de estupro, rapto, violaciKn, adulterio o concubinato, y otros actos lascivos, sin incluir en esta enumeraciKn el delito de bigamia. 7o existe, por consiguiente, base legal para ad"udicar aquI los da+os de 1;,GGG.GG arriba mencionados.F. The !9- posits that the findings and ruling of the CA are based on the evidence and the law. The !9-, likewise, avers that the CA was not bound by its ruling in 1eople v. 4odeo. The Court rules against the petitioner. (oral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious an3iety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar in4ury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the pro3imate result of the defendantQs wrongful act or omission.FE An award for moral damages re#uires the confluence of the following conditions: first, there must be an in4ury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant: second, there must be culpable act or omission factually established: third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the pro3imate cause of the in4ury sustained by the claimant: and fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article %%01 or Article %%%/ of the Civil Code. FF (oral damages may be awarded in favor of the offended party only in criminal cases enumerated in Article %%01, paragraphs 0, B, ., E and & of the Civil Code and analogous cases, vi).: Art. %%01. (oral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases. @0A A criminal offense resulting in physical in4uries: @%A ;uasi-delicts causing physical in4uries: @BA 9eduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts: @.A Adultery or concubinage: @EA 5llegal or arbitrary detention or arrest: @FA 5llegal search: @&A =ibel, slander or any other form of defamation: @2A (alicious prosecution: @1A Acts mentioned in article B/1: @0/A Acts and actions referred to in articles %0, %F, %&, %2, %1, B/, B%, B. and BE. The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in $o. B of this article, may also recover moral damages. The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in $o. 1 of this article in the order named. Thus, the law does not intend that moral damages should be awarded in all cases where the aggrieved party has suffered mental anguish, fright, moral an3ieties, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar in4ury arising out of an act or omission of another, otherwise, there would not have been any reason for the inclusion of specific acts in Article %%01 F& and analogous cases @which refer to those cases bearing analogy or resemblance, corresponds to some others or resembling, in other respects, as in form, proportion, relation, etc.AF2 5ndeed, bigamy is not one of those specifically mentioned in Article %%01 of the Civil Code in which the offender may be ordered to pay moral damages to the private complainantNoffended party. $evertheless, the petitioner is liable to the private complainant for moral damages under Article %%01 in relation to Articles 01, %/ and %0 of the Civil Code.

12

According to Article 01, every person must, in the e3ercise of his rights and in the performance of his act with 4ustice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. This provision contains what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, and sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the e3ercise of oneQs rights but also in the performance of oneQs duties. The standards are the following: act with 4ustice: give everyone his due: and observe honesty and good faith. The elements for abuse of rights are: @aA there is a legal right or duty: @bA e3ercised in bad faith: and @cA for the sole intent of pre4udicing or in4uring another.F1 Article %/ speaks of the general sanctions of all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for its own sanction. When a right is e3ercised in a manner which does not conform to the standards set forth in the said provision and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be responsible.&/ 5f the provision does not provide a remedy for its violation, an action for damages under either Article %/ or Article %0 of the Civil Code would be proper. Article %/ provides that every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same. !n the other hand, Article %0 provides that any person who willfully causes loss or in4ury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for damages. The latter provision is adopted to remedy the countless gaps in the statutes which leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless, even though they have actually suffered material and moral in4ury should vouchsafe ade#uate legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which it is impossible for human foresight to prove for specifically in the statutes. Whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages under Article %/ or Article %0 of the Civil Code or other applicable provisions of law depends upon the circumstances of each case.&0 5n the present case, the petitioner courted the private complainant and proposed to marry her. 6e assured her that he was single. 6e even brought his parents to the house of the private complainant where he and his parents made the same assurance O that he was single. Thus, the private complainant agreed to marry the petitioner, who even stated in the certificate of marriage that he was single. 9he lived with the petitioner and dutifully performed her duties as his wife, believing all the while that he was her lawful husband. 'or two years or so until the petitioner heartlessly abandoned her, the private complainant had no inkling that he was already married to another before they were married. Thus, the private complainant was an innocent victim of the petitionerQs chicanery and heartless deception, the fraud consisting not of a single act alone, but a continuous series of acts. 8ay by day, he maintained the appearance of being a lawful husband to the private complainant, who changed her status from a single woman to a married woman, lost the consortium, attributes and support of a single man she could have married lawfully and endured mental pain and humiliation, being bound to a man who it turned out was not her lawful husband.&% The Court rules that the petitionerQs collective acts of fraud and deceit before, during and after his marriage with the private complainant were willful, deliberate and with malice and caused in4ury to the latter. That she did not sustain any physical in4uries is not a bar to an award for moral damages. 5ndeed, in orris v. acnab,&B the $ew >ersey 9upreme Court ruled: 333 The defendant cites authorities which indicate that, absent physical in4uries, damages for shame, humiliation, and mental anguish are not recoverable where the actor is simply negligent. 9ee ,rosser, supra, at p. 02/: % 6arper T >ames, Torts, 0/B0 @01EFA. Dut the authorities all recogni+e that where the wrong is willful rather than negligent, recovery may be had for the ordinary, natural, and pro3imate conse#uences though they consist of shame, humiliation, and mental anguish. 9ee 9piegel v. Ivergreen Cemetery Co., 00& $>= 1/, 1., 02F A E2E @9up. Ct. 01BFA: )u+ma v. (illinery Workers, etc., =ocal %., %& $.>. 9uper, E&1, E10, 11 A.%d 2BB @App. 8iv. 01EBA: ,rosser, supra, at p. B2. 6ere the defendantQs conduct was not merely negligent, but was willfully and maliciously wrongful. 5t was bound to result in shame, humiliation, and mental anguish for the plaintiff, and when such result did ensue the plaintiff became entitled not only to compensatory but also to punitive damages. 9ee 9piegel v. Ivergreen Cemetery Co., supra: )u+ma v (illinery Workers, etc., =ocal %., supra. C'. $ote, I3emplary 8amages in the =aw of Torts, &/ 6arv. =. *ev. E0& @01E&A. The plaintiff testified that because of the defendantQs bigamous marriage to her and the attendant publicity she not only was embarrassed and ashamed to go out but couldnQt sleep but couldnQt eat, had terrific headaches and lost #uite a lot of weight. $o 4ust basis appears for 4udicial interference with the 4uryQs reasonable allowance of [0,/// punitive damages on the first count. 9ee Cabakov v. Thatcher, B& $.>. 9uper %.1, 00& A.%d %12 @App. 8iv.&. 01EEA. The Court thus declares that the petitionerQs acts are against public policy as they undermine and subvert the family as a social institution, good morals and the interest and general welfare of society.

11

Decause the private complainant was an innocent victim of the petitionerQs perfidy, she is not barred from claiming moral damages. Desides, even considerations of public policy would not prevent her from recovery. As held in $e3she#it) v. Gros#ald:&E Where a person is induced by the fraudulent representation of another to do an act which, in conse#uence of such misrepresentation, he believes to be neither illegal nor immoral, but which is in fact a criminal offense, he has a right of action against the person so inducing him for damages sustained by him in conse#uence of his having done such act. Durrows v. *hodes, R0211S 0 ;.D. 20F. 5n Cooper v. Cooper, 0.& (ass. B&/, 0& $.I. 21%, 1 Am. 9t. *ep. &%0, the court said that a false representation by the defendant that he was divorced from his former wife, whereby the plaintiff was induced to marry him, gave her a remedy in tort for deceit. 5t seems to have been assumed that the fact that she had unintentionally violated the law or innocently committed a crime by cohabiting with him would be no bar to the action, but rather that it might be a ground for enhancing her damages. The in4ury to the plaintiff was said to be in her being led by the promise to give the fellowship and assistance of a wife to one who was not her husband and to assume and act in a relation and condition that proved to be false and ignominious. 8amages for such an in4ury were held to be recoverable in 9herman v. *awson, 0/% (ass. B1E and )elley v. *iley, 0/F (ass. BB1, B.B, 2 Am. *ep. BBF. 'urthermore, in the case at bar the plaintiff does not base her cause of action upon any transgression of the law by herself but upon the defendantQs misrepresentation. The criminal relations which followed, innocently on her part, were but one of the incidental results of the defendantQs fraud for which damages may be assessed. R&S Actions for deceit for fraudulently inducing a woman to enter into the marriage relation have been maintained in other 4urisdictions. 9ears v. Wegner, 0E/ (ich. B22, 00. $.W. %%., 0& =.*. A. @$.9.A 201: =arson v. (c(illan, 11 Wash. F%F, 0&/ ,. B%.: Dlossom v. Darrett, B& $.G. .B., 1& Am. 8ec. &.&: (orril v. ,almer, F2 Ht. 0, BB A. 2%1, BB =.*.A. .00. Considerations of public policy would not prevent recovery where the circumstances are such that the plaintiff was conscious of no moral turpitude, that her illegal action was induced solely by the defendantQs misrepresentation, and that she does not base her cause of action upon any transgression of the law by herself. 9uch considerations distinguish this case from cases in which the court has refused to lend its aid to the enforcement of a contract illegal on its face or to one who has consciously and voluntarily become a party to an illegal act upon which the cause of action is founded. 9+adiwic+ v. Cantor, %E& (ass. E02, E%/, 0E. $.I. %E0, .1 A. =. *. 1E2.&F Considering the attendant circumstances of the case, the Court finds the award of ,%//,///.// for moral damages to be 4ust and reasonable. IN LIGHT O, ALL THE ,OREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is A,,IRMED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

0//

G.R. No. 121222. &'#e 27, 200*E +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, appellee, vs. EDMAR AGUILOS, ODILON LAGLI/A 4 A/REGON a#. RENE GA4OT +ILOLA, accused, RENE GA4OT +ILOLA, appellant. 8IC595!$ CA==I>!, 9*., $.: Defore us is the appeal of appellant *ene -ayot ,ilola for the reversal of the 8ecision 0R0S of the *egional Trial Court @*TCA of ,asig City, Dranch 0F., convicting him of murder, sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim >oselito Capa y *ulloda in the amount of ,E/,/// for the latterQs death. The 5ndictment !n >une &, 0112, Idmar Aguilos, !dilon =agliba y Abregon and appellant *ene -ayot ,ilola were charged with murder in an 5nformation which reads: That on or about the Eth day of 'ebruary, 0122 in the (unicipality of (andaluyong, (etro (anila, ,hilippines, a place within the 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together with one *onnie 8iamante who is still at-large and no fi3ed address and mutually helping and aiding with one another, armed with double-bladed knives and a bolo and with intent to kill, treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault hack and stab one >oselito Capa y *ulloda, as a result of which the latter sustained hack and stab wounds on the different parts of his body, which directly caused his death. C!$T*A*G T! =AW.%R%S !f the three accused, !dilon =agliba was the first to be arrested BRBS and tried, and subse#uently convicted of murder..R.S The decision of the trial court became final and e3ecutory. Accused Idmar Aguilos remains at large while accused *onnie 8iamante reportedly died a month after the incident. (eanwhile, herein appellant *ene -ayot ,ilola was arrested. 6e was arraigned on (arch 1, 011., assisted by counsel, and pleaded not guilty to the charge.ERES Thereafter, trial of the case ensued. The Ividence of the ,rosecutionFRFS !n 'ebruary E, 0122, at around 00:B/ p.m., Ilisa *olan was inside their store at F0B $ueve de ,ebrero 9treet, (andaluyong City, waiting for her husband to arrive. >oselito Capa and >ulian A+ul, >r. were drinking beer. Idmar Aguilos and !dilon =agliba arrived at the store. >oselito and >ulian invited them to 4oin their drinking spree, and although already inebriated, the two newcomers obliged. 5n the course of their drinking, the conversation turned into a heated argument. Idmar nettled >ulian, and the latter was peeved. An altercation between the two ensued. Ilisa pacified the protagonists and advised them to go home as she was already going to close up. Idmar and !dilon left the store. >oselito and >ulian were also about to leave, when Idmar and !dilon returned, blocking their way. Idmar took off his eyeglasses and punched >ulian in the face. Ilisa shouted: \ ,ama na. ,ama na.] Idmar and >ulian ignored her and traded fist blows until they reached Aling 9oteraQs store at the end of the street, about twelve to fifteen meters away from IlisaQs store. 'or his part, !dilon positioned himself on top of a pile of hollow blocks and watched as Idmar and >ulian swapped punches. >oselito tried to placate the protagonists to no avail. >oselitoQs intervention apparently did not sit well with !dilon. 6e pulled out his knife with his right hand and stepped down from his perch. 6e placed his left arm around >oselitoQs neck, and stabbed the latter. *onnie and the appellant, who were across the street, saw their gangmate !dilon stabbing the victim and decided to 4oin the fray. They pulled out their knives, rushed to the scene and stabbed >oselito. Ilisa could not tell how many times the victim was stabbed or what parts of his body were hit by whom. The victim fell in the canal. !dilon and the appellant fled, while *onnie went after >ulian and tried to stab him. >ulian ran for dear life. When he noticed that *onnie was no longer running after him, >ulian stopped at I. *odrigue+ *oad and looked back. 6e saw *onnie pick up a piece of hollow block and with it bashed >oselitoQs head. $ot content, *onnie got a piece of broken bottle and struck >oselito once more. *onnie then fled from the scene. >oselito died on the spot. Ilisa rushed to >oselitoQs house and informed his wife and brother of the incident.&R&S

0 % B . E F &

0/0

The ne3t day, 8r. Dienvenido (u<o+, 9upervising (edico-=egal !fficer of the $ational Dureau of 5nvestigation, conducted an autopsy on the cadaver of >oselito and prepared Autopsy *eport $o. $-22B&E,2R2S with the following findings: ,!9T(!*TI( '5$85$-9 ,allor, con4unctivae and integument, marked and generali+ed. Contused abrasions: temple, right, B./ 3 B./ cm.: mandibular region, right, %./ 3 2./ cm.: back, suprascapular region, left, B./ 3 ../ cm.: deltoid region, right, 0./ 3 B./ cm. =acerated wound, scalp, occipital region, ../ cm. 5ncised wounds: forehead, right side, E.E cm.: arm, left, upper third, posterior aspect, 0.E cm. 9tab wounds: 0. Illiptical, 0.2 cm., oriented almost hori+ontally, edges are clean-cut, medial e3tremity is sharp, lateral e3tremity is blunt: located at the anterior chest wall, level of B rd intercostal space, right, E./ cm. from anterior median line: directed backward, upward and medially, non-penetrating, with an appro3imate depth of B./ cm.: %. Illiptical, 0.E cm., oriented almost hori+ontally, edges are clean-cut, one e3tremity is sharp and the other is blunt: located at the antero-lateral aspect of chest, level of B rd intercostal space, left, B./ cm. from anterior median line: directed backward, downward and medially, into the left thoracic cavity, penetrating the left ventricle of the heart with an appro3imate depth of 0/./ cm.: B. Illiptical, B./ cm., oriented almost hori+ontally, edges are clean-cut, one e3tremity is sharp and the other is blunt: located at the antero-lateral aspect of chest, level of . th intercostal space, 0%./ cm. from anterior median line: directed backward, downward and medially, penetrating upper lobe of left lung with an appro3imate depth of 1./ cm.: .. Illiptical, %./ cm., oriented almost hori+ontally, edges are clean-cut, one e3tremity is sharp and the other is blunt: located at the antero-lateral aspect of chest, level of E th intercostal space, left, 0E./ cm. from anterior median line: directed backward, downward and medially, penetrating the left thoracic cavity and then lower lobe of left lung and then penetrating the left ventricle of the heart with an appro3imate depth of 00./ cm.: E. Illiptical, 0.B cm., oriented almost hori+ontally, edges are clean-cut, one e3tremity is sharp and the other is blunt: located at the lateral chest wall, level of & th intercostal space, left, 0F./ cm. from anterior median line: directed backward, upward and medially, into the left thoracic cavity and then penetrating the lower lobe of left lung with an appro3imately depth of 0/./ cm.: F. Illiptical, ../ cm., oriented almost hori+ontally, edges are clean-cut, one e3tremity is sharp and the other is blunt: located at the lumbar region, left, 0../ cm. from anterior median line: directed backward, upward and medially, into the abdominal cavity and then penetrating ileum: &. Illiptical, 0.E cm., oriented almost vertically, edges are clean-cut, upper e3tremity is sharp, lower e3tremity is blunt: located at the chest, lateral, level of 1 th intercostal space, left: 0../ cm. from posterior median line: directed forward, upward and medially, non-penetrating with an appro3imate depth of ../ cm.: 2. Illiptical, %./ cm., oriented almost vertically, edges are clean-cut, upper e3tremity is blunt, lower e3tremity is sharp: located at the abdomen, postero-lateral aspect, 0E./ cm. from posterior median line: directed forward, upward and laterally, into the abdominal cavity and then perforating the spleen and pancreas with an appro3imate depth of 0B./ cm.: 1. Illiptical, E./ cm., oriented almost vertically, edges are clean-cut, upper e3tremity is blunt, lower e3tremity is sharp: located at the left arm, upper third, anterior: directed backward, downward and medially, involving skin and underlying soft tissues with an appro3imate depth of F./ cm.: 0/. Illiptical, %.B cm., oriented almost vertically, edges are clean-cut, upper e3tremity is sharp, lower e3tremity is blunt: located at the left forearm, upper third, anterior: directed backward, upward and medially and communicating with another wound, arm, left, medial aspect, %./ cm.: 00. Illiptical, %./ cm., oriented almost vertically, edges are clean-cut, upper e3tremity blunt, lower e3tremity, sharp: located at the left arm, lower third, posterior aspect, directed forward, downward and medially, communicating with another wound, arm, left, lower third, posterior aspect, 0.E cm. 6emothora3, left O 1// c.c. 6emopericardium O B// c.c. 6emoperitoneum O &E/ c.c. Drain and other visceral organs, pale. 9tomach-filled with rice and other food particles. CAC9I !' 8IAT6: (ultiple stab wounds.

0/%

The Ividence of the Appellant The appellant denied stabbing the victim and interposed the defense of alibi. 6e testified that at around 00:// p.m. of 'ebruary E, 0122, he was in the house of his cousin, >ulian Cadion, at F/F $ueve de ,ebrero 9treet, (andaluyong City. 6e suddenly heard a commotion coming from outside. >ulian rushed out of the house to find out what was going on. The appellant remained inside the house because he was suffering from ulcer and was e3periencing e3cessive pain in his stomach. The following morning, the appellant learned from their neighbor, Ilisa *olan, that >oselito had been stabbed to death. The appellant did not bother to ask who was responsible for the stabbing.1R1S >ulian alias \Duboy] Cadion corroborated the appellantQs testimony. 6e testified that the appellant was in their house on the night of 'ebruary E, 0122, and was suffering from ulcer. The appellant stayed home on the night of the incident.0/R0/S Agripina -loria, a female security guard residing at Dlock B/, $ueve de ,ebrero, F0%, 5nt. ., Allison 9t., (andaluyong City, testified that on 'ebruary E, 0122 at around 00:// p.m., she heard a commotion outside. (omentarily, she saw *onnie rush into the kitchen of the house of her niece Teresita: he took a knife and run towards $ueve de ,ebrero 9treet where Idmar and >ulian were fighting. 9he then followed *onnie and saw >oselito trying to pacify the protagonists. *onnie grabbed >oselito and instantly stabbed the latter, who for a while retreated and fell down the canal. $ot content, *onnie repeatedly stabbed >oselito. Thereafter, *onnie ran towards the direction of the mental hospital. Agripina did not see !dilon or the appellant anywhere within the vicinity of the incident.00R00S !n (ay B, 011E, the trial court rendered its assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which reads, to wit: W6I*I'!*I, this Court finds *I$I -AG!T ,5=!=A of F/F $ueve de 'ebrero 9treet, (andaluyong City, -C5=TG beyond reasonable doubt of (urder punished under Article %.2 of the *evised ,enal Code, and there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, he is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua. ,ilola is hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of deceased >oselito Capa alias >essie in the amount of '5'TG T6!C9A$8 ,I9!9 @,E/,///.//A as indemnity for his death 4ointly and solidarily with !dilon =agliba who was earlier convicted herein. With cost against the accused. 0%R0%S 5n the case at bar, the appellant assails the decision of the trial court contending that: 5 T6I T*5A= C!C*T I**I8 5$ C!$C=C85$- T6AT T6I*I WA9 C!$9,5*ACG A$I$T T6I A99A5=I8 5$C58I$T. 55 T6I T*5A= C!C*T I**I8 5$ -5H5$- C*I8I$CI T! T6I C$*I=5AD=I A$8 5$C!$959TI$T TI9T5(!$G !' ,*!9ICCT5!$ W5T$I99 I=59A *!=A$ A$8 5$ 9ITT5$- A958I T6I IH58I$CI ,*!''I*I8 DG ACCC9I8-A,,I==A$T. 555 T6I T*5A= C!C*T (A$5'I9T=G I**I8 5$ C!$H5CT5$- ACCC9I8-A,,I==A$T !' T6I C*5(I C6A*-I8 8I9,5TI T6I 'ACT T6AT 659 -C5=T WA9 $!T ,*!HI8 DIG!$8 *IA9!$AD=I 8!CDT.0BR0BS The appellant avers that Ilisa is not a credible witness and her testimony is barren of probative weight. This is so because she contradicted herself when she testified on direct e3amination that *onnie struck the head of the victim with a hollow block. 6owever, on cross-e3amination, she stated that it was Idmar who struck the victim. The inconsistency in IlisaQs testimony impaired her credibility. The contention of the appellant does not hold water. 'irst. The identity of the person who hit the victim with a hollow block is of de minimis importance. The victim died because of multiple wounds. The appellant is charged with murder for the killing of the victim with a knife, in conspiracy with the other accused. 9econd. The perceived inconsistency in IlisaQs account of events is a minor and collateral detail that does not affect the substance of her testimony, as it even serves to strengthen rather than destroy her credibility. 0. R0.S

1 0/ 00 0% 0B 0.

0/B

Third. Ilisa has been consistent in her testimony that the appellant was one of the men who stabbed the victim, the others being *onnie and !dilon. IlisaQs testimony is corroborated by the autopsy report of 8r. Dienvenido (u<o+ and his testimony that the victim sustained eleven stab wounds. The doctor testified that there were two or more assailants: ; Could you tell the court what instrument could have been used by the perpetrator in inflicting those two incise wounds7 A Those incise wounds were caused by a sharp instrument like a knife or any similar instrument. V ; $ow you also found out from the body of the victim eleven stab wounds7 A Ges, sir. ; $ow, tell the court in which part of the body of the victim where these eleven stab wounds RareS located7 A 9hall 5 go one by one, all the eleven stab wounds7 ; All the eleven stab wounds7 A !ne stab wound was located at the front portion of the chest, right side. Another stab wound was located also on the chest left side, another stab wound was located at the antero lateral aspect, itQs the front of the chest almost to the side. And also another one, also at the chest, another stab wound was at the left side of the chest and another one was at the lumbar region of the abdomen left side or where the left kidney is located, lumbar area. Another one at the side of the chest, left side of the chest. Another stab wound in the abdomen, another stab wound at the left arm. Another one at the left forearm and the last one in the autopsy report is located at the left arm. These are all the eleven stab wounds sustained by the victim. V A The instrument used was a sharp pointed edge or a single bladed instrument like a knife, kitchen knife, balisong or any similar instrument. ; Considering the number of stab wounds, doctor, will you tell us whether there were several assailants7 A 5n my opinion, there were more than one assailants @ sicA here because of the presence of different types of stab wounds and lacerated wounds. This lacerated wound could not have been inflicted by the one holding the one which inflicted the instrument . . @discontinuedA which inflicted the stab wounds. ; 9o there could have been two or three assailants7 A (ore than one.0ER0ES The physical evidence is a mute but elo#uent manifestation of the veracity of IlisaQs testimony. 0FR0FS 'ourth. Iven the appellant himself declared on the witness stand that he could not think of any reason why Ilisa pointed to him as one of the assailants. 5n a litany of cases, we have ruled that when there is no showing of any improper motive on the part of a witness to testify falsely against the accused or to falsely implicate the latter in the commission of the crime, as in the case at bar, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive e3ists, and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence. 0&R0&S 'ifth. The trial court gave credence and full probative weight to IlisaQs testimony. Case law has it that the trial courtQs calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight thereof is given high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the appellate court. The appellant argues that the prosecution failed to prove that he conspired with *onnie and !dilon in stabbing the victim to death. 6e contends that for one to be a conspirator, his participation in the criminal resolution of another must either precede or be concurrent with the criminal acts. 6e asserts that even if it were true that he was present at the situs criminis and that he stabbed the victim, it was !dilon who had already decided, and in fact fatally stabbed the victim. 6e could not have conspired with !dilon as the incident was only a chance encounter between the victim, the appellant and his co-accused. 5n the absence of a conspiracy, the appellant cannot be held liable as a principal by direct participation. Ilisa could not categorically and positively assert as to what part of the victimQs body was hit by whom, and how many times the victim was stabbed by the appellant. 6e asserts that he is merely an accomplice and not a principal by direct participation. We are not persuaded by the ruminations of the appellant.

0E 0F 0&

0/.

There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. 02R02S Conspiracy as a mode of incurring criminal liability must be proved separately from and with the same #uantum of proof as the crime itself. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence. After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. 5t may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design.01R01S Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful ob4ect, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. %/R%/S ,here may be conspiracy even if an offender does not 3no# the identities of the other offenders ,%0R%0S and even though he is not a#are of all the details of the plan of operation or #as not in on the scheme from the beginning .%%R%%S (ne need only to 3no#ingly contribute his efforts in furtherance of it .%BR%BS !ne who 4oins a criminal conspiracy in effect adopts as his own the criminal designs of his co-conspirators. 5f conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the manner and e3tent of their participation since in contemplation of law, the act of one would be the act of all. %.R%.S Iach of the conspirators is the agent of all the others.%ER%ES To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy. %FR%FS The mere presence of an accused at the situs of the crime will not suffice: mere knowledge, ac#uiescence or approval of the act without cooperation or agreement to cooperate on the part of the accused is not enough to make him a party to a conspiracy. There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.%&R%&S Conspiracy to e3ist does not re#uire an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. 'rom the legal standpoint, conspiracy e3ists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its e3ecution.%2R%2S As a rule, the concurrence of wills, which is the essence of conspiracy, may be deduced from the evidence of facts and circumstances, which taken together, indicate that the parties cooperated and labored to the same end.%1R%1S Iven if two or more offenders do not conspire to commit homicide or murder, they may be held criminally liable as principals by direct participation if they perform overt acts which mediately or immediately cause or accelerate the death of the victim, applying Article ., paragraph 0 of the *evised ,enal Code: Art. .. &riminal liability. O Criminal liability shall be incurred: 0. Dy any person committing a felony @delitoA although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 5n such a case, it is not necessary that each of the separate in4uries is fatal in itself. 5t is sufficient if the in4uries cooperated in bringing about the victimQs death. Doth the offenders are criminally liable for the same crime by reason of their individual and separate overt criminal acts. B/RB/S Absent conspiracy between two or more offenders, they may be guilty of homicide or murder for the death of the victim, one as a principal by direct participation, and the other as an accomplice, under Article 02 of the *evised ,enal Code: Art. 02. Accomplices. O Accomplices are the persons who, not being included in Article 0&, cooperate in the e3ecution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

02 01 %/ %0 %% %B %. %E %F %& %2 %1 B/

0/E

To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur: @aA the community of criminal design: that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose: @bA the performance of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime.B0RB0S Accomplices come to know about the criminal resolution of the principal by direct participation after the principal has reached the decision to commit the felony and only then does the accomplice agree to cooperate in its e3ecution. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed: they merely assent to the plan of the principal by direct participation and cooperate in its accomplishment.B%RB%S 6owever, where one cooperates in the commission of the crime by performing overt acts which by themselves are acts of e3ecution, he is a principal by direct participation, and not merely an accomplice.BBRBBS 5n this case, !dilon all by himself initially decided to stab the victim. The appellant and *onnie were on the side of the street. 6owever, while !dilon was stabbing the victim, the appellant and *onnie agreed to 4oin in: they rushed to the scene and also stabbed the victim with their respective knives. The three men simultaneously stabbed the hapless victim. !dilon and the appellant fled from the scene together, while *onnie went after >ulian. When he failed to overtake and collar >ulian, *onnie returned to where >oselito fell and hit him with a hollow block and a broken bottle. *onnie then hurriedly left. All the overt acts of !dilon, *onnie and the appellant before, during, and after the stabbing incident indubitably show that they conspired to kill the victim. The victim died because of multiple stab wounds inflicted by two or more persons. There is no evidence that before the arrival of *onnie and the appellant at the situs criminis, the victim was already dead. 5t cannot thus be argued that by the time the appellant and *onnie 4oined !dilon in stabbing the victim, the crime was already consummated. All things considered, we rule that *onnie and the appellant conspired with !dilon to kill the victim: hence, all of them are criminally liable for the latterQs death. The appellant is not merely an accomplice but is a principal by direct participation. Iven assuming that the appellant did not conspire with *onnie and !dilon to kill the victim, the appellant is nevertheless criminally liable as a principal by direct participation. The stab wounds inflicted by him cooperated in bringing about and accelerated the death of the victim or contributed materially thereto. B.RB.S The trial court correctly overruled the appellantQs defense of alibi. Alibi is a weak, if not the weakest of defenses in a criminal prosecution, because it is easy to concoct but hard to disprove. To serve as basis for ac#uittal, it must be established by clear and convincing evidence. 'or it to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was absent from the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been present then. BERBES 5n this case, the appellant avers that at the time of the stabbing incident, he was resting in the house of his cousin at F/F $ueve de ,ebrero 9treet as he was suffering from stomach pain due to his ulcer. BFRBFS Dut the appellant failed to adduce any medical certificate that he was suffering from the ailment. (oreover, Ilisa positively identified the appellant as one of the men who repeatedly stabbed the victim. The appellantQs defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward identification of the appellant as one of the victimQs assailants. The appellant himself admitted that his cousinQs house, the place where he was allegedly resting when the victim was stabbed, was merely ten to fifteen meters away from the scene of the stabbing. 5ndeed, the appellantQs defense of denial and alibi, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the positive testimony of prosecution eyewitness Ilisa *olan.B&RB&S The appellantQs defenses must crumble in the face of evidence that he fled from the situs criminis and later left his house. The records show that despite being informed that he was sought after by the authorities as a suspect for the killing of the victim, the appellant suddenly and inscrutably disappeared from his residence at $ueve de ,ebrero. As early as (ay E, 0122, a subpoena for the appellant was returned unserved because he was \out of town.]B2RB2S The appellantQs own witness, >ulian Cadion, testified that the appellant had left and was no longer seen at $ueve de ,ebrero after the incident, thus:

B0 B% BB B. BE BF B&

0/F

; 9o, how long did you stay at F/F $ueve de ,ebrero after 'ebruary E, 01227 A !ne week only, sir, and then three weeks after, 5 returned to $ueve de ,ebrero. ; The whole week after 'ebruary E, 0122, was *ene ,ilola still living at F/F $ueve de ,ebrero7 A 5 did not see him anymore, sir. ; And then three weeks thereafter, you went back to $ueve de ,ebrero. 5s that what you were then saying7 A Ges, sir. ; $ow, at the time that you went back to F/F $ueve de ,ebrero, was *ene ,ilola there7 A 5 did not see him anymore, sir.B1RB1S The records show that the appellant knew that he was charged for the stabbing of the victim. 6owever, instead of surrendering to the police authorities, he adroitly evaded arrest. The appellantQs flight is evidence of guilt and, from the factual circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, no reason can be deduced from it other than that he was driven by a strong sense of guilt and admission that he had no tenable defense../R./S The Crime Committed by the Appellant and the ,roper ,enalty Therefor The trial court correctly convicted the appellant of murder #ualified by treachery. Abuse of superior strength likewise attended the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the e3ecution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its e3ecution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the swift and une3pected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part. .0R.0S 5n this case, the attack on the unarmed victim was sudden. !dilon, without provocation, suddenly placed his arm around the victimQs neck and forthwith stabbed the latter. The victim had no inkling that he would be attacked as he was attempting to pacify Idmar and >ulian. *onnie and the appellant, both also armed with deadly weapons, rushed to the scene and stabbed the victim, giving no real opportunity for the latter to defend himself. And even as the victim was already sprawled on the canal, *onnie bashed his head with a hollow block. The peacemaker became the victim of violence. Cn#uestionably, the nature and location of the wounds showed that the killing was e3ecuted in a treacherous manner, preventing any means of defense on the part of the victim. As testified to by 8r. Dienvenido (u<o+, the victim was stabbed, not 4ust once, but eleven times mostly on the chest and the abdominal area. 9i3 of the stab wounds were fatal, causing damage to the victimQs vital internal organs. .% R.%S The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery. .BR.BS There is no mitigating circumstance that attended the commission of the felony. The penalty for murder under Article %.2 of the *evised ,enal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. 9ince no aggravating and mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article FB of the *evised ,enal Code. Civil =iabilities of the Appellant The trial court correctly directed the appellant to pay to the heirs of the victim >oselita Capa the amount of ,E/,/// as civil indemnity ex delicto, in accord with current 4urisprudence. The said heirs are likewise entitled to moral damages in the amount of ,E/,///, also conformably to current 4urisprudence. ..R.ES 5n addition, the heirs are entitled to e3emplary damages in the amount of ,%E,///. 8HERE,ORE, the 8ecision, dated (ay B, 011E, of Dranch 0F. of the *egional Trial Court of ,asig City in Criminal Case $o. &BF0E, finding appellant *ene -ayot ,ilola -C5=TG beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder is A''5*(I8 W5T6 (!85'5CAT5!$. The appellant is hereby directed to pay to the heirs of the victim >oselito Capa the amount of ,E/,/// as civil indemnity: the amount of ,E/,/// as moral damages: and the amount of ,%E,/// as e3emplary damages. 9! !*8I*I8.

B2 B1 ./ .0 .% .B ..

0/&

G.R. No. 155*25 &a#'ar) 25, 2005 ESMERALDO RI1ERA, ISMAEL RI1ERA, EDGARDO RI1ERA, ,etitioners, vs. +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, *espondent. 8IC595!$ CALLE&O, SR., J.: This is a petition for review of the 8ecision 0 of the Court of Appeals @CAA in CA--.*. C* $o. %&%0E affirming, with modification, the 8ecision% of the *egional Trial Court @*TCA of Cavite, Dranch 1/, in Criminal Case $o. F1F%-11, entitled 1eople of the 1hilippines. v. %smeraldo 4ivera, et al. !n April 0%, 0111, an 5nformation was filed in the *TC of 5mus, Cavite, charging Ismeraldo, 5smael and Idgardo, all surnamed *ivera, of attempted murder. The accusatory portion of the 5nformation reads: That on or about the Brd day of (ay 0112, in the (unicipality of 8asmari<as, ,rovince of Cavite, ,hilippines, and within the 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and hit with a piece of hollow block, one *CDI$ *!85= who thereby sustained a non-mortal in4ury on his head and on the different parts of his body, the accused thus commenced the commission of the felony directly by overt acts, but failed to perform all the acts of e3ecution which would produce the crime of (urder by reason of some causes other than their own spontaneous desistance, that is, the said *uben *odil was able to ran @ sicA away and the timely response of the policemen, to his damage and pre4udice. C!$T*A*G T! =AW.B *uben *odil testified that he used to work as a ta3i driver. 6e stopped driving in April 0112 after a wouldbe rapist threatened his life. 6e was even given a citation as a /ayaning 1ilipino by the television network AD9-CD$ for saving the would-be victim. 6is wife eked out a living as a manicurist. They and their three children resided in Darangay 9an 5sidro =abrador 55, 8asmari<as, Cavite, near the house of Ismeraldo *ivera and his brothers 5smael and Idgardo. At noon of (ay %, 0112, *uben went to a nearby store to buy food. Idgardo mocked him for being 4obless and dependent on his wife for support. *uben resented the rebuke and hurled invectives at Idgardo. A heated e3change of words ensued. At about &:B/ p.m. the ne3t day, a 9unday, *uben went to the store to buy food and to look for his wife. 6is three-year-old daughter was with him. (omentarily, Ismeraldo and his two brothers, 5smael and Idgardo, emerged from their house and ganged up on *uben. Ismeraldo and 5smael mauled *uben with fist blows and he fell to the ground. 5n that helpless position, Idgardo hit *uben three times with a hollow block on the parietal area. Ismeraldo and 5smael continued mauling *uben. ,eople who saw the incident shouted: A#atin silaL A#atin silaL *uben felt di++y but managed to stand up. 5smael threw a stone at him, hitting him at the back. When policemen on board a mobile car arrived, Ismeraldo, 5smael and Idgardo fled to their house. *uben was brought to the hospital. 6is attending physician, 8r. =amberto Cagingin, >r., signed a medical certificate in which he declared that *uben sustained lacerated wounds on the parietal area, cerebral concussion or contusion, hematoma on the left upper buttocks, multiple abrasions on the left shoulder and hematoma periorbital left.. The doctor declared that the lacerated wound in the parietal area was slight and superficial and would heal from one to seven days. E The doctor prescribed medicine for *ubenQs back pain, which he had to take for one month.F Ismeraldo testified that at around 0:// p.m. on (ay B, 0112, *uben arrived at his house and banged the gate. *uben challenged him and his brothers to come out and fight. When he went out of the house and talked to *uben, the latter punched him. They wrestled with each other. 6e fell to the ground. Idgardo arrived and pushed *uben aside. 6is wife arrived, and he was pulled away and brought to their house. 'or his part, 5smael testified that he tried to pacify *uben and his brother Ismeraldo, but *uben grabbed him by the hair. 6e managed to free himself from *uben and the latter fled. 6e went home afterwards. 6e did not see his brother Idgardo at the scene. Idgardo declared that at about 0:// p.m. on (ay B, 0112, he was throwing garbage in front of their house. *uben arrived and he went inside the house to avoid a confrontation. *uben banged the gate and ordered him to get out of their house and even threatened to shoot him. 6is brother Ismeraldo went out of their house and asked *uben what the problem was. A fist fight ensued. Idgardo rushed out of the house and pushed *uben aside. *uben fell to the ground. When he stood up, he pulled at IdgardoQs shirt and hair, and, in the process, *ubenQs head hit the lamp post.& !n August B/, %//%, the trial court rendered 4udgment finding all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated murder. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

0/2

W6I*I'!*I, premises considered, all the accused are found -C5=TG beyond reasonable doubt and are sentenced to an imprisonment of si3 @FA years and one @0A day to eight @2A years of prision mayor as the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of the accused. =ikewise, the accused are to pay, 4ointly and severally, civil indemnity to the private complainant in the amount of ,B/,///.//. 9! !*8I*I8.2 The trial court gave no credence to the collective testimonies of the accused and their witnesses. The accused appealed to the CA, which rendered 4udgment on >une 2, %//. affirming, with modification, the appealed decision. The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads: W6I*I'!*I, the 8ecision of the *egional Trial Court of 5mus, Cavite, Dranch 1/, is (!85'5I8 in that the appellants are convicted of ATTI(,TI8 (C*8I* and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of % years of prision correccional as minimum to F years and 0 day of prision mayor as ma3imum. 5n all other respects, the decision appealed from is A''5*(I8. 9! !*8I*I8.1 The accused, now petitioners, filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, alleging that the CA erred in affirming the *TC decision. They insist that the prosecution failed to prove that they had the intention to kill *uben when they mauled and hit him with a hollow block. ,etitioners aver that, based on the testimony of 8r. Cagingin, *uben sustained only a superficial wound in the parietal area: hence, they should be held criminally liable for physical in4uries only. Iven if petitioners had the intent to kill *uben, the prosecution failed to prove treachery: hence, they should be held guilty only of attempted homicide. !n the other hand, the CA held that the prosecution was able to prove petitionersQ intent to kill *uben: !n the first assigned error, intent to kill may be deduced from the nature of the wound inflicted and the kind of weapon used. 5ntent to kill was established by victim *uben *odil in his testimony as follows: ;: And while you were being bo3ed by Ismeraldo and Dong, what happened ne3t7 A: When 5 was already lying RdownS 333, 8agol *ivera showed up with a piece of hollow block 333 and hit me thrice on the head, 9ir. ;: And what about the two @%A, what were they doing when you were hit with a hollow block by 8agol7 A: 5 was already lying on the ground and they kept on bo3ing me while 8agol was hitting, 9ir. As earlier stated by 8r. Cagingin, appellants could have killed the victim had the hollow block directly hit his head, and had the police not promptly intervened so that the brothers scampered away. When a wound is not sufficient to cause death, but intent to kill is evident, the crime is attempted. 5ntent to kill was shown by the fact that the @BA brothers helped each other maul the defenseless victim, and even after he had already fallen to the ground: that one of them even 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 of trying to kill *uben *odil.0/ The !ffice of the 9olicitor -eneral @!9-A, for its part, asserts that the decision of the CA is correct, thus: The evidence and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses defeat the presumption of innocence raised by petitioners. The crime has been clearly established with petitioners as the perpetrators. Their intent to kill is very evident and was established beyond reasonable doubt. Iyewitnesses to the crime, Alicia Hera Cru+ and =ucita Hille4o clearly and categorically declared that the victim *uben *odil was walking along 9t. ,eter Avenue when he was suddenly bo3ed by Ismeraldo Daby *ivera. They further narrated that, soon thereafter, his two brothers 5smael and Idgardo 8agul *ivera, coming from 9t. ,eter 55, ganged up on the victim. Doth Alicia Hera Cru+ and =ucita Hille4o recounted that they saw Idgardo 8agul *ivera pick up a hollow block and hit *uben *odil with it three @BA times. A careful review of their testimonies revealed the suddenness and une3pectedness of the attack of petitioners. 5n 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. 6e was caught off-guard by the assault of Ismeraldo Daby *ivera and the simultaneous attack of the two other petitioners. 5t was also established that the victim was hit by Idgardo 8agul *ivera, while he was lying on the ground and being mauled by the other petitioners. ,etitioners could have killed the victim had he not managed to escape and had the police not promptly intervened. ,etitioners also draw attention to the fact that the in4ury sustained by the victim was superficial and, thus, not life threatening. The nature of the in4ury does not negate the intent to kill. The Court of Appeals held: As earlier stated by 8r. Cagingin, appellants could have killed the victim had the hollow block directly hit his head, and had the police not promptly intervened so that the brothers scampered away. When a wound is not sufficient to cause death, but intent to kill is evident, the crime is attempted. 5ntent to kill was shown by the fact that the three @BA brothers helped each other maul the defenseless victim, and even after he had already fallen to the ground: that one of them picked up a cement hollow block and proceeded to hit the

0/1

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 of trying to kill *uben *odil.00 The petition is denied for lack of merit. An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the offenders to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of in4uries. 5ntent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo. 5n 1eople v. 0elim,0% the Court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. 5f the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is presumed. 5n the present case, the prosecution mustered the re#uisite #uantum of evidence to prove the intent of petitioners to kill *uben. Ismeraldo and 5smael pummeled the victim with fist blows. Iven as *uben fell to the ground, unable to defend himself against the sudden and sustained assault of petitioners, Idgardo hit him three times with a hollow block. Idgardo tried to hit *uben on the head, missed, but still managed to hit the victim only in the parietal area, resulting in a lacerated wound and cerebral contusions. That the head wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and could not have produced his death does not negate petitionersQ criminal liability for attempted murder. Iven if Idgardo did not hit the victim s#uarely on the head, petitioners are still criminally liable for attempted murder. The last paragraph of Article F of the *evised ,enal Code defines an attempt to commit a felony, thus: 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 e3ecution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. The essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows: 0. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts: %. 6e does not perform all the acts of e3ecution which should produce the felony: B. The offenderQs act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance: .. The non-performance of all acts of e3ecution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.0B The first re#uisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, namely: @0A That there be e3ternal acts: @%A 9uch e3ternal acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.0. The Court in 1eople v. Li)ada0E elaborated on the concept of an overt or e3ternal act, thus: An overt or e3ternal act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by e3ternal obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. The raison dMetre for the law re#uiring a direct overt act is that, in a ma4ority of cases, the conduct of the accused consisting merely of acts of preparation has never ceased to be e#uivocal: and this is necessarily so, irrespective of his declared intent. 5t is that #uality of being e#uivocal that must be lacking before the act becomes one which may be said to be a commencement of the 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 e#uivocal #uality remains, no one can say with certainty what the intent of the accused is. 5t is necessary that the overt act should have been the ultimate step towards the consummation of the design. 5t is sufficient if it was the first or some subse#uent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparations are made. The act done need not constitute the last pro3imate one for completion. 5t is necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal relation to the intended crime. 5n the words of Hiada, the overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense. 0F 5n 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. 5f Idgardo had done so, *uben would surely have died. We re4ect petitionersQ contention that the prosecution failed to prove treachery in the commission of the felony. ,etitioners attacked the victim in a sudden and une3pected manner as *uben was walking with his three-year-old daughter, impervious of the imminent peril to his life. 6e had no chance to defend himself and retaliate. 6e was overwhelmed by the synchroni+ed assault of the three siblings. The essence of treachery is the sudden and une3pected attack on the victim.0& Iven if the attack is frontal but is sudden and une3pected, giving no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself, there would be treachery. 02

00/

!bviously, petitioners assaulted the victim because of the altercation between him and petitioner Idgardo *ivera a day before. There being conspiracy by and among petitioners, treachery is considered against all of them.01 The appellate court sentenced petitioners to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two @%A years of prision correccional in its minimum period, as minimum, to si3 years and one day of prision mayor in its ma3imum period, as ma3imum. This is erroneous. Cnder Article %.2 of the *evised ,enal Code, as amended by *epublic Act $o. &FE1, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. 9ince petitioners are guilty only of attempted murder, the penalty should be reduced by two degrees, conformably to Article E0 of the *evised ,enal Code. Cnder paragraph % of Article F0, in relation to Article &0 of the *evised ,enal Code, such a penalty is prision mayor. 5n the absence of any modifying circumstance in the commission of the felony @other than the #ualifying circumstance of treacheryA, the ma3imum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the medium period of prision mayor which has a range of from eight @2A years and one @0A day to ten @0/A years. To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, the penalty of prision mayor should be reduced by one degree, prision correccional, which has a range of si3 @FA months and one @0A day to si3 @FA years. 6ence, petitioners should be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from two @%A years of prision correccional in its minimum period, as minimum, to nine @1A years and four @.A months of prision mayor in its medium period, as ma3imum. IN LIGHT O, ALL THE ,OREGOING , the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The 8ecision of the Court of Appeals is A,,IRMED 8ITH THE MODI,ICATION that petitioners are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from two @%A years of prision correccional in its minimum period, as minimum, to nine @1A years and four @.A months of prision mayor in its medium period, as ma3imum. $o costs. SO ORDERED.

000

G.R. No. 155%79 ,e7r'ar) 22, 2005 RODOL,O C. 1ELASCO, ,etitioner, vs. +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, *espondent. 8IC595!$ CHICO-NA-ARIO, J.0 Defore Cs is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to set aside the decision 0 of the Court of Appeals in CA--.*. C* $o. %BBFF dated B/ >uly %//. which affirmed the decision % of Dranch .0 of the *egional Trial Court @*TCA of 8agupan City in Criminal Case $o. 12-/%0&E-8 dated %1 >une 0111, finding accused-petitioner *odolfo C. Helasco guilty of Attempted (urder, and its *esolution B dated %0 8ecember %//. denying petitionerQs motion for reconsideration. An 5nformation. dated %/ April 0112 charged petitioner with the crime of Attempted (urder committed as follows: That on or about the 01th day of April, 0112, in the City of 8agupan, ,hilippines, and within the 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the above-named accused, 9$ 5 *!8!='! C. HI=A9C!, being then armed with a gun, with treachery and with intent to kill one '*I8I*5C) (A*A(DA, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and criminally, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the latter by shooting him, hitting him on the left upper arm, the said accused having thus commenced a felony directly by overt acts but did not perform all the acts of e3ecution which could have produced the crime of murder, by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, to the damage and pre4udice of said '*I8I*5C) (A*A(DA. When arraigned, petitioner, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.E !n %1 9eptember 0112, the 6on. =uis (. 'ontanilla, I3ecutive >udge of *TC of 8agupan City, ordered the release of petitioner after a surety bond was posted by the (ega ,acific 5nsurance Corporation in the amount of ,0%/,///.//.F The evidence is summari+ed by the trial court as follows: The evidence of the prosecution tends to show that on April 01, 0112, at about &:B/ oQclock in the morning, private complainant 'rederick (aramba was cleaning and washing his owner type 4eep in front of his house at =asip -rande, 8agupan City when a motori+ed tricycle stopped near him. Accused *odolfo Helasco dashed out of the tricycle, approached the complainant and fired at him several times with a ..E caliber pistol. The accused missed with his first shot but the second one hit the complainant at the upper arm, causing him to stumble on the ground. The complainant stood up and ran, while the accused continued firing at him but missed. The shooting incident was reported to the police sub-station in (alued 8istrict by Darangay Captain 8acasin of =asip -rande, describing the suspect as wearing a vest or a chaleco. The police, composed of 9,!. *omulo Hillamil, ,!B *olando Alvendo, and 9,!0 9oliven respondent and pursued the accused who proceeded on board a motori+ed tricycle to the highway going to Darangay Danaoang in Calasiao town. The police caught up with the tricycle and brought the accused to the police sub-station. A firearm @I3hibit A A protruding from the waistline of the accused, three @BA maga+ines @I3hibit D , D-0 T D-% A and fourteen @0.A live ammunitions @I3hibits PC to C-0B A were confiscated from the possession of the accused. The police also recovered seven @&A spent ammunitions @I3hibits 8 to 8-F A at the crime scene. At the City >ail in 8agupan City where the accused was subse#uently brought, the private complainant 'rederick (aramba identified and pointed to the accused as the one who fired at him, hitting him on the upper left arm. Complainant identified the affidavit which he e3ecuted naming the accused as his assailant @I3hibit 6 A and who shot him on the morning of April 01, 0112 in front of his residence at =asip -rande. ,rivate complainant further testified that he was hospitali+ed and treated at the *egion 0 (edical Center, 8agupan City by 8r. Arturo de Hera, >r. who issued a (edico-=egal Certificate stating that the victim sustained, -unshot wound point of entry: 0.E cm lateral aspect distal, Brd arm left and: -unshot wound point of e3it: . cm lateral aspect posterior, Brd arm left @I3hibit 5 A. Dy reason of his wounds, complainant incurred e3penses for hospitali+ation and medicines in the total amount of ,%,F1F./F @I3hibit > to >-0. A. Armando (aramba, the driver of the tricycle in which the accused rode, testified that he picked up the accused who was wearing a chaleco, at the intersection of ,ogo-=asip *oad. Cpon reaching the parked 4eep which was being washed by the private complainant, the accused ordered him to stop. The accused alighted and fired several shots at the victim. Then the accused went back to the tricycle and ordered him to proceed

00%

to Calasiao. The accused alighted at the intersection of the 8e Henecia 6ighway and (alued *oad and took another tricycle. Witness e3ecuted an affidavit before the ,olice 6ead#uarters in 8agupan City @I3hibit - A and identified the accused as the one who shot the private complainant. The accused, on the other hand, interposed the defense of alibi. 6e said that on April 02, 0112, he went to a friendQs house in =ingayen, ,angasinan and spent the night there. The following morning, April 01, 0112, between F:// to &:// oQclock, he left =ingayen riding in the Holkswagen car of Derting 9oriano. 6e alighted at the corner of Danaoang diversion road. 'rom there he took a tricycle and told the driver to bring him at the foot of the bridge going to Dayambang. While on his way to Calasiao, he heard a 4eep behind him blowing its horn and when he looked back he saw three men on board pointing their guns at him. 6e told the tricycle driver to stop and thereupon the three men approached him and introduced themselves as policemen. They confiscated his gun and then brought him to the police station for interrogation. Thereafter, the police lodged him in the City >ail of 8agupan. Accused testified that he did not know personally the complaining witness and denied having fired at him. 6e further said that his ..E caliber pistol which was sei+ed from him by the police is licensed @I3hibit % A. & 5n its decision dated %1 >une 0111, the *TC of 8agupan City, Dranch .0, found petitioner guilty of the crime charged, disposing of the case in this wise: W6I*I'!*I, finding accused *odolfo C. Helasco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted murder, defined and penali+ed under Article %.2, in relation to the Brd par. of Arts. F and E0 of the *evised ,enal Code, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 'our @.A years of prision correccional, as minimum to Iight @2A years and !ne @0A day of prision mayor, as ma3imum. Accused is further ordered to indemnify the complaining witness the amount of ,%,F1F.//, as actual damages.2 The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the private complainant 'rederick (aramba and Armando (aramba when they identified petitioner as the assailant. 5t re4ected petitionerQs defense of alibi saying it was not impossible for him to be at the crime scene when the crime was committed because the place where he allegedly alighted from the car of a certain Derting 9oriano was only about ten minutes away. 5t concluded that his defense cannot prevail over the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses. !n 0 >uly 0111, petitioner filed a $otice of Appeal signifying his intention to appeal to the Court of Appeals.1 ,ending appeal with the Court of Appeals, petitioner, after filing a (otion to Dail, was allowed to post bail in the amount of ,0F/,///.//.0/ To obviate the possibility of flight, the Dureau of 5mmigration and 8eportation @D58A was directed to include petitioner in its hold departure list.00 !n B/ >uly %//., the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the *TC. The decretal portion of the decision reads: W6I*I'!*I, for lack of merit, the appeal is 859(599I8. The assailed 8ecision dated >une %1, 0111 of the *egional Trial Court, Dranch .0 of 8agupan City, in Criminal Case $o. 12-/%0&E-8, is hereby A''5*(I8. Costs against accused-appellant.0% ,etitioner moved for a reconsideration of the decision which motion was denied per resolution 0B dated %0 8ecember %//.. ,etitioner is now before us via petition for review on certiorari, raising the following grounds: 5 T6I C!C*T !' A,,IA=9 -*AHI=G I**I8 W6I$ 5T A''5*(I8 T6I 8IC595!$ !' T6I *I-5!$A= T*5A= C!C*T. 55 T6I C!C*T !' A,,IA=9 -*AHI=G I**I8 W6I$ 5T 8I$5I8 T6I (!T5!$ '!* *IC!$958I*AT5!$ ,I* T6I *I9!=CT5!$ 8ATI8 8ICI(DI* %0, %//..0. ,etitioner invokes the defenses of denial and alibi. 6e denies having shot the victim. 6e alleges that the prosecution was not able to sufficiently establish the identity of the assailant because the Darangay Chairman, who reported the incident to the policemen, identified the assailant as one wearing a chaleco, was not presented to corroborate the testimony of petitioner. 6e contends that had the Darangay Chairman been presented, the latterQs testimony would have been adverse to the prosecution. 5nstead, he points out that the prosecution presented police officers who were not eyewitnesses. 6e adds that he had no motive to harm, much less kill, the victim, the latter being a total stranger. 6e e3plains that since the identity of the assailant is in doubt, motive becomes important and his alibi gains weight and value.0E 5n a resolution dated F April %//E, the Court, without giving due course to the petition, re#uired respondent to file a Comment.0F

00B

5n its Comment0& dated 2 9eptember %//E, respondent ,eople of the ,hilippines, through the !ffice of the 9olicitor -eneral @!9-A, argues that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals cannot be reviewed since the issue @i.e., positive identificationA petitioner is raising involves the credibility of witnesses and the weighing of evidence. 5t asserts that since the same deals with a #uestion of fact and there being no instance present to take the case out of the general rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals may be reviewed, a review thereof cannot be made because only a #uestion of law can be re-e3amined if a petition for review on certiorari under *ule .E of the *ules of Court has been filed. 5t adds that even if the case is to be decided on the merits, the petition likewise will fail. 5n his *eply,02 petitioner submits that a review of the facts of the case is 4ustified on the ground that the Court of Appeals sanctioned substantial and 4urisprudential departures committed by the trial court. 6e maintains that @0A the trial court precipitately observed that alibi is a weak defense: @%A the trial court did not consider that the prosecution had no evidence proving his intention to kill: @BA the trial court did not consider the fact that victim did not know him and vice-versa: @.A it was impossible for him, a navy man O a protector of the people O to have failed to fatally hit the victim after firing seven shots: and @EA the instant case is a frame up. !n 0& !ctober %//E, the Court gave due course to the petition and re#uired the parties to submit their respective memoranda.01 5n his memorandum, petitioner further argues that the findings of fact in this case should be reviewed because the Court of Appeals erroneously restated the factual findings of the trial court when it purposely omitted and added words changing the tenor of the shooting incident as found by the trial court. 6e adds that the findings of fact of the trial court do not support a conviction of attempted murder but only attempted homicide as there was no treachery since private complainant was still able to focus his eyes on the gunman until he was fired upon. 'urther, he points out that the Court of Appeals made different findings as to where the seven spent shells were recovered. 6e maintains there was suppression of evidence when the prosecution failed to present a ballistic report on the seven empty shells that would show the identity of the assailant. 5n addition, he claims that since there was suppression of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the testimony of Armando (aramba is not credible, he being a relative of the victim. ,etitioner primarily invokes the defenses of denial and alibi. 5t is his claim that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish the identity of the assailant and that he was merely framed-up. At the outset, it must be stressed that the instant petition for review on certiorari was filed pursuant to *ule .E of the *ules of Court where a review is not a matter of right but of sound 4udicial discretion and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. 5t is not the function of this Court to ree3amine the evidence submitted by the parties unless the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are not supported by evidence on record or the 4udgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. This Court is limited to the review or revision of errors of law and not to analy+e or weigh the evidence all over again. %/ We agree with the !9- that as ruled by this Court, no #uestions of facts may be raised in this Court under *ule .E of the *ules of Court, unless, among other grounds, there is clear and convincing proof that the 4udgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts or when the Court of Appeals failed to notice and appreciate certain relevant facts of substance which if properly considered would 4ustify a different conclusion, and when there is a grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts in the light of the evidence on record. Anything less will not suffice to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming on appeal the decision of the trial court. 5t bears stressing that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties and the assessment of the credibility and probative weight of the evidence of the parties and its conclusion anchored on its findings are given high respect if not conclusive effect by this Court, especially if affirmed by the Court of Appeals because of the uni#ue advantage of the trial court of observing and monitoring the demeanor, conduct and deportment of the witnesses as they regale the court with their testimonies. The e3ception to this rule is when the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued or misappreciated cogent facts and circumstances of substance which if considered would alter the outcome of the case. %0 After scrutini+ing the records of the case and thoroughly evaluating all the evidence proffered, we find no reason to deviate from the findings of facts of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 5n the case at bar, the testimonies of private complainant 'rederick (aramba and Armando (aramba were given credence and full probative weight and credence by the trial court in the identification of petitioner as the assailant. ,rivate complainant saw petitioner alight from the tricycle of Armando (aramba before he successively shot at him at a distance of about four meters while chasing him for %E to B/ meters. %% Armando (aramba witnessed the shooting because he was the driver of the tricycle in which petitioner rode in going to the house of private complainant and in leaving the crime scene. %B After the shooting incident, private complainant went to the City >ail and identified petitioner as the person who shot him. %. At

00.

the 8agupan City ,olice 9tation, Armando (aramba pointed to petitioner as the assailant not because he saw a man wearing a chaleco, but because it was he whom he saw shoot the private complainant.%E ,etitioner asks that the findings of fact of the case should be reviewed because the Court of Appeals erroneously restated the factual findings of the trial court when it purposely omitted and added words changing the tenor of the shooting incident as found by the trial court. ,etitioner said the Court of Appeals purposely added the word suddenly and replaced the phrase near him with in front of. 6e adds that the Court of Appeals added the phrase without any warning and removed the phrase approached the complainant. 6e even claims that the Court of Appeals changed the manner how private complainant was shot, when he was hit, and how he stumbled and how he was able to stand up and continue running. 6e further states that the Court of Appeals made a different finding as to where the seven spent shells were recovered. 6e points out that the Court said the seven spent shells were recovered from the accused while the trial court found that the same were found in the crime scene. As above discussed, the findings of the trial court on its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies and the probative weight thereof, are accorded by the appellate court high respect if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued or misinterpreted facts and circumstances, which if considered, would alter the outcome of the case. %F 5n the case at bar, the addition or omission of these words, and the difference between the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals as to where the seven spent shells were found, are too minor and inconse#uential to affect the outcome of this case. These, even if considered, would not overturn the established fact that petitioner was identified as the assailant. $othing in the record shows that there was any inconsistency as regards the identity of the assailant. Doth private complainant and Armando (aramba were one in pointing to petitioner as the culprit. ,etitioner interposes the defenses of denial and alibi. 6e denies participation in the crime claiming that he was aboard a tricycle on his way to Calasiao, ,angasinan, when policemen arrested him and brought him to the 8agupan ,olice 9tation. !n the other hand, the victim himself identified petitioner as his attacker which statement was corroborated by Armando (aramba. To be believed, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. !therwise, it is purely self-serving and without merit.%& 9ettled is the rule that the defense of alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. %2 -reater weight is given to the categorical identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than to the accused"s plain denial of participation in the commission of the crime. %1 There being no strong and credible evidence adduced to overcome the testimonies of private complainant and Armando (aramba pointing to him as the culprit, no weight can be given petitionerQs denial. ,etitionerQs defense of alibi likewise fails. As against positive identification by prosecution witnesses, the accusedQs alibi is worthless.B/ 6aving been identified by two credible witnesses, petitioner cannot escape liability. (oreover, for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis. B0 Courts view the defense of alibi with suspicion and caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also it can be fabricated easily. B% As found by the trial court, it was not physically impossible for petitioner to be at the crime scene when the crime was committed since it only takes a ten-minute ride from the place where he allegedly alighted from the car of one Derting 9oriano to the crime scene. We have held that: Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission of the felony, is a plausible e3cuse for the accused. =et there be no mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense. Dut to be valid for purposes of e3oneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The e3cuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no e3ception. Where there is the least possibility of accusedQs presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water. BB ,etitioner contends there was suppression of evidence when the prosecution did not place on the witness stand Darangay Captain 8acasain of =asip -rande and when it failed to present a ballistic report on the seven empty shells because both are vital evidence to prove the identity of the assailant. We find such contention untenable. As to the non-presentation of Darangay Captain 8acasin, the same does not constitute suppression of evidence. Darangay Captain 8acasin was not an eyewitness to the shooting incident contrary to the claim of petitioner. Although he was the one who reported the incident to the police station, he was merely informed by Armando (aramba that the person who shot private complainant wore a chaleko or vest. B. Thus, not being an eyewitness, his testimony, even if taken, would have nothing to do with the identification of the

00E

assailant. 5f he really wanted to have Darangay Captain 8acasin take the witness stand, he could have asked the trial court for a subpoena ad testificandum. This, he did not do. As regards the failure of the police to present a ballistic report on the seven spent shells recovered from the crime scene, the same does not constitute suppression of evidence. A ballistic report serves only as a guide for the courts in considering the ultimate facts of the case. BE 5t would be indispensable if there are no credible eyewitnesses to the crime inasmuch as it is corroborative in nature. BF The presentation of weapons or the slugs and bullets used and ballistic e3amination are not prere#uisites for conviction. The corpus delicti and the positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime are more than enough to sustain his conviction.B& Iven without a ballistic report, the positive identification by prosecution witnesses is more than sufficient to prove accusedQs guilt beyond reasonable doubt. B2 5n the instant case, since the identity of the assailant has been sufficiently established, a ballistic report on the slugs can be dispensed with in proving petitionerQs guilt beyond reasonable doubt. ,etitionerQs asseveration that it is unthinkable for him to shoot private complainant because he has no motive to harm, much less kill the latter, he being a total stranger, deserves scant consideration. 5t must be stressed that motive is a state of @oneQsA mind which others cannot discern. 5t is not an element of the crime, and as such does not have to be proved. 5n fact, lack of motive for committing a crime does not preclude conviction. 5t is 4udicial knowledge that persons have been killed or assaulted for no reason at all. B1 Iven in the absence of a known motive, the time-honored rule is that motive is not essential to convict when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit. ./ (otive assumes significance only where there is no showing of who the perpetrator of the crime was. .0 5n the case at bar, since petitioner has been positively identified as the assailant, the lack of motive is no longer of conse#uence. ,etitioner argues that the testimony of prosecution witness Armando (aramba should not be given weight because the same is biased and incredible on the ground that he is the uncle of the private complainant. This argument does not inspire belief. The blood relationship of Armando (aramba and private complainant would not render the formerQs testimony unworthy of belief. !n the contrary, relationship could strengthen the witnessesQ credibility, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit. Their natural interest in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating a person other than the true offender. .% 5t is settled that where there is no evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit..B The weight of the testimony of witnesses is not impaired nor in anyway affected by their relationship to the victim when there is no showing of improper motive on their part. .. >urisprudence likewise holds that if an accused had really nothing to do with a crime, it would be against the natural order of events and of human nature, and against the presumption of good faith, that a prosecution witness would falsely testify against him..E 5n the case before us, aside from petitionerQs claim that he was framed-up, there is nothing in the records that shows that Armando (aramba had ulterior motives in testifying against him. $ecessarily, the testimony of Armando (aramba must be given full credit. ,etitioner claims that as a navy man who is trained to kill enemies of the state, a protector of the people, he could not have acted in the manner which the prosecution pointed out. 6e said it is against human e3perience to attempt to kill a person in the presence of a witness and in broad daylight, and that it is preposterous that after firing seven shots at close range, he failed to fatally hit the private complainant. All these, he said, only point to a different assailant. We are not convinced. The records show that the shooting happened at around &:B/ a.m. The fact that the shooting occurred in broad daylight does not render its commission impossible. .F This Court takes notice that it is not unusual that killings are perpetrated in front of witnesses. 5n the instant case, the attempted killing was witnessed by Armando (aramba, the driver of the tricycle which petitioner rode in going to, and in leaving, the crime scene. ,etitioner argues that he could not have been the assailant because it was simply impossible for him, being a navy man, not to fatally hit private complainant after firing seven shots at close range. 5n effect, what he is saying is that the bungled killing cannot be the handiwork of an e3perienced soldier like him. 9uch an argument does not hold water. 5n the case of ,eople v. (amarion, .& we brushed aside the very same argument raised by the accused therein who was an e3perienced military man. We ruled that an accused is not entitled to an ac#uittal simply because of his previous, or even present, good moral character and e3emplary conduct. The fact that petitioner was a navy man -- a protector of the people -- does not mean that he is innocent of the crime charged or that he is incapable of doing it. This argument fails in light of the identification made by the victim himself and by Armando (aramba that it was petitioner who was the assailant.

00F

'inally, petitioner submits that if ever he committed a crime, he merely committed attempted homicide. 6e maintains there was no sudden firing because the victim testified he was observing the alleged gunman for a period of ten seconds before the latter finally drew his ..E caliber pistol and fired at him. After the first shot, the victim was able to run away. The lower court was correct in appreciating treachery in the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the following essential elements are present, vi+: @aA at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself: and @bA the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. .2 The essence of treachery is the swift and une3pected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. .1 5t was clearly established that private complainant, while washing his 4eep, was suddenly fired upon by petitioner for no reason at all. The suddenness of the shooting and the fact that he was unarmed left private complainant with no option but to run for his life. 5t is likewise apparent that petitioner consciously and deliberately adopted his mode of attack making sure that private complainant will have no chance to defend himself by reason of the surprise attack. ,etitionerQs claim that the shooting was not sudden because private complainant was observing him from the time he alighted from the tricycle is belied by the fact that private complainant was not able to run when he was first fired upon. Though private complainant was looking at him, the former was not forewarned by any outward sign that an attack was forthcoming. 5t was only after the first shot that he felt his life was in danger. 6aving commenced the criminal act by overt acts but failing to perform all acts of e3ecution as to produce the felony by reason of some cause other than his own desistance, petitioner committed an attempted felony. ,etitioner already commenced his attack with a manifest intent to kill by shooting private complainant seven times, but failed to perform all the acts of e3ecution by reason of causes independent of his will, that is, poor aim and the swiftness of the latter. ,rivate complainant sustained a wound on the left arm that is not sufficient to cause his death. The settled rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder, since the accused did not perform all the acts of e3ecution that would have brought about death.E/ The penalty imposed by the trial court is correct. Cnder Article E0 of the *evised ,enal Code, the penalty lower than two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in an attempted felony. Cnder Article %.2 of the *evised ,enal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpertua to death. The penalty two degrees lower is prision mayor. Applying the 5ndeterminate 9entence =aw, and there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the minimum of the penalty to be imposed should be within the range of prision correccional, and the ma3imum of the penalty to be imposed should be within the range of prision mayor in its medium period. W6I*I'!*I, in view of the foregoing, the petition is 8I$5I8. Costs against petitioner. 9! !*8I*I8.

00&

G.R. No. 1*20** &a#'ar) *0, 2007 RENATO /ALEROS, &R., ,etitioner, vs. +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, *espondent. *I9!=CT5!$ GARCIA, J.: 5n this (otion for ,artial *econsideration, 0 petitioner-movant *enato Daleros, >r., through counsel, seeks reconsideration of our 8ecision of 'ebruary %%, %//F, ac#uitting him of the crime of attempted rape, thereby reversing an earlier decision of the Court of Appeals, but ad4udging him guilty of light coercion and sentencing him to B/ days of arresto menor and to pay a fine of ,%//.//, with the accessory penalties thereof and to pay the costs. 5t is petitionerQs submission that his conviction for light coercion under an 5nformation for attempted rape, runs counter to the en banc ruling of the Court in ,eople v. Contreras% where the Court held: The 9olicitor -eneral contends that accused-appellant should be held liable for un4ust ve3ation under Art. %2&@%A of the *evised ,enal Code. 6owever, the elements of un4ust ve3ation do not form part of the crime of rape as defined in Art. BBE of the *evised ,enal Code. (oreover, the circumstances stated in the information do not constitute the elements of the said crime. Accused-appellant, therefore, cannot be convicted of un4ust ve3ation. ,etitionerQs reliance on Contreras is misplaced. There, the 0% identical 5nformations B substantially alleged: The undersigned 9tate ,rosecutor accuses 5A$ C!$T*I*A9 G I*!G, based on the sworn declaration of one A$-I=5C !C*I$A9 y C!$T*I*A9 assisted by $I=I$I 85AM y !C*I$A9 of the crime of 9TATCT!*G *A,I 5$ *I=AT5!$ T! *.A. &F0/, committed as follows: That between the period from (ay to >une 011F in Halen+uela, (etro (anila and within the 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have se3ual intercourse with one A$-I=5C !C*I$A9 y C!$T*I*A9, age F years old. Contrary to law. Cnlike the 0% separate 5nformations in Contreras, the indicting 5nformation for attempted rape against the petitioner in the instant case contains averments constituting and thus 4ustifying his conviction for un4ust ve3ation, a form of light coercion, under Article %2& of the *evised ,enal Code. 6ere, the 5nformation reads: That about 0:E/ in the morning or sometime thereafter of 0B 8ecember 0110 in (anila and within the 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the above-named accused, by forcefully covering the face of (artina =ourdes T. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with di++ying effects, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commenced the commission of rape by lying on top of her with the intention to have carnal knowledge with her but was unable to perform all the acts of e3ecution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, said acts being committed against her will and consent to her damage and pre4udice. @5talics ours.A Contrary to law. The afore#uoted 5nformation states all the facts and ingredients that fully apprised the petitioner of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, in compliance with his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the charges against him. ,etitioner argues, however, that the 5nformation, as #uoted above, does not allege that the complained act of covering the face of the victim @(alouA with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical caused her annoyance, irritation, torment, distress and disturbance. We wish to stress that malice, compulsion or restraint need not be alleged in an 5nformation for un4ust ve3ation. Cn4ust ve3ation e3ists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason that the term is broad enough to include any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm, would un4ustly annoy or irritate an innocent person.. As pointed out in the 8ecision sought to be reconsidered: The paramount #uestion Rin a prosecution for un4ust ve3ationS is whether the offender"s act causes annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed. That (alou, after the incident in #uestion, cried while relating to her classmates what she perceived to be a se3ual attack and the fact that she filed a case for attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was disturbed, if not distressed, by the acts of the petitioner. 'or being a mere rehash of those already passed upon and found to be without merit in the 8ecision sought to be reconsidered, the other grounds relied upon by the petitioner in his (otion for ,artial *econsideration in support of his plea for a complete ac#uittal need not be belabored anew. W6I*I'!*I, the motion under consideration is 8I$5I8 with '5$A=5TG. 9! !*8I*I8.

002

DG.R. No. 122099. &'() 5, 2000E +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AGA+ITO LISTERIO ) +RADO a#. SAMSON DELA TORRE ) ES@UELA, Accused, AGA+ITO LISTERIO ) +RADO, Accused-Appellant. DECISION 4NARES-SANTIAGO, J.0 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) ,or !he .ea.() a$$a'(! o# !he 7ro!her$ &eo#"!o AraF'e a#. Mar(o# AraF'e, A3a "!o L"$!er"o ) +ra.o, Sa6$o# .e(a Torre ) E$F'e(a, Mar(o# .e(a Torre, Geor3e .e(a Torre, /o#":ac"o /a#ca)a a#. $e9era( o!her$ <ho are $!"(( a! (ar3e <ere char3e. "# !<o >2? $e ara!e A6e#.e. I#:or6a!"o#$ <"!h M'r.er a#. ,r'$!ra!e. M'r.er. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) I# Cr"6"#a( Ca$e No. 91-52%2 !he A6e#.e. I#:or6a!"o# D1 :or M'r.er a((e3e$ cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) Tha! o# or a7o'! !he 11!h .a) o: A'3'$! 1991 "# !he M'#"c" a("!) o: M'#!"#(' a, Me!ro Ma#"(a, +h"(" "#e$ a#. <"!h"# !he M'r"$."c!"o# o: !h"$ Ho#ora7(e Co'r!, !he a7o9e-#a6e. acc'$e., co#$ "r"#3 a#. co#:e.era!"#3 !o3e!her a#. 6'!'a(() he( "#3 a#. a"."#3 o#e a#o!her, a(( ar6e. <"!h 7(a.e. <ea o#$ a#. GI (ea. " e$, <"!h "#!e#! !o G"((, !reacher) a#. e9".e#! re6e."!a!"o# <"!h a7'$e o: $' er"or $!re#3!h .". !he# a#. !here <"((:'((), '#(a<:'(() a#. :e(o#"o'$() a!!acG, a$$a'(! a#. $!a7 o#e &eo#"!o AraF'e ) Da#"e( a! !he 7acG o: h"$ 7o.), !here7) "#:("c!"#3 ' o# !he (a!!er 6or!a( <o'#.$ <h"ch ."rec!() ca'$e. h"$ .ea!h. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) CONTRAR4 TO LA8. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) I# Cr"6"#a( Ca$e No. 91-52%*, !he A6e#.e. I#:or6a!"o# D2 :or ,r'$!ra!e. Ho6"c".e char3e$0 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) Tha! o# or a7o'! !he 1%!h .a) o: Ma) 1991 "# !he M'#"c" a("!) o: M'#!"#(' a, Me!ro Ma#"(a, +h"(" "#e$ a#. <"!h"# !he M'r"$."c!"o# !h"$ Ho#ora7(e Co'r!, !he a7o9e-#a6e. acc'$e., co#$ "r"#3, co#:e.era!"#3 !o3e!her, 6'!'a(() he( "#3 a#. a"."#3 o#e a#o!her, <"!h "#!e#! !o G"(( .". !he# a#. !here <"((:'((), '#(a<:'(() a#. :e(o#"o'$() $!a7 a#. h"! <"!h a (ea. " e a#. 7(a.e. <ea o# o#e Mar(o# AraF'e ) Da#"e( o# !he 9"!a( or!"o#$ o: h"$ 7o.), !here7) "#:("c!"#3 $er"o'$ a#. 6or!a( <o'#.$ <h"ch <o'(. ha9e ca'$eD.E !he .ea!h o: !he $a". 9"c!"6 !h'$ er:or6"#3 a(( !he ac!$ o: eHec'!"o# <h"ch $ho'(. ha9e ro.'ceD.E !he cr"6e o: Ho6"c".e a$ a co#$eF'e#ce 7'! #e9er!he(e$$ .". #o! ro.'ce "! 7) rea$o# o: ca'$e$ "#.e e#.e#! o: !he"r <"((, !ha! "$ 7) !"6e() a#. a7(e 6e."ca( a!!e#.a#ce re#.ere. !o $a". Mar(o# AraF'e ) Da#"e( <h"ch re9e#!e. h"$ .ea!h. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) CONTRAR4 TO LA8. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) U o# arra"3#6e#!, acc'$e. A3a "!o L"$!er"o ) +ra.o a#. Sa6$o# .e(a Torre ) E$F'e(a (ea.e. #o! 3'"(!) !o !he cr"6e$ char3e.. The"r o!her co-acc'$e. ha9e re6a"#e. a! (ar3e. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) Tr"a( !herea:!er e#$'e. a:!er <h"ch !he co'r! a quo re#.ere. M'.36e#! o#() a3a"#$! acc'$e. A3a "!o L"$!er"o 7eca'$e h"$ co-acc'$e. Sa6$o# .e(a Torre e$ca e. .'r"#3 !he re$e#!a!"o# o: !he ro$ec'!"o#$ e9".e#ce a#. he <a$ #o! !r"e. in absentia. The ."$ o$"!"9e or!"o# o: !he .ec"$"o#D* rea.$0 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) 8HERE,ORE, :"#."#3 Acc'$e. AGA+ITO LISTERIO 3'"(!) 7e)o#. rea$o#a7(e .o'7!, he "$ $e#!e#ce.0 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) 1. ,or !he .ea!h o: &eo#"!o AraF'e ) Da#"e( "# Cr"6"#a( Ca$e NO. 91-52%2, REC !"#$% PERPE&!A'cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) 2. ,or !he a!!e6 ! !o G"(( Mar(o# AraF'e ) Da#"e(, "# Cr"6"#a( Ca$e No. 91-52%*, he "$ $e#!e#ce. !o $"H >5? 6o#!h$ a#. o#e >1? .a) a$ 6"#"6'6, !o :o'r >%? )ear$ a$ 6aH"6'6J cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) *. A$ c"9"( "#.e6#"!), he "$ or.ere. !o "#.e6#":) !he he"r$ o: &eo#"!o AraF'e ) Da#"e( !he $'6D$E o: 0 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) +5%,200.55 a$ ac!'a( .a6a3e$J cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) +50,000.00 a$ 6ora( .a6a3e$J cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) +5,000.00 a$ eHe6 (ar) .a6a3e$. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) %. A#. :or !he .a6a3e$ $'$!a"#e. 7) Mar(o# AraF'e ) Da#"e(, he "$ reF'"re. !o a) Mar(o# AraF'e ) Da#"e(, !he $'6D$E o: 0 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) +5,000.00 a$ ac!'a( .a6a3e$J cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) +5,000.00 a$ 6ora( .a6a3e$J a#. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) +5,000.00 a$ eHe6 (ar) .a6a3e$ cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) SO ORDERED.D% cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar)

001

D"$$a!"$:"e., acc'$e. A3a "!o L"$!er"o "#!er o$e. !h"$ a ea( a((e3"#3 !ha! I cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) THE +ROSECUTION E1IDENCE ,AILED TO ESTA/LISH THE GUILT O, THE ACCUSED /E4OND REASONA/LE DOU/T. II cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) THE COURT CON1ICTED THE ACCUSED O, THE CRIME O, MURDER AND ATTEM+TED HOMICIDE DES+ITE A/SENCE O, +ROO, O, CONS+IRAC4 AND AGGRA1ATING CIRCUMSTANCE O, TREACHER4. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) The 9er$"o# o: !he ro$ec'!"o# o: <ha! !ra#$ "re. o# !ha! :a!e:'( .a) o: A'3'$! 1%, 1991 c'((e. :ro6 !he e)e<"!#e$$ acco'#! o: Mar(o# AraF'e ."$c(o$e$ !ha! a! aro'#. 5000 .6. o: A'3'$! 1%, 1991, he a#. h"$ 7ro!her &eo#"!o <ere "# Puro( %, A(a7a#3, M'#!"#(' a !o co((ec! a $'6 o: 6o#e) :ro6 a cer!a"# T"#o.D5 Ha9"#3 :a"(e. !o co((ec! a#)!h"#3 :ro6 T"#o, Mar(o# a#. &eo#"!o !he# !'r#e. 7acG.D5 O# !he"r <a) 7acG <h"(e !he) <ere a$$"#3 Tra6o #ear T"#o$ (ace, D7 a 3ro' co6 o$e. o: A3a "!o L"$!er"o, Sa6$o# .e(a Torre, Geor3e .e(a Torre, Mar(o# .e(a Torre a#. /o#":ac"o /a#ca)a D2 7(ocGe. !he"r a!hD9 a#. a!!acGe. !he6 <"!h (ea. " e$ a#. 7(a.e. <ea o#$.D10 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A3a "!o L"$!er"o, Mar(o# .e(a Torre a#. Geor3e .e(a Torre, <ho <ere ar6e. <"!h 7(a.e. <ea o#$, $!a77e. &eo#"!o AraF'e :ro6 7eh"#..D11 &eo#"!o $'$!a"#e. !hree >*? $!a7 <o'#.$ o# !he ' er r"3h! or!"o# o: h"$ 7acG, a#o!her o# !he (o<er r"3h! or!"o# a#. !he !h"r. o# !he 6"..(e or!"o# o: !he (e:! $".e o: h"$ 7acGD12 ca'$"#3 h"6 !o :a(( .o<#.D1* Mar(o# AraF'e <a$ h"! o# !he hea. 7) Sa6$o# .e(a Torre a#. /o#":ac"o /a#ca)a <"!h (ea. " e$ a#. 6o6e#!ar"() (o$! co#$c"o'$#e$$. D1% 8he# he re3a"#e. h"$ $e#$e$ !hree >*? 6"#'!e$ (a!er, he $a< !ha! &eo#"!o <a$ a(rea.) .ea.. D15 The"r a$$a"(a#!$ !he# :(e. a:!er !he "#c".e#!.D15 Mar(o# AraF'e <ho $'$!a"#e. "#M'r"e$ "# !he ar6 a#. 7acG, D17 <a$ !herea:!er 7ro'3h! !o a ho$ "!a( :or !rea!6e#!. D12 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) Mar(o# AraF'e <a$ eHa6"#e. 7) Dr. Sa(9a.or Ma#"6!"6, hea. o: !he Me."co Le3a( D"9"$"o# o: !he U+-+GH, D19 <ho !herea:!er "$$'e. a Me."ca( Cer!":"ca!e D20 "#."ca!"#3 !ha! Mar(o# AraF'e $'$!a"#e. !<o >2? (acera!e. <o'#.$, o#e 6ea$'r"#3 5 ce#!"6e!er$ "# (e#3!h (oca!e. "# !he ce#!er >6".- ar"e!a( area? o: !he ear.D21 The $eco#. (acera!e. <o'#. 6ea$'r"#3 2 ce#!"6e!er$ "# (e#3!h "$ (oca!e. a! !he 6".-:ro#!a( area co66o#() G#o<# a$ !he :orehea..D22 A !h"r. (acera!e. <o'#. 6ea$'r"#3 1.5 ce#!"6e!er$ (o#3 "$ (oca!e. a! !he :orear6D2* a#. a :o'r!h <h"ch "$ a $!a7 <o'#. 6ea$'r"#3 * ce#!"6e!er$ "$ (oca!e. a! !he r"3h! $ho'(.er a! !he co((ar. D2% E(a7ora!"#3 o# !he #a!'re o: Mar(o# AraF'e$ "#M'r"e$, Dr. Ma#"6!"6 eH (a"#e. "# .e!a"( .'r"#3 cro$$-eHa6"#a!"o# !ha! !he !<o >2? <o'#.$ o# !he :orear6 a#. !he $ho'(.er <ere ca'$e. 7) a $har o7Mec! ("Ge a G#":e <h"(e !he re$! <ere ca'$e. 7) a 7('#! "#$!r'6e#! $'ch a$ a (ea. " e. D25 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) Dr. /"e9e#".o M'#o=, N/I Me."co Le3a( O::"cer co#.'c!e. a# a'!o $) o# !he ca.a9er o: &eo#"!o AraF'eD25 a#. re are. a# A'!o $) Re or!D27 o: h"$ :"#."#3$. The re or! <h"ch co#!a"#$ a .e!a"(e. .e$cr" !"o# o: !he "#M'r"e$ "#:("c!e. o# !he 9"c!"6 $ho<$ !ha! !he .ecea$e. $'$!a"#e. !hree >*? $!a7 <o'#.$ a(( o: !he6 "#:("c!e. :ro6 7eh"#. 7) a $har , o"#!e. a#. $"#3(e-7(a.e. "#$!r'6e#! ("Ge a G"!che# G#":e, balison) or a#) $"6"(ar "#$!r'6e#!. D22 The :"r$! $!a7 <o'#., 6ea$'r"#3 1.7 ce#!"6e!er$ <"!h a# a roH"6a!e .e !h o: 11.0 ce#!"6e!er$, er:ora!e. !he (o<er (o7e o: !he (e:! ('#3 a#. !he !horac"c aor!a.D29 Co#$".er"#3 !he "#9o(9e6e#! o: a 9"!a( or3a# a#. a 6aMor 7(oo. 9e$$e(, !he <o'#. <a$ co#$".ere. :a!a(.D*0 The $eco#. <o'#., 6ea$'r"#3 2.% ce#!"6e!er$, a::ec!e. !he $G"# a#. '#.er()"#3 $o:! !"$$'e$ a#. .". #o! e#e!ra!e !he 7o.) ca9"!). D*1 The !h"r. <o'#. 6ea$'r"#3 2.7 ce#!"6e!er$ <a$ ("Ge !he $eco#. a#. "#9o(9e. o#() !he $o:! !"$$'e$. D*2 U#("Ge !he :"r$!, !he $eco#. a#. !h"r. <o'#.$ <ere #o#-:a!a(.D** Dr. M'#o= a9erre. !ha! o: !he !hree, !he :"r$! a#. $eco#. <o'#.$ <ere "#:("c!e. 7) G#":e !hr'$!$ .e("9ere. $!ar!"#3 7e(o< 3o"#3 ' <ar. 7) a$$a"(a#!$ <ho <ere $!a#."#3 7eh"#. !he 9"c!"6.D*% cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) O# !he o!her ha#., acc'$e.-a e((a#!$ 9er$"o# o: !he "#c".e#! "$ $'66e. !h'$ "# h"$ 7r"e:0 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) 1. Acc'$e.-a e((a#! "$ *9 )ear$ o(., 6arr"e., $".e <a(G 9e#.or a#. a re$".e#! o: +'roG %, /a)a#a#, M'#!"#(' a, Me!ro Ma#"(a. He ear#$ a ("9"#3 7) $e(("#3 9e3e!a7(e$.D*5 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) 2. A! aro'#. 1000 oc(ocG "# !he a:!er#oo# o: A'3'$! 1%, 1991, Acc'$e.-A e((a#! <a$ "# !he $!ore o: N"6:a A3'$!"# ha9"#3 a ("!!(e :'# <"!h E.3ar De6o(a.or a#. A#.re$ G"#"#ao .r"#G"#3 7eer. A! aro'#. 2000 oc(ocG Acc'$e.-a e((a#! <e#! !o h"$ ho'$e a#. $(e !. D*5 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) *. 8h"(e a$(ee , a! a7o'! 5 oc(ocG, E.3ar Re6o(a.or a#. A#.re$ G"#"#ao <oGe h"6 ' a#. !o(. h"6 !here <a$ a F'arre( #ear !he ra"(roa. !racG.D*7 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) %. A! aro'#. 5000 oc(ocG !<o >2? o("ce6e# a$$e. 7) 3o"#3 !o !he ho'$e o: Sa6$o# .e (a Torre <h"(e Acc'$e.-a e((a#! <a$ cha!!"#3 <"!h E.3ar Re6o(a.or a#. A#.re$ G"#"#ao. The$e !<o >2? o("ce6e# !o3e!her <"!h co-acc'$e. Sa6$o# .e (a Torre ca6e 7acG a#. "#9"!e. Acc'$e.-a e((a#!

0%/

:or F'e$!"o#"#3 a! !he M'#!"#(' a +o("ce Hea.F'ar!er$ !o3e!her <"!h E.3ar De6o(a.or a#. A#.re$ G"#"#ao. S'7$eF'e#!(), E.3ar De6o(a.or a#. A#.re$ G"#"#ao <ere $e#! ho6e. D*2 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) 5. A! !he +o("ce S!a!"o#, Acc'$e.-A e((a#! <a$ ha#.e. a S"#'6 aa#3 Sa(a)$a) eHec'!e. 7) Mar(o# AraF'e, "6 ("ca!"#3 h"6 :or !he .ea!h o: &eo#"!o AraF'e a#. !he :r'$!ra!e. 6'r.er o: Mar(o# AraF'e. Acc'$e.-A e((a#! co#:ro#!e. Mar(o# AraF'e a$ !o <h) he <a$ 7e"#3 "#c('.e. "# !he ca$e. Mar(o# AraF'e a#$<ere. 7eca'$e )o' eMec!De.E '$ :ro6 )o'r ho'$e. D*9 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) +ro:e$$"#3 h"$ "##oce#ce, acc'$e.-a e((a#! c(a"6$ !ha! Mar(o# AraF'e$ '#corro7ora!e. !e$!"6o#) :a"(e. !o c(ear() a#. o$"!"9e() ".e#!":) h"6 a$ !he 6a(e:ac!or re$ o#$"7(e :or h"$ 7ro!her$ .ea!h. I# :"#e, he "#$"$!$ !ha! Mar(o#$ !e$!"6o#) "$ "#$'::"c"e#! !o co#9"c! h"6 o: !he cr"6e$ char3e.. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) 8e ."$a3ree. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) I! "$ <e(( $e!!(e. !ha! <"!#e$$e$ are !o 7e <e"3he., #o! #'67ere., $'ch !ha! !he !e$!"6o#) o: a $"#3(e, !r'$!<or!h) a#. cre."7(e <"!#e$$ co'(. 7e $'::"c"e#! !o co#9"c! a# acc'$e.. D%0 More eH ("c"!(), !he <e(( e#!re#che. r'(e "$ !ha! !he !e$!"6o#) o: a (o#e e)e<"!#e$$, ": :o'#. o$"!"9e a#. cre."7(e 7) !he !r"a( co'r! "$ $'::"c"e#! !o $' or! a co#9"c!"o# e$ ec"a(() <he# !he !e$!"6o#) 7ear$ !he ear6arG$ o: !r'!h a#. $"#cer"!) a#. ha. 7ee# .e("9ere. $ o#!a#eo'$(), #a!'ra(() a#. "# a $!ra"3h!:or<ar. 6a##er. I! ha$ 7ee# he(. !ha! <"!#e$$e$ are !o 7e <e"3he. #o! #'67ere.J he#ce, "! "$ #o! a! a(( '#co66o# !o reach a co#c('$"o# o: 3'"(! o# !he 7a$"$ o: !he !e$!"6o#) o: a $"#3(e <"!#e$$. D%1 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) The !r"a( co'r! :o'#. Mar(o# AraF'e$ 9er$"o# o: <ha! !ra#$ "re. ca#.". a#. $!ra"3h!:or<ar.. 8e .e:er !o !he (o<er co'r!$ :"#."#3$ o# !h"$ o"#! co#$"$!e#! <"!h !he o:!-re ea!e. ro#o'#ce6e#! !ha!0 !he !r"a( M'.3e "$ !he 7e$! a#. !he 6o$! co6 e!e#! er$o# <ho ca# <e"3h a#. e9a('a!e !he !e$!"6o#) o: <"!#e$$e$. H"$ :"r$!ha#. (ooG a! !he .ec(ara#!$ .e6ea#or, co#.'c! a#. a!!"!'.e a! !he !r"a( (ace$ h"6 "# a ec'("ar o$"!"o# !o ."$cr"6"#a!e 7e!<ee# !he !r'e a#. !he :a($e. Co#$eF'e#!() a e((a!e co'r!$ <"(( #o! ."$!'r7 !he !r"a( co'r!$ :"#."#3$ $a9e o#() "# ca$e$ <here ar7"!rar"#e$$ ha$ $e! "# a#. ."$re3ar. :or !he :ac!$ "6 or!a#! !o !he ca$e ha9e 7ee# o9er(ooGe..D%2 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) The acco'#! o: Mar(o# AraF'e a$ !o ho< !he) <ere a$$a'(!e. 7) !he 3ro' o: acc'$e.-a e((a#! <a$ 3"9e# "# a ca!e3or"ca(, co#9"#c"#3 a#. $!ra"3h!:or<ar. 6a##er0 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Mr. 8"!#e$$, .o )o' G#o< a cer!a"# &eo#"!o AraF'e ) Da#"e(L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 4e$, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ A#. <h) .o )o' G#o< h"6L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A He "$ 6) 7ro!her. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8here "$ &eo#"!o AraF'e #o<L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A He "$ a(rea.) .ea.. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8he# .". he ."eL cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A La$! A'3'$! 1%. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Do )o' G#o< o: )o'r o<# G#o<(e.3e ho< he ."e.L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 4e$, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8"(( )o' (ea$e "#:or6 !he Ho#ora7(e Co'r! <ha! "$ )o'r o<# G#o<(e.3eL cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A He <a$ $!a77e., $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Do )o' G#o< !he er$o# or er$o#$ <ho $!a77e. h"6L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 4e$, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8"(( )o' (ea$e "#:or6 !he Ho#ora7(e Co'r! <ho are !he$e er$o# or er$o#$, ": )o' G#o<L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A I!$ >sic? A3a "!o L"$!er"o, Sa6$o# .e(a Torre, Geor3e .e(a Torre, Mar(o# .e(a Torre a#. /o#":ac"o. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ No< ": !he$e er$o#$ DareE "#$".e !he co'r!roo6, co'(. )o' ".e#!":) !he6L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A The) >sic? are o#() !<o er$o#$ 7'! !he !hree er$o#$ "$ > sic? #o! aro'#.. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Co'(. )o' (ea$e o"#! !o !h"$ Ho#ora7(e Co'r! <ho are !he$e !<o er$o#$ "# $".e !he co'r!roo6L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 4e$, $"r >8"!#e$$ o"#!"#3 !o a er$o#$ D sicE a#. <he# a$Ge. D".e#!":"e. !he6$e(9e$ a$E A3a "!o L"$!er"o a#. Sa6$o# .e(a Torre.? cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar)

0%0

@ No<, a! aro'#. 5000 oc(ocG "# !he a:!er#oo# o: A'3'$! 1%, 1991, .o )o' reca(( <here <ere )o'L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 4e$, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8"(( )o' (ea$e "#:or6 !he Ho#ora7(e Co'r! <here <ere )o' a! !ha! !"6eL cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A I6 "# A(a7a#3 a! +'roG % a#. I6 co((ec!"#3. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Do )o' ha9e a#) co6 a#"o# a! !ha! !"6eL cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 4e$, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8ha! are )o' .o"#3 a! !ha! !"6e "# D!ha!E ar!"c'(ar .a!eL cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A I6 co((ec!"#3 :ro6 a cer!a"# T"#o. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8ere )o' a7(e !o co((ec!L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A No, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ I: )o' $a". !ha! !here <ere #o co((ec!"o#$, <ha! .". )o' .oL cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 8e <e#! 7acG. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8he# )o' <e#! 7acG, .". )o' ha9e a#) co6 a#"o#L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 4e$, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8ho <a$ )o'r co6 a#"o#L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A M) 7ro!her. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8h"(e )o' <ere 3o"#3 7acG, <a$ !here a#) '#!o<ar. "#c".e#!$ !ha! ha e#e.L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 4e$ $"r *inaran) po (a+i.cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ No<, <ha! ar!"c'(ar (ace D<hereE )o' <ere <a)(a"., ": )o' reca((L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A I# Tra6o, #ear T"#o$ (ace. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ A#. <ho <ere !he er$o#$ !ha! <ere <a)(a". >sic?L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A A3a "!o L"$!er"o, Sa6$o# .e(a Torre, Geor3e .e(a Torre a#. /o#":ac"o. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8"(( )o' (ea$e "#:or6 !he Ho#ora7(e Co'r! ho< <"(( > sic? )o' <a)(a". 7) !he$e er$o#$L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 8e <ere <a(G"#3 !he# $'..e#() !he) $!a77e. '$ <"!h G#":e > sic? a#. ra# a:!er<ar.$. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8ho <ere !he er$o#$ !ha! <a)(a". )o'L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A A3a "!o L"$!er"o, Geor3e a#. Mar(o#. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Ho< a7o'! )o'r 7ro!her, <ha! ha e#e. !o h"6L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A He :a(( >sic? .o<#. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ A#. a:!er he :a(( >sic? .o<#, .o )o' G#o< <ha! ha e#e.L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A I <a$ h"! 7) a (ea. " e !ha!$ <h) I a"#!e. >sic?. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Do )o' G#o< !he rea$o# <h) )o'r 7ro!her :a(( >sic? .o<#L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A I ca##o! reca((, $"r. /eca'$e I a(rea.) a"#!e. >sic?. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Do )o' G#o< !he rea$o# <h) )o'r 7ro!her :a(( > sic? 7e:ore )o' a"#!e. >sic?L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 4e$, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8"(( )o' (ea$e "#:or6 !he Ho#ora7(e Co'r! <h) )o'r 7ro!her :a(( >sic? .o<#L HHH HHH HHH cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 4e$, $"r, 7eca'$e he <a$ $!a77e.. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8ha! ar!"c'(ar (ace o: h"$ 7o.) <a$ DheE $!a77e. ": )o' G#o<L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A A! !he 7acG o: h"$ 7o.). cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Do )o' G#o< !he er$o# or er$o#$ <ho <a$ >sic? $!a77e. h"6L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 4e$, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8"(( )o' (ea$e "#:or6 !he Ho#ora7(e Co'r! <ho <a$ !ha! er$o#$ <a$ $!a77e. h"6L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A A3a "!o, Mar(o# a#. Geor3e. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) COURT cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) Ho< 6a#) $!a77e. Dh"6E, ": )o' G#o<L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A Three >*?, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) COURT cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) I# <ha! ar!"c'(ar ar! o: h"$ 7o.) <a$ $!a77e. <o'#. >sic?L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 8"!#e$$ o"#!"#3 !o h"$ 7acG ' er r"3h! or!"o# o: !he 7acG, a#o!her o# !he (o<er r"3h! or!"o# a#. a#o!her o# !he 6"..(e or!"o# o: !he (e:! $".e a! !he 7acG. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar)

0%%

COURT cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) +rocee.. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8"(( )o' (ea$e "#:or6 !he Ho#ora7(e Co'r! <h) )o' are > sic? (o$! co#$c"o'$#e$$L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A I <a$ h"! 7) DaE (ea. " e 7) Sa6$o# a#. /o#":ac"o. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ A#. <he# .". )o' re3a"# co#$c"o'$#e$$L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A A:!er !hree 6"#'!e$. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ A#. <he# )o' 3a"#De.E co#$c"o'$#e$$, <ha! ha e#e. !o )o'r 7ro!herL cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A He <a$ a(rea.) .ea.. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Ho< a7o'! )o', <ha! .". )o' .oL cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A I 3o >sic? !o !he Ho$ "!a(. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Ho< a7o'! !he acc'$e., !he er$o#$ <ho <a) (a"., <ha! ha e#e. !o !he6L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A ,ro6 <ha! I G#o<, !he) ra# a<a).D%* cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) +er$"$!e#! e::or!$ 7) .e:e#$e co'#$e( !o e$!a7("$h !ha! !he a!!acG <a$ ro9oGe., 7) e("c"!"#3 :ro6 Mar(o# AraF'e a# a.6"$$"o# !ha! he a#. !he .ecea$e. ha. a .r"#G"#3 $ ree <"!h !he"r a!!acGer$ r"or !o !he "#c".e#!, ro9e. :'!"(e a$ Mar(o# $!ea.:a$!() 6a"#!a"#e. o# cro$$ eHa6"#a!"o# !ha! he a#. h"$ 7ro!her #e9er .ra#G ("F'or o# !ha! :a!e:'( .a)0 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ A:!er )o'r <orG, <a$ !here a# occa$"o# <he# )o' .r"#G $o6e!h"#3 <"!h )o'r 7or!her > sic?L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A No, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ A#. )o' $!a#. !o )o'r !e$!"6o#) !ha! )o' #e9er .r"#G > sic? o# A'3'$! 1%, 1991L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 4e$, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ 8ere >sic? !here #o occa$"o# o# A'3'$! 1%, 1991 <he# )o' 9"$"!e. So##) Sar"-Sar" S!ore a! %000 .6. o# A'3'$! 1%, 1991L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A No, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ A#. .". )o' #o! ha9e a .r"#G"#3 $ ree <"!h Geor3e .e(a TorreL cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A No, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Mar(o# .e(a TorreL cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A No, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ /o#":ac"oL cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 8"!h )o'r 7or!her >sic?L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ So )o' <a#! !o !e(( !h"$ Ho#ora7(e Co'r! !ha! !here <a$ #o o"#! "# !"6e o# A'3'$! 1%, 1991 a! %000 .6. !ha! )o' .". #o! !aGe a $" o: <"#eL cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A No, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Ne"!her )o'r 7ro!herL cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A!!). A3oo! cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) O7Mec!"o#, 4o'r Ho#or, !he F'e$!"o# "$ 9a3'e. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) COURT cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A$G a#o!her F'e$!"o#. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Mr. 8"!#e$$, <"(( )o' (ea$e !e(( !he Ho#ora7(e Co'r! <here !h"$ Geor3e .e(a Torre, Mar(o# .e(a Torre a#. a cer!a"# /o#":ac"o <ereL cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A!!). A3oo! cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) 8"!#e$$ "$ "#co6 e!e#!. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) @ Mr. 8"!#e$$, )o' !e$!":"e. !ha! "! <a$ )o'r 7ro!her !he .ecea$e. <ho "#9"!e. )o' !o +'roG %L cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A 4e$, $"r. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A!!). L'6aGa#3 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) Tha! <"(( 7e a(( :or !he <"!#e$$, )o'r Ho#or.D%% cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) Tha! Mar(o# <a$ a7(e !o reco3#"=e !he a$$a"(a#!$ ca# har.() 7e .o'7!e. 7eca'$e re(a!"9e$ o: !he 9"c!"6 ha9e a #a!'ra( G#acG :or re6e67er"#3 !he :ace$ o: !he a!!acGer$ a#. !he), 6ore !ha# a#)7o.) e($e, <o'(. 7e co#cer#e. <"!h o7!a"#"#3 M'$!"ce :or !he 9"c!"6 7) !he :e(o#$ 7e"#3 7ro'3h! !o !he :ace o: !he (a<.D%5 I#.ee., :a6"() 6e67er$ <ho ha9e <"!#e$$e. !he G"(("#3 o: a (o9e. o#e '$'a(() $!r"9e !o re6e67er !he :ace$ o: !he a$$a"(a#!$. D%5 Mar(o#$ cre."7"("!) ca##o! 7e .o'7!e. "# !h"$ ca$e 7eca'$e a$ a 9"c!"6 h"6$e(: a#. a# e)e<"!#e$$ !o !he "#c".e#!, "! ca# 7e c(ear() 3(ea#e. :ro6 !he :ore3o"#3

0%B

eHcer !$ o: h"$ !e$!"6o#) !ha! he re6e67ere. <"!h a h"3h .e3ree o: re("a7"("!) !he ".e#!"!) o: !he 6a(e:ac!or$.D%7 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) L"Ge<"$e, !here "$ #o $ho<"#3 !ha! he <a$ 6o!"9a!e. 7) a#) "((-:ee("#3 or 7a. 7(oo. !o :a($e() !e$!":) a3a"#$! acc'$e.-a e((a#!. /e"#3 a 9"c!"6 h"6$e(:, he "$ eH ec!e. !o $eeG M'$!"ce. I! "$ $e!!(e. !ha! ": !he acc'$e. ha. #o!h"#3 !o .o <"!h !he cr"6e, "! <o'(. 7e a3a"#$! !he #a!'ra( or.er o: e9e#!$ !o :a($e() "6 '!e char3e$ o: <ro#3.o"#3 ' o# h"6. D%2 Acc'$e.-a e((a#! ("Ge<"$e "#$"$!$ o# !he a7$e#ce o: co#$ "rac) a#. !reacher) "# !he a!!acG o# !he 9"c!"6$. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) 8e re6a"# '#co#9"#ce.. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) I! 6'$! 7e re6e67ere. !ha! ."rec! roo: o: co#$ "rac) "$ rare() :o'#. :or cr"6"#a($ .o #o! <r"!e .o<# !he"r (a<(e$$ (a#$ a#. (o!$. D%9 Co#$ "rac) 6a) 7e "#:erre. :ro6 !he ac!$ o: !he acc'$e. 7e:ore, .'r"#3 a#. a:!er !he co66"$$"o# o: !he cr"6e <h"ch "#.'7"!a7() o"#! !o a#. are "#."ca!"9e o: a Mo"#! 'r o$e, co#cer! o: ac!"o# a#. co66'#"!) o: "#!ere$!. D50 I#.ee. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A co#$ "rac) eH"$!$ <he# !<o or 6ore er$o#$ co6e !o a# a3ree6e#! co#cer#"#3 !he co66"$$"o# o: a :e(o#) a#. .ec".e !o co66"! "!. To e$!a7("$h !he eH"$!e#ce o: a co#$ "rac), ."rec! roo: "$ #o! e$$e#!"a( $"#ce "! 6a) 7e $ho<# 7) :ac!$ a#. c"rc'6$!a#ce$ :ro6 <h"ch 6a) 7e (o3"ca(() "#:erre. !he eH"$!e#ce o: a co66o# .e$"3# a6o#3 !he acc'$e. !o co66"! !he o::e#$e char3e., or "! 6a) 7e .e.'ce. :ro6 !he 6o.e a#. 6a##er "# <h"ch !he o::e#$e <a$ er e!ra!e.. D51 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) More eH ("c"!() cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) co#$ "rac) #ee. #o! 7e e$!a7("$he. 7) ."rec! e9".e#ce o: ac!$ char3e., 7'! 6a) a#. 3e#era(() 6'$! 7e ro9e. 7) a #'67er o: "#.e:"#"!e ac!$, co#."!"o#$ a#. c"rc'6$!a#ce$, <h"ch 9ar) accor."#3 !o !he 'r o$e acco6 ("$he.. +re9"o'$ a3ree6e#! !o co66"! a cr"6e "$ #o! e$$e#!"a( !o e$!a7("$h a co#$ "rac), "! 7e"#3 $'::"c"e#! !ha! !he co#."!"o# a!!e#."#3 !o "!$ co66"$$"o# a#. !he ac!$ eHec'!e. 6a) 7e "#."ca!"9e o: a co66o# .e$"3# !o acco6 ("$h a cr"6"#a( 'r o$e a#. o7Mec!"9e. I: !here "$ a cha"# o: c"rc'6$!a#ce$ !o !ha! e::ec!, co#$ "rac) ca# 7e e$!a7("$he..D52 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) Th'$, !he r'(e "$ !ha! co#$ "rac) 6'$! 7e $ho<# !o eH"$! 7) ."rec! or circu+stantial e9".e#ce, a$ c(ear() a#. co#9"#c"#3() a$ !he cr"6e "!$e(:.D5* I# !he a7$e#ce o: ."rec! roo: !hereo:, a$ "# !he re$e#! ca$e, "! 6a) 7e .e.'ce. :ro6 !he +ode, +et,od, and +anner 7) <h"ch !he o::e#$e <a$ er e!ra!e., or "#:erre. :ro6 !he ac!$ o: !he acc'$e. !he6$e(9e$ <he# $'ch ac!$ o"#! !o a -oint purpose and desi)n, concerted action and co++unit. of interest. D5% He#ce, "! "$ #ece$$ar) !ha! a co#$ "ra!or $ho'(. ha9e er:or6e. $o6e o9er! ac!$ a$ a ."rec! or "#."rec! co#!r"7'!"o# "# !he eHec'!"o# o: !he cr"6e (a##e. !o 7e co66"!!e.. The o9er! ac! 6a) co#$"$! o: ac!"9e ar!"c" a!"o# "# !he ac!'a( co66"$$"o# o: !he cr"6e "!$e(:, or it +a. consist of +oral assistance to ,is con-conspirators b. bein) present at t,e co++ission of t,e cri+e or 7) eHer!"#3 6ora( a$ce#.a#c) o9er !he o!her co-co#$ "ra!or$. D55 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) Co#$ "rac) !ra#$ce#.$ 6ere co6 a#"o#$h" , "! .e#o!e$ a# "#!e#!"o#a( ar!"c" a!"o# "# !he !ra#$ac!"o# <"!h a 9"e< !o !he :'r!hera#ce o: !he co66o# .e$"3# a#. 'r o$e. D55 Co#$ "rac) !o eH"$! .oe$ #o! reF'"re a# a3ree6e#! :or a# a rec"a7(e er"o. r"or !o !he occ'rre#ce. D57 ,ro6 !he (e3a( $!a#. o"#!, co#$ "rac) eH"$!$ ":, a! !he !"6e o: !he co66"$$"o# o: !he o::e#$e, !he acc'$e. ha. !he sa+e purpose a#. <ere united "# "!$ eHec'!"o#.D52 I# !h"$ ca$e, !he re$e#ce o: acc'$e.-a e((a#! a#. h"$ co((ea3'e$, a(( o: !he6 ar6e. <"!h .ea.() <ea o#$ a! !he locus cri+inis, "#.'7"!a7() $ho<$ !he"r cr"6"#a( .e$"3# !o G"(( !he 9"c!"6$. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) No<here "$ "! 6ore e9".e#! !ha# "# !h"$ ca$e <here acc'$e.-a e((a#! a#. h"$ cohor!$ 7(ocGe. !he a!h o: !he 9"c!"6$ a#. a$ a 3ro' a!!acGe. !he6 <"!h (ea. " e$ a#. 7(a.e. <ea o#$. Acc'$e.a e((a#! a#. h"$ co6 a#"o#$ ac!e. "# co#cer! .'r"#3 !he a$$a'(! o# !he 9"c!"6$. Each 6e67er o: !he 3ro' er:or6e. $ ec":"c a#. coor."#a!e. ac!$ a$ !o "#."ca!e 7e)o#. .o'7! a co66o# cr"6"#a( .e$"3# or 'r o$e.D59 Th'$, e9e# a$$'6"#3 ar)uendo !ha! !he ro$ec'!"o# e)e<"!#e$$ 6a) ha9e 7ee# '#c(ear a$ !o <ho .e("9ere. !he :a!a( 7(o< o# !he 9"c!"6, acc'$e.-a e((a#! a$ a co#$ "ra!or "$ eF'a(() ("a7(e :or !he cr"6e a$ "! "$ '##ece$$ar) !o .e!er6"#e <ho "#:("c!e. !he :a!a( <o'#. 7eca'$e "# co#$ "rac), !he ac! o: o#e "$ !he ac! o: a((.D50 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A$ !o !he F'a(":)"#3 c"rc'6$!a#ce$ here re$e#!, !he !reachero'$ 6a##er "# <h"ch acc'$e.-a e((a#! a#. h"$ 3ro' er e!ra!e. !he cr"6e "$ $ho<# #o! o#() 7) !he $'..e# a#. '#eH ec!e. a!!acG ' o# !he '#$'$ ec!"#3 a#. a are#!() '#ar6e. 9"c!"6$ 7'! a($o 7) !he .e("7era!e 6a##er "# <h"ch !he a$$a'(! <a$ er e!ra!e.. I# !h"$ ca$e, !he acc'$e.-a e((a#! a#. h"$ co6 a#"o#$, a(( o: !he6 ar6e. <"!h 7(a.e. <ea o#$ a#. (ea. " e$, 7(ocGe. >,inaran)? !he a!h o: !he 9"c!"6$ e::ec!"9e() c'!!"#3 o:: !he"r e$ca e.D51 I# !he e#$'"#3 a!!acG, !he .ecea$e. <a$ $!a77e. !hree >*? !"6e$ :ro6 7eh"#. 7) a $har , o"#!e. a#. $"#3(e-7(a.e. "#$!r'6e#! ("Ge a G"!che# G#":e, balison) or $"6"(ar "#$!r'6e#!D52 <h"(e Mar(o# AraF'e $'$!a"#e. (acera!e. <o'#.$ "# !he hea. ca'$e. 7) 7(o<$ "#:("c!e. 7) (ea. " e$ a$

0%.

<e(( a$ $!a7 <o'#.$ o# !he $ho'(.er a#. :orear6 <h"ch <ere ca'$e. 7) a $har o7Mec! ("Ge a G#":e. D5* cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) I! 6'$! 7e #o!e. "# !h"$ re3ar. !ha! !he 6a##er "# <h"ch !he $!a7 <o'#.$ <ere "#:("c!e. o# !he .ecea$e. <ere c(ear() 6ea#! !o G"(( <"!ho'! o$"#3 a#) .a#3er !o !he 6a(e:ac!or$ co#$".er"#3 !he"r (oca!"o#$ a#. !he :ac! !ha! !he) <ere ca'$e. 7) G#":e !hr'$!$ $!ar!"#3 7e(o< 3o"#3 ' <ar. 7) a$$a"(a#!$ <ho <ere $!a#."#3 7eh"#. !he 9"c!"6. D5% Treacher) "$ re$e#! <he# !he o::e#.er co66"!$ a#) o: !he cr"6e$ a3a"#$! er$o#$ e6 (o)"#3 6ea#$, 6e!ho.$ or :or6$ "# !he eHec'!"o# !hereo: <h"ch !e#. ."rec!() a#. $ ec"a(() !o "#$'re "!$ eHec'!"o#, <"!ho'! r"$G !o h"6$e(: ar"$"#3 :ro6 !he .e:e#$e <h"ch !he o::e#.e. ar!) 6"3h! 6aGe. D55 Tha! c"rc'6$!a#ce F'a(":"e$ !he cr"6e "#!o 6'r.er. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) The co66"$$"o# o: !he cr"6e <a$ a($o a!!e#.e. 7) a7'$e o: $' er"or $!re#3!h o# acco'#! o: !he :ac! !ha! acc'$e.-a e((a#! a#. h"$ co6 a#"o#$ <ere #o! o#() #'6er"ca(() $' er"or !o !he 9"c!"6$ 7'! a($o 7eca'$e a(( o: !he6, ar6e. <"!h 7(a.e. <ea o#$ a#. (ea. " e$, 'r o$e() '$e. :orce o'! o: ro or!"o# !o !he 6ea#$ o: .e:e#$e a9a"(a7(e !o !he er$o#$ a!!acGe.. Ho<e9er, !h"$ a33ra9a!"#3 c"rc'6$!a#ce "$ a(rea.) a7$or7e. "# !reacher). D55 ,'r!her6ore, a(!ho'3h a((e3e. "# !he "#:or6a!"o#, e9".e#! re6e."!a!"o# <a$ #o! ro9e. 7) !he ro$ec'!"o#. I# !he ("3h! o: !he :"#."#3 o: co#$ "rac), e9".e#! re6e."!a!"o# #ee. #o! 7e :'r!her a rec"a!e., a7$e#! co#cre!e roo: a$ !o ho< a#. <he# !he (a# !o G"(( <a$ ha!che. or <ha! !"6e ha. e(a $e. 7e:ore "! <a$ carr"e. o'!. D57 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) I# $!arG co#!ra$! !o !he e9".e#ce o"#!"#3 !o h"6 a$ o#e o: !he a$$a"(a#!$ o: !he 9"c!"6$, acc'$e.a e((a#! ro::er$ !he .e:e#$e o: a("7". A! !he r"$G o: $o'#."#3 !r"!e, "! 6'$! 7e re6e67ere. !ha! a("7" "$ 3e#era(() co#$".ere. <"!h $'$ "c"o# a#. a(<a)$ rece"9e. <"!h ca'!"o# 7eca'$e "! ca# 7e ea$"() :a7r"ca!e..D52 ,or a("7" !o $er9e a$ a 7a$"$ :or acF'"!!a(, !he acc'$e. 6'$! e$!a7("$h !ha!0 a.E he <a$ re$e#! a! a#o!her (ace a! !he !"6e o: !he er e!ra!"o# o: !he o::e#$eJ a#. 7.E "! <o'(. !h'$ 7e h)$"ca(() "6 o$$"7(e :or h"6 !o ha9e 7ee# a! !he $ce#e o: !he cr"6e. D59 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) S'::"ce "! !o $!a!e !ha! acc'$e.-a e((a#! :a"(e. !o ."$char3e !h"$ 7'r.e#. The o$"!"9e ".e#!":"ca!"o# o: !he acc'$e. a$ o#e o: !he er e!ra!or$ o: !he cr"6e 7) !he ro$ec'!"o# e)e<"!#e$$, a7$e#! a#) $ho<"#3 o: "((-6o!"9e, 6'$! re9a"( o9er !he <eaG a#. o79"o'$() :a7r"ca!e. a("7" o: acc'$e.-a e((a#!. D70 ,'r!her6ore, a$ a !() o"#!e. o'! 7) !he !r"a( co'r! D!Ehe (ace <here !he acc'$e. <a$ a! !he !"6e o: !he G"(("#3 "$ o#() 100 6e!er$ a<a). The ."$!a#ce o: h"$ ho'$e !o !he (ace o: !he "#c".e#! 6aGe$ h"6 h)$"ca(() o$$"7(e !o 7e a ar!"c" a#! "# !he G"(("#3 Do: &eo#"!oE a#. D!heE <o'#."#3 o: Mar(o#. D71 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A(( !o(., a# o9era(( $cr'!"#) o: !he recor.$ o: !h"$ ca$e (ea.$ '$ !o #o o!her co#c('$"o# !ha# !ha! acc'$e.-a e((a#! "$ 3'"(!) a$ char3e. :or M'r.er "# Cr"6"#a( Ca$e No. 91-52%2. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) I# Cr"6"#a( Ca$e No. 91-52%*, <here"# acc'$e.-a e((a#! <a$ "#."c!e. :or ,r'$!ra!e. Ho6"c".e, !he !r"a( co'r! co#9"c!e. acc'$e.-a e((a#! o: A!!e6 !e. Ho6"c".e o#() o# !he 7a$"$ o: Dr. Ma#"6!"6$ !e$!"6o#) !ha! #o#e o: !he <o'#.$ $'$!a"#e. 7) Mar(o# AraF'e <ere :a!a(. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) The rea$o#"#3 o: !he (o<er co'r! o# !h"$ o"#! "$ :(a<e. 7eca'$e "! "$ #o! !he 3ra9"!) o: !he <o'#.$ "#:("c!e. <h"ch .e!er6"#e$ <he!her a :e(o#) "$ a!!e6 !e. or :r'$!ra!e. 7'! /,et,er or not t,e sub-ective p,ase in t,e co++ission of an offense ,as been passed. /) $'7Mec!"9e ha$e "$ 6ea#! D!Eha! or!"o# o: !he ac!$ co#$!"!'!"#3 !he cr"6e "#c('.e. 7e!<ee# !he ac! <h"ch 7e3"#$ !he co66"$$"o# o: !he cr"6e a#. !he (a$! ac! er:or6e. 7) !he o::e#.er <h"ch, <"!h !he r"or ac!$, $ho'(. re$'(! "# !he co#$'66a!e. cr"6e. ,ro6 !ha! !"6e :or<ar., !he ha$e "$ o7Mec!"9e. I! 6a) a($o 7e $a". !o 7e !ha! er"o. occ' "e. 7) !he ac!$ o: !he o::e#.er o9er <h"ch he ha$ co#!ro( !ha! er"o. 7e!<ee# !he o"#! <here he 7e3"#$ a#. !he o"#! <here he voluntaril. desists. I: bet/een t,ese t/o points !he o::e#.er "$ $!o e. 7) rea$o# o: a#) ca'$e o'!$".e o: h"$ o<# 9o('#!ar) .e$"$!a#ce, !he $'7Mec!"9e ha$e ha$ #o! 7ee# a$$e. a#. "! "$ a# a!!e6 !. I: he "$ #o! $o $!o e. 7'! co#!"#'e$ '#!"( he er:or6$ !he (a$! ac!, "! "$ :r'$!ra!e..D72 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) I! 6'$! 7e re6e67ere. !ha! a :e(o#) "$ :r'$!ra!e. <he#0 1.E !he o::e#.er ha$ er:or6e. a(( !he ac!$ o: eHec'!"o# <h"ch <o'(. ro.'ce !he :e(o#)J 2.E !he :e(o#) "$ #o! ro.'ce. .'e !o ca'$e$ "#.e e#.e#! o: !he er e!ra!or$ <"((.D7* O# !he o!her ha#., "# a# a!!e6 !e. :e(o#)0 1.E !he o::e#.er co66"!$ o9er! ac!$ !o co66e#ce !he er e!ra!"o# o: !he cr"6eJ 2.E he "$ #o! a7(e !o er:or6 a(( !he ac!$ o: eHec'!"o# <h"ch $ho'(. ro.'ce !he :e(o#)J a#. *.E h"$ :a"('re !o er:or6 a(( !he ac!$ o: eHec'!"o# <a$ .'e !o $o6e ca'$e or acc".e#! o!her !ha# h"$ $ o#!a#eo'$ .e$"$!a#ce. D7% The ."$!"#c!"o# 7e!<ee# a#

0%E

a!!e6 !e. a#. :r'$!ra!e. :e(o#) <a$ ('c".() ."::ere#!"a!e. !h'$ "# !he (ea."#3 ca$e o: !.". v. Eduave:D75 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A cr"6e ca##o! 7e he(. !o 7e a!!e6 !e. '#(e$$ !he o::e#.er, a:!er be)innin) !he co66"$$"o# o: !he cr"6e 7) o9er! ac!$, "$ re9e#!e., a3a"#$! h"$ <"((, 7) $o6e o'!$".e ca'$e :ro6 er:or6"#3 a(( o: !he ac!$ <h"ch $ho'(. ro.'ce !he cr"6e. I# o!her <or.$, !o 7e a# a!!e6 !e. cr"6e !he 'r o$e o: !he o::e#.er 6'$! 7e !h<ar!e. 7) a :ore"3# :orce or a3e#c) <h"ch "#!er9e#e$ a#. co6 e($ h"6 !o $!o r"or !o !he 6o6e#! <he# he ha$ er:or6e. a(( o: !he ac!$ <h"ch $ho'(. ro.'ce !he cr"6e a$ a co#$eF'e#ce, <h"ch ac!$ "! "$ h"$ "#!e#!"o# !o er:or6. I: he ha$ er:or6e. all !he ac!$ <h"ch $ho'(. re$'(! "# !he co#$'66a!"o# o: !he cr"6e a#. voluntaril. .e$"$!$ :ro6 rocee."#3 :'r!her, "! ca##o! 7e a# a!!e6 !. The e$$e#!"a( e(e6e#! <h"ch ."$!"#3'"$he$ a!!e6 !e. :ro6 :r'$!ra!e. :e(o#) "$ !ha!, "# !he (a!!er, !here "$ #o "#!er9e#!"o# o: a :ore"3# or eH!ra#eo'$ ca'$e or a3e#c) 7e!<ee# !he 7e3"##"#3 o: !he co66"$$"o# o: cr"6e a#. !he 6o6e#! <he# a(( !he ac!$ ha9e 7ee# er:or6e. <h"ch $ho'(. re$'(! "# !he co#$'66a!e. cr"6eJ <h"(e "# !he :or6er !here "$ $'ch "#!er9e#!"o# a#. !he o::e#.er .oe$ #o! arr"9e a! !he o"#! o: er:or6"#3 all o: !he ac!$ <h"ch $ho'(. ro.'ce !he cr"6e. He "$ $!o e. $hor! o: !ha! o"#! 7) $o6e ca'$e a ar! :ro6 h"$ 9o('#!ar) .e$"$!a#ce. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) To '! "! a#o!her <a), "# ca$e o: a# a!!e6 ! !he o::e#.er #e9er a$$e$ !he $'7Mec!"9e ha$e o: !he o::e#$e. He "$ "#!err' !e. a#. co6 e((e. !o .e$"$! 7) !he "#!er9e#!"o# o: o'!$".e ca'$e$ 7e:ore !he $'7Mec!"9e ha$e "$ a$$e.. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) O# !he o!her ha#., "# ca$e o: :r'$!ra!e. cr"6e$, !he $'7Mec!"9e ha$e "$ co6 (e!e() a$$e.. S'7Mec!"9e() !he cr"6e "$ co6 (e!e. No!h"#3 "#!err' !e. !he o::e#.er <h"(e he <a$ a$$"#3 !hro'3h !he $'7Mec!"9e ha$e. The cr"6e, ho<e9er, "$ #o! co#$'66a!e. 7) rea$o# o: !he "#!er9e#!"o# o: ca'$e$ "#.e e#.e#! o: !he <"(( o: !he o::e#.er. He .". a(( !ha! <a$ #ece$$ar) !o co66"! !he cr"6e. I: !he cr"6e .". #o! re$'(! a$ a co#$eF'e#ce "! <a$ .'e !o $o6e!h"#3 7e)o#. h"$ co#!ro(. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) I# re(a!"o# !o !he :ore3o"#3, "! 7ear$ $!re$$"#3 !ha! "#!e#! !o G"(( .e!er6"#e$ <he!her !he "#:("c!"o# o: "#M'r"e$ $ho'(. 7e '#"$he. a$ a!!e6 !e. or :r'$!ra!e. 6'r.er, ho6"c".e, arr"c".e or co#$'66a!e. h)$"ca( "#M'r"e$.D75 Ho6"c".a( "#!e#! 6'$! 7e e9".e#ce. 7) ac!$ <h"ch a! !he !"6e o: !he"r eHec'!"o# are '#6"$!aGa7() ca(c'(a!e. !o ro.'ce !he .ea!h o: !he 9"c!"6 7) a.eF'a!e 6ea#$. D77 S'::"ce "! !o $!a!e !ha! !he "#!e#! !o G"(( o: !he 6a(e:ac!or$ here"# <ho <ere ar6e. <"!h 7(a.e. <ea o#$ a#. (ea. " e$ ca# har.() 7e .o'7!e. 3"9e# !he re9a"("#3 :ac!$ o: !he ca$e. I! a($o ca# #o! 7e .e#"e. !ha! !he cr"6e "$ a :r'$!ra!e. :e(o#) #o! a# a!!e6 !e. o::e#$e co#$".er"#3 !ha! a:!er 7e"#3 $!a77e. a#. c('77e. !<"ce "# !he hea. a$ a re$'(! o: <h"ch he (o$! co#$c"o'$#e$$ a#. :e((, Mar(o#$ a!!acGer$ a are#!() !ho'3h! he <a$ a(rea.) .ea. a#. :(e.. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A# a ea( "# a cr"6"#a( ca$e !hro<$ !he <ho(e ca$e <".e o e# :or re9"e< D72 a#. !he re9"e<"#3 !r"7'#a( ca# correc! error$, !ho'3h '#a$$"3#e. "# !he a ea(e. M'.3e6e#! D79 or e9e# re9er$e !he !r"a( co'r!$ .ec"$"o# o# !he 7a$"$ o: 3ro'#.$ o!her !ha# !ho$e !ha! !he ar!"e$ ra"$e. a$ error$. D20 8"!h !he :ore3o"#3 "# 6"#., <e #o< a..re$$ !he F'e$!"o# o: !he ro er e#a(!"e$ !o 7e "6 o$e.. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) 8"!h re3ar. !o !he :r'$!ra!e. :e(o#), Ar!"c(e 250 o: !he Re9"$e. +e#a( Co.e ro9".e$ !ha! cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) ART. 250. Penalt. for frustrated parricide, +urder, or ,o+icide. The co'r!$, "# 9"e< o: !he :ac!$ o: !he ca$e, 6a) "6 o$e ' o# !he er$o# 3'"(!) o: !he :r'$!ra!e. cr"6e o: arr"c".e, 6'r.er or ho6"c".e, .e:"#e. a#. e#a("=e. "# !he rece."#3 ar!"c(e$, a e#a(!) (o<er 7) o#e .e3ree !ha# !ha! <h"ch $ho'(. 7e "6 o$e. '#.er !he ro9"$"o#$ o: ar!"c(e 50.D21 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) The co'r!$, co#$".er"#3 !he :ac!$ o: !he ca$e, 6a) ("Ge<"$e re.'ce 7) o#e .e3ree !he e#a(!) <h"ch '#.er ar!"c(e 51 $ho'(. 7e "6 o$e. :or a# a!!e6 ! !o co66"! a#) o: $'ch cr"6e$. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) The e#a(!) :or Ho6"c".e "$ reclusion te+poralD22 !h'$, !he e#a(!) o#e .e3ree (o<er <o'(. 7e prision +a.or.D2* 8"!h !he re$e#ce o: !he a33ra9a!"#3 c"rc'6$!a#ce o: a7'$e o: $' er"or $!re#3!h a#. #o 6"!"3a!"#3 c"rc'6$!a#ce$, !he e#a(!) "$ !o 7e "6 o$e. "# "!$ 6aH"6'6 er"o.. D2% Prision +a.or "# "!$ 6aH"6'6 er"o. ra#3e$ :ro6 !e# >10? )ear$ a#. o#e >1? .a) !o !<e(9e >12? )ear$. A ()"#3 :'r!her !he I#.e!er6"#a!e Se#!e#ce La<, D25 !he 6"#"6'6 o: !he "6 o$a7(e e#a(!) $ha(( 7e <"!h"# !he ra#3e o: !he e#a(!) #eH! (o<er "# .e3ree, ".e. prision correccional "# "!$ 6aH"6'6 er"o. <h"ch ha$ a ra#3e o: $"H >5? 6o#!h$ a#. o#e >1? .a) !o $"H >5? )ear$. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar)

0%F

8ha! #o< re6a"#$ !o 7e .e!er6"#e. "$ !he ro r"e!) o: !he a<ar.$ 6a.e 7) !he !r"a( co'r! <"!h re3ar. !o !he c"9"( a$ ec! o: !he ca$e :or !he .ea!h o: &eo#"!o AraF'e a#. !he "#M'r"e$ $'$!a"#e. 7) Mar(o# AraF'e. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A#e#! ac!'a( or co6 e#$a!or) .a6a3e$, "! 7ear$ $!re$$"#3 !ha! o#() $'7$!a#!"a!e. a#. ro9e# eH e#$e$ or !ho$e <h"ch a ear !o ha9e 7ee# 3e#'"#e() "#c'rre. "# co##ec!"o# <"!h !he .ea!h, <aGe or 7'r"a( o: !he 9"c!"6 <"(( 7e reco3#"=e. 7) !he co'r!$. D25 I# !h"$ ca$e, !he eH e#$e$ "#c'rre. :or !he <aGe, :'#era( a#. 7'r"a( o: !he .ecea$e. are $'7$!a#!"a!e. 7) rece" !$. D27 The !r"a( co'r!$ a<ar. :or ac!'a( .a6a3e$ :or !he .ea!h o: &eo#"!o AraF'e $ho'(. !here:ore 7e a::"r6e.. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) I# ("#e <"!h c'rre#! M'r"$ r'.e#ce,D22 !he a<ar. o: +50,000.00 a$ c"9"( "#.e6#"!) e0 delicto 6'$! a($o 7e $'$!a"#e. a$ "! reF'"re$ #o roo: o!her !ha# !he :ac! o: .ea!h o: !he 9"c!"6 a#. !he a$$a"(a#!$ re$ o#$"7"("!) !here:or.D29 The a<ar. :or 6ora( .a6a3e$ :or !he a"# a#. $orro< $'::ere. 7) !he 9"c!"6$ :a6"() "# co##ec!"o# <"!h h"$ '#!"6e() .ea!h 6'$! ("Ge<"$e 7e a::"r6e.. The a<ar. "$ a.eF'a!e, rea$o#a7(e a#. <"!h $'::"c"e#! 7a$"$ !aG"#3 "#!o co#$".era!"o# !he a#3'"$h a#. $'::er"#3 o: !he .ecea$e.$ :a6"() ar!"c'(ar() h"$ 6o!her <ho re("e. $o(e() ' o# h"6 :or $' or!. D90 The a<ar. o: eHe6 (ar) .a6a3e$ $ho'(. ("Ge<"$e 7e a::"r6e. co#$".er"#3 !ha! a# a33ra9a!"#3 c"rc'6$!a#ce a!!e#.e. !he co66"$$"o# o: !he cr"6e. D91 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) The !r"a( co'r!, ho<e9er, correc!() "3#ore. !he c(a"6 :or (o$$ o: "#co6e or ear#"#3 ca ac"!) o: !he .ecea$e. :or (acG o: :ac!'a( 7a$"$. The e$!"6a!e 3"9e# 7) !he .ecea$e.$ $"$!er o# h"$ a((e3e. "#co6e a$ a re-ca$! 7'$"#e$$6a# "$ #o! $' or!e. 7) co6 e!e#! e9".e#ce ("Ge "#co6e !aH re!'r#$ or rece" !$. I! 7ear$ e6 ha$"="#3 "# !h"$ re3ar. !ha! co6 e#$a!"o# :or (o$! "#co6e "$ "# !he #a!'re o: .a6a3e$ D92 a#. a$ $'ch reF'"re$ .'e roo: !hereo:. D9* I# $hor!, !here 6'$! 7e '#7"a$e. roo: o: !he .ecea$e.$ a9era3e "#co6e.D9% I# !h"$ ca$e, !he 9"c!"6$ $"$!er 6ere() 3a9e a# ora(, $e(:-$er9"#3 a#. he#ce '#re("a7(e $!a!e6e#! o: her .ecea$e. 7ro!her$ "#co6e. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A$ :or !he a<ar.$ 3"9e# !o Mar(o# AraF'e, !he a<ar. :or ac!'a( .a6a3e$ 6'$! 7e a::"r6e. a$ !he $a6e "$ $' or!e. 7) .oc'6e#!ar) e9".e#ce. D95 8"!h re3ar. !o 6ora( a#. eHe6 (ar) .a6a3e$, !he $a6e 7e"#3 ."$!"#c! :ro6 each o!her reF'"re $e ara!e .e!er6"#a!"o#. D95 The a<ar. :or 6ora( .a6a3e$ 6'$! 7e $!r'cG .o<# a$ !he 9"c!"6 h"6$e(: .". #o! !e$!":) a$ !o !he 6ora( $'::er"#3 he $'$!a"#e. a$ a re$'(! o: !he a$$a'(! o# h"$ er$o#. ,or (acG o: co6 e!e#! roo: $'ch a# a<ar. "$ "6 ro er.D97 The a<ar. :or eHe6 (ar) .a6a3e$ 6'$!, ho<e9er, 7e re!a"#e. co#$".er"#3 !ha! '#.er Ar!"c(e 22*0 o: !he C"9"( Co.e, $'ch .a6a3e$ 6a) 7e "6 o$e. <he# !he cr"6e "$ co66"!!e. <"!h o#e or 6ore a33ra9a!"#3 c"rc'6$!a#ce$.D92 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) ,"#a((), !h"$ Co'r! ha$ o7$er9e. !ha! !he !r"a( co'r! .". #o! re#.er M'.36e#! a3a"#$! acc'$e. Sa6$o# .e(a Torre, #o!<"!h$!a#."#3 !ha! he <a$ arra"3#e. a#. (ea.e. #o! 3'"(!) !o 7o!h char3e$. U#.er !he c"rc'6$!a#ce$, he $ho'(. 7e .ee6e. !o ha9e 7ee# !r"e. in absentia a#., co#$".er"#3 !he e9".e#ce re$e#!e. 7) !he ro$ec'!"o# a3a"#$! h"6, co#9"c!e. o: !he cr"6e char3e. !o3e!her <"!h a e((a#! A3a "!o L"$!er"o. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) 8HERE,ORE , !he a ea(e. .ec"$"o# "$ A,,IRMED <"!h !he :o((o<"#3 MODI,ICATIONS0 cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) 1.E !he a<ar. o: +5,000.00 !o Mar(o# AraF'e 7) <a) o: 6ora( .a6a3e$ "# Cr"6"#a( Ca$e No. 91-52%* "$ DELETEDJ cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) 2.E Acc'$e.-A e((a#! "$ :o'#. GUILT4 7e)o#. rea$o#a7(e .o'7! "# Cr"6"#a( Ca$e No. 91-52%* o: ,r'$!ra!e. Ho6"c".e a#. "$ $e#!e#ce. !o $'::er a# "#.e!er6"#a!e e#a(!) o: S"H >5? 4ear$ o: Prision Correccional, a$ 6"#"6'6 !o Te# >10? 4ear$ a#. O#e >1? Da) o: Prision Ma.or, a$ 6aH"6'6. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) A:!er :"#a("!) o: !h"$ Dec"$"o#, !he recor.$ $ha(( 7e re6a#.e. !o !he Re3"o#a( Tr"a( Co'r! o: MaGa!" C"!), <h"ch "$ ."rec!e. !o re#.er M'.36e#! 7a$e. o# !he e9".e#ce a3a"#$! Sa6$o# .e(a Torre ) E$F'e(a. cha#ro7(e$ 9"r!'a( (a< ("7rar) SO ORDERED.

0%&

G.R. No. 1%*%0% &'#e 02, 2005 +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, appellee, vs. &OSE /ULAN a#. ALLAN /ULAN, appellants. 8IC595!$ CALLE&O, SR., J.: This case was certified by the Court of Appeals @CAA to this Court for review, in view of its finding in its 8ecision0 that appellants >ose Dulan and his son, Allan Dulan, are guilty of murder as principals by indispensable cooperation punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, and not merely as accomplices as found by the *egional Trial Court @*TCA of Hirac, Catanduanes, Dranch .%. The Antecedents >ose Dulan and his sons, Allan and Istemson, were charged with murder in an 5nformation filed on !ctober 00, 011.. The accusatory portion of the 5nformation reads: That on or about the Fth day of >une 011. at Darangay 8atag, (unicipality of Caramoran, ,rovince of Catanduanes, ,hilippines, within the 4urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another for a common purpose, that is, to kill with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, >ose Dulan and Allan Dulan held both hands of Alberto (ariano to deprive him of any defense, while Istemson Dulan stabbed him from behind with a deadly weapon, hitting him twice at the back which resulted to his instantaneous death, to the damage and pre4udice of the victimQs heirs. That the offense is aggravated by flight and use of superior strength. A== ACT9 C!$T*A*G T! =AW.% >ose and Allan were duly arraigned on (arch F, 011E, and pleaded not guilty. B Istemson, on the other hand, remained at large. The Case for the ,rosecution The !ffice of the 9olicitor -eneral @!9-A based its summary of the facts of the case on the documentary and ob4ect evidence, on the testimony of prosecution witnesses 8r. *ico =are+a, 9,!% ,edro *oslin, (ariano =ope+, as well as ,erlita (ariano and ,ura (ariano, the surviving sister and mother of the deceased Alberto (ariano, respectively. 5ts version of the case is as follows: 0. !n the night of >une F, 011., a dance was taking place at the barangay pla+a of Darangay 8atag, (unicipality of Caramoran, Catanduanes. Alberto (ariano, a barangay tanod in said barangay was assigned the task of seeing to it that anybody who entered the gate to the dance hall at the pla+a must have a ribbon @pp. .-E, tsn, (ariano, >uly 00, 011E: pp. F-&, tsn, =ope+, >uly 0/, 011EA. %. Appellant Allan Dulan came to the dance and entered the gate without the re#uired ribbon. Alberto (ariano followed appellant Allan Dulan into the dance hall and asked him why he entered the gate without a ribbon. 5nstead of answering AlbertoQs #uestion, Allan bo3ed him on the head. Accused Istemson Dulan, AllanQs brother, who had entered the dance hall, likewise, bo3ed Alberto. Istemson then held Alberto, while Allan bo3ed the latter on the chest. ,erlita (ariano, AlbertoQs sister, who was present at the dance, embraced her brother as Allan and Istemson unceasingly pummeled him @pp. E-&, (ariano, >uly 00, 011E: pp. %%-%E, tsn, =ope+, >uly 0/, 011E: pp. E-F, 8ecisionA. B. The other barangay tanods present at the dance, Ceferino Ceballo and >uan Doribor, and a barangay 3aga#ad, 8ante Ireso, stopped Allan and Istemson from further beating Alberto. After being pacified by the barangay officials, Allan and Istemson left the dance hall. Alberto, on the other hand, went back to where he originally stood to resume his duty. 6is sister ,erlita stood beside him @p. &, tsn, (ariano, >uly 00, 011E: p. %F, tsn, =ope+, >uly 0/, 011EA. .. !ne Idwin 9olo, a policeman, suddenly came into the dance hall and dragged Alberto into the street 4ust outside the entrance. ,erlita embraced Alberto as he was dragged outside the barangay pla+a. Appellants >ose Dulan and Allan Dulan were waiting for Alberto and immediately held the latter by his shoulders. >ose held AlbertoQs right shoulder while Allan held his left shoulder. ,erlita was still embracing her brother but she was pulled away from him @pp. 2-1 and %E, tsn, (ariano, >uly 00, 011E: pp. %&-%2 and B0-BB, tsn, =ope+, >uly 0/, 011EA. E. Accused Istemson Dulan suddenly appeared behind Alberto and stabbed him twice in the back with a small bolo. ,erlita screamed for help. 6owever, despite the fact that there were people at the entrance gate, nobody came to help Alberto and ,erlita. After stabbing Alberto, Istemson immediately escaped, while >ose and Allan dragged the fatally wounded Alberto away from the barangay pla+a to the store of Halentin Talion, which was forty meters away from the scene of the stabbing. They dropped Alberto face down on the ground in front of HalentinQs store and then left, running towards the direction of RtheS barangay pla+a @pp. 0/-00, tsn, (ariano, >uly 00, 011E: pp. 02 and BB-B&, tsn, =ope+, >uly 0/, 011EA.

0%2

F. ,erlita, who followed >ose and Allan as they dragged her brother, kept on shouting for help but nobody came to help them. After >ose and Allan left, ,erlita returned to the barangay pla+a and sought help from her relatives who were at the dance. 9he, likewise, sought the help of the barangay officials present and informed them that Alberto was already dead @pp. 0%-0B, tsn, (ariano, >uly 00, 011EA. &. (inutes later, $elson *ubio, a policeman, went to the place where Alberto lay. When the policeman tried to lift Alberto, the small bolo which was used in stabbing Alberto and which remained embedded in his back, fell to the ground. The (unicipal (ayor of Caramoran and 8r. *ico =are+a, a doctor and the Chief of the Caramoran (unicipal 6ospital, also went to the site where Alberto lay. The doctor then re#uested the mayor to bring AlbertoQs body to the hospital for a post-mortem e3amination @pp. 0B-0., tsn, (ariano, >uly 00, 011E: pp. B&-B2, tsn, =ope+, >uly 0/, 011E: pp. .-E, tsn, =are+a, (ay %%, 011EA. 2. !n the same night, at around 00:B/, 8r. =are+a e3amined Alberto and found that his body bore the following wounds and in4uries: @0A 9tab wound, F cms. in length and 0B cms. in depth, located at back of the victim at the level of the fifth intercostals space of the right middle back, penetrating towards the heart: @%A 9tab wound, B.E cms. in length and 00 cms. in depth, located on the left side of the back of the victim, directed upward towards the scapular bone area from the left middle back: @BA =inear hematoma, ..E cms. in length, located at the right side of the neck, lateral aspect: @.A (ultiple abrasions located on the left third of the left little finger: @EA (ultiple abrasions located at the back middle part of the left inde3 finger: and @FA (ultiple abrasions located on the middle third of the right lower arm. @pp. &-1, tsn, =are+a, (ay %%, 011EA 1. According to 8r. =are+a, @tAhe most fatal wound is wound $o. 0 @p. 1, tsn, =are+a, (ay %%, 011EA and that Alberto (ariano died of Cardio-*espiratory Arrest due to a stab wound penetrating towards the heart @vide, pp. 0/-00, tsn, =are+a, (ay %%, 011E: pp. %/-%0, *ecordA.. The Case for the Appellants >ose, a businessman from 8atag Iast, Caramoran, Catanduanes, denied the charge. 6e testified that on the night of >une F, 011., he was with (ayor 5danan of Caramoran and the latterQs son-in-law Ily Ty. 6e was with them from 0/:// p.m. onwards and never left their company: hence, had no inkling that Alberto had been stabbed near the gate of the dance hall.E 6e further alleged that he and his companions were drinking around a table and left the pla+a only when a commotion ensued. F 6e found out that he had been charged with murder only on >une 0&, 011., when policemen informed him that the (unicipal Trial Court @(TCA of Caramoran had issued a warrant for his arrest. 6e, likewise, had no knowledge that Alberto had been manhandled by his sons, and that Istemson was the one who stabbed the victim. 6e admitted having received the warrant of arrest issued against him by the (TC on >une 0&, 011.. & At the police station, he was told that he would be allowed to get out of 4ail if he could produce his son Istemson.2 Allan, likewise, denied the charge. 6e admitted that he and Alberto had an altercation inside the dance hall: the latter had bo3ed him on the upper lip, and he retaliated by punching Alberto on the stomach. 1 6e claimed that he went home after the incident. As he was in front of the store of one Halentin Talion, Alberto and five to si3 companions accosted him, and gave him fist blows on the forehead and neck. 6e was also kicked on different parts of the body. Alberto even bit the upper part of his wrist. 0/ Allan averred that his in4uries were evidenced by the medical certificate issued by 8r. *ico =are+a dated >une &, 011.. Afterwards, he fled to the house of his uncle *udy 'rondero. 6e told his father of the incident, but did not inform the police or barangay authorities.00 6e left for =egaspi City on >une 0/, 011. and attended school as an irregular student at the ,olytechnic College 'oundation. Cpon his motherQs re#uest, Allan accompanied her to (anila on >une %&, 011. to locate his brother Istemson. 5t was only then that he learned that his father was in 4ail for the death of Alberto. Allan also confirmed that he was arrested by $D5 agents on August &, 011.. The appellants presented (ariano Ireso, a barangay 3aga#ad, to corroborate the testimony of >ose Dulan. Another witness, /arangay Captain (agin 5suela, testified that he did not notice any commotion before 5rma CabreraQs announcement at the dance floor that somebody had been stabbed. 0% 6e was so shocked that he went home.0B 8r. =are+a testified that considering the wounds of the victim, the assailant could not have held the bolo with the tip of the blade pointed to the elbow, then lifted the arm holding the bolo to the level of the victimQs head, before stabbing the latter on the right middle portion of the back. The doctor averred that in such a case, the tra4ectory of the wound would be downward and not hori+ontal. 0. (oreover, Wound $o. % could not have been inflicted by one who held the bolo above the victimQs head, then thrusted it downwards.0E The doctor also e3plained that the road from the pla+a gate to the store was stony: if the victim had been dropped on the road, face and chest down, it was possible that he would have a blackeyed

0%1

face or sustained abrasions.0F Considering that there was a pool of blood where the body was found, the victim could have been stabbed in front of the store.0& *udy Tu#ue<o testified that he was drinking beer near the gate but did not witness any stabbing incident. Apropriano 9elsona, >r. corroborated Tu#ue<oQs testimony. After trial, the trial court rendered 4udgment convicting the accused of murder as accomplices. The fallo of the decision reads: W6I*I'!*I, in view of the foregoing, >ose and Allan Dulan, considering the 5ndeterminate 9entence =aw in their favor, are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from ten @0/A years and one @0A day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen @0&A years and four @.A months of prision temporal as ma3imum and to indemnify the heirs of the accused in the amount of ,E/,///.//. The period of their detention is credited in full in their favor in the service of their sentence. The case as against Istemson Dulan who remains at large up to present is hereby placed in the archive till after his arrest. 9! !*8I*I8.02 The trial court declared that there was no conspiracy between the appellants and Istemson. !n appeal to the CA, the appellate court rendered 4udgment on >une 0B, %/// affirming the decision of the *TC, with the modification that the appellants and Istemson were guilty of murder as principals by indispensable cooperation. The appellate court declared that as gleaned from the evidence on record, the three of them conspired to kill the deceased. The fallo of the decision reads: W6I*I'!*I, pursuant to Article H555, 9ection E of the 012& Constitution which provides: The 9upreme Court shall have the following powers: V @dA all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher and ,ar. %, 9ection 0B, *ule 0%., *ules of Court, which states: Whenever a Criminal Cases 8ivision should be of the opinion that the penalty of death or life imprisonment be imposed in a case, the said 8ivision after the discussion of the evidence and the law involved, shall render 4udgment imposing the penalty of death or reclusion perpetua or higher as circumstances warrant, refrain from entering 4udgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate the entire record thereof to the 9upreme Court for review. and finding the accused-appellants, >ose Dulan and Allan Dulan, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of conspiring in murdering Alberto (ariano, as penali+ed under Article %.2 of the *evised ,enal Code by reclusion perpetua to death. We hereby certify this case to the 6onorable 9upreme Court for final determination and proper action. 9! !*8I*I8.01 !n (arch %%, %//0, the Court resolved to accept the case. %/ The appellants opted not to file a supplemental brief.%0 The appellants aver that the trial court committed the following errors: 5. T6I =!WI* C!C*T I**I8 5$ -5H5$- C*I8I$CI T! T6I TI9T5(!$G !' ,*!9ICCT5!$ W5T$I99 (A*5A$! =!,IM T6AT W5T65$ TW! (ITI*9 '*!( T6I -ATI !' T6I 8ATA,=AMA W6I*I A 8A$CI WA9 DI5$- 6I=8, T6I 8ICIA9I8 A=DI*T! (A*5A$! WA9 9TADDI8 DG I9TI(9!$ DC=A$ W65=I DI5$- 6I=8 DG ACCC9I8-A,,I==A$T9 >!9I A$8 A==A$ DC=A$ W6! T6I$ A==I-I8=G 8*A--I8 65( '*!( T6I -ATI T!WA*89 T6I 9T!*I !' HA=I$T5$ TA=5!$ '!*TG (ITI*9 AWAG. 55. T6I =!WI* C!C*T I**I8 5$ -5H5$- C*I8I$CI T! T6I TI9T5(!$G !' ,*!9ICCT5!$ W5T$I99 ,I*=5TA (A*5A$! T6AT W5T65$ TW! (ITI*9 '*!( T6I -ATI !' T6I 8ATA,=AMA W6I*I A 8A$CI WA9 DI5$- 6I=8, T6I 8ICIA9I8 A=DI*T! (A*5A$! WA9 9TADDI8 DG I9TI(9!$ DC=A$ W65=I DI5$- 6I=8 DG ACCC9I8-A,,I==A$T9 >!9I A$8 A==A$ DC=A$ W6! T6I$ A==I-I8=G 8*A--I8 65( '*!( T6I -ATI T!WA*89 T6I 9T!*I !' HA=I$T5$ TA=5!$ '!*TG (ITI*9 AWAG. 555. T6I =!WI* C!C*T I**I8 5$ $!T -5H5$- C*I8I$CI T! T6I TI9T5(!$G !' ACCC9I8 A==A$ DC=A$ A==I-5$- T6AT 6I WA9 (AC=I8 DG A=DI*T! (A*5A$! A$8 C!(,A$5!$9 5$ '*!$T !' HA=I$T5$Q9 9T!*I A$8 8I$G5$- T6I A==I-I8 6!=85$A$8 9TADD5$- AT A$8 8*A--5$- '*!( T6I -ATI !' T6I 8ATA- ,=AMA. 5H. T6I =!WI* C!C*T I**I8 5$ $!T -5H5$- C*I8I$CI T! T6I TI9T5(!$G !' ACCC9I8-A,,I==A$T >!9I DC=A$ 8I$G5$- T6I A==I-I8 6!=85$- A$8 9TADD5$- AT A$8 8*A--5$- '*!( T6I 8ATA- ,=AMA. H. T6I =!WI* C!C*T I**I8 5$ $!T AC;C5TT5$- ACCC9I8-A,,I==A$T9. %%

0B/

The appellants assert that the trial court erred in giving credence and probative weight to the testimony of (ariano and ,erlita that Alberto was stabbed about two meters away from the gate of the pla+a. They aver that the physical evidence on record even negates their testimony, as to where and how the victim was stabbed. They point out that the pool of blood was found in front of TalionQs store, and not within the vicinity of the pla+a gate where the dance was being held. (oreover, the deceased still had his slippers on, and his feet and face bore no abrasions or hematoma: according to the appellants, this proved that the victim was not dragged from near the pla+a gate to the place near TalionQs store as testified to by (ariano and ,erlita. The appellants maintain that the absence of any reaction from those in the dance hall and the vendors near the gate negates their testimony O that ,erlita saw her brother being stabbed near the pla+a gate. (oreover, the testimony of (ariano =ope+ and ,erlita (ariano were replete with inconsistencies on material points: hence, are barren of probative weight. 5n contrast, the testimony of appellant Allan Dulan is consistent with and corroborated by his medical certificate,%B as well as 8r. =are+aQs post-mortem report.%. 'or its part, the !9- asserts that while 8r. =are+aQs testimony on the tra4ectory of the wounds of the deceased did not 4ibe with that of (ariano, the undeniable fact is that the deceased was stabbed twice at the back. The !9- posits that (ariano was not e3pected to have a recorded memory of the incident. (oreover, the only evidence relied upon by the appellants to prove the absence of blood trails from the pla+a gate going to the store where the stabbing occurred was their own testimony. The !9- surmises that (arianoQs shouts for help went unnoticed: as such, the appellants still managed to carry the deceased from the gate to the place near the store where he was eventually found. The !9- further points out that the bolo the appellants used to stab the victim remained embedded on his back. The bare fact that the victim did not suffer any abrasions on the face and that one of his slippers remained on his left toe did not negate (ariano and ,erlitaQs testimony @that the appellants carried the victim and dropped him near the said storeA. The !9- avers that while there may have been inconsistencies between the testimonies of ,erlita and (ariano, their respective accounts were still consistent on material points. The *uling of the Court The general rule is that the factual findings of the trial court, including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight thereof, as well as the conclusions of the trial court based on its factual findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, especially if such findings are affirmed by the CA. This is so because the trial court is able to observe at close range the demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they testify. %E 6owever, the general rule does not apply if the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances which, if considered, will warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.%F The prosecution is burdened to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 5ndeed, the testimony of a lone witness, if found positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity. While the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessarily with the greatest number. Conviction of the accused may still be had on the basis of the credible and positive testimony of a single witness.%& 5t must be stressed that evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must also be credible in itself, such that common e3perience and observation of mankind lead to the inference its probability under the circumstances. %2 !n the other hand, inconsistencies as to minor details and peripheral or collateral matters do not affect the credibility of witnesses nor the probative weight of their testimonies. 9uch minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate any suspicion that their testimonies are fabricated or rehearsed. %1 Iven the most candid of witnesses commit mistakes and make confused and inconsistent statements. As the Court declared in 1eople v. Alolod:B/ V $ot all persons who witness an incident are impressed in the same manner and it is but natural that in relating their impressions, they disagree on the minor details and that there be contradictions in their testimonies. Witnesses cannot be e3pected to recollect with e3actitude every minute detail of an event. This is especially true when the witnesses testify as to facts which transpired in rapid succession, attended by flurry and e3citement. The testimony of each witness should not be e3pected to be identical to and coinciding with each other. 5t is enough that the principal points covered by their testimonies are established although they do not dovetail in all details O which would even prove well-rehearsed and studied declarations. VB0 Absent evidence showing any reason or motive for a witness to falsely testify against the accused, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive e3ists and the testimony should be accorded full faith and credit.B% The testimony of a witness must be considered and calibrated in its entirety and not by truncated portions thereof or isolated passages therein. BB 5t is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with

0B0

respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts, B. as there is hardly a witness who can perfectly remember the details of a crime. 6uman memory is not as unerring as a photograph. BE Thus, corroborative evidence in order to be credible need not coincide on all aspects. BF 5n this case, the prosecution relied on the collective testimonies of ,erlita and (ariano, who claimed to have seen Istemson stab Alberto: the prosecution also anchored its case on the testimony of 8r. =are+a and his medico-legal report. The Court declares that ,erlitaQs testimony, the medico-legal certificate and the e3pert testimony of 8r. =are+a would have been enough to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. ,erlita, the sister of the deceased, testified that Istemson stabbed her brother with a small bolo at the back, about two meters more or less from the pla+a gate. 9he declared that >ose held the deceased by the right shoulder, while Allan held him by the left: Istemson then appeared from behind the victim. ,erlita was near her brother when he was stabbed: ; ,lease inform the court what happened afterwards7 A 5mmediately, a man came and went inside the dance hall, then held my brother and told us that he would bring my brother outside, 9ir. ; And at that period of time, what was your reaction, if any7 A That man who came in was Idwin 9olo and 5 asked him why he would bring my brother outside and asked him he is doing so @sicA are you a barangay captain7 ; Then what was the reaction of Idwin 9olo after you told him that7 A 6e did not mind me and dragged my brother out while 5 was embracing my brother, 9ir. ; Was Idwin 9olo able to drag your brother out of the gate7 A Ges, 9ir. ; And what happened after your brother and you had been dragged out of the pla+a7 A Cpon reaching outside, >ose Dulan and Allan Dulan immediately held my brother on his shoulders, 9ir. ATTG. DI*CI9: We 4ust want to make it of record that the witness is crying and we re#uest RthatS we be given little time to let her regain her composure, Gour 6onor. C!C*T: Alright, recess for five minutes. @After five minutes, session was resumed.A ATTG. DI*CI9: ; 9o, you said upon reaching outside the gate, your brother was held by >ose Dulan and Allan Dulan by the shoulders7 A Ges, 9ir. ; Defore 5 proceed, when you mentioned about >ose Dulan, are you referring to >ose Dulan who is one of the accused in this case7 A Ges, 9ir. ; Will you please point to him if he is inside the court room7 A @Witness pointing to the accused >ose Dulan.A ; Can you tell the court, if you know, what relation has this >ose Dulan to the other accused Allan Dulan and Istemson Dulan7 A >ose Dulan is the father of Allan and Istemson Dulan, 9ir. ; !n what side did >ose Dulan hold your brother7 A At the right side of my brother, 9ir. ; What about this Allan Dulan7 A !n the left side, 9ir. ; And where were you at that time7 A 5 was still near my brother and then somebody suddenly pulled me from my brother, 9ir. ; And after that moment, what happened ne3t, if any7 A Istemson Dulan immediately entered coming from behind and immediately stabbed my brother, 9ir. ; 8o you know the cardinal directions, $orth and 9outh7 A Ges, 9ir. ; $ow, using that as reference, from what direction did Istemson Dulan come7 A 'rom the 9outh, 9ir. ; And as you said upon appearing this Istemson Dulan stabbed your brother, was your brother hit7 A Ges, 9ir. ; 5n what part of his body was your brother hit by Istemson Dulan7 A At the back, 9ir.

0B%

; After you saw Istemson Dulan stabbed @sicA your brother, what did you do7 A 5 shouted for help and no one came, 9ir. ; Can you tell the Court whether after the first stabbing by Istemson Dulan, was your brother stabbed subse#uently7 A When 5 cried for help and no one came, all of a sudden 5 saw Istemson Dulan ran @sicA away, 9ir. ; Dy the way, what is the distance of the place where your brother is being held by >ose Dulan and Allan Dulan and stabbed by Istemson Dulan in relation to the gate of the pla+a7 A (ore or less two meters, 9ir. ; $ow, considering that it was nighttime, how were you able to see that incident7 A At the gate, there was a fluorescent lamp and the pla+a was surrounded by light bulbs, 9ir. ; What is found at the gate, were there fluorescent lamp at the same time light bulbs7 A !nly fluorescent lamp, 9ir. ; And where were the bulbs installed7 A They were installed around the pla+a and at the dance hall, 9ir.B& After Istemson had fled, the appellants dragged the victim to the store of Halentin Talion, about ./ meters away. They then dropped the victim on the ground and fled from the scene. When she reali+ed that no one was responding to her cries for help, ,erlita returned to the pla+a to seek the aid of her relatives and the barangay authorities: ; After Istemson Dulan stabbed your brother and subse#uently fled as you said, what did this >ose Dulan and Allan Dulan do7 A >ose Dulan and Allan Dulan dragged my brother up to the place fronting the store of (ang Inting. ; What is the full name of this (ang Inting7 A Halentin Talion, 9ir. ; About how many meters is that place of Halentin Talion to the place where your brother was stabbed7 A (ore or less forty meters, 9ir. ; $ow, if we will use that place where you are seated now as the place where your brother was stabbed, can you please point to a place which would correspond to the e3tent of forty meters7 A @Witness pointed to a distance of about forty meters.A ; When your brother was dragged towards the front of Halentin TalionQs store, what happened ne3t, if any7 A 9omebody poked the light of his flashlight on them and that was the time the two dropped my brother, 9ir. ; When you said they dropped your brother, you are referring to >ose Dulan and Allan Dulan7 A Ges, 9ir. ; Were you able to identify the person who had a flashlight7 A Ges, 9ir. ; And after Allan Dulan and >ose Dulan dropped your brother in that place, what did they do7 A They ran away, 9ir. ; Towards the $orth, 9outh or what direction7 A They fled and ran towards the direction of the pla+a, 9ir. ; Then what did you do at that moment7 A 5 was with my brother in the place where he was dropped and 5 kept on shouting for help but then 5 thought 5 was not heard since the music and the dance was going on, so 5 went back to the pla+a and look for my relatives and 5 saw Tiya Cora+on and 5rma Cabrera, 9ir. ; And what did you do upon seeing your Tiya Cora+on and 5rma Cabrera7 A 5 asked the help of the barangay captain and a 3aga#ad and inform them that my brother was already dead, 9ir. ; Was there anybody who responded to your call for help7 A Ges, 9ir. ; Who was that7 A 5t was policeman $elson *ubio, 9ir. ; Can you give an estimate if how many minutes after did this policeman come to your assistance after >ose and Allan Dulan dropped your brother near the place of the store of Halentin Talion7 A About a few minutes, 9ir. ; And after $elson *ubio arrived, what did you do7 A 6e tried to lift my brother and then a knife @palas or small boloA fell on the ground, 9ir. ; 'rom where did this CpalasC come7 A 'rom the back of my brother, 9ir.

0BB

; What relation has that to the weapon that was used by Istemson Dulan in stabbing your brother7 A That was the weapon that was used in stabbing my brother, 9ir. ; 5f that weapon is shown to you, would you be able to identify the same7 A Ges, 9ir. ; 5 am showing to you a small bolo which is marked already as I3h. C, kindly look at this and inform the Court whether this was the same weapon which you saw dropped from the body of your brother7 A Ges, 9ir.B2 !n the other hand, 8r. =are+a testified that the victim was stabbed at the back with a sharp and pointed instrument which he saw at the place where the victim lay: ; =et us go to 5tem $o. 0 which 5 read: 9tabbed wound F cms. in length and 0B cms. in depth penetrating towards the heart over the Eth intercostal space, with associated fracture of the rib bone on the right middle back. Will you e3plain in laymanQs term, what this means7 A 5n laymanQs term, the stabbed wound was located at the back of the victim at the level of the fifth intercostal space of the right middle back, penetrating towards the heart. ; What do you mean here with associated fracture of the rib bone7 A There is a broken rib bone. ; What could have caused this stab wound7 A That stab wound may be @sicA caused by a sharp and pointed instrument, 9ir. ; 9o that it could be caused by the same instrument you saw at the place of the incident7 A (aybe, 9ir. ; 9howing to you a bladed instrument with wooden handle still stained with blood, to your recollection, is this the bladed weapon which you saw at the scene of the incident7 A (ore or less the same, 9ir.B1 The Court is not impervious of the fact that while ,erlita testified that she saw her brother being stabbed only once, the medico-legal certificate issued by 8r. =are+a shows that the victim sustained another stab wound at the back, less severe than the first. This seeming inconsistency, however, does not detract from the verisimilitude of ,erlitaQs testimony that she saw Istemson stab her brother. As ,erlita recounted, she was so shocked and horrified by the sudden appearance of Istemson and the subse#uent stabbing of her brother that she frantically shouted for help. 5t is possible that it was at that precise moment when Istemson stabbed her brother anew at the back, hence, ,erlita failed to witness it. 5ndeed, this Court declared in 1eople v. /ihison./ O Iyewitnesses to a horrifying event cannot be e3pected, nor be faulted if they are unable, to be completely accurate in picturing to the court all that has transpired and every detail of what they have seen or heard. Harious reasons, mostly e3plainable, can account for this reality: the Court has long acknowledged the verity that different human minds react distinctly and diversely when confronted with a sudden and shocking event, and that a witness may sometimes ignore certain details which at the time might have appeared to him to be insignificant but which to another person under the same circumstances, would seem noteworthy. .0 The Court notes that the only evidence of the appellants to prove that there were no traces of human blood from near the gate to the store of Talion was the testimony of 8r. =are+a. 6owever, the doctor did not testify that he investigated the condition of the path from the gate to the store to ascertain the presence or absence of blood. The appellants contend that ,erlitaQs testimony is incredible, since she claimed to have shouted for help, but there was no reaction from the crowd. The Court re4ects this contention. 5t bears stressing that festivities were then ongoing at the pla+a, the blaring music thus drowned out ,erlitaQs shouts for help. ,erlita must have reali+ed this and thus went back to the pla+a from the store and informed her relatives that Alberto had been stabbed. With the dancing and partying, no one in the pla+a noticed the appellants dragging Alberto towards the direction of the store. ,erlita then managed to talk to her cousin 5rma Cabrera, the barangay captain and policeman $elson *ubio who, with the municipal mayor, responded to her report. When ,erlita relayed the stabbing to 5rma Cabrera, the latter, in turn, hurriedly announced the incident over the microphone: it was only then that the public became aware of the tragedy. *ubio then recovered the palas @small boloA when it fell from the victimQs back as he lifted the lifeless body. The Court agrees with the following submissions of the !9-: (oreover, it cannot be discounted that other people may have seen the stabbing of Alberto but they chose not to volunteer and reveal what they had seen to the police authorities. 5t must be pointed out that the natural tendency of most people not to get involved in criminal cases is of 4udicial notice R 1eople v. ,ulop, %21 9C*A B0F @0112AS and that @iAt is of common human e3perience that people overcome by great fear,

0B.

not only for their lives but also of those of their loved ones, will choose to remain tight-lipped about an incident and suffer in silence rather than e3pose to risk their own safety and of those for whom they care R1eople v. 0adles, %&2 9C*A B1B @011&AS..% The pool of blood in the vicinity where the appellants dropped Alberto face down near TalionQs store, and the absence of any traces of blood from the gate to the store cannot be the basis of a conclusion that Alberto was stabbed in that place and not near the pla+a gate. Considering that the appellants dropped Alberto face down near the store and the cadaver remained thereat for some time, it is but logical that a pool of blood would have formed near the body. Thus: ; And by the time that a person was carried at a distance of about ./ to E/ meters, the bulk or the greater #uantity of the blood will flow or oo+e and dropped in that place where he was rested7 ; 8octor, we will have the #uestion reread to you and answer it accordingly. 5 am 4ust concentrating in the place where the pool of blood was found at the scene of the cadaver. 5 am only focusing my #uestion in this particular pool of blood as shown in the picture. Assuming that the patient was stabbed in the gate of the pla+a and was brought to another site and assuming that the patient was dragged about ./ to E/ meters, naturally there will be a trail of blood along the way and on the place where he was rested7 Dut the greater #uantity also of the blood be accumulated in that place where he was rested, particularly he has been there for about an hour as depicted in the picture7 A Ges, 9ir..B The appellants failed to adduce evidence that there was no pool of blood near the gate of the pla+a where Alberto was stabbed. 5n fact, even the absence of blood near the gate would not negate ,erlitaQs claim that her brother was stabbed there. The evidence on record shows that immediately after Istemson stabbed the victim, the appellants dragged Alberto face down from the gate towards the store. 5t is entirely possible that the blood from the victimQs wounds had not yet accumulated and dripped to the ground before he was dragged: ATTG. DI*CI9: ; 'rom your e3pert testimony, doctor, when a person is stabbed and subse#uently the bladed instrument is withdrawn from the body, the blood does not automatically oo+e from the wound7 A There are some blood in other wounds that will come out, 9ir. ; And after a certain distance, this blood that were, in the meantime, retained in the body could be released after a few minutes7 ATTG. 'I*$A$8IM: (ay 5 4ust comment that there are two stab wounds. ATTG. DI*CI9: 5 am referring now to both wounds. Anyway, they were inflicted within a split second. ; Would that be possible that the blood would be emitted a little after7 A 5t depends on what portion of the body that was hit, 9ir... That Istemson carried the palas @small boloA to the pla+a is not unlikely. The inscrutable fact is that he stabbed the victim with a small bolo: where the assailant secured the weapon is irrelevant. The absence of any abrasions or bruises on the face and feet of the victim, and the fact that his 9partan slipper was still hanging from his left foot, do not negate ,erlitaQs testimony that he was dragged ./ meters away from the gate. We agree with the following submission of the !9-: @FA The fact that Alberto still had his 9partan slipper on his left toe and that his toes and feet did not bear abrasions do not necessarily indicate that Alberto was not dragged by appellants forty meters away from where he was stabbed. (oreover, appellantsQ assertion that AlbertoQs face did not bear any abrasions does not necessarily mean that he was not dropped by appellants face down on the ground in front of the store. 5t must be pointed out that the fact that Alberto still had his 9partan slipper on his left toe @sicA could also indicate that he had been dragged for some distance before being left in front of the store. 5n the process of being dragged, Alberto lost his right slipper and his left slipper remained entangled on his left toe. The fact that his toes did not bear abrasions could also indicate that his right slipper was only dislodged as appellants were nearing Halentin TalionQs store and that his left slipper, though partially dislodged as it remained on AlbertoQs left toe, still afforded minimum protection to AlbertoQs left foot. (oreover, there was no official finding that the terrain of the path through which Alberto had been dragged was rough and stony as to damage AlbertoQs feet. As regards the absence of abrasions on AlbertoQs face, it must be pointed out that the height from which Alberto was dropped was never determined or established. 5t is possible that Alberto may have been dropped by appellants with his face only a few inches from the ground. Thus, when Alberto was dropped, the impact of the fall was not enough to cause abrasions or bruises on his face. .E 9ignificantly, the victimQs other slipper has not been accounted for by the police investigators.

0BE

There is, likewise, no evidence that ,erlita had any ill or devious motive to falsely implicate Istemson and the appellants to the stabbing of her brother. Darely two days after the incident @on >une 2, 011.A, ,erlita gave her sworn statement to 9,!. *uben T. 9armiento, naming Istemson as her brotherQs assailant, with the appellants as companions..F 6ence, the testimony of ,erlita must be accorded full faith and credit. The ne3t issue is whether or not the appellants are guilty of the crime charged as principals by direct participation as ruled by the CA, or, as ruled by the *TC, mere accomplices to the crime of murder. Article 2 of the *evised ,enal Code provides that there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it. 8irect proof is not essential to prove conspiracy: it may be established by acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime charged, from which it may be logically inferred the e3istence of a common purpose to commit the same. .& The prosecution must prove conspiracy by the same #uantum of evidence as the felony charged itself. 5ndeed, proof of previous agreement among the malefactors to commit the crime is not essential to prove conspiracy. .2 5t is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim: what is primordial is that all the participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to bring out the victimQs death. .1 !nce conspiracy is established, it is unnecessary to prove who among the conspirators inflicted the fatal in4ury. E/ 5f conspiracy is proved, all the conspirators are criminally liable for the crime charged and proved. The act of one is the act of all. 5n this case, the appellants were waiting outside the dance hall near the gate when Idwin 9olo brought the victim towards them, onto the street. >ose held the victim by the right shoulder, while Allan held him by the left. Istemson suddenly appeared from behind the victim and stabbed the latter at the back with a small bolo. The appellants continued holding the victim as Istemson stabbed him yet again. Iven as Istemson fled, the appellants dragged the victim from the gate, towards the store, where they dropped the victimQs body and fled from the scene. Allan then left Catanduanes and hid in ,asay City where he was arrested by the $D5 on August &, 011..E0 Considering the foregoing, the Court affirms the finding of the CA that the appellants are guilty as principals by direct participation in the killing of Alberto (ariano.E% 5ndeed, the only defenses proffered by the appellants are denial and alibi, which are, however, the weakest of defenses in criminal cases. The well-established rule is that denial and alibi are self-serving negative evidence: they cannot prevail over the spontaneous, positive and credible testimony of ,erlita (ariano who pointed to and identified the appellants as the two of the malefactors. EB 5ndeed, alibi is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.E. The Court notes that the appellants even admitted that they were in the dance hall before the stabbing, and that >ose left only after the incident. (oreover, >ose did not present any other witness to corroborate his alibi. The crime committed by the appellants is murder #ualified by treachery. Although there was an altercation between Istemson and the victim shortly before the latter was stabbed, treachery nevertheless attended the commission of the crime. As this Court held in 1eople v. ,eston:EE We disagree with the trial courtQs ruling that treachery did not attend the killing. Treachery is present when the attack is sudden and une3pected, depriving the victim of any real chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the offender. The lower court held that since Hladiner and '!*CA fought on the day of the killing, Hladiner was forewarned of the danger to himself. Also, it considered the fight as evidence that the accused did not consciously adopt their mode of attack as their confrontation was coincidental. That the victim and the accused had an altercation immediately before the attack upon the victim does not negate the presence of treachery. 5n 1eople v. olina, we held that RtSreachery may also be appreciated even when the victim was warned of danger or initially assaulted frontally, but was attacked again after being rendered helpless and had no means to defend himself or to retaliate. 9imilarly, in 1eople v. Villone), this Court declared that O 6owever, we do not share the assessment of the trial court that there was no treachery in this case because the victim had engaged in a fight previous to the killing and was thus forewarned of an attack against him. Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger to his person. What is decisive is that the e3ecution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. The overwhelming number of the accused, their use of weapons against the unarmed victim, and the fact that the victimQs hands were held behind him preclude the possibility of any defense by the victim. 5n the instant case, it has been established that while Hladiner was being held down by -AC! and !9!*5!, '!*CA stabbed him several times. 6owever, despite HladinerQs helpless and vulnerable condition, TI9T!$ still hacked him repeatedly, guaranteeing that the victim would not survive the attack. This undoubtedly constitutes treachery for the means employed by accused ensured the e3ecution of their

0BF

nefarious designs upon the victim without risk to themselves arising from any defense which the offended party might have made.EF Cnder Article %.2 of the *evised ,enal Code, murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the felony, the appellants should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article FB, paragraph % of the *evised ,enal Code. The appellants are also civilly liable to the heirs of the deceased in the amount of ,E/,///.// by way of civil indemnity, and ,E/,///.// by way of moral damages.E& IN LIGHT O, ALL THE ,OREGOING , the 8ecision of the Court of Appeals in CA--.*. C* $o. %%1/. is A''5*(I8 W5T6 (!85'5CAT5!$. Appellants >ose Dulan and Allan Dulan are found -C5=TG beyond reasonable doubt of murder as defined in Article %.2 of the *evised ,enal Code, as amended by *epublic Act $o. &FE1, #ualified by treachery. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances in the commission of the crime, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The appellants are !*8I*I8 to pay, 4ointly and severally, the heirs of Alberto (ariano the amount of ,E/,///.// by way of civil indemnity, and ,E/,///.// by way of moral damages. Costs against the appellants. 9! !*8I*I8.

0B&

G. R. No. 1%22** &'#e 2, 200% +EO+LE O, THE +HILI++INES, appellee, vs. LUISITO D. /USTINERA, appellant. 8IC595!$ CAR+IO MORALES, J.: 'rom the decision0 of the *egional Trial Court, Dranch %0&, ;ue+on City finding appellant =uisito 8. Dustinera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of #ualified theft % for the unlawful taking of a 8aewoo *acer -TI Ta3i and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, he comes to this Court on appeal. 5n an informationB dated >une 0&, 011&, appellant was indicted as follows: The undersigned accuses =C595T! 8. DC9T5$I*A of the crime of ;ualified Theft, committed as follows: That on or about the %Eth day of 8ecember up to the 1 th day of >anuary, 011&, in ;ue+on City, ,hilippines, the said accused being then employed as one RofS the ta3i 8rivers of Ilias 9. Cipriano, an !perator of several ta3i cabs with business address at corner .. Commonwealth Avenue, iliman @ sicA, this City, and as such has free access to the ta3i he being driven, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to gain, with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon him by his employer and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away a 8aewoo *acer -TI Ta3i with ,late $o. ,W6-%FF worth ,B/B,///.//, ,hilippine Currency, belonging to Ilias 9. Cipriano, to the damage and pre4udice of the said offended party in the amount of ,B/B,///.//. C!$T*A*G T! =AW. Cpon arraignment. on (arch %&, %///, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. 'rom the evidence for the prosecution, the following version is established. 9ometime in 011F, Idwin Cipriano @CiprianoA, who manages I9C Transport, the ta3icab business of his father, hired appellant as a ta3i driver and assigned him to drive a 8aewoo *acer with plate number ,W6%FF. 5t was agreed that appellant would drive the ta3i from F:// a.m. to 00:// p.m, after which he would return it to I9C TransportQs garage and remit the boundary fee in the amount of ,&2/.// per day.E !n 8ecember %E, 011F, appellant admittedly reported for work and drove the ta3i, but he did not return it on the same day as he was supposed to. ;: $ow, (r. Witness, on 8ecember %E, 011F, did you report for work7 A: Ges, sir. ;: $ow, since you reported for work, what are your duties and responsibilities as ta3i driver of the ta3i company7 A: That we have to bring back the ta3i at night with the boundary. ;: 6ow much is your boundary7 A: ,&2/.//, sir. ;: O# Dece67er 25, 1995, .". )o' 7r"#3 o'! a#) !aH"L A: 4e$, $"r. ;: $ow, when ever @sicA you bring out a ta3i, what procedure RdoS you follow with that company7 A: That we have to bring back the ta3i to the company and before we leave we also sign something, sir. ;: What is that something you mentioned7 A: !n the record book and on the daily trip ticket, sir. ;: Gou said that you have to return your ta3i at the end of the day, what is then the procedure reflect @ sicA by your company when you return a ta3i7 A: To remit the boundary and to sign the record book and daily trip ticket. ;: 9o, when you return the ta3i, you sign the record book7 A: Ges, sir. ;: Gou mentioned that on 8ecember %E, 011F, you brought out a ta3i7 A: Ges, sir. ;: What kind of ta3i7 A: 8aewoo ta3i, sir. ;: $ow did you return the ta3i on 8ecember %E, 011F7 A: 5 was not able to bring back the ta3i because 5 was short of my boundary, sir.F The following day, 8ecember %F, 011F, Cipriano went to appellantQs house to ascertain why the ta3i was not returned.& Arriving at appellantQs house, he did not find the ta3i there, appellantQs wife telling him that her husband had not yet arrived.2 =eaving nothing to chance, Cipriano went to the Commonwealth Avenue police station and reported that his ta3i was missing.1

0B2

!n >anuary 1, 011&, appellantQs wife went to the garage of I9C Transport and revealed that the ta3i had been abandoned in *egalado 9treet, =agro, ;ue+on City. 0/ Cipriano lost no time in repairing to *egalado 9treet where he recovered the ta3i.00 Cpon the other hand, while appellant does not deny that he did not return the ta3i on 8ecember %E, 011F as he was short of the boundary fee, he claims that he did not abandon the ta3i but actually returned it on >anuary E, 011&:0% and that on 8ecember %&, 011F, he gave the amount of ,%,///.//0B to his wife whom he instructed to remit the same to Cipriano as payment of the boundary fee 0. and to tell the latter that he could not return the ta3i as he still had a balance thereof.0E Appellant, however, admits that his wife informed him that when she went to the garage to remit the boundary fee on the very same day @8ecember %&, 011FA,0F Cipriano was already demanding the return of the ta3i.0& Appellant maintains though that he returned the ta3i on >anuary E, 011& and signed the record book, 02 which was company procedure, to show that he indeed returned it and gave his employer ,%,E//.//01 as partial payment for the boundary fee covering the period from 8ecember %E, 011F to >anuary E, 011&. Continuing, appellant claims that as he still had a balance in the boundary fee, he left his driverQs license with Cipriano:%/ that as he could not drive, which was the only work he had ever known, without his driverQs license, and with the obligation to pay the balance of the boundary fee still lingering, his wife started working on 'ebruary 02, 011& as a stay-in maid for Cipriano, with a monthly salary of ,0,B//.//,%0 until (arch %F, 011& when Cipriano told her that she had worked off the balance of his obligation: %% and that with his obligation e3tinguished, his driverQs license was returned to him.%B Drushing aside appellantQs claim that he returned the ta3i on >anuary E, 011& and that he had in fact paid the total amount of ,.,E//.//, the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of #ualified theft by 8ecision of (ay 0&, %//0, the dispositive portion of which is #uoted verbatim: W6I*I'!*I, 4udgment is hereby rendered finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged, and he is accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the costs. 5n the service of his sentence, accused is ordered credited with four-fifths @ .NEA of the preventive imprisonment undergone by him there being no showing that he agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners. SO ORDERED.%. @Imphasis and italics in the originalA 6ence, the present appeal anchored on the following assigned errors: 5. T6I C!C*T A 8-( -*AHI=G I**I8 5$ C!$C=C85$- W5T6!CT C!$C*ITI DA959 T6AT T6I ACCC9I8-A,,I==A$T 6A9 5$TI$T T! -A5$ W6I$ 6I 'A5=I8 T! *ITC*$ T6I TAK5 T! 5T9 -A*A-I. 55. T6I C!C*T A 8-( -*AHI=G I**I8 5$ '5$85$- ACCC9I8-A,,I==A$T -C5=TG DIG!$8 *IA9!$AD=I 8!CDT !' T6I C*5(I !' ;CA=5'5I8 T6I'T.%E 5t is settled that an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct such errors as may be found in the 4udgment even if they have not been specifically assigned.%F Appellant was convicted of #ualified theft under Article B0/ of the *evised ,enal Code, as amended for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. 6owever, Article B0/ has been modified, with respect to certain vehicles,%& by *epublic Act $o. FEB1, as amended, otherwise known as A$ ACT ,*IHI$T5$- A$8 ,I$A=5M5$- CA*$A,,5$-. When statutes are in pari materia%2 or when they relate to the same person or thing, or to the same class of persons or things, or cover the same specific or particular sub4ect matter, %1 or have the same purpose or ob4ect,B/ the rule dictates that they should be construed together O interpretare et concordare leges legibus, est optimus interpretandi modus.B0 Ivery statute must be so construed and harmoni+ed with other statutes as to form a uniform system of 4urisprudence,B% as this Court e3plained in &ity of 7aga v. Agna,BB vi): . . . When statutes are in pari materia, the rule of statutory construction dictates that they should be construed together. This is because enactments of the same legislature on the same sub4ect matter are supposed to form part of one uniform system: that later statutes are supplementary or complimentary to the earlier enactments and in the passage of its acts the legislature is supposed to have in mind the e3isting legislation on the same sub4ect and to have enacted its new act with reference thereto. 6aving thus in mind the previous statutes relating to the same sub4ect matter, whenever the legislature enacts a new law, it is deemed to have enacted the new provision in accordance with the legislative policy embodied in those prior statutes unless there is an e3press repeal of the old and they all should be construed together. I# co#$!r'"#3 !he6 !he o(. $!a!'!e$ re(a!"#3 !o !he $a6e $'7Mec! 6a!!er $ho'(. 7e co6 are. <"!h !he #e< ro9"$"o#$

0B1

a#. ": o$$"7(e 7) rea$o#a7(e co#$!r'c!"o#, 7o!h $ho'(. 7e $o co#$!r'e. !ha! e::ec! 6a) 7e 3"9e# !o e9er) ro9"$"o# o: each. Ho<e9er, <he# !he #e< ro9"$"o# a#. !he o(. re(a!"#3 !o !he $a6e $'7Mec! ca##o! 7e reco#c"(e. !he :or6er $ha(( re9a"( a$ "! "$ !he (a!!er eH re$$"o# o: !he (e3"$(a!"9e <"(( . . .B. @Imphasis and underscoring supplied: citations omittedA The elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article B/2 of the *evised ,enal Code are: @0A that there be taking of personal property: @%A that said property belongs to another: @BA that the taking be done with intent to gain: @.A that the taking be done without the consent of the owner: and @EA that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. BE Theft is #ualified when any of the following circumstances is present: @0A the theft is committed by a domestic servant: @%A the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence: @BA the property stolen is either a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle: @.A the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation: @EA the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery: and @FA the property was taken on the occasion of fire, earth#uake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. BF !n the other hand, 9ection % of *epublic Act $o. FEB1, as amended defines carnapping as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter"s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. The elements of carnapping are thus: @0A the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another: @%A the taking is without the consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force upon things: and @BA the taking is done with intent to gain.B& Carnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of a motori+ed vehicle, B2 the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery and carnapping being the same.B1 5n the %/// case of 1eople v. ,an./ where the accused took a (itsubishi -allant and in the later case of 1eople v. Lobitania.0 which involved the taking of a Gamaha motori+ed tricycle, this Court held that the unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the anti-carnapping law and not by the provisions on #ualified theft or robbery. There "$ #o ar3'"#3 !ha! !he a#!"-car#a "#3 (a< "$ a $ ec"a( (a<, ."::ere#! :ro6 !he cr"6e o: ro77er) a#. !he:! "#c('.e. "# !he Re9"$e. +e#a( Co.e. 5t particularly addresses the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter"s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. Dut a careful comparison of this special law with the crimes of robbery and theft readily reveals their common features and characteristics, to wit: unlawful taking, intent to gain, and that personal property belonging to another is taken without the latter"s consent. Ho<e9er, !he a#!"-car#a "#3 (a< ar!"c'(ar() .ea($ <"!h !he !he:! a#. ro77er) o: 6o!or 9eh"c(e$. 6ence a motor vehicle is said to have been carnapped when it has been taken, with intent to gain, without the owner"s consent, whether the taking was done with or without the use of force upon things. 8"!ho'! !he a#!"-car#a "#3 (a<, $'ch '#(a<:'( !aG"#3 o: a 6o!or 9eh"c(e <o'(. :a(( <"!h"# !he 'r9"e< o: e"!her !he:! or ro77er) <h"ch <a$ cer!a"#() !he ca$e 7e:ore !he e#ac!6e#! o: $a". $!a!'!e. .% @Imphasis and underscoring supplied: citations omitted.A 5t is to be noted, however, that while the anti-carnapping law penali+es the unlawful taking of motor vehicles, it e3cepts from its coverage certain vehicles such as roadrollers, trolleys, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, amphibian trucks and cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles which run only on rails and tracks, and tractors, trailers and tractor engines of all kinds and used e3clusively for agricultural purposes. Dy implication, the theft or robbery of the foregoing vehicles would be covered by Article B0/ of the *evised ,enal Code, as amended and the provisions on robbery, respectively. .B 'rom the foregoing, since appellant is being accused of the unlawful taking of a 8aewoo sedan, it is the anti-carnapping law and not the provisions of #ualified theft which would apply as the said motor vehicle does not fall within the e3ceptions mentioned in the anti-carnapping law. The designation in the information of the offense committed by appellant as one for #ualified theft notwithstanding, appellant may still be convicted of the crime of carnapping. 'or while it is necessary that the statutory designation be stated in the information, a mistake in the caption of an indictment in designating the correct name of the offense is not a fatal defect as it is not the designation that is controlling but the facts alleged in the information which determines the real nature of the crime. .. 5n the case at bar, the information alleges that appellant, with intent to gain, took the ta3i owned by Cipriano without the latterQs consent. .E Thus, the indictment alleges every element of the crime of carnapping,.F and the prosecution proved the same. AppellantQs appeal is thus bereft of merit. That appellant brought out the ta3i on 8ecember %E, 011F and did not return it on the same day as he was supposed to is admitted..&

0./

Cnlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things: it is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same..2 While the nature of appellantQs possession of the ta3i was initially lawful as he was hired as a ta3i driver and was entrusted possession thereof, his act of not returning it to its owner, which is contrary to company practice and against the ownerQs consent transformed the character of the possession into an unlawful one. .1 Appellant himself admits that he was aware that his possession of the ta3i was no longer with CiprianoQs consent as the latter was already demanding its return. ;: Also you said that during your direct testimony that when you gave your wife the ,%,E//.//, you also told her to go to the company to ask the company for permission for you to use the ta3i since you were then still short of the boundary. Alright, after telling that to your wife and after seeing your wife between 8ecember %&, 011F and >anuary E, 011&, did you ask your wife what was the answer of the company to that re#uest of yours7 A: 6e did not allow me, sir, and he even RgotS angry with me. ;: 9o, when did you learn that the company was not agreeable to your making use of the ta3icab without first returning it to the company7 A: Defore the new year, sir. ;: When you said new year, you were referring to >anuary 0, 011&7 A: Iither 8ecember %1 or 8ecember B/, 011F, sir. ;: 9o, are you telling us that even if you knew already that the company was not agreeable to your making use of the ta3icab continually @ sicA without returning the same to the company , you still went ahead and make @sicA use of it and returned it only on >anuary E, 011&. A: Ges, sir.E/ @Imphasis and underscoring suppliedA Appellant assails the trial courtQs conclusion that there was intent to gain with the mere taking of the ta3i without the ownerQs consent. 6e maintains that his reason for failing to return the ta3i was his inability to remit the boundary fee, his earnings that day not having permitted it: and that there was no intent to gain since the taking of the ta3i was not permanent in character, he having returned it. AppellantQs position does not persuade. 5ntent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act, presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle.E0 Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain. E% The term gain is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or e3pected from the act which is performed. EB Thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the ownerQs consent constitutes gain. E. 5n Villacorta v. !nsurance &ommissionEE which was reiterated in Association of /aptists for Norld %vangelism, !nc. v. 2ieldmenMs !nsurance &o, !nc.,EF >ustice Claudio Teehankee @later Chief >usticeA, interpreting the theft clause of an insurance policy, e3plained that, when one takes the motor vehicle of another without the latterQs consent e9e# ": !he 6o!or 9eh"c(e "$ (a!er re!'r#e. , there is theft, there being intent to gain as the use of the thing unlawfully taken constitutes gain: Assuming, despite the totally inade#uate evidence, !ha! !he !aG"#3 <a$ B!e6 orar)B and for a 4oy ride , the Court sustains as the better viewE& that which holds that when a person, either with the ob4ect of going to a certain place, or learning how to drive, or en4oying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle belonging to another, without the consent of its owner, he "$ 3'"(!) o: !he:! because by taking possession of the personal property belonging to another and using it, h"$ "#!e#! !o 3a"# "$ e9".e#! $"#ce he .er"9e$ !here:ro6 '!"("!), $a!"$:ac!"o#, e#Mo)6e#! a#. (ea$'re. &'$!"ce Ra6o# C. AF'"#o c"!e$ "# h"$ <orG Gro"=ar. <ho ho(.$ !ha! !he '$e o: a !h"#3 co#$!"!'!e$ 3a"# a#. C'e((o Ca(o# <ho ca(($ "! Bh'r! .e '$o. E2 @Imphasis and underscoring supplied: citation omittedA Desides, the trial court did not believe appellantQs claim that he in fact returned the ta3i on >anuary E, 011&. The Court can not @sicA believe accusedQs assertion that he returned the sub4ect vehicle on >anuary E, 011& to the garage and that he had in fact paid the amount of ,.,E//.// in partial payment of his unremitted boundary for ten @0/A days. 6e could not even be certain of the e3act amount he allegedly paid the ta3icab owner. !n direct-e3amination, he claimed that he paid Idwin Cipriano on 8ecember %&, 011F the amount of ,%,///.// and it was his wife who handed said amount to Cipriano, yet on cross-e3amination, he claimed that he gave ,%,E//.// to his wife on that date for payment to the ta3icab owner.E1 The rule is well-entrenched that findings of fact of the trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent any clear showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and significance which, if considered, would alter the result of the case. F/ The reason for the rule being that trial courts have the distinct advantage

0.0

of having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying or their conduct and behavior during the trial.F0 !ther than his bare and self-serving allegations, appellant has not shown any scintilla of evidence that he indeed returned the ta3i on >anuary E, 011&. ;: Gou said that you returned the ta3i on >anuary E, 011&, correct7 A: Ges, sir. ;: $ow, (r. Witness, did you sign any record when you returned the ta3i7 A: Ges, sir. ;: 8o you have any copy of that record7 A: They were the one @sicA in-charge of the record book and 5 even voluntarily left my driverQs license with them, sir. ;: Gou said that you did not return the ta3i because you were short of @ sicA boundary, did you turn over any money to your employer when you returned the ta3i7 A: 5 gave them RanS additional ,%,E//.//, sir. ;: At the time when you returned the ta3i, how much was your short indebtedness @ sicA or short boundary @sicA7 A: 5 was short for ten @0/A days, and 5 was able to pay ,.,E//.//. ;: Do )o' ha9e a#) rece" ! !o $ho< rece" ! o: a)6e#! :or !h"$ +%,500.00L A: The) <ere !he o#e$ ha9"#3 !he recor. o: 6) a)6e#!, a#. o'r a3ree6e#! <a$ !ha! I ha9e !o a) !he 7a(a#ce "# "#$!a((6e#!.F% @Imphasis suppliedA While appellant maintains that he signed on >anuary E, 011& the record book indicating that he returned the ta3i on the said date and paid Cipriano the amount of ,.,E//.// as partial payment for the boundary fee, appellant did not produce the documentary evidence alluded to, to substantiate his claim. That such alleged record book is in the possession of Cipriano did not prevent him from producing it as appellant has the right to have compulsory process issued to secure the production of evidence on his behalf. FB The trial court having convicted appellant of #ualified theft instead of carnapping, it erred in the imposition of the penalty. While the information alleges that the crime was attended with grave abuse of confidence, the same cannot be appreciated as the suppletory effect of the *evised ,enal Code to special laws, as provided in Article 0/ of said Code, cannot be invoked when there is a legal impossibility of application, either by e3press provision or by necessary implication.F. (oreover, when the penalties under the special law are different from and are without reference or relation to those under the *evised ,enal Code, there can be no suppletory effect of the rules, for the application of penalties under the said Code or by other relevant statutory provisions are based on or applicable only to said rules for felonies under the Code.FE Thus, in 1eople v. 1anidaFF which involved the crime of carnapping and the penalty imposed was the indeterminate sentence of 0. years and 2 months, as minimum, to 0& years and . months, as ma3imum, this Court did not apply the provisions of the *evised ,enal Code suppletorily as the anti-carnapping law provides for its own penalties which are distinct and without reference to the said Code. The charge being simple carnapping, the imposable penalty is imprisonment for not less than 0. years and 2 months and not more than 0& years and . months. There ca# 7e #o $' (e!or) e::ec! o: !he r'(e$ :or !he a ("ca!"o# o: e#a(!"e$ '#.er !he Re9"$e. +e#a( Co.e or 7) o!her re(e9a#! $!a!'!or) ro9"$"o#$ 7a$e. o#, or a ("ca7(e o#() !o, !he r'(e$ :or :e(o#"e$ '#.er !he Co.e. 8h"(e "! "$ !r'e !ha! !he e#a(!) o: 1% )ear$ a#. 2 6o#!h$ !o 17 )ear$ a#. % 6o#!h$ "$ 9"r!'a(() eF'"9a(e#! !o !he .'ra!"o# o: !he 6e."'6 er"o. o: reclusion te+poral, $'ch !ech#"ca( !er6 '#.er !he Re9"$e. +e#a( Co.e "$ #o! 3"9e# !o !ha! e#a(!) :or car#a "#3. /e$".e$, !he o!her e#a(!"e$ :or car#a "#3 a!!e#.e. 7) !he F'a(":)"#3 c"rc'6$!a#ce$ $!a!e. "# !he (a< .o #o! corre$ o#. !o !ho$e "# !he Co.e. The rules on penalties in the Code, therefore, cannot suppletorily apply to *epublic Act $o. FEB1 and special laws of the same formulation. 'or this reason, we hold that the proper penalty to be imposed on each of accused-appellants is an indeterminate sentence of 0. years and 2 months, as minimum, to 0& years and . months, as ma3imum. F& @Imphasis and underscoring supplied: citations omittedA Appellant being then culpable for carnapping under the first clause of 9ection 0. of *epublic Act $o. FEB1, as amended, the imposable penalty is imprisonment for not less than 0. years and 2 months, not more than 0& years and . months, F2 for, as discussed above, the provisions of the *evised ,enal Code cannot be applied suppletorily and, therefore, the alleged aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence cannot be appreciated. Applying 9ection 0 of Act $o. .0/B,F1 as amended, otherwise known as the 5ndeterminate 9entence =aw, if the offense is punishable by a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate

0.%

sentence, the ma3imum term of which shall not e3ceed the ma3imum fi3ed by said law and the minimum term shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by the same O the penalty imposed being a range. &/ W6I*I'!*I, the 4udgment of the *egional Trial Court of ;ue+on City, Dranch %0&, in Crim Case $o. ;-1&-&01EF, finding appellant L'"$"!o D. Dustinera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of #ualified theft, is RE1ERSED and SET ASIDE, and another 4udgment entered in its place, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping under *epublic Act $o. FEB1, as amended and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of 'ourteen @0.A Gears and Iight @2A (onths, as minimum, to 9eventeen @0&A Gears and 'our @.A (onths, as ma3imum. 9! !*8I*I8. Vitug, *andoval-Gutierre), and &orona, $$., concur. ,oo!#o!e$ 0 *ecords at 1/-1.. % A*T. B0/. 8ualified theft. O The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties ne3t higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the ne3t preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is 6o!or 9eh"c(e, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earth#uake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. @Imphasis and underscoring suppliedA B *ecords at 0-%. %& 9ection % of *epublic Act $o. FEB1 as amended defines motor vehicle as follows: (otor vehicle is any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways, 7'! eHce !"#3 roa. ro((er$, !ro((e) car$, $!ree!-$<ee er$, $ r"#G(er$, (a<# 6o<er$, 7'((.o=er$, 3ra.er$, :orG-(":!$, a6 h"7"a# !r'cG$, a#. cra#e$ ": #o! '$e. o# '7("c h"3h<a)$, 9eh"c(e$, <h"ch r'# o#() o# ra"($ or !rac!$, a#. !rac!or$, !ra"(er$ a#. reac!"o# e#3"#e$ o: a(( G"#.$ '$e. eHc('$"9e() :or a3r"c'(!'ra( 'r o$e$. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating. @Imphasis and underscoring suppliedA %2 9tatutes which are in pari materia may be independent or amendatory in form: they may be complete enactments dealing with a single, limited sub4ect matter or sections of a code or revision: or they may be a combination of these. R%D $. 9inger, 9utherland 9tatutory Construction 0./ @Eth ed., 011%AS %1 7atividad v. 2elix, %%1 9C*A F2/, F2& @011.A. B/ 1hilippine Global &ommunications, !nc. v. 4elova, 0.E 9C*A B2E, B1. @012FA: &ity of 7aga v. Agna, &0 9C*A 0&F, 02. @01&FA. B0 DlackQs =aw 8ictionary @Fth ed., 011/A translates the ma3im as to interpret, and Rin such a way asS to harmoni+e laws with laws, is the best mode of interpretation. .B Vide !)on v. 1eople, 0/& 9C*A 002, 0%B @0120A where this Court said the following: 'rom the definition cited by the -overnment which petitioners admit as authoritative, highways are always public, free for the use of every person. There is nothing in the law that re#uires a license to use a public highway to make the vehicle a motor vehicle within the definition given the anti-carnapping law. 5f a vehicle uses the streets with or without the re#uired license, same comes within the protection of the law, for the severity of the offense is not to be measured by what kind of streets or highway the same is used: but by the very nature of the vehicle itself and the use to which it is devoted. O!her<"$e, car$ '$"#3 !he $!ree!$ 7'! $!"(( '#("ce#$e. or '#re3"$!ere. a$ <he# !he) ha9e M'$! 7ee# 7o'3h! :ro6 !he co6 a#), or o#() o# !e$! r'#$, 6a) 7e $!o(e# <"!ho'! !he e#a( $a#c!"o# o: !he a#!"-car#a "#3 $!a!'!e, 7'! o#() a$ $"6 (e ro77er) '#"$ha7(e '#.er !he ro9"$"o# o: !he Re9"$e. +e#a( Co.e. Th"$ o79"o'$(), co'(. #o! ha9e 7ee# !he "#!e#!"o# o: !he a#!"-car#a "#3 (a<. -oing over the enumerations of e3cepted vehicle, it would readily be noted that any vehicle which is motori+ed using the streets which are public, not e3clusively for private use, comes within the concept of motor vehicle. A !r"c)c(e <h"ch "$ #o! "#c('.e. "# !he eHce !"o#, "$ !h'$ .ee6e. !o 7e !ha! G"#. o: 6o!or 9eh"c(e a$ .e:"#e. "# !he (a< !he $!ea("#3 o: <h"ch co6e$ <"!h"# "!$ e#a( $a#c!"o#. @Imphasis and underscoring suppliedA .. 1eople v. /ali-balita, B./ 9C*A .E/, .F1 @%///A: 1eople v. /anihit, BB1 9C*A 2F, 1. @%///A: 1eople v. %lamparo, B%1 9C*A ./., .0F @%///A: 1eople v. 0ia), B%/ 9C*A 0F2, 0&E @0111A. .E *ecords at 0-%. .F 5t should be noted that appellant cannot be charged with estafa as it was not alleged in the information that he had 4uridical possession of the motor vehicle. 5n *antos v. 1eople, 020 9C*A .2&, .1% @011/A, this Court distinguished between theft and estafa to wit:

0.B

Theft should not be confused with estafa. According to Chief >ustice *amon C. A#uino in his book on the *evised ,enal Code, The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken while in estafa the accused receives the property and converts it to his own use or benefit. Ho<e9er, !here 6a) 7e !he:! e9e# ": !he acc'$e. ha$ o$$e$$"o# o: !he ro er!). I: he <a$ e#!r'$!e. o#() <"!h !he 6a!er"a( or h)$"ca( >#a!'ra(? or de facto o$$e$$"o# o: !he !h"#3, h"$ 6"$a ro r"a!"o# o: !he $a6e co#$!"!'!e$ !he:!, 7'! ": he ha$ !he M'r"."ca( o$$e$$"o# o: !he !h"#3, h"$ co#9er$"o# o: !he $a6e co#$!"!'!e$ e67e==(e6e#! or e$!a:a. @Imphasis and underscoring supplied: citation omittedA (oreover, in 1eople v. !saac, 1F ,hil. 1B0 @01EEA, this Court convicted a 4eepney driver of theft and not estafa when he did not return the 4eepney to its owner since the motor vehicle was in the 4uridical possession of its owner, although physically held by the driver. The Court reasoned that the accused was not a lessee or hirer of the 4eepney because the ,ublic 9ervice =aw and its regulations prohibit a motor vehicle operator from entering into any kind of contract with any person if by the terms thereof it allows the use and operation of all or any of his e#uipment under a fi3ed rental basis. The contract with the accused being under the boundary system, legally, the accused was not a lessee but only an employee of the owner. Thus, the accusedQs possession of the vehicle was only an e3tension of the ownerQs. .& T9$, !ctober 1, %/// at E-2. .2 1eople v. %llasos, BE2 9C*A E0F, E%& @%//0A. .1 Vide 1eople v. !saac, supra, where this Court convicted 5saac, who was hired as a temporary driver of a public service vehicle O a 4eepney Oof the crime of theft when he did not return the same. E/ T9$, !ctober 1, %/// at %%-%B. E0 1eople v. %llasos, supra: 1eople v. Gulinao, 0&1 9C*A &&., &2/ @0121A. E% Venturina v. *andiganbayan, 01B 9C*A ./, .F @0110A: 1eople v. *eranilla, 0F0 9C*A 01B, %/& @0122A. EB B *. A#uino T C. -rino-A#uino, The *evised ,enal Code %/F @011&A. E. Association of /aptists for Norld %vangelism, !nc. v. 2ieldmenMs !nsurance &o, !nc ., 0%. 9C*A F02, F%/-F%0 @012BA: Villacarta v. !nsurance &ommission, 0// 9C*A .F&, .&.-.&E @012/A. EE 0// 9C*A .F& @012/A. EF 0%. 9C*A F02, F%/-F%0 @012BA. E& According to >ustice 'loren+ *egalado R'. *egalado, Criminal =aw Conspectus E.B-E.. @%//BAS, historically, opinion as to whether or not the unlawful taking of the personal property belonging to another must be coupled with the intent of the offender to permanently deprive the owner of the said property has been divided: @0A 5n one robbery case, it was held that there must be permanency in the taking, or in the intent for the asportation, of the stolen property @1eople v. Dho &hoc, CA, E/ !.-. 0FF&A. @%A 5n several theft cases, there were divided opinions, one line of cases holding that the intent of the taking was to permanently deprive the owner thereof @1eople v. Galang, CA, .B !.-. E&&: 1eople v. 4ico, CA, E/ !.-. B0/B, cf. 1eople v. 4oxas, CA--.*. $o. 0.1EB, !ct. B0, 01EFA. The co#!rar) 3ro' o: ca$e$ ar3'e. !ha! !here <a$ #o #ee. :or er6a#e#c) "# !he !aG"#3 or "# "!$ "#!e#!, a$ !he 6ere ."$!'r7a#ce o: !he ro r"e!ar) r"3h!$ o: !he o<#er <a$ a(rea.) apodera+iento @1eople v. 2ernande), CA, B2 !.-. 12E: 1eople v. artisano, CA, .2 !.-. ..0&A. @BA The $eco#. ("#e o: ca$e$ ho(."#3 !ha! !here #ee. 7e #o "#!e#! !o er6a#e#!() .e r"9e !he o<#er o: h"$ ro er!) <a$ (a!er a.o !e. 7) !he S' re6e Co'r! , in construing the theft clause in an insurance policy, and ruling that there was criminal liability for theft even if the car was taken out only for a 4oyride but without the ownerQs knowledge or consent. @ Villacorta v. !nsurance &omm., et al., -.*. $o. E.0&0, !ct. %2, 012/: AssMn of /aptists for Norld %vangelism v. 2ieldmenMs !ns. &o, !nc. , -.*. $o. =-%2&&%, 9ept. %0, 012BA. @Imphasis suppliedA E2 Villacorta v. !nsurance &ommission, supra. E1 *ecords at 1B. F/ 1eople v. uros, -.*. $o. 0.%E00, 'ebruary 0F, %//.. F0 !bid. F% T9$, !ctober 1, %/// at 1-0/. FB *ules of Court, *ule 00E, sec. 0, par. @gA: Vide 1eople v. Noolcoc3, %.. 9C*A %BE, %EE-%EF @011EA, where this Court said the following: >ust like appellant Williams, she sought to buttress her aforesaid contention by lamenting the alleged failure of the 9tate to present in the trial court her baggage declaration and the confiscation receipt involving these pieces of her baggage. 5n the first place, it was not the duty of the prosecution to present these alleged documents on which she relies for her defense. A#., M'$! a$ "# !he ca$e o: a e((a#! 8"(("a6$, "! "$ a $o'rce o: '==(e6e#! <h) $he #e9er $o'3h! !o co6 e( e"!her !he ro$ec'!or$ !o ro.'ce !he a:ore$a". .oc'6e#!$ <h"ch <ere a((e3e.() "# !he o$$e$$"o# o: !he (a!!er or !he c'$!o6$ o::"ce <here $'ch

0..

.ec(ara!"o#$ are o# :"(e. Co#!rar) !o her ar3'6e#! hereo#, $"#ce $'ch "ece$ o: e9".e#ce <ere eF'a(() a9a"(a7(e !o 7o!h ar!"e$ ": $o'3h! 7) $'7 oe#a duces tecu+, #o re$'6 !"o# o: $' re$$"o# o: e9".e#ce ca# 7e .ra<#, a#. !he$e co#$".era!"o#$ ("Ge<"$e a () !o !he !he$"$ o: a e((a#! 8"(("a6$. @Imphasis and underscoring supplied: citation omittedA F. 1eople v. *imon, %B. 9C*A EEE, E&. @011.A. FE !d. at E&F. FF B0/ 9C*A FF @0111A. F& !d. at 11-0//. 5t should be noted, however, that the passage of *epublic Act $o. &FE1, otherwise known as A$ ACT T! 5(,!9I T6I 8IAT6 ,I$A=TG !$ CI*TA5$ 6I5$!C9 C*5(I9, A(I$85$'!* T6AT ,C*,!9I T6I *IH59I8 ,I$A= C!8I, A9 A(I$8I8, !T6I* 9,IC5A= ,I$A= =AW9, A$8 '!* !T6I* ,C*,!9I9, introduced three amendments to the anti-carnapping law: @0A the change of the penalty of life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua, @%A the inclusion of rape, and @BA the change of the phrase in the commission of the carnapping to in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. R 1eople v. Latayada, -.*. $o. 0.F2FE, 'ebruary 02, %//.: 1eople v. *antos, supra at BBB: 1eople v. 1aramil, B%1 9C*A .EF, .F. @%///A: 1eople v. e"ia, %&E 9C*A 0%&, 0EB @011&AS With the amendment of the penalty to life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua, the provisions of the *evised ,enal Code can be suppletorily applied in #ualified carnapping or carnapping in an aggravated form as defined in 9ection 0. of *epublic Act $o. FEB1, as amended by 9ection %/ of *epublic Act $o. &FE1 O whenever the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. 5n 1eople v. *imon R%B. 9C*A EEE, E&. @011.AS, this Court said that when an offense is defined and punished under a special law but its penalty is taken from the *evised ,enal Code, then the provisions of the said Code would apply suppletorily. 5n the case at bar however, appellant is not being charged with #ualified or aggravated carnapping, but only carnapping under the first clause of the anti-carnapping law. 9ince the imposable penalty is imprisonment for not less than 0. years and 2 months and not more than 0& years and . months, the provisions of the *evised ,enal Code cannot be applied suppletorily. F2 9IC. 0.. 1enalty for &arnapping. O Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in 9ection Two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished 7) "6 r"$o#6e#! :or #o! (e$$ !ha# :o'r!ee# )ear$ a#. e"3h! 6o#!h$ a#. #o! 6ore !ha# $e9e#!ee# )ear$ a#. :o'r 6o#!h$, <he# !he car#a "#3 "$ co66"!!e. <"!ho'! 9"o(e#ce or "#!"6".a!"o# o: er$o#$, or :orce ' o# !h"#3$, and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon things: and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. @Imphasis and underscoring suppliedA F1 9ICT5!$ 0. 6ereinafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punishable by the *evised ,enal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the ma3imum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty ne3t lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense: a#. ": !he o::e#$e "$ '#"$he. 7) a#) o!her (a<, !he co'r! $ha(( $e#!e#ce !he acc'$e. !o a# "#.e!er6"#a!e $e#!e#ce, !he 6aH"6'6 !er6 o: <h"ch $ha(( #o! eHcee. !he 6aH"6'6 :"He. 7) $a". (a< a#. !he 6"#"6'6 $ha(( #o! 7e (e$$ !ha# !he 6"#"6'6 !er6 re$cr"7e. 7) !he $a6e. @Imphasis and underscoring suppliedA.

0.E

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R