Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 96687 July 20, 1994

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
DOMINGO BONGADILLO y SHARON, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellants.

PUNO, J.: P
DOMINGO BONGADILLO was charged with MURDER before the Regional Trial
Court (Branch XVII) 1 of Tabaco, Albay, for hacking to death his stepmother's second
husband, MAXIMINO BUAL. The Information, 2 dated September 22, 1989, reads:
That on or about the 1st day of June, 1989, at more or less 7:00 o'clock in the
morning at Sitio Quinastillohan, Barangay Hacienda, San Miguel, Municipality of
Tabaco, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, treachery, taking advantage of
superior strength and with evident premeditation, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack and hack with a bolo MAXIMINO BUAL Y
BARCELLANO, thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple fatal wounds in the different
parts of his body which caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and
prejudice of the latter's heirs.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon his arraignment on December 4, 1989, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.
Thereafter, trial ensued.
The testimonies of prosecution witnesses, Bonifacio Bongat, Dominga Bustamante,
Asuncion Bustamante Bual, Dr. Audwin Azada, and Vicente Burce, tried to establish
these facts:

On May 31, 1989, BONIFACIO BONGAT, a barber and resident of San Roque,
Tabaco, Albay, visited his nephew, Ernesto Bongat, in Hacienda, San Miguel, Tabaco,
Albay. 3
At around seven o'clock in the morning of June 1, 1989, Bonifacio headed for
Salvacion, Malilipot, Albay, to attend the barrio's feast day, held every first Saturday of
June. After walking for three (3) minutes, he arrived at the beach. From a distance of
approximately fifteen meters, Bonifacio saw the accused, Domingo Bongadillo,
hacking another man with a bolo. However, Bonifacio failed to recognize the victim
who by then was sprawled on the ground. 4 After he had hacked the victim three (3)
times, the accused fled. Bonifacio then boarded a paddled boat and proceeded to
Salvacion, Malilipot, Albay. 5
On June 4, 1989, the feast day celebration of Salvacion, Bonifacio met Dionisio
Bustamante and learned from him that the victim was Maximo Bual, second husband
of Asuncion. Upon Dionisio's request, Bonifacio went to the police station and gave
his sworn statement 6 in relation to the hacking incident.
DOMINGA BUSTAMANTE, sister of Asuncion, testified that at around seven o'clock in
the morning of June 1, 1989, she was in Quinastillohan, Hacienda, San Miguel,
Tabaco, Albay. Unaware of what transpired along the beach, Dominga proceeded to
the house of Maximino Bual to request the latter to help her clear the property of
Freddie Burce. She was stunned upon seeing Maximino Bual in a pool of blood. She
then looked for her sister, Asuncion, and found her husking corn in a farm.
Apparently, prior to the hacking incident, or in the afternoon of May 31, 1989,
Domingo Bongadillo inquired form Dominga if she was aware of the problem involving
his live-in girlfriend, Lory Azurpado, and the victim, Maximino Bual. Dominga denied
any knowledge about it. Unable to contain his emotion, Domingo told her that
Maximino was taking advantage of his girlfriend. Domingo vowed he would kill
Maximino. 7
ASUNCION BUAL, stepmother of the accused and the widow of Maximino, had no
inkling about the incident. She was husking corn when her sister, Dominga
Bustamante, informed her of her husband's tragic fate. Asuncion rushed home and
saw the lifeless body of her husband Maximino, more or less, four meters from their
house.
Asuncion recalled that in the afternoon of May 31, 1989, Domingo, who was standing
some thirty meters from their house, angrily brandished his bolo at Maximino Bual.
Accused threatened: "Magrani ka ta gagadanon taka!" 8(Come near and I will kill you).
She, however, was not aware of the alleged affair between her husband, Maximino, and
her stepson's girlfriend.
After the hacking incident, the barangay captain, Vicente Burce, was summoned at
the scene of the crime. He went to the residence of Domingo, some forty meters from

the place of incident. When he arrived, Domingo was eating boiled camote with his
bare hands. Domingo, at that time, was with a lady companion. Vicente did not pay
attention to Domingo's hands, but he (Vicente) noticed that Domingo was wearing
clean clothes. After informing Domingo that he was suspected of killing Maximino,
Vicente invited Domingo to the police station to avoid any untoward incident.
The victim was examined by Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Audwin C. Adaza. It was
revealed that the victim sustained fourteen (14) hack wounds and died due to
"Hypovolemic/Neurogenic Shock secondary to Multiple Hacked Wounds with Cervical
Transaction." 9
The evidence for the defense consisted mainly of the testimony of accused-appellant
Domingo Bongadillo.
Accused-appellant admitted that, on May 28, 1989, his girlfriend, Lory, and his "Papay
Imo" (Maximino), told him of Maximino's intention to take Lory with him to Cabasan.
Domingo claimed he was not jealous of Maximino, albeit Lory had been his live-in
partner for four (4) months. Neither was he offended by Maximino's proposition which,
he averred, was told to him in jest. Domingo averred that before he and Lory lived
together, they had agreed that each of them could freely enter into other relationships.
A day before the incident, or at around eleven o'clock in the morning of May 31, 1989,
Domingo allegedly gathered gravel and rocks. He loaded the rocks he collected in a
vehicle. As he was loading a rock, he slipped. The rocks fell. His hands were pinned
and injured in the process.
He complained that he was feverish due to his swollen hands. At the time the
barangay captain, Vicente Burce, came to his house and brought him to the Tabaco
police station, he had a fever. With both of his hands injured, accused-appellant
claimed it was not possible for him to hack the victim to death.
Two (2) witnesses, P/Cpl. Reynaldo Borromeo and Patrolman Eduardo Boridor,
Municipal Warden and Jail Guard, respectively, affirmed that accused was holding his
left hand with his right hand when the latter was brought in to the police station. Later,
accused was brought to the Rural Health Unit where he was given antibiotics for his
injured hands.
After trial, DOMINGO BONGADILLO was found guilty of MURDER with the
qualifying/aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength. He was meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify
the heirs of the victim, Maximino Bual y Barcellano, the sum of thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000.00). 10
Feeling aggrieved, Domingo Bongadillo appealed. He raises these errors:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCONSISTENT,

CONTRADICTORY, AND IMPROBABLE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION
WITNESSES DOMINGA BUSTAMANTE, BONIFACIO BONGAT AND ASUNCION
BUAL.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT TO THE ACCUSED'
DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND DENIAL, IT BEING IMPROBABLE FOR HIM TO COMMIT
THE CRIME CHARGED BECAUSE HIS HANDS WERE BADLY INJURED BY
REASON OF AN ACCIDENT THAT BEFELL HIM THE DAY BEFORE THE CRIME
INCIDENT.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED GUILTY OF MURDER
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
We affirm the judgment of conviction.
Eyewitness Bonifacio Bongat positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant.
He testified:
FISCAL BOCALBOS:
Q: Mr. Bongat, do you recall where you were on the morning of June
1, 1989 at about 7:00 in the morning?
WITNESS:
A: I was at the Hacienda.
Q: In what particular place at the Hacienda were you?
A: I was at (sic) house of Ernesto Bongat, my nephew.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What time did you stay at the house of your nephew?
A: I was there until 7:00 a.m. when I went to the beach.
Q: To what direction were you going then?
A: I was proceeding to Salvacion, Malilipot, Albay to attend the barrio
fiesta.
Q: Do you recall if there was an accident while you were at said time
and place?

A: Yes, sir, there was.

Q: Will you tell the Honorable Court what was that unusual incident
about?
A: Upon reaching the beach I saw somebody being hacked.
Q: Do you know the man being hacked?
A: I do not know him.
Q: How about the one that was hacking the victim, do you know him?
A: Yes, sir, I know him.
Q: Who was that man?
A: Domingo, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Let us go to the point where this Domingo was hacking a man.
How many times did you see Domingo hack the man?
A: I was not able to count. I just saw him that man.
Q: At least, can you tell us was it once, twice or thrice?
A: I can only estimate 3 times after which I left.
Q: What was the position of the man when he was being hacked by
Domingo?
A: He was already lying flat on the ground.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Up to this time you did not know who was that man who was
hacked?
A: I came to know him later.
Q: Who was that man?
A: He was that certain Maximino.

(TSN, March 16, 1990, pp. 3-7)

Accused-appellant urges that Bonifacio was 100 meters from the scene of the crime.
Considering said distance, not to mention that the eyewitness was, more or less,
sixty-nine years old when he witnessed the hacking incident, he contends that the
eyewitness is not worthy of belief. We are not persuaded.
Bonifacio explicitly stated that he was fifteen meters from the incident. He testified:
Q: How far were you from the alleged incident that you saw?
A: More or less, fifteen (15) meters.
Q: What was the position of the victim and the assailant as far as you
were concerned?
A: They were fronting me.
Q: Who was facing you?
A: The assailant, sir.
Q: And when you arrived at the seashore was that the time he started
hacking?
A: I do not know if it was the start when I reached the shore. But that
was the scene I saw.
(TSN, March 16, 1990, pp. 24-25)
Bonifacio never claimed he was 100 meters from the hacking incident. The distance of
100 meters alluded to by Bonifacio had reference to the distance between the hacking
incident, which was along the beach, and the house of Maximino Bual. Thus, on
cross-examination, Bonifacio said:
ATTY. CANDOLEA:
Q: And where did you see the incident?
A: At the seashore on my right.
Q: Are you very sure the incident happened on the seashore?
A: Yes, sir, along the beach.
Q: Was it far from the house of Maximino Bual?

A: The distance is, I think, one hundred meters.

Q: You mean the distance of the incident which you saw and the
house of Maximino Bual is 100 meters?
A: Yes, sir.
(TSN, March 16, 1990, pp. 18-19).
To be sure, Bonifacio recognized Domingo Bongadillo as the assailant. He knew the
assailant even prior to the hacking incident. As borne by the records, the eyewitness,
despite his age, had satisfactorily demonstrated before the trial judge, that he could
clearly see from a distance of twenty meters. He testified:
ATTY. CANDOLEA:
Q: We can see whether he can recognize the accused at a distance
of 20 meters. It is for common knowledge that the eyesight of a
person deteriorates as he reaches the age of 70.
FISCAL BOCALBOS:
Q: It is already for the Court to appreciate. (At this juncture, the
defense counsel saw a lineman fixing a light on an electric post and
requested the witness to identify the color of the man's pants and
also if he has a wristwatch or not for which the witness clearly
identified at a distance of, more or less, twenty (20) meters from the
courtroom that the lineman was wearing blue pants and wristwatch.
And that cleared the doubt that the witness who is 70 years of age
has a deteriorating eyesight).
(TSN, March 16, 1990, pp. 30-31).
Accused-appellant tried to destroy the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, citing
inconsistencies on their testimonies apropos the place where the victim was hacked,
as testified to by Bonifacio, and the place where the victim was later found by
witnesses Asuncion Bual and Dominga Bustamante.
The cited inconsistencies in the answers of the prosecution witnesses, specifically, as
to the location of the victim, as seen by the eyewitness Bonifacio, on the one hand,
and the place where the victim was found by Dominga and Asuncion Bual, on the
other hand, do not destroy the witnesses' credibility but even enhance their
truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. 11 What tilts the
balance against the accused-appellant is the fact that Bonifacio had seen him in the act of
hacking the victim to death. It is settled that findings of the trial court pertaining to the
credibility of witnesses deserve great respect since it had the opportunity to examine their

demeanor as they testify on the witness stand, and therefore, it could discern if such
witnesses were telling the truth or not. 12

We note, further, that the hacking incident occurred at around seven o'clock in the
morning. It is a rule that: "Where conditions of visibility are favorable, and the witness
does not appear to be biased, his assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should
be normally accepted." 13
Accused-appellant assails the failure of Bonifacio to immediately inform the police
authorities, or at the very least, Asuncion Bual, of the hacking incident. He contends
that the indifference displayed by said witness was contrary to human nature. We
disagree.
The initial reluctance of a witness to volunteer information about a criminal case is
common and has been recognized as not affecting the credibility of a witness. 14
The accused-appellant anchors his defense on denial and alibi. The defense of alibi
cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by an eyewitness who
had no improper motive to falsely testify. 15 In the case at bench, there was no evidence
indicating that Bonifacio Bongat was moved by improper motive to falsely testify against
Domingo. His testimony should, therefore, be given full faith and credence. 16
We have examined the evidence of accused-appellant. He claims he was not slighted
by the illicit affair between his girlfriend and the victim. We find it preposterous that,
after he had learned of the said affair, accused-appellant would just take it lightly,
particularly, in this case, since the victim was the second husband of Domingo's
stepmother. Quite obviously, accused-appellant is trying to convince this Court that he
had no motive to kill the victim. The effort is futile for motive is essential only when
there is doubt as to the identity of the assailants, but not when the accused had been
positively identified. 17
Accused-appellant's uncorroborated allegation, that his hands were badly injured prior
to the hacking incident, was unsubstantiated. Other than his say so, there was no
medical record or evidence presented to prove that, assuming he did injure his hands,
the injury was so severe that it would be impossible for him to hack the victim to
death. His story is of doubtful veracity and cannot overcome the positive declaration
of the eyewitness pointing to him as the killer.
The trial court found that the killing was attended by two (2) aggravating
circumstances, viz: evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength.
Before evident premeditation can be appreciated against the accused, these
requisites must first be established: (1) the time when the offender determined to
commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his
determination; and (3) the sufficient lapse of time between the determination to

commit the crime and the execution thereof, to allow the offender to reflect upon the
consequences of his act. 18
We agree that the killing of Maximino Bual was attended by evident premeditation as
shown by these circumstances:
On May 28, 1989, accused-appellant was personally notified by Maximino Bual of his
intention to take with him the former's live-in girlfriend to Cabasan. Three (3) days
later, accused-appellant asked Dominga Bustamante about the illicit affair between his
girlfriend and Maximino. He revealed he would not stop until he had killed Maximino.
His anger still unspent, accused-appellant went to the residence of Maximino. On May
31, 1989, Domingo brandished his bolo and warned Maximino that he would kill him.
Finally, on June 1, 1989, accused-appellant was seen hacking Maximino with his bolo.
We agree with the trial court ruling that the killing was attended by abuse of superior
strength. "The circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size
and strength of the parties. It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of
forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of
(by) him in the commission of the crime." 19 As found by the trial court, accusedappellant was a young, robust and healthy thirty-three (33) year-old man, whereas, the
victim was a sixty-three (63) year-old man. The wide age gap between the victim and the
assailant who was armed with a bolo supports the finding of the trial court that there was
an abuse of superior strength in the commission of the offense.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the trial court decision, finding
DOMINGO BONGADILLO y SHARON guilty beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER,
and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. In line with the prevailing jurisprudence, the
civil indemnity is increased from thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) to fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00). 20 Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Mendoza, JJ, concur.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Baguio
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 102140 April 22, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROLANDO MANLULU AND DANTE SAMSON, accused-appellants.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Celso P. De Las Alas for accused-appellants.

BELLOSILLO, J.:
GERARDO ALFARO, a NARCOM agent, was stabbed and shot with his service pistol
in a drinking spree. He died in the hospital the following day. His drinking partners,
Rolando Manlulu and Dante Samson, were haled to court for his violent death.
The prosecution charges that Manlulu and Samson conspired in the murder of Agent
Alfaro. The accused on the other hand invoke self-defense. They also insist that the
non-issuance of a search warrant and warrant of arrest should nullify their arrest and
consequently exclude from judicial consideration the evidence thus obtained.

But the trial court was not convinced. It found accused Dante Samson and Rolando
Manlulu "guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals in the crime of Murder defined
and penalized under Article 248 of The Revised Penal Code with the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender on the part of Dante Samson and no mitigating
circumstance modifying the commission of the offense on the part of Rolando
Manlulu." 1 As a result, accused Dante Samson was sentenced to a prison term of ten
(10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4)
months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, while accused Rolando
Manlulu, to twelve (12) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal,
as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
perpetua as maximum. They were also sentenced jointly to indemnify the offended party
P30,000.00 as compensatory damages and P10,410.00 for hospitalization and funeral
expenses, and to pay the costs.
Upon review, the appellate court raised their penalties to reclusion perpetua and
certified the case to this Court pursuant to Sec. 13, Rule 124, of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure. 2
Testifying for the prosecution, Wally Manlapaz, a.k.a. Crisanto Meneses, narrated that
at around ten o'clock in the evening of 29 May 1986, he and accused Dante Samson
and Rolando Manlulu were having a drinking spree in an alley along Quirino Avenue,
Paco, Manila. They were later joined by Agent Gerardo Alfaro who had a .45 cal. pistol
tucked to his waist. When Alfaro arrived he blurted out, "Dito may kumakatalo sa
aking tao." 3 At twelve o'clock midnight, the group transferred in front of the house of
Manlapaz and continued to drink. There Samson suddenly stabbed Alfaro in the chest with
a 6-inch double-bladed knife while boasting, "Dapat sa iyo manahimik na." 4 Alfaro at this
time was "somewhat bent because he was already drunk." 5 Manlulu then followed suit
and stabbed Alfaro in the abdomen several times with an ice pick they used to chip ice.
Samson grabbed the .45 cal. service pistol of Alfaro and shot him in the neck. When Alfaro
slumped on the pavement, both accused fled, with Samson holding Alfaro's handgun. After
a few seconds, both accused returned and got Alfaro's wristwatch and wallet. 6
Noel Pagco, another witness for the prosecution, recounted that at the time of the
shooting he was outside the alley where the accused and the deceased were
drinking. After hearing a gunshot coming from the direction of the alley, he saw Dante
Samson and Rolando Manlulu coming out the alley, the former tucking a gun in his
waist and sporting a watch on his right wrist, and the latter holding an ice pick. 7
As already adverted to, both accused invoke self- defense. According to Samson,
while they were drinking, and after taking ekis pinoy, 8 Alfaro said he had a "prospect"
and invited them to go with him. Thinking that "prospect" meant they were going to rob
somebody, Samson excused himself by saying that he had just been released from prison,
and had yet to fetch his wife. Alfaro, apparently resenting Samson's unwillingness to join
them, drew his gun and pointed it to Samson who parried it saying: "Pare, wala tayong
biruan ng ganyan. Baka pumutok iyan." But Alfaro repeatedly pointed the gun to him.
Every time he did, Samson would push the gun aside. Fearful that it might go off, he held
the gun and tried to ward it off, resulting in a struggle for its possession. He got hold of the

ice pick on top of the drum and stabbed Alfaro instinctively. Manlapaz tried to separate
them; as a consequence, Samson dropped the ice pick. As Samson and Alfaro continued
to wrestle for the possession of the gun, they fell on the ground and the gun accidentally
went off hitting Alfaro in the neck. Rattled, Samson immediately fled. He then fetched his
wife from Malate, proceeded to Pasay City, and sent word to his father who later
accompanied him to surrender to Capt. Pring of the Homicide Division of the Western
Police District. When he fled, he left behind Alfaro's gun. 9

Rolando Manlulu corroborated the testimony of his co-accused. He added that he

picked up the ice pick when it fell, and fearing that he might be the next victim should
Alfaro succeed in shooting Samson, he (Manlulu) stabbed Alfaro several times with
the ice pick, then dropped it, and ran away. He looked back and saw Samson and
Alfaro fall on the pavement. Almost simultaneously, the gun went off. 10
Patrolman Reynaldo Perez recounted that at around seven o'clock in the evening of
30 May 1986 he, together with some other officers, arrested Manlulu on the
information given by Manlapaz. He said that he seized from Manlulu the .45 cal. pistol
and Casio wristwatch said to belong to Alfaro, 11 and that Manlulu verbally confessed to
the commission of the crime. Patrolman Perez however admitted on cross- examination
that when he arrested Manlulu and seized from him the handgun as well as the
wristwatch, he (Perez) was not with any warrant nor did he inform the accused of the
latter's right to counsel. Perez added that at that time Manlulu was under the influence of
liquor. 12
Dr. Marcial Ceido, Medico-Legal Officer of the Western Police District, confirmed that
Alfaro sustained nine (9) wounds, four (4) of them fatal, i.e., a gunshot wound in the
neck; a penetrating stab wound probably caused by a bladed weapon, and two (2)
stab wounds probably caused by an ice pick. 13
In this appeal, accused Manlulu and Samson would want us to believe, first, in their
version of the incident, and next, that they acted in self-defense.
The account of the appellants does not inspire belief. A review of the testimony of
Manlapaz, who admittedly had drunk a little too much, reveals that his story tallies not
only with some accounts of accused Samson and Manlulu but also with the findings of
Dr. Ceido. Hence, except for the actual attack on the victim, the testimonies of
Samson and Manlulu square with that of Manlapaz, including the conversation that
took place. Thus we give credence to the testimony of Manlapaz that Samson used a
bladed weapon and not an ice pick in stabbing Alfaro, contrary to what Samson would
want us to believe. This version of Manlapaz is consistent with the necropsy report of
Dr. Ceido which states that the deceased had a penetrating stab wound which could
have been caused by a bladed weapon. That Manlulu according to Manlapaz used an
ice pick in repeatedly stabbing Alfaro was not only admitted by Manlulu on the witness
stand but is confirmed likewise by the medical findings of Dr. Ceido.
If Manlapaz was indeed too drunk to recall the events that transpired before the actual
killing, then in all probability he could not have remembered the weapons used by the

accused. Certainly, eyewitness Manlapaz could not have been so drunk as to muddle
those incidents which impute guilt to the accused and recall only those which are
consistent with their innocence.
Similarly, we cannot disregard those portions of the testimonies of the two accused
which tend to confirm the narration of Manlapaz. Expectedly, the accused will refute
the statements tending to establish their culpability. Hence, they have to differ in some
respects from the narration of Manlapaz. Since it appears from the testimony of
Manlapaz that he had not yet reached that degree of intoxication where he would
have otherwise lost control of his mental faculties, we find his version to be credible
as it conforms with the autopsy report and admissions of both accused. 14 Thus, we
sustain the factual findings of the trial court and reject the version of the defense. But,
even if we consider the theory of the accused thus far if only to satisfy them, still they
cannot elude the consequences of their felonious acts. By invoking self-defense, the
accused admit killing Alfaro. The burden of proof is thus shifted to them. Their duty now is
to establish by clear and convincing evidence the lawful justification for the killing. 15 In this
regard, they have miserably failed.
The three (3) requisites for self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and, (3)
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 16 For selfdefense to prosper, it must be positively shown that there was a previous unlawful and
unprovoked attack that placed the life of the accused in danger which forced him to inflict
more or less severe wounds upon his assailant, employing therefore reasonable means to
resist said attack. 17
Here, at the outset, the two accused have already failed to show that there was
unlawful aggression on the part of Alfaro. A gun aimed at the accused, without more,
is insufficient to prove unlawful aggression. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated
in self-defense, there must be an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent
danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. 18
Even the means employed to repel or prevent the supposed attack was not
reasonable. For, even if we disregard the gunshot wound which Samson claims to
have resulted from an accidental firing, the victim also suffered seven other stab
wounds, three of which were fatal, one of which was admittedly inflicted by Samson,
while the other two, by accused Manlulu. Definitely, it was not necessary to stab, more
so repeatedly, the victim. Considering their relative positions as they drank - each
within the other's reach all that was necessary was for the two accused to band
together and overpower the lone victim with their bare hands, assuming the deceased
was indeed pointing his gun at one of them. A stab wound may not necessarily be
fatal and thus enable the victim to fire his gun. But a firm grasp by the two accused of
the victim's arm holding the gun, or of the gun itself, could prevent the victim from
shooting them. At any rate, the number of wounds suffered by Alfaro indicates a
determined effort of both accused to kill the victim, which negates self- defense. 19

Furthermore, their flight from the scene of the crime is a strong indication of their
guilt. 20 Indeed, a righteous individual will not cower in fear and unabashedly admit the
killing at the earliest opportunity if he were morally justified in so doing. A belated plea
suggests that it is false and only an afterthought made as a last ditch effort to avoid the
consequences of the
crime. 21 If the accused honestly believed that their acts constituted self-defense against
the unlawful aggression of the victim, they should have reported the incident to the police,
instead of escaping and avoiding the authorities until they were either arrested or
prevailed upon to surrender. 22
The reliance of the accused on the Constitution however is warranted. Certainly, the
police authorities should have first obtained a warrant for the arrest of accused
Rolando Manlulu, and for the search and seizure of his personal effects. The killing
took place at one o'clock in the morning. The arrest and the consequent search and
seizure came at around seven o'clock that evening, some nineteen hours later. This
instance cannot come within the purview of a valid warrantless arrest. Paragraph (b),
Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the arresting
officer must have "personal knowledge" of an offense which "has in fact just been
committed." In the instant case, neither did Pat. Perez have "personal knowledge,"
nor was the offense "in fact just been committed." While Pat. Perez may have
personally gathered the information which led to the arrest of Manlulu, that is not
enough. The law requires "personal knowledge." Obviously, "personal gathering of
information" is different from "personal knowledge." The rule requires that the arrest
immediately follows the commission of the offense, not some nineteen hours later.
This is not any different from People v. Cendana 23where the accused was arrested one
day after the killing of the victim, and only on the basis of information obtained by the
police officers. There we said that the "circumstances clearly belie a lawful warrantless
arrest."
However, the flaw, fatal as it may be, becomes moot in view of the eyewitness
account of Manlapaz which we find to be credible. Hence, in spite of the nullification of
the arrest of accused Manlulu, and the exclusion of real evidence, i.e., the .45 cal.
service pistol of Agent Alfaro and his Casio wristwatch, as well as his extra-judicial
confession which was taken in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, still the
prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. After
all, the illegality of the warrantless arrest cannot deprive the state of its right to
prosecute the guilty when all other facts on record point to their culpability. 24
While we confirm the factual findings of the trial court, which were affirmed by the
appellate court, we nevertheless differ from the conclusions drawn that treachery and
conspiracy attended the killing of Alfaro. Indeed, there is serious doubt as to whether
treachery could be appreciated against the two accused. There is nothing on record to
show that both accused deliberately employed means tending to insure the killing of
Alfaro without risk to themselves arising from the defense which the latter might make.
It must be noted that Alfaro set the mood of the evening with a threatening tone that
someone in the group was provoking him. Clearly, the attack on Alfaro who was then
armed with a .45 cal. revolver by Samson who on the other hand was merely armed

with a knife could not have been so sudden as to catch the former off-guard. In fact,
Manlapaz testified that after Samson's initial attack on Alfaro the latter was even able
to push Samson back. 25 Even Manlulu, who impulsively stabbed the victim, only picked
up the ice pick they were using to chip ice. Taking into account the attendant
circumstances, our minds cannot rest easy in appreciating the aggravating circumstance
of treachery. Hence, the two accused may only be convicted of simple homicide.
There was no conspiracy likewise in the killing of Alfaro. Settled is the rule that neither
joint nor simultaneous action per se is a sufficient indicium of conspiracy. 26 The
evidence shows that it was the victim who chanced upon Manlapaz and the two accused
drinking, and decided to join them. Accused Manlulu was not even armed when he went to
the drinking spree. We have often said that conspiracy must be established beyond
reasonable doubt. Here, the prosecution failed to show that Manlulu and Samson
conspired to kill Alfaro. There being no conspiracy, each is liable for his own acts.
The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal 27 the range of which is twelve (12) years
and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to
accused Rolando Manlulu, there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the
maximum of his penalty shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal,
which is fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years
and four (4) months, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in
degree, which is prision mayor, the range of which is six (6) years and one (1) day to
twelve (12) years, in any of its periods.
As regards accused Dante Samson, although he is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender, the same is offset by reiteracion or habituality he
having previously been convicted once of robbery and thrice of theft 28 within ten (10)
years prior to this incident, each time serving sentence therefor, which further bars him
from availing of the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 29 Consequently, he
should be sentenced to reclusion temporalmedium the range of which is fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.
Furthermore, being a habitual delinquent as defined in the last paragraph of Art. 62 of The
Revised Penal Code, 30he should serve an additional penalty within the range of prision
mayor maximum to reclusion temporal minimum. 31 And, as correctly determined by the
appellate court, the civil liability of both accused is increased from P30,000.00 to
P50,000.00. In addition, both accused are liable to indemnify the heirs of their victim in the
amount of P10,410.00 for hospitalization and funeral expenses.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified as follows:
(a) ROLANDO MANLULU is found guilty of HOMICIDE and is sentenced to an
indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision
mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day
of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum;
(b) DANTE SAMSON is found guilty of HOMICIDE and is sentenced to a straight
prison term of fourteen (14) years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion

temporal medium and, for being a habitual delinquent, is ordered to serve an

additional penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum; and
(c) ROLANDO MANLULU and DANTE SAMSON are directed jointly and severally to
pay the heirs of Gerardo Alfaro the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and
P10,410.00 as death and funeral expenses, with costs.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, Davide, Jr., Quiason and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

[G.R. No. 118335-36. June 19, 1997]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROSELLER

ALAS alias Bagong and MANUEL APORBO, accusedappellants.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:

In affirming the conviction of appellants, this Court reiterates

some well-entrenched doctrines: (1) the issue of credibility of
witnesses is best left to the discretion of the trial court; and (2) the
elements of conspiracy, like those of the crime charged, must be
established beyond reasonable doubt.
In six consolidated criminal cases filed before the Regional
Trial Court of Tandag, Surigao del Sur, Appellants Roseller Alas
alias Bagong and Manuel Aporbo and Accused Santiago Isiang
[1]

alias Titi and Rene Requierme were charged with multiple counts
of murder. In Criminal Case Nos. 2052 and 2053, Appellants Alas
and Aporbo were indicted for the killing of Spouses Fidel and
Andresa Lagura; whereas in Criminal Case Nos. 2056, 2057, 2058
and 2059, Appellant Alas and Accused Isiang and Requierme were
charged with the killing of Spouses Luciano and Maria Isiang,
Susito Pajo Jasmin and Danny Malubay. This appeal, however,
refers only to Criminal Case Nos. 2052 and 2053 where the two
appellants were convicted of two counts of murder for which they
were each sentenced to two terms of reclusion perpetua.
In Criminal Case No. 2052, Appellants Alas and Aporbo were
charged with murder allegedly committed as follows:
[2]

That on the 30th day of April, 1992, at about 10:00 o clock in the
evening, more or less, at Barangay Manlico, Cortes, Surigao del Sur,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused armed with a small bolo, locally known as
Sundangay, and a piece of stick with sharpened arrow, locally known as
Bidyo, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another,
with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, did, then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and stab one
Fidel Lagura, hitting and inflicting upon the latter, stab wound(s) on the
different parts of his body to wit:
- Stabbed (sic) wound at the back, 3 inches in lenght (sic), penetrating
posterior chest cavity directed downwards and medially at SupraClavicular area right;
- Stabbed (sic) wound at the back, one inch in lenght (sic) bone deep with
chip fracture of the tip scapula right;
- Incised wound 1.5 inches in lenght (sic), subcutaneous depth over the left
knee;
- Two parallel stabbed (sic) wounds, one inch in lenght (sic) below the left
nipple penetrating the anterior chest wall;

- Multiple incised wounds (5 Sites) 1 inch in lenght (sic), subcutaneous

depth below the left nipple;
- Stabbed (sic) wound 1 inch in lenght (sic) penetrating; anterior axillary
line at the level of the 6-7th ICS left;
- Incised wound: 1 inch in lenght (sic) subcutaneous depth; nedial (sic)
aspect left arm.
which wounds or injuries have caused the instantaneous death of said Fedil (sic)
Lagura, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs in the following amounts:
P50,000.00 - as life indemnity to the victim;
P10,000.00 - as moral damages;
P10,000.00 - as exemplary damages.
In Criminal Case No. 2053, the two appellants were likewise
charged with murder, thus:
[3]

That on the 30th day of April 1992, at about 10:00 o clock in the
evening, more or less, at Barangay Manlico, Cortes, Surigao del Sur,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, armed with small bolo, locally known as
Sundangay, and (a) piece of stick with sharpened arrow, locally known
as Bidyo, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another,
with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, did, then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and stab one
Andresa Lagura, hitting and inflicting upon the latter, stab wounds on the
different parts of her body to wit:
-

Incised wound 1.5 inches in lenght (sic), subcutaneous depth deltoid

area right;

Incised wound at the head occipital area 3 inches in length with chip
fracture of the skull;

Multiple incised wounds around right arm (7 Sites) 1 inch in length

subcutaneous depth;

Multiple incised wounds (5 Sites) around left arm subcutaneous depth 1

inch in length;

Superficial incised wounds 2 inches in length (R) elbow;

Stabbed (sic) wound, 6 inches in length; approcimately (sic) at the level

of the 10- 11th ICS penetrating the posterior chest wall;

2 parallel stabbed (sic) wound 1 inch in length underneath the above

described wound penetrating;

Stabbed (sic) wound 1 inch in length muscle deep axillary area left;

Multiple stabbed wounds (7 sites) 1 to 1.5 inches in length sporadically

located at the back;

2 parallel stabbed (sic) wounds 1 inch in length underneath the nipple

left penetrating;

One punctured wound outer lower quadrant (L) breast;

Multiple incised wounds (10 Sites 1 to 1.5 inches in length,

subcutaneous depth anterior chest wall

which wounds or injuries have caused the instantaneous death of said Andresa
Lagura, to the damage and prejudice of her heirs in the following amounts:
P50,000.00 - as life indemnity of the victim;
10,000.00 - as moral damages;
10,000.00 - as exemplary damage(s).
Only Appellants Alas and Aporbo were arrested. The other
accused remained at large. Appellant Alas, duly assisted by
counsel, was arraigned in all six cases filed against him; in each of

them, he pleaded not guilty. Appellant Aporbo, assisted by the

same counsel, was also arraigned in Criminal Case Nos. 2052 and
2053 and he likewise pleaded not guilty in each case. Joint trial of
the six criminal cases ensued.
[4]

[5]

On September 12, 1994, the trial court rendered its Decision

finding Appellants Alas and Aporbo guilty of killing Spouses Lagura
in Criminal Case Nos. 2052 and 2053 but exonerating Appellant
Alas in the four other criminal cases. The dispositive portion of the
Decision reads:
[6]

WHEREFORE, finding both accused Roseller Alas y Arasan alias

Bagong and Manuel Aporbo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two
separate offenses of Murder in Criminal Case(s) Nos. 2052 and 2053, and
there being no modifying circumstance which attended the commission of
said offenses, the Court hereby sentences each of them to suffer two
separate penalties of Reclusion Perpetua, to jointly and severally pay the
heirs of the deceased-victims, the spouses Fidel and Andresa Lagura, the
sum of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as life indemnity,
and Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos as moral damages, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the cost.
Being detained, both Accused are credited in the service of their
respective sentences with the full term of their preventive imprisonment
if they agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
on convicted prisoners, otherwise four-fifths (4/5) thereof.
On ground of reasonable doubt, Accused Roseller Alas y Arasan alias
Bagong is acquitted in Criminal Case Nos. 2056, 2057, 2058 and
2059. He is also absolved from civil liability. Let the respective records
of said cases be archived to be retrieved upon arrest of either accused
Santiago Isiang alias Titi or Rene Requirme (sic).
Hence, this appeal.
The Facts

Version of the Prosecution

The trial court discussed the facts presented by the
prosecution as follows:
[7]

In Crim. Case Nos. 2052 and 2053, prosecutions evidence shows that in
the evening of April 30, 1992, at about 10:00 o clock, the spouses Fidel
Lagura and Andresa Lagura, residents of Barangay Manlico, Cortes,
Surigao del Sur, were on their way home. They came from the novena in
the house of Santos Polinar, their neighbor who just passed
away. Following them were prosecution witnesses Esterlito Laquinta and
Vicente Guiduvia (sic), who also attended the novena and were likewise
on their way home. As the Laguras were about to enter their house,
accused Roseller Alas and Manuel Aporbo, who had waited for them
from behind a coconut tree near their house, suddenly sprang up and
stabbed them many times until they died on the spot. Early in the
following morning Esterlito Laquinta and Vicente Guiduvia (sic)
informed the deceased-victims eldest son Danny Lagura of what
happened to his parents. They also reported the incident to Barangay
Captain Teodoro Bibat of Manlico.
As for the motive of the killing, Laquinta and Guiduvia (sic) testified that
the two Accused were paid P6,000.00 by Soyna Villapae, who suspected
the deceased-victims of having practiced witchcraft (gibarang) on
her. Both Accused allegedly admitted this fact before the policeman who
investigated them in the presence of Guiduvia (sic).
Version of the Accused
Appellants Alas and Aporbo interposed the defense of
alibi. The trial court narrated the circumstances of the defense,
thus:
[8]

x x x. And on April 30, 1992 (the date of the incident alleged in Crim.
Case Nos. 2052 and 2053), he (Roseller Alas) claimed that he was in
Barangay Caromata, San Miguel, Surigao del Sur, in the company of
Anastacio Bulilan, the Owner of the furniture shop in Tandag, where he

was working as (a) helper. They left for Caromata in the afternoon of
April 29, 1992 and went back to Tandag on May 1, 1992. He worked in
the said furniture shop until his arrest on May 3, 1992. He denied
participation in the killing of the spouses Fidel and Andresa Lagura.
He claimed that Esterlito Laquinta had a motive for testifying against
him, because he had a quarrel with him in the first week of April,
1992. He told the following story: He accidentally met Laquinta at the
Barangay Road of Manlico. On seeing him, Laquinta allegedly asked
him: How is the famous NPA? He answered: Fine, but I have already
surrendered. Laquinta then remarked: You have already surrendered
but you have offended me, simultaneously pulling out from his waist a
small bolo and (attempting to) stab him. He avoided the thrust and left
hurriedly. Laquinta shouted at him calling him a coward and warned him
that he (Laquinta) would take revenge.
He denied having executed an affidavit of confession and claimed that the
signature attributed to him in Exhibit I is (sic) not his. He further
denied having confessed to Police Investigator Cesar Morales and of
having written Exhibit A, claiming that his penmanship is (sic) the one
found in Exhibits 1 and 2.
On the other hand, accused Manuel Aporbo, co-accused of Roseller Alas
in Crim. Case Nos. 2052 and 2053, claimed that in the evening of April
30, 1992, he was already in the capital town of Tandag. He left Manlico,
together with Bonifacio Hontanosas, at about 2:30 in the afternoon,
bound for Tandag, arriving there at 4:00 o clock. They passed the night
in Tandag and early the following morning at about 3:15, he left for
Davao City on board the Bachelor Express Bus. He went to Davao to
look for a job, but before he could get one, he was apprehended by the
Police.
He denied involvement in the killing of the spouses Fidel and Andresa
Lagura, with whom neither he nor his parents had any
misunderstanding. Like Roseller Alas, he, too, was not in good terms
with Esterlito Laquinta, as well as, with Vicente Guiduvia (sic), because

he allegedly refused to join their group, which always had (a) drinking
spree.
The Issues
Appellants Alas and Aporbo allege that the following errors
were committed by the trial court:
1. The Court a quo erred in giving credence to the fabricated, conflicting and hearsay
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.[9]
2. The Court a quo erred in holding the accuseds-appellants (sic) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.[10]

The Courts Ruling

The appeal has no merit.
Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses
Appellants argue that the alleged conflicts in the declarations of
Prosecution Witnesses Esterlito Laquinta, Vicente Guidobia and
Police Investigator Cesar Morales show that their story was
fabricated and hearsay. The contradictory testimonies are
allegedly on the following details:
[11]

1. Time when the novena was commenced and the time they went home together
from the novena;[12]
2. On the matter of their distances from the place where the crime took place, the
alleged eyewitnesses also gave different versions, x x x;[13]
3. On the issue of who allegedly hired and paid the accuseds (sic) the amount
of P6,000.00 in order to kill the deceased victims;[14] and
4. On the matter as (sic) to whom they first reported the incident and who reported the
same to the police, the prosecutions alleged eyewitnesses also gave conflicting
versions x x x[15]

We do not agree.

This Court has stated time and again that minor

inconsistencies in the narration of witnesses do not detract from
their essential credibility as long as their testimony on the whole is
coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact
suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been
rehearsed. Witnesses are not expected to remember every single
detail of an incident with perfect or total recall.
[16]

The credibility of Prosecution Eyewitnesses Laquinta and

Guidobia is not diminished by their differing testimonies on the
time when the novena started and ended, the distance of the two
prosecution eyewitnesses from the scene of the incident, the
identity of the person who allegedly induced the appellants to
commit the crime, and the person to whom they reported the
incident. These alleged inconsistencies notwithstanding, the
prosecution witnesses gave on the witness stand an explicit,
straightforward and credible account, in which the appellants were
clearly identified as the perpetrators of the crime. They testified to
having seen Appellant Roseller Alas, with the use of a small bolo
locally called sundangay, stab Fidel Lagura four times -- once at
the back, then thrice at the chest -- after which the victim fell to the
ground. The witnesses also positively narrated that Appellant
Aporbo attacked and stabbed Andresa with the use of a small
spear, otherwise known as bidyo, hitting her first at the right breast,
then at the back and the right shoulder.
[17]

[18]

The inconsistencies as to the time when the novena

commenced and ended -- supposedly indicative of fabrication -are inconsequential. The statements as to the time the witnesses
went home with the deceased spouses were, on the other hand,
not really contradictory. Witness Laquinta testified that they had
gone home at past 10 oclock in the evening; Witness Guidobia
was more precise when he said that the time was 11 oclock in the
evening. Considering that time is not an essential element in the
murder, such inconsistency, if it may be considered so at all, is
insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential matter
[19]

[20]

testified to, that is, the fact that appellants had killed Spouses
Lagura.
[21]

Appellants also assail the variance in the accounts of the

eyewitnesses
regarding
their
distance
from
the locus
criminis. Laquinta allegedly said that he was six (6) meters away,
while Guidobia testified that he was sixty (60) meters from the
crime scene. It bears emphasis that witnesses testifying on the
same event do not have to be consistent in every detail as
differences in recollections, viewpoints or impressions are
inevitable. What matters is whether the eyewitnesses actually
saw the consummation of the killing and positively identified the
appellants as the persons responsible. There was no allegation
that the vision of the eyewitnesses had been obstructed, or that
their distance from the crime scene had effectively impaired their
ability to identify the perpetrators. Normally, where conditions of
visibility are favorable and the witnesses do not appear to be
biased, their assertion as to the identity of the malefactors should
be accepted.
[22]

[23]

[24]

The discrepancies on who induced appellants to kill Spouses

Lagura and to whom the eyewitnesses reported the incident are
insignificant and irrelevant details that do not vitiate the witnesses
account of the killing and, more importantly, their identification of
the killers. It has been ruled that:
It is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with
respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts. And it
has been aptly said that even when witnesses are found to have
deliberately falsified in some material particulars, it is not required that
the whole of their uncorroborated testimony be rejected, but such portions
thereof deemed worthy of belief may be credited. Suffice it to say, in this
connection, that a trial court by reason of its proximate contact with
witnesses, [is] in a more competent position to discriminate between the
true and false....
[25]

In fine, the matter of assigning value to the testimony of

witnesses is best performed by trial courts because, unlike
appellate courts, they can weigh such testimony in the light of the
demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witnesses at the
trial. Unless the court a quo overlooked certain facts of substance
and value which, if considered, might affect the result, the findings
of the trial court must be accorded full respect and credit. After a
thorough review of the law and evidence, we find no such
infraction in the case at bar.
[26]

Alibi as Defense
Appellants defense of alibi fails to overthrow the
straightforward accounts of the credible prosecution eyewitnesses
and their positive identification of the appellants as the
perpetrators of the murder of Spouses Lagura. We agree with this
discussion of the trial court rejecting the defense of alibi:
[27]

As against the positive identification of the two accused as the

Assailants of the deceased spouses Fidel and Andresa Lagura,
their alibi must be, as [it] is hereby, rejected. Easy to concoct, difficult to
contradict and harder still to disprove, the Court has misgivings on this
kind of defense. Besides, considering that at the time of the killings of
the deceased-victims, accused Roseller Alas alleged place of work was a
furniture shop in Tandag, which is an adjacent Municipality to Cortes,
and that accused Manuel Aporbo allegedly left Manlico only in the
afternoon of the incident and was in Tandag when it happened, it was not
at all improbable for the two accused to be in Tandag on the day of the
killings, be in Manlico, Cortes, in the evening to kill the deceasedvictims, and back in Tandag thereafter. For alibi to be given credence, it
must be shown to the satisfaction of the court that the accused was
somewhere else at the time of the commission of the crime that it was
physically impossible for him to be at the scene thereof precisely when it
was committed, and that the evidence of the prosecution on his
identification is weak.
Conspiracy Not Established Beyond Reasonable Doubt

We do not agree however that there was conspiracy between

the two appellants in the killing of the spouses that would have
justified the imposition of two counts of reclusion perpetua on
eachappellant. Well-settled is the rule that conspiracy must be
proved independently and beyond reasonable doubt. There is
conspiracy "when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to. Conspiracy
is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the crime itself,
the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable
doubt. While conspiracy need not be established by direct
evidence, it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused
before, during and after the commission of the crime. All taken
together, however, the evidence therefor must be reasonably
strong enough to show a community of criminal design. Settled is
the rule that to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual
cooperation, rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal
act, is required. The testimony of Witness Esterlito Laquinta was
clear as to how the offense had been committed. There was no
showing that one appellant had cooperated with the other in killing
the spouses. Rather, from the narration of what happened,
Appellant Alas stabbed Fidel Lagura while Appellant Aporbo
assaulted Andresa Lagura -- independently rather than in
concert. There was no proof of assistance lent by one appellant to
the other in performing his assault on his intended victim. Witness
Laquinta testified:
[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

Prosecutor Montenegro:
Q

What was that incident that happened that you saw?

Aporbo and Alas stabbed Fidel Lagura first then Andresa Lagura.

You said that Andresa and Fidel Lagura were stabbed. Who stabbed them?

The one who stabbed Fidel Lagura was Alas.

Are you referring to Roseller Alas the accused in these cases?

Yes, sir.

And you are referring to this alias Bagong as Roseller Alas.

Yes, sir.

You said Andresa Lagura was also stabbed. Who stabbed Andresa Lagura?

Manuel Aporbo.

xxx

xxx
xxx

PROS. MONTENEGRO:
Q

You said Fidel Lagura was stabbed first by Roseller Alas, how many times did
Roseller Alas stab Fidel Lagura?

The first stab was done at the back.

COURT: The question was how many times was the deceased stabbed.
WITNESS:
A

Only once, sir.

PROS. MONTENEGRO:
Q

What did Roseller Alas use in stabbing Fidel Lagura?

Small bolo, sir.

How big was that bolo?

18 centimeters, sir.

You said that Andresa Lagura was stabbed by Manuel Aporbo. What was the
weapon used by Manuel Aporbo in stabbing Andresa Lagura?

An object called bidyo, small sphere (sic) for catching fish.

Where was Fidel Lagura hit when he was stabbed by Roseller Alas alias Bagong?

Fidel Lagura was hit at the back once and in front in the chest, perhaps four when
he fell down already.

How about Andresa Lagura, where was he (sic) hit?

In the right breast then at the back and also at the right shoulder.

At the time when the stabbing incident took place what did you and Vicente
Gedovia (sic) do?

We were hiding in the side because they were bringing (sic) with them bolos.

Although in his testimony he clearly identified the two

appellants as the ones responsible for the killing, Witness
Guidobia was unclear on how the two had allegedly conspired and
cooperated in killing the spouses Lagura. He testified:
[32]

Q Who stabbed or killed (sic) first, Alas or Aporbo?

A

It was Alas first.

How many times did Alas thrust his bolo?

Four times, sir.

How about Aporbo, how many times did he stab or thrust his bolo?

Four times also, sir.

At the time of the stabbing incident, where were you?

We were very near looking at them.

After the stabbing what happened to the spouses Fidel and Andresa Lagura?

They were killed.

It is noteworthy that the prosecution presented no proof that

appellants had hidden together prior to the murder. Neither was
there testimony or evidence on record to the effect that appellants,
in mutual agreement, had simultaneously attacked the
spouses. What was testified to and proven by the prosecution
witnesses was only the actual perpetration of the two killings which
were independent of and separate from each other.
Time and again, the Court has held that conspiracy must be
proven beyond reasonable doubt. The reason is obvious. Under

the law, a conspirator, no matter how minimal his participation in

the crime, is as guilty as the principal perpetrator of the crime. We
find reasonable doubt, however, on the presence of conspiracy;
hence, such doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. As
borne by the records, Appellant Alas killed Fidel by himself, while
Appellant Aporbo was solely responsible for the death of
Andresa. It was not clearly shown whether Alas had assisted
Aporbo, or vice versa, an act that would have warranted a finding
of conspiracy between the two. Mere knowledge, acquiescence or
agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a
conspirator, absent any active participation in the commission of
the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and
purpose.
[33]

[34]

Treachery
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was clearly proven in
this case. Appellants perpetrated the killings during nighttime, and
the victims were completely taken by surprise when appellants
attacked them without warning, rendering them unable to defend
themselves. Further, the number, nature and location of the
wounds inflicted upon the couple are strong indications that
appellants had ensured the success of their effort to kill the
spouses without risk to themselves.
[35]

[36]

Indemnity is awarded in case of death; it is limited, however, to

the sum of P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence. The
award of moral damages in this case is deleted. The rule is that
moral damages may be recovered in criminal offenses resulting in
physical injuries which, incidentally, include death. But there must
be a factual basis for the award of moral damages. We have
carefully studied the records and found that there was none.
[37]

[38]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision

is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellants
Alas
and Aporbo are each found guilty of a single count of murder and
each
is
sentenced
with
the
penalty
of reclusion

perpetua. Appellant Roseller Alas is ordered to pay P50,000.00 to

the heirs of Fidel Lagura as indemnity; and Appellant Manuel
Aporbo, the same amount of P50,000.00 to the heirs of Andresa
Lagura, also as civil indemnity in line with current
jurisprudence. The award of moral damages is deleted for lack of
factual basis. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Davide, Jr., and Melo, JJ., concur.
Francisco, J., On leave.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 110829 April 18, 1997

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MANUEL DIAZ y TULIPAS, EDDIE LUTO y SANIANO and ARNALD ANGQUILO y
CALDERON, accused-appellants.

PUNO, J.:
This is an appeal from the June 14, 1993 Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City (Branch 95), finding accused-appellants Manuel Diaz, Eddie Luto and Arnald
Angquilo guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide.

The Information, 2 to which the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty, reads:

That on or about the 30th day of October, 1992, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with another person
whose true name and identity have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping
one another, with intent to gain and by means of violence and intimidation, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob one FERDINAND FURIGAY y PUA
in the following manner, to wit: on the date arid place aforementioned, accused
pursuant to their conspiracy, with intent to kill entered the office of Ferdinand Furigay
y Pua located at Roosevelt Rice Center at No. 223-E Roosevelt Avenue, Barangay
San Antonio, this City and once inside, armed with handguns, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon
the person of Ferdinand Furigay y Pua by shooting him on the neck, causing injuries
which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, and thereafter, took, robbed
and carried away the latter's one (1) 9mm automatic pistol with Serial No. 008670
worth P42,000.00 and the store days (sic) earnings amounting to P25,000.00 all in
the total amount of P67,000.00, Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of
the said offended party in the total amount of P72,000.00, Philippine Currency.
Evidence for the prosecution established that on October 30, 1992, at about 6:00
p.m., while Ferdinand Furigay was in his office at 223-E Roosevelt Ave., Brgy. San
Antonio, Q.C., and his employees, Melchor Bacani and Conrado Caliguiran, were in
front of the establishment, 3 accused-appellants together with two (2) John Does
came. 4Accused Diaz asked Caliguiran where his boss was. After Caliguiran replied that
his boss was inside the office, Diaz entered the establishment and went to Furigay's office.
Accused Luto, Angquilo and the two (2) John Does posted themselves outside the
establishment. 5
After a short while, a gunshot was heard from Furigay's office. 6 Caliguiran first hid
himself behind the establishment's door after hearing the shot. 7 Caliguiran and Bacani
were unable to enter immediately Furigay's office because Diaz poked his gun at them on
his way out. 8 They also saw a gun tucked in the waist of Diaz, which gun they recognized
as the 9mm automatic pistol of Furigay. 9 Accused-appellants then fled together from the
scene of the crime. 10
When Bacani and Caliguiran were finally able to enter Furigay's office, they saw him
slumped in his chair with bullet wound on his neck. 11 They rushed him to the Chinese
General Hospital. 12 The next day, they reported the incident to the police
authorities. 13 Furigay died on November 13, 1992. His gunshot wound proved fatal. The
bullet injured his vertebrae including his spinal cord. For his hospitalization and funeral, his
family spent P112,118.28. 14
On January 8, 1993, Bacani and Caliguiran were again summoned by the police
authorities to the La Loma police station. They were made to identify the accusedappellants who were earlier apprehended along North Avenue, Quezon City, in front of
Peach Blossoms Restaurant on the basis of a robbery complaint filed by one Atty.

Ronquillo. 15 Recovered from Diaz' possession at the time of the arrest were a pistol with
its magazine and five bullets which upon verification turned out to belong to Furigay. 16
For their part, accused-appellants interposed the defenses of alibi and denial.
Manuel Diaz claimed that from September 15, 1992 to December 20, 1992, he and
his wife were in Catarman, Samar, having been informed by his mother that his father,
Martillano Diaz, was ill. 17 In particular, on October 30, 1992, at about 6:00 p.m., he met
his close friend, NELSON MEGENIO, who even inquired about the condition of his
father.18 His father died on November 3, 1992. 19 A perusal of the death certificate
submitted by Diaz would however show that the deceased was "Martin Oronos" and not
"Martillano Diaz." 20
Contrary to the police version, Diaz declared he was arrested at Onyx corner
Francisco Streets, San Andres Bukid, Manila, on January 5, 1993. 21
Eddie Luto alleged that on October 30, 1992, from about 2:00 p.m. to about 7:30 p.m.,
he was at the house of his business partner, MARCELO ROBINACION, at Sitio
Militar, Project 8, Quezon City. 22 They arranged first the canvass materials they were
going to sell. 23 At about 6:00 p.m., they started drinking gin. 24 This went on until 7:30 p.m.
when his wife, REBECCA LUTO, ferched him. 25 Luto further testified that he was arrested
by the police in the early morning of January 6, 1993 while he was at his residence at Sitio
26 Militar. 26
Arnald Angquilo stated that on October 30, 1992, he was at his place at 1452 Gana
Compound, Balintawak, Q.C., attending to his children and wife, LERMA RIVERA,
who just gave birth to their third child on October 27,
1992. 27 At about 2:00 p.m., he fixed their room with the help of a neighbor, ROMEO
ZABALA. 28 At 5:00 p.m., he took a rest and fed his children. 29 Thereafter, at about 6:30
p.m., he went to his lessor's place upstairs to watch television with Romeo Zabala. 30 It
was about 7:30 p.m. when he finally went down to their room and put his children to
sleep. 31 He said that he was arrested at his residence at about 5:00 a.m. on January 6,
1993. 32
The accused were convicted by the trial court and sentenced, thus:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Manuel Diaz y Tulipas, Eddie Luto y
Saniana, and Arnald Angquilo y Calderon all guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of robbery with homicide charged herein, defined and punished in Art. 294(1)
of the Revised Penal Code, as principals in the commission thereof and, accordingly,
they are hereby sentenced each to suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetua; jointly
and severally to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Ferdinand Furigay in the sum of
P112,118.28 as actual damages and in the further sum of P50,000.00 as death
indemnity; and, to pay the costs proportionately, without prejudice to the application
of Republic Act No. 6127. The return to their lawful owner/s of the subject items of
property marked in evidence as Exhibits E thru G, inclusive, is hereby ordered
subject to applicable licensing and clearance requirements.

In their brief, 33 accused-appellants assigned the following errors:

1. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE, UNRELIABLE
AND UNWORTHY TESTIMONIES OF THE
PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
2. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING
THAT CONSPIRACY WAS PRESENT IN THE
INSTANT CASE AND IN FINDING ALL THE
ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED
DESPITE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE
PPOSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
3. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
IMPRIMATUR TO THE SEARCH, SEIZURE AND
ARREST CONDUCTED ON THE THREE ACCUSED
HEREIN NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT
THESE WERE MADE IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
The appeal is without merit.
Appellants contend that the prosecution has failed to establish their identity and
participation in the crime considering that none of the witnesses for the prosecution
saw the crime. Allegedly, these witnesses were not able to enter the store upon
hearing the gunshot because they were prevented by a man who wore dark
eyeglasses and who poked a gun at them.
The records will show that Bacani and Caliguiran positively identified Diaz, Luto and
Angquilo as the perpetrators of the crime:
MELCHOR BACANI
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q: Now, on such date (October 30, 1992) and time (6:00 p.m.), Mr.
Witness, was there any untoward incident that happened?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was this untoward incident (sic) happened, Mr. Witness?
A: While I was washing the car, I noticed a person enter, sir.

Q: Where did this person enter, Mr. Witness?

A: Inside the store, sir.
Q: Is this person whom you said on such date and time, if he is
present in court, can you identify him? (sic)
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you please look around in (sic) this courtroom and inform this
Honorable Court if this person whom you said you saw entered (sic)
the store of Ferdinand Furigay is inside this courtroom, Mr. Witness?
A: That person is here, sir.
Q: Can you please point out (sic) to this person, Mr. Witness?
A: (witness went down the stand and approached the first row and
pointed to the person of accused Manuel Diaz).
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, what happened after this person whom you
identify (sic) as Manuel Diaz entered the store of Ferdinand Furigay?
A: After a short while, I heard a shot, sir.
Q: From where did you heard (sic) this shot, Mr. Witness?
A: Inside the office of my employer, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And what happened after you heard a shot from the office of your
employer, Mr. Witness?
A: I stopped cleaning the car and I was about to enter the office, sir.
Q: And were you able to enter the office, Mr. Witness?
A: No more, sir.
Q: Why, (sic) were you not able to enter the office of your employer,
Mr. Witness?
A: Because when I was about to enter the office I met that person
(witness pointing to the accused Manuel Diaz) and he poked a gun at
me and I was not able to enter the office anymore, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Now, what happened after that, after he poked his gun at you, Mr.
Witness?
A: They run (sic) away, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, you said that after Manuel Diaz poke (sic) a gun
at you they fled away. To whom are you referring, Mr. Witness, when
you use (sic) the word "they"?
A: The three of them, sir. (witness pointing to the three accused
Manuel Diaz, Eddie Luto, and Arnald Angquilo ). 34
CROSS-EXAMINATION

Q: Mr. Witness, at 6:00 o'clock in the evening of October 30, 1992,

you said you were cleaning the car of Ferdinand Furigay. Is that
correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And for that reason your attention was focused on cleaning the
said car. Is that correct?
A: No, sir.
Q: Aside from cleaning or washing the car of Ferdinand Furigay, what
else were you doing?
A: Nothing more, sir.
Q: You mention (sic) the office of Ferdinand Furigay. Where is it
located inside the store?
A: Near the door, sir.
Q: And his office (sic) seen from the outside when the store is
opened?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx

Q: Aside from the three accused you identified a while ago, were
there other persons inside the store at that time?
A: No other, sir.
Q: Mr. Witness, you mean to say that Mr. Ferdinand Furigay, himself,
is acting as a cashier on (sic) that store?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Was any one of the three accused wearing dark eye glasses?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who?
A: Him, sir. (witness pointing to the person of accused Manuel Diaz).
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Did Ferdinand Furigay have any companion in his house?
A: No one sir, he was alone at that time. 35
CONRADO CALIGUIRAN

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q: On the same date (October 30, 1992) and time (6:00 p.m.), what
were you doing in that store (Roosevelt Rice Center)?
A: I was just sitted (sic) there, guarding, sir.
Q: And did you notice if there was any unusual incident (sic)
happened during that time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was that?
A: There was a man who asked me where my boss was.
Q: And what did you answer him?

A: I said that my boss was inside the office.

Q: Did this person has (sic) any companion?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How many?
A: Five (5), sir.
Q: Can you tell me their location at that time?
A: They were outside the store, one went inside the office in the store
and the last one stayed beside me by the door of the store, sir.
Q: This person who entered the office, can you point it (sic) out if he
is inside the courtroom?
A: Yes, sir. (witness pointing to the person of accused Manuel Diaz).
Q: You said that this person whom you identify (sic) as Manuel Diaz
had other companions, are they also present in the courtroom?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you point them out one by one?
A: Yes, sir. (witness first pointed to the person of accused Eddie Luto,
and then pointed to the person of accused Arnald Angquilo).
Q: You said there were five (5) companions, are the other two
companions inside the courtroom?
A: No, sir.
Q: After the accused Manuel Diaz entered the room of your boss,
what happened next?
A: After a while, I heard a shot coming from the inside of the office,
sir.
Q: What did you do when you heard a shot?
A: I hid myself a little behind the door, sir.
xxx xxx xxx

Q: When you already hid, what happened next?

A: My companion Melchor Bacani entered the store and I went inside
with him.
Q: What happened when you followed Melchor Bacani in going inside
the office?
A: I saw Manuel Diaz holding a gun upraised in his left hand and he
had another gun tucked in his right waist, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Aside from seeing Manuel Diaz holding a gun in his hand and
another tucked in his waist, what happened after that?
A: They already ran away, sir. 36
CROSS-EXAMINATION

Q: Mr. Witness, you identified the three accused in this case. My

question is, was anyone of them wearing a (sic) dark
eyeglasses when you saw them?
A: One of them (sic) wearing a (sic) colored eyeglasses but you can
see thru the lenses they were not really dark glasses. 37
In light of the positive identification by witnesses who have no motive to falsely testify,
accused-appellants' alibis and denials are worthless. 38
Trite too is the jurisprudence that where an accused's alibi is established only by
himself, his relatives and friends, his denial of culpability should be given the strictest
scrutiny. 39 In this case, accused-appellants' alibis are supported by the testimonies of
their wives, 40 close friends 41 and a business partner for two decades. 42 They are
necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the testimonies of the more .credible
witnesses for the prosecution.
Appellants further allege that the prosecution has failed to prove conspiracy among
them. They maintain that evidence merely showed that on October 30, 1992, the
accused-appellants Eddie Luto and Arnald Angquilo were seen standing by the door
of the victim's establishment when the crime was committed. By this conduct alone,
they argue that no conspiracy can be inferred.
We hold otherwise. The finding of conspiracy made by the trial court is well-grounded.
We quote with approval its ratiocination, viz:

. . . as Manuel entered the establishment as well as office of Ferdinand, Eddie and

Arnald stood guard beside the establishment's door, apparently to ensure for Manuel
all the freedom he needed to execute the job, and as soon as it appeared that
Manuel was finished with the job inside, the trio (not to mention their other cohorts)
together and as one fled from the crime scene. 43
It is settled that to hold an accused liable as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he
must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
conspiracy. That evert act may consist of active participation in the actual commission
of the crime or moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of
the commission of the crime. 44 One who participates in the material execution of the
crime by standing guard or lending moral support to the actual perpetrator is criminally
responsible to the same extent as the
latter. 45 Luto and Angquillo were not innocent latter bystanders when the crime at bar was
committed. They were there on purpose. They stood as guards while Diaz robbed and
shot the victim.
Finally, accused-appellants assert that the trial court gravely erred when it admitted in
evidence the gun (Exh. E), five bullets (Exhs. F-F-4) and magazine (Exh. G) taken
from them by the police at the time of their arrest. Allegedly, they were obtained during
a warrantless arrest.
Their objection is too late. The records show that they failed to object to the
admissibility of said evidence during their formal offer. 46 Thus, waived their right against
their admissibility. Amidst a waiver, the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. 47
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Romero, Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.