THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 197807, April 16, 2012]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CECILIA LAGMAN Y
PIRING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

VELASCO JR., J.:

This is an appeal from the May 14, 2010 Decision
[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 03289, which affirmed the January 18, 2008 Decision
[2]
of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 18 in Manila, in Criminal Case No. 02-200106 for Murder and Criminal Case
No. 02-200107 for Frustrated Murder.
The Facts

Two Informations
[3]
charged accused Cecilia Lagman as follows:
Criminal Case No. 02-200106

That on or about February 24, 2002, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of Jondel Mari Davantes
Santiago, by then and there stabbing him with a knife with an approximate length of 6 inches
(blade and handle) hitting his neck and trunk, thereby inflicting upon said Jondel Mari Davantes
Santiago stab wounds which are necessarily fatal and mortal, which were the direct cause of his
death immediately thereafter.
Criminal Case No. 02-200107

That on or about February 24, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use
personal violence upon the person of Violeta Sicor y Sapitula, by then and there stabbing her
hitting her buttocks, thereby inflicting upon the said Violeta Sicor y Sapitula mortal wounds
which were necessarily fatal, thus, performing all the acts of execution which would produce the
crime of Homicide as a consequence, but nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes
independent of her will, that is, by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said
Violeta Sicor y Sapitula which prevented her death.

During her arraignment, the accused gave a negative plea to both charges.

At the trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: Donna Maniego (Maniego),
Violeta Sicor (Sicor), Police Officer 3 Ricardo M. Alateit (PO3 Alateit), and PO3 Ronaldo
Samson (PO3 Samson).

On February 24, 2002, at about 1:30 p.m, Maniego was in front of her banana cue store on
Lakandula Street, Tondo, Manila. She was seated alongside her mother, Sicor, inside the
sidecar of a motorcycle. Without warning, the accused approached her and punched her
face several times. The accused turned on Sicor, grabbed her and stabbed her in the middle
of her buttocks with a small knife. Maniego got out of the sidecar and ran to the barangay
hall for help. Upon finding that the barangay chairman was not around, Maniego went to
check on her common-law spouse, Jondel Santiago (Santiago), at the house of Santiagos
mother.
[4]
On her way there, she saw the accused stab Santiago four (4) times from a distance
of five (5) to six (6) meters. The distance between where Maniego was punched and where
Santiago was stabbed was about nine (9) meters.
[5]
Maniego then saw the accused flee the scene
of the crime carrying a knife and heading towards Juan Luna Street. Seeing that Santiago was
mortally hurt, Maniego rushed Santiago to Gat Andres Bonifacio Hospital but he later expired.
While Maniego was at the hospital, she saw the accused, who was being treated after an angry
crowd mauled her. Maniego informed the policeman who was escorting the accused that it was
the latter who had stabbed and killed Santiago.
[6]


After receiving the information from Maniego, the accused was arrested and brought to police
headquarters.
[7]


On cross-examination, Maniego testified that she had known the accused for almost ten years
and had a close relationship with her. She stated that the accused got angry with her when she
eloped with Santiago.
[8]


Sicor, Maniegos mother, corroborated Maniegos testimony. She saw the accused punch
Maniego several times while they were inside the sidecar on February 24, 2002. The accused
then grabbed her and stabbed her in her buttocks with a small knife. She said that after she was
stabbed, two sidecar boys came to her aid and brought her to the hospital. She added that she was
released from the hospital two hours after receiving treatment.
[9]


PO3 Alateit testified that on the day of the incident, he was riding his motorcycle on his way
home. While he was on the corner of Juan Luna and Moriones Streets, it was reported to him that
a stabbing incident had taken place. He headed towards an area where a crowd was causing a
commotion. He then saw a woman who looked like a lesbian running towards him. Her head was
bloodied. He handcuffed the injured woman after he was informed that she had stabbed
someone. At the time of her arrest, a sharp object fell from the womans waist. He confiscated
the item and brought the woman to the police station and to Gat Andres Bonifacio Hospital. He
identified the woman as the accused.
[10]


Both the prosecution and the defense stipulated that Senior Police Officer 2 Edison Bertoldo was
the police investigator in the case against the accused and that he prepared the following:
(1) Sworn Statement of Maniego, Exhibit A;
(2) Affidavit of Apprehension of PO3 Alateit, Exhibit C;
(3) Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, Exhibit E;
(4) Crime Report dated February 25, 2002, Exhibits F, F-1 and F-2; and
(5) Request for Laboratory Examination dated February 27, 2002, Exhibit F-3.
[11]


The last witness for the prosecution, PO3 Samson, testified that on the date of the incident, he
was assigned at the Western Police District Crime Laboratory Division. He presented before the
court the sharp object used in stabbing the victim (Exhibit M) and the Request for Laboratory
Examination (Exhibit M-1).
[12]


For their part, the defense offered the testimonies of the accused and Dr. Mario Lato.

Chiefly relying on denial as her defense, the accused claimed that on the date of the stabbing
incident, she confronted Maniego and asked her if it was true that she had been spreading the
rumor that the accused was insane. Maniego answered in the affirmative. Angered, the accused
slapped Maniego and left, leaving Santiago, Sicor, and Maniego in pursuit. Santiago then hit her
with a lead pipe. Since she needed medical treatment after the attack, she was brought to Gat
Andres Bonifacio Medical Hospital by her mother and a barangay kagawad.
[13]


At the police station, the accused denied killing Santiago. She averred that nothing was found on
her body when she was frisked. She said that the knife recovered by PO3 Alateit was not hers
and that there were other people in the area where it was found. She added that she had an
argument only with Maniego, not with Sicor or Santiago.
[14]


Dr. Mario Lato testified that on February 24, 2002, he treated the accused, who had a laceration
on the head which was possibly caused by a hard object such as a pipe. He said that the accused
sustained a two-centimeter laceration in her mid-pectoral area.
[15]

Ruling of the Trial Court

On January 18, 2008, the RTC convicted the accused of Murder in Crim. Case No. 02-200106
and Less Serious Physical Injuries in Crim. Case No. 02-200107. The dispositive portion of the
RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, this court finds accused Cecilia Lagman y Pring guilty of Murder in Crim. Case
No. 02-200106. She is sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim
Jondel Lari Santiago, the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity. In Crim. Case No. 02-200107,
this court finds same accused guilty of Less Serious Physical Injuries. She is sentenced to suffer
six (6) months of arresto mayor and to pay Violeta Sicor the amount of P25,000 as temperate
damages.

SO ORDERED.
[16]


Ruling of the Appellate Court

On appeal, accused-appellant faulted the trial court for not considering the inconsistencies and
contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witness Maniego. She also averred that the same
witness credibility was improperly appreciated, as the judge who heard the case was different
from the one who rendered the decision.

The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. The appellate court ruled that the totality of the
prosecutions evidence showed that accused-appellants guilt was proved beyond
reasonable doubt. It added that accused-appellant failed to show any ill motive on the part of
the prosecution witnesses to falsely testify against her. The dispositive portion of the May 14,
2010 CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated January 18, 2008 of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 18 in Criminal Case Nos. 02-200106 and 02200107 is AFFIRMED.
[17]


Hence, We have this appeal.
The Issues

I

Whether the CA erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
II

Whether the CA erred in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecutions witness despite
patent inconsistencies
III

Whether the CA erred in finding that the killing of the victim was attended by treachery

The defense reiterates previous arguments calling for an acquittal of accused-appellant. It casts
doubt on Maniegos testimony, claiming that it has irreconcilable inconsistencies which affected
her credibility.

The defense also calls attention to the fact that Maniego testified before Judge Romulo A. Lopez,
while the Decision was penned by Judge Myra Garcia-Fernandez.
[18]
It is further contended that
Maniego did not actually witness Santiago being stabbed, because she admitted in court that she
found out that Santiago had been stabbed when she was already at the hospital attending to her
injured mother.

Moreover, it is pointed out by the defense that the victim was 58 in height and of average built
while accused-appellant is only 411. It is, thus, incredible that she could have inflicted fatal
wounds on the victim.

Lastly, the defense argues that the prosecution was unable to prove that the killing of Santiago
was accompanied by treachery. Assuming that accused-appellant did stab the victim, the defense
claims that it was not proved that she deliberately and consciously adopted her mode of attack.
The encounter was even preceded by a confrontation between accused-appellant and Maniego,
and it was Sicor and Santiago who followed accused-appellant after the confrontation. The
stabbing incident should have been considered as having occurred in the spur of the moment.
Our Ruling

We deny the appeal, but modify the CA Decision.

Elements of Murder Established

The elements of murder that the prosecution must establish are (1) that a person was killed; (2)
that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) that the
killing is not parricide or infanticide.
[19]


The prosecution was able to clearly establish that Santiago was killed and that it was
accused-appellant who killed him as there was an eyewitness to the crime. Santiagos killing
was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery as testified to by the prosecution
eyewitness, Maniego. Paragraph 16, Art. 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the direct
employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.

Maniegos testimony proved the presence of treachery in this case, as follows:
Q What did you do after Cecilia Lagman punched you in your face?
A I went outside of the side car x x x, and I went to the barangay hall to ask help x x x.
Q And what happened after that?
x x x x
A Papauwi na po ako sa bahay ng biyenan ko sakto po ng pagpunta ko ho doon
nasalubong po ni Cecilia Lagman si Jondel Mari wala hong sabi sabi inundayan po
niya ng saksak si Jondel Mari. (When I went home to the house of my mother-in-law
because the barangay chairman was not in the barangay hall Jondel Mari meet [sic]
Cecilia Lagman and without any word Cecilia Lagman stabbed Jondel Mari.)
Q And in what place was that where Cecilia Lagman suddenly stabbed Jondel Mari
Santiago?
A At Asuncion, Lakandula [in Tondo Manila] x x x.
Q When you saw Cecilia Lagman stabbed Jondel Santiago how far were you?
A (Witness demonstrating 5 to 6 meters away).
x x x x
Q What was Jondel Santiago doing when he was stabbed by Cecilia Lagman?
A He was lighting a cigarette x x x.
Q And what was the reaction of Jondel Santiago when he was stabbed by Cecilia
Lagman?
A Nabigla po kasi hindi naman niya alam na sasaksakin siya eh. [He was shocked
because he did not know he was going to be stabbed.]
Q What part of the body of Jondel Santiago was hit when he was stabbed?
A One at the chest and two at the back and one at the neck. x x x
Q x x x [I]f the person who boxed you on the face is in court, will you be able to identify
her?
A Yes x x x.
x x x x
x x x [Witness pointing to a woman, Cecilia Lagman]
Q x x x [I]f the person whom you saw stabbed Jondel Santiago four times is in court will
you be able to identify him or her?
A Siya rin po. [She is the same person.]
[20]


In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of
the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously
and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.
[21]

The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and
unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or
escape.
[22]
These elements were present when accused-appellant stabbed Santiago. We quote
with approval the appellate courts finding on the presence of treachery:
In the case at bar, the victim was caught off guard when appellant, without warning, stabbed him
four times successively leaving the latter no chance at all to evade the knife thrusts and defend
himself from appellants onslaught. Thus, there is no denying that appellants act of suddenly
stabbing the victim leaving the latter no room for defense is a clear case of treachery.
[23]
x x x

Regardless of the alleged disparity in height between accused-appellant and the victim, We
affirm the finding of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, that accused-appellants method of
inflicting harm ensured that she would fatally wound Santiago without risk to herself. The
perceived advantage of the victim in terms of height was of no use to him as accused-appellant
employed treachery in attacking him. He was not afforded a means to defend himself as accused-
appellant suddenly started stabbing him repeatedly with an improvised knife.

Finally, the killing of Santiago was neither parricide nor homicide.

Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses

We see no reason to overturn the findings on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It has
been long settled that when the issues raised concern the credibility of a witness, the trial courts
findings of fact, its calibration of testimonies, and its assessment of the testimonies probative
weight, including its conclusions based on said findings, are generally given conclusive effect. It
is acknowledged that the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of
witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth.
[24]
Furthermore,
accused-appellant failed to show why Maniego and her mother would falsely accuse her of
committing a terrible crime. Maniego was the common-law spouse of the victim and she would
naturally want to seek justice for his death as well as the injury sustained by her mother.

An examination of the records shows that there is no truth to the allegation of accused-appellant
that Maniego did not witness the stabbing of Santiago. She clearly testified that accused-
appellant first stabbed Santiago on the chest, then on the side of his neck, then twice on his
back.
[25]


On the other allegation of accused-appellant, We have earlier held that the fact that the judge
who rendered judgment was not the one who heard the witnesses does not adversely affect the
validity of conviction.
[26]
That the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had
the occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial but merely relied on the
records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on
record is sufficient to support its conclusion.
[27]


Alibi as a Defense

The defense of alibi is likewise unconvincing. Accused-appellant was positively identified by
eyewitnesses. She herself admitted that she confronted one of the eyewitnesses, Maniego,
moments before she was seen attacking Maniego, Santiago and Sicor. It is well-settled that alibi
cannot be sustained where it is not only without credible corroboration but also does not, on its
face, demonstrate the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the place of the
crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.
[28]
In accused-appellants case,
there is no corroborative evidence of her alibi or proof of physical impossibility of her being at
the scene of the incident to shore up her defense.

Elements of Less Serious Physical Injuries Not Established

We modify the conviction of accused-appellant with regard to Criminal Case No. 02-200107.
Originally charged with frustrated murder, accused-appellant was convicted of less serious
physical injuries in Criminal Case No. 02-200107. The RTC reasoned that the stabbing
injury sustained by Sicor was not on a vital part of the body and she was able to leave the
hospital two hours after receiving medical treatment. The RTC properly ruled that the
crime committed was not frustrated murder as it was not shown that there was intent to
kill.
[29]
However, while the RTC correctly ruled that the accused-appellant is not guilty of
frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 02-200107, the records do not support a conviction
for less serious physical injuries.

Art. 265 of the RPC provides, Any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not
described [as serious physical injuries] but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor
for ten (10) days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the same period, shall be guilty
of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor. Nothing in the
records, however, supports the finding that Sicor was incapacitated for labor for ten (10)
days or more or that she required medical attention for the same period. After the wound
on her buttocks was treated, Sicor was released two hours after she was admitted to the
hospital.
[30]
She later returned to the hospital for the removal of the suture on her wound,
according to the RTC, after a certain period of time.
[31]
The Medico-Legal Report on Sicor
(Exhibit H) does not indicate how many days of medical treatment her injury would need.
[32]

Sicor, however, testified that she lost two (2) days of work on account of the injury she
sustained.
[33]
The testimony of her attending physician, Dr. Christian Dennis Cendeno, on the
other hand, was dispensed with following a stipulation by the parties on his testimony.
[34]
The
prosecution was, therefore, unable to establish that the injury sustained by Sicor falls
under less serious physical injuries absent the requirement that her injury required
medical attention for 10 days or incapacitated her for the same period.

The Court can, thus, only convict accused-appellant of slight physical injuries. Under par. 1, Art.
266 of the RPC, the penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor when the offender has
inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine
days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period. There being no modifying
circumstances to be appreciated, and in accordance with par. 1 of Art. 64,
[35]
accused-appellant
should be meted a penalty of imprisonment of arresto menor in its medium period, which has a
duration of eleven (11) to twenty (20) days under Art. 76 of the RPC.

Pecuniary Liability

The CA affirmed the award of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity in Criminal Case No. 02-200106
and PhP 25,000 as temperate damages in Criminal Case No. 02-200106.

People v. Combate
[36]
reiterated the rule on civil indemnity and damages:
When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex
delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4)
exemplary damages; (5) attorneys fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper
cases. In People v. Tubongbanua, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be
applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the Court in
several cases such as Mendoza v. People, People v. Buban, People v. Guevarra, and People v.
Regalario. Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the instant case. Interest of six percent (6%) per
annum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all damages, i.e., actual or
compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary damages, from the date of finality of
judgment until fully paid.

In accordance with the rules cited above, We modify the award of damages. In line with
prevailing jurisprudence,
[37]
the award of civil indemnity ex delicto of PhP 50,000 in favor of the
heirs of Santiago is in order. Moral damages of PhP 50,000 and PhP 30,000 in exemplary
damages, with an interest of six percent (6%) per annum, are also proper.
[38]


We delete the award of PhP 25,000 in temperate damages to Sicor, since only slight physical
injuries were committed and no proof of medical expenses was presented during trial.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03289
finding accused-appellant guilty of Murder in Criminal Case No. 02-200106 is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the late Jondel
Mari Davantes Santiago the sum of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral
damages, PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages, and interest on all damages at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid. With respect to Criminal
Case No. 02-200107, accused-appellant is convicted of SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES and
is sentenced to twenty (20) days of arresto menor. The award of temperate damages is
DELETED.

SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 182522, March 07, 2012]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NOEL T. ADALLOM,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

This is a review on appeal of the Decision
[1]
dated July 31, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00365, which affirmed in toto the Decision
[2]
dated December 15, 2003 by
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76, Quezon City, in Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-105875
and Q-01-105877, finding accused-appellant Noel T. Adallom guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crimes of murder and attempted murder.

Accused-appellant was originally charged with two (2) counts of murder and one (1) count of
attempted murder under the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. Q-01-105875

That on or about the 28th day of October 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating with two other persons whose true names and other personal
circumstances have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, qualified with evident
premeditation and treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, assault, attack and employ
personal violence upon the person of DANILO VILLAREAL y ESPIRAS by then and there
shooting him with the use of a firearm hitting him on the different parts of his body, thereby
inflicting upon him serious and mortal gunshot wounds which were the direct and immediate
cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Danilo Villareal y
Espiras.
[3]


Criminal Case No. Q-01-105876

That on or about the 28th day of October 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating with two other persons whose true names and other personal
circumstances have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, qualified with evident
premeditation and treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, assault, attack and employ
personal violence upon the person of ROMMEL HINA by then and there shooting him with the
use of a firearm hitting the latter on the head, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal
gunshot wound which was the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage
and prejudice of the heirs of said Rommel Hina.
[4]


Criminal Case No. Q-01-105877

That on or about the 28th day of October
[2001]
, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating with two other persons whose true names and identities have
not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, qualified with
evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commence the commission of the crime of murder directly
by overt acts, by then and there shooting one BABELITO E. VILLAREAL with the use of a
firearm but said accused were not able to perform all the acts of execution which should produce
the crime of murder by reason of some cause or accident other than their own spontaneous
desistance, that is complainant was able to ran away, to the damage and prejudice of the said
offended party.
[5]


When arraigned on January 15, 2002, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges against
him.
[6]


At the pre-trial conference on January 29, 2002, the parties stipulated only as to the deaths of
Danilo Villareal (Danilo) and Rommel Hina (Rommel).
[7]


Thereafter, trial ensued.

The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely: Babelito Villareal (Babelito),
[8]
Danilos
brother who survived the shooting; Janita Villareal (Janita),
[9]
Danilos wife; Dr. Joselito Rodrigo
(Joselito),
[10]
the Chief Medico Legal of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory
who examined Danilos cadaver; and Diorito Coronas, Jr. (Diorito),
[11]
who was present at the
time and place of the shooting.

Below are the testimonies of Babelito and Diorito as summarized by the RTC:
Prosecution witness Babelito Villareal, a construction worker and residing at 120 Senatorial
Road, Barangay Batasan Hills, Quezon City, testified that he was with his brother, Danilo, and
Rommel Hina, a neighbor, towards midnight of October 27, 2001 in front of the store of his
sister, Nanieta. His house was just across the street. They were drinking beer but ran out of it.
Danilo asked Rommel Hina to buy cigarettes from a nearby store because their sisters store was
already closed. When Hina returned, they stayed in the same place. Babelito had his back
against the wall fronting the road while he was facing his brothers back. Hina was on his right
side. Soon a tricycle with its lights out and its engine turned off, arrived. It was still moving
because the road was on a downward slope. He saw Noel Adallom alight from the sidecar.
Adallom was with Johnwayne Lindawan and a tricycle driver. After Adallom alighted, he fired
his carbine. There was a successive burst of gunfire and Adallom was saying, Ano? Ano? His
brother went down and Rommel Hina was moaning. The tricycle came from his left side. When
Adallom fired his gun, Danilo turned his head and tried to run but he was hit at the back. He
himself, when he saw the gunfire just closed his eyes and leaned against the wall and turned his
head to the right and moved his leg downward just waiting for what would happen next. When
his brother and Rommel fell, the firing stopped and when he turned his head, he noticed that
Adallom upon seeing him alive, again fired successive shots and then he heard, tak-tak. The
gun must have jammed then he heard another burst of gunfire, rat-tat-tat. He sought cover
beside a vehicle and ran. He showed some pictures and pointed to the place he testified on (see
Exhibit A). There were bullet marks shown in the pictures (Exhibit B). He ran to an alley and
then he went back to Senatorial Road where the incident happened and saw people milling
around. His brother was already dead while Rommel Hina was rushed to the hospital. Noel
Adallom, a long time resident of their place is the cousin of the husband of his sister while
Johnwayne Lindawan is the son of his brother-in-law. During the wake of his brother, he saw
Johnwayne with a new haircut. Adallom also had a new haircut. They used to have long hair
prior to the incident. Both of them were sporting army cut. He tried to watch Adalloms
movements. He saw him fixing the gate of his house and when he could not take it anymore he
told Jeanette, the wife of his brother Danilo Villareal, that what Adallom was doing was very
insulting. He did not give any statement to the police because there was still the wake and he
wanted to consult Jeanette who was very confused. He knows that it is hard to fight an Ifugao.
After the funeral, he told his siblings about the incident. They decided to have Adallom
arrested. His Ate Jeanette went to Station 6 but the police were not cooperative and he was
losing heart. On November 19, 2001, he saw Adallom alight in front of his house. He asked his
siblings to go to the barangay hall while he waited for Adallom because he might leave. When
the barangay people came, they picked him up and informed him about the complaint against
him. Adallom was detained at the barangay hall and taken at Station 6. Babelito executed a
sinumpaang salaysay marked Exhibit C.

On cross examination, among others, he said that Adalloms house is just near the eskinita. The
following day when he saw Adallom sporting a new haircut, he tried to keep track of his
movements. He did that for several days. He was shown a sketch marked as Exhibit D for the
prosecution and said, the house of his sister was along Senatorial Road at the corner of an alley
in Avocado Street. After Adallom alighted from the tricycle, he positioned himself before he
fired the shots. When Babelito returned to the scene of the incident, he instructed some people to
bring Rommel Hina to the hospital. He saw Agustin Adallom and Anderson Tuguinay that
night. He saw Adalloms wife by the gate of their house. He did not see Noel Adallom after the
incident. The police investigators came to the scene and he went with them to the Criminal
Investigation Unit. The investigator was Lawa-Lawa. When he was about to give a statement at
the Criminal Investigation Unit, Nathaniel Hina, the father of Rommel appeared and he was
telling a different story. Nathaniel was a usual drinking companion of Noel Adallom.
Immediately prior to the incident, Rommels father was coming down from the tricycle with
some companions, the barkada of Noel Adallom, he passed by the eskinita and took a look at
them. That was before the tricycle with Adallom as passenger passed by. At the police precinct
Rommels father was saying that it was another Ifugao, a certain Hubert who was responsible for
the shooting. Because of this incident with the father of Rommel, he did not give a statement.
He reiterated that he saw his brother hit as he was slowly moving his head and then he closed his
eyes. After the first burst of gunfire it stopped for a while. When the gunman saw him, he raised
his gun again and pointed it at him then he heard, pak. It did not fire then he heard successive
shots. He saw Adallom with the carbine only that night but he knew that his family has a
carbine. He was shown a photograph marked Exhibit 2 depicting the wall of his sister Nanettes
store marked as Exhibits A and B. There were no chairs in front of the store even when they
were drinking. He was there first before Danilo and Rommel arrived. There were also two
women who came thirty (30) minutes prior to the incident Danilo and Rommel had been
drinking in front of his house. When they arrived, they gave him a bottle of beer to drink. And
then, Danilo asked Rommel to buy cigarettes at Andersons store. The father of Rommel arrived
and stared at them, just as Rommel arrived. He knows that Nathaniel gave a statement at the
police station. Although in his affidavit he also mentioned Johnwayne Lindawan, the police
have not arrested him. Lindawan also alighted from the back of the tricycle driver and he stood
by the side of the road. He could not identify the tricycle driver.

Diorito Coronas, Jr., a billiard player by profession, usually played at the billiard hall near the
house of Noel Adallom in Sarep Street on the right side going up the road. On October 28, 2001,
about midnight, he was at the videoke bar, his usual hang out in Sitio 6 going towards Talanay.
While there, he heard gunfire so he immediately went near a parked vehicle in front of the
videoke bar. When he tried to investigate, he saw three persons fall to the ground (Bumulagta
noong pinagbabaril). Two of them were already down and the third one stood up and ran even
as the gunman continued firing. He identified the man who ran away as Babelito Villareal
(Samboy). It was Noel Adallom whom he saw carrying the firearm which he described as a little
less than 2 feet, shooting the three men. He saw Adalloms companion and a third one who was
manning the tricycle. The place of the incident was well lighted but from where he was
standing, the light came only from the videoke bar. Then he noticed a yellow tricycle without
any plate number moving toward his direction while the two other guys went to the opposite
direction going upward. When he saw that they left, he immediately approached the two men
lying down. He identified one of them as Rommel who was still moaning. He became
apprehensive that someone might see him and his family might be involved. He ran toward his
house. He identified three sets of pictures marked Exhibits A and B. He pointed to the place
where the three guys who were shot at were positioned.

On cross examination, Coronas identified the owner of the videoke bar as Anderson
Tuguinay.
[12]


Janita, when she took the witness stand, detailed the expenses incurred for the funeral and burial
of her husband, Danilo.

Dr. Joselito reported that as a result of his autopsy examination of Danilos body, he had
determined that Danilo died from hemorrhagic shock due to multiple gunshot wounds. There
were six gunshot wounds in Danilos trunk and lower extremities. All points of entry were at
Danilos back. There were five exit wounds at the front portion of Danilos body while one slug
was recovered in Danilos liver. Dr. Joselito submitted the recovered slug for ballistic
examination. Dr. Joselito further elaborated on his findings during his cross-examination:
On cross examination, among others, he stated that the autopsy was conducted on October 28,
2001 at around 11:30 a.m. The abrasion on the victims right acromial region was caused by
friction of the skin on a rough hard surface. Gunshot wound no. 1 was directed anteriorwards,
upwards and lateralwards meaning it came from the back, traveled upwards from the center
towards the sides. Its point of entry was 10 cm. from the posterior midline while the point of exit
was 20 cm. from the posterior midline. The point of entry of gunshot wound No. 2 (depicted as
POE No. 1 in Exhibit J) is 4 cm. from the posterior midline and exited 6 cm. from the anterior
midline. The bullet traversed from the rear to the front going to the right side of the cadaver.
The third gunshot wounds point of entry is at the right infrascapular region end exited also on
the right side of the chest but more towards the outer portion. The fourth gunshot wounds point
of entry is on the left side, back to front, lateralwards meaning from center or near the center
towards the most outer part of the left side of the body. The entrance and exit wound were on
the same level. It is superficial wound meaning it did not enter the peritonial cavity. The fifth
gunshot wound was directed anteriorwards, downwards and medialwards. Anteriorward means
from the back, it is noted downwards towards the foot while medialwards is towards the center.
The sixth and final gunshot wound was sustained at the right buttocks directed anteriorwards,
upwards and lateralwards, meaning from the back upwards going to the head and lateralwards,
meaning from the center to the outer side of the cadaver. Since the entrance wounds were at the
back of the cadaver, assuming the victim was not moving, the assailant or muzzle of the gun was
at the back of the victim. Except for the fourth gunshot wound which entered and exited at the
same level and the fifth gunshot wound which was downwards, all the other gunshot wounds
were directed upwards. If the victim was in a sitting position at the time he sustained the wounds
with an upward trajectory, he would probably be in a ducking position, hence the upward
trajectory. If the victim was stationary at the time he was shot, it is possible the assailant was
moving but the most probable explanation for the differences in the level of the points of entry in
relation to the points of exit of the wounds is that the victim moved as a result of the force of the
bullet that entered his body. The slug that he extracted from the cadaver of the victim was from
a .30 caliber firearm based on the report of the ballistician.
[13]


The defense presented the testimonies of accused-appellant
[14]
himself; Mila Adallom (Mila),
[15]

accused-appellants wife; Aida Marquez (Aida);
[16]
Sgt. Anderson Tuguinay (Anderson);
[17]
Sgt.
Agustin Adallom (Agustin);
[18]
Editha Gutierrez (Editha);
[19]
and Elizabeth Buyayo
(Elizabeth).
[20]


Accused-appellant interposed the defenses of denial and alibi, to wit:
Noel Adallom, a machine operator, testified that on October 27, 2001, he arrived home from
work at about 11:00 oclock in the evening and he saw his wife working on the screen. He had
coffee because he was not yet sleepy. He told his wife that he was going to the billiard hall at
Retota. On his way, he saw the group of Boying Hina having a drinking spree. They gave him a
shot of liquor but he refused because in that place, riots were rampant. He has known Boying
Hina since he started residing in Batasan Hills in 1988. He went to the billiard hall owned by
Ilustre. He is a new player and he played in with one Zaldy. After that, he transferred to the
Retota billiard hall. He arrived there at about midnight. He played billiard with Danilo and
Dominador Baldaba. They were playing when they heard gunshots. The sound of the gun fire
was rat-tat-tat. They continued playing billiard until his wife arrived to fetch him. They stopped
playing and he went with her. His wife asked him to pass by Senatorial Road where the sounds
of gunshots came from. He saw Nanette Villareal Lindawan and asked her what was happening.
Nanette was crying and she said, Patay na si kuya, referring to Danilo Villareal. He has
known Nanette from the time she got married. He talked to her in front of her house in the
middle portion of Senatorial Road. He identified a picture marked Exhibit 3 showing the place
where he talked to Nanette. When he was about to leave the place, he saw Sgt. Tuguinay
holding a flashlight. When he asked Sgt. Tuguinay what happened, Tuguinay looked at him and
did not say anything. He proceeded to talk with Sgt. Agustin when a police patrol arrived. The
police were asking for someone who witnessed the incident. Babelito Villareal came out
shirtless and boarded a mobile. He and his wife proceeded home. The place as shown in Exhibit
3 was not lighted. It was illuminated by some lights from other houses about ten meters away
and you would not be able to recognize faces. When shown a sketch, Exhibit 1, he pointed the
billiard place of Retota (Exhibit 1-I). The Avocado Road alley was marked Exhibit 3-A. He was
passing by that alley everyday in front of the house of Nanette. For the month of October 1 to
15, he was assigned to the first shift and went to work in the morning from 6:00 to 3:00 oclock.
From October 16 to the end of that month, he was on the second shift arriving home at 11:00
oclock in the evening. There was no electric bulb in front of the house of Nanette. Across the
house of Nanette is the house of Sgt. Agustin Adallom. There was no bulb in front of his house.
In the morning of October 28, 2001, he was planting pechay at the house of Agustin Adallom at
about 9:00 oclock in the morning. On succeeding days after the incident, he usually left the
house at noontime because his work started at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon. He identified his
time record from October 1 to 15 marked Exhibit 4; the time card for October 16-31 marked
Exhibit 4-A; the time card for November 1-15 marked Exhibit 4-B; and the time card for
November 16-30 marked as Exhibit 4-C. Exhibit number 7 has no signature because that was
the time he was arrested on November 19. When he is not working he stayed at home. At the
time he was arrested he was preparing coffee when he heard someone calling from outside and
found out that they were barangay officials looking for him. He saw one BSDO jump over the
fence with a gun so he became afraid. They told him that he was the one who killed Danilo
Villareal. They were not accompanied by policemen. He was asking them why he was being
apprehended without a warrant of arrest. They told him to give his explanation at the barangay
office. He was handcuffed. They just placed him inside the cell for an hour. Policemen came
and brought him to Station 6. On the 20th of November, he was brought to Camp Karingal and
they asked for his name and occupation. They brought him to a vacant room and asked him,
bakit mo pinatay si Villareal. He said he did not commit the crime and they brought him back
to the cell. On the 21st of November, he was brought to Quezon City Hall for inquest. He saw
the name of Wilfredo Maynigo on top of his table. Upon investigation the prosecutor placed on
top of the paper, for further, (see Exhibit 8). He knows Danilo Villareal and his wife Janita
because their wives were doing business of paluwagan. He met his wife in the house of Agustin
Adallom and he did not know that she and Danilo had an affair.

On cross examination, Noel Adallom said that he works as a machine operator since 1988. He
recalled that October 28, 2001 was a Sunday and it was his day-off. He was alone when he went
to Retota billiard hall near Senatorial Road after telling his wife that he would go there. Riots
frequently happen on the upper portion of Senatorial Road. When they heard gunshots they were
playing billiard, and they stopped momentarily. He was married to Mila Adallom in the year
2000 at a mass wedding but he knew her since 1992. He did not have any knowledge that Danilo
and his wife were having an affair. He does not know of any such relationship nor did he hear
any gossip about that. He knew Babelito Villareal since 1988. There had been no quarrel
between them and does not know why he would point to him as the assassin. Mila fetched him
that early morning of October 28, 2001 at Retota. He would have still played billiard with
Danilo and Dominador but Mila came and asked him to go home because there was a shooting at
the upper portion of Senatorial Road. After the incident he talked with Nanette, sister of Danilo
Villareal and Babelito Villareal, and asked her what happened. She told him that [her] kuya was
dead. He has known Danilo since 1998 because Danilos wife and his wife were engaged in a
paluwagan business. He seldom talked with Danilo Villareal because both of them were
working and they seldom saw each other. He does not know of any reason to be jealous of
Danilo because he does not know anything about the alleged relationship between him and his
wife.
[21]


Mila confirmed on the witness stand that her husband, accused-appellant, went out to play
billiards at around 11:30 p.m. on October 27, 2001. After midnight, she heard a burst of gunfire.
Fearing that accused-appellant might get into trouble, Mila decided to fetch accused-appellant at
Retotas billiard hall. When she reached the billiard hall, Mila asked accused-appellant, who
was then still playing billiards, to go home with her. To get home, Mila and accused-appellant
took the route from Avocado Street to Senatorial Road. There, at Senatorial Road, Mila saw
Danilo and Rommel already sprawled on the ground. On cross-examination, Mila denied having
an affair with the deceased Danilo.

Aida, an ambulant vendor, testified that in the early morning of October 28, 2001, she was at a
billiard hall watching accused-appellant, together with a certain Paeng and Zaldy, play a game,
when she heard gunshots.

Sgt. Anderson, who resided within the vicinity of the shooting incident, recollected that at
around past midnight of October 28, 2001, he was in a videoke bar with a certain Boying, when
he heard two successive automatic gunshots. He went out of the bar and saw Nanette, Danilos
sister, who he asked about what happened. Nanette responded binaril si manong. Sgt.
Anderson went home and called the authorities. He went back to the scene of the shooting with
a flashlight to look for empty shells. Sgt. Anderson also remembered that accused-appellant
approached him and asked him about what happened.

Sgt. Agustin, who likewise resided within the vicinity of the shooting incident, narrated that he
was awakened by a burst of gunfire in the early morning of October 28, 2001, at around 12:45
a.m. He then heard someone shouting wag sarge, wag sarge! Then he heard another burst of
gunfire. He went out of his house and proceeded to Senatorial Road. There he saw blood in
front of the window of the house of Nanette, Danilos sister, and a lot of people already milling
around. Among the people he saw were Nanette, accused-appellant, and Sgt. Anderson. Sgt.
Agustin acknowledged that accused-appellant is his first-degree cousin and that he did not
personally witness the shooting incident.

Editha is another ambulant vendor who recalled that at around 2:00 a.m. on October 28, 2001,
she met a certain Boying (purportedly Rommels father) on the road, who told her that his son
was shot. Editha admitted, however, that she had no personal knowledge of the shooting
incident.

The last witness for the defense was Elizabeth, accused-appellants distant relative, and the
neighbor and close friend of Janita, Danilos wife. Elizabeth stated under oath before the RTC
that on October 28, 2001, she opened her gate and saw people gathering at Senatorial Road.
From listening to the stories of the bystanders, she learned that someone was shot at around 1:00
a.m. on October 28, 2001 by two persons wearing bonnets and riding a motorcycle. According
to Elizabeth, Janita had never confided to her any marital problem with Danilo.

The prosecution presented on rebuttal Nanieta Lindawan (Nanieta), who gave the following
account of the events that transpired in the early morning of October 28, 2001:
Testifying on rebuttal, Nanieta Lindawan denied having met, seen or talk[ed] with Adallom, a
townmate of her husband, in the early morning of October 28, 2001. There was never a time
after the killing of [her] brother Danilo that she saw the accused on Senatorial Road. She belied
the testimony of Agustin Adallom that he talked to her in the morning of October 28, 2001. She
knows that he is a soldier stationed in Camp Capinpin and that he comes home only once a
month for a day, either Saturday or Sunday. She is also sure that witness Sgt. Anderson
Tuguinay was not able to talk to her that morning because after the incident, she was alone in the
middle of the road crying.

On cross-examination, among others, she stated that the incident happened right in front of her
house. She was at home with her sisters and they were sleeping when she heard successive
gunfire. She peeped out of the window and she saw two persons lying face down, Danilo and
[Rommel]. She was able to recognize her brother because he was facing the window. She went
out of the house minutes after the last gunshot. She called for her siblings. Except for the
neighbor of her Ate [Janita], none of their neighbors came out because they were afraid. Her
brother Babelito was also there and he told her that he was almost hit. Danilo was already
brought to the hospital before the police arrived in unmarked vehicles. Although Sgt. Tuguinay
owns a delivery van, they did not try to borrow it to bring Danilo to the hospital because
Tuguinay does not lend his vehicle to anyone. She denied having borrowed facilities, like chairs
and tables, from her best friend Elizabeth, who owns a school. Elizabeth told Nanietas husband
that she was afraid to go to the wake because it was her gun which was used in the shooting. She
admitted she saw Elizabeth at the wake once. She does not remember the last time when Sgt.
Agustin Adallom came home from Camp Capinpin. Her husband is also stationed in Camp
Capinpin and if Sgt. Agustin was really there at the time of the incident, he would have offered
to inform her husband about the incident.
[22]


The documentary exhibits for the prosecution consisting of Babelitos sworn statement, in a
question and answer form, executed before PO3 Leo Tabuena on November 21, 2001; sketch and
photographs of the location of the shooting incident; Danilos death certificate; the autopsy
report on Danilos body; receipts and list of funeral and burial expenses incurred by Danilos
heirs; and the ballistics report which stated that the bullet recovered at the scene came from a .30
caliber firearm were all admitted by the RTC in its Order
[23]
dated September 2, 2002.

The defense submitted its own documentary exhibits, specifically, photographs of several bullet
holes at the store where Danilo, Rommel, and Babelito were shot to show the trajectory of the
bullets; sketch of the location of the shooting incident; accused-appellants daily time records
from his work for the months of October and November 2001; and Janitas letter-complaint
dated November 19, 2001 against accused-appellant. All these exhibits were admitted by the
RTC in its Order
[24]
dated June 23, 2003.

On December 15, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision giving more credence to the positive
testimonies of prosecution witnesses Babelito and Diorito and finding implausible accused-
appellants defenses of denial and alibi. The RTC pronounced accused-appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder of Danilo in Criminal Case No. Q-01-
105875 and attempted murder of Babelito in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105877; but dismissed
the charge against accused-appellant for the murder of Rommel in Criminal Case No. Q-01-
105876 because of insufficiency of evidence. The dispositive portion of the RTC judgment
reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused NOEL ADALLOM guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder described and penalized under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to
Article 63 thereof, and there being no other aggravating circumstance attending the commission
of the crime, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify the heirs of the victim, Danilo Villareal, as follows:
1. P50,000.00 as civil indemnity;
2. P50,000.00 as moral damages;
3. P57,084.80 as actual damages; and
4. To pay the costs.
With respect to Crim. Case No. Q-01-105817 for the attempted murder of Babelito Villareal after
applying the indeterminate sentence law, the court hereby sentences accused to suffer
imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years of prision mayor.

For insufficiency of evidence, Criminal Case No. Q-01-105876 is hereby dismissed.
[25]


Accused-appellant appealed the foregoing RTC judgment before the Court of Appeals.
Accused-appellant filed his Brief
[26]
on January 13, 2006 while plaintiff-appellee, represented by
the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Brief
[27]
on May 29, 2006.

In its Decision dated July 31, 2007, the Court of Appeals agreed with the factual findings of the
RTC and ruled thus:
Verily, we reiterate the jurisprudential doctrine that great weight is accorded to the factual
findings of the trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses; this
can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the record that the trial court overlooked,
ignored or disregarded some fact or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered
would have altered the result. In the course of our review, the records disclose, that the trial
court has considered all the evidences of both parties and, thus, has ruled correctly. Trial courts
have the opportunity to see witnesses as they testify in court, an opportunity not readily available
to appellate courts.

Thus, we find no reason to depart from the above ruling. We have examined the records and we
confirm the trial courts findings that the testimonies of the witnesses are more trustworthy than
the testimonies of the defense witnesses, particularly the appellants.

With the application of prevailing laws and jurisprudence to the evidence presented, We cannot
conclude otherwise but rule for the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED in toto.
[28]


Hence, accused-appellant comes before us on appeal.

In our Resolution
[29]
dated July 23, 2008, we required the parties to file their respective
supplemental briefs. Both plaintiff-appellee and accused-appellant manifested, however, that
they had already exhausted their arguments before the Court of Appeals and would no longer file
any supplemental brief.
[30]


Accused-appellant assails his conviction for murder and attempted murder on these grounds:
A. The trial court erred in finding the testimony of Babelito Villareal and Diorito Coronas,
Jr. credible.
[31]

1.) The trial court misapplied the doctrine that the relationship of the witness to the
victim does not make the former a biased witness, but rather makes his testimony more
credible.
[32]


2.) The trial courts findings that Babelito and [Diorito] narrated as they saw the incident
in a clear, simple and direct manner; and, that their testimonies jive on material points are
seriously belied by the evidence extant on the record.
[33]


3.) The trial courts finding that Babelito and [Diorito] could not have been mistaken
with the identity of Noel Adallom because he had been a long time resident of the place
is highly speculative.
[34]


4.) The trial courts finding that the place where the incident occurred was lighted.
[35]


5.) The trial courts finding that no motive was shown for the two witnesses to
prevaricate and concoct the story to implicate Adallom with the killing is uncalled for.
[36]


B. The trial court erred in relying on the weakness of the defense rather on the strength of
the prosecutions evidence.
[37]

C. The trial court erred in not finding that the evidence on record raise a reasonable doubt
that the accused was the assailant.
[38]


Plaintiff-appellee counter-argues that:
I

The testimony of Babelito Villareal, an eye witness and survivor of the assault, established with
utmost certainty the identity of appellant as the assailant and gunman.
II

The prosecution established the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
III

Appellants defense of denial is weak and without factual basis.
[39]


We sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for both crimes.

Jurisprudence dictates that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of
the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the
probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high
respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate
court, since it is settled that when the trial courts findings have been affirmed by the appellate
court, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.
[40]


We find no cogent reason to deviate from the cited case doctrine.

As aptly appreciated by the RTC, prosecution witnesses Babelito and Diorito both positively
identified accused-appellant as the person who treacherously shot Danilo and Babelito, and
ultimately succeeded in killing Danilo. Said witnesses gave a forthright and consistent narration
of what they had actually witnessed the early morning of October 28, 2001 at Senatorial Road.

Babelito had to relive before the RTC the traumatic experience of seeing his brother Danilo
killed and barely escaping with his own life:
Q And can you tell us where were the three of you during that time?
A I was in front of my house which is also in front of the store of my sister Nanieta.
x x x x
Q And what were the three of you doing at that time?
A We were seated in front of the store of my sister drinking beer, sir.
x x x x
Q And you said that you ran out of beer, what happened after you ran out of beer?
A We stopped drinking and then a tricycle arrived with its lights out and its engine turned
off. It was still moving because the road was on a downward slope, sir.
x x x x
Q At the time that you noticed the said tricycle, can you tell us what time was that?
A 12:45 in the morning of October 28, 2001, sir.
Q When you noticed the said tricycle moving downwards because of the sloping road,
what happened next?
A Noel Adallom alighted from the tricycle. He got out of the sidecar.
Q By the way, were you able to count how many persons were inside the tricycle?
A There were three of them: the tricycle driver, Noel Adallom and John Win Lindawan.
Q You said Noel Adallom was inside the tricycle, at the time, where was he seated in the
tricycle?
A Inside the tricycle, sir.
Q Now, what happened next when Noel Adallom alighted?
A He fired his gun, sir.
Q From the place wherein Noel Adallom alighted immediately thereafter fired his gun,
how far was your group from him?
A About 4 meters, sir.
Q Now, you said Mr. Adallom alighted and fired his gun, can you remember what kind of
firearm he used at the time?
A Carbine.
Q Was it a long or short firearm?
A Long firearm, sir.
Q And when he alighted and fired his gun, what happened to your group, if any?
A There were successive shots and I just saw gunbursts and he was saying, Ano? Ano?
while he was firing successively at my brother and Rommel Hina who was already
moaning.
Q Can you tell us your relative positions at the time Mr. Adallom fired his gun?
A I was at the back by the wall fronting the road and my brothers back was fronting the
street facing me.
Q How about Mr. Hina, where was he positioned?
A On my right side, sir.
Q Can you tell us from what direction the said tricycle came from?
A From my left side, sir.
Q So, you are telling us that the tricycle which had no lights and with engines not running
just came by the road and 4 meters from you, Mr. Adallom alighted and fired his gun?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what was the relative position of your brother when Noel Adallom fired his gun?
A While the tricycle was coming down the road, my brother turned his head and tried to
run but he was already hit all at the back by the volley of fire.
Q What about Rommel Hina, what happened to him?
A He was also hit.
Q How about you?
A When I saw gunfire, I just closed my eyes and leaned against the wall and turned my
head to the right and slowly, I moved my leg downwards and just waited for what
would happen next.
Q And can you tell us what happened to you after you just left your fate to God?
A When my brother and Rommel fell, the firing stopped. I turned my head and I noticed
that Noel Adallom looked surprised.
Q When Noel Adallom looked surprised upon seeing you still alive, what happened next?
A He again fired a succession of shots and then I heard tak-tak.
Q And would you know what that sound was that you heard?
A I surmised that the gun must have jammed, sir.
Q What did you do, if any, when you realized that the gun must have jammed?
A I thought of standing up and running and I again heard a burst of gunfire, rat-tat-tat.
Q What happened when you heard another round of gunfire?
A I sought cover behind a vehicle and I ran towards the corner to escape.
[41]
(Emphases
supplied.)

Diorito corroborated Babelitos testimony when he recounted before the RTC the following:
Q Now, you said that you were at the said videoke bar at around 11:30 to 12:00 oclock;
while you were there at the said videoke, what happened if any?
A When I heard a gunfire, I immediately proceeded near the vehicle to look on what is
happening.
Q Now, you said that you heard a gunfire; when you heard that gunfire, who were with
you during that time?
A I was alone.
Q And you said that after hearing a gunfire you went out near a vehicle that was parked;
can you tell us where is that vehicle that was parked where you went for cover?
A The vehicle is right in front of the videoke bar where we usually hang out and it so
happened that the vehicle is also owned by the owner of that videoke bar.
x x x x
Q You said you went to that vehicle which was parked, what else did you do after going
near the vehicle?
A I was looking who shot who.
Q And what did you see if any?
A I saw three persons who fell (bumulagta noong pinagbabaril).
Q Now, you said that you saw three men who just fell when shots were fired upon, [is]
any of those three men present in todays courtroom whom you said that fell down, can
you identify them?
A The two persons are already dead but the other, I got surprised when he immediately
ran.
Q That person that stood up, can you identify him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Can you kindly tell us his name if you know it?
A Samboy, sir.
Q Is he present in todays courtroom? Can you kindly stand up and point to us that
person? Kindly tap the shoulder of that person.
A (Witness tapping the shoulder of a man who when asked answered that his name is
Babelito Villareal.)
Q Aside from seeing those three men whom you said fell down, what else did you see if
any?
A I saw one person firing shots and the other one is facing in front of the house of
Samboy and the other person was manning the tricycle.
Q So, all in all, there were three persons that you saw other than those three other persons
whom you said fell down, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q You said that you saw one of those three persons firing a gun, can you kindly describe
to us that gun that was used by the said person?
A The size of the gun that he was using was like this (witness demonstrating), less than
two feet. But I dont know what kind.
Q That person whom you saw carrying a firearm and was shooting that men, if that
person is present in todays courtroom, can you identify him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Can you kindly step down again and tap the shoulder of that person whom you saw?
A (Witness tapping the shoulder of a person who gave his name as Noel Adallom)
Q Now, when this shooting incident took place, can you kindly tell us how far were this
group of men whom you said were shot from the place where you were hiding or
covering near the vehicle?
A Same distance more or less eight meters.
Q How about the gunman who was shooting these three men, how far were you from
him?
A It is farther by half meter.
Q You said that you saw this incident that took place, can you kindly tell us what was the
lighting condition during that time that this incident happened?
A The place where the incident happened, it was well-lighted, however, from where I
stand, the place was not lighted. The light came only from the videoke bar.
x x x x
Q You said that after you saw Mr. Adallom shot these three men, what else did you see if
any?
A When he started firing at these three men, right after, I saw one person immediately
stood up and ran away and right after that, Noel Adallom kept on firing at the guy who
was running.
Q When you said that guy stood up you were referring to Babelito Villareal, that one that
you just pointed prior to the accused?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what happened next after Mr. Adallom was not able to hit Mr. Babelito Villareal?
A I noticed a yellow tricycle without plate number which immediately started its engine
and moved downward towards my direction and the other two guys went on the other
direction going upward.
Q How about you, what did you do next after seeing that incident?
A I immediately approached the two guys who were lying down.
Q And what did you see if any after that?
A I still heard one guy in the person of Rommel who was still moaning.
Q After hearing Rommel still moaning, what did you do, if any?
A I was a bit apprehensive because maybe somebody will see me and my family will be
involved so I immediately ran away from the scene.
Q Where did you go after running away?
A I immediately went to my house.
[42]
(Emphases supplied.)

Accused-appellants attacks on the credibility of Babelito and Diorito are unconvincing, each
having already been soundly rejected by the Court of Appeals, thus:
The accused-appellant is not successful in proving the incredibility and improbability of the
testimonies of the [prosecutions] two eye witnesses, hence, his arguments on the slight
difference in the location and nature of gunshot wounds as opposed to the position of the
assailant as testified by the witness are not sufficient to overturn the eyewitness accounts of
Diorito and Babelito. The positive identification of the witnesses is more than enough to prove
the accused-appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Accused-appellant argues that the delay in charging him raises serious doubts on Babelitos
testimony. Well settled is the rule that Delay in making criminal accusations will not
necessarily impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. It has
been established that the delay in filing a criminal complaint is attributed to his confusion and
desire to consult his sister-in-law who is the wife of deceased Danilo. He also testified that he
did not file a complaint immediately, because he did not want to disturb the wake of his brother.
Such explanation is acceptable. True enough, he filed a complaint with the barangay officials
and asked for their assistance in bringing accused-appellant to Station 6 after the funeral of his
brother.

Accused-appellant tried to attack the reliability of Babelitos testimony by insisting that the story
told by Babelito does not jive with the story told by the physical evidence consisting of the
wounds sustained by the body of Danilo. We are not convinced. Accused-appellant is
capitalizing on the fact that the location and nature of the gunshot wounds sustained by deceased
Danilo is anteriorwards, lateralwards and going to the right. Simply stated, the direction of the
wounds are slightly going upwards to the right, which according to the accused-appellant is
impossible to be sustained by the deceased, because (as told by Babelito) he is standing up when
he shot deceased Danilo, who is seated on the street. Such argument lacks merit. As explained
by Dr. Rodrigo in his testimony, the body of Danilo could have moved and slumped forward
when he was being hit by bullets in rapid succession and the position of his body has changed.
When the bullets hit the body of the deceased, the body was already on the ground face down
and the natural trajectory of bullets is upward, toward the head of the deceased. It is established
that accused-appellant Noel was shooting while he was standing and the deceased was already on
the ground. So when you try to examine the body and let it stand up, it would naturally create an
impression that the bullets direction is upward. The explanation is so simple, the body received
the bullets while it is slumped, with face forward on the ground, and accused-appellant Noel was
shooting while he was standing up. Such explanation is corroborated by Babelitos account that
Danilo tried to turn his shoulders to face his left side, before he fell furthermore, such testimony
is also corroborated by the testimony of Nanette which claimed that Danilo fell at the spot
marked as Exhibit 2-C as told by Babelito.
[43]
(Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)

In contrast, accused-appellant proffered the defenses of denial and alibi, which are the weakest of
defenses in criminal cases. The well-established rule is that denial and alibi are self-serving
negative evidence; they cannot prevail over the spontaneous, positive, and credible testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses who pointed to and identified the accused-appellant as the
malefactor. Indeed, alibi is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.
[44]


Although accused-appellant presented other witnesses to supposedly corroborate his alibi, we
could not ascribe much probative weight to said witnesses testimonies. None of said witnesses
actually saw the shooting, most only heard the gunshots and arrived at the scene after the
shooting took place and, thus, had no personal knowledge of the said incident. Except for Aida,
no other witness for the defense was physically with accused-appellant at the exact time of the
shooting. And even Aidas testimony is unreliable given the observation of the RTC that it is in
conflict with that of accused-appellant. Accused-appellant claimed that he first went to the
billiard hall owned by Ilustre where he played with a certain Zaldy and then he transferred to
Retotas billiard hall where he was playing with Danilo and Dominador Baldaba when he
heard the gunshots. Yet, Aida attested that she was watching accused-appellant playing billiards
with a certain Zaldy when she heard the gunshots.

In sum, the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant for
the murder of Danilo in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105875 and attempted murder of Babelito in
Criminal Case No. Q-01-105877.

The penalty prescribed by law for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death.
[45]
With
the repeal of the death penalty law, the only penalty prescribed by law for the crime of murder is
reclusion perpetua. The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply, inter alia, to persons
convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment, including reclusion
perpetua. Hence, accused-appellant has been properly sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua for the murder of Danilo in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105875.

However, we find it necessary to modify the award of damages to Danilos heirs in Criminal
Case No. Q-01-105875. Consistent with prevailing case law,
[46]
accused-appellant must pay
Danilos heirs the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, in addition to the sum of P57,084.80 as actual damages.

For the crime of attempted murder, the penalty shall be prision mayor, since Article 51 of the
Revised Penal Code states that a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the sentence shall be that which could
be properly imposed in view of the attending circumstances, and the minimum shall be within
the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. Absent any
mitigating or aggravating circumstance in this case, the maximum of the sentence should be
within the range of prision mayor in its medium term, which has a duration of eight (8) years and
one (1) day to ten (10) years; and that the minimum should be within the range of prision
correccional, which has a duration of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Hence, we
sentence accused-appellant to suffer imprisonment from six (6) years of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, for the attempted
murder of Babelito in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105877.

We further order accused-appellant to pay Babelito the amounts of P25,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P10,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal
Case No. Q-01-105877.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal of accused-appellant Noel T. Adallom is DENIED for lack
of merit. The Decision dated July 31, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No.
00365, which affirmed the Decision dated December 15, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 76, Quezon City, in Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-105875 and Q-01-105877, finding Noel T.
Adallom guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder and attempted murder,
respectively, is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS as to the penalties
and awards imposed:

1) For the murder of Danilo Villareal in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105875, Noel T. Adallom is
SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ORDERED to pay the heirs of
Danilo Villareal the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages,
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P57,084.80 as actual damages; and

2) For the attempted murder of Babelito Villareal in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105877, Noel T.
Adallom is SENTENCED to suffer imprisonment from six (6) years of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and ORDERED to
pay Babelito Villareal the amounts of P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P10,000.00 as moral
damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION


SPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC,
Petitioner,



- versus -



PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.


G.R. No. 191913

Present:

VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
PERALTA,
ABAD,
MENDOZA, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.

Promulgated:

March 21, 2012
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECI SI ON

VELASCO, JR., J .:


Every circumstance favoring the accuseds innocence must be duly taken
into account. The proof against the accused must survive the test of reason.
Strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must
be satisfied that on the accused could be laid the responsibility for the offense
charged. If the prosecution fails to discharge the burden, then it is not only the
accuseds right to be freed; it is, even more, the courts constitutional duty to
acquit him.

This treats of the Motion for Reconsideration of Our Resolution dated
August 25, 2010, affirming the July 20, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 30907 entitled People of the Philippines v. SPO2
Lolito T. Nacnac. The CA affirmed the May 23, 2007 Judgment in Criminal Case
No. 10750-14 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14 in Laoag City, which
convicted petitioner of homicide.
The Facts

An Information charged the accused as follows:


That on or about February 20, 2003, in Dingras, Ilocos Norte, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused SPO2 Lolito I. Nacnac, a public
officer, being then a member of the Philippine National Police, assigned with the
Dingras Police Station, Dingras, Ilocos Norte, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, shoot one SPO1 Doddie Espejo
with a gun resulting into the latters death.


A reverse trial ensued upon the claim of self-defense by the accused. As
summarized by CA, the shooting incident happened as follows:

The victim, SPO1 Doddie Espejo[,] had a history of violent aggression and
drunkenness. He once attacked a former superior, P/Insp. Laurel Gayya, for no
apparent reason. On the day of his death, he visited a cock house for merriment.
He was shot by accused-appellant [petitioner] on February 20, 2003 at around
10:00 p.m. at the Dingras Police Station, Dingras, Ilocos Norte.

On that fateful night of February 20, 2003, accused-appellant, the victim
and a number of other police officers were on duty. Their shift started at 8:00 in
the morning of the same day, to end at 8:00 the next morning. Accused-appellant,
being the highest ranking officer during the shift, was designated the officer-of-
the-day. Shortly before 10:00 in the evening, the victim, together with then SPO1
Eduardo Basilio, took the patrol tricycle from the station grounds. When accused-
appellant saw this, he stopped the victim and his colleague from using the
tricycle. The victim told accused-appellant that he (the victim) needed it to go to
Laoag City to settle a previous disagreement with a security of a local bar.

Accused-appellant still refused. He told the victim that he is needed at the
station and, at any rate, he should stay at the station because he was drunk. This
was not received well by the victim. He told accused-appellant in Ilocano: Iyot ni
inam kapi (Coitus of your mother, cousin!). The victim alighted from the
tricycle. SPO1 Eduardo Basilio did the same, went inside the office, and left the
accused-appellant and the victim alone. The victim took a few steps and drew his
.45 caliber gun which was tucked in a holster on the right side of his chest.
Accused-appellant then fired his M-16 armalite upward as a warning shot.
Undaunted, the victim still drew his gun. Accused-appellant then shot the victim
on the head, which caused the latters instantaneous death. Accused-appellant
later surrendered to the stations Chief of Police.



The RTC Ruling

The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged. The RTC held that
the claim of self-defense by the accused was unavailing due to the absence of
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The dispositive portion of the RTC
Judgment reads:


WHEREFORE, the accused SPO2 Lolito Nacnac is found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. Taking into account the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the Court hereby sentences him to
an indeterminate penalty ranging from EIGHT YEARS of prision mayor as
minimum to FOURTEEN YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum. He is also
ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased (1) P50,000.00 as indemnity for his death,
(2) P100,000.00 as actual damages, (3) P50,000.00 as moral damages, and (4)
P20,000.00 as attorneys fees. Costs against the accused.


The CA Ruling

On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. It held that the
essential and primary element of unlawful aggression was lacking. It gave
credence to the finding of the trial court that no one else saw the victim drawing
his weapon and pointing it at accused Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Lolito T.
Nacnac. The fallo of the CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the
challenged Judgment dated May 23, 2007 in Criminal Case No. 10750-14 is
AFFIRMED IN TOTO.


On August 25, 2010, this Court issued a Resolution, denying Nacnacs
petition for review for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any
reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise
of this Courts appellate jurisdiction.

On October 11, 2010, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this
Courts Resolution dated August 25, 2010. On March 21, 2012, this Court granted
the Motion and reinstated the petition. Petitioner raises the following issues:

1. [Whether the CA erroneously held that] the victims drawing of his handgun or
pointing it at the petitioner is not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression
based on existing jurisprudence.

2. [Whether the CA incorrectly appreciated the photo] showing the victim holding
his handgun in a peculiar manner despite the fact that no expert witness was
presented to testify thereto x x x.

3. [Whether petitioner] has met the second and third requisites of self-defense x x
x.

Petitioner argues that he did not receive a just and fair judgment based on the
following: (1) the trial court did not resort to expert testimony and wrongly
interpreted a photograph; (2) the trial court ignored the evidence proving unlawful
aggression by the victim; (3) the trial court ignored the two gun reports and two
empty shells found at the crime scene which support the claim that petitioner fired
a warning shot; and (4) the trial court failed to appreciate petitioners act of self-
defense. Petitioner also claims that the CA gravely erred in not giving proper
weight and due consideration to the Comment of the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG).

In its Comment dated April 27, 2011, the OSG avers that petitioner is
entitled to an acquittal, or at the very least, not one but two mitigating
circumstances.

Our Ruling

We revisit Our ruling in the instant case.

The Revised Penal Code provides the requisites for a valid self-defense
claim:

ART. 11. Justifying circumstances.The following do not incur any
criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
following circumstances concur:

First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.


Unlawful Aggression

Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element of self-defense. We
explained, Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand
on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if the
other elements are present. It would presuppose an actual, sudden and
unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a personnot a mere
threatening or intimidating attitudebut most importantly, at the time the
defensive action was taken against the aggressor. x x x There is aggression in
contemplation of the law only when the one attacked faces real and immediate
threat to ones life. The peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual,
not just speculative.

As We held:

Even the cocking of a rifle without aiming the firearm at any particular target is
not sufficient to conclude that ones life was in imminent danger. Hence, a threat,
even if made with a weapon, or the belief that a person was about to be attacked,
is not sufficient. It is necessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of
aggression or by some external acts showing the commencement of actual and
material unlawful aggression.

The following exchange showing actual and material unlawful aggression
transpired during the examination of petitioner:

Atty. Lazo: At any rate, when you again prevented them from getting the tricycle
telling them again that they should not get the tricycle, what happened
next?

Accused: When police officer Basilio alighted from the tricycle SPO1 Espejo also
alighted sir.

Q What did Doddie Espejo do when he alighted from the tricycle?

A I saw him hold his firearm tucked on his right waist. (witness
demonstrating by placing his right hand at his right sideways). And he was
left handed, sir.

Q And what happened next?

A When I saw him holding his firearm that was the time I fired a warning
shot, sir.

Q And when you fired [a] warning shot, what happened next?

A He drew his firearm, sir.

Q When he drew his firearm, what did you do?

A When he drew his firearm I shot him [on] his head once, sir.

x x x x

Atty. Cajigal:

Q By the way, what kind of firearm did the victim draw from his waist?

A Cal. 45, sir.

Q What firearm did you use in defending yourself?

A M-16 armalite, sir.

x x x x

Q Alright, you mean to tell the Honorable Court then that at the time that you
pointed or squeezed the trigger of your gun the cal. 45 was already pointed
at you?
A Yes, sir.

Q Did you ever observe if he squeezed the trigger but the gun [was] already
pointed at you?

A He just pointed his firearm at me, sir.

Q Who first pointed his firearm, the victim pointed his firearm at you before
you pointed your firearm at him?

A The victim, sir.

Q In short, it was the victim whose gun was first pointed at you?
A Yes, sir.

Q And that was the time when you raised your armalite and also pointed the
same at him is that right?

A Yes, that was the time that I shot him, sir. (Emphasis supplied.)


According to the trial court, petitioners claim that the victim pointed his gun
at petitioner was a mere afterthought. It ruled that petitioners sworn statement and
direct testimony as well as the testimonies of SPO1 Eduardo Basilio and SPO2
Roosevelt Ballesteros only established that the victim drew his gun. The trial court
went on to differentiate the act of drawing a gun and pointing it at a target. It held
that the mere act of drawing a gun cannot be considered unlawful aggression. In
denying petitioners motion for reconsideration, the CA affirmed the trial courts
findings and further held that petitioner had fuller control of his physical and
mental faculties in view of the victims drunken state. It concluded that the
likelihood of the victim committing unlawful aggression in his inebriated state
was very slim.

We disagree. The characterization as a mere afterthought of petitioners
testimony on the presence of unlawful aggression is not supported by the records.

The following circumstances negate a conviction for the killing of the
victim:
(1) The drunken state of the victim;
(2) The victim was also a police officer who was professionally trained at
shooting;
(3) The warning shot fired by petitioner was ignored by the victim;
(4) A lawful order by petitioner was ignored by the victim; and
(5) The victim was known for his combative and drunken behavior.

As testified by the victims companion, SPO1 Basilio, petitioner ordered him
and the victim not to leave because they were on duty. SPO1 Basilio also
confirmed that the victim was inebriated and had uttered invectives in response to
petitioners lawful order.

Ordinarily, as pointed out by the lower court, there is a difference between
the act of drawing ones gun and the act of pointing ones gun at a target. The
former cannot be said to be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. In
People v. Borreros, We ruled that for unlawful aggression to be attendant, there
must be a real danger to life or personal safety. Unlawful aggression requires an
actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely
a threatening or intimidating attitude x x x. Here, the act of the [deceased] of
allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful
aggression. Such act did not put in real peril the life or personal safety of
appellant.

The facts surrounding the instant case must, however, be differentiated from
current jurisprudence on unlawful aggression. The victim here was a trained police
officer. He was inebriated and had disobeyed a lawful order in order to settle a
score with someone using a police vehicle. A warning shot fired by a fellow police
officer, his superior, was left unheeded as he reached for his own firearm and
pointed it at petitioner. Petitioner was, therefore, justified in defending himself
from an inebriated and disobedient colleague. Even if We were to disbelieve the
claim that the victim pointed his firearm at petitioner, there would still be a finding
of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. We quote with approval the
OSGs argument on this point:
A police officer is trained to shoot quickly and accurately. A police officer
cannot earn his badge unless he can prove to his trainors that he can shoot out of
the holster quickly and accurately x x x. Given this factual backdrop, there is
reasonable basis to presume that the appellant indeed felt his life was actually
threatened. Facing an armed police officer like himself, who at that time, was
standing a mere five meters from the appellant, the [latter] knew that he has to be
quick on the draw. It is worth emphasizing that the victim, being a policeman
himself, is presumed to be quick in firing.

Hence, it now becomes reasonably certain that in this specific case, it
would have been fatal for the appellant to have waited for SPO1 Espejo to point
his gun before the appellant fires back.



Reasonable Means Employed

To successfully invoke self-defense, another requisite is that the means
employed by the accused must be reasonably commensurate to the nature and the
extent of the attack sought to be averted.

Supporting petitioners claim of self-defense is the lone gunshot wound
suffered by the victim. The nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused
are constantly and unremittingly considered as important indicia. In People v.
Catbagan, We aptly held:


The means employed by the person invoking self-defense is reasonable if
equivalent to the means of attack used by the original aggressor.

Whether or not
the means of self-defense is reasonable depends upon the nature or quality of the
weapon, the physical condition, the character, the size and other circumstances of
the aggressor; as well as those of the person who invokes self-defense; and also
the place and the occasion of the assault.


In the instant case, the lone wound inflicted on the victim supports the
argument that petitioner feared for his life and only shot the victim to defend
himself. The lone gunshot was a reasonable means chosen by petitioner in
defending himself in view of the proximity of the armed victim, his drunken state,
disobedience of an unlawful order, and failure to stand down despite a warning
shot.



Lack of Sufficient Provocation

The last requisite for self-defense to be appreciated is lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself or herself. As gleaned
from the findings of the trial court, petitioner gave the victim a lawful order and
fired a warning shot before shooting the armed and drunk victim. Absent from the
shooting incident was any evidence on petitioner sufficiently provoking the victim
prior to the shooting.

All told, We are convinced that petitioner was only defending himself on the
night he shot his fellow police officer. The rule is that factual findings of the trial
court and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are
entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule is binding
except where the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any
fact or circumstance of weight and substance. As earlier pointed out, the trial court
did not consider certain facts and circumstances that materially affect the outcome
of the instant case. We must, therefore, acquit petitioner.

Given the peculiar circumstances of this case, We find that the prosecution
was unable to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of petitioner. Even the
OSG shares this view in its Comment appealing for his acquittal.

WHEREFORE, petitioners Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED.
The CA Decision dated July 20, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 30907 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner SPO2 Lolito T. Nacnac is
ACQUITTED of homicide on reasonable doubt.




The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is ordered to immediately RELEASE
petitioner from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause, and to
INFORM this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision of the date
petitioner was actually released from confinement.

SO ORDERED.