PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

ROBERTO ASIS and JULIUS PEARANDA

FACTS:
The accused Roberto Asis et al, conspiring and confederating with other persons whose true
identities and other personal circumstances have not as yet been ascertained and mutually
helping one another, with intent to kill, assaulted and employ personal violence upon the person
of one Donald Pais Y Balao.
Prosecution witness Ma. Theresa Ramos was inside her store when she saw Donald Pais and
Alex Costuna, accused-appellant Julius Pearanda and another person in front of her store.
Suddenly, a commotion broke out and stones were being thrown by different persons. Alex
Costuna took out a knife and repeatedly stabbed Donald. Accused-appellant Roberto Asis also
did the same thing.
According to another witness by the name of Clifford Magsanoc, at around seven in the evening,
there was then an on-going commotion perpetrated by Alex Costuna, Romy Manzanilla and
accused-appellants Julius Pearanda and Roberto Asis. Their target was Donald Pais who was hit
on different parts of his body. The victim attempted to flee but his assailants caught up with him
and stabbed him repeatedly.
Apparently, the defense attempts to discredit the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses by
harping on the seeming inconsistencies in their statements: (a) as regards the position of the
victim at the time he was attacked. (b) as regards the participation of the other unknown
assailants. While Theresa Ramos testified that the other assailants punched and boxed the victim,
Clifford Magsanoc insisted that he also saw the other assailants stab the victim.

ISSUE: Are the foregoing inconsistencies in the witnesses declarations impair their credibility?

RULING:
The testimonies of the two witnesses on material details are coherent, categorical and consistent
with each other.
In this case, the place where the murder was committed was also within the same vicinity as the
accused-appellants houses where the two allege to have been in deep slumber while the killing
was being committed. The accused-appellants, therefore, were not so geographically removed
from the locus criminis as to conclusively rule out the possibility that they were responsible for
the felony.
It must be emphasized that the RTC gave full faith and credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. The time-tested doctrine is that a trial courts assessment of the credibility
of a witness is entitled to great weight, and is even conclusive and binding on this Court. The
trial court has the unique opportunity to observe at firsthand the witnesses, particularly their
demeanor, conduct and attitude in the course of the trial. The accused-appellants alibi and denial
cannot prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses as the perpetrators of
the crime.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED.
Accused-appellants Roberto Asis and Julius Pearanda are found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Murder.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROSENDO REBUCAN y LAMSIN

FACTS:
The accused-appellant admits to the killing of the victim Felipe but denies that the crime
was committed with treachery and evident premeditation. He argues that there is doubt as to the
presence of treachery given that there was no eyewitness who categorically stated that the
accused-appellant attacked the victims suddenly, thereby depriving them of the means to defend
themselves.
He brushed aside the testimony of the witness Carmela Tagpis, insisting that she was not
in a position to say that there was no altercation between him and Felipe, which could have put
the latter on guard.
The prosecution allegedly failed to prove that the accused-appellant intentionally waited
for the time when Felipe would be defenseless before initiating the attack. The fact that he
voluntarily surrendered to the barangay chairperson and the police and admitted the killings
supposedly showed that it was not intentional and he did not consciously adopt the method of
attack upon the two victims. The accused-appellant similarly rejects the finding of the RTC that
there was evident premeditation on his part since the prosecution failed to prove that he
deliberately planned the killing of Felipe.

ISSUE: Was the guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to weakness of the prosecution?

RULING:
Yes. Basic is the rule that in order to affirm the conviction of an accused person, the
prosecution must establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty.
Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind. Ultimately, what the law simply requires is that any proof against the
accused must survive the test of reason for it is only when the conscience is satisfied that the
perpetrator of the crime is the person on trial should there be a judgment of conviction.
Carmela firmly and categorically pointed to the accused-appellant as the person who
entered the house of Felipe. She clearly stated that the attack was not preceded by any fight or
altercation between the accused-appellant and Felipe. Without any provocation, the accusedappellant suddenly delivered fatal hacking blows to Felipe. The abruptness of the unexpected
assault rendered Felipe defenseless and deprived him of any opportunity to repel the attack and
retaliate.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CLEOFE BAROQUILLO y VILLANUEVA and

LEONARDO MAHILUM y CANETE

FACTS:
The accused Lorenza Madeloso y Demecillo and victim Nelson Madeloso are spouses
with five children. accused disclosed to her kumare Ellen Dajao her intimacy with accused
Cleofe. Accused Lorenza even introduced accused Cleofe to Ellen as her second husband.
Lorenza went to her father-in-law Gregorio Madeloso in Cotabato City to get the
twenty[-]three thousand pesos which the latter promised as financial assistance for her intended
trip abroad. On the same day, Lorenza went back to Iligan City with the money. On her way to
their house, she spotted her husband Nelson, sitting by the store of Vicky Ababa, approached him
and angrily shouted.
Nelson was shot dead by accused Leonardo. The prosecution witness, Ricky Ramos saw the
gruesome incident while walking on his way home from the house of a friend. He vividly
recounted that he saw Nelson sitting by the gutter of the road when two (2) men, identified later
on as accused Cleofe and Leonardo, crossed the street and approached Nelson.
The two accused-appellants contend alibi. After investigation, the accused-appellants, Cleofe,
Leonardo and Lorenza were charged with murder.

ISSUE: Is the alibi of he accused valid to acquit them?

RULING:
No. We agree with Cleofe and Leonardo that alibi is indeed a good defense and could
certainly exculpate a person accused of a crime. However, this is true only if the accuseds alibi
strictly meets the following requisites: 1. His presence at another place at the time of the
commission of the crime; and 2. The physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the
crime.
However, neither Cleofe nor Leonardo was able to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that not only was he somewhere else when Nelson was killed, but also that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. By physical impossibility,
we refer to the distance and the facility of access between the situs criminis and the place where
he says he was when the crime was committed.
Furthermore, contrary to Cleofes and Leonardos arguments, their conviction was not
based on circumstantial evidence but on the positive identification of an unbiased witness. It is
well-settled that since alibi is a weak defense for being easily fabricated, it cannot prevail over
and is worthless in the face of the positive identification by a credible witness that an accused
perpetrated the crime.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VICENTE VILBAR

FACTS:
The accused seeks the reversal of his conviction for the crime of murder or in the
alternative, the imposition of the proper penalty for the crime of homicide. He argues that the
trial court erred in giving credence to the inconsistent, irreconcilable, and incredible testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses, to wit: (1) the exact number of persons drinking with accusedappellant in the adjacent store; (2) what Maria Liza was doing at the exact time of stabbing; and
(3) the accused-appellants reaction after he stabbed the victim.
Moreover, accused-appellant argues that if he was indeed the culprit, why did he
approach Guilberts family in the hospital immediately after the stabbing incident? Granting
without admitting that a crime of murder was committed, accused-appellant insists that he could
only be held guilty of homicide for it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that treachery and
evident premeditation existed.
He specifically directs our attention to the following details: (1) there was a heated
argument between the victim and a member or members of his group; (2) the stabbing happened
in a spur of the moment; and (3) the victim then was not completely defenseless.

ISSUE: Was there treachery in the commission of the crime?

RULING:
Instant appeal of accused-appellant is hereby denied for lack of merit. Treachery cannot
be appreciated simply because the attack was sudden and unexpected. The qualifying
circumstance of treachery was not established.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially
to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.
We can not presume that treachery was present merely from the fact that the attack was
sudden. The suddenness of an attack, does not of itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia,
even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was made all of a sudden and the victim's
helpless position was accidental.
Applying these principles to the case at bar, we hold that the prosecution has not proven
that the killing was committed with treachery. Although accused-appellant shot the victim from
behind, the fact was that this was done during a heated argument. Accused-appellant, filled with
anger and rage, apparently had no time to reflect on his actions.
The prosecution in the instant case merely showed that accused-appellant attacked
Guilbert suddenly and unexpectedly, but failed to prove that accused-appellant consciously
adopted such mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DIOSDADO CAMAT and MAMERTO DULAY

FACTS:
The above-named accused, conspiring together, with the use of unlicensed long and short
firearms, with deliberate intent to kill shoot Ricardo Hidalgo, inflicting upon him the following
injuries.
Aurelio, together with Anastacio, Juanito, Ricardo, Pedro, Marcelina, Abelardo, Elmer,
all surnamed Hidalgo, were in front of the yard of his brother Anastacio Hidalgo.
While engaged in conversation, Aurelio noticed a motorcycle pass by two times. At the
first pass, he noticed that only Oning Campos was on board. The second time, both Oning
Campos and Pilo Cabangas were on board the motorcycle.
After a few minutes, gunfire coming from the back of and directed at Aurelio s group
suddenly erupted. Immediately thereafter, Aurelio and his other injured relatives were brought to
the Region I Medical Center, Dagupan City. Aurelio was confined in the hospital for five days.
After leaving the hospital, he was investigated by Investigator Mariano of the Laoac Police
Station.
Aurelio recalled that prior to the shooting incident, accused-appellant Mamerto Dulay
hacked the house of Juanito Hidalgo, Aurelio s brother, with a bolo. Juanito Hidalgo had the
hacking incident blottered at the barangay.

ISSUE: Was treachery present in the commission of the crime?

RULING:
Yes. There is treachery or alevosia when the offender commits any of the crimes against
the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the
offended party might make.
The testimonial evidence gathered in this case clearly indicates that the victims who were
simply engaged in conversation in a private residence were caught entirely by surprise with the
assailants swift, deliberate and unexpected attack using multiple firearms thereby negating the
possibility for the victims to escape or defend themselves.
However, contrary to the findings of both the trial and appellate courts, this Court finds
that the use of unlicensed firearm was not duly proven by the prosecution. The testimony of the
prosecution witnesses had established that appellant Camat used a long firearm of unknown
make and caliber to shoot his victims but that would still be insufficient to attribute to his
felonious act the qualifying circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm in light of jurisprudence
which asserts that in order for the same to be considered, adequate proof, such as written or
testimonial evidence, must be presented showing that the appellant was not a licensed firearm
holder. There was no such proof in the case at bar.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARK JOSEPH ZAPUIZ Y RAMOS

FACTS:
The said accused with intent to kill, assault and use personal violence upon one
Emmanuel Ramirez Y Arellano, by then and there shooting the latter once at the back of his head
exiting through his right eye, thereby inflicting upon the said Emmanuel mortal gun shot wound,
which was the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.
Edwin Patente y Salcedo claimed to have personally witnessed the shooting incident.
victim Emmanuel Ramirez y Arellano was at his house.. Emmanuels house was well lighted
since Avon products were being sold there.
Edwin was just standing around on the street, about five steps away from Emmanuel,
when Edwin noticed a man, later identified as Jaymart, walk past him. Jaymart positioned
himself behind Emmanuel, and poked and fired a gun at the back of Emmanuels head.
Emmanuel fell from where he was sitting. Jaymart walked away still holding the gun. Emmanuel
was pronounced dead on arrival. Thereafter, Edwin informed Emmanuels mother, Olivia A.
Ramirez about the shooting.

ISSUE: Was the accused liable for murder?

RULING:
Yes. To hold the accused liable for murder, the prosecution must prove that all elements
were established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution in the present case.
First, it is undisputed that Emmanuel died from a gunshot wound. Second, Jaymart was
positively identified by eyewitness Edwin as the one who shot and killed Emmanuel.
As the RTC and the Court of Appeals observed, Edwin was positive and steadfast in his
identification of Jaymart as the man who shot and killed Emmanuel. Edwin clearly saw Jaymart
shoot Emmanuel at the back of the head because the locus criminis was well lighted and Edwin
was just a few steps away from both Jaymart and Emmanuel at the time of the shooting. Edwin
also had an opportunity to take a good look at Jaymart when Jaymart passed by him before the
shooting.
What accused-appellant failed to consider was that when a person writes while seated, his
head is naturally bowing down. Consequently, the path of the bullet, that is entering from the
back portion of the head and exiting on top of the right eye, will take an upward trajectory. Thus,
contrary to the argument advanced by accused-appellant, that the assailant must have positioned
himself lower than his victim, the posture of the victims head caused the upward trajectory of
the bullet.
Jaymart must prove that not only was he somewhere else when Emmanuel was killed, but
also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. "