Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-1477

January 18, 1950

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
JULIO GUILLEN, defendant-appellant.
Mariano A. Albert for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Francisco A. Carreon for appellee.
PER CURIAM, J.:

This case is before us for review of, and by virtue of appeal from, the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instan
Julio Guillen y Corpus, or Julio C. Guillen, is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and multip
information, and is sentenced to the penalty of death, to indemnify the of the deceased Simeon Valera (or Barrela) in

Upon arraignment the accused entered a plea of not guilty to the charges contained in the information.

Then the case was tried in one of the branches of the Court of First Instance of Manila presided over by the honorab
submission of the evidence of the prosecution and the defense, rendered judgment as above stated.

In this connection it should be stated that, at the beginning of the trial and before arraignment, counsel de oficiofor th
condition of Guillen be examined. The court, notwithstanding that it had found out from the answers of the accused t
test the soundness of his mind, that he was not suffering from any mental derangement, ordered that Julio Guillen b
examined by medical experts who should report their findings accordingly. This was done, and, according to the repo
presided over by Dr. Fernandez of the National Psychopathic Hospital, Julio Guillen was not insane. Said report (Exh
and Diagnosis," at pages 13 and 14, reads:

FORMULATION AND DIAGNOSIS

Julio C. Guillen was placed under constant observation since admission. There was not a single moment during
under observation.

The motive behind the commission of the crime is stated above. The veracity of this motivation was determined
synthesis was successful was checked up the day after the test. The narco-synthesis proved not only reveal any
delusional or hallucinatory motive behind the act.

Our observation and examination failed to elicit any sign or symptom of insanity in Mr. Julio C. Guillen. He was fo
differentiate right from wrong, fully aware of the nature of the crime he committed and is equally decided to suffe

His version of the circumstances of the crime, his conduct and conversation relative thereto, the motives, tempta
act, were all those of an individual with a sound mind.

On the other hand he is an man of strong will and conviction and once arriving at a decision he executes, irrespe
case, the commission of the act at Plaza Miranda.

What is of some interest in the personality of Julio C. Guillen is his commission of some overt acts. This is seen
sometime when an employee in la Clementina Cigar Factory he engaged in a boxing bout Mr. Manzano, a Span
makers, and felt it his duty to defend them. One time he ran after a policeman with a knife in hand after being pro
challenged Congressman Nueno to a fight sometime before when Mr. Nueno was running for a seat in the Munic
hearing him deliver one of his apparently outspoken speeches.

All these mean a defect in his personality characterized by a weakness of censorship especially in relation to rat
his acts.

In view of the above findings it is our considered opinion that Julio C. Guillen is not insane but is an individual wit
is termed, Constitutional Psychopathic Inferiority.
Final Diagnosis
Not insane: Constitutional Psychopathic Inferiority, without psychosis.

In view of the above-quoted findings of the medical board, and notwithstanding the contrary opinion of one Dr. Alvare
his opinion on the matter, the court ruled that Guillen, not being insane, could be tired, as he was tired, for the offens
THE FACTS
Upon careful perusal of the evidence and the briefs submitted by counsel for the accused, the Solicitor General and
there is no disagreement between the prosecution and the defense, as to the essential facts which caused the filing
accused. Those facts may be stated as follows:

On the dates mentioned in this decision, Julio Guillen y Corpus, although not affirmed with any particular political gro
in the presidential elections held in 1946. Manuel A. Roxas, the successful candidate, assumed the office of Preside
subsequently President of the President of the Philippine Republic. According to Guillen, he became disappointed in
redeem the pledges and fulfill the promises made by him during the presidential election campaign; and his disappo
to him, President Roxas, instead of looking after the interest of his country, sponsored and campaigned for the appro
Hence he determined to assassinate the President.

After he had pondered for some time over the ways and means of assassinating President Roxas, the opportunity p
1947, when at a popular meeting held by the Liberal Party at Plaza de Miranda, Quiapo, Manila attended by a big cr
his wife and daughter and surrounded by a number of ladies and gentlemen prominent in government and politics, s
purpose and delivered his speech expounding and trying to convince his thousand of listeners of the advantages to
constitutional amendment granting American citizens the same rights granted to Filipino nationals be adopted.

Guillen had first intended to use a revolver for the accomplishment of his purpose, but having lost said firearm, which
hand grenades which were given him by an American soldier in the early days of the liberation of Manila in exchange
likewise been weighing the chances of killing President Roxas, either by going to Malacaan, or following his intende
for instance, to Tayabas (now Quezon) where the President was scheduled to speak, but having encountered many
plan at the pro-parity meeting held at Plaza de Miranda on the night of March 10, 1947.

On the morning of that he went to the house of Amando Hernandez whom he requested to prepare for him a docum
pervious understanding in the preceding afternoon, when they met at the premises of the Manila Jockey Club on the
there. On account of its materially in this case, we deem it proper to quote hereunder the contents of said document
its original Tagalog reads:
FOR THE SAKE OF A FREE PHILIPPINES

I am the only one responsible for what happened. I conceived it, I planned it, and I carried it out all by myself alo
pondering over this act, talking to my own conscience, to my God, until I reached my conclusion. It was my duty.

I did not expected to live long; I only had on life to spare. And had I expected to lives to spare, I would not have h
of a principle which was the welfare of the people.

Thousands have died in Bataan; many more have mourned the loss of their husbands, of their sons, and there a
bore no fruits; their hopes were frustrated.

I was told by my conscience and by my God that there was a man to be blamed for all this: he had deceived the
other purpose than to entice them; he even went to the extent of risking the heritage of our future generations. F
any longer. His life would mean nothing as compared with the welfare of eighteen million souls. And why should
those eighteen million souls.

These are the reasons which impelled me to do what I did and I am willing to bear up the consequences of my a
Time and history will show, I am sure, that I have only displayed a high degree of patriotism in my performance o
Hurrah for a free Philippines.
Cheers for the happiness of every Filipino home.
May God pity on me.
Amen.
JULIO C. GUILLEN

A copy (Exhibit B-1) of the original in Tagalog (Exhibit B), made at the request of Guillen by his nephew, was handed
afternoon of March 10, 1947, for which reason said Exhibit B-1 appears unsigned, because he was in a hurry for tha

When he reached Plaza de Miranda, Guillen was carrying two hand grenades concealed in a paper bag which also c
hand grenades (Exhibit D), in a plant pot located close to the platform, and when he decided to carry out his evil pur
had been sitting and, from a distance of about seven meters, he hurled the grenade at the President when the latter
congratulated by Ambassador Romulo and was about to leave the platform.

General Castaeda, who was on the platform, saw the smoking, hissing, grenade and without losing his presence of
along the stairway, and towards an open space where the general thought the grenade was likely to do the least har
body, shouted to the crowd that everybody should lie down. The grenade fell to the ground and exploded in the midd
standing close to the platform. Confusion ensued, and the crowd dispersed in a panic. It was found that the fragmen
Simeon Varela (or Barrela ) who died on the following day as the result of mortal wounds caused by the fragment
Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang.

Guillen was arrested by members of the Police Department about two hours after the occurrence. It appears that on
at that meeting, saw how a person who was standing next to him hurled an object at the platform and, after the explo
located near the platform at Plaza de Miranda. Suspecting that person was the thrower of the object that exploded, G
succeeded in holding him, but Guillen offered stiff resistance, got loose from Garcia and managed to escape. Garcia
mistaking the former for the real criminal and the author of the explosion, placed him under arrest. In the meantime,
the Manila Police Department were investigating the affair, one Manuel Robles volunteered the information that the p
wrestling was Julio Guillen; that he (Manuel Robles) was acquainted with Julio Guillen for the previous ten years and
moments previous to the explosion.

The police operatives interrogated Garcia and Robles, and Julio Guillen was, within two hours after the occurrence,
Street, Manila, brought to the police headquarters and identified by Angel Garcia, as the same person who hurled to
exploded and whom Garcia tried to hold when he was running away.

During the investigation conducted by the police he readily admitted his responsibility, although at the same time he
bomb at President Roxas. He also indicated to his captors the place where he had hidden his so called last will quot
was then unsigned by him and subsequently signed at the police headquarters.

Re-enacting the crime (Exhibit C), he pointed out to the police where he had buried (Exhibit C-1) the other hand gren
witnesses he signed a statement which contained his answers to question propounded to him by Major A. Quintos o
soon after his arrest (Exhibit E). From a perusal of his voluntary statement, we are satisfied that it tallies exactly with
witness stand during the trial of this case.
THE ISSUES

In the brief submitted by counsel de oficio for this appellant, several errors are assigned allegedly committed by the
appellant guilty of murder for the death of Simeon Varela"; second, "in declaring the appellant guilty of the complex c
murder"; third, "in applying sub-section 1 of article 49 of the Revised Penal Code in determining the penalty to be im
considering the concurrence of the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and of contempt of public authorities in t

The evidence for the prosecution, supported by the brazen statements made by the accused, shows beyond any sh
that meeting, carrying with him two hand grenades, to put into execution his preconceived plan to assassinate Presid
throwing one of those two hand grenades in his possession at President Roxas, and causing it to explode, he could
his main and intended victim from being killed or at least injured, due to the highly explosive nature of the bomb emp

Guillen, testifying in his own behalf, in answer to questions propounded by the trial judge (page 96 of transcript) supp
performed the act voluntarily; that his purpose was to kill the President, but that it did not make any difference to him
President when he hurled that bomb, because the killing of those who surrounded the President was tantamount to
that those persons, being loyal to the President being loyal to the President, were identified with the latter. In other w
to kill the persons surrounding the President, he felt no conjunction in killing them also in order to attain his main pur

The facts do not support the contention of counsel for appellant that the latter is guilty only of homicide through reck
Simeon Varela and of less serious physical injuries in regard to Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carrillo and Emilio M
sentenced to the corresponding penalties for the different felonies committed, the sum total of which shall not excee
for the most serious crime in accordance with article 70 in relation to article 74 of the Revised Penal Code.

In throwing hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing him, the appellant acted with malice. He is ther
his wrongful act; for in accordance with article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any perso
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another shou
incident of another act performed without malice. (People vs. Sara, 55 Phil., 939.) In the words of Viada, "in order th
it is necessary that either malice nor intention to cause injury should intervene; where such intention exists, the act s
produced even though it may not have been the intention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produc
Code, vol. 7, 5th ed., p.7.) And, as held by this Court, a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsist
(People vs. Nanquil, 43 Phil., 232.) Where such unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended
imprudence. (People vs. Gona, 54 Phil., 605)

Squarely on the point by counsel is the following decision of the Supreme Court of Spain:

Cuestion 62. Se presenta A, a las ocho de la noche, en el estanco de B a comprar tabaco, y habiendose negado
sin mediar entre ambos disputa alguna; pero; trnscurrido un cuarto de hora, hallandose el estanquero despacha
arma de fuego disparada por A desde la calle, quedando muertos en el acto C y el estanquero; supuesta la no in
estanquero, cabe calificar la muerte de este de homicidio y la de c de imprudencia temeraria? La Sala de lo C
estimo asi, y condeno al procesado a catorse anos de reclusion por el homivcidio y a un ao de prision correctio
muerte del estanquero debio calificarse de assesinato y no de homicidio, por haberse ejecutado con aleviosa. e
suponiendo que no se propusiera ejecutaria el procesado, no pudo calificarse de imprudencia teme raria, sino q
responsable de la misma, a tenor de lo puesto en este apartado ultimo del articulo; y que siendo ambas muertes
un solo disparo, debio imponerse al reo la pena del delito de asesinato en el grado maximo, a tenor de lo dispue
pena de muerte. Se ve, pues, claramente que en el antedicha sentencia, aparte de otros articulos del Codigo, s
este apartado ultimo del articulo muy principalmente, y asi lo declaro el Tribunal Supremo en S. de 18 junio de 1
42.)

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides as follows:

Art. 48. Penalty for Complex Crimes. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies,
for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its m

We think it is the above-quoted article and not paragraph 1 of article 49 that is applicable. The case before us is clea
48 because by a single act, that a throwing highly explosive hand grenade at President Roxas, the accused committ
murder, of which Simeon Varela was the victim; and (2) multiple attempted murder, of which President Roxas, Alfred
Emilio Maglalang were the injured parties.

The killing of Simeon Varela was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. In the case of People vs. Mab
qualifying circumstance of treachery may be properly considered, even when the victim of the attack was not the one
appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up defense against the attack, o
was held that the qualifying circumstance of premeditation may not be properly taken into the account when the pers
was different from the one who became his victim.

There can be no question that the accused attempted to kill President Roxas by throwing a hand grenade at him wit
commencing the commission of a felony by over acts, but he did not succeed in assassinating him "by reason of som
spontaneous desistance." For the same reason we qualify the injuries caused on the four other persons already nam
frustrated murder.

In this connection, it should be stated that , although there is abundant proof that , in violation of the provisions of ar
accused Guillen has committed among others the offense of assault upon a person in authority, for in fact his efforts
his main purpose of eliminating President Roxas for his failure to redeem his electoral campaign promises, by throw
Chief Executive of the nation the hand grenade in question, yet, in view of the appropriate allegation charging Guille
shall refrain making a finding to that effect.

The complex crimes of murder and multiple attempted murder committed by the accused with the single act of throw
attended by the various aggravating circumstances alleged in the information, without any mitigating circumstance. B
consider said aggravating circumstances because in any event article 48 of the Revised Penal Code above-quoted r
serious of said crimes be applied in its maximum period. The penalty for murder is reclusion temporalin its maximum

It is our painful duty to apply the law and mete out to the accused the extreme penalty provided by it upon the facts a

The sentence of the trial court being correct, we have no alternative but to affirm it, and we hereby do so by a unanim
executed in accordance with article 81 of the Revised Penal Code, under authority of the Director of Prisons, on suc
within 30 days from the date the record shall have been remanded. It is so ordered.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-9426, U.S. v. Marasigan

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
DECISION
G.R. No. L-9426
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FILOMENO MARASIGAN, defendant-appellant.
Silvester Apacible for appellant. Office of the Solicitor-General Corpus for appellee.
Moreland,J.:

In this case it appears that about 4 o'clock of the afternoon of the 23d of January, 1913, Fra
in examining his sugar crop growing upon his lands in the barrio of Irucan, now called Cala
Batangas Province, was asked by the accused and his wife to approach them.

On arriving near them the accused said to Mendoza: "Why is this line curved?" [indicating
lands of the two.] "Let us make it straight."
Francisco replied saying: "Why do you want to make the line straight? If you make the line
and trees on your land.?"
To this the accused replied: "This is false." Saying this he drew his knife and struck at Mend

On attempting to ward off the blow Mendoza was cut in the left hand. The accused continu
Mendoza seized the accused by the neck and the body and threw him down. While both we
accused still sought to strike Mendoza with his dagger. The latter seized the hand which he
loosen his hold upon it. While they were thus fighting for the possession of the knife, the w
and took the dagger from her husband's hand, throwing it to one side. She then seized who
Mendoza a blow which knocked him senseless.

As a result of the fight Mendoza received three wounds, two in the chest and one in the lef
serious, the extensor tendor in one of the seven days at a cost of about P45, but the middl
rendered useless.

The story of the affair told by the accused is quite different from that just related, but the f
the trial court and the evidence given fully supports the findings. We have examined the ca
why it should be reversed upon the facts. We may say the same as to the law.

The accused asserts that he should have a new trial upon the ground that if he should be g
present evidence he would be able to show by a physician, Gregorio Limjoco, that the finge
been rendered useless by the cut already described was not necessarily a useless member
would permit a surgical operation, the finger could be restored to its normal condition. He a
demonstrate by the physician referred to that it was not the middle finger that was disable

We do not regard the case made as sufficient to warrant a new trial. It is immaterial for the
the finger, the usefullness of which was destroyed, was the middle finger or the third finge
of the left hand was rendered useless by the act of the accused. It does not matter which fi

Nor do we attach any importance to the contention that the original condition of the finger
operation to relieve the accused from the natural and ordinary results of his crime. It was h
Mendoza and he must abide by the consequences resulting therefrom without aid from Me
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.

BRINAS VS. PEOPLE Case Digest

BRINAS VS. PEOPLE
(125 SCRA 687)

Facts: In the afternoon of January 6, 1957, Juanito Gesmundo bought a train ticket at the railroad station in Tagkawayan, Qu
Martina Bool and his 3-year old daughter Emelita Gesmundo. The two were bound for Lusacan in Tiaong, Quezon.

They boarded the train of Manila Railroad Company at about 2pm. Upon approaching Barrio Lagalag at 8pm, the train sl
accused-appellant, Clemente Brinas, shouted Lusacan, Lusacan!

The old woman walked towards the train exit carrying the child with one hand and holding her baggage with the other. When th
suddenly picked up speed. The old woman and the child stumbled from the train causing them to fall down the tracks and
causing their instant death.

A criminal information was filed against Victor Milan, the driver, Hermogenes Buencamino, the assistant conductor and Cleme
thru Reckless Imprudence. But the lower court acquitted Milan and Buencamino. On appeal to the CA, respondent CA affirmed
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling the accused-appellant was negligent?
Held: There was no error in the factual findings of the respondent court and in the conclusion drawn from the findings.

It is a matter of common knowledge and experience about common carriers like trains and buses that before reaching a station
the conductor announces the name of the place. It is also a matter of common experience that as the train or bus slacke
usually stand and proceed to the nearest exit, ready to disembark as the train or bus comes to a full stop. This is especially tru
feel that if the train resumes its run before they are able to disembark; there is no way to stop it as a bus may be stoppe
because his announcement was premature and erroneous, for it took a full 3 minutes more before the next barrio of Lusaca
announcement prompted the two victims to stand and proceed to the nearest exit. Without said announcement, the victims w
their respective seats when the train jerked and picked up speed. The proximate cause of the death of the victims was
announcement of petitioner-appellan

MAGALLONA V. ERMITA (CASE DIGEST)

24-Aug-14
MAGALLONA v. ERMITA, G.R. 187167, August 16, 2011
Facts:

In 1961, Congress passed R.A. 3046 demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines
UNCLOS I of 9158, codifying the sovereignty of State parties over their territorial sea. Then
correcting some errors in R.A. 3046 reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah.

In 2009, it was again amended by R.A. 9522, to be compliant with the UNCLOS III of 1984.
shorten one baseline, to optimize the location of some basepoints and classify KIG and Sca
Petitioner now assails the constitutionality of the law for three main reasons:
1. it reduces the Philippine maritime territory under Article 1;

2. it opens the countrys waters to innocent and sea lanes passages hence undermining ou
3. treating KIG and Scarborough as regime of islands would weaken our claim over those
Issue: Whether R.A. 9522 is constitutional?
Ruling:

1. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with acquisition or loss of territory. it is just a codified norm
other hand, RA 9522 is a baseline law to mark out basepoints along coasts, serving as geo
merely notices the international community of the scope of our maritime space.

2. If passages is the issue, domestically, the legislature can enact legislation designating ro
regulate innocent and sea lanes passages. but in the absence of such, international law no

the fact that for archipelagic states, their waters are subject to both passages does not pla
continental coastal states. Moreover, RIOP is a customary international law, no modern sta
passage.

3. On the KIG issue, RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046 and in fa
space. Moreover, the itself commits the Phils. continues claim of sovereignty and jurisdicti
If not, it would be a breach to 2 provisions of the UNCLOS III:

Art. 47 (3): drawing of basepoints shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the gen
Art 47 (2): the length of baselines shall not exceed 100 mm.

KIG and SS are far from our baselines, if we draw to include them, well breach the rules: th
of the archipelago.

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus -

ORLITO VILLACORTA,
Accused-Appellant.
x--------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

On appeal is the Decision[1] dated July 30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02550, which af
(RTC), Branch 170, of Malabon, in Criminal Case No. 27039-MN, finding accused-appellant Orlito Villacorta (Villa
perpetua and to pay the heirs of Danilo Cruz (Cruz) the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, plus the costs of suit.

On June 21, 2002, an Information[3]was filed against Villacorta charging him with the crime o

That on or about 23rd day of January 2002, in Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable C
intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
thereby inflicting upon the victim serious wounds which caused his immediate death.

When arraigned on September 9, 2002, Villacorta pleaded not guilty.[4]

During trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses Cristina Mendeja (Mendeja) and Dr. Domingo Belandres, Jr. (Dr.

Mendeja narrated that on January 23, 2002, she was tending her sari-sari store located at C-4 Road, Bagumbayan, Na
around two oclock in the morning, while Cruz was ordering bread at Mendejas store, Villacorta suddenly appeared an
a sharpened bamboo stick. The bamboo stick broke and was left in Cruzs body. Immediately after the stabbing incid
Mendeja returned to her store, she saw her neighbor Aron removing the broken bamboo stick from Cruzs body.[5] Men

Dr. Belandres was Head of the Tetanus Department at the San Lazaro Hospital.When Cruz sus

The wound was exposed x x spurs concerted, the patient developed difficulty of opening the m

The prosecution also intended to present Dr. Deverni Matias (Dr. Matias), who attended to Cruz at the San Lazaro H
testimony based on the stipulation that it would only corroborate Dr. Belandres testimony on Cruz dying of tetanus.

For its part, the defense presented Villacorta himself, who denied stabbing Cruz.Villacorta rec

On September 22, 2006, the RTC rendered a Decision finding Villacorta guilty of murder, qualified by treachery. The

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court finds accused Orlito Villacorta guilty beyo

Villacorta, through his counsel from the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), filed a notice of appeal

Villacorta filed his Appellants Brief[12] on May 30, 2007; while the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General

On July 30, 2008, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming in toto the RTC judgment of conviction ag
Hence, Villacorta comes before this Court via the instant appeal.

Villacorta manifested that he would no longer file a supplemental brief, as he was adopting the Appellant's Brief he fi
no longer filing a supplemental brief. [15]
In his Appellants Brief, Villacorta raised the following assignment of errors:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRI
PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREAC

III

ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED COMMITTED A CRIME, HE COULD ONLY BE HELD L

Villacorta assails the credibility of Mendeja, an eyewitness to the stabbing incident. It was Mendeja who positive
of January 23, 2002. Villacorta asserts that Mendejas account of the stabbing incident is replete with inconsistencies
instead of shouting or calling for help when Villacorta allegedly stabbed Cruz, Mendeja attempted to run after and ca
who witnessed the stabbing and could have chased after Villacorta, yet, oddly, only Mendeja did; (3) if Cruz was sta
physically improbable for Mendeja to have vividly recognized the perpetrator, who immediately ran away after th
directions; and (5) Mendeja had said that the bamboo stick, the alleged murder weapon, was left at her store, althoug
body. Villacorta maintains that the aforementioned inconsistencies are neither trivial nor inconsequential, and should

We are not persuaded.

To begin with, it is fundamental that the determination by the trial court of the credibility of w

In this case, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals gave full faith and credence to the testimony of prosecution wit
Mendejas testimony, thus:

Appellants reason for concluding that witness Mendejas testimony is incredible because she did not shout or call fo
persons who witness crimes react in different ways.

x x x the makings of a human mind are unpredictable; people react differently and there is no standard form of behavi

Equally lacking in merit is appellants second reason which is, other persons could have run after the appellant aft
whom she identified as Aron was left to assist the appellant who was wounded. Further, the stabbing occurred at 2:
their house, not roaming the streets.

His [Villacortas] other argument that the swiftness of the stabbing incident rendered impossible or incredible the ide
that he was in the store of witness Mendeja on January 23, 2002 at 2:00 oclock in the morning and that he assaulted th

Even if his admission is disregarded still the evidence of record cannot support appellants arg

Moreover, Villacorta was unable to present any reason or motivation for Mendeja to fabricate

The purported inconsistencies in Mendejas testimony pointed out by Villacorta are on matters that have no bearing
Cruz in the early morning of January 23, 2002, right in front of Mendejas store.

In the face of Mendejas positive identification of Villacorta as Cruzs stabber, Villacorta could o

Hence, we do not deviate from the foregoing factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Nevertheless, there is merit in the argument proffered by Villacorta that in the event he is found to have indeed stabb
wound he inflicted upon Cruz. The proximate cause of Cruzs death is the tetanus infection, and not the stab wound.

Proximate cause has been defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,

In this case, immediately after he was stabbed by Villacorta in the early morning of January 23, 2002, Cruz was rush
14, 2002, Cruz was admitted to the San Lazaro Hospital for symptoms of severe tetanus infection, where he died
evidence of the emergency medical treatment Cruz received at the Tondo Medical Center, subsequent visits by C
treatment of his stab wound, or Cruzs activities between January 23 to February 14, 2002.

InUrbano v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[22]the Court was confronted with a case of very s

We quote extensively from the ratiocination of the Court in Urbano:

The issue, therefore, hinges on whether or not there was an efficient intervening cause from the time Javier was w
Javier's death.
We look into the nature of tetanus-

The incubation period of tetanus, i.e., the time between injury and the appearance of unmistakable symptoms,
symptomatic within 14 days. A short incubation period indicates severe disease, and when symptoms occur within 2 o

Non-specific premonitory symptoms such as restlessness, irritability, and headache are encountered occasionally, b
abdomen, or back and difficulty swallowing. As the disease progresses, stiffness gives way to rigidity, and patien
commonest manifestation of tetanus and is responsible for the familiar descriptive name of lockjaw. As more mus
called risus sardonicus. The intensity and sequence of muscle involvement is quite variable. In a small proportion of p
the vast majority, however, most muscles are involved to some degree, and the signs and symptoms encountered depe

Reflex spasm usually occur within 24 to 72 hours of the first symptoms, an interval referred to as the onset time. A
poor prognosis. Spasms are caused by sudden intensification of afferent stimuli arising in the periphery, which incr
and their antagonists. Spasms may be both painful and dangerous. As the disease progresses, minimal or inappare
frequency. Respiration may be impaired by laryngospasm or tonic contraction of respiratory muscles which prevent
system damage and death.

Mild tetanus is characterized by an incubation period of at least 14 days and an onset time of more than 6 days.Tr
brief and mild. Moderately severe tetanus has a somewhat shorter incubation period and onset time; trismus is mar
adequate even during spasms. The criteria for severe tetanus include a short incubation time, and an onset time of 72
generalized convulsive spasms. (Harrison's Principle of Internal Medicine, 1983 Edition, pp. 1004-1005; Emphasis su
Therefore, medically speaking, the reaction to tetanus found inside a man's body depends on the incubation period of

In the case at bar, Javier suffered a 2-inch incised wound on his right palm when he parried the bolo which Urbano
days, or on November 14, 1980, he suffered the symptoms of tetanus, like lockjaw and muscle spasms. The following

If, therefore, the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was already infected by tetanus ge

The incubation period for tetanus infection and the length of time between the hacking incident and the manifestat
Javier acquired the severe tetanus infection from the hacking incident. We explained in Urbano that:

The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the wounds inflicte
dealing with a criminal conviction, the proof that the accused caused the victim's death must convince a rational m
distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between
therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime. (People v. Rellin, 77 Phil. 1038).

Doubts are present. There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent infectio
the proximate cause of Javier's death with which the petitioner had nothing to do. As we ruled in Manila Electric Co.

"A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such remote cause did no

We face the very same doubts in the instant case that compel us to set aside the conviction of Villacorta for murder. T
date when Cruz was rushed to San Lazaro Hospital, exhibiting symptoms of severe tetanus infection. If Cruz acquire
appeared a lot sooner than 22 days later. As the Court noted in Urbano, severe tetanus infection has a short incubation
days from the injury, have one hundred percent (100%) mortality.Ultimately, we can only deduce that Cruzs stab wo
might have been the proximate cause of Cruz's death. The infection of Cruzs stab wound by tetanus was an efficient
his death.

However, Villacorta is not totally without criminal liability.Villacorta is guilty of slight physical

We cannot hold Villacorta criminally liable for attempted or frustrated murder because the prosecution was not able
observed the lack of evidence to prove such an intent beyond reasonable doubt, to wit:

Appellant stabbed the victim only once using a sharpened bamboo stick, hitting him on the le

The intent must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude every possible doubt as

Evidence on record shows that Cruz was brought to Tondo Medical Center for medical treatme

We still appreciate treachery as an aggravating circumstance, it being sufficiently alleged in the Information and prov

The Information specified that accused, armed with a sharpened bamboo stick, with intent to kill, treachery and ev
attack, assault and stab with the said weapon one DANILO SALVADOR CRUZ x x x.

Treachery exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms
offender, arising from the defense that the offended party might make. This definition sets out what must be shown b
such means of execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) the
essence of qualifying circumstance is the suddenness, surprise and the lack of expectation that the attack will take pl
ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.[29] Likewise, even when the victim was forewarne
decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[30]

Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found that treachery was duly proven in this case, and we sustain such fin
provocation. It was two oclock in the morning of January 23, 2002, and Cruz, who was out buying bread at Mendej
for an attack on his person. Villacorta suddenly appeared from nowhere, armed with a sharpened bamboo stick, and w
ran away. Villacortas treacherous mode of attack left Cruz with no opportunity at all to defend himself or retaliate.

Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:

1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party from
same period.

The penalty of arresto menor spans from one (1) day to thirty (30) days.[31] The Indeterminate Sentence Law does n
imposed does not exceed one (1) year.[32] With the aggravating circumstance of treachery, we can sentence Villa
period, i.e., twenty-one (21) to thirty (30) days. Consequently, we impose upon Villacorta a straight sentence of thirt
July 31, 2002 until present time, already way beyond his imposed sentence, we order his immediate release.

Under paragraph (1), Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in a cr

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02550, affi
Branch 170, of Malabon, in Criminal Case No. 27039-MN, isREVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is e
slight physical injuries, as defined and punished by Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer t
been incarcerated well beyond the period of the penalty herein imposed, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons is orde
held for another cause, and to inform this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision, of the compliance
moral damages in the sum of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 186412

Present:
CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO, and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.
Promulgated:

7-Sep-11

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cecille VILLACORTA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: September 28, 2010

GONZALEZ, P.J., ANDRIAS, ACOSTA, RENWICK, ABDUS-SALAAM, JJ. Tacopina,

Seigel & Turano, P.C., New York (Joseph Tacopina of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R.
Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Britta Gilmore of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered July 6,
2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the third degree and
144 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, and sentencing her to
concurrent terms of 90 days, with 5 years' probation, a fine and community service,
unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for
further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9
NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007] ). On the contrary, we find the evidence to be overwhelming.
There was ample proof that defendant was not authorized to manipulate sales records,
such as by recording fictional transactions, so as to benefit herself at her employer's
expense. Furthermore, her pattern of behavior demonstrated her fraudulent intent and
awareness that her actions were unauthorized.

The court properly exercised its discretion in restricting, to matters relevant to the
charges, defendant's discovery of her employer's computerized records (see People v.
Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 547-551 [1979] ). Defendant's subpoena duces tecum
was overbroad. Although afforded an opportunity to make more targeted discovery
requests, she failed to do so. Instead she requested an impermissibly open-ended
fishing expedition into the company's records based on speculation that relevant
information might be found. Defendant received extensive discovery as to relevant
matters, and there is no reason to believe she was deprived of any exculpatory or
impeaching evidence.

The record does not support defendant's claim that a defense witness was intimidated
by the court and the prosecutor into declining to testify. The court simply, and correctly,
advised the witness that if she admitted having engaged in the same kind of
transactions that led to the charges against defendant, and if those transactions were
not authorized by the employer, she could be prosecuted as well (see People v. Lee, 58
N.Y.2d 773 [1982] ). The People properly refused to immunize the witness (see People
v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241, 247 [1981] ), and the court properly assigned her an attorney.
On advice of counsel, the witness indicated she would invoke her Fifth Amendment
privilege as to potentially incriminating matters, and defendant chose not to call her. We
do not find any evidence of intimidation (compare People v. Shapiro, 50 N.Y.2d 747,
761-762 [1980] ).

We have considered and rejected defendant's challenges to the court's evidentiary

rulings and the prosecutor's summation. Defendant's repugnant verdict claim is
unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative
holding, we also reject it on the merits.

- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court-appellate-division/1539509.html#sthash.oa8RqqT9.d

n/1539509.html#sthash.oa8RqqT9.dpuf

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus -

RESTITUTO CARANDANG, HENRY MILAN AND JACKMAN CHUA,

Accused-Appellants.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

This is an appeal by Henry Milan and Jackman Chua from the Decision[1]of the Court of Appeals in

Criminal Case No. Q-01-100061

That on or about the 5th day of April 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accuse
and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with
strength and with treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and employ personal vio
ALONZO Y SALGO, by then and there shooting the latter several times with the use of a firea
different parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal gunshot wounds whi
his death, to the damage and prejudice of the immediate heirs of said PO2 DIONISIO ALONZO Y

That the crime was committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.[2]

Criminal Case No. Q-01-100062

That on or about the 5th day of April, 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accuse
and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with
strength and with treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and employ personal viole
RED Y PILAR, by then and there shooting the latter several times with the use of a firearm of un
parts of the body and as soon as the said victim fell on the ground, by placing a hand grenade
caused an explosion and mutilated the body which directly caused the death of SPO2 WILFR
prejudice of the heirs of the victim in such amount as may be awarded to them under the provision

That the crime was committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.[3]

Criminal Case No. Q-01-100063

That on or about the 5th day of April, 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accuse
and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill with evident premeditation and with treache
and feloniously, assault, attack and employ personal violence upon the person of SPO1 WILFRE
and there shooting the latter with the use of a firearm of unknown caliber, hitting him on his nec
mortal injuries, the offender thus performing all the acts of execution which would have produc
but nevertheless did not produce it by reasons or causes independent of the will of the perpet
assistance rendered to said SPO1 WILFREDO MONTECALVO Y DALIDA, to the damage and p

That the crime was committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.[4]

On May 15, 2001, accused-appellants Carandang, Milan and Chua pleaded not guilty to the crime

The prosecution evidence, culled from the testimonies of Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Wilf
Police Senior Inspector (P/Sr. Insp.) Virgilio Calaro, P/Supt. Manuel Roxas and Dr. Wilson Tan, y

In the afternoon of April 5, 2001, the drug enforcement unit of the La Loma Police Station 1 receive

When the team reached the place at around 4:00 p.m.,[6] they alighted from their vehicles and sur
group went to the left side of the house, while SPO2 Reds group proceeded to the right. The tw
house near Milans room. The door to Milans room was open, enabling the police officers to see
Red told the group that the persons inside the room would not put up a fight, making th
erupt. However, when the group introduced themselves as police officers, Milan immediately shu

PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red pushed the door open, causing it to fall and propelling them inside the r

Reinforcements came at around 4:30 p.m. upon the arrival of P/Sr. Insp. Calaro, Chief Operation
and P/Supt. Roxas, the Deputy Station Commander of Police Station 1 at the time of the inciden
Chinese General Hospital. Milan stepped out of the house and was also brought to a hospital, [10]b
inside the house for several hours. There was a lengthy negotiation for the surrender of Caranda
for the presence of a certain Colonel Reyes and media man Ramon Tulfo.[11] It was around 11:0
and Chua surrendered.[12] SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo were found dead inside the house, their bo
and gunshot and grenade shrapnel wounds.[13]

Dr. Winston Tan, Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, cond

According to SPO1 Montecalvos account, Dr. Bu Castro of the Chinese General Hospital operated on

The defense presented the three accused as witnesses, testifying as follows:

Carandang claims that he had no firearm during the incident, and that it was the police officers wh

Since gunshots were still heard every now and then, Carandang stayed in the house and did not co

Milan testified that he was at home in Calavite St. at the time of the incident.He knew Carandang

Chua testified that he went to the house of Milan at around noontime of April 4, 2001 to play a card

P/Sr. Insp. Grace Eustaquio, Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, later testified that the p

On April 22, 2003, the trial court rendered its Decision[21]finding Carandang, Milan and Chua guilt

WHEREFORE, finding the accused RESTITUTO CARANDANG, HENRY MILAN AND JA

doubt of the crime of murder described and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal
Code, for the killing of SPO2 Wilfredo Pilar Red and PO2 Dionisio Alonzo qualified by treacher
they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of murder
jointly and severally, as follows:

To the heirs of SPO2 Wilfredo Red:

1. P50,000.00 as civil indemnity;

2. P50,000.00 as moral damages;

3. P149,734.00 as actual damages; and

4. P752,580.00 as compensatory damages

To the heirs of PO2 Dionisio Alonzo:

1. P50,000.00 as civil indemnity;

2. P50,000.00 as moral damages;

3. P139,910.00 as actual damages; and

4. P522,960.00 as compensatory damages.

Likewise, finding the accused Restituto Carandang, Henry Milan and Jackman Chua guilty
frustrated murder, described and penalized under Article 249 in relation to Article 6, paragraph
other and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they are hereby sentenced to suffer impriso
twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, and to indemnify the victim Wilfredo Mo

1. P14,000.00 as actual damages;

2. P20,000.00 as moral damages;

3. P20,000.00 as reasonable attorneys fees; and

4.To pay the costs.[22]

Carandang, Milan and Chua appealed to this Court.[23] The appeals were separately docketed as G
to the decision of this Court in People v. Mateo,[25] the appeals were transferred[26] to the Cour
single docket number, CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01934.

On May 10, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision modifying the Decision of

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
100061-63 finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Murd
is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as follows:

1)
In Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-100061 and Q-01-100062, accused-appellants are hereby o
Alonzo and SPO2 Wilfredo P. Red an indemnity for loss of earning capacity in the am
respectively; and

2)
In Criminal Case No. Q-01-100063, accused-appellants are hereby instead sentenced to
(6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months
maximum.

With costs against the accused-appellants.[27]

Milan and Chua appealed to this Court anew.[28] Carandang did not appeal, and instead presented
longer interested in pursuing an appeal.[29] On April 9, 2008, Milan and Chua filed a Supplemen
Assignment of Errors they presented in their September 28, 2004 Appellants Brief:

I.

The court a quo erred in holding that there was conspiracy among the appellants in the case at bar

II.

Assuming arguendo that conspiracy exists, the courta quogravely erred in convicting them of the

The trial court had ruled that Carandang, Milan and Chua acted in conspiracy in the commissio
established fact that it was Carandang who fired the gun which hit SPO2 Red, PO2 Alonzo and
held equally criminally responsible therefor. The trial court explained that Carandang, Milan and
concert against the police officers. The pertinent portion of the RTC Decision reads:

Milan, Carandang and Chua were all inside the room of Milan. Upon arrival of police officer
identified themselves as police officers, the door was closed and after Alonzo and Red pushe
gagalaw, immediately shots rang out from inside the room, felling Alonzo, then Red, then Monte
to Milan: Sugurin mo na (tsn, October 16, 2001, page 8). And as Milan lunged at Montecalvo, the

That the three acted in concert can be gleaned from their actuations.First, when they learned of th

In affirming this ruling, the Court of Appeals further expounded on the acts of Milan and Chu
Carandang, to wit:

In the present case, when appellants were alerted of the presence of the police officers, Milan imm
the police officers were finally able to break open said door, Carandang peppered them with
instantly as a result while SPO1 Montecalvo was mortally wounded. Then, upon seeing their
seriously wounded, Chua ordered Milan to attack the police officers. Following the order, Milan
however, was able to shoot him.

At first glance, Milans act of closing the door may seem a trivial contribution in the furtherance o
act actually facilitated the commission of the crime. The brief moment during which the police o
the way for the appellants to take strategic positions which gave them a vantage point in stagin
PO2 Alonzo were finally able to get inside, they were instantly killed by the sudden barrage of gu
the attack, said police officers were not able to return fire.

Insofar as Chua is concerned, his participation in the conspiracy consisted of lending encourageme

Milan and Chua object to the conclusion that they were in conspiracy with Carandang due
peaceably talking to the police officers. According to them, those acts were caused by their being
allegedly in full battle gear.[33] Milan and Chua further assert that the fortuitous and unexpected ch
of events should have ruled out a finding of conspiracy.[34] They claim that the incident happened
Carandang.[35]

Appellants contest the factual finding that Chua directed Milan to go after SPO1 Montecalvo, allegin

Assuming arguendo that Chua uttered Sugurin mo na! to Milan, appellants argue that no crime
victims had already been shot when said words were shouted.[37] Furthermore, it appears to have
lack of reflection and did not inherently carry with it inducement or temptation.[38]

In the Supplemental Brief, Milan and Chua point out that the assault on the victims was the res
was not a result of any agreement or a concerted action of all the accused.[39] They claim that wh
dove down near the bed while Milan ran out of the room out of fear.[40] It is allegedly hard to ima
heard Chua utter the phrase Sugurin mo na, considering that the incident happened so fast, there w

To summarize, Milans and Chuas arguments focus on the lack of direct evidence showing that they

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of

In the case at bar, the conclusion that Milan and Chua conspired with Carandang was established
victims (Milans closing the door when the police officers introduced themselves, allowing Caran
shooting (Chuas directive to Milan to attack SPO1 Montecalvo and Milans following such in
appellants, these facts are not meant to prove that Chua is a principal by inducement, or that Mil
what made him a principal by direct participation. Instead, these facts are convincing circumstan
minds of the three. As co-conspirators, all three are considered principals by direct participation.

Appellants attempt to instill doubts in our minds that Chua shoutedsugurin mo nato Milan, who th

Furthermore, we have time and again ruled that factual findings of the trial court, especially th
conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[45] It was the trial court that
witnesses, and is consequently in a better position to determine which of the witnesses are telli
rule, would not review the factual findings of the courts a quo, except in certain instances such a
speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or imposs
(4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting;
on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by th
findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9) the Cour
relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (1
beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both partie

Neither can the rapid turn of events be considered to negate a finding of conspiracy.Unlike eviden

As held by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, Milans act of closing the door facilitated the com

The trial court correctly sentenced appellants to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Cri
100062. The penalty for murder under Article 248[49] of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perp
same Code, since there was no other modifying circumstance other than the qualifying circumsta
imposed is reclusion perpetua.

In Criminal Case No. Q-01-100063, the Court of Appeals correctly modified the pena
Montecalvo. Under Article 50[51] in connection with Article 61, paragraph 2[52] of the Revised Pen
is one degree lower than reclusion perpetua to death, which is reclusion temporal. Reclusion tem
20 years. Its medium period, which should be applied in this case considering that there is n
qualifying circumstance of treachery, is 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 mont
indeterminate penalty under Section 1[53] of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The minimum term o
within the range of the penalty next lower to reclusion temporal, and thus may be any term wit
years and 1 day to 12 years. The modified term of 6 years and 1 day ofprision mayor as mi
of reclusion temporal as maximum, is within these ranges.

The civil liabilities of appellants should, however, be modified in accordance with current jurispru
100061 and Q-01-100062, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each victim must
murder and homicide, civil indemnity of P75,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 are
allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.[55] Appellants are furthermore solidaril
exemplary damages, which is awarded when the crime was committed with an aggravating
[56]
However, since Carandang did not appeal, he is only solidarily liable with Milan and Chua w
Court of Appeals, since the Court of Appeals Decision has become final and executory wit
(P25,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages) shall be borne only by M
therefor solidarily.

In Criminal Case No. Q-01-100063, the solidary liability of Milan and Chua for moral damages
increased to P40,000.00, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[57] An award of P20,000.00
[58]
The additional amounts (P20,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damage
by Milan and Chua.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01934 dated M
the following MODIFICATIONS:

1. In Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-100061 and Q-01-100062, appellants Henry Milan and Jackm
amount of P25,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to the heirs of ea
and SPO2 Wilfredo P. Red, in addition to the amounts to which they are solidarily liable with Re
H.C. No. 01934. Thus, to summarize the rulings of the lower courts and this Court:

a. The heirs of SPO2 Wilfredo Red are entitled to the following amounts:

i. P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 of which shall be solidarily

while P25,000.00 shall be the solidary liability of Milan and Chua only;

ii. P50,000.00 as moral damages to be solidarily borne by Carandang, Milan an

iii. P149,734.00 as actual damages to be soldarily borne by Carandang, Milan an

iv. P2,140,980.00 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity to be solidarily born

v. P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to be solidarily borne by Milan and Chua

b. The heirs of PO2 Dionisio Alonzo are entitled to the following amounts:

i. P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 of which shall be solidarily

while P25,000.00 shall be the solidary liability of Milan and Chua only;

ii. P50,000.00 as moral damages to be solidarily borne by Carandang, Milan an

iii. P139,910.00 as actual damages to be solidarily borne by Carandang, Milan a

iv. P2,269,243.62 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity to be solidarily born

v. P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to be solidarily borne by Milan and Chua

2. In Criminal Case No. Q-01-100063, appellants Henry Milan and Jackman Chua are held solid
moral damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages to SPO1 Wilfredo Montecalvo, in ad
solidarily liable with Restituto Carandang as held in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01934. Thus, to sum
this Court, SPO1 Wilfredo Montecalvo is entitled to the following amounts:

i. P14,000.00 as actual damages to be solidarily borne by Carandang, Milan and C

ii. P40,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 of which shall be solidarily b

whileP20,000.00 shall be the solidary liability of Milan and Chua only;

iii. P20,000.00 as exemplary damages to be solidarily borne by Milan and Chua only

iv. P20,000.00 as reasonable attorneys fees, to be solidarily borne by Carandang, M

3. Appellants are further ordered to pay interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of
finality of this judgment.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 175926

Present:

CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,

BERSAMIN,

DEL CASTILLO, and

MENDOZA,*JJ.

Promulgated:

6-Jul-11

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 184960 : August 24, 2011]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CLEOFE BAROQUILLO Y VILLANUEVA AND LEONARDO MA
APPELLANTS.

D E C I S I O N

ThisAppealwasfiledbyaccused-appellantsCleofeBaroquilloyVillanueva(Cleofe)andLeonardoMahilumyCaete(Leonardo)tocha
2008Decision[1]oftheCourtofAppealsinCA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00395 MIN,whichaffirmedthejudgmentofconvictionforMurder
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch6,ofIliganCityonOctober7,2002,inCriminal Case No. 06-8614.

Theantecedentsofthiscase,whichweresuccinctlysummarizedbytheCourtofAppealsfromthetranscriptofstenographicnotes(TSN

AccusedLorenzaMadelosoyDemecillo(Lorenzahereinafter)andvictimNelsonMadeloso(Nelsonhereinafter)arespouseswithfiv
accusedLorenzametaccusedCleofeBaroquilloyVillanueva(Cleofehereinafter)[astheywerebothemployeesoftheAbalosfamil
p.27].[Theirmembershipinthe]congregationofareligiousgroup,theCouple's(sic)forChrist,xxxnurturedaspecialfriendsh
relationship.

SometimeinOctober2000,accusedLorenzadisclosedtoherkumareEllenDajao(Ellenhereinafter),herintimacywithaccusedCl
introducedaccusedCleofetoEllenashersecondhusband.Inoneoftheirconversations,LorenzatoldEllenhowmuchshelovesa
thataccusedLorenzaandaccusedCleofehadafuriousargumentoverthesurnameofaccusedLorenza'sfourthchild,suspectedto
thelatterwantedsaidchildtocarryhissurnamebutaccusedLorenzarefusedoutofrespect[for]herhusbandNelson.AccusedL
shewantedherhusbandkilledbecausehenolongergiveshermoney.

On5January2001,accusedLorenzawenttoherfather-in-lawGregorioMadeloso(Gregoriohereinafter),inCotabatoCitytogett
(P23,000.00)whichthelatterpromisedasfinancialassistanceforherintendedtripabroad.Onthesameday,accusedLorenzawe
Onherwaytotheirhouse,shespottedherhusbandNelson,sittingbythestoreofVickyAbaba,approachedhimandangrilyshou
wala ang imong papa mohatag."ShealsothreatenedNelsonsaying:"Dili ka magdugay [Nel]son; pipila na lang ka adlaw, ipapata

On10January2001,ataroundtwelveo'clocknoon,accusedLorenzametandhadlunchwithaccusedCleofeandaccusedLeonard
atDado's LechonHouseinTibanga,IliganCity.Meanwhile,ataroundeighto'clockintheevening,Nelsonwentoutoftheirhouse
(Promelitohereinafter),theirneighborwhowasthensittingoutsidetheirhouse,forthetime.Promelitoansweredandaskedhim
"Mamangcalledforme,"andthenhurriedlyleft.Nelsonfondlycalledhiswifemamangormama.

Ataround8:15p.m.,Lorenza,withoneofherchildren,arrivedhome.Meantime,NelsonchanceduponMeneleoTumampil(Menel
drivinghismotorcycleboundforVillaverde,IliganCity.NelsonflaggeddownMeneleo.Whenthelatteraskedwherehewasheade
forme."NelsonthenrequestedMeneleoifhecoulddrophimoffatthecrossingofSt.MaryandBagong Silang.Meneloaccededa
Nelsonreachedtheplace,healightedandleftMeneleoonhisway.

Ataroundnineo'clockintheevening,inBagong Silang,NelsonwasshotdeadbyaccusedLeonardo.Theprosecutionwitness,Ric
gruesomeincidentwhilewalkingonhiswayhomefromthehouseofafriend.HevividlyrecountedthathesawNelsonsittingbyt
men,identifiedlateronasaccusedCleofeandLeonardo,crossedthestreetandapproachedNelson.AccusedCleofepulledNelson
LeonardopulledoutagunfromhissideandshotNelsonintheheadseveraltimes.

Soonafter,theIliganCitypolicereceivedareportthattherehadbeenashootingincidentinBagong Silang.Severalmembersof
scenetoinvestigateandfoundthevictim,Nelson,prostrateonthegrounddrenchedwithhisownblood.

[PromelitoJimenez,anotherneighboroftheMadelosos,overheard]MajorCelsoRegenciainformaccusedLorenzaabouttheshoot
accusedLorenza'sreaction[tohearingaboutNelson'sdeath]wasstrangelyopposedtoordinaryhumanexperience-shedidnotr
expectingthenews.

Promelito,andafewotherneighbors,thenaccompaniedaccusedLorenzatoBagong Silang.WhenaccusedLorenzasawherhusb
andcriedbuthercryallegedlyxxxappearedfeignedandinsincere[toPromelito]Nelson'sbloodycorpsewasthentakentoMans

AtMansuetoFuneralHomes,SPO2GenaroEnchavezaskedLorenzaafewquestions.Whenthepolicereceivedtheinformationof
extra-maritalaffair,Lorenzawasinvitedtothepolicestationforfurtherquestioningwheresheconfessedherillicitrelationwithacc
proceededtoaccusedCleofe'shouseatRiverside,Kolamboganbypatrolcar.ThepolicemetaccusedCleofe'swifeandaskedherw
home.Sherepliedthatherhusbandcamehomebetweenelevenandtwelveo'clockmidnight.WhenthepoliceinvitedaccusedCle
wifeexhortedthemtoincarcerateherhusbandbecauseofhisallegedloveaffairwiththewifeofNelson.

Inthemorningof11January2001,whileatthepolicestation,LorenzareceivedaphonecallfromLeonardo.Withthepermission
call.Leonardoinstructedhertomeethimataroundtwelveo'clocknoonatDado's Lechon Housetowhichsheagreedwiththeap
thirtyo'clockinthemorning,accusedLorenza,togetherwiththepolice,arrivedatDado's LechonHouse.Afterthirtyminutes,mor
andsatatthetableoccupiedbyaccusedLorenza.Thepolice,whoweresittingnearby,approachedthetwoaccusedpersonsand
stationforquestioning.Afterinvestigation,theaccused-appellants,Cleofe,LeonardoandLorenzawerechargedwithmurder.[2]

OnJanuary15,2001,CleofeandLeonardo,alongwithLorenzaMadeloso(Lorenza),werechargedwithMurderunderArticle248ofthe
Branch6ofIliganCity.ThepertinentportionoftheAmendedInformation [3]readsasfollows:

ThatonoraboutJanuary10,2001,intheCityofIligan,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,thesaidac
confederatingtogetherandmutuallyhelpingoneanother,armedwithadeadlyweapon,withintenttokillandevidentpremeditatio
andtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyattack,assault,[shoot,]andwoundoneNelsonMadeloso,therebyinflictinguponhim

-Cranicerebralinjury

-MultipleGunshotWounds

andasaresultthereof,thesaidNelsonMadelosodied.

ContrarytoandinviolationofArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCodewiththeaggravatingcircumstancesoftreacheryandevidentp

AllthreeaccusedpleadednotguiltytothecrimeofMurderduringtheirArraignmentonJanuary31,2001. [4]Theyalsofiledthreesepa
deniedbytheRTConAugust28,2001.[6]

Trialonthemeritsfollowedthepre-trialconference,[7]alsoconductedandconcludedonJanuary31,2001.

Ascanbegleanedfromtheantecedentsabove,theprosecutionpresentedEllenDajao [8]andEstrellaBailo[9]totestifyontheextra-mar
andhowLorenzawantedherhusbanddead;andGregorioMadeloso,[10]MarichelPaler,[11]MeneleoTumampil,[12]SeniorPoliceOfficer2(
RodneyDiez,[14]SPO1AndresLluch,[15]PromelitoJimenez,[16]andRickyRamos[17]totestifyonthecircumstancesthatledtotheshootin
bodywasdiscovered,andtheeventsthattranspiredafter.TheprosecutionalsopresentedDr.LeonardoLabanon,theIliganCityHealt
deadbodyofNelsonandwhoaccomplishedtheNecropsyReport [18]andCertificateofDeath.[19]Dr.LabanontestifiedthatonJanuary1
Nelson,whomhedeterminedtohavediedofcraniocerebralinjuryduetomultiplegunshotwounds.Heexplainedthatacraniocerebral
substance(cerebral)andtheskullprotectingthebrain(cranium). [20]Dr.LabanonalsoelaboratedontheotherinjuriesfoundonNelson
thatenteredtheleftsideandexitedthroughtherightsideofhishead,a"raccoonsign" [21]onhislefteye,agunshotwoundonhislowe
[22]
anabrasiononhisleftfoot,a"thruandthru"[23]gunshotwoundonhisupperrightback,andalacerationonthemiddleportionofh
woundsNelsonsustainedwasfatal,theDoctoransweredthatgunshotwoundstotheheadarealwaysfatal. [25]

Aftertheprosecutionresteditscase,thethreeaccusedtookthestandanddeniedkillingNelson.

LeonardoclaimedthatonJanuary10,2001,helefthishousebeforelunchtimetogotoVillaverdeforhiscousin,BonifacioPatac'sbirth
passedbyDado'sLechoneaterywherehesawhischildhoodfriendCleofe.CleofewasaccompaniedbyLorenzaandherchild,whomL
Lorenzaandherchildleft,LeonardoandCleofetransferredtoAnduyan'swheretheywatchedanNBAgameanddrankbeeruntil6:00
wenttowardshishouseinKolambugan,andLeonardo,towardshiscousin'spartyinVillaverde.Leonardoallegedthathereachedhisc
between7:00p.m.and7:30p.m.andstayedthereuntilthefollowingmorning,thenheproceededtoDado'sLechoninacquiescencet
meetherthereforlunch.[26]

InsupportofLeonardo'salibi,thedefensepresentedthebirthdaycelebratorhimself,BonifacioPatac,andanothercousin,RowelaGabi
Bonifacio'sbirthdaycelebration.RowelatestifiedthatLeonardoarrivedataroundeighto'clockintheevening;andfromthenuntilabo
cardgametong-its.ShealsoallegedthatLeonardospentthenightattheirhouseandwhensheleftat12:30p.m.thefollowingdayt
[27]
Bonifaciobacked-upLeonardo'sandRowela'sclaimsthattheywerebothpresentathisbirthdaycelebration.Healsocorroborated
Leonardowasintheirhouseplayingtong-itswiththem,furtheraddingthathe,Leonardo,andanothermalecousinslepttogetherinth
alsoconfirmedthatLeonardostayedthereforthenightbecausehewasstillsleepinginthelivingroomwhenBonifaciowokeupat6:3

CleofealsodeniedkillingLorenza'shusbandandallegedthathewasathomeinRiverside,KolambuganwhenNelsonwaskilled.Cleofe
beforenineo'clockinthemorning,hewenttoIligantohavehiswife'smobilephonerepaired.Aslunchtimedrewnear,helookedfora
Lechon,whichwaswithinwalkingdistancefromwherehewas.WhileatDado'sLechon,hesawLeonardoonhisbicycle,sohecalledh
partedwaysbetween5:00p.m.and5:30p.m.WhenCleofereachedhishouseinKolambuganatabout7:30p.m.,heatedinnerwith
hewenttosleepbetween9:00p.m.and10:00p.m.[29]

LitaBalateroDaviz(Lita)corroboratedCleofe'salibithathewasathomeintheeveningofJanuary10,2001.LitawasCleofe'sneighbo
Cleofe'shouseeverynighttowatchtelevisionasshehadnoneofherown.LitaclaimedthatCleofewasathishousetheentiretimesh
p.m.to9:00p.m.[30]

Lorenza,forherpart,claimedthatshehadnoreasontohaveherhusbandkilledasshelovedhim.Sheaverredthatasidefromtheno
NelsonhadaharmoniousandpeacefulmaritallifeduelargelytoNelson'spatience.Sheadmittedreceivingthe?23,000.00shehadas
claimedthatNelsonborrowed?10,000.00toredeemtheservicemotorcyclehehadmortgaged.LorenzatestifiedthatonJanuary10,
inTibanga,IliganCity,tofetchherchild,whomsheentrustedtoCleofeearlierthatmorning.Whenshearrivedthere,Cleofewasplayi
oncametoknowasLeonardo.ThethreeofthemhadlunchatDado'sLechon untilabout1:30p.m.Aftersomewindowshopping,she
hometoAbigailSubdivision.Lorenzaallegedthatatexactly7:15p.m.theyenteredtheirhouseandshefoundherhusbandNelsonan
dinner,NelsonleftwiththeTwentyPesos(?20.00)hehadpreviouslyaskedfromher.[31]

OnOctober7,2002,theRTCconvictedallthreeaccusedofMurder.ThedispositiveportionofitsDecision [32]reads:

WHEREFORE,thecourtfindstheaccusedCleofeBaroquilloyVillanueva,LeonardoMahilumyCaeteandLorenzaMadelosoyDe
doubtasprincipalsofthecrimeofmurderqualifiedbytreacherydefinedandpenalizedinArt.248oftheRevisedPenalCode,asa
aggravatingcircumstance(superiorstrengthisabsorbedintreachery)attendingtheoffense,herebysentenceseachofthemtoth
RECLUSIONPERPETUAwiththecorrespondingaccessorypenaltiesprescribedbylaw.Theaccusedarefurtherorderedtoindemni
NelsonMadelosothesumsofP50,000.00ascivilindemnity,P50,000.00asmoraldamages,P10,000.00asnominaldamagesandP
capacityand/orsupportwithoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvency.

TheaccusedLorenzaMadelosoisfurtherdisqualifiedfromreceivinganyinheritancefromthedeceasedNelsonMadelosoaswellas
thelatterevenifsaidaccusedhasbeennamedbeneficiarytherein.

ThethreeaccusedhavebeenunderpreventivedetentionsinceJanuary11,2001untilthepresent.Theperiodofsuchpreventive
infavorofeachoftheaccusedintheserviceoftheirrespectivesentences. [33]

TheRTCdissectedeachpieceofevidencesubmittedbytheparties.Itsaidthatthefactthattherewasanextra-maritalaffairbetween
establishedbytheprosecutionthroughthetestimoniesoftheMadelosos'friendswhoknewoftheaffair,andthroughpicturesofLorenz
ItalsoproclaimedthatonJanuary10,2001,aboutninehoursbeforeNelsonwaskilled,thethreeaccusedhadlunchtogether.Inconv
heldthattheywerenotabletosatisfytheburdenofprooftoestablishtheirdefenseofalibi.TheRTCbelievedthetestimonyofRickyR
"clear,coherentandresponsive."[35]TheRTC,citingPeople v. Oquio,[36]saidthat"itisalsowell-settledthatthetestimonyofasing
givencaseissufficienttoconvict."[37]TheRTCwasintriguedthatCleofeandLeonardotriedtomakeitappearthattheirlunchmeeting
coincidental"indirectcontrast"toLorenza'sclaimthatsheandCleofehadpreviouslyagreedtomeetatLadiesBurger,arestaurantne
founditcuriouswhyLeonardohadtoleavebeforelunchtogotoaneveningpartyandwhyhetookthelongerroutetoVillaverde.The
pointtotheconclusionthatthelunchmeetingamongthethreewasnotatallaccidental. [39]

Theestablishedextra-maritalaffairbetweenCleofeandLorenza,Lorenza'sthreatstokillNelson,Lorenza'sreceiptof?23,000.00from
thatshereceivedsuchmoney,theJanuary10,2001lunchmeetingatDado'sLechon,Meneleo'stestimonythatNelsonhitchedaridew
BagongSilangbecause"Mamang"[40]hadwantedhimtogothere,andthefactthatanhourlaterNelsonwasshotatBagongSilang,all
conspiredwithCleofeandLeonardotokillherhusband.TheRTCheldthatwhileitisdifficulttoestablishconspiracy,itcanbeprovenw
inferenceisderivedareprovenandthecombinationofallthecircumstancesissuchastoproduceaconvictionbeyondreasonabledou

Onintermediateappellatereview,theCourtofAppealswasfacedwiththeloneassignmentoferrorasfollows:

THETRIALCOURTGRAVELYERREDINFINDINGACCUSED-APPELLANTSGUILTYOFTHECRIMECHARGEDDESPITEFAILUREOFTH
GUILTBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.[42]

OnJanuary31,2008,theCourtofAppealspromulgateditsDecision,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theDecisiondated7October2002oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch6,IliganCityishereby
accusedCleof[e]BaroquilloyVillanuevaandLeonardoMahilumyCaeteGUILTY ofmurderandsentencedthemtoreclusion pe
nominaldamagesis,however,DELETED.Instead,theyareorderedtopayjointlyandseverallytotheheirsofthedeceasedNelso
P50,000.00asdeathindemnity,P50,000.00asmoraldamages,P1,655,640.00aslossofearningcapacity,andP25,000.00astem

ConsideringthattheaccusedCleof[e]BaroquilloyVillanuevaandLeonardoMahilumyCaetearedetentionprisoners,letthepe
theserviceoftheirsentencepursuanttoArticle29oftheRevisedPenalCode.

AccusedLorenzaMadelosoyDemecilloisACQUITTEDofthecrimeofmurder.TheSuperintendentoftheCorrectionalInstitution
immediatereleaseofLorenzaMadelosoyDemecillo,unlessthelatterisbeinglawfullyheldforanothercause;andtoinformtheC
reasonsforhercontinuedconfinement,withinten(10)daysfromnotice. [43]

WhiletheCourtofAppealsagreedthatCleofeandLeonardowereguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtforthemurderofNelson,itfoundth
toconvictherasaprincipalbyinducement.InacquittingLorenza,theCourtofAppealsratiocinated:

Indubitably,theprosecutionpresentednoneofthepercepto(command)orpacto(consideration)requiredtoestablishtheliabilityo
thatitisincumbentupontheprosecutiontoprovethataccusedLorenzahadaninfluenceoveraccusedCleofeandLeonardosogre
determiningcauseofthecommissionofthecrimebythematerialexecutor.Wecanonlysurmise,attheveryleast,themotiveof
Leonardo,inkillingNelson.But,oursurmisesandconjectures,nomatterhowstrong,arenosubstitutetoproofbeyondreasonab

Verily,thecircumstancesprofferedbytheprosecutionandrelieduponbythetrialcourt,albeittakentobeestablishedandcredibl
suspicionofguiltorinnocence.Thehornbookprincipleisthat"xxxwhentheinculpatoryfactsandcircumstancesarecapableoft
whichisconsistentwiththeinnocenceoftheaccusedandtheotherorothersconsistentwithhisguilt,thentheevidence,inview
innocence,hasnotfulfilledthetestofmoralcertaintyandisthusinsufficienttosupportaconviction".Nocourt,whenconfrontedw
libertyofcitizensinafreesociety,shouldtreatflippantlythelatter'sconstitutionalguaranteesandsupplydeficienciesintheevide
bias,suspicionorspeculation.[44]

Accused-appellantsCleofeandLeonardoarenowbeforeus,prayingforareversaloftheirconviction,onthesamearguments [45]posite

Ruling of the Court

CleofeandLeonardowerechargedandconvictedofMurderunderArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCode:

Art. 248. Murder. -Anypersonwho,notfallingwithintheprovisionsofArticle246,shallkillanother,shallbeguiltyofmurderan

perpetua,todeathifcommittedwithanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:

1.Withtreachery,takingadvantageofsuperiorstrength,withtheaidofarmedmen,oremployingmeanstoweakenthedefe
oraffordimpunity;

2.Inconsiderationofaprice,reward,orpromise;

3.Bymeansofinundation,fire,poison,explosion,shipwreck,strandingofavessel,derailmentorassaultuponarailroad,fall
vehicles,orwiththeuseofanyothermeansinvolvinggreatwasteandruin;

4.Onoccasionofanyofthecalamitiesenumeratedintheprecedingparagraph,orofanearthquake,eruptionofavolcano,de
publiccalamity;

5.Withevidentpremeditation;

6.Withcruelty,bydeliberatelyandinhumanlyaugmentingthesufferingofthevictim,oroutragingorscoffingathispersonor

CleofeandLeonardoassertthatthelowercourts'assessmentoftheirdefenseofalibiasweakiserroneousbecausetheywereproperly
witnesseswhowerewiththematthetimeofthecommissionofthecrime. [46]

ThisCourthasreviewedtheentirerecordsofthecaseandfindsnoreasontooverturntheconvictionofCleofeandLeonardo.

Thetwoaccused-appellantscontendthat"contrarytothecommonnotion,alibiisinfactagooddefense," [47]andthat"itcannotbehap
appellantsconspiredwitheachothertokillNelsonxxx,moreso(sic)whensuchconclusionwasonlybroughtaboutbythestatements
three(3)accused-appellantswereseeneatinglunchtogetheronthedayofthecommissionofthecrimecharged." [48]

WeagreewithCleofeandLeonardothatalibiisindeedagooddefenseandcouldcertainlyexculpateapersonaccusedofacrime.How
alibistrictlymeetsthefollowingrequisites:

1.Hispresenceatanotherplaceatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrime;and

2.Thephysicalimpossibilityofhispresenceatthesceneofthecrime. [49]

InPeople v. Bihag, Jr. and Hilot,[50]thisCourtelucidatedontheconceptofalibianditselementstoprosperasadefense:

ThisCourthasruledconsistentlythatalibiisaninherentlyweakdefenseandshouldberejectedwhentheidentityoftheaccused
bytheprosecution.Moreover,foralibitoovercometheprosecution'sevidence,thedefensemustsuccessfullyprovetheelemento
presenceatthecrimesceneatthetimeoftheperpetrationoftheoffense.Physicalimpossibilityinrelationtoalibitakesintocons
distancebetweenthesceneofthecrimeandtheplacewhereaccusedmaintainshewas,butmoreimportantly,theaccessibilitybe

However,neitherCleofenorLeonardowasabletoestablishbyclearandconvincingevidencethatnotonlywashesomewhereelsewhe
wasphysicallyimpossibleforhimtohavebeenatthesceneofthecrime."Byphysical impossibility,werefertothedistanceandthef
criminisandtheplacewherehesayshewaswhenthecrimewascommitted." [52]

NotingthedistancesbetweenBagongSilang,whereNelsonwaskilled,andtherespectivelocationsofLeonardoandCleofeatthetime
courtcorrectlyconcludedthatgiventherelativeproximityoftheplaces,theavailabilityoftransportation,andthephysicalfitnessofbo
impossibleforthemtohavetraversedtoandfromthesceneofthecrimeandtheirallegedlocationsthatfatefuleveningofJanuary10

ThetestimoniesofCleofe'sandLeonardo'switnesseswhocorroboratedtheiralibis,didlittletohelptheircaseastheywereeitherrelat
accused.Infact,oneofLeonardo'switnesses,Rowela,wascaughtinaliewhenshetestifiedthatshesawLeonardo,stillintheirhous
contrarytoLeonardo'sowntestimonythathewasatDado'sLechonatthattimetomeetLorenzaforlunch.Notasingledisinterested
Leonardotosupporttheiralibis.InPeople v. Abatayo,[53]thisCourtheldthat"alibibecomeslessplausibleasadefensewhenitiscorr
friendoftheaccused."[54]

Furthermore,contrarytoCleofe'sandLeonardo'sarguments,theirconvictionwasnotbasedoncircumstantialevidencebutonthepos
witness.Itiswell-settledthatsincealibiisaweakdefenseforbeingeasilyfabricated,itcannotprevailoverandisworthlessinthefac
crediblewitnessthatanaccusedperpetratedthecrime. [55]

Theissuethereforeboilsdowntothecredibilityoftheprosecution'sloneeyewitness,RickyRamos.ThisCourtseesnoreasontodistur
assessmentofthecredibilityofRickyRamos,whichtheCourtofAppealsalsosustained.Wehave,timeandagain,explainedourreaso
findingsasfollows:

Jurisprudenceteachesusthatthefindingsofthetrialcourtjudgewhotriedthecaseandheardthewitnessesarenottobedisturb
substantialfactsandcircumstanceswhichhavebeenoverlookedandwhich,ifproperlyconsidered,mightaffecttheresultofthec
witness'credibilitydeservesutmostrespectintheabsenceofarbitrariness.Furthermore,conclusionsandfindingsofthetrialcour
appealandshouldnotbedisturbedunlessforstrongandvalidreasonsbecausethetrialcourtisinabetterpositiontoexamineth
testifyingonthecase.[56]

TheRTCadequatelyaddressedandrebukedeachdoubtthedefensetriedtocastonRickyRamos'stestimony.Moreover,itsufficiently
testimonywasenoughtoconvicttheaccused-appellants,towit:

Thecredibilityofevidenceisnotnecessarilydeterminedbythenumberofwitnessesbutbythequalityofthetestimony.(People v
courtnotesthatMr.RamosisacompletestrangertothedeceasedNelsonmadelosoortohisfatherGregorioandalloftheaccuse
hetoldhiswifewhoadvisedhimnottogetinvolved.Nonethelessintheafternoonofthe[f]ollowingday,hesawSPO2RodneyDie
theincident.Thereisnoevidenceoranyotherindicationinrecordthathismotivewastaintedbyanycauseorreasonotherthan
byaffinitytoOfficerDiezisimmaterialsincethelatterhimselfdoesnot[have]anevilmotiveotherthantodohisdutyasapolice
coherentandresponsive.Althoughheisalonewitness,"itiswell-settledthatthetestimonyofasinglewitnesswhichsatisfiesthe
convict."(People v. Oquio,supra.)[57]

AperusaloftherecordswillnotyieldanytraceofbiasinthetestimonyofRickyRamos.Infact,whenaskedifhewassureofhisident
consideringthegravityofthecrimechargedagainstthem,hecategoricallyrepliedthat"[he]canstandon[his]words." [58]Itiscontra
fingerinnocentpersonsastheperpetratorsofaveryseriouscrime. [59]Thus,absentanyshowingthattherewasanyillmotiveonthep
consistent,andpositiveidentificationdeservesfullweightandcredit.

ThisCourtalsoagreeswiththelowercourts'appreciationoftheattendanceofthequalifyingcircumstanceoftreachery,andtheconspi
killNelson.

Article14,No.16,paragraph2oftheRevisedPenalCodeprovides:

Thereistreacherywhentheoffendercommitsanyofthecrimesagainsttheperson,employingmeans,methods,orformsinthee
andspeciallytoinsureitsexecution,withoutrisktohimselfarisingfromthedefensewhichtheoffendedpartymightmake.

ItwasestablishedinthiscasethatNelsonwasattackedwithtreacherybecauseasidefromhavinghadnoideaofwhatwastobefallhim
Leonardoapproachedhim,NelsonwasalsodefenselessagainstthesuddengunshotsLeonardodeliveredtohim.Thefactthattheattac
precludethepresenceoftreacheryinthiscaseasthesamemadetheattacknolessunexpectedandsudden. [60]

ConspiracywasalsodulyestablishedasRickyRamostestifiedthatwhileCleofepulledNelson,LeonardofiredshotsatNelson.Conspira
movementsofthetwoaccused,theircommonpurpose,being,tokillNelson.InPeople v. Quinao,[61]weexpoundedontheconceptof

Itiswell-settledthatconspiracyexistswhentwoormorepersonscometoanagreementconcerningthecommissionofacrimean
agreementneednotrestondirectevidence,asthesamemaybeinferredfromtheconductofthepartiesindicatingacommonun
tothecommissionoftheoffense.Itisnotnecessarytoshowthattwoormorepersonsmettogetherandenteredintoanexplicit
unlawfulschemeorthedetailsbywhichanillegalobjectiveistobecarriedout.Theruleisthatconvictionisproperuponproofth
ofthemdoinghisparttofulfillthecommondesigntokillthevictim.Insuchacase,theactofonebecomestheactofallandeac
deemedequallyguiltyofthecrimecommitted.[62]

Pursuanttoprevailingjurisprudence,[63]thisCourtisincreasingtheawardofcivilindemnityfromFiftyThousandPesos(P50,000.00)to
(P75,000.00).BoththeRTCandtheCourtofAppealsfailedtoawardexemplarydamagestotheheirsofthevictim.Inviewofthepre
circumstanceoftreachery,theawardofexemplarydamagesintheamountofThirtyThousandPesos(P30,000.00)inaccordancewith
order.[65]

WHEREFORE,thedecisiondatedJanuary31,2008oftheCourtofAppealsinCA-G.R.CR.-H.C.No.00395MINisherebyAFFIRMED
appellantsCleofeBaroquilloyVillanuevaandLeonardoMahilumyCaeteGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofMURDER
ofreclusion perpetua. TheyareherebyorderedtoindemnifytheheirsofNelsonMadelosothefollowing:(a)P75,000.00ascivilinde
damages;(c)P30,000.00asexemplarydamages;(d)P25,000.00astemperatedamages;(e)P1,655,640.00aslossofearningcapaci
awardedattherateof6%per annum fromthedateoffinalityofthisjudgment.

SO ORDERED.

EN BANC

ARNEL COLINARES, G.R. No. 182748

Petitioner,

Present:

CORONA, C.J.,
CARPIO,

VELASCO, JR.,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,

BRION,

- versus - PERALTA,

BERSAMIN,

DEL CASTILLO,

ABAD,

VILLARAMA, JR.,

PEREZ,

MENDOZA,

SERENO,

REYES, and

PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent. Promulgated:

x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

This case is about a) the need, when invoking self-defense, to prove all that it takes; b) what dist
homicide; and c) when an accused who appeals may still apply for probation on remand of the cas

The Facts and the Case

The public prosecutor of Camarines Sur charged the accused Arnel Colinares (Arnel) with frustrated

Complainant Rufino P. Buena (Rufino) testified that at around 7:00 in the evening on June 25, 2
buy cigarettes at a nearby store. On their way, Jesus took a leak by the roadside with Rufino w
behind and struck Rufino twice on the head with a huge stone, about 15 inches in diameter. Rufin

Ananias Jallores (Ananias) testified that he was walking home when he saw Rufino lying by th
struck him with something hard on the right temple, knocking him out. He later learned that Arne

Paciano Alano (Paciano) testified that he saw the whole incident since he happened to be smok
a barangay tanod and they brought Rufino to the hospital.

Dr. Albert Belleza issued a Medico-Legal Certificate[2]showing that Rufino suffered two lacerated w

The defense presented Arnel and Diomedes Paulite (Diomedes). Arnel claimed self-defense. H
evening when he met Rufino, Jesus, and Ananias who were all quite drunk. Arnel asked Rufino
but, rather than reply, Rufino pushed him, causing his fall. Jesus and Ananias then boxed Arnel s
Arnel but missed. The latter picked up a stone and, defending himself, struck Rufino on the hea
towards Arnel and tried to stab him with a gaff. Arnel was able to avoid the attack and hit Anania
in his sisters house. On September 4, 2000, he voluntarily surrendered at the Tigaon Municipal Po

Diomedes testified that he, Rufino, Jesus, and Ananias attended a pre-wedding party on the night
drunk. On his way home, Diomedes saw the three engaged in heated argument with Arnel.

On July 1, 2005 the RTC rendered judgment, finding Arnel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of fr
imprisonment from two years and four months of prision correccional, as minimum, to s
maximum. Since the maximum probationable imprisonment under the law was only up to six yea

Arnel appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), invoking self-defense and, alternatively, seeking conv

In the course of its deliberation on the case, the Court required Arnel and the Solicitor General to
or not, assuming Arnel committed only the lesser crime of attempted homicide with its impos
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prision correccional, as maxim
remand of the case to the trial court.

Both complied with Arnel taking the position that he should be entitled to apply for probation in c
that makes his offense probationable. The language and spirit of the probation law warrants suc
hand, argues that under the Probation Law no application for probation can be entertained once
judgment of conviction.

The Issues Presented

The case essentially presents three issues:

1. Whether or not Arnel acted in self-defense when he struck Rufino on the head with a stone;

2. Assuming he did not act in self-defense, whether or not Arnel is guilty of frustrated homicide; a

3. Given a finding that Arnel is entitled to conviction for a lower offense and a reduced probation
for probation on remand of the case to the trial court.

The Courts Rulings

One. Arnel claims that Rufino, Jesus, and Ananias attacked him first and that he merely acted in
stone.

When the accused invokes self-defense, he bears the burden of showing that he was legally justifie

In homicide, whether consummated, frustrated, or attempted, self-defense requires (1) that the pe

If the victim did not commit unlawful aggression against the accused, the latter has nothing to prev

Here, the lower courts found that Arnel failed to prove the element of unlawful aggression.He alon

In contrast, the three witnessesJesus, Paciano, and Ananiastestified that Arnel was the aggressor.A

Two. But given that Arnel, the accused, was indeed the aggressor, would he be liable for frustrat
Rufino, his victim, were not fatal and could not have resulted in death as in fact it did not?

The main element of attempted or frustrated homicide is the accuseds intent to take his victims
and convincingly to exclude every possible doubt regarding homicidal intent.[9] And the intent to
the means the offender used and the nature, location, and number of wounds he inflicted on his vi

Here, Arnel struck Rufino on the head with a huge stone. The blow was so forceful that it knocke
weapon, the impact it produced, and the location of the wounds that Arnel inflicted on his victim,
him.

The Court is inclined, however, to hold Arnel guilty only of attempted, not frustrated, homicide.InP

Thus, the prosecution must establish with certainty the nature, extent, depth, and severity of the v

Q: Doctor, all the injuries in the head are fatal?

A: No, all traumatic injuries are potentially treated.

Q: But in the case of the victim when you treated him the wounds actually are not fatal on th

A: I could not say, with the treatment we did, prevent from becoming fatal. But on that ca
time.

Q: The findings also indicated in the medical certificate only refers to the length of the woun

A: When you say lacerated wound, the entire length of the layer of scalp.

Q: So you could not find out any abrasion?

A:It is different laceration and abrasion so once the skin is broken up the label of the frontal lo[b]e

Indeed, Rufino had two lacerations on his forehead but there was no indication that his skull in
result of the pounding of his head. The wounds were not so deep, they merely required suturing
days. Dr. Belleza further testified:

Q: So, in the medical certificate the wounds will not require surgery?

A: Yes, Madam.

Q: The injuries are slight?

A: 7 to 8 days long, what we are looking is not much, we give antibiotics and antit[e]tanus
the brain.

xxxx

Q: What medical intervention that you undertake?

A: We give antibiotics, Your Honor, antit[e]tanus and suturing the wounds.

Q: For how many days did he stay in the hospital?

A: Head injury at least be observed within 24 hours, but some of them would rather go hom

Q: So the patient did not stay 24 hours in the hospital?

A: No, Your Honor.

Q: Did he come back to you after 24 hours?

A:I am not sure when he came back for follow-up.[14]

Taken in its entirety, there is a dearth of medical evidence on record to support the prosecution
timely medical intervention. Thus, the Court finds Arnel liable only for attempted homicide a
voluntary surrender.

Three. Ordinarily, Arnel would no longer be entitled to apply for probation, he having appealed
for frustrated homicide.

But, the Court finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser crime of attempted homicide and holds that
should be lowered to imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two year
maximum. With this new penalty, it would be but fair to allow him the right to apply for probation

Some in the Court disagrees.They contend that probation is a mere privilege granted by the state

But, firstly, while it is true that probation is a mere privilege, the point is not that Arnel has the
have. What he has is the right to apply for that privilege. The Court finds that his maximum jail
the Court allows him to apply for probation because of the lowered penalty, it is still up to the tri
the privilege of probation, taking into account the full circumstances of his case.

Secondly, it is true that under the probation law the accused who appeals from the judgment of co
of the benefits of probation. But, as it happens, two judgments of conviction have been meted
homicide by the regional trial court, now set aside; and, two, a conviction for attempted homicide

If the Court chooses to go by the dissenting opinions hard position, it will apply the probation la
judgment against him. He will not be entitled to probation because of the severe penalty tha
Supreme Courts judgment of conviction for a lesser offense and a lighter penalty will also have to
this has been found in error. And, worse, Arnel will now also be made to pay for the trial courts
right to apply for probation. Ang kabayo ang nagkasala, ang hagupit ay sa kalabaw(the horse err
there?

The dissenting opinion also expresses apprehension that allowing Arnel to apply for probation woul

In Francisco, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati found the accused guilty of grave o
term of one year and one day to one year and eight months of prision correccional, a clearly
ask! Still, he chose to appeal, seeking an acquittal, hence clearly waiving his right to apply for p
wanted probation. The Court would not of course let him. It served him right that he wanted to s
not have both appeal and probation.

The Probation Law, said the Court inFrancisco, requires that an accused must not have appealed h

Here, however, Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to apply for
appeal and probation. He was not in a position to say, By taking this appeal, I choose not to appl
court imposed on him denied him that choice. Thus, a ruling that would allow Arnel to no
diminished penalty will not dilute the sound ruling in Francisco. It remains that those who wil
they have the option to try for probation, forfeit their right to apply for that privilege.

Besides, in appealing his case, Arnel raised the issue of correctness of the penalty imposed o
warranted his conviction only for attempted, not frustrated, homicide, which crime called for a pr
sought from the beginning to bring down the penalty to the level where the law would allow him

In a real sense, the Courts finding that Arnel was guilty, not of frustrated homicide, but only of
that for the first time imposes on him a probationable penalty. Had the RTC done him right from t
correct offense and imposed on him the right penalty of two years and four months maximum
apply for probation.

The Probation Law never intended to deny an accused his right to probation through no fault of h
one of liberality towards the accused. Such philosophy is not served by a harsh and stringent in
Justice Vicente V. Mendoza said in his dissent in Francisco, the Probation Law must not be re
accused only where it clearly appears he comes within its letter; to do so would be to disregard
Law should be applied in favor of the accused not because it is a criminal law but to achieve its be

One of those who dissent from this decision points out that allowing Arnel to apply for prob
judgment of conviction would not be consistent with the provision of Section 2 that the proba
opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender. An accused like Arnel who appeals from a
no penitence.

This may be true if the trial court meted out to Arnel a correct judgment of conviction. Here, ho
frustrated homicide, that carried a penalty in excess of 6 years. How can the Court expect him to
now finds, he did not commit? He only committed attempted homicide with its maximum penalty

Ironically, if the Court denies Arnel the right to apply for probation under the reduced penalty, it
would be robbing him of the chance to instead undergo reformation as a penitent offender, defeati

At any rate, what is clear is that, had the RTC done what was right and imposed on Arnel the
maximum, he would have had the right to apply for probation. No one could say with certainty t
had the RTC done right by him. The idea may not even have crossed his mind precisely since the

The question in this case is ultimately one of fairness. Is it fair to deny Arnel the right to apply
Court imposes on him is, unlike the one erroneously imposed by the trial court, subject to probati

WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the petition, MODIFIES the Decision dat
CA-G.R. CR 29639, FINDS petitioner Arnel Colinares GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of at
suffer an indeterminate penalty from four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years
maximum, and to pay Rufino P. Buena the amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages, without p
within 15 days from notice that the record of the case has been remanded for execution to the Reg
in Criminal Case T-2213.

SO ORDERED.