Criminal Law: People v Sabalones

294 SCRA 751, August 31, 1998

Ponente: Panganiban, J.

Fact:
Beronga, Sabalones, Alegarbes, and Cabanero were convicted after a shooting
incident in Cebu in 1985 which led to the death of Glenn Tiempo and Alfredo Nardo,
and fatal injuries of Nelson Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Rogelio Presores. The victims were
asked to bring the car of a certain Stephen Lim who also attended a wedding party.
Nelson Tiempo drove the car with Rogelio Presores. Alfredo Nardo drove the owner-
type jeep along with Glenn Tiempo and Rey Bolo to aid the group back to the party after
parking the car at Lims house. When they reached the gate, they were met with a
sudden burst of gunfire. The accused were identified as the gunmen. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Sabalones and Beronga appealed.
Prosecution witnesses Edwin Santos and Rogelio Presores testified about the
shooting and identified the faces of the accused. Presores was riding in the car that is
behind the jeep. He positively identified Sabalones as one of the gunmen. When the
gunmen fired at the car, driver Nelson Tiempo immediately maneuvered and arrived at
Major Juan Tiempos house from which they have escaped death.
Accused-appellants Sabalones and Beronga denied their presence during the
commission of the crime. Sabalones presented numerous witnesses who stated that he
was sound asleep when the incident took place. While Beronga testified that he
attended a cock-derby in Cebu, and was fetched by his wife at 7 pm, arrived home by
10:30 pm to sleep. Sabalones even escaped from place to place to flee from the wrath
of Maj. Juan Tiempo, the father of the two victims. The defense even pointed out errors
from the testimonies of the witnesses arguing that the place where the incident
happened is dim and not lighted.

Issues:
Whether the prosecution witnesses and evidences are credible?
Whether the correct penalty is imposed?

Held:
Yes. RTC findings were binding to court with appreciated testimonies of two
witnesses. There was positive identification by survivors who saw them when they
peered during lulls in gunfire. The place was well-lit, whether from post of cars
headlights. The extrajudicial confession has no bearing because the conviction was
based on positive identification. It is binding though to the co-accused because it is
used as cirmustancial evidence corroborated by one witness. The inconcistencies are
minor and inconsequential which strengthen credibility of testimony. Furthermore, in
aberratio ictus [mistake in blow], mistake does not diminish culpability; same gravity
applies, more proper to use error in personae. Alibi cannot prevail over positive
identification by the prosecution witnesses.
Under Article 248 of the RPC, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its
maximum period, to death. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance,
aside from the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the appellate court correctly
imposed reclusion perpetua for murder. The CA erred in computing the penalty for each
of the three counts of frustrated murder. Under Article 50 of the RPC, the penalty for
frustrated felony is next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony. Because there are no mitigating or aggravating conspiracy
between the two accused. It does not matter that the prosecution has failed to show
who was between the two who actually pulled the trigger that killed the child. They are
liable as co-conspirators since the act of a conspirator becomes the act of another
regardless of the precise degree of participation in the act.
Also there was a presence of treachery, because of the circumstances that the
crime was done at night time and that the accused hid themselves among the bamboo.
Evident premeditation is also an aggravating circumstance.