You are on page 1of 22

A letter dated April 23, 1993 was sent to the court a quo by Chona C.

SECOND DIVISION
Belmonte, MD, of the Department of Health Regional Health Office No. 5,
[G.R. No. 123912. June 8, 2000] Don Susano J. Rodriguez Memorial Mental Hospital, Cadlan, Pili, Camarines
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEVY Sur. Some portions of her letter are quoted below:
MONIEVA, accused-apppellant. "Dear Sir:
DECISION "Preliminary examination was conducted on the subject
BUENA, J.: LEVY MONIEVA on April 23, 1993 as per request of your
honorable court dated October 1, 1991.
Accused-appellant Levy Monieva appeals the decision of the Regional Trial
Court at Masbate, Masbate, Branch 47 in Criminal Case No. 6348 entitled "As you can see it took the provincial jail almost 2 years to
"People of the Philippines versus Levy Monieva" convicting him of murder bring the accused here for examination.
and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. "At present, there are no observable psychotic signs and
On May 20, 1991, an information was filed against Levy Monieva charging symptoms noted on him. However, we are still conducting
him of murder committed as follows: psychological testing to further evaluate him. At this point,
the patient doesn’t need any form of treatment."
"That on or about February 10, 1991 in the afternoon
thereof, at Sitio Iraya, Barangay Cagay, Municipality of xxx
Masbate, Province of Masbate, Philippines and within the Upon arraignment, accused Levy Monieva, assisted by counsel, pleaded
jurisdiction of this court, the said accused with intent to kill, not guilty to the crime charged. The Regional Trial Court thereafter
evident premeditation, treachery and abuse of superior proceeded with the trial.
strength did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
Elvie Mabuti, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, testified that on
feloniously stab and hack several times one Leonardo
February 10, 1991 at about 5:30 o’clock in the afternoon while she and her
Dumalag, hitting the latter on the different parts of his body
husband Rani Mabuti were inside their house located at Iraya Cagay,
thereby inflicting wounds which directly caused his
Mobo, Masbate, Masbate she saw accused Levy Monieva hack the victim
instantaneous death.
Leonardo Dumalag. She also heard Leonardo Dumalag crying for help
"CONTRARY TO LAW." while he was running away. The incident happened about 5 meters away
On July 17, 1991, the trial court issued an order referring the accused to from their house. Upon seeing the incident, she and her husband together
the Masbate Provincial Health Office, Masbate, Masbate for mental with their two children jumped from their house and fled to the bushes
examination and postponing indefinitely the pre-trial and arraignment of where they stayed the whole night. At about 10:00 o’clock the following
the case until the results of the said examination shall have become morning, they returned home and found the headless body of the victim.
available for the consideration of the court. The head was recovered two days later on the land tilled by accused
Monieva.
Considering however the refusal of the Masbate Provincial Health Office to
conduct a mental examination on the accused there being no physician in Pacita Dumalag, the wife of the victim, testified that on February 10, 1991
that office competent enough to conduct the requested mental at about 7:30 o’clock in the evening she was informed by Barangay Tanod
examination, the court a quo issued another order on October 1, 1991, Amador Dalanon and Abner Brioso that her husband was killed by Levy
referring the accused to the Rodriguez Memorial Mental Hospital, Cadlan, Monieva near the house of their tenant Rani Mabuti at Cagay, Masbate,
Pili, Camarines Sur for mental examination. Masbate. They then went to the place of incident and found the lifeless
body of her husband.
She also stated that on February 11, 1991, the police arrested Levy THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-
Monieva near his house at Cagay, Masbate, Masbate. The bolo used in APPELLANT LEVY MONIEVA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
killing her husband was recovered from the accused. For the burial of her DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DEFINED AND
husband, she spent Eighteen Thousand Pesos (P18,000.00). PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLE 248 OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE, DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
Dr. Artemio Capellan, the Municipal Health Officer of Masbate, Masbate
PROVE THE QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
testified that he conducted a post mortem examination on the body of
CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION.
victim Leonardo Dumalag on February 12, 1991. Based on his
examination, the victim sustained four (4) stab wounds, one of which was The appeal is meritorious in the sense that the penalty should be lowered.
the most fatal because the head of the victim was almost cut off. The In his brief accused-appellant contends that Elvie Mabuti is an unreliable
instrument used to kill the victim was a short bladed instrument and it was witness because her testimony is contrary to human experience,
possible that a bolo was used. incredible, fabricated and wholly concocted. He points to the following
The defense presented only one witness, the accused Levy Monieva. He incongruities in the said witness’ testimony and rationalizes why he
denied the allegations that he killed Leonardo Dumalag. He testified that considers them to be such.
at the time of the incident he was being attended to by a quack doctor a) Elvie Mabuti and her family left their house and fled to
named Fedir Villanueva in his house located at Cagay, Masbate, Masbate the bushes that are in an open field and that is where they
as he had a fever and his body was aching. He only learned about the stayed the whole night. – It is highly incredible and
death of Leonardo Dumalag from Barangay Tanod Abner Brioso and unbelievable that they would leave their house to hide in an
Amador Dalanon when he was investigated by the two. On February 11, open field where they could have easily been caught and
1991, he was arrested by the police authorities. attacked.
On July 10, 1995, a decision was rendered by the trial court convicting the b) Upon their return the following day, February 11, 1991, at
accused and imposing the following penalty: about 10:00 o’clock in the morning Elvie Mabuti found the
"WHEREFORE, this court finds accused Levy Monieva guilty body of the victim near their house. – This does not jibe with
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and hereby the testimony of the victim’s wife, Pacita Dumalag, that
sentences him to reclusion perpetua; orders him to upon learning of the death of her husband Leonardo on
indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of P50,000.00 February 10, 1991 at around 7:30 o’clock in the evening she
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and immediately went to the place of the incident where she
to pay the cost. found his lifeless body;
"IT IS SO ORDERED." c) Elvie Mabuti testified that the victim was beheaded and
that the head was recovered two days later. – This is false
Hence, this appeal where accused-appellant assigns the following errors
because the post mortem report of Dr. Artemio Capellan
allegedly committed by the trial court:
stated that the head of the victim was almost cut off but not
I severed.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND We find the testimony of Elvie Mabuti credible. She testified in a
CREDENCE TO THE OTHERWISE UNCORROBORATED, categorical, straightforward manner – manifestations that a witness is
INCREDIBLE AND FABRICATED TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION telling the truth.
WITNESS ELVIE MABUTI
Appellant finds it incredible that Elvie Mabuti and her family opted to flee
II from their house instead of just staying put.
Elvie Mabuti explains why: "(They) jumped and escaped because (her) "Even where a witness is found to have deliberately falsified
husband was afraid." the truth in some particulars, and it was not shown that
there was such intended prevarication by complainant in
At first blush it confounds the mind why Rani Mabuti, the husband of Elvie,
this case, it is not required that the entire testimony be
opted to flee the sanctuary of their abode. Was it cowardice or fear for his
rejected, since such portions thereof deemed worthy of
family’s safety that prompted him to do so? Whatever the reason for their
belief may be credited. It is perfectly reasonable to believe
hasty departure was, we deem it inconsequential for the fact remains that
the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and
they fled when they saw their neighbor Levy Monieva hacking Leonardo
disbelieve it with respect to other facts.
Dumalag.
Finally, appellant was positively and categorically identified by Elvie
As admitted by Monieva himself except for the Mabuti family he had no
Mabuti as the person who hacked Leonardo Dumalag. More than anything,
other neighbor. Considering then that the Mabutis were witness to a crime
this carries a great weight in the determination of whether an accused is
taking place and perhaps propelled by the belief that they could be killed
guilty or not. Some portions of the testimony of the said witness follow:
next Rani Mabuti made the decision to flee.
"COURT
Given the same set of circumstances another person might have had the
same or an entirely different reaction. It is not fair to gauge the action of "Q On February 10, 1991 at about 5:30 in the afternoon
Elvie Mabuti and her family with that of another for it is difficult to what happened to Leonardo Dumalag?
ascertain what a person’s reactions would be when a startling or "A He was killed.
frightening situation suddenly looms before him.
"ATTY. VILLAMOR
It has been held in the case of People vs. Luzorata,
"Q By whom?
"(d)ifferent people act differently to a given stimulus or type
of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral "A Levy Monieva.
response when one is confronted with a strange or startling "Q If this Levy Monieva is in Court, can you identify him?
or frightful experience."
"A Yes, sir.
As to the alleged inconsistency between the testimony of Elvie Mabuti and
the victim’s wife Pacita Dumalag we find that the time when the body was "Q Please point to Levy Monieva.
found is immaterial to appellant’s guilt. Where the inconsistency is not an "A (Witness pointed to a man who, when asked of his name,
essential element of murder, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot identified himself as Levy Monieva.
have any bearing on the essential fact testified to, that is, the fact of
"Q Now how did Levy Monieva kill Leonardo Dumalag on
killing.
February 10, 1991?
It has been held that inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony
"A He hacked him.
referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime do
not impair the witnesses’ credibility. These inconsistencies even tend to "Q How many times did Levy Monieva hack Leonardo
strengthen, rather than weaken, the credibility of witnesses as they negate Dumalag?
any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.
"A Many times.
But even if it were proven that that part of Elvie Mabuti’s testimony was "Q Where?
false, this will not cause her entire testimony to be rejected, for
"A Parts of his body.
"Q Where particularly in Cagay did Levy Monieva hack dead. The record does not disclose this information. What the eyewitness,
Leonardo Dumalag? i.e., Elvie Mabuti saw (appellant chasing and hacking the victim) and heard
(the crying of the victim for help) was almost the tail end of the altercation
"A Near our house.
between the appellant and the victim. We do not know what the means of
"Q How many meters away from your house? defense available to the offended party was, if there was any, and whether
"A About five meters. he made use of it from the inception of the altercation.

Appellant denies having committed the crime and interposes the defense Abuse of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of
of alibi. He contends that he could not have killed the victim because he proportion to the means available to the person attacked to defend
was sick at the time. himself. (Emphasis Ours) Before abuse of superior strength may be
appreciated, it must be clearly shown that there was deliberate intent on
It has invariably been held that for an alibi to prosper, it must be the part of the malefactor to take advantage thereof.
sufficiently convincing as to preclude any doubt as to the physical
impossibility of the accused-appellant’s being present at the locus criminis The prosecution is of the opinion that since the appellant was armed with
or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident. a bolo and was chasing the unarmed victim who was trying to flee, this
shows that the latter was powerless to offer resistance thereby admitting
Appellant Levy Monieva admits that he was being attended by a quack his inferiority and the superiority of his assailant.
doctor in his house at Cagay, Masbate, Masbate at the time of the
incident. The crime occurred a few meters away from the house of his This is mere conjecture on the part of the prosecution. It was not at all
nearest neighbor Rani Mabuti. Monieva was not so far away that he could apparent that the appellant consciously adopted that particular means,
not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or its i.e., the use of a bolo, to harm another.
immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. The prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
Between the positive identification made by Elvie Mabuti and the denial of Treachery is present when the attack comes without warning, is sudden
the appellant, we are more inclined to give weight to the former’s and unexpected and the unsuspecting victim is not in a position to parry
testimony. Moreover, there was no showing that Elvie Mabuti was the assault.In the case of People vs. Pena it was held that treachery
motivated by any ill-will when she testified against the appellant. We have cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence,
no reason to believe that she would knowingly put a person behind bars if or as conclusively as the killing itself.
he was not the one who killed the victim. The mere fact that the victim was running away from the appellant who
Positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any was wielding a bolo shows that the victim was aware of the danger to
showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the himself, thus negating the suddenness of the attack for which reason
matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear treachery cannot be appreciated in this case.
and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence Neither was evident premeditation proven for there was no showing as to
undeserving of weight in law. how and when the plan to kill was hatched, or what time had elapsed
Anent the second assigned error we hold that the trial court erred in before it was carried out. Evident premeditation must be clearly proven,
convicting the appellant of murder. It was not sufficiently proven that the established beyond reasonable doubt, and must be based on external acts
killing was qualified by the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior which are evident, not merely suspected, and which indicate deliberate
strength, evident premeditation, and treachery. planning.
We are at a complete loss as to what the sequence of events was from the From the above, we hold that there was an absence of qualifying
time Levy Monieva and Leonardo Dumalag met to the time the victim lay circumstances to justify the conviction of the accused for murder.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the conviction of appellant Levy Monieva is
AFFIRMED, with the modification that he is declared guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide and not Murder. Thus, appellant
is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years of
prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months
of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The monetary award of P50,000.00 as
indemnity for the death of the victim is also AFFIRMED. Costs against the
appellant.
SO ORDERED.
“That on or about April 13, 1991, at about 7:45 p.m. more or less, in
Barangay Curba, Municipality of Calauan, Province of Laguna, and within
FIRST DIVISION the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused
[G.R. No. 131116. August, 27, 1999] conspiring, confederating, and mutually aiding one another, with treachery
and evident premeditation, and with the use of a motor vehicle, at night
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, time, all the accused then being armed and committed in consideration of
ARTEMIO AVERION, LANDRITO “DING” PERADILLAS and LUIS CORCOLON, a price, reward or promise and of superior strength, did then and there
accused. willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shoot with the use of automatic
ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ and ARTEMIO AVERION, accused-appellants. weapons inflicting multiple gunshot wounds upon Nelson Peñalosa and
Rickson Peñalosa which caused their instantaneous deaths to the damage
DECISION and prejudice of their heirs and relatives.
PARDO, J.: “CONTRARY TO LAW.”
What is before this Court is an appeal from the decision of Regional Trial On March 16, 1994, the case was raffled to Branch 34, Regional Trial Court,
Court, Branch 160, Pasig City, finding accused Antonio L. Sanchez, Luis Calamba, Laguna. On March 17, 1994, the court ordered the arrest of
Corcolon y Fadialan, Landrito “Ding” Peradillas and Artemio Averion guilty accused Antonio L. Sanchez, Luis Corcolon and Ding Peradillas. On the
beyond reasonable doubt of murder committed against Nelson Peñalosa same date, Artemio Averion voluntarily surrendered to the court, which
and Rickson Peñalosa, and sentencing each of the accused, as follows: ordered Averion’s transfer to the provincial jail, Sta. Cruz, Laguna.
“WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the Court finds the accused Antonio Thereafter, the trial court committed the accused to the custody of proper
Sanchez, Landrito “Ding” Peradillas, Luis Corcolon, and Artemio Averion authorities.
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER punishable
under ART. 48 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences each of Upon arraignment on April 10, 1995, all the accused pleaded not guilty.
said accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay jointly The trial of the case thereby ensued. On December 27, 1996, the trial
and severally, the heirs of the victims each the sum of P100,000.00 for the court convicted all the accused of the complex crime of double murder, as
death of Nelson Peñalosa and Rickson Peñalosa, P50,000.00 as actual charged, the dispositive portion of which is set out in the opening
damages and moral damages of P 50,000.00 and exemplary damages of paragraph of this opinion.
P30,000.00 and to pay the costs.” On February 27, 1997, all the accused, except Ding Peradillas, were
“SO ORDERED. present for the promulgation of the decision. Peradillas was a member of
the Philippine National Police and was under the custody of his superiors.
“City of Pasig. The trial court ordered his custodian to explain accused’s non-
“December 27, 1996. appearance. On March 14, 1997, P/C Supt. Roberto L. Calinisan, Chief,
PNP-PACC Task Force Habagat, denied any knowledge of the murder case
“(s/t) MARIANO M. UMALI
against Peradillas. Hence, Peradillas was not suspended from the service
“Judge” pending trial. However, at the time that Peradillas was to be presented to
On March 1, 1994, Senior State Prosecutor Hernani T. Barrios filed with the the court for the promulgation of the decision, he had disappeared and
Regional Trial Court, Calamba, Laguna, an information for double murder could not be located by his custodian. The promulgation of the decision as
against accused Antonio L. Sanchez, Luis Corcolon y Fadialan, Landrito to him was in absentia. Peradillas and Corcolon did not appeal from the
“Ding” Peradillas and Artemio Averion, the accusatory portion of which decision.
reads:
Accused Antonio L. Sanchez and Artemio Averion filed their respective Victoria Farms, located about 100 meters from Peñalosa compound,
appeals to this Court. Corcolon ordered Averion to overtake Peñalosa’s jeep. As the car overtook
the jeep, Peradillas and Corcolon fired at Peñalosa’s jeep, using M-16 and
The facts are as follows:
baby armalite rifles, executed in automatic firing mode. There were three
On April 13, 1991, at around 10:00 in the morning, state witness Vivencio bursts of gunfire. Based on the sketch prepared by Malabanan, illustrating
Malabanan, team leader of a group of policemen, went to the Bishop the relative position of their car and Nelson’s jeep at the time of the
Compound in Calauan, Laguna, as part of the security force of mayor shooting, the assailants were at the left side of the jeep.
Antonio L. Sanchez. After a while, accused Ding Peradillas arrived and
Rickson Peñalosa, son of Nelson Peñalosa, fell from the jeep. The jeep,
asked for mayor Sanchez. Peradillas informed mayor Sanchez that there
however, continued running in a zigzag position until it overturned in front
would be a birthday party that night at Dr. Virvilio Velecina’s house in
of Irais Farm. After the shooting, the accused proceeded to the house of
Lanot, Calauan, Laguna, near the abode of Peradillas. Peradillas assured
mayor Sanchez in Bai, Laguna, and reported to mayor Sanchez that
mayor Sanchez of Nelson Peñalosa’s presence thereat. Dr. Velecina was a
Peñalosa was already dead.
political opponent of mayor Sanchez for the mayoralty seat of Calauan,
Laguna. Mayor Sanchez then replied, “Bahala na kayo mga anak. Ayusin Together with his superior SPO4 Lanorio and photographer Romeo
lang ninyo ang trabaho,” and left the premises. Peradillas immediately Alcantara, policeman Daniel Escares went to the crime scene. There, he
called Corcolon and Averion and relayed the message - “Ayos na ang saw the body of Nelson Peñalosa slumped at the driver seat of the owner-
paguusap at humanap na lang ng sasakyan.” All the accused, including type jeep. They recovered the body of Rickson Peñalosa slumped on a
Malabanan, understood it as an order to kill Nelson Peñalosa, one of the grassy place not far from where they found Nelson Peñalosa. After all the
political leaders of Dr. Velecina. evidence and photographs were taken, they brought the cadavers to
Funeraria Señerez. Daniel Escares submitted his investigation report of
Afterwards, Peradillas, Corcolon and Averion made arrangements to
the incident to the Provincial Director, Laguna PNP Command.
acquire two-way radios and a vehicle for the operation. At around 2:30 in
the afternoon, Malabanan and the three accused went their separate ways Dr. Ruben B. Escueta, Rural Health Physician, Rural Health Unit, Calauan,
and agreed to meet at mayor Sanchez’ house at 6:00 in the evening. Laguna, conducted an autopsy on the bodies of Nelson and Rickson
Malabanan returned to his detachment area at Dayap, proceeded to the Peñalosa. Nelson Peñalosa suffered massive intra-cranial hemorrhage and
municipal hall, then went home where Peradillas fetched him at 6:00 p.m. died of cranial injury due to gunshot wounds. Rickson Peñalosa died of
They proceeded to mayor Sanchez’ house where they met Averion and massive intra thoracic hemorrhage due to gunshot wounds. Dr. Escueta, as
Corcolon, with the car and two-way radios. a defense witness, testified that based on the points of entrance and exit
of the wounds sustained by the Peñalosas, it was not possible for the
At around 7:00 in the evening, Malabanan and the three accused boarded
assailants to be at the left side of the victims. It contradicted Malabanan’s
the car and went to Marpori Poultry Farm in Barangay Lanot, near Dr.
testimony that they were at the left side of the victims when the shooting
Velecina’s house. Peradillas alighted and walked towards his own house,
took place. He further stated that based on the wounds inflicted on the
near Dr. Velecina’s house, to check whether Nelson Peñalosa was at the
victims, the assailants were either in a sitting or squatting position when
party.
they shot the victims. Some of the wounds indicated an upward trajectory
Thereafter, using the two-way radio, Peradillas informed the occupants of of the bullets.
the car that Nelson Peñalosa’s jeep was leaving the Velecina compound.
On September 15, 1993, Janet P. Cortez, PNP ballistician, completed the
Accused Averion immediately drove the car to the front of Peradillas’
ballistic tests conducted on the twelve (12) empty shells found at the
house and the latter hopped in the car’s back seat. Corcolon sat in the
crime scene and the M-16 baby armalite surrendered by Corcolon. She
front seat beside him; witness Malabanan sat at the left side of the
concluded that the 12 empty shells were fired using three (3) different
backseat and Peradillas stayed at the right side of the back seat. The
firearms, one of which was the M-16 baby armalite.
group pursued Peñalosa’s jeep. When the accused’s car was passing
On August 18, 1995, Adelina Peñalosa, common law wife of Nelson Accused mayor Antonio L. Sanchez stated that on April 12, 1991, he went
Peñalosa and mother of Rickson, testified that the whole family was in to Anilao, Batangas, with his family. Around 1:00 in the afternoon of April
mourning and could not eat after what happened. She testified that the 13, 1991, his family went to Tagaytay City and stayed overnight at Taal
family incurred P250,000.00 for funeral expenses, but failed to present the Vista Lodge. Around 10:00 in the morning of April 14, 1991, they went
appropriate receipts. She also stated that Nelson Peñalosa was earning home to Calauan, Laguna. After reaching his abode in Calauan around
one (1) million pesos per annum from his businesses. However, no income 12:00 noon, mayor Sanchez learned of the ambush-slayings of the
tax return or other proofs were shown to substantiate the statement. Peñalosas. He immediately ordered an investigation of the case. He
denied any involvement in the killing of the victims.
The accused interposed the defense of alibi and denial.
The trial court ruled that the prosecution’s evidence clearly and
Luis Corcolon stated that he spent the whole day of April 13, 1991, until
convincingly established the participation of the four (4) accused in killing
8:30 in the evening, supervising the poultry farm of his employers,
the Peñalosas. Malabanan gave a sincere, frank and trustworthy account
Edgardo Tanchico and Orlando Dizon. He denied that he was in the
of the circumstances surrounding the killing. Furthermore, the trial court
company of Averion and Peradillas that day, and that he participated in the
explained the discrepancies between Malabanan’s recollection of how the
Peñalosa killings. He denied that he was ever assigned as a security guard
victims were shot and Dr. Escuesta’s conclusion on what transpired based
of mayor Sanchez. He claimed that the murder charges were concocted
on the injuries sustained by the victims.
against them for his refusal to testify against mayor Sanchez in the
Gomez-Sarmenta case. He alleged that he was maltreated, tortured, The trial court stated that the doctor’s conclusion was based on the
electrocuted and forced to implicate mayor Sanchez in the Gomez- assumption that the victims were in a sitting position inside the jeep.
Sarmenta rape-slayings. He denied that he owned the M-16 baby armalite However, it was possible that after the first burst of gunfire, the victims
used in killing the Peñalosas. were hit and fell. During the second burst of gunfire, the victims were
lying down or in a crouching position. Thus, the entry-exit points of the
Detention prisoner George Medialdea corroborated Corcolon’s statement
bullets did not entirely correspond to Malabanan’s account, which was
that they were implicated in the Peñalosa killing for their refusal to testify
based on the assumption that the victims did not change their positions
against mayor Sanchez. He claimed that Malabanan confessed to him that
during the shooting incident.
the latter had killed the Peñalosas, but with the aid of CAFGU men and not
herein accused. He averred that Corcolon and Averion were wrongfully The trial court ruled that the accused conspired in committing the crime.
implicated in the murder charges in deference to the wishes of the Treachery was present, thereby qualifying the crime to murder. It
investigators. Zoilo Ama, another detention prisoner, claimed that appreciated the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation,
Malabanan confessed that he killed the Peñalosas, but did not mention the nighttime and use of motor vehicle.
involvement of Corcolon, Averion and mayor Sanchez. The trial court considered the crime as a complex crime of double murder
Accused Artemio Averion, a godson of mayor Sanchez, denied that he was punishable under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. However, at the
involved in the Peñalosa slayings. On April 13, 1991, he claimed that he time of the commission of the offense on April 13, 1991, there was a
was in Lucena City, attending to his ailing father. He stayed there until constitutional proscription on the imposition of the death penalty. Thus,
April 15, 1991. He maintained that he was wrongfully implicated in the each of the accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and to pay
Peñalosa killings for his refusal to testify against mayor Sanchez regarding damages to the heirs of the victims, as earlier quoted.
the Gomez-Sarmenta rape-slayings. Malabanan asked for his forgiveness Accused mayor Antonio L. Sanchez and Artemio Averion jointly appealed
for falsely incriminating them in the Peñalosa case. from the decision to the Supreme Court.
Jesus Versoza, PNP Officer, Camp Crame, denied the allegations of In their sole assignment of error, accused mayor Sanchez and Averion
Medialdea and Averion that they were tortured and forced to testify contended that the trial court failed to recognize the material
against mayor Sanchez.
inconsistencies between Malabanan’s testimony and the physical and Escueta’s conclusion, it was not impossible that the victims were hit from
scientific evidence presented before it. They pointed out the following the right side of their bodies, even if assailants were physically situated at
inconsistencies, to wit: the victims’ left side. Hence, the apparent inconsistencies do not affect
witness Malabanan’s credibility.
1. Malabanan testified that a) when they fired at the victims, they were
about the same elevation; b) they used two (2) guns in killing the vicitms; After a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, we agree with the trial
c) they were at the left side of the victims when the shooting incident court that the prosecution adequately established accused’s guilt beyond
occurred. However, Dr. Escueta’s autopsy report revealed that: 1) the reasonable doubt.
assailants were at a lower elevation; 2) three (3) kinds of guns were used; Malabanan gave a detailed account of the planning, preparation and the
and 3) based on the injuries, assailants were on the right side of the shooting incident. He narrated the participation of each of the accused, to
victims. wit: (1) the order given by mayor Sanchez to execute Peñalosa; (2)
2. Malabanan’s affidavit “Exhibit V” made on August 16, 1993, and sworn Averion’s acquisition of a vehicle and two-way radios to be used for the
to on August 17, 1993, bears two (2) signatures of the affiant Malabanan operation and in driving the car; (3) Peradillas’ act of relaying the
and dated September 15, 1993. However, during cross-examination, information that Nelson Peñalosa’s jeep was leaving the Velecina
Malabanan stated that he executed and signed the affidavit on one compound; 4) the way they pursued the victims; and 5) Corcolon and
occasion only, August 15, 1993. Peradillas’ act of firing and killing the Peñalosas.
3. Aurelio Centeno testified in the case of Gomez-Sarmenta slayings that The accused concentrated mainly on the seeming contradiction between
Malabanan only responded to the report that Peñalosa had been killed. He the narration of Malabanan on how the victims were shot, and the
averred that contrary to Malabanan’s report, the latter was not at the physician’s report on the location of injuries sustained by them.
crime scene. However, as the Solicitor General stated, both vehicles were running at the
The two accused further averred that the material inconsistencies between time of the shootout. It was unlikely that the victims drove in a straight
Malabanan’s testimony and the autopsy and laboratory findings and line parallel to that of the assailants. In fact, Malabanan testified that
conclusions seriously affect his credibility. They stressed that Malabanan while being fired at, Peñalosa’s jeepney was running in zigzag manner. It
has sufficient motive to implicate mayor Sanchez and Corcolon in the was a natural reaction for Peñalosa to evade the assailants as much as
Peñalosa killings due to threats of mayor Sanchez. They alleged that possible and to try to dodge the bullets. Furthermore, the assailants fired
although generally alibi is considered a weak defense, there are times the guns in automatic firing mode. Thus, the bullets burst out in different
when it is worthy of credence, such as in this case. directions simultaneously. Hence, it was not impossible for the victims to
be hit in different parts of the body.
The Solicitor General supports the trial court’s ruling that the prosecution
adequately established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable “This Court has held time and again that any minor lapses in the
doubt. Malabanan positively identified the accused as the perpetrators. testimony of a witness tend to buttress, rather than weaken, his or her
He testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank credibility, since they show that he or she was neither coached nor were
manner. The defense failed to satisfactorily show that Malabanan had an his or her answers contrived. Witnesses are not expected to remember
ill motive to testify falsely against the accused. The alleged threat to every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall.”
Malabanan’s life was not adequately established or sufficient for him to Furthermore, the fact that the trial court relied on the testimony of a single
falsely implicate the accused. As regards the supposed inconsistencies witness does not affect the verdict of conviction. Criminals are convicted,
between Malabanan’s account of the event vis á vis the autopsy and not on the number of witnesses against them, but on the credibility of the
ballistic reports, the Solicitor General pointed out that both vehicles were testimony of even one witness, who is able to convince the court of the
running at the time of the ambush. It was a matter of instinct for the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt. What witness can be more
victims to shift positions as they were fired upon. Thus, contrary to Dr.
credible than someone who was in the planning, preparation and not the act of pressing the trigger which should be considered as
execution of the crime. producing the several felonies, but the number of bullets which actually
produced them.” In the instant case, Malabanan testified that he heard
The inconsistency between the affidavit and testimony of Malabanan is too
three bursts of gunfire from the two armalites used by accused Corcolon
minor to affect his credibility. At any rate, we have held that affidavits are
and Peradillas. Thus, the accused are criminally liable for as many
generally subordinate in importance to open court declarations. Affidavits
offenses resulting from pressing the trigger of the armalites. Therefore,
are not complete reproductions of what the declarant has in mind because
accused are liable for two counts of murder committed against the victims,
they are generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant
Nelson and Rickson Peñalosa, instead of the complex crime of double
simply signs them after the same have been read to him.
murder.
Accused-appellants raised that Malabanan’s delay in reporting the
Evidently, treachery was present in the execution of the crimes. The
involvement of the accused in the crime casts doubt on his credibility.
attack against the victims, who were unarmed, was sudden, catching them
However, jurisprudence teaches us that delay in revealing the identity of
unaware and giving them no opportunity to defend themselves. The
the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of a
presence of treachery qualifies the crimes to murder.
witness, especially where such witness gives a sufficient explanation for
the delay. It was natural for Malabanan to keep silent during that time for, Conspiracy is likewise adequately established. Notwithstanding the fact
aside from being a co-conspirator, mayor Sanchez was a powerful that mayor Sanchez was not at the crime scene, we are convinced that he
opponent. was not only a co-conspirator, he was the mastermind of the ambush
slayings or the principal by inducement. Malabanan testified that Nelson
Consequently, we find that accused-appellants’ defenses of alibi and
Peñalosa was killed upon order of mayor Sanchez. After the commission of
denial are bereft of merit. The defenses of alibi and denial are worthless in
the crime, the assailants reported to mayor Sanchez. In conspiracy, it is
the face of positive testimony of a witness showing the involvement of
not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the
each of the accused.
victim. What is important is that the participants performed specific acts
However, we disagree with the trial court that the accused committed a with such closeness and coordination as unmistakably to indicate a
single complex crime of double murder. Article 48 of the Revised Penal common purpose or design in bringing about the death of the victim.
Code provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less Conspiracy renders appellants liable as co-principals regardless of the
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means of committing the extent and character of their participation because in contemplation of
other, the penalty for the more serious crime in its maximum period shall law, the act of one conspirator is the act of all.
be imposed.
The trial court properly appreciated the existence of evident
The question is whether the act of shooting the victims using armalites in premeditation. The prosecution clearly showed the presence of the
automatic firing mode constitutes a single act and, thus, the felonies following requisites: a) the time when the accused determined to commit
resulting therefrom are considered as complex crimes. We rule in the the crime; b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused had clung to
negative. their determination; and c) sufficient lapse of time between such
In People v. Vargas, Jr., we ruled that “several shots from a Thompson sub- determination and execution to allow them to reflect upon the
machine, in view of its special mechanism causing several deaths, consequences of their acts. As early as 10:00 in the morning, the accused
although caused by a single act of pressing the trigger, are considered had conspired to kill Nelson Peñalosa. They even looked for two-way
several acts. Although each burst of shots was caused by one single act of radios and a vehicle to be used for the operation. Indeed, sufficient time
pressing the trigger of the sub-machinegun, in view of its special had lapsed to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of their
mechanism the person firing it has only to keep pressing the trigger of the actions.
sub-machinegun, with his finger and it would fire continually. Hence, it is
Accused specifically used a motor vehicle to execute the crime. Thus, the anguish suffered by the family due to Nelson’s death. Under Article 2206
aggravating circumstance of use of a motor vehicle must be appreciated. of the Civil Code, the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and
ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental
However, we cannot appreciate the generic aggravating circumstance of
anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. However, the common
nighttime; while the crime was committed at night, the prosecution failed
law wife is not entitled to share in the award of moral damages.
to show that the malefactors specifically sought this circumstance to
facilitate the criminal design. The fact that the crime happened at 7:00 in WHEREFORE, the Court MODIFIES the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
the evening does not indicate that accused made use of the darkness to Branch 160, Pasig City, and finds accused-appellants Antonio L. Sanchez
conceal the crime and their identities. and Artemio Averion guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of
murder, and sentences each of them to suffer two (2) penalties of
At the time of the commission of the crime on April 13, 1991, the penalty
reclusion perpetua, and each to pay jointly and severally the respective
for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code was reclusion
heirs of victims Nelson and Rickson Peñalosa, as follows:
temporal in its maximum period to death. Considering the presence of
aggravating circumstances, the accused should be sentenced to the death 1) Indemnity for death - P 50,000.00
penalty for each murder. However, in view of the constitutional 2) Moral damages - 50,000.00
proscription of the death penalty at that time, each of the accused is
sentenced to two (2) penalties of reclusion perpetua. 3) Exemplary damages - 30,000.00
Regarding the civil liability of the accused, the trial court ordered the Total P130,000.00
accused to pay the heirs of Nelson and Rickson Peñalosa each, the sum of With costs.
P100,000.00, P50,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs. SO ORDERED.

The P50,000.00 award as actual damages should be deemed as indemnity Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.,
for the untimely demise of the victims. We have held that only expenses concur.
supported by receipts and which appear to have been actually expended
in connection with the death of the victims may be allowed. No proof was
presented to sustain the award of actual damages.
Similarly, we can not award damages for loss of earning capacity. All that
was presented in evidence was the testimony of the common law wife,
Adelina Peñalosa, that Nelson earned P1,000,000.00 a year. We have held
that “for lost income due to death, there must be unbiased proof of the
deceased’s average income. Self-serving, hence unreliable statement, is
not enough.”
Considering the attendance of aggravating circumstances, we sustain the
award of exemplary damages of P30,000.00, per victim, in accordance
with Article 2230 of the Civil Code.
As regards moral damages, we affirm the P50,000.00 awarded to the heirs
of Rickson Peñalosa. His mother, Adelina Peñalosa, testified to the suffering
caused by his death. We also sustain the award of moral damages to the
heirs of Nelson Peñalosa. His common law wife testified to the mental
Upon his arraignment on July 28, 1993, appellant, assisted by his counsel
de oficio, pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court a quo rendered the
FIRST DIVISION assailed decision.
[G.R. No. 126028. March 14, 2003] The prosecution presented four witnesses: Vicente Eusebio, Manuel
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EXPEDITO ALFON, Rayoso, Dr. Minerva Aguirre, and Rodolfo Alferez. Their testimonies are
accused-appellant. summarized below.

DECISION Vicente Eusebio testified that on February 18, 1993, he was smoking
cigarettes in front of the house of Purificacion Reazon at Barangay Oring,
AZCUNA, J.: Caramoan, Camarines Sur. At around 2:00 p.m., he saw the victim walking
Expedito Alfon appeals the December 18, 1995 decision of the Regional from the opposite direction being followed by herein appellant Expedito
Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, Camarines Sur (Branch 30) in Criminal Case Alfon. As soon as the victim and appellant were about six meters away
No. T-1249, finding him guilty of murder as follows: from him, appellant came from behind the unsuspecting victim, and
suddenly stabbed the latter twice with a knife known as balisong 29. The
WHEREFORE, the accused Expedito Alfon is hereby sentenced to suffer the victim was hit on the left portion of his ribs and on the right side of his
penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua, with the accessory chest. As he fell on the ground face down, appellant ran away towards the
penalties inherent thereto, to indemnify the heirs of the late Tomas Alferez, seashore. Eusebio shouted for help, and immediately, Manuel Rayoso,
through the latter’s brother Rodolfo Alferez the sum of Fifty Thousand Jesus Arranza, and Agripino Lazado responded. They carried the victim to a
Pesos (P50,000.00) [as civil indemnity, and] the sum of Twenty Four motorboat and brought him to a doctor in Poblacion, Caramoan.
Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Pesos (P24,220.00) as actual damages, Unfortunately, Tomas Alferez did not survive.
both [in] Philippine Currency, and to pay the costs.
Manuel Rayoso, the second eyewitness, testified that on February 18,
On April 30, 1993, appellant was charged under an information which 1993, at around 2:00 p.m., while walking near the house of Purificacion
states: Reazon, he saw the victim walking from the opposite direction being
That on or about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of February 18, 1993 at followed by the appellant. Shortly thereafter, when the victim and
Barangay Oring, Municipality of Caramoan, Province of Camarines Sur, appellant were six meters away from him, he witnessed the appellant
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- suddenly hold the victim’s shoulder and stab the latter with a balisong at
named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident the lower left side of his chest. Appellant then ran away towards the
premeditation while armed with a fan knife (balisong biente nueve) seashore.
without any warning whatsoever did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, Dr. Minerva Aguirre, Municipal Health Officer of Caramoan who
and feloniously attack, assault and stab the victim Tomas S. Alferez hitting conducted the autopsy of the victim’s body, testified on her post mortem
the latter twice on his chest and other parts of the body thereby inflicting findings. As indicated in the autopsy report, she verified that the victim
stab wounds which directly caused his instantaneous death on February sustained two stab wounds: one on the right lower part of the victim’s
18, 1993 as evidenced by the attached Autopsy Report marked as Annex nipple, and the other on the left lower part of the chest, which she found
“A” and death certificate marked as Annex “A-1” hereof. to be the more fatal. She also found an incised wound on the dorsal part of
That as a consequence of the unlawful acts of the above-named accused, the victim’s right index finger. She stated that a sharp-bladed instrument
the heirs of the late Tomas S. Alferez have suffered damages. could have caused the wounds. The cause of death, as declared in said
autopsy report, is profuse hemorrhage secondary to stab wound.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.
Rodolfo Alferez, the victim’s brother, testified to prove the civil liability of
appellant. He stated that he spent a total of P24,220.00 for the funeral and
burial expenses, as itemized in the list of expenses he submitted as evidence of the prosecution sufficient to prove appellant’s guilt beyond
evidence. reasonable doubt, and in rejecting the version of the defense.
Appellant Expedito Alfon, on the other hand, interposed the defense of Appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving credence to the
denial. He narrated that in the afternoon of February 18, 1993, he was on eyewitnesses’ testimonies, which he insinuates to be incredible and
his way home from his sister’s house. While walking along Sampaguita unreliable.
Street, the victim and his brother Rodolfo Alferez waylaid him. Rodolfo As his first point, he asserts that considering the circumstances of the
punched appellant on his left eye and later brought out a knife. Appellant stabbing incident as narrated by the prosecution and the location of the
ran away and the victim chased him. A fistfight then ensued between injuries, an attack from behind is hardly believable. He avers that
appellant and the victim. Rodolfo soon after caught up with them and tried assuming that he was indeed following the victim prior to the attack, it
to stab appellant with a knife. Appellant evaded the thrust and Rodolfo hit could have been easier and more convenient for him to stab the victim’s
Tomas instead. Appellant then ran away and later learned that Tomas had back. However, as it now appears, the injuries are all found on the front of
died. the victim. He thus argues that in the ordinary course of things, the attack
The trial court concluded that the eyewitnesses’ testimonies convincingly was more likely frontal, contradictory to the testimonies of the
established that appellant had killed the victim with treachery. It, however, prosecution.
ruled out the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation for lack This Court is not convinced. The two eyewitnesses testified that appellant
of proof. It rejected the denial and version of the appellant due to the lack came from behind before stabbing the victim since the former was
of supporting evidence. following the latter prior to the sudden attack. Eusebio’s detailed account
Hence, this appeal. of the manner of assault explains why the injuries are on the front of the
victim, despite the assailant having come from behind:
In his Brief, appellant submits for our consideration the following errors
allegedly committed by the trial court: xxx
xxx xxx
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE
TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES. Q: You said a while ago that you saw the accused following the victim,
Tomas Alferez [b]efore [he] was stabbed twice. Would you go down the
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE KILLING OF TOMAS S.
witness stand and demonstrate to us how Expedito Alfon approached
ALFEREZ WAS QUALIFIED BY TREACHERY.
Tomas Al[f]erez and stabbed him?
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE DEFENSE OF
A: Expedito Alfon went towards the right side of Tomas Alferez coming
ACCUSED-APPELLANT THAT IT WAS RODOLFO ALFEREZ WHO ACTUALLY
from behind and suddenly stabbed Tomas Alferez using his right hand in
STABBED HIS BROTHER TOMAS S. ALFEREZ.
an embracing position with his left hand on the victim’s left shoulder [and]
IV.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT with his right hand striking the victim [with] a swinging motion hitting the
DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND victim’s left lower rib. The second strike hit the victim on the right portion
REASONABLE DOUBT. of his body.
V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT LIABLE FOR (STENOGRAPHER’S NOTE: The witness demonstrated the act by using the
ACTUAL DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF P24,220.00. Interpreter as medium.)
Under the first, third and fourth assigned errors, this Court is called upon Though not as specific, the testimony of the second eyewitness, Rayoso, is
to determine whether or not the trial court was correct in finding the corroborative on the aforesaid manner of attack:
xxx differences in observations and memory which do not necessarily imply
xxx xxx falsehood on their part. Inconsistencies on minor details do not impair the
credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the
Q: And when you saw this Expedito Alfon, the accused [whom] you pointed
principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant. In the
a while ago[,] following this Tomas Alferez , what happened next?
present case, though the two eyewitnesses differed as to the number of
A: He [held] the shoulder and stabbed him. stabbing blows, they were unwavering and consistent in declaring that
Q: From behind? they witnessed no less than the appellant stabbing the victim at the chest
with the use of a balisong. Second, as regards the doctor’s testimony, this
A: From behind. Court notes that her opinion that the assailant most likely threw three
Q: As you said from behind, Tomas Alferez was stabbed. Was he hit when stabbing blows was only surmised from her finding of three injuries. Such
stabbed by Expedito Alfon? finding does not discount the possibility that the third wound on the
victim’s finger could have been caused in the victim’s attempt to parry the
A: Yes sir. appellant’s knife. Given these, therefore, the alleged discrepancy fails to
Q: Where? render the eyewitnesses’ testimonies unreliable and incredible. As this
Court has consistently held, inconsistencies on minor details reinforce
A: (Witness pointed to the lower left side of the chest/breast.)
rather than weaken credibility.
Unrefuted on cross, these testimonies on the manner of attack sufficiently
Against the evidence presented by the prosecution, which the trial court
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the assailant came from behind,
found sufficient and convincing, appellant interposes denial as his defense.
held the shoulder of the victim with one hand, and in a sudden and swift
He begrudges the trial court for not appreciating his defense that it was
manner, stabbed the front of the victim with the other hand. The argument
Rodolfo Alferez who stabbed the victim.
that it could have been more convenient for appellant, who was behind the
victim, to stab at the back cannot prevail over the testimonies of the This Court agrees with the trial court’s observation that the version of the
eyewitnesses. Furthermore, the manner as testified to is the more appellant is doubtful. First, the two disinterested eyewitnesses both
plausible one, as it shows that the assailant aimed to stab the front of the testified that Rodolfo was not at the scene during the incident. This point
victim while holding the latter’s shoulder from behind, to ensure the in said testimonies was confirmed by Rodolfo himself, and was not
execution of the act and the instant death of the victim. The evidence is challenged by the defense. Second, appellant’s version evidently conflicts
indisputable that one of the injuries inflicted on the victim was so severe with the physical evidence showing that the victim suffered three injuries.
that death most likely occurred in not more than five minutes. Assuming that Rodolfo indeed hit the victim by mistake, the two other
wounds remain unexplained. Third, appellant failed to present evidence on
As his second point, appellant seeks to inject reasonable doubt on the
any ill-motive Rodolfo and Tomas Alferez would have against appellant.
ground of the alleged conflicting evidence of the prosecution on the
The fact that that there was no bad blood between the families of the
number of stabbing blows executed by the assailant. Witness Eusebio
brothers and appellant was even stipulated by the parties. Fourth, and
testified that the victim was stabbed twice, while in the narration of
more importantly, appellant failed to present any independent evidence
witness Rayoso, it appears that the victim was stabbed only once. Dr.
other than his own denial to bolster his claim. It is doctrinal that to merit
Aguirre, on the other hand, opined in her testimony that the assailant most
credibility, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability.
likely threw three stabbing blows.
If unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, it is negative and
The argument fails. First, with regard to the inconsistencies in the self-serving, deserving no greater value than the testimony of credible
eyewitnesses’ testimonies, this Court holds that these are insufficient to witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. In the case at bar, appellant
affect the essential veracity of their testimonies. It is settled that conflict in miserably failed to overcome the eyewitnesses’ testimonies, which
testimonies of witnesses in describing details of an event may be due to positively identified him as the perpetrator of the crime.
In view of the foregoing, this Court concurs with the trial court in the claim. There was thus no sufficient proof to sustain the trial court’s
attributing full faith and credence to the testimonies of the disinterested award of actual damages. Be that as it may, considering that it cannot be
eyewitnesses and in disregarding the denial of appellant. As between denied that the heirs suffered some pecuniary loss though the exact
categorical testimonies that ring of truth on one hand, and a bare denial amount cannot be proved with certainty, an award of P25,000 by way of
on the other, the former must prevail. The rule is settled that the trial temperate damages is appropriate. In addition to this, this Court likewise
court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed by grants the amount of P25,000 as exemplary damages given the presence
this Court on appeal, absent any arbitrariness or oversight of facts and of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The civil indemnity for the
circumstances of weight and substance. In this case, this Court finds no victim in the amount of P50,000 is sustained.
reason to reverse the findings of the court a quo. All things considered, this Court is convinced that appellant Expedito Alfon
In his second assigned error, appellant avers that the killing could not is guilty of murder. Given that the crime was committed prior to the
have been attended by treachery considering that the wounds were effectivity of the New Death Penalty Law (Republic Act No. 7659), the
inflicted on the front of the victim. As discussed earlier, he seeks to cast appropriate penalty under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code prior to its
doubt on the prosecution’s averment that the attack came from behind, amendment is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death.
arguing that the attack could be more likely frontal. Inasmuch as there is neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is correct.
The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the
victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED with the
by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. This criterion MODIFICATION that in addition to the civil indemnity of P50,000, appellant
applies, whether the attack is frontal or from behind. Even a frontal attack is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P25,000 as temperate
could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages. The award of actual
would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. The fact that the damages is deleted. Costs de oficio.
location of the fatal stab wound is in front does not in itself negate SO ORDERED.
treachery. In the case at bar, it was established that appellant came from
behind, went towards the right of the victim, and suddenly stabbed the
victim’s chest while holding the latter’s left shoulder. Evidence shows that,
first, at the time of attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
himself, as he was unarmed and totally unsuspecting when appellant
suddenly held and stabbed him; and second, appellant consciously and
deliberately adopted the particular means of attack, as he was seen
surreptitiously following the victim with a balisong tucked under his waist.
Clearly therefore, treachery attended the crime.
Finally, as to the civil liability imposed by the trial court, some
modifications are in order. The trial court erred in awarding actual
damages in the amount of P24,220. To recover actual damages, it is
necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of
certainty, on the basis of competent proof and the best evidence
obtainable. The prosecution in this case merely presented the testimony of
the victim’s heir, and a list of funeral and burial expenses made by the
same witness without producing any receipt or other evidence to support
“That in the evening of April 27, 1994, at Barangay Purikay, Municipality of
Lebak, Province of Sultan Kudarat, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
EN BANC of this Honorable Court, the said accused, in company with alias INTAW,
[G.R. Nos. 126147/ 143925-26*. January 28, 2003] alias ARAFAT and BUCOY OSONG who are at large and whose cases are still
pending preliminary investigation before the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEONCIO LAWA, Court of Lebak-Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat, armed with firearms,
accused-appellant. conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, with intent to
DECISION kill, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and indiscriminately fire at the
PER CURIAM: house of Roger Gregorio where he and his family were asleep at the time,
For our automatic review is the judgment of conviction dated March 22, thereby inflicting gunshot wounds upon CULAN GREGORIO which directly
1996 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Sultan Kudarat (Branch 19) cause (sic) her death.
finding appellant Leoncio Lawa guilty of the crimes of Murder as charged in “CONTRARY TO LAW, particularly Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code of
Criminal Cases Nos. 2210 and 2211 and of Attempted Murder as charged the Philippines.”
in Criminal Case No. 2212. Appellant was meted out the penalty of Death
in Criminal Cases Nos. 2210 and 2211; and imprisonment ranging from CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2212
four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as “That in the evening of April 27, 1994, at Barangay Purikay, Municipality of
minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as Lebak, Province of Sultan Kudarat, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
maximum, in Criminal Case No. 2212. of this Honorable Court, the said accused, in company with alias INTAW,
Three (3) separate Informations were filed against appellant, alleging the alias ARAFAT and BUCOY OSONG who are at large and whose cases are still
commission of the crimes as follows: pending preliminary investigation before the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial
Court of Lebak-Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat, armed with firearms,
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2210 conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, with intent to
“That in the evening of April 27, 1994, at Barangay Purikay, Municipality of kill, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there, willfully,
Lebak, Province of Sultan Kudarat, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and indiscriminately fire at the
of this Honorable Court, the said accused, in company with alias INTAW, house of Roger Gregorio where he and his family were asleep at the time,
alias ARAFAT and BUCOY OSONG who are at large and whose cases are still thereby inflicting gunshot wounds upon ELVIE GREGORIO, thus performing
pending preliminary investigation before the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial all the acts of execution of which should have produced the crime of
Court of Lebak-Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat, armed with firearms, murder as a consequence thereof but which nevertheless did not produce
conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, with intent to it by reasons or causes independent of the will of the accused, that is, by
kill, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there, willfully, the time (sic) and able medical assistance rendered to said Elvie Gregorio
unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and indiscriminately fire at the which prevented her death.
house of Roger Gregorio where he and his family were asleep at the time, “CONTRARY TO LAW, particularly Article 248 in relation to Article 6 of the
thereby inflicting gunshot wounds upon LOLITA GREGORIO which directly Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, September 21, 1994.”
cause (sic) her death.
Appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded “not guilty” to all three (3)
“CONTRARY TO LAW, particularly Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code of charges. Joint trial ensued.
the Philippines.”
The lone eyewitness for the prosecution, 10-year old Elvie Gregorio,
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2211 testified on the events of the crimes as she saw them, thus: At around
11:30 in the evening of April 27, 1994, she was inside their house with her Upon clarificatory questions propounded by the trial court, Roger
parents, Roger and Lolita Gregorio, and younger sister, Culan Gregorio,** explained that when he reported the incident to the barangay captain
when there was a burst of gunfire. She immediately stood up, peeped “that same evening”, right after the shooting, he was not able to name the
outside, and saw four people. She was able to identify one of them, herein perpetrators because when Elvie shouted to him not to go down, she did
appellant Leoncio Lawa, as he is her uncle. Her mother and sister not mention who were the persons outside their house and it was only
immediately died from gunshot wounds while she sustained gunshot “the following day” when she told him the identity of one of the assailants.
injuries on the forehead. Next to testify was Dr. Johnny Tan, Municipal Health Officer of Lebak, who
On cross-examination, Elvie testified that: at the time of the incident, they told the court that he examined the cadavers of Lolita and Culan Gregorio
were all sleeping beside each other inside their house when she was in the morning of April 29, 1994, and concluded that the causes of death
awakened by the gunfire; she stood up and peeped through a 3-inch of both were the gunshot wounds they each sustained on their heads. Said
diameter hole on their wall and saw her uncle at about 2-arms length shots were fired at a distance of not “less than one (1) meter” since there
away, holding a firearm and firing in their direction; she saw her sister was no powder burn.
Culan wounded and tried to wake her up but to no avail; she also saw her On cross-examination, Dr. Tan stated that the victims could have been
father crouching behind a sack of corns. standing, lying or sitting down when hit by the bullets, and that at the time
Upon query of the trial court, Elvie answered that she was able to he examined them, they have been dead for more than twenty-four hours
recognize her uncle despite the lack of lighting outside their house but not more than three days.
because of the moonlight. SPO2 Romeo Blase testified: After receiving a report of a “massacre”, he
Roger Gregorio testified that: on the night of April 27, 1994, while he was conducted a spot investigation on the crime scene in the morning of April
sleeping with his family, his house was fired upon resulting in the death of 28, 1994 and found two dead victims and one injured. After confirming the
his wife and daughter; he reported the incident to the barangay captain on identity of the assailant as appellant Leoncio Lawa, he proceeded to the
the same day; some months before the incident, he had a next barangay to apprehend the suspect with the assistance of the
misunderstanding with appellant, the husband of his older sister, over a barangay captain. He brought appellant to the police station for
parcel of land they were tilling; he was proposing that they cultivate the interrogation. Appellant denied any involvement in the crime.
land alternately but appellant told him that there will be “bloodshed” if he Upon cross-examination, SPO2 Blase further testified that he learned of
plows the land; said misunderstanding, has already been settled; he left the incident for the first time on the evening of April 27, 1994 from the
Tapudi and transferred to Purikay a year before the shooting incident barangay captain of Purikay, Lebak, Sultan Kudarat; and that he found out
because of his dispute with appellant. the identity of the assailant from surviving witness Elvie Gregorio.
Roger likewise testified on his suffering, the damages and expenses he For the defense, Petra Lawa, wife of appellant, was first to testify. Petra
incurred because of the death of his wife and daughter. confirmed that her brother, Roger Gregorio, had a misunderstanding with
On cross-examination, Roger stated that: when he heard the gunfire, he appellant over a parcel of land and that said dispute had already been
sought cover and crouched; he did not call out to his wife and daughters settled. She also testified that her husband was home on April 27, 1994
nor did he see the triggermen; after the gunfire, he opened the door and although she cannot specifically tell the time when appellant was allegedly
turned his wife’s face which he saw was wounded; when he was going out, home.
Elvie shouted to him, “tay do not go down since there were still persons”, The next defense witness was Sergio Lausog, a farmer who works on a
but he still went down; he did not see anybody outside the house; he land owned by one Philip Eleazar located in Bgy. Tapudi. He testified that:
reported the incident to the barangay captain “the following day”. the land he works on is located inside a coconut plantation where
appellant also works as a gatherer; appellant is his brother-in-law, having
married his younger sister; they are neighbors; he knows Roger Gregorio IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2211
who used to reside in Bgy. Tapudi; and, Roger had a misunderstanding (a)- the accused, Leoncio Lawa, to suffer the extreme penalty of DEATH;
with appellant over a parcel of land because Roger wanted to recover the
land from appellant. (b)- the accused, Leoncio Lawa, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
victim, Colan Gregorio, the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00)
Further, according to Lausog: On the night of April 27, 1994, he was inside PESOS, as moral damages; the amount of TEN THOUSAND (P 10,000.00)
his house when he heard gunshots. He went out and called out to PESOS, as exemplary damages; and the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND
appellant whose house is located 7 meters away from his, who told him, “x (P50,000.00) PESOS, as indemnity to death.
x x go back to sleep and be ready and if something will happened (sic),
you must vacate your place.” The next day, he saw appellant gathering IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2212
coconuts, and it was only later on that he learned that appellant was (a)-the accused, Leoncio Lawa, after applying the Indeterminate Sentence
arrested. He visited appellant at the Lebak municipal hall and while he was Law, to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment, ranging from
surprised with appellant’s arrest, he did not tell the police that he saw FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
appellant on the evening of April 27, 1994. correccional, as minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
Finally, appellant testified in his own behalf. He admitted that he had a mayor, as maximum.
misunderstanding with his brother-in-law Roger Gregorio over a piece of The Court further sentences the accused, Leoncio Lawa, in Criminal Cases
land owned by Philip Eleazar. However, said misunderstanding had already Nos. 2210 and 2211, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased victims, Lolita
been settled between them before the barangay captain, and at the time and Colan Gregorio, in the total amount of SIX THOUSAND (P6,000.00)
of the incident, Roger’s younger brother is cultivating the property subject PESOS, as actual damages incurred by way of miscellaneous expenses
of the dispute. Appellant also stated that the Muslims were hunting Roger during the wake and burial of the said deceased victims; and to pay the
because he killed one of them at the market place in Tapudi. Appellant costs of suit in the above-entitled cases.
denied any participation in the crimes charged claiming that he was home
at the time of the shooting; that he was merely awakened by Sergio Being a detention prisoner, the accused, Leoncio Lawa, in Criminal Case
Lausog who told him of the gunshots being heard; that the next day, he No. 2212, is entitled to full credit of the entire period of his preventive
was arrested and placed in jail without him knowing the reason for his imprisonment in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal code, as
arrest. amended by R.A. No. 6127, provided he had agreed in writing to abide by
the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise,
Thereafter, the trial court rendered its judgment of conviction, the with only four-fifths (4/5) thereof.
dispositive portion of which reads:
“IT IS SO ORDERED.
“Accordingly, however, unpleasant, even painful is the compliance with its
duty to apply the penalty provided by law, the Court hereby sentences: Given this 22nd day of March, 1996, at Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, Philippines.”

IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2210 The trial court relied principally on the testimony of eyewitness Elvie
Gregorio identifying appellant as one of the assailants, ruling that the
(a)- the accused, Leoncio Lawa, to suffer the extreme penalty of DEATH; defense failed to rebut the identification made by Elvie and impeach her
(b)-the accused, Leoncio Lawa, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased credibility.
victim, Lolita Gregorio, the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) In his Appeal Brief, appellant contends that the trial court erred:
PESOS, as moral damages; the amount of TEN THOUSAND (P 10,000.00)
PESOS, as exemplary damages; and the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND “1. IN RELYING TOO MUCH TOO MUCH (sic) ON THE TESTIMONY OF EL
(P50,000.00) PESOS, as indemnity to death. VIE GREGORIO WHICH TESTIMONY IS INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT.
2. IN FAILING TO TAKE NOTICE OF THE INCONSISTENCIES OF THE court, she declared that she was sleeping before she peeped and that she
TESTIMONIES OF THE TWO WITNESSES OF THE PROSECUTION. was awakened by the gunfire.
3. IN FAILING TO GIVE CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE WIFE OF We find such alleged inconsistency more apparent than real. Appellant
THE ACCUSED WHO IS SISTER-IN-LAW OF THE DECEASED LOLITA conveniently overlooked Elvie’s categorical narration during direct
GREGORIO AND THE AUNT OF THE DECEASED COLAN GREGORIO. examination, viz.:
4. IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION “Q:- At around 11:30 in the evening, of April 27, when you were in your
WITNESSES HAVE ILL MOTIVE TO TESTIFY AGAINST THE ACCUSED.” house together with your parents and sister, do you remember of anything
unusual incident (sic) that happened in your house?
Appellant assails the credibility of Elvie Gregorio arguing that she
answered the questions in a “very stiff and mechanical manner” and that A:- Yes, sir.
her testimony suffers from inconsistencies and flaws showing that she was Q:- What was that all about?
a coached witness.
A:- Gunburst, sir.
It is settled that the determination of the competence and credibility of a
child as a witness rests primarily with the trial judge as he had the Q:- How many gunburst did you hear?
opportunity to see the demeanor of the witness, his apparent intelligence A:- Many, sir.
or lack of it, and his understanding of the nature of the oath. As many of
these qualities cannot be conveyed by the record of the case, the trial Q:- And when you heard this gunburst, what did you do?
judge’s evaluation will not be disturbed on review, unless it is clear from A:- I stood up, sir.
the record that his judgment is erroneous.
Q:- And what did you do after standing up?
In the case at bar, we find no cogent reason to disturb the trial court’s
A:- I peeped, sir.”
assessment of the credibility of Elvie as a witness. Appellant makes much
ado about the manner in which Elvie testified. A judicious review of Elvie’s and a portion of her response to the clarificatory questions of the court
testimony does not reveal anything unusual in the way she testified. She and the succeeding questions of counsel for appellant on cross-
simply answered the questions propounded to her by the public examination, to wit:
prosecutor. The fact that her responses were direct, positive and “COURT:
categorical does not mean that she answered in a “very stiff and
mechanical manner”. On the contrary, such testimony bears the earmarks Q:- Before you peep where did you come from?
of credibility. Ample margin of error and understanding is accorded to A:- I was sleeping, your Honor.
young witnesses who, much more than adults, would naturally be gripped
with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before a Q:- You mean you were awakened?
court. A:- Yes, your Honor.
Moreover, the alleged inconsistency pointed out by appellant in Elvie’s Q:- Why were you awakened?
testimony does not affect her credibility. Appellant insists that Elvie gave
conflicting answers as to whether she was already peeping through the A:- I heard gunburst, your Honor.
wall before the spate of gunfire because when she was asked during cross- COURT:
examination: “(B)efore you heard the gunburst what are you doing at the
Continue.
time?”, she replied, “I peeped, sir”; and, upon questioning by the trial
“ATTY. ARMADA:
Q:- When you were sleeping who were besides (sic) you when you were A:- Leoncio Lawa.
sleeping? Q:- If you are asked to identify Leoncio Lawa will you be able to identify
A:- Colan, sir. him?
Q:- And where was your father and your mother at the time? A:- Yes, sir.
A:- They were sleeping together, sir. Q:- Will you please look around the courtroom and please point to Leoncio
Lawa if he is in court?
Q:- Your sister, your mother and your father and you were sleeping in one
room? A:- He is there, sir. (Witness pointed to the second person when asked his
name he stood up and said his name is LEONCIO LAWA.)
A:- Yes, sir.
Q:- Why do you know that it was Leoncio Lawa when you peeped outside?
Q:- You mentioned that when you heard a gunburst you stood up, is that
correct? A:- He is my uncle.
A:- Yes, sir. Q:- Why do you say that Leoncio Lawa is your uncle?
Q:- When you stood up were you already hit at the forehead when you A:- The husband of my aunt, sir.”
stood up? Appellant further contends that Elvie’s testimony contradicted that of her
A:- Yes, sir. father’s, Roger Gregorio. In particular, appellant cites Elvie’s statement
that during the gunfire, her father called out to her and told her that he
“xxx xxx xxx
will go to the barangay captain, while Roger stated during cross-
ATTY. ARMADA: examination that he did not call out to his family at that time. Again,
Q:- And when you stood up were there still gunburst? appellant opted to disregard Elvie’s response to the question of the trial
court -- that his father called out her name after the gunfire -- thus
A:- Yes, sir.” showing that Roger, indeed, did not call out to his family during the gunfire
Clearly therefrom, Elvie, who was sleeping, heard gunfire shots. It was but it was only afterwards that he did so.
then that she stood up, peeped outside, and saw four people, one of whom Appellant also focused on Elvie’s statement that her father told her that he
was appellant. Thus, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory with her was going to the barangay captain that same night, while Roger stated
testimony. Moreover, the alleged inconsistency, if any, is far too minor and that he went there the next day. The alleged inconsistencies or
trivial to denigrate Elvie’s credibility. contradictions between their statements refer only to minor and collateral
What is important is that she positively identified appellant who is her details which do not damage their credibility or the integrity of their
uncle as one of the perpetrators. She positively declared on the witness testimonies. As held in People v. Mercado:
stand: “A witness’ testimony may likewise contradict that of another witness. As
“Q:- And what have you seen (sic) outside when you peeped? long as the contradiction involves minor details and collateral matters, the
credibility of both witnesses will not be deemed impaired. After all, no two
A:- Four persons, sir. witnesses could testify on a matter from the same point of view or
“Q:- Do you know who were those persons whom you have seen outside? perception. The recollection of different witnesses with respect to the time,
place, and other circumstances of a criminal event would naturally differ in
A:- I only know one of the persons (sic), sir.
various details. Absolute uniformity in every detail of testimonies cannot
Q:- What is the name of that person whom you said you know? be expected of witnesses who by nature react differently to what they see
and hear depending upon their situation and state of mind. On the “Q:- What was the participation of your husband to the killing of wife and
contrary, if witnesses should agree on every detail of a transaction that daughter of Roger Gregorio?
occupied a considerable space of time and should undertake to tell all that A:- None, sir, because we were in house (sic) at that time.
occurred in precisely the same order, each giving the same incidents as
the others in precisely the same words, that fact should make their Q:- What particular time are you referring to that you were in your house?
testimonies suspect.” A:- I do not know, sir.”
Furthermore, we noted from a perusal of the transcript of stenographic Consequently, the alibi of appellant fails.
notes that the incident took place at 11:30 in the evening of April 27,
1994; that Roger immediately went to the house of the barangay captain Appellant imputes ill motive on Roger Gregorio’s part in testifying against
who contacted the police; and he left at 3:00 in the morning. Evidently, him, i.e., their dispute over the parcel of land owned by Philip Eleazar
Roger had interchangeably referred to the same time as the “following which both Roger and appellant wanted to cultivate. In order that the
day” or “same evening” which is not difficult to understand considering testimony of a witness may be considered biased, the presence of
that the subject incident happened at 11:30 in the evening of April 27, personal motive on his part to testify in favor of the victim and against the
1994, after which he went to the house of the barängay captain and accused should be supported by satisfactory proof. In the case at bar, the
remained there until 3:00 in the morning which is already April 28, 1994 allegation that there was animosity between Roger and appellant is not
but still dark and which may have been reasonably confused as still sufficient proof of motive or bias. As admitted by both Roger and
“evening” by Roger. appellant, their disagreement over the property had already been
previously settled before the barangay captain. Moreover, if, indeed, Roger
Nonetheless, the testimony of Roger Gregorio regarding the incident may had any motive at all to testify falsely against appellant, Roger could just
even be dispensed with as it serves only to corroborate that of Elvie’s have easily identified appellant as one of the perpetrators of the subject
whose testimony, standing alone, is sufficient to support the conviction of crimes and not involve his young daughter. He did not have to drag his
appellant as she was the one who actually identified appellant as one of daughter into the mess and subject her to the ordeal of a court trial if her
the assailants. testimony were not true. It is unnatural for the relatives of the victim/s
Appellant also reproves the trial court for disregarding the testimony of his who seek justice to commit an injustice by imputing the crime to innocent
wife exculpating him from the incident. His wife backed up his alibi, persons and not those who were actually responsible therefor. In addition,
testifying that appellant was at home at the time of the incident. Roger and Elvie Gregorio’s relationship to the victims do not automatically
affect the veracity of their testimonies or their credibility.
Alibi is an inherently weak defense, and should be rejected when the
identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the More significantly, motive is not essential when the accused has been
prosecution. Eyewitness Elvie Gregorio had categorically identified positively identified by a competent witness, as in the case at bar.
appellant as one of the assailants. Finally, the fact that it took Roger Gregorio some time to report the
To overcome the prosecution’s evidence, the defense must successfully identity of one of the assailants does not make his testimony not credible.
prove the element of physical impossibility of appellant’s presence at the Roger Gregorio reported the incident to the barangay captain immediately
crime scene at the time of the perpetration of the offense. In the present right after the gunfires. At that time, however, he did not know yet the
case, appellant not only failed to prove that it was physically impossible identity of the gunmen as Elvie informed him thereof only the day after.
for him to be present at the scene of the crime on the night the Gregorio Obviously, he could not have told the barangay captain that appellant was
family was attacked; but also, his wife’s declaration cannot be given one of the assailants because he did not yet know the same at the time he
credence as she was not able to state categorically the particular time reported the incident. There is no rule that a witness should immediately
when appellant was supposedly at home, viz.: name the suspect in a crime.
All told, we find no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment of minimum period shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, or
conviction and in the imposition of the corresponding penalty of DEATH on prision correccional which ranges from six (6) months and one (1) day to
accused-appellant in Criminal Cases Nos. 2210 and 2211, and six (6) years. Hence, the trial court did not commit an error in imposing the
imprisonment from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of aforementioned penalty on appellant.
prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of WHEREFORE, the Judgment dated March 22, 1996 rendered by the
prision mayor, as maximum in Criminal Case No. 2212. Regional Trial Court of Sultan Kudarat (Branch XIX) in Criminal Cases Nos.
In Criminal Cases Nos. 2210-2211, the trial court correctly imposed the 2210, 2211, and 2212 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
penalty of death on appellant. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as Upon the finality of this Decision, and pursuant to Art. 83 of The Revised
amended by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7659 provides: Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 25 of R.A. No. 7659, let the records of the
“ART. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provision s of said cases be immediately forwarded to the President of the Philippines for
Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be the exercise at her discretion of her power to pardon appellant Leoncio
punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the Lawa.
following attendant circumstances: SO ORDERED.
1. With treachery, taking advantage or superior strength, with the aid
of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means of
persons to insure or afford impunity.
xxx xxx xxx
5. With evident premeditation.”
The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence
of treachery and evident premeditation, thus qualifying the killing of Lolita
and Colan Gregorio as murder. Considering, the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the imposable penalty is death,
pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
Three members of the Court maintain their position that R.A. No. 7659,
insofar as it prescribes the death penalty, is unconstitutional; however,
they submit to the ruling of the Court, by majority vote, that the law is
constitutional and that the death penalty should be imposed accordingly.
In Criminal Case No. 2212, the trial court correctly found that appellant
should only be liable for attempted murder as the wound inflicted on Elvie
Gregorio was not fatal. Article 250 of the Revised Penal Code provides for a
penalty two degrees lower than that imposed for the consummated crime
of murder, which is prision mayor, the range of which is six (6) years and
one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law and considering the presence of dwelling as aggravating
circumstance, it shall be imposed in its maximum period which ranges
from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years; while the

You might also like