People Vs Mercado - 116239 - November 29, 2000 - Per Curiam - en Banc

11/6/2016
PeoplevsMercado:116239:November29,2000:PerCuriam:EnBanc
ENBANC
[G.R.No.116239.November29,2000]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. ELPIDIO MERCADO y

HERNANDOandAURELIOACEBRONyADORA,accusedappellants.
DECISION
PERCURIAM:
For automatic review by the court is the decision,[1] dated July 22, 1994, of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 156, Pasig, convicting accusedappellants SPO2 Elpidio Mercado y Hernando and
SPO1AurelioAcebronyAdora,ofthePhilippineNationalPoliceofTanay,Rizal,ofkidnappingwith
murderandsentencingthemasfollows:
WHEREFORE,inthelightoftheforegoingdiscussionsandfindingtheguiltofbothaccusedtobe
provenbeyondreasonabledoubt,whiletheundersignedPresidingJudgedoesnotbelieveinthe
impositionofthedeathpenaltyasaformofpunishment,nevertheless,inobediencetothelawwhich
ishisdutytouphold,theCourtherebysentencesbothaccused,ELPIDIOMERCADOyHERNANDO
andAURELIOACEBRONyADORA,todeath,toproportionatelyindemnifytheheirsofthedeceased
RichardBuamainthesumoffiftythousandpesos(P50,000.00)topaythesumoffiftytwothousand
sixhundredeightypesos(P52,680.00)(ExhibitJ,J1toJ7)asexpensesincidenttotheburialand
thefurthersumofonehundredthousandpesos(P100,000.00)bywayofmoralandexemplary
damages,allwithoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvencyandtopaythecosts.
LetaCommitmentOrderbeissuedforthetransferofbothaccusedfromthePasigMunicipalJailto
theBureauofCorrections,Muntinlupa,MetroManila.
LettherecordsofthiscasebeforwardedimmediatelytotheSupremeCourtformandatoryreview.
SOORDERED.[2]
Theinformationagainstaccusedappellantscharged
Thatonoraboutthe9thdayofFebruary,1994,intheMunicipalityofPasig,MetroManila,Philippines,
andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,beingthemmembersof
thePNP,conspiringandconfederatingtogetherandmutuallyhelpingandaidingoneanother,didthen
andtherewilfully,unlawfully,andfeloniouslykidnaponeRichardBuama,a17yearoldminorand
boardedhiminaRedcarbearingLicenseplateNo.CGZ835againsthiswillthusdeprivinghimofhis
freedomofliberty(sic),broughthimtoTanay,Rizalinasafehouseandtheresubjectedhimto
extreme/brutalphysicalviolence,andthereafterwithabuseofsuperiorstrengthandevident
premeditationhackedandbludgeoned/clubbedsaidRichardBuamawhotherebysustainedmortal
woundswhichdirectlycausedhisdeath.
Contrarytolaw.[3]
Because of the gravity of the charge, no bail was recommended for the provisional release of
accusedappellants.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/116239.htm
1/20
11/6/2016
WhenarraignedonMarch8,1994,bothaccusedappellants,assistedbycounsel,[4]pleadednot
guilty to the crime charged. During the trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses:
Florencio Villareal, Eric Ona, SPO2 Virgilio Buama, Maria Buama, Lourdes Vergara, SPO2 Delfin
Gruta, SPO2 James Mabalot, Jesus Nieves Vergara, and Lupito Buama. Their testimonies are as
follows:
TwelveyearoldFlorencioVillarealtestifiedthatataround9oclockintheeveningofFebruary9,
1994,heandRichardBuamawerepickedupbyaccusedappellantElpidioMercadonearMercados
houseinSto.Tomas,Bukid,Pasig,MetroManila.Mercado arrived in a car, together with Eric Ona.
MercadosuspectedFlorencioVillarealandRichardBuamaofbeingtheoneswhohadbrokenintohis
storeandstolenmoney.Florenciosfriend,RexBugayong,wasabletorunfromMercado. Florencio
andRichardwerepushedintoMercadoscar.FlorenciosaidMercadopokedagunatRichardwhich
madethelattersay,Sasamanalangpoako.Wagninyolangpoakongsasaktan.(Iwillgowithyou.
Justdonthurtme.)
Mercado drove the car to Tanay, Rizal. Florencio and Richard were seated at the back, behind
Mercado and Eric, respectively. Upon reaching Tanay at around 11 oclock in the evening Mercado
took the three of them (Florencio, Richard, and Eric) to an apartment. Florencio was led inside the
apartmentwhileRichardwasheldoutsidebyMercado.When Florencio lookedthrough thewindow,
he saw Mercado slap and box Richard. Then he was brought inside. Mercado later went upstairs.
AccordingtoFlorencio,Richardaskediftheycouldleavetheplaceasheheldhisstomachinpain,
butFlorenciorepliedthatthedoorwaspadlocked.Eventually,MercadocamedownwithAcebron.
Richardwasmadetositonthefloorinthekitchenoftheapartment.MercadothentoldAceborn
thatthehadbroughthimapresent(pasalubong)andthattheyweregoingtokilltwoboysasmallone
andabigonewhowasdark.Inreply,Acebornsaid,Pare,huwagyungmaliitdahilkasinghawigng
anakko,sakamagbebirthdaypakinabukasan.(Buddy,notthesmallonebecauseheresemblesmy
son who will celebrate his birthday tomorrow.) As the conversation was made within his hearing
distance,RichardbecamesoscaredthathecouldnotanswerwhenaskedbyAcebronaboutagirls
picturefoundinhiswallet.ThisangeredAcebronwhoboxedRichardsinthestomach.
Mercado thereafter ordered Richard to take off all his clothes and lie face down on the kitchen
floor.MercadoaskedhisaideJefftogetarope.JeffbroughtapieceofrattanropeandtiedRichards
hands,whileMercadotiedRichardsfeet.Thishappenedatabout11:30intheevening.Mercadoalso
orderedJefftogetragswithwhichtoblindfoldandgagRichardandthenaskedAcebrontogetabolo
or a big knife. After getting a bolo, Acebron and Jeff put Richard into the luggage compartment of
Mercado'scar.Theythendroveaway,leavingbehindFlorencioandEricintheapartment.Aftertwo
hours,MercadoandAcebroncameback.FlorenciosawAcebronwashingthebloodstainsoffthebolo.
He asked Mercado where Richard was, to which Mercado replied, "Wala na. Pinatahimik ko na."
("Gone.Ihavealreadysilencedhim.")
Mercado andAcebron then took Eric and Florencio to a beerhouse in Tanay, Rizal and warned
themnottotellanyoneabouttheincidentortheyandtheirfamilieswouldbekilled.Forfearofhislife
and that of his family, Florencio promised he would not. From the beerhouse, Mercado drove to
Acebron'sapartment,wherethelatterwasdroppedoff,andthenproceededhometoPasigwithEric
andFlorencio.
Florencio waited three days for news about Richard. On February 12, 1994, with still no news
aboutRichard,FlorenciodecidedtotalktoRichard'ssister,aflowervendorwhosestorewaslocated
nearthePasigChurch.FlorenciotoldhertolookforRichardinTanayheevenpromisedtohelpthem
once they found him. Actually, it was Richard's brother, Virgilio Buama, a policeman, who found
Richard'sbodyinamorgueinMorong,Rizal.Hewastoldbyafuneralparloremployeethattheyhad
retrieved Richard's body near the boundary of Laguna.Florencio attended the wake of his friend in
Sto.Tomas,Pasig.[5]
VirgilioBuama,apolicemanandbrotherofRichard,lastsawthelatteronDecember25,1993as
Richardlivedwiththeirmother.OnFebruary11,1994,Virgiliolearnedfromhissister,MariaBuama,
2/20
11/6/2016
that Richard had been picked up by a policeman on February 9, 1994. Hence, he went to see
Florencio Villareal, who related to him how Richard had been kidnapped and killed by Mercado.
VirgiliotookFlorenciotohishouse,andthefollowingday,February12,1994,theywenttothePNP
headquartersatHilltop,Taytay,Rizal,whereFlorenciowasshownpicturesbyMaj.PatricioAbenido.
FlorenciopickedoutpicturesofMercadoandAcebronandidentifiedthemastheculpritsinthekilling
ofRichard.FlorenciogaveaswornstatementconcerningtheincidenttoSPO2JamesMabalotatthe
PNPheadquarters.MercadowasthereafterorderedtoreporttotheProvincialDirector,Col.Maralit,
and it was there that Florencio pointed to Mercado as the person who had kidnapped and killed
Richard. Acebron was likewise called, and he and Mercado were detained at the Rizal PNP
CommandStockade.
Virgilio found Richard's body at the San Francisco Funeral Homes in Morong, Rizal. The
owner/manager of the funeral parlor told him that Richard's body had been recovered in Mabitac,
Laguna.Virgiliobroughttheremainsofhisbrotherhome.[6]
EricMatanggihanOna,21yearsold,wasinthehouseofhisneighborCocoSanJuan,inSto.
Tomas,Pasig,MetroManila,ataround9o'clockintheeveningofFebruary9,1994whenMercado
arrivedandaskedhimtogowithhim,afterMercadohadaskedEric'sfatherforpermissiontodoso.
Alongtheway,EricaskedMercadowheretheyweregoing,andthelattersaidthattheywouldlookfor
"Bunso" (Florencio Villareal's nickname) who had stolen money from his video machines. Eric went
withMercadointhelatter'scar.
Florencio voluntarily went with them when Eric and Mercado saw him. Later, they saw Richard
andRexBugayongseatedonthestreetgutter.Whenthetwosawthecarstop,Rexstoodupandran
away. Mercado told Eric to go after Rex, but Eric refused to do so because Rex was his friend.
MercadowasabletogetRichard.MercadoplacedhisarmaroundRichard'sshoulderswhilehisother
hand poked a gun at Richard's side. Eric heard Richard pleading with Mercado not to hurt him and
sayingthathewouldgowithhim.EricknewthatMercadopokedagunatRichardbecausethelatter
wasMercado'ssuspectintherobberyofhisstore.HeheardMercadoask,"Eric,bakitnamanpinasok
nina Richard Buama at Florencio Villareal ang tindahan ko?" (Eric, why did Richard Buama and
FlorencioVillarealbreakintomystore?")Heansweredthathedidnotknowanythingaboutit.Then,
MercadotoldRichardandFlorencio,"Nagkamalikayongtinalo.Isang napakalaking bangungot ang
ginawaninyo."("Youpickedonthewrongguy.Whatyouhavedoneisabignightmare.")Accordingto
Eric,theythenboardedMercado'scar.Alongtheway,EricaskedMercadowheretheyweregoing,to
which Mercado replied, "SaTanay.Have you been there?" Mercado asked Richard how many they
wereinthefamily,towhichRichardrepliedthattheyweretenandthatoneofhisbrotherswas"oneof
them."("Kabaroninyo.")Mercadoalsoaskedthemwhentheirbirthdayswereandwhethertheywould
liketohaveanotherbirthday.
UponreachingTanay,theywerebroughttoanapartment.ThereMercadohitRichardontheface
andtoldhimtotakeoffhisclothes.MercadothenwentupstairstowakeupAcebron.Acebrontriedto
talktoRichard,butthelatterwouldnotspeak.ThissoangeredAcebronthatheboxedRichardhard
on the stomach. Mercado then asked his aide named Jeff to tie Richard's hands and feet and to
blindfoldandgaghim.Thisdone,AcebronandJeffloadedRichardintotheluggagecompartmentof
thecar.EricdescribedRichardaspale(maputla).Hehadhematomaonhisstomachandaswollen
right cheek that was blackish in color. Eric saw Acebron get a bolo from the kitchen, a long one,
"mapurol" ("dull and not sharp"), and with a black handle. Fearing for his safety, Eric kept quiet.
Mercadowarnedthemnottotellanybodyabouttheincidentotherwise,theywouldbekilled.
After two hours, Mercado and Acebron returned to the apartment without Richard. Eric saw the
bolowithbloodstains.HeaskedMercado,"TataPedi,whereisRichard?"Mercadoanswered,"Wala
na,pinagpahingakona."("Heisgone.Ihavelaidhimtorest.")
At around 4 o'clock in the morning, they went to the nearby "Space" beerhouse inTanay, Rizal
where they were made to drink. It was there that Eric heard Mercado and Acebron's conversation.
Mercadoasked,"Pare, ilan na ba ang napatay mo?" ("How many have you killed?") Acebron said,
"Ako, labimpito." ("Me, 17.") Mercado countered, "Pare, ako dalawampu't lima." ("Buddy, me, 25.")
3/20
11/6/2016
AcebronsaidRichardwasthe17thpersonhehadkilledwhileMercadosaidthatRichardwashis25th
victim.
Thereafter,withEricandFlorenciointow,MercadobroughtAcebronbacktotheapartmentand
theythenwenthometoPasiginMercado'scar.TheyreachedSto.Tomas,Pasigataround5:30inthe
morning.Mercadoagainwarnedthem:"Eric,Bunso,yung sinabi ko, ha." ("Eric, Bunso, don't forget
whatItoldyou.")Erictookthattomeanthattheyshouldnottellanyoneabouttheincidentotherwise,
somethingbadwouldhappentothem.Hence,houndedbyfear,Ericdidnotreportthemattertothe
police.HealsodidnotknowthatRichardhadbeenkilled.HesaidifhehadknownthatRichardwas
already dead when Mercado brought him home, he would have reported the matter to police
authorities.
Richard'sbrothersandsisterssearchedforhimthefollowingday,butEric,fearingforhislife,did
nottalktothem.ItwasonlywhenhesawthewakebeingheldforRichardattheSto.TomasChapel
thatEricrealizedthatRichardwasdead.AfterRichard'swake,MercadotoldErictolookforFlorencio
lestthelattertalkabouttheincident.EricdidnotobeyMercado.WhenMercadoaskedhimifhehad
seen Florencio, Eric said he had not. Thereafter, someone from the PNP headquarters in Hilltop
pickedhimup.Attheinvestigationconducted,Ericexecutedaswornstatement.[7]
The sisters Maria Buama and Lourdes Buama Vergara testified that Richard was informally
adoptedbytheBuamafamily.WhenRichardwassixmonthsold,hismothergavehimtoMariaatthe
Pasig Immaculate Conception Church on June 18, 1977. They considered Richard as their own
brotherandamemberoftheirfamily.ItwasFlorenciowhoinformedthemthatMercadohadpicked
himupandRichardonFebruary9,1994.IntheeveningofFebruary11,1994,uponlearningabout
the incident, Maria and Lourdes went to Mercado's house cum store in Sto. Tomas, Pasig where
Richard used to play video machines. Mercado's wife told them that Richard no longer came to the
videostoreashehaddonesomethingwrong.AskedwhatitwasthatRichardhaddone,Mercado's
wifefailedtoanswerbecausesomeoneinsidethestoresaid,"HinahanapsiRichardngmgakapatid
niya."When asked why his parents were not informed about Richard's alleged mischief, Mercado's
wife allegedly replied it was because their store had not yet been emptied. ("Hindi pa raw nauubos
ang tindahan nila.") Lourdes and Maria eventually found Richard's body in the early morning of
February12,1994.ForthewaketheBuamafamilyheldforRichardattheChapelofSto.Tomasin
Pasigandhisfuneral,theyspentP52,680.00.[8]
SPO2 James Mabalot took the statements of Eric and Florencio. When the latter implicated
Mercado and Acebron, SPO2 Mabalot took the two boys to the Administrative Building. From the
picturesofalmostallofthemorethan100membersofthePNPRizal,EricandFlorenciopickedthose
of Mercado and Acebron. The statements that Eric and Florencio executed were signed in the
presence of both SPO2 Mabalot and his superior. SPO2 Mabalot and his team thereafter went to a
funeralparlorinMorong,RizalwheretheyweretoldthatRichard'sbodyhadbeentakentothePNP
Crime Laboratory Services for autopsy. They learned that Richard's body had been found at the
boundaryofRizalandLaguna.
On the way to that site, SPO2 Mabalot and his team dropped by the Tanay Police Station to
coordinatewiththeTanaypoliceintheinvestigationofthecase.WhenFlorencio,whowaswiththem,
sawMercado'scarparkedoutsidethepolicestation,herecognizeditastheoneusedintakingthem
fromPasigtoTanay.WhenSPO2Mabalotandhisteamopenedthecar,theyfoundbloodspotson
the backseat. The car was then taken to the PNP Headquarters in Hilltop, Taytay, Rizal for proper
identificationandexaminationofthebloodstains.
OnordersofCol.Maralit,MercadoandAcebronwereplacedindetention.SPO2Mabalotwanted
FlorencioandErictoconfrontMercadoandAcebron,butFlorencioandEricweresoscaredtodoso
forfearthattheaccusedmighthurtthem.[9]
Dr. Jesusa Nieves Vergara, Acting Chief of the Medicolegal Division of the PNP Crime
laboratoryinCampCrame,QuezonCity,executedandsignedthepostmortemexaminationreporton
Richard's body. Her report shows that the cadaver had previously been embalmed that there were
4/20
11/6/2016
twomarksatthebackofthelefthandthatbothhandsweretiedwithplasticcordwhilebothfeetwere
tiedwithrattanandthatitsustainednineinjuriesonthehead,neck,leftupperextremity,andtheleft
arm. There were abrasions, lacerations, and stab wounds. The multiple abrasions on the forehead
andthebackoftheleftarmwerepossiblysecondarytoafallagainstahardsurface.Thelacerations
were on the lower jaw, on the front right ear, at the right ear lobe, and two on the right side of the
neck.Thesecouldhavebeencausedbyabluntobjectsuchasapieceofwood,anironbar,ahollow
block, or anything hard. There were also injuries and other lacerations on the back of the head
towardstherightsidewhichcouldhavebeencausedbytheapplicationofbluntforce.Openingofthe
headrevealedhematomaoraccumulationofblood.ThemedicalreportstatedthatRicharddiedof"
(i)ntracranialhemorrhageasaresultofskullfracture."[10]
Accusedappellants' defense was alibi. SPO1 Miguel Catapusan, Administrative Officer of the
TanayPNPMunicipalStation,testifiedthataccusedappellantsbothreportedforworkonFebruary9,
1994 at the police station. The morning and evening Formation Sheets and the Police Duty Roster
BookorthelogbookshowedthataccusedappellantElpidioMercadoandaccusedappellantAurelio
Acebron were both present from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. However, after signing the logbook in the
morning,accusedappellantsweretoldtoreporttotheRizalPNPHeadquartersCommandbetween
9:00a.m.and5:00p.m.regardingsomeimportantmatters.Aftertheheadcountthatnight,theChief
ofPolicebriefedthepolicemenontheirassignmentsforthirtyminutes,until8:30p.m.[11]
Testifyinginhisowndefense,accusedappellantElpidioMercadosaidthatbeforehejoinedthe
PNPTanay,Rizal,hewaswiththePhilippineNavysince1976.HewastransferredtothePhilippine
Coast Guard in 1981 where he served until 1986. When the EDSA Revolution broke out, he was
assigned to Malacaang as a member of the Presidential Security Group (PSG) until 1991. His next
assignmentfrom1991to1992wasattheMaritimeCommand,AntismugglingDivision.Thereafter,he
was assigned to Task Force Habagat under Col. Panfilo Lacson of the Presidential AntiCrime
Commission (PACC). In 1993, he was assigned to the PNP of Rizal. For his military and police
services,Mercadoclaimedhereceivedseveralawards,commendations,andmedals.[12]
On February 9, 1994, Mercado reported to the Tanay police station because Col. Maralit had
summonedhimthenightbefore.Aftersigningthelogbook,Mercado,togetherwithAcebronandone
SPO4Bias,askedpermissionfromtheirsuperiorofficertogotothePNPHilltopHeadquartersforan
investigation. They left the Tanay Police Station at 8:10 a.m. and proceeded to the Hilltop
Headquarterswheretheystayeduntil5:00p.m.TheywentbacktotheTanayPoliceStationtoattend
theeveningformationthatlastedupto8:30p.m.Thereafter,MercadowenthomewithAcebron.They
invited SPO4 Bias to have dinner with them in their house at Plaza Aldea, Tanay. The house was
provided to them by the local government of Tanay, and they shared it with SPO2 Sagat and Chief
InspectorGenabe.AfterSPO4Biaswenthomeat10o'clockintheevening,Mercadowenttobed.At
around7o'clockinthemorningthefollowingday,February10,1994,AcebronwokeMercadoupas
hepreparedtogototheoffice.MercadotoldAcebrontoinformhisofficerthathewouldnotattendthe
morningformation.
MercadosaidhewasmarriedandthathiswifestayedintheirhouseinSto.Tomas,BaltazarSt.,
Pasig, Metro Manila, to attend to their store and two video machines. He usually went home every
15thand30thofthemonthexceptwhentherewerespecialoccasions.HeownedaredChevroletcar,
but it was seized by the 221st Mobile Force on the ground that it was used in a crime. Mercado
claimedthatthetraveltimefromPasigtoTanaywasoneandahalfhoursandiftrafficwasheavy,two
hours.
Mercadodeniedtheallegationsagainsthim.HeclaimedthatEricandFlorencioimplicatedthem
in the crime because of an incident on January 23, 1994 in which Eric created trouble in his video
machineshop.MercadosawEricstranglingakid.HewasgoingtopacifyEric,butthelatteruttered
bad words against him. So, he slapped Eric. The youngsters scampered, but Acebron, who was
visitingMercado,wasabletograbFlorencio.MercadohitFlorencioonthebackoftheheadandtold
himnottoshowtheirfacesanymoreinhisstorebecausetheyweredrivingawayhiscustomers.Since
then, Eric and Florencio harbored ill feelings against him. They had been calling his house and
5/20
11/6/2016
threateninghisfamilythattheywouldkillhissonandrapehisdaughters.Hence,asaprecautionary
measure,hesenthischildrentoCaviteonlyhiswife,sisterinlaw,andtheirmaidremainedintheir
houseinPasig.[13]
AurelioAcebron, the other accusedappellant, also testified. He said that before he joined the
TanayPoliceForceinNovember1993,hehadbeenamemberofthePhilippineConstabularysince
1975.Hewasassignedtothe61stPCBattalioninBasilanandCebuuntil1978.From1978to1979,
he was an investigator of the Constabulary Metrocom. From 1979 to 1982, he was also an
investigatorattheregionalheadquartersoftheRTDivisioninZamboangaCity.From1982to1985,
heservedintheMilitaryPoliceBrigadeinCampAguinaldo.AttheRizalPNPCommand,hewasalso
an investigator. During his active duty, he received 22 commendations, two medals, and six military
meritmedals.Hewasalsoawardedabronzemedalintheaftermathofthe1989failedcoupd'etatin
Makati.
AcebronclaimedthatonFebruary9,1994,hereportedforworkbefore8o'clockinthemorningas
shown by the logbook he signed. With Mercado and SPO4 Bias, he was ordered to report to Supt.
Crescencio Maralit at Hilltop, Taytay, Rizal. They leftTanay at 8: 10 a.m. and arrived at Hilltop at 9
o'clockthatsamemorning.TheyconferredwithSupt.Maralitfrom2until5o'clockintheafternoon.
TheythenwentbacktotheTanayPNPstationandreportedtoMajorGenabe.Acebronattendedthe
evening formation that lasted up to 8:30 in the evening, after which he went home to Plaza Aldea,
TanaytogetherwithMercadoandSPO4Bias.TheyhaddinnerwithBiasandMajorGenabe.Biasleft
at 10 o'clock in the evening and they settled for the night. The following morning, he woke up at 6
o'clock. Before leaving for the office, he woke up Mercado who, however, said that he would not
attendthemorningformationashewouldgodirectlytohisassignmentatPostNo.2.
Acebron also denied all accusations against him. He claimed that he had been implicated in
revenge for what happened on January 23, 1994 when he collared Florencio and Mercado hit the
boy'sbackforcausingtroubleinMercado'svideoshop.Acebronclaimedthathehadbeenaskedby
policeofficersMabalotandOpletotestifyagainstMercado,butherefused.Heclaimedhehadbeen
detainedonFebruary12,1994afterhewasimplicatedinthiscase.[14]
Corroboratingotherdefensewitnesses,SPO4TeofiloPazBiassworethatat7:30inthemorning
on February 9, 1994, he attended the morning formation at the Tanay police station. Mercado and
Acebron were there present. At past 8:00 a.m., as he accompanied Mercado and Acebron to the
headquartersatHilltop,Taytay,Rizal,theysawCol.Maralitwithwhomtheyconferredfrom2:00p.m.
until5:00p.m.TheythenwentbacktoTanaytoattendtheeveningformationwhichlasteduntilabout
8:45 in the evening. Major Genabe ordered him to go with Mercado and Acebron to discuss in the
housetheresultoftheinvestigationatHilltop,Taytay.Theyarrivedinthathouseat9:00p.m.While
they were having dinner, they discussed what had happened at the investigation of Mercado and
AcebronbytheProvincialDirector.At10o'clockthatevening,aftersupper,BiaswenthometoPililla,
Rizal.Thefollowingmorning,hesawAcebronreporttowork.[15]
Onthebasisoftheforegoingevidence,thetrialcourtfoundbothaccusedguiltyandsentenced
them to death. Hence, this appeal. The joint brief of accusedappellants Mercado and Acebron
containsthefollowingassignmentoferrors:
FIRSTASSIGNMENTOFERROR
WITHALLDUERESPECT,THETRIALCOURTGRAVELYERREDANDABUSEDITSDISCRETION
AMOUNTINGTOLACKOFJURISDICTIONINGIVINGCREDENCETOCLASHINGMATERIAL
INCONSISTENCIESONTHETESTIMONIESOFTHETWO(2)PROSECUTIONS(sic)PRINCIPAL
WITNESSES.THEIRCONTRADICTINGTESTIMONIESANDEVIDENCESCREATEDNOTONLY
REASONABLEDOUBTBUTRATHERESTABLISHEDFACTUALERRORTHATWOULDBRING
ABOUTACQUITTALOFTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANTS.
SECONDASSIGNMENTOFERROR
6/20
11/6/2016
AMOUNTINGTOLACKOFJURISDICTIONINDISREGARDINGTHEDIRECTMATERIAL
EVIDENCECONSISTINGOFPOLICELOGBOOKORDUTYROSTERBOOK(EXHIBITS"6"
MERCADOAND"4"ACEBRON)ANDTESTIMONIESOFSPO2POLICECATAPUSANTHATBOTH
ACCUSEDAPPELLANTSATTENDEDTHEMORNINGFORMATIONAT8:00INTHEMORNINGOF
FEBRUARY9,1994ATTANAY,RIZAL,THENATTENDEDACONFERENCECALLOFSUPT.CHIEF
COLONELMARALITTHEWHOLEDAYATTAYTAY,RIZAL,THENBACKTOTANAY,RIZALAT6:00
P.M.ANDBOTHACCUSEDAPPELLANTSATTENDEDTHEEVENINGFORMATIONAT8:00P.M.
WHICHLASTEDUPTO8:45P.M.,AFTERWHICH,THEY(SPO1BIAS,MERCADO&ACEBRON)
PROCEEDEDTOMAJORGENABEATTHETANAYAPARTMENTANDMADEREPORT
REGARDINGTHECONFERENCECONDUCTEDBYCOL.MARALITUPTO10:00P.M.HENCE,
PHYSICALLYIMPOSSIBLEFORTHEACCUSEDMERCADOTOPICKUPTHEVICTIMAT9:00
P.M.ATPASIG,METROMANILA.
THIRDASSIGNMENTOFERROR
AMOUNTINGTOLACKOFJURISDICTIONINFINDINGTHATTHEREEXIST(sic)ACONSPIRACY,
WITHOUTANYEVIDENCEANDBASISINFACTANDINLAWTHATWILLSUPPORTITS
DECISION.
FOURTHASSIGNMENTOFERROR
AMOUNTINGTOLACKOFJURISDICTIONINFINDINGTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANTSGUILTY
BEYONDREASONABLEDOUBTOFTHECRIMEKIDNAPPINGWITHHOMICIDE,THEREBEING
NOEVIDENCEADDUCEDTHATHOMICIDEHASBEENCOMMITTEDINFURTHERANCEORAS
ACONSEQUENCEOFKIDNAPPING.
FIFTHASSIGNMENTOFERROR
AMOUNTINGTOLACKOFJURISDICTIONINWRITINGTHEDECISIONWITHUNDUEHASTE
ANDINCREDIBLESPEEDONE(1)DAYAFTERTHESUBMISSIONOFACCUSED(sic)32PAGE
JOINTMEMORANDUMONJULY21,1994,WITHINTHE15DAYPERIODGRANTEDBYTHE
COURTANDPROMULGATINGITSDECISIONONTHENEXTDAY,JULY22,1994,CONSISTING
OF39PAGES,THUS,RESULTINGINFATALERROROFCONVICTINGBOTHACCUSED
SENTENCINGTHEMTODEATHBASEDONWRONGAPPRECIATIONOFFACTS,
SPECULATIONSANDPROBABILITIESANDDESPITEPATENTFAILUREOFTHEPROSECUTION
TOPROVEWHATHAVEBEENALLEGEDUNDERTHECRIMINALINFORMATION.
Theseassignederrorsboildowntothefollowingmainissues:(1)credibilityofwitnesses,(2)alibi
asadefense,and(3)thepresenceofconspiracy.
Theseissueswillbediscussedinthecourseofthisdecision,althoughnotnecessarilyintheorder
discussed by accusedappellants in their brief. But before doing so, we first consider the threshold
questionraisedintheSupplementalBrieffiledforaccusedappellantsbycollaboratingcounselRene
V. Sarmiento with regard to the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7659 providing for the death
penaltyfor13heinouscrimes.
I.CONSTITUTIONALITYOFR.A.7659ANDR.A.8177
AccusedappellantsarguethatRepublicAct7659violatesthe1987Constitutionbecause
1.Therearenocompellingreasonstoimposethedeathpenaltyforthecrimesoftreason,qualified
piracy,qualifiedbribery,parricide,murder,infanticide,kidnappingandseriousillegaldetention,
7/20
11/6/2016
robberywithviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersons,destructivearson,rape,plunder,importation
ofprohibiteddrugs,etc.
2.R.A.No.7659violatestheconstitutionalbanagainstinflictionofcruel,degradingorinhuman
punishment.
3.R.A.No.7659impugnstheconstitutionalrighttoequalitybeforethelaw.
4.R.A.No.7659repudiatestheobligationofthePhilippinesunderinternationallaw.
5.Deathpenaltyisnotdeterrencetothecommissionofcrimes.[16]
The constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7659 has already been settled in the Court's 123 per
curiamResolutioninPeoplevs.Echegaray,[17]whereinthefollowingrulingsweremade:
1.Thedeathpenaltyisnota"cruel,unjust,excessiveorunusualpunishment."Itisanexerciseofthe
state'spowerto"securesocietyagainstthethreatenedandactualevil."
2.TheoffensesforwhichRepublicActNo.7659providesthedeathpenaltysatisfy"theelementof
heinousness"byspecifyingthecircumstanceswhichgenerallyqualifyacrimetobepunishableby
death
3.RepublicActNo.7659providesbothproceduralandsubstantialsafeguardstoinsureitscorrect
application.
4.TheConstitutiondoesnotrequirethat"apositivemanifestationintheformofahigherincidenceof
crimeshouldfirstbeperceivedandstatisticallyproven"beforethedeathpenaltymaybeprescribed.
CongressisauthorizedundertheConstitutiontodeterminewhentheelementsofheinousnessand
compellingreasonsarepresent,andtheCourtwouldexceeditsownauthorityifitquestionedthe
exerciseofsuchdiscretion.
In the subsequent case of Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice,[18] the Court sustained the
constitutionality of RepublicAct No. 8177, providing for death by lethal injection against claims that
deathbylethalinjectionwascruel,degrading,orinhumanpunishment,andthatthelawviolatedtreaty
obligations. Petitioner in that case argued that death by lethal injection constituted cruel, degrading,
and inhuman punishment because: (1) Republic Act No. 8177 failed to provide for the drugs to be
usedinadministeringlethalinjection,thedosageforthedrugtobeadministered,andtheprocedure
inadministeringdrug(s)totheconvict(2)RepublicActNo.8177anditsimplementingrulesdidnotfix
either the date of execution of the convict or the time for notifying him, with the result that such
uncertaintiescausepainandsufferingtotheconvict,and(3)thepossibilityofbotchedexecutionsor
mistakesinadministeringdrugsrenderslethalinjectioninherentlycruel.
Rejectingpetitioner'scontentionthatdeathbylethalinjectionviolatestheprohibitionagainstcruel,
degrading,andinhumanpunishmentinSection19(1),ArticleIIIoftheConstitution,theCourtsaid:
"Nowitiswellsettledinjurisprudencethatthedeathpenaltyperseisnotacruel,degradingor
inhumanpunishment.IntheoftcitedcaseofHardenv.DirectorofPrisons,thisCourtheldthat
'[p]unishmentsarecruelwhentheyinvolvetortureoralingeringdeathbutthepunishmentofdeathis
notcruel,withinthemeaningofthatwordasusedintheconstitution.Itimpliestheresomething
inhumanandbarbarous,somethingmorethanthemereextinguishmentoflife.'Wouldthelackin
particularitythenastothedetailsinvolvedintheexecutionbylethalinjectionrendersaidlaw'cruel,
degradingorinhuman'?TheCourtbelievesnot.Forreasonshereafterdiscussed,theimplementing
detailsofR.A.No.8177arematterswhichareproperlylefttothecompetenceandexpertiseof
administrativeofficials."[19]
8/20
11/6/2016
As to the contention that the reimposition of the death penalty violates international treaty
obligations,particularlytheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,theCourtexplained:
"Indisputably,Article6oftheCovenantenshrinestheindividual'srighttolife.Nevertheless,Article6(2)
oftheCovenantexplicitlyrecognizesthatcapitalpunishmentisanallowablelimitationontherightto
life,subjecttothelimitationthatitbeimposedforthemostseriouscrimes.'PursuanttoArticle28of
theCovenant,aHumanRightsCommitteewasestablishedandunderArticle40oftheCovenant,
StatesPartiestotheCovenantarerequiredtosubmitaninitialreporttotheCommitteeonthe
measurestheyhaveadoptedwhichgiveeffecttotherightsrecognizedwithintheCovenantandon
theprogressmadeontheenjoymentofthoserightswithinoneyearofitsentryintoforcefortheState
Partyconcernedandthereafter,afterfiveyears.OnJuly27,1982,theHumanRightsCommittee
issuedGeneralCommentNo.6interpretingArticle6oftheCovenantstatingthat'(while)itfollows
fromArticle6(2)to(6)thatStatepartiesarenotobligedtoabolishthedeathpenaltytotally,theyare
obligedtolimititsuseand,inparticular,toabolishitforotherthanthe'mostseriouscrimes.'
Accordingly,theyoughttoconsiderreviewingtheircriminallawsinthislightand,inanyevent,are
obligedtorestricttheapplicationofthedeathpenaltytothe'mostseriouscrimes.'Thearticlestrongly
suggests(pars.2[2]and[6])thatabolitionisdesirable.xxx.TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthatthe
expression'mostseriouscrimes'mustbereadrestrictivelytomeanthatthedeathpenaltyshouldbea
quiteexceptionalmeasure.Further,TheSafeguardsGuaranteeingProtectionofThoseFacingthe
DeathPenaltyadoptedbytheEconomicandSocialCounciloftheUnitedNationsdeclarethatthe
ambitoftheterm'mostseriouscrimes'shouldnotgobeyondintentionalcrimes,withlethalorother
extremelygraveconsequences.
"TheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightswasadoptedbythe
GeneralAssemblyoftheUnitedNationsonDecember16,1966,andsignedandratifiedbythe
PhilippinesonDecember19,1966andAugust22,1989,respectively.TheOptionalProtocolprovides
thattheHumanRightsCommitteeshallreceiveandconsidercommunicationsfromindividuals
claimingtobevictimsofviolationsofanyoftherightssetforthintheCovenant.
"Ontheotherhand,theSecondOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPolitical
RightsAimingattheAbolitionoftheDeathPenaltywasadoptedbytheGeneralAssemblyon
December15,1989.ThePhilippinesneithersignednorratifiedsaiddocument.Evidently,petitioner's
assertionofourobligationundertheSecondOptionalProtocolismisplaced."[20]
AccusedappellantsfurtherarguethatRepublicActNo.7659deniesequalitybeforethelaw.They
cite studies here and abroad allegedly showing that "the death penalty has most often been used
against the poor." This statement is too sweeping to merit further serious consideration. Anyone,
regardless of his economic status in life, may commit a crime. While there may be perceived
imbalancesintheimpositionofpenalties,thereareadequatesafeguardsintheConstitution,thelaw,
and procedural rules to ensure due process and equal protection of the law. As pointed out by
Representative Pablo Garcia when interpellated by Representative Joker Arroyo during the
congressionaldeliberationonthedeathpenaltybill:
"xxx.(T)hereissomethingmoreinthebillthatprotectstherightsofeveryaccusedperson,behe
richorpoor.IrefertotheprovisionsundertheBillofRightsoftheConstitution.TheConstitutionitself
protects,envelopstheaccusedwiththemantleofprotectionguaranteedbytheBillofRights.Section
1ofArticleIIIoftheConstitutionprovidesthatnopersonshallbedeprivedoflife,libertyorproperty
withoutdueprocessoflaw.Inotherwords,theaccusedcannotbedeprivedofhislifewithoutdue
processoflawnorshallanypersonbedeniedtheequalprotectionofthelaws.Inotherwords,the
lawsprotecttherichandthepoor,theletteredandtheunlettered.Thatisguaranteedbythe
Constitution.xxx.[21]
Similarly,inPeoplevs.Mijano,[22]thisCourtrecentlysaid:
9/20
11/6/2016
"Finally,accusedappellantinhisreplybriefcontendsthatthedeathpenaltylawisviolativeofthe
equalprotectionclauseofthe1987Constitutionbecauseitpunishesonlypeoplelikehim,thepoor,
theuneducated,andthejobless.
"TheequalitytheConstitutionguaranteesislegalequalityor,asitisusuallyput,theequalityofall
personsbeforethelaw.Underthisguarantee,eachindividualisdealtwithasanequalpersoninthe
law,whichdoesnottreatthepersondifferentlybecauseofwhoheisorwhatheisorwhathe
possesses(Bernas,TheConstitutionoftheRepublicofthePhilippines,ACommentary,1987ed.,p.
6).
xxxxxxxxx
"Apparently,asitshouldbe,thedeathpenaltylawmakesnodistinction.Itappliestoallpersonsand
toallclassesofpersonsrichorpoor,educated,oruneducated,religiousornonreligious.No
particularpersonorclassesofpersonsareidentifiedbythelawagainstwhomthedeathpenaltyshall
beexclusivelyimposed."
Accusedappellants' claim that the death penalty does not deter the commission of crimes is
without any basis. To be sure, deterrence is not the only aim of the law. As Representative Pablo
Garcia, the principal author of the death penalty bill, explained "more than deterrence, x x x is
retributivejustice."[23]InPeoplevs.Echegaray,itwasfurtherstated:
"TheabolitionistsinCongressinsistedthatallcriminalreformsfirstbepursuedandimplemented
beforethedeathpenaltybereimposedincasesuchreformsproveunsuccessful.Theyclaimedthat
theonlycompellingreasoncontemplatedbytheConstitutionisthatnothingelsebutthedeathpenalty
isleftforthegovernmenttoresorttothatcouldcheckthechaosandthedestructionthatisbeing
causedbyunbridledcriminality.Threeofourcolleaguesareoftheopinionthatthecompellingreason
requiredbytheconstitutionisthatthereoccurredadramaticandsignificantchangeinthesocio
culturalmilieuafterthesuspensionofthedeathpenaltyonFebruary2,1987suchasan
unprecedentedriseintheincidenceofcriminality.Suchare,however,interpretationsonlyofthe
phrase'compellingreasons'butnotoftheconjunctivephrase'compellingreasonsinvolvingheinous
crimes.'Theimpositionoftherequirementthattherebeariseintheincidenceofcriminalitybecause
ofthesuspensionofthedeathpenalty,moreover,isanunfairandmisplaceddemand,forwhatit
amountsto,infact,isarequirementthatthedeathpenaltyfirstproveitselftobeatrulydeterrent
factorincriminalbehavior.Iftherewasadramaticallyhigherincidenceofcriminalityduringthetime
thatthedeathpenaltywassuspended,thatwouldhaveproventhatthedeathpenaltywasindeeda
deterrentduringtheyearsbeforeitssuspension.Sufficeittosaythattheconstitutioninthefirstplace
didnotrequirethatthedeathpenaltybefirstproventobeadeterrentwhatitrequiresisthattherebe
compellingreasonsinvolvingheinouscrimes.
"ArticleIII,Section19(1)ofthe1987ConstitutionsimplystatesthatCongress,forcompellingreasons
involvingheinouscrimes,mayreimposethedeathpenalty.Nothinginthesaidprovisionimposesa
requirementthatforadeathpenaltybilltobevalid,apositivemanifestationintheformofahigher
incidenceofcrimeshouldfirstbeperceivedandstatisticallyprovenfollowingthesuspensionofthe
deathpenalty.Neitherdoesthesaidprovisionrequirethatthedeathpenaltyberesortedtoasalast
recoursewhenallothercriminalreformshavefailedtoabatecriminalityinsociety.Itisimmaterialand
irrelevantthatR.A.No.7659citesthattherehasbeenan'alarmingupsurgeofsuchcrimes,'forthe
samewasneverintendedbysaidlawtobetheyardsticktodeterminetheexistenceofcompelling
reasonsinvolvingheinouscrimes.Fittingly,thus,whatR.A.No.7659statesisthat'theCongress,in
theinterestofjustice,publicorderandruleoflaw,andtheneedtorationalizeandharmonizethe
penalsanctionsforheinouscrimes,findscompellingreasonstoimposethedeathpenaltyforsaid
crimes.'"[24]
Indeed, today, even members of the Court who originally dissented from the majority ruling
10/20
11/6/2016
sustainingthevalidityofRepublicActNo.7659agreeontheimpositionofthedeathpenaltywithoutin
theleastchangingtheirviewabouttheconstitutionalityofthepenalty.
AswedidinPeoplevs.Godoy,[25]werestatemankind'sageoldobservationandexperienceon
thepenologicalandsocietaleffectofcapitalpunishment:"Ifitisjustified,itservesasadeterrentif
injudiciouslyimposed,itgeneratesresentment."[26]
Wenowconsiderthemeritsofthiscase.
II.THECREDIBILITYOFWITNESSES
The question of credibility of witnesses is primarily for the trial court to determine.[27] For this
reason, its observations and conclusions are accorded great respect on appeal.[28] This rule is
variously stated thus: The trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great
weight.Itisconclusive and binding unless shown to be tainted with arbitrarinessorunless,through
oversight,somefactorcircumstanceofweightandinfluencehasnotbeenconsidered.[29]Absentany
showingthatthetrialjudgeoverlooked,misunderstood,ormisappliedsomefactsorcircumstancesof
weightwhichwouldaffecttheresultofthecase,orthatthejudgeactedarbitrarily,hisassessmentof
thecredibilityofwitnessesdeserveshighrespectbyappellatecourts.[30]
In the case at bar, inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimonies of the two principal
prosecutionwitnesses,FlorencioVillarealandEricOna,areallegedasunderminingtheircredibility,to
wit:
(1) Florencio testified that on February 9, 1994 at about 9 o'clock in the evening, he and the victim,
RichardBuama,werepickedupbyMercadoandEricwhileheandRichard,inthecompanyofRex
Bugayong, were passing time near Mercado's house. Eric belied this testimony when, on cross
examination,hesaidthatheandMercadosawFlorenciofirstatabout8o'clock,not9o'clockinthe
evening of February 9, 1994 at the corner of Sto. Tomas Street, Pasig, one block away from the
placewheretheylaterfoundRichard.
(2) Florencio testified that when they were apprehended at the corner of Baltazar Street, Mercado
pushed him straight into the car, and held and poked a gun at Richard. On the other hand, Eric
testifiedthatFlorenciovoluntarilywentwiththemintothecarasMercado,witha.38blackguntucked
athisside,placedhisarmaroundRichard'sshoulder.
(3)Inhisswornstatement,FlorenciostatedinanswertoQuestionNo.3,"Atkamipoaydinalangpulis
nahumulisaamindoonsainuupahanniyangbahayatisinakaykamisakanyang kotse at kami ay
dinalasaTanay,Rizal.However,inanswertoQuestionNo.6,Ericsaid"Unakamingdinalasabahay
na inuupahan ni Elpidio Mercado dito saPasig.Eric denied Florencio's statement that they did not
stayinMercado'shouseinstead,theyjustcircledtheplaceandthenproceededtoTanay,Rizalright
away.Florencioinfactcontradictedhisownstatementatthetrialbydeclaringthattheyjustpassedby
Mercado'shouseanddidnotstaythere.
(4) In his testimony, Florencio said that on their way to Tanay, Rizal, he did not hear conversation
betweenMercadoandEric.YetErictestifiedthat,uponreachingRosario,hetalkedtoMercadoand
askedhimwheretheyweregoing.Mercadoanswered,"SaTanay,haveyoubeenthere?"Mercado
evenaskedthemtheirbirthdaysandiftheystillwantedtohavebirthdays.
(5)FlorenciotestifiedthatuponreachingTanay,Rizalandalightingfromthecarhewasbroughtinside
theapartmentandthatwhenhepeepedthroughthewindowhesawMercadoslappingRichardon
theface.Onthecontrary,ErictestifiedthatupontheirarrivalinTanay,Rizal,theyalightedfromthe
carandweretoldtogoinsidetheapartmentanditwastherewhereMercadoslappedRichardonthe
faceandaskedhimtoundress.
(6) Florencio further testified that after Richard had taken off his clothes as ordered by Mercado, the
latteraskedRichardtoliedown,facedownward,andthereafter,Richard'sfeetandhandsweretied
byMercadoandhisaide,Jeff,witharattanrope.EricstatedoncrossexaminationthatwhenRichard
waslyingdown,MercadosteppedonRichard'sleftcheek,implyingthatRichardlaynotwithhisface
downbutwithhisrightcheekontheground.
(7) Florencio stated in his sworn statement that upon reaching Tanay, Rizal, they were taken into an
11/20
11/6/2016
apartmentoppositeabeerhouse.Ontheotherhand,Ericclaimedthattheapartmentwassome130
to150metersawayfromthebeerhouse.
(8)FlorenciostatedinhisswornstatementthatafterRichardwasbeatenup,hishandsandfeetwere
tiedandthenMercadoandhispolicecompanionloaded(sinakay)Richardintothecar.Eric,however,
testified that Richard was loaded in the baggage compartment of the car by Acebron and Jeff. On
crossexamination, Florencio contradicted himself by admitting that it was Acebron and Jeff who
loadedRichardintothecar.
(9)Florenciotestifiedthat,althoughMercadoaskedAcebrontogetabolo,thelattergotalongknife(not
abolo)witha"sharppointededge"(sic).EricdeclaredthatthebolotakenbyAcebronwas"mapurol."
(10)ErictestifiedthatonFebruary12,1994,hewasinvestigatedaheadofFlorenciobySPO2James
Mabalot and insisted that his statement was the truth. He even stated that as he was being
investigated, Florencio was around, talking. However, this testimony was contradicted by SPO2
JamesMabalotwhodeclaredthatitwasFlorenciowhowasfirstinvestigatedasshownbythefact
thatFlorenciowasinvestigatedat6:20p.m.,whileEricwasinvestigatedat10:45p.m.ofFebruary
12,1994.
(11)Oncrossexamination,ErictestifiedthatwhileSPO2MabalotwasinvestigatinghimandFlorencio,
SPO1Buamawasjustoutsidetheofficeandevensawhim.SPO1Buamaconfirmedthisstatement.
However,SPO2MabalotsaidthatwhenheinvestigatedFlorencioandEric,SPO1Buamawasnot
presenthavingthenalreadyleft.
(12)SPO1BuamatestifiedthatRichardwashisfullbloodbrother,buthissister,MariaBuama,saidthat
Richardwasanadoptedchild,althoughtheyconsideredhimtheirfullbloodbrother.[31]
Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer only to minor details and collateral
mattersdonotaffecttheveracityandweightoftheirtestimonieswherethereisconsistencyinrelating
theprincipaloccurrenceandpositiveidentificationoftheassailants.Slightcontradictionsinfacteven
servetostrengthenthecredibilityofthewitnessesandprovethattheirtestimoniesarenotrehearsed.
Theyarethussafeguardsagainstmemorizedperjury.[32]
Noraresuchinconsistenciesandevenimprobabilitiesunusual,forthereisnopersonwithperfect
faculties or senses.[33] An adroit crossexaminer may trap a witness into making statements
contradicting his testimony on direct examination. Intensive crossexamination on points not
anticipated by a witness and his lawyer may make a witness blurt out statements which do not
dovetail even with his own testimony. Yet, if it appears that the same witness has not willfully
pervertedthetruth,asmaybegleanedfromthetenorofhistestimonyandtheconclusionofthetrial
judge regarding his demeanor and behavior on the witness stand, his testimony on material points
maybeaccepted.
Awitness'testimonymaylikewisecontradictthatofanotherwitness.Aslongasthecontradiction
involves minor details and collateral matters, the credibility of both witnesses will not be deemed
impaired. After all, no two witnesses could testify on a matter from the same point of view or
perception. The recollection of different witnesses with respect to the time, place, and other
circumstancesofacriminaleventwouldnaturallydifferinvariousdetails.Absoluteuniformityinevery
detailoftestimoniescannotbeexpectedofwitnesseswhobynaturereactdifferentlytowhattheysee
and hear depending upon their situation and state of mind.[34] On the contrary , if witnesses should
agree on every detail of a transaction that occupied a considerable space of time and should
undertaketotellallthatoccurredinpreciselythesameorder,eachgivingthesameincidentsasthe
othersinpreciselythesamewords,thatfactshouldmaketheirtestimoniessuspect.[35]
Applying these rules to this case, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of Florencio
VillarealandEricOnapointedoutbyappellantsconcernonlyminordetailswhichdonotdetractfrom
theessentialpointsoftheirtestimoniesthataccusedappellants,afterbeatingupthevictim,tookhim
away in accusedappellant Mercado's car, and, when they returned to the apartment, both admitted
thattheyhad"silenced"thevictimorhad"laidhimtorest."
The alleged inconsistencies between the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and their
12/20
11/6/2016
affidavits, on the other hand, refer to minor matters that do not affect the substance of the
prosecution's evidence. Affidavits are not entirely reliable evidence in court due to their
incompleteness and the inaccuracies that may have attended their formulation.[36] In general, such
affidavits are not prepared by the affiants themselves but by another person (i.e., investigator) who
may have used his own language in writing the statement or misunderstood the affiant or omitted
materialfactsinthehurryandimpatiencethatusuallyattendthepreparationofsuchaffidavits.Asthis
Courthasoftensaid:
"Anaffidavit,'beingtakenexparte,isalmostalwaysincompleteandofteninaccurate,sometimesfrom
partialsuggestion,andsometimesfromwantofsuggestionandinquiries,withouttheaidofwhichthe
witnessmaybeunabletorecalltheconnectedcollateralcircumstancesnecessaryforthecorrection
ofthefirstsuggestionofhismemoryandforhisaccuraterecollectionofallthatbelongstothe
subject.'"[37]
"'Wehavetoomuchexperienceofthegreatinfirmityofaffidavitevidence.Whenthewitnessis
illiterateandignorant,thelanguagepresentedtothecourtisnothisitisandmustbe,thelanguage
ofthepersonwhopreparestheaffidavitanditmaybe,andtoooftenis,theexpressionofthat
person'serroneousinferenceastothemeaningofthelanguageusedbythewitnesshimselfand
howevercarefullytheaffidavitmaybereadovertothewitness,hemaynotunderstandwhatissaidin
alanguagesodifferentfromthatwhichheisaccustomedtouse.Havingexpressedhismeaninginhis
ownlanguage,andfindingittranslatedbyapersononwhomherelies,intolanguagenothisown,and
whichhedoesnotperfectlyunderstand,heistooapttoacquiesceandtestimonynotintendedbyhim
isbroughtbeforethecourtashis.'(2MooreonFacts,sec.952,p.1105Peoplev.Timbang,74Phil.
295,299)."[38]
Forthisreason,affidavitshavegenerallybeenconsideredinferiortotestimonygiveninopencourt.[39]
Neither is the credibility of prosecution witnesses Florencio Villareal and Eric Ona in any way
lessened,muchlessimpaired,bythemotivesimputedtothembyaccusedappellantswhoclaimthat
the former testified against them on account of an incident on January 23, 1994 when Mercado
slapped Eric and hit Florencio on the back. Accusedappellants' contention is nothing more than a
desperate attempt to discredit said witnesses. It is inconceivable that these principal prosecution
witnesses,twoyoungboys,wouldimputeacrimeasheinousaskidnappingwithmurdertoanyoneif
the same was not true. Indeed, it would be contrary to the natural order of events and of human
nature, and against the presumption of good faith for Florencio and Eric to falsely testify against
accused appellants.[40] These young boys, in testifying against accusedappellants, would have
nothing to gain and everything to lose, including their lives. Florencio and Eric knew that, even if
accusedappellants were bemedalled military and police officers, they had no compunction at all in
claimingtohavekilledanumberofpeople.Evengrantingthatsuchbraggadociowassimplymeantto
frightentheseyoungboysintosilence,itwouldnonethelesshavethesameeffectonthemandwould
havedeterredthemfromtestifyingagainstaccusedappellantshadwhattheytestifiedtobeenamere
fabrication.
III.SUFFICIENCYOFTHEEVIDENCEOFTHEPROSECUTION
Itistruethatnoeyewitnesseswerepresentedbytheprosecutionotestifyontheactualkillingof
Richard Buaman. But it is settled that a conviction may rest on purely circumstantial evidence,
providedthefollowingrequisitesconcur:(a)thereismorethanonecircumstance(b)thefactsfrom
whichtheinferencesarederivedareprovenand(c)thecombinationofallthecircumstancesissuch
astoproduceaconvictionbeyondreasonabledoubt.[41] Thus,inPeoplevs.Fulinara,[42]wherein the
victimwaskidnappedintheeveningandthefollowingdayhisbodyfoundinaravine,thisCourtsaid:
"Whilethepositiveidentificationmadebythekeywitnessdoesnotrefertotheactualkillingofthe
deceased,thecircumstantialevidenceonrecordconstitutesanunbrokenchainwhichleadstoafair
andreasonableconclusionthataccusedappellantsareindeedguiltyoftheoffensecharged.Itisnot
13/20
11/6/2016
onlybydirectevidenceuponwhichguiltmaybepredicated.Theaccusedmayalsobeconvictedon
circumstantialevidence."
Inthiscase,thefollowingcircumstances,viewedintheirentirety,showbeyondshadowofadoubtthat
accusedappellantsareindeedguiltyofkidnappingwithmurder:
(1)MercadopickedupRichardonthenightofFebruary9,1994nearhis(Mercado's)houseinPasig
and,pokingagunathim,forcedhimtoridewithhiminhiscar
(2)MercadotookRichardtohisapartmentinTanay
(3)MercadoslappedandboxedRichardbeforebringinghiminsidetheapartment
(4)MercadowentupthesecondflooroftheapartmentandcamedownwithAcebron
(5)MercadoandAcebrontookturnsinsubjectingRichardtophysicalabuse
(6) Mercado ordered his aide named Jeff to get a piece of rope with which to bind Richard and Jeff
obligedbygettingarattanrope
(7)Richardwasgaggedandhislimbswerebound
(8)AcebronandJeffputRichardintotheluggagecompartmentofMercado'scar
(9)MercadoaskedAcebrontogetabolobeforetheydroveaway
(10)AccusedappellantsrodetogetherinthecarwithRichardinitscompartment
(11)Aftertwohours,accusedappellantsreturnedtotheapartmentwithoutRichard
(12) When Florencio asked Mercado about Richard's whereabouts, Richard replied, "Wala na,
pinatahimikkona."("Gone,Ialreadysilencedhim").
(13) When Eric asked Mercado the same question, the latter replied, "Wala na, pinagpahinga ko na."
(Heisgone.Ihavelaidhimtorest").
(14)EricsawAcebronwipingoffbloodstainsonthebolo
(15)Atthediscobar,accusedappellantsbraggedaboutthefactthatRichardwasthe25thpersonand
the17thpersonMercadoandAcebronhadkilled,respectively
(16)Richard'sbodywasfoundinamorgueonFebruary12,1994
(17)Thevictim'sbodyshowedsignsthathishandsandfeethadbeentiedandhismouthstuffedwitha
toweland
(18)MercadowarnedEricandFlorencionottotalktoanyoneregardingtheincident.
These circumstances constitute an unbroken chain clearly pointing to accusedappellants'

culpabilitytothecrimeofkidnappingwithmurder.
IV.THEEVIDENCEOFCONSPIRACY
Accusedappellantsarguethatthetrialcourterredinfindingconspiracyinthecommissionofthe
crime because the prosecution allegedly failed to establish a common resolution between them to
committhecrimecharged.Thisargumentislikewisewithoutmerit.
Conspiracyexistswhentwoormorepersonscometoanagreementconcerningthecommission
of a felony and decide to commit it. To establish the existence of conspiracy, direct proof is not
essential,asitmaybeshownbytheconductoftheaccusedbefore,during,andafterthecommission
ofthecrime.[43]Itmaybeprovenbyfactsandcircumstancesfromwhichmaylogicallybeinferredthe
existence of a common design among the accused to commit the offense charged, or it may be
deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated.[44] In this case, the
concatenation of facts and circumstances establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that accused
appellantsconspiredtokillRichard,towit:(1)uponreachingtheTanayapartment,whichheshared
withAcebron,MercadowentupstairsandcalledAcebron(2)astheycamedownstairs,Mercadotold
14/20
11/6/2016
appellant Acebron that he had a present for him and that they were going to kill someone, saying
"Pare, may regalo ako sa iyo, may papatayin tayo" (3) Mercado and Acebron slapped and boxed
Richard (4) when told by Mercado to get a bolo, Acebron did so (5) Acebron helped in loading
Richardintothecar'sluggagecompartment(6)MercadoandAcebronlefttheapartmenttogetherin
Mercado'scarwithRichardinthecar'sluggagecompartment(7)aftertwohours,thetwocameback
totheapartmentwithoutRichard(8)whenEricandFlorencioaskedthemwhereRichardwas,they
answered that Richard had been "silenced" or had been "laid to rest" and (9) Acebron washed a
bloodstainedbolo.
V.ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS'ALIBI
Invoking alibi as a defense, accusedappellants argue that it was impossible for them to be in
Pasig at the time of the commission of the crime because they were then inTanay, Rizal on official
duty, as members of the PNP force in that town. For this purpose, they cite the PNP logbook, duly
signedbythem.However,asthetrialcourtpointedout:
"Thisdefense,however,collapsedwiththetestimonyofSPO4BiaswhenheaffirmedbeforetheCourt
thattraveltimebetweenTanayandPasigcouldtakelessthananhour,especiallyatnighttime.
Moreover,theCourtfindswantingtheevidencepresentedbythedefensetosupportitsclaimthat
bothaccusedwereindeedpresentattheTanayPNPHeadquartersuntilabout8:30p.m.ofFebruary
9,1994.
"Firstly,itwasadmittedbythedefensethatthedutylogbookandthemorning/eveningformation
sheetdonotalwaysreflectthewhereaboutsoftheTanayPNPmembersforthedaysuchthateven
whentheyhavedeviatedfromtheirregularassignments,nonotewhatsoeverappearsonsaidlog
book.AccusedwereattheHilltopHeadquartersinTaytayfromaround9:15a.m.to5p.m.ofFebruary
9,1994andyet,thedutylogbooktheysubmittedinCourtshowotherwise.Insaidlogbook,the
Post/AssignmentofaccusedAcebronwas"IntelOptvs/followup"whileaccusedMercadowas
supposedtobeat"PostOP#2."TheCourtdoesnotbelievethislogbookisreliable.Secondly,again
bythedefense'ownadmission,TanayPNPmemberssigntheirnamesonceonthelogbookandthis
willbeenoughtoconfirmtheirpresenceorattendancefortheentireday.Surely,thepossibilitythatall
thePNPmembersdonotinfactarriveatandleavetheirofficeatthesametimeof8a.m.and8p.m.
cannotbedisregarded.Still,areadingoftheentriesinthelogbooksubmittedbythedefensewould
somehowsuggestthis.ThephysicalimpossibilityofaccusedMercado,atleast,beinginPasigat
around9p.m.onFebruary9,1994isnotestablished.Thedefenseofalibiis,therefore,rejectedby
theCourt.[45]
Indeed, alibi is generally regarded with suspicion and is always received with caution, not only
because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it can be easily fabricated and
concocted.Foralibitoprosperasadefense,itmustbeconvincingenoughtoprecludeanydoubton
thephysicalimpossibilityofthepresenceoftheaccusedatthelocuscriminisoritsimmediatevicinity
at the time of the incident.[46] An accused who invokes the defense of alibi must prove (a) his
presenceatanotherplaceatthetimeoftheperpetrationofthecrimeand(b)thephysicalimpossibility
forhimtobeatthesceneofthecrime.[47]
Inthiscase,evengrantingthataccusedappellantswereinTanayatthetimetheyweresupposed
to have taken the two prosecution witnesses and the victim to Pasig, it was still not physically
impossibleforthemtobeinthatplace.Pasigisonlyanhour'sdrivefromTanayandwhentrafficis
light, as it would generally be late in the evening, the distance could be negotiated in less time.
Significantly, when the three young men were taken from Pasig at around 9 o'clock in the evening,
accusedappellantshadalreadybeendischargedfromtheirdutiesbecause,bytheirownadmission,
theeveningformationattheTanayPoliceStationendedataround8:30thatevening.
Aboveall,givenFlorencioandEric'sclearandpositiveidentificationofaccusedappellantsasthe
perpetratorsofthecrime,thefailureofthedefensetogiveanyplausiblereasonforFlorencioandEric
15/20
11/6/2016
totestifyfalselyagainstaccusedappellantsrendersthelatter'salibibereftofanyprobativevalue.[48]
Theirpositiveidentificationbythewitnessesprevailsovertheiralibianddenial.[49]
VI.ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS'CRIMINALANDCIVILLIABILITY
Accusedappellantsareguiltyofkidnappingbecause,byplacingthevictiminanenclosedplace
consisting of the luggage compartment of the car, they detained or otherwise deprived him of his
liberty.Therewasalsoactualrestraintofthevictim'slibertywhenhewastakenatgunpointfromPasig
to accusedappellants' apartment in Tanay.[50] The evidence proves that Mercado initiated the
kidnappingofthevictim.Acebron'ssubsequentloadingofthevictimintothecar'scompartmentafter
tying the latter shows community of criminal purpose with Mercado. However, although both were
policeofficers,theyactedinthiscaseintheirprivatecapacities.[51]
The crime was committed by accusedappellants on February 9, 1994, after the amendment of
theRevisedPenalCodeonDecember31,1993byRepublicActNo.7659.Article267oftheRevised
PenalCode,asthusamended,provides:
"Kidnappingandseriousillegaldetention.Anyprivateindividualwhoshallkidnapordetainanother,
orinanyothermannerdeprivehimofhisliberty,shallsufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuato
death:
1.Ifthekidnappingordetentionshallhavelastedmorethanthreedays.
2.Ifitshallhavebeencommittedsimulatingpublicauthority.
3.Ifanyseriousphysicalinjuriesshallhavebeeninflicteduponthepersonkidnappedordetainedor
ifthreatstokillhimshallhavebeenmade
4.Ifthepersonkidnappedordetainedshallbeaminor,exceptwhentheaccusedisanyofthe
parents,femaleorapublicofficer
"Thepenaltyshallbedeathwherethekidnappingordetentionwascommittedforthepurposeof
extortingransomfromthevictimoranyotherperson,evenifnoneofthecircumstancesabove
mentionedwerepresentinthecommissionoftheoffense.
"Whenthevictimiskilledordiesasaconseguenceofthedetentionorisraped,orissubjectedto
tortureordehumanizingacts,themaximumpenaltyshallbeimposed."(Underscoringsupplied)
In People vs. Ramos,[52] the accused was found guilty of two separate heinous crimes of
kidnappingforransomandmurdercommittedonJuly13,1994andsentencedtodeath.Onappeal,
this Court modified the ruling and found the accused guilty of the "special complex crime" of
kidnappingforransomwithmurderunderthelastparagraphofArticle267,asamendedbyRepublic
ActNo.7659.ThisCourtsaid:
"xxxThisamendmentintroducedinourcriminalstatutestheconceptof'specialcomplexcrime'
ofkidnappingwithmurderorhomicide.Iteffectivelyeliminatedthedistinctiondrawnbythecourts
betweenthosecaseswherethekillingofthekidnappedvictimwaspurposelysoughtbythe
accused,andthosewherethekillingofthevictimwasnotdeliberatelyresortedtobutwasmerely
anafterthought.Consequently,therulenowis:Wherethepersonkidnappediskilledinthecourse
ofthedetention,regardlessofwhetherthekillingwaspurposelysoughtorwasmerelyan
afterthought,thekidnappingandmurderorhomicidecannolongerbecomplexedunderArt.48,
norbetreatedasseparatecrimes,butshallbepunishedasaspecialcomplexcrimeunderthe
lastparagraphofArt.267,asamendedbyRANo.7659."(Underscoringsupplied)
Thus,inthecaseatbar,thetrialcourtcorrectlyfoundaccusedappellantsguiltyofkidnappingwith
16/20
11/6/2016
murderandsentencedeachofthemtodeath.
Four (4) members of the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions
expressed in People vs. Echegaray[53] that R.A. No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes the penalty of
death,isunconstitutional,neverthelesssubmittotherulingofthemajoritythatthelawisconstitutional
andthatthedeathpenaltyshouldaccordinglybeimposed.
Itdoesnotmatterwhethertherearecircumstancesqualifyingthekillingasmurder.Underthelast
paragraph of Article 267, it is sufficient that the victim is "killed or dies as a consequence of the
detention." In any event, the killing of Richard Buama as a consequence of his kidnapping was
committed under circumstances which make it murder. His limbs were tied and his mouth gagged
before he was taken away. When his body was discovered, his limbs were still tied and his mouth
gagged,indicatingthattreacheryattendedthekillingofRichardBuama.
The trial court awarded P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P100,000.00 by way of moral and
exemplary damages to the Buama family as heirs of the deceased Richard Buama pursuant to
Articles2206and2230oftheCivilCode.Itisnotdisputed,however,thatRichardhadnotbeenlegally
adopted by the Buamas, and so the latter cannot be considered his heirs, the term "heirs" being
limited to the deceased's "spouse, legitimate, and illegitimate ascendants and descendants" per the
definitionof"heirs"underArticles782and2206oftheCivilCode.Forthisreason,inonecase,[54]the
award of moral damages for the death of a brother caused by quasidelict was disallowed. In this
case, since the heirs of the deceased Richard Buama are not known, the awards of civil indemnity
andmoralandexemplarydamagestotheBuamasshouldbedisallowed.
AstotheawardofP52,680.00foractualdamagesincurredforwakeandfuneralexpenses,only
the amount of P22,690.00 is supported by receipts (Exhs. J2 to J7). Accusedappellants contend
that these receipts constitute hearsay evidence because the witness who identified them, Lourdes
Vergara,admittedthatshemerelycollatedthesamebuthadotherwisenopersonalknowledgeofthe
factspertainingtotheirissuance.[55]InPeoplevs.Paraiso,[56]thisCourtdisregardedthelistofburial
expensesforbeinghearsaysinceitwaspreparedbythevictim'ssisterinlawandnotbythevictim's
eldest son who testified thereon. The Court held that actual damages should be based upon
competentproofandonthebestevidenceavailable.
One receipt (Exh. J5) for P1,300.00 shows that it was issued by the Immaculate Conception
Parish Church in Pasig to Lourdes Vergara, and it was for Richard Buama's burial mass. Another
receipt(Exh.J7),fortheamountofP2,210.00forflowersforRichardBuama'swake,wasissuedby
Lourdes Vergara herself as the owner of the flower shop. These two receipts should be considered
competent evidence of the amount of expenses indicated therein, and therefore the total amount of
P3,510.00shouldbeawardedtoLourdesVergaraasactualdamages.
VII.ALLEGEDHASTEOFTHETRIALCOURTINDECIDINGTHECASE
Onelastpoint.Accusedappellantsbewailthefactthatthetrialcourtrendereditsdecisionjusta
dayafterithadreceivedtheirJointMemorandum.[57]Accusedappellantschargethattheircasewas
decided with "fantastic, incredible and unbelievable speed" with the result that "grave and serious
errors"werecommittedinconvictingthem.[58]
This contention has no merit. A review of the trial court's decision shows that its findings were
basedontherecordsofthiscaseandthetranscriptsofstenographicnotestakenduringthetrial.The
speed with which the trial court disposed of the case cannot thus be attributed to the injudicious
performanceofitsfunction.Indeed,ajudgeisnotsupposedtostudyacaseonlyafterallthepertinent
pleadingshavebeenfiled.Itisamarkofdiligenceanddevotiontodutythatajudgestudiesacase
long before the deadline set for the promulgation of his decision has arrived. The oneday period
between the filing of accusedappellants' memorandum and the promulgation of the decision was
sufficienttimetoconsidertheirargumentsandtoincorporatetheseinthedecision.Aslongasthetrial
judge does not sacrifice the orderly administration of justice in favor of a speedy but reckless
dispositionofacase,hecannotbetakentotaskforrenderinghisdecisionwithduedispatch.Thetrial
17/20
11/6/2016
courtinthiscasecommittednoreversibleerrorsand,consequently,exceptforsomemodification,its
decisionshouldbeaffirmed.
WHEREFORE,thedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch156,PasigCity,findingaccused
appellantsElpidioMercadoyHernandoandAurelioAcebronyAdoraguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt
of the crime of kidnapping with murder and imposing upon each of them the DEATH PENALTY, is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that the awards of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and
P100,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages are DELETED and accusedappellants are
ORDERED to pay jointly and severally to Lourdes Vergara the amount of P3,510.00 as
reimbursementfortheexpensessheincurredforthevictim'swakeandfuneral.
In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised
PenalCode,uponthefinalityofthisdecision,lettherecordsofthiscasebeforthwithforwardedtothe
OfficeofthePresidentforhisuseincasehedecidestoexercisehisprerogativeofmercy.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Pardo,Buena,GonzagaReyes,YnaresSantiago,andDeLeon,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
[1]PerJudgeMartinS.Villarama.
[2]RTCDecision,pp.3839Records,pp.327328.
[3]Records,p.1.
[4]Id.,p.20.
[5]TSN,April5,1994,pp.229TSN,April19,1994,pp.341TSN,May4,1994,pp.232.
[6]TSN,May4,1994,pp.134.
[7]TSN,May11,1994,pp.137TSN,May18,1994,pp.229(transcribedbyFlorizaR.DetasArmas)TSN,May18,1994,
pp.218(transcribedbyGinaA.Talaro).
[8]TSN(MariaBuama),May25,1994,pp.319TSN(LourdesVergara),June1,1994,pp.311.
[9]TSN,June1,1994,pp.2555.
[10]TSN,June8,1994,pp.214.
[11]TSN,June15,1994,pp.234.
[12]Exhs.8to11(Mercado).
[13]TSN,June15,1994,pp.3262.
[14]TSN,June22,1994,pp.437.
[15]TSN,June22,1994,pp.3849.
[16]SupplementalBriefforAccusedAppellants,pp.12Rollo,pp.389390.
[17]335Phil.343(1997).
[18]297SCRA754(1998).
[19]Id.,p.772.
[20]Id.,pp.781783.
[21]RECORDOFTHEHOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVES(February10,1993),p.671quotedinAppellee'sSupplemental
Brief,p.17.
[22]311SCRA81,9394(1999).
18/20
11/6/2016
[23]QuotedintheAppellee'sSupplementalBrief,p.20.
[24]Supraat383384.
[25]321Phil.279(1995).
[26]Id.,p.346.
[27]Peoplevs.Dianos,297SCRA191(1998).
[28]Peoplevs.Manuel,298SCRA184(1998).
[29]Peoplevs.Lozano,296SCRA403(1998).
[30]Peoplevs.Abangin,297SCRA655(1998).
[31]JointAppellants'Brief,pp.9297Rollo,pp.200210.
[32]Peoplevs.Cleopas,G.R.No.121998,March9,2000.
[33]Peoplevs.Leangsiri,322Phil.226,250251(1996).
[34]Peoplevs.DeCastro,322Phil.374,382and384(1996).
[35]SeePeoplevs.Geguira,G.R.No.130769,March13,2000citingPeoplevs.Resagaya,153Phil.634(1973).
[36]Peoplevs.Rivera,295SCRA99,109(1998).
[37]Id.,citingPeoplevs.Resagaya,supraatp.643andPeoplevs.Alcantara,144Phil.623,633(1970).
[38]Peoplevs.Geguira,supra.
[39] Peoplevs. Agbayani, 348 Phil. 341, 367 (1998) citing People vs. Marcelo, 223 SCRA 24, 36 (1993) and People vs.
Enciso,223SCRA675,686(1993).
[40]Peoplevs.Villamor,354Phil.396,407(1998).
[41]Rule133,sec.4Peoplevs.Llaguno,349Phil.39,58(1998).
[42]317Phil.31,51(1995).
[43]Peoplevs.Gungon,351Phil.116,131(1998).
[44]Peoplevs.Silvestre,314Phil.397,416(1995).
[45]RTCDecision,pp.3334Records,pp.322323.
[46]Peoplevs.Tulop,352Phil.130,150(1998).
[47]Peoplevs.Magpantay,348Phil.107,112(1998).
[48]SeePeoplevs.Ramos,297SCRA618,640(1998).
[49]Peoplevs.Herbias,333Phil.422,431(1996).
[50]Peoplevs.Gungon,supraat134.
[51]Peoplevs.Santiano,299SCRA583,597(1998).
[52]297SCRA618(1998).
[53]267SCRA682(1997).
[54]ReceiverforNorthNegrosSugarGo.,Inc.vs.Ybaez,24SCRA989(1968).
[55]TSN,p.14,June1,1994.
[56]G.R.No.127840,Nov.29,1999.
[57]AppellantsJointBrief,pp.125129Rollo,pp.233237.
19/20
11/6/2016
[58]Id.,pp.126128.
20/20

People Vs Mercado - 116239 - November 29, 2000 - Per Curiam - en Banc

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

People Vs Mercado - 116239 - November 29, 2000 - Per Curiam - en Banc

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

11/6/2016

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. ELPIDIO MERCADO y

These circumstances constitute an unbroken chain clearly pointing to accusedappellants'

Potrebbero piacerti anche