G.R. No.
123485  Sabalones also had witnesses claiming that his life was being threatened by the
August 31, 1998
People v. Sabalones
Petitioner, People of the Philippines
Respondents, Rolusape Sabalones alias “Roling”, Artemio Timoteo Beronga
(appellants), Teodulo Alegabres (died in the course of trial) and Eufemio Cabanero (still
at-large)
Ponente, Panganiban
Provisions
Article 4(1), RPC
Criminal liability – Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended
Facts
 The respondents were accused of murder and frustrated murder after a shooting
incident in Talisay, Cebu. They allegedly ambushed two vehicles, and ended up
killing two people and wounding three others.
 Lower court found Sabalones and Beronga guilty beyond reasonable doubt and
were sentenced 14 to 17 years reclusion temporal and to indemnify the heirs of
the victims.
 The court of appeals affirmed their conviction but sentenced them to reclusion
perpetua.
Version of the Prosecution
 The victims were at a small gathering. Their friend, Stephen Lim, requested them
to drive his car home. Two of the victims and three other friends brought the said
car to Lim’s home. They traveled in convoy following an owner-type jeep where
the three other victims were riding.
 When they arrived at the gate of Lim’s house, they were met with a sudden burst
of gunfire. Four persons standing behind a concrete wall and armed with long
firearms were firing at the jeep. The three victims riding the jeep fell to the ground.
When the shots were directed at the car, they were able to bow low, but two of
them were still hit.
 The other people in the car during the incident were able to identify the gunmen
and served as witnesses.
 The father of two of the victims was a military-man, Major Tiempo.
Version of the Defense
 Beronga made an alibi that he was not in Talisay when the shooting happened. He
also claimed having been forced by men of Major Tiempo to admit the crime.
 They also presented witnesses to say that there were no streetlights where the
crime happened on the night of the incident (implying that the gunmen would not
have been identified).
 Sabalones presented witnesses claiming that he was in his brother’s wake,
resting/sleeping when the shooting happened.
camp of Major Tiempo. He went hiding for years and upon his arrest, he also claims
to have been tortured by Major Tiempo’s men.
Context
 Sabalones used to be an undercover agent of the Intelligence Service of the
Philippine Constabulary, under the unit of his uncle, a General. He also has an
uncle who is an ambassador (powerful family)
 Sabalones already had other cases filed against him before.
 Stephen Lim’s home is an apartment owned by Sabalones. His wife and children
also live there.
 Sabalones’ brother also died in a shooting incident; the gunman was not identified.
 Sabalones was also accused of the death of a radio commentator, Nabing Velez,
because his father had a slapping incident (in a cockfight event) with the victim a
month prior to the crime.
Issue/Discussion:
1. WoN the prosecution witnesses and evidences are credible
-Yes. RTC findings were binding to court with appreciated testimonies of two witnesses.
There was positive identification by survivors who saw them when they peered during
lulls in gunfire. The place was well-lit, whether from streetlight, car’s headlights, or even
moonlight. The extrajudicial confession has no bearing because the conviction was
based on positive identification. The inconcistencies in the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses are minor and inconsequential which strengthen credibility of testimony.
On aberratio ictus [mistake in blow]: The extrajudicial statement of Beronga and the
testimony of one of the witnesses show that the appellants believed that they were
suspected of having killed the recently slain Nabing Velez, and that they expected his
group to retaliate against them. Hence, upon the arrival of the victims’ vehicles which
they mistook to be carrying the avenging men of Nabing Velez, appellants opened fire.
Nonetheless, the fact that they were mistaken does not diminish their culpability. The
court has held that “mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as
when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim.” Also, as explained by the Sol.Gen.,
the case is better characterized by error in personae or mistake in the identity of the
victims, rather than aberration ictus which means mistake in the blow, characterized by
aiming at one but hitting the other due to imprecision in the blow.
2. WoN the alibis are acceptable
- No. It was still quite near the crime scene. It is overruled by positive identification.
Using the case of People v. Nescio, Alibi is not credible when the accused-appellant is
only a short distance from the scene of the crime. Furthermore, flight indicates guilt.
3. WoN the correct penalty is imposed
- No. Under Article 248 of the RPC, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its
maximum period, to death. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance,
aside from the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the appellate court correctly
imposed reclusion perpetua for murder. The CA erred in computing the penalty for each
of the three counts of frustrated murder. Under Article 50 of the RPC, the penalty for
frustrated felony is next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony. Because there are no mitigating or aggravating conspiracy
between the two accused. It does not matter that the prosecution has failed to show
who was between the two who actually pulled the trigger that killed the child. They are
liable as co-conspirators since the act of a conspirator becomes the act of another
regardless of the precise degree of participation in the act.

Also there was a presence of treachery, because of the circumstances that the crime
was done at night time and that the accused hid themselves among the bamboo.
Evident premeditation is also an aggravating circumstance [the accused had planned
to kill the victim some days before].

Ruling
The appeal is denied and the assailed decision is affirmed. The penalties are modified
as follows:
- 2 counts of murder (sentence: reclusion perpetua, indemnify heirs of each
deceased victim P50,000)
- 3 counts of frustrated murder (sentence: 8 years of prision mayor as minimum to
14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as maximum and pay actual
damages to the victims)

Digest Made by: Chela Karaan and Michiko Kaimoto