Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
door of the canteen carrying a .45 caliber pistol who, upon seeing
him (Gapas) fired a shot at him but missed. He chased Ablao who
was running very fast towards the direction of Caliraya mountain.
Failing to catch up with him, he returned to the place of the
shooting and found the deceased Andres Manambit, Sr., lying in
front of the door of the canteen already dead face down. The
deceased had a bullet wound at the right side of the my neck. He
knows Andres Manambit was then the president of the Association
of Barangay Captains of said municipality and as such, was
attending that session of the Sangguniang Bayan. At the time he
heard the first shot, he was only about 1 0 meters away from the
canteen and it was only the accused Mario Ablao whom he saw
come out of the door of the canteen running carrying a .45 caliber
gun immediately after the shooting. He was not able to fire back at
Ablao for fear of hitting other people around. He conducted an
investigation in his capacity as Station Commander and was able to
gather witnesses who pointed to Mario Ablao as the one who had
shot Andres Manambit. He himself executed a written statement
(Exhibit A). On his request, the body was autopsied by Dr. Maximo
Reyes. That same evening he went personally to the then Mayor
Bruno Ablao (the brother of Mario Ablao) and informed him about
his (mayor) brother having shot someone requesting him also to
cause the surrender of his brother. Mayor Ablao replied that he did
not know his brother's whereabouts. The Provincial Commander
also talked to the mayor regarding the apprehension and/or
surrender of Mario Ablao because at that time accused Mario Ablao
was residing in the house of the mayor. A manhunt was conducted
for the arrest of Mario Ablao in Caliraya but produced negative
result. The arresting team was sent to the house of Mayor Ablao to
effect the arrest but they were not able to capture him. He
underneath the left maxilla 8.5 cm. from the anterior median line
and 154 cms from the sole of the left foot.
Hemorrhage, meningeal epidural subdural and suberachnoidal
extensive and generalized.
Heart, covered with moderate amount of adipose tissue and cardiac
chamber containing minimal amount of dark fluid blood.
Other visceral organs are pale and congested.
Stomach, one third (1/3) filled with partly digested and undigested
food materials.
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Hemorrhage, acute, profuse, secondary to gunshot wound of the
head.'
He explained that the cause of death is hemorrhage second to
gunshot wound of the head; that the gunshot wound found on the
body of the deceased was the fatal injury. On the basis of the
location of the wound, the death of the victim was instantaneous.
The gunshot wound, which is situated at the back indicates that the
possible position of the man holding the gun was at the back of the
deceased with an approximate distance of about 24 inches away
from the point of entry. Based on the size of the wound, the caliber
of the gun used was possibly a.45.
ABRAHAM ABAYARI farmer and resident of Lumban, Laguna
testified that on December 16, 1977, he was a barrio captain of Sto.
Nino, Lumban, Laguna; that he was attending the session of the
Sangguniang Bayan of the municipality of Lumban on said date in
V
THE HONORABLE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MENTIONED THE FACT
THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS ALSO ONE OF THE SUSPECTS
TOGETHER WITH OTHERS IN THE ALLEGED MURDER OF THE LATE
JUDGE SOBEJANA AND HIS SON, BECAUSE SAID STATEMENT TENDS
TO CAST UNNECESSARY PREJUDICE AGAINST THE ACCUSED,
SPECIALLY ON APPEAL TO THE HIGHER COURT. (At pp. 47-48, Rollo)
The appellant denies shooting the victim and contends that the gun
he was carrying was given to him by his brother, Mayor Bruno
Ablao, who died during the course of the trial.
This contention is not supported by the evidence.
It is highly improbable under the circumstances of the killing that
the Mayor was the gunman and would have wanted to implicate his
innocent brother in a very serious criminal offense, which was then
punishable by death. We agree with the trial court:
The contention of the accused that the .45 pistol which he brought
to his hiding place was given by Mayor Ablao, a participant in the
session of the Sangguniang Bayan after he heard the first shot, is a
last minute concoction of the defense to explain and to rebut the
prosecution evidence that he was seen running away and in
possession of the possible fatal weapon immediately after the first
shot, the one that finished off Andres Manambit, Sr. It is clear that
accused Mario Ablao was shifting the blame or crime on his coaccused Mayor Ablao who unfortunately is now dead and can no
longer refute his statement. (Rollo, pp. 19-20)
(1) the victim fell very near the place where the appellant statement
stationed himself.
(2) the appellant was the first person seen coming out of the door
running and carrying a .45 pistol after the shooting of the victim.
(3) there was nobody else who could have shot the victim,
especially not the mayor.
(4) the appellant shot at Lt. Gapas upon seeing him.
(5) the appellant ran away from the scene of the crime and
remained in hiding for 2 1/2 years.
(6) the fatal wound was caused by a .45 caliber bullet or slug, similar
to the bullets of the gun carried by the appellant.
(7) from all the people who were present during the killing of the
victim, only the appellant went into hiding.
We agree with the trial court that the combination of all the above
circumstances is such as to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. (See Sec. 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court; People v.
Agan, G.R. 77713, February 6,1990; People v. Asuncion, G.R. No.
83870, November 14, 1989; and People v. Salcedo, G.R. No. 78774,
April 12, 1989)
However, the Court finds that the trial court's conclusion that the
appellant is guilty of murder, the crime charged, is not supported by
the established facts and the law. There is insufficient evidence to
show that treachery or evident premeditation, the qualifying
circumstances alleged in the information, attended the commission
of the crime. While the political vendetta and the more than thirty
killings resulting from the feud are well-known to the Judge who
was handling these cases, the non-presentation of the evidence
attesting to premeditation in this particular case prevents us from
sustaining the charge of murder. To the extent that conspiracy and
the stances raising the crime to murder may not be proved by a
Judge's notice of evidence in other cases, the fourth and fifth
assigned errors are given partial consideration. It is well-settled that
the circumstance that would qualify the crime to murder have to be
proved as indubitably as the crime itself. (People v. Salcedo supra)
The testimony of Dr. Reyes as to the shot in the back of the victim's
head is not conclusive proof that there was treachery. The fact that
the fatal wounds were found at the back of the deceased does not,
by itself, compel a finding of treachery. Such a finding must be
based on some positive proof and not merely by an inference drawn
more or leas logically from hypothetical fact. (People v. Marciales,
166 SCRA 436, 449 [1988]) The facts preceding the actual shooting
are not in the records.
There was also no proof presented to indicate the firearm used was
indeed unlicensed.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J. (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.
EN BANC
G.R. No. 140872
50,000.00
P100,000.00
CONTRARY TO LAW (Viol. of Art. 248, Revised Penal Code), with the
qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.2
Appellant pleaded not guilty when arraigned on January 17, 1997.
Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.
The version of the prosecution, as summed up from the records by
the Office of the Solicitor General, is as follows:
On August 15, 1996, about 8:00 oclock in the morning, Rosemarie
Reinante3 requested her parents-in-laws house helper, Leonisa
Insic,4 to go to her house in Poblacion Katipunan, Zamboanga del
Norte, to do some household chores (p. 3, TSN, July 15, 1997).
Leonisa Insic went to Rosemarie Reinantes house as bidden (p. 8,
TSN, July 8, 1997).
About 1:00 oclock in the afternoon of that day, Leonisa Insic
returned to the house of Rolando Reinante, Sr. where she was
living. She proceeded to the kitchen to take her lunch (p. 10, TSN,
July 15, 1997). While she was eating, Leonisa Insic noticed
somebody buy a bottle of beer from Rolando Reinante, Sr.s store
which was then being tended by Lando Tangga, another
housekeeper of Rolando Reinante, Sr. The store was attached to the
just walking while pushing his ice cream box along the way as he
passed and sold ice cream to children and students in schools at
Brgy. Tambo, Piao, and Nabilid, before reaching the poblacion of
Roxas about 12:00 oclock noon. He took his lunch *in+ the public
market of Roxas, after which he drunk tuba and started back on his
way to Katipunan at about 1:00 oclock as he continued selling his
wares on the same route he took in going to Roxas. It was already
about 4:00 oclock in the afternoon when he arrived *in+ Katipunan.
However, he was not able to reach his house because when he was
at the crossing nearby the cemetery of Katipunan, he was waylaid
by three armed men whose names were unknown to him except
that he could only recognize their faces, and apprehended him. So
he asked the persons who apprehended him what was his fault, but
was told in reply "just [come] with us". Without showing any
resistance, he was brought to the police station of Katipunan. Then
at the police station, the three persons who waylaid him took off his
T-shirt, pants, and shoes. They also took off his brief[s]. Thereafter,
he was detained in jail. While in detention, he was not informed of
his right to counsel and neither was he accorded the assistance of a
lawyer. He was not also informed of his right to remain silent and
that anything he would say or any statement he made may be used
against him.
Exh. "C" - a yellow towel with blood stain allegedly carried by the
accused at the time of the incident;
denied knowing the two witnesses for the prosecution Leonisa Insic
and Lando Tangga. That he did not see all the above-named persons
on August 15, 1996, because on that day, he was at the nearby
town of Roxas selling ice cream.6
The trial court found the evidence for the prosecution credible and
sufficient to convict appellant of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
The decretal portion of its decision reads:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN SENTENCING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT TO DEATH DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO QUALIFYING
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE WAS ATTENDANT.
III
SO ORDERED.7
II
stayed in the mountains until she was 18 years old, she testified in a
candid and straightforward manner worthy of belief. The affidavit
she executed was fully explained to her in the vernacular and she
affirmed that she signed it because she understood it and knew it to
be the truth.17
Witness Lando Tangga corroborated Leonisas testimony. According
to Tangga, he explained to appellant that the bottle of beer was
worth P10.00, so that his change was P40.00 but appellant refused
the change, claiming that it was insufficient. So Tangga then asked
Leonisa Insic to be the one to explain to appellant and return his
change, but to no avail. After sometime, Tangga saw his Manang
Rosemarie arrive. Rosemarie got the money from Leonisa and tried
to give it to appellant. But appellant then rushed towards
Rosemarie to stab her. Tangga testified that appellant delivered the
fatal blow on her stomach.18
No ill motive was imputed or shown against these two witnesses as
to why they would falsely testify against appellant. The mere fact
that Rolando Reinante, Jr., Rosemaries husband, was with them
when they gave their statements at the police station did not taint
their credibility. For the husband of the deceased victim surely
wanted to see that the real perpetrator be punished for her death.
Contrary to appellants contention, no grieving husband would
coach his household helpers to impute a crime on someone whom
they knew to be innocent. That would be contrary to human nature
and experience. Absent any evidence showing a reason or motive
for prosecution witnesses to perjure their testimonies, the logical
conclusion is that no improper motive exists, and that their
testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.19
Q: And what did you notice when they were already near to each
other?
A: Then, I noticed that the man loosen his belt and he took off that
belt from his waist.
Q: After that man loosen his belt, took off from his waist, what did
that man do?
A: Then, that man chased Manang Rosemarie at a swing and then
later on stabbed Manang Rosemarie.28
It is apparent that Rosemarie tried to run away but appellant caught
up with her. Based on eyewitness testimony, we are not convinced
that treachery attended the commission of the crime. The stabbing
was not instantaneous. It was preceded by heated arguments. The
victim must have been forewarned that appellant might try to harm
her. Where an argument or a quarrel preceded a killing, treachery is
non-existent since the victim could be said to have been forewarned
and could anticipate aggression from assailant.29
For treachery to be considered, not only must the victim be without
means of defending herself, but also the means, method, or form
employed by the assailant must have been consciously adopted.
The interval of time between the act of loosening his belt, getting
the knife, chasing the victim and eventually stabbing her sufficiently
shows that the use of the knife was not consciously thought of, but
rather it came together with appellants outburst, arising from the
heated arguments he had with Leonisa and then the victim. Thus,
we cannot sustain the view that treachery attended the commission
of the crime to qualify it as murder. We hold that appellant is liable
only for homicide.
N BANC
G.R. No. 139230
On March 28, 1996, Manuel and Jose Baylosis arrived in Cebu City
and stayed in the house of Joel Colejara in Pardo. Manuel and Jose
went to the market and met Maria Fe. The latter informed Manuel
where she and Ronito lived. Since then, Manuel and Jose had been
to the house of the couple and Manuel was able to borrow money
from them in the amount of P800.
At about 7:00 p.m. on March 30, 1996, Maria Fe was at the public
market when she was asked by Roland Pedrejas alias "Potot"
whether Manuel was already in their house. She replied that she did
not know. Later that evening, Maria Fe, Ronito, Leo and Julifer had
just taken their dinner when Manuel and Jose arrived. Manuel told
Ronito that he wanted to borrow money from him and Maria Fe.
The latter refused to lend Manuel the money but she was prevailed
upon by Ronito. Manuel, Jose and Ronito then had a drinking spree
in the sala. Maria Fe and Julifer went to sleep in the formers
bedroom while Leo slept in the sala.
At about midnight, Maria Fe woke up and told Ronito, Manuel and
Jose to sleep because she had to leave at one oclock early that
morning. By then, Ronito was already inebriated. She then spread
mat in the sala for Manuel and Jose to sleep on. She and Ronito
then went to their room and slept.
At around 2:00 a.m. of March 31, 1996, Manuel, armed with a .38
caliber gun and holding a flourescent lamp, entered the bedroom of
Ronito and Maria Fe. He poked the said gun on Maria Fe. She woke
up and attempted to stand up but Manuel ordered her to lie down.
Jose, armed with a knife followed Manuel to the bedroom. The
latter ordered Jose to tie the hands of Maria Fe behind her back and
put a tape on her mouth. Jose complied. On orders of Manuel, Jose
woke up Leo and brought him to the room. Jose tied the hands of
Leo behind his back. Jose and Manuel then divested Maria Fe of her
necklace, rings and earrings. Manuel demanded that she give them
her money but Maria Fe told them that she had used her money to
pay her partners in the fish vending business. Manuel and Jose did
not believe Maria Fe. They ransacked the room but failed to find
money. Julifer woke up but Manuel and Jose threatened to kill her if
she shouted. The two tied Julifers hands at her back. Manuel then
threatened to explode the grenade tucked under his shirt and kill
Maria Fe, her family and their househelps if she refused to
surrender her money. Petrified, Maria Fe took the money from her
waist pouch and gave the same to Manuel and Jose. Manuel took a
blanket and ordered Jose to kill Ronito with it. Jose went to the
kitchen, got a knife, covered Ronito with the blanket and sat on top
of him then stabbed the latter several times. Manuel also stabbed
Ronito on different parts of his body. Ronito could only groan like a
dying pig. Manuel hit Ronito with the butt of his gun. Jose slit the
throat of Ronito and took the latters wristwatch and ring. Manuel
then untied Julifer, removed her clothes and panties and then raped
her. She could do nothing but cry. Manuel and Jose stayed in the
house until 4:00 a.m. Before they left, Manuel and Jose told Maria
Fe that they were acting on orders of Rolando Pedrejas, Joel
Colejara, Grace Pabulacion and Juliet Capuno. They also warned her
and Leo not to report the incident to the police authorities,
otherwise they will kill them and their family. Leo and Maria Fe
managed to untie themselves and reported the incident to
Barangay Chairman Sergio Ocaa who conducted an on-the-spot
investigation of the incident.
while the other extremities were sharp, and all edges clean-cut;
located at the neck, anterior aspect closed [sic] to each other; all
were directed backward, downward and then either laterally or
medially, involving the skin and the underlying soft tissues, 3 stab
wounds perforated the trachea and the other 3 stab wounds,
incised the blood vessels, attaining depthness ranging from 1.5, 4.0,
4.5, 5.0 and 8.0 cms.
Stab wound:
Triangular in shaped [sic], 2.0 x 1.8 x 2.0 cm.. extremities sharp,
edges clean-cut; right supra clavicular area, directed backward,
downward and medially, involving the skin and the underlying soft
tissues, perforating the oarta [sic], attaining an approximated depth
of 11.0 cm.
Stab wounds:
Three in number[s], all elliptical in shaped [sic], of varying sizes
ranging from 2.5, 2.0 and 1.2 cm., one extremity rounded, other
extremities sharp, edges clean-cut; thoracic area, anterior aspect;
one was directed backward, upward and laterally penetrating
thoracic cavity, and perforating the heart, with a depth of 8.0 cm.;
other stab wound was directed backward, upward and medially,
penetrating thoracic cavity, perforating the heart, with a depth of
9.5 cm.; other stab wound was directed backward downward and
medially, penetrating thoracic cavity, perforating the heart, with a
depth of 11.0 cm.
Stab wound
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Hemorrhage, acute, severe, secondary to multiple stab wounds,
forehead, neck, chest, abdomen and back.2
Dr. Cerna signed the Certificate of Death of Ronito.3
On July 17, 1996, an Information was filed against Manuel and Jose
in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, which reads:
That on or about the 31st of March, 1996, about 2:00 a.m., in the
City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating
together and mutually helping each other, armed with bladed
weapons and handguns, with deliberate intent and with intent to
kill, did then and there attack, assault and use personal violence
upon one Ronito Enero by stabbing him on the vital parts of his
body with said bladed weapons, thereby inflicting upon him physical
injuries thus causing his instantaneous death, and with intent of
gain, did then and there take and carry away therefrom the
following:
a) 1 gold necklace worth
P 7,000.00
1,100.00
3,800.00
d) cash amounting to
30,000.00
e) 1 Seiko wristwatch
900.00
f) 1 Seiko wristwatch
1,800.00
900.00
and for that reason, it will no longer present them as witnesses. The
prosecution thereafter rested its case.
The Defenses and Evidence of Both Accused
When he testified, Manuel admitted having killed Ronito. He
however claimed that he stabbed Ronito in self-defense and in
defense of Jose. He also said that he, Potot, Ronito and Jojo, the
younger brother of Maria Fe, had been engaged in robberies in
Davao City. Sometime in September 1995, the four robbed a person
of P50,000. However, Manuel failed to get his share of the loot
while Ronito, Jojo and Potot got theirs. Manuel was bitter. He later
learned in December 1995 that Ronito and Maria Fe had left Davao
City and settled in Cebu City. On March 26, 1996, Manuel and Jose
arrived in Cebu City to contact Ronito and to get his share of the
loot. Manuel met Ronito on March 29, 1996 at the jai-alai. Ronito
told Manuel to visit him where they can talk. Manuel agreed. In the
evening on March 30, 1996, Manuel and Jose arrived in the house of
Ronito. Manuel wanted to get his share of the loot from Ronito.
Manuel, Jose and Ronito had a drinking spree. However, at about
two oclock at dawn, the next morning, Manuel and Ronito had an
altercation when Manuel demanded that Ronito give him his share
of the loot. Ronito was peeved and told Manuel that he had long
given him his share through a friend. Ronito whipped out a knife
and stabbed Manuel. The latter tried to wrest the knife from Ronito
but failed. However, Jose grappled with Ronito and managed to
wrest possession of the knife. Jose then gave the knife to Manuel
who stabbed Ronito with it.
Manuel denied raping Julifer, and divesting Ronito and Maria Fe of
their valuables. Jose did not anymore testify. His counsel informed
the trial court that the testimony of Jose would only corroborate
the testimony of Manuel.
On March 31, 1997, the trial court rendered a Decision, the decretal
portion of which reads as follows:
II
We agree with the appellants that their plea of guilty to the crime
charged was improvidently made. Section 3, Rule 116 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure reads:
SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence.
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall
conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the consequence of his plea and require the
prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability.
The accused may also present evidence on his behalf.
The felony of robbery with homicide is a capital offense, the
imposable penalty therefor being reclusion perpetua to death.
The raison detre behind the rule is that courts must proceed with
caution where the punishable penalty is death for the reason that
the execution of such a sentence is irrevocable and experience has
shown that innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty.
Improvident plea of guilty on the part of the accused when capital
crimes are involved should be avoided since he might be admitting
his guilt before the court and thus forfeit his life and liberty without
having fully comprehended the meaning and import and
consequences of his plea.9 Under this rule, three things are enjoined
upon the trial court, namely:
(1) the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness of the plea, and the accuseds full comprehension of
the consequences thereof; (2) the court must require the
prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused
and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) the court must ask
The appellants aver that the prosecution failed to prove the crime
of robbery with homicide with which they were charged. Maria Fe
was not a credible witness; her testimony is barren of probative
weight. They contend that as claimed by Maria Fe, the principal
witness for the prosecution, the intention of the appellants in going
to the house of Ronito and Maria Fe was merely to borrow money
from them and not to rob them of their personal belongings. The
prosecution even failed to prove that the appellants robbed Maria
Fe of money and jewelry. Even if it is assumed that they robbed
Maria Fe of money and jewelry, however, they are not liable for
robbery with homicide. That the appellants robbed the couple of
their belongings after borrowing money from Ronito and Maria Fe,
is not determinative of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
On the other hand, the OSG contends that the prosecutor mustered
the required quantum of evidence to prove the constitutive
elements of robbery with homicide. Maria Fe is credible and her
testimony entitled to probative weight. Although the inceptual
intention of the appellants in going to the house of Ronito and
Maria Fe was to borrow money, however, it is equally true that they
intended to rob the victims of their money and personal belongings
and kill Ronito in the process. The evidence on record shows that
the object of the appellants was to rob the victim of their money
and personal properties and kill Ronito on the occasion of the
robbery. The OSG cites the ruling of this Court in United States vs.
Villorente.17
We agree with the OSG. Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by Republic Act 7659 reads:
Yes.
A
When he poked his firearm towards me I stood up and then
Manuel Daniela told me to go back to lie down. At that time Jose
Baylosis entered the room.
Q
At about 2:00 A.M. of the following day March 31, 1996 what
happened?
A
A
I was awakened and then I asked him what is it Log. Referring
to Manuel Daniela. [sic] alias Tagalog.
Q
What did you see in Tagalog when he pushed the door open?
A
When Manuel Daniela alias Tagalog entered our room he
poked his handgun caliber 38 on me at that time because he was
bringing a gun.
Q
Q
Your [sic] said that Jose Baylosis entered the room what did
Jose Baylosis do while you were already lying down?
A
A
He extended my two hands but Tagalog said that it is not the
way to tie her. So they placed my hands at the back and they put a
masking tape.
Q
A
Only my hands were tied but Manuel Daniela ordered Jose
Baylosis to let Leo Quilongquilong my cousin to get inside the room.
Q
But how did you know it was a 38 caliber if you do not know
the weapon?
Q
Did Jose Baylosis compky [sic] with the instruction of Manuel
Daniela to let your cousin Leo Quilongquilong to get inside the
room?
Yes, maam.
Yes, maam.
Who of the two took your gold necklace from your neck?
Jose Baylosis.
Q
What did they do with Leo Quilongquilong at the time Leo
Quilongquilong was already inside the room?
A
They also tied Leo Quilongquilong by extending his both
hands towards them and they also ordered to place his hands at his
back.
Q
After taking the gold necklace from your neck what else did
Jose Baylosis do?
A
Yes, maam.
2.
Q
After you and Leo Quilongquilong were tied what did Manuel
Daniela do?
P3,800.00.
A
They asked money from me but I did not tell them and so
they got my jewelries [sic].
From where did Jose Baylosis take these two gold rings?
From my fingers.
Yes, maam.
Necklace.
P7,000.00.
Q
Aside from the two rings and one necklace what other piece
of jewelries [sic] were taken from you by Jose Baylosis?
Chinese gold.
P1,100.00.
Q
From where did Jose Baylosis get your Chinese gold earrings?
from me [sic]
A
From my ears.
Q
While Jose Baylosis was divesting you these pieces of jewelry
what did Manuel Daniela do?
A
That time my cousin Leo woke you [sic] and gave the money
to them but Leo also told [sic] if we will give you the money then we
will ha [sic] no more capital for our business.
Q
A
Manuel Daniela keep on poking his firearm towards me and
his left hand holding a hand grenade, and told me not to shout.
A
Later on, we decided to gather [sic] with my cousin to give
the money in order they will not be killed.
Q
After the two accused were able to divest you of your pieces
of jewelry what else did they do?
A
While Manuel Daniela keep on poking his firearm toward me
Manuel Daniela insisted that the money [sic] would be given and I
told them we have no money because my money was paid for the
fish and also to my partner of fish vending but they did not believe.
Q
Since Manuel Daniela did not believe you that you have no
money what did Manuel Daniela do?
A
They ransacked our room by scattering our clothes looking
for money.
A
Yes, maam because my money was inside the box which was
placed inside, it was a waist pouch.
Q
And what material was your pouch made of which contained
the money?
A
Q
How much was the content of your pouch which you said was
placed inside the map.
A
No maam.
P900.00.
Q
What did he do as he did not find anything after scattering
your clothes?
A
Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis told me to give money so
they will not harm us.
A
I was the one pushing out the pouch from over the map
towards Tagalog.
Q
During this time when Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis were
divesting you of pieces of jewelry and money what was your
husband Ronito doing?
A
At that time my husband Ronito was sleeping. Manuel
Daniela took a blanket and then Manuel Daniela ordered Jose
Baylosis to kill my husband and Jose Baylosis took a blanket and
covered the mouth of my husband and placed himself on top of the
body of my husband and stabbed.
COURT:
COURT:
Kitchen knife.
A
No my husband was never able to stand up because they
helped each other in stabbing him several times.
COURT:
Proceed.
ATTY. DALAWAPU:
Q
Yes we owned.
Q
And then after Jose Baylosis stabbed your husband several
times that did Manuel Daniela do?
A
While Jose Baylosis stabbed several times my husband mu
[sic] husband shouted, "aray" and then I attempted to stand up and
ATTY. DALAWAPU:
Q
At the time that Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela were
stabbing your husband what were you doing?
A
While they were stabbing mu [sic] husband I and my cousin
could not say anything because they threatened to explode the
hand grenade they were holding. We were just on the side of the
room tied and looking them stabbing my husband because they
threatened to explode the hand grenade if we should [sic] for help.
Q
How about Juliefer Barrera your helper what was she doing
at this time that Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela were stabbing
your husband?
A
Our helper who slept in the bed was awakened and while she
was awakened Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela approached her
and told not to shout and the her hands were tied.
Q
Do you mean to tell this Honorable Court that Manuel
Daniela and Jose Baylosis stabbed and killed your husband after
they were able to get your pieces of jewelry from your person and
the pouch from under the map which contained the sum of
P30,000.00 together with your Seiko watch?
A
A
Manuel Daniela said that I would be killed. When Manuel
Daniela was about to stab me my husband also groaned three times
like a dying pig and then this Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela
immediately went back to my husband and they stabbed my
husband again several times and then Manuel Daniela strucked [sic]
the head of my husband with the bat of the firearm while Jose
Baylosis stabbed my husband in the neck, made a slit on the neck
with the use of the knife to ensure that he would be deed [sic]. In
fact, the forehead of my husband was broken as a result of the
striking of the bat of the firearm.
COURT:
ATTY. DALAWAMPU:
Q
What time was it at the time your husband was stabbed
several times by both Daniel and Jose?
I would like to make it of record from the very start that the witness
related here how both accused divested her of the pieces of jewelry
and money and killed dead [sic] her husband she keep on crying.
ATTY. DALAWAPU:
Q
Ma. Fe after Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela stabbed
Ronito what else did they do?
COURT:
Before this Honorable Courts question.
Q
A
After Jose Baylosis and Manuel Daniela killed my husband
Manuel Daniela told me that there was somebody who ordered
them to kill my husband and then I told them if you will killed [sic]
me what will happened [sic] to my three small children who will
support them and also who will support [sic] my parents because
they depend for my support.
What did Manuel Daniela say after you told them this?
COURT:
So, lets proceed.
ATTY. DALAWAMPU:
After they stabbed your husband again what did they do?
A
They stabbed again my husband and strucked [sic] the head
of my husband and they went back to me and saying let us kill them
Bay because they are very noisy.28
The defense argues that appellant never had the original design to
rob when he went to the Co compound. That may be so. The
compound of the Cos is fenced and the only entrance is through the
gate with a security guard. It was only 7:00 oclock in the evening
and a number of people were still awake, hardly the proper
occasion for staging a successful robbery. Notable too is the fact
that the amount recovered from appellant was only in the amount
of the separation pay which he demanded, leading to the inference
that perhaps appellant had no original intent to rob the Cos.
Nonetheless, even if there was no original design to commit
robbery, appellant is still liable for robbery if at the time of the
taking of the personal property of another with violence or
intimidation there was intent to gain. Although the Court gives
considerable weight to the theory of the prosecution, we are not
inclined to entirely do away with the version of the defense,
especially with regard to his claim that he went to the Co compound
of Ronito the wristwatch and ring the appellants took from Ronito,
whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration or
diminution of value as determined by the trial court. Under Article
10638 of the Revised Penal Code, if the appellants can no longer
return the articles, they are obliged to make reparation for the price
of the pieces of jewelry if they can no longer return the same taking
into account the price and the special sentimental value thereof to
the victims. Under Article 126839 of the New Civil Code, the
appellants are not exempted from the payments of the price of the
stolen articles even if the same are lost, whatever be the cause of
the loss, unless the things having been offered to the owners
thereof, the former refused to receive the same without any valid
cause.
The Verdict of the Court
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 18, in Criminal Case No. CBU-42044,
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants Manuel Daniela and
Jose Baylosis are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery
with homicide defined in Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. They
are ordered to return to Maria Fe her chinese gold necklace, two
rings, chinese gold earrings and wristwatch, and to return to the
heirs of Ronito Enero his gold ring and wristwatch and if they fail to
return the said pieces of jewelry to Maria Fe and the heirs of Ronito
Enero, respectively, they are ordered to pay in solidum to Maria Fe
and said heirs the value of the said pieces of jewelry to be
determined by the trial court. The appellants are ordered to pay in
solidum to the heirs of Ronito Enero P50,000 as civil indemnity and
P50,000 as moral damages in line with current jurisprudence.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, CarpioMorales, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., in the result.
Quisumbing, J., on official leave.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 98431
REMARKS
"SO ORDERED."
In the instant appeal, appellant ascribes to the trial court this lone
assignment of error:
"THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN MORONG, RIZAL (BRANCH 79)
ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSSED-APPELLANT JOSUE DELA TORRE
GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF RAPE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT."30
Appellant's defense is that what transpired between him and Marita
Cordova on November 5, 1989 was consensual, she being his
mistress at the time.
After a thorough and careful review of the evidence adduced by the
parties, this Court finds the appeal bereft of merit.
The incident immediately prior to the rape was described by the
trial court in its appealed decision as a "reign of terror that
pervaded in the La Fiesta Farm" in Barrio Pantay caused by the
appellant who was running wild wielding a knife and bolo.31 This
created an atmosphere of great fear among those who witnessed
the incident. The records do not disclose why the appellant acted
that way. Understandably, every one seemed helpless. The
assistance of the police authorities at that very moment could not
Q
Now, Mrs. Witness, what happened next after the accused
pointed a knife at your throat and a bolo at your back?
A
"x
Q
On or about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of November 5, 1989,
Mrs. witness, do you remember having met or seen the accused
Josue dela Torre?
A
Yes, sir.
Q
Could you please tell the Honorable Court what incident that
happened, Mrs. Witness?
A
It happened at the kitchen. He pushed me to the house under
construction (owned) by our boss (amo).
A
With the knife on my throat and my two (2) hands at the
back with the bolo, he undressed me.
Q
What kind of dress are you wearing, Mrs. Witness, at that
time?
A
Q
When you said that the accused undressed you, what exactly
do you mean?
A
Q
Mrs. Witness, other than your bestida, what was you wearing
at that time?
A
None, sir.
And after Josue dela Torre pushed you, what happened next?
Q
What happened to your panty if any at the time the accused
lifted your dress?
Q
Did the accused succeed removing your panty at the time,
Mrs. Witness?
Q
And you said that Josue dela Torre was on top of you and his
penis, after ten minutes, what happened next?
A
After he took advantage, he threatened to cut my neck for
me not to tell authorities what happened to me."32
Yes, sir.
Q
Now, Mrs. Witness, after the accused raised your dress above
your dress and after successfully removing your panty, what
happened next?
A
He sucked my breast, he inserted his penis inside my private
part (puke).
Q
Now, Mrs. Witness, could you please tell us what position you
assumed in time the accused inserted his penis in your private part?
A
Q
And how long was the penis of the accused inserted at your
private part?
A
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Q
Melanie, your mother previously testified that on November 5,
1989 you saw her being dragged by the accused Josue dela Torre at
the premises of the La Fiesta Farm, what can you say to this?
A
Yes, sir.
Q
How did it come about that you saw her being dragged by
Josue dela Torre on said date, Melanie?
A
Q
And do you mean to say that it was from the kitchen that the
accused dela Torre dragged your mother?
A
Yes, sir.
Q
And could you please tell the Honorable Court how Josue
dela Torre dragged your mother away from the kitchen?
A
I saw Josue pointing a knife at my mother's throat and a bolo
at my mother's back.
x
Q
Did you actually see your mother being brought to that
house under construction by Josue dela Torre?
A
Yes, sir.
Q
And on the time Josue dela Torre was still pointing a knife at
the throat of your mother and a bolo at her back?
A
Yes, sir.
Q
When you saw your mother being dragged by Josue dela Torre
pointing a knife and a bolo at her, what did you do?
I cried.
All the while when appellant was sexually gratifying himself, that
same knife was still poked at Marita's throat. This was clearly
pointed out by Marita herself:
x
Q
While he was stooping in front of you, pulling down his pants,
Josue dela Torre is no longer holding knife or bolo?
A
He was still holding the knife while the bolo was in the
ground near him.
Q
And while your legs were widely open and while you are being
kissed by Josue dela Torre that was the time he inserted his penis
inside your genital organ?
A
Q
And at that very moment you were no longer aware whether
Josue dela Torre was holding a knife or not?
A
Q
How did you know that he was still holding a knife at that very
moment wherein your legs were widely open and his penis was
inside your genital organ?
A
"x
if the victim was taken from his house although the offense was not
completed therein.45
Nonetheless, the trial court's imposition of the penalty of reclusion
perpetua is in accordance with law and jurisprudence. At that time,
the penalty for rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code,46
when committed with the use of a deadly weapon, such as the
knife,47 is reclusion perpetua to death, a penalty composed of two
indivisible penalties. Article 63, supra, provides, inter alia:
SO ORDERED.
"x
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 77284 July 19, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BONIFACIO BALANSI alias "BAN-OS", defendant-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Balgos & Perez for defendant-appellant.
SARMIENTO, J.:
The accused-appellant stands charged with the murder of Elpidio
Dalsen on January 30, 1982 at Balinciagao, Pasil, Kalinga-Apayao.
The Information alleged that he, armed with a Garand rifle, went
inside the house of the victim, then allegedly fast asleep, where he
shot him twice and killed him. Treachery was held to be present,
and so were evident premeditation and employment of means to
weaken the defense of the victim. 1
The accused-appellant was then the Barangay Captain of
Balinciagao Norte, Pasil, Kalinga-Apayao, and a member of the
Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF), while the victim was the
Provincial Development Officer of Kalinga-Apayao. 2 The incident
took place during a wedding celebration at Balinciagao Sur, Pasil, at
or about 5:30 or 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon. The prosecution
presented eight witnesses. The defense placed two on the stand.
The trial court found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced
him to die and to pay a total of P590,000.00 in actual (P540,000.00
for loss of the victim's earning capacity) and moral damages, plus
costs. 3
It appears that the victim, a nephew of the appellant, was then
sleeping at the house of his parents located opposite the house
where the wedding celebration was being held. At or about 5:00
o'clock in the afternoon, Beatrice Canao, a Balinciagao resident, saw
the accused, her uncle, standing at the door of the house of the
victim's parents, also her relatives, armed with a gun. She inquired
what he was doing there and he allegedly replied that he was
waiting for the victim. She then entered the premises to locate an
old newspaper with which to wrap food, a rice cake, when she saw
the victim asleep. When she left, she saw the accused at the
doorway. After disposing of her rice cake (which she gave to a
certain Fr. Medina), she heard two gunshots, fired at an interval of
two or three seconds, emanating apparently from the house, to
which she shortly rushed. She allegedly met the accused at the
steps leading to the second floor, brandishing his rifle. 4
She allegedly shouted "putok, putok!" 5 She then reported the
matter to the police.
Yulo Asbok a fellow CHDF member of the accused and likewise a
Balinciagao resident, also heard two gunshots ring that afternoon.
He said that he was three meters from the house where the
gunshot sounds seemed to have originated. He allegedly proceeded
there but was met by the accused at the steps. They allegedly
grappled for possession of the rifle, which, he alleged, was still
warm and reeked of gunpowder. He was able to wrest possession,
after which, the accused allegedly ran away and fled to Pogon, also
in Balinciagao. He later learned that the victim had been shot and
that he died at Lubuagan Hospital. 6
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 106282
7-8, tsn, March 1, 1989; p. 5-6, tsn, June 14, 1989). In return,
Abundio answered, "you come up, we will talk upstairs" (p. 9, tsn,
March 1, 1989). The group however, insisted that he comes (sic)
down and so, Abundio instructed his wife Florida to open the door.
The latter, accompanied by her daughter Elvie who was holding a
kerosene lamp, proceeded towards the door to open it. When the
door was opened, Florida and her daughter by the aid of the
kerosene lamp were able to recognize the six armed men standing
in front of their house wearing fatigue uniforms as Pablito
Rendoque, Esperato Salaquin, Quinciano Rendoque, Sr., Quinciano
Rendoque, Jr., Victorino Bacuac and Felix Estrellado. With the
exception of Quinciano Rendoque, Sr. who was seen carrying a
revolver, the rest were all armed with shotguns (pp. 10-11, tsn,
March 1, 1989; p. 8, tsn, June 14, 1989).
On that occasion when the door was opened, Pablito Rendoque
shouted "fire" to his companions. In obedience to his order,
Esperato Salaquin and Quinciano Rendoque, Jr. aimed and fired
their respective shotguns towards the direction of the wall inside
the house where Abundio was sitting. As a result, the victim was hit
at the back and on the left shoulder by pellets which caused his
death (pp. 11-12, tsn, March 1, 1989; pp. 9-10, tsn, June 14, 1989).
Thereafter, the armed group left leaving Abundio's dead body
behind (id.)
Dr. Bienvenida Palongpalong, Municipal Health Officer of San Jose,
Negros Oriental, was able to conduct a post-mortem examination of
the cadaver of Abundio Sido and it was found that the latter
sustained gunshot wounds at the deltoid region and at the back
lumber vertebrae which caused severe hemorrhage resulting in his
death (p. 10, tsn, May 23, 1990).
the day after the incident, he confirmed with Dingal that appellant
Pablito Rendoque relieved him from duty the previous night.14
Aniano Eliseo, Officer-In-Charge of the Sherlock Security Agency,
testified that he conducted an inspection of the guards of the
agency and saw appellant Pablito Rendoque at his post in Master
Footwear at around 7:00 on the night of the incident.15
The other five accused testified that on April 21, 1988, from 6
o'clock in the evening until around 8 o'clock the following morning,
they were in the house of Placido Despojo at Sto. Nio, San Jose,
Negros Oriental to attend an "Anti-Communist Trust In Oriental
Negros" (ACTION) seminar, which however, was postponed to the
following day.16 Placido Despojo confirmed this fact.17 Millard
Generoso, the District Commander of ACTION, testified that on April
22, 1988, the day after the incident, the five accused, except for
appellant Pablito Rendoque, were at his house in Calindagan,
Dumaguete City from around 8 o'clock in the morning up to 11
o'clock in the evening attending the seminar.18
The defense also presented as its witness Patrolman Fred Redira,
who testified that on the night of the incident, one Celso Turtal
reported to him that he (Turtal) was requested by the wife of the
victim to inform the authorities that the victim was shot by
"unidentified men."19 The defense also presented Patrolman
Antonio Ramirez, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station,20 and
the custodian of the police logbook containing the aforesaid report.
Patrolman Ramirez testified that he prepared the affidavits of Elvie
and Florida Sido wherein they stated that the persons who shot the
victim were Pablito Rendoque and Esperato Salaquin only. However,
Patrolman Ramirez claimed that the Municipal Mayor borrowed the
affidavits and never returned them again. He also testified that the
FIRST DIVISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
On appeal is the decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City,
Branch 26, in Criminal Case No. 92-3892, convicting accusedappellant Ernesto Belo of the crime of Robbery with Rape and
imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering
him to return the amount of P5,060.00 taken from the victim and to
pay her the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity.
On October 11, 1991, at around 1:00 o'clock in the morning, Leonila
Pellosis was tending to her sick infant in their house in Dike, Del
Carmen, Minalabac, Camarines Sur, when she heard footsteps near
their kitchen. 2 Suspecting a possible intruder, she became nervous
and attempted to scare him away by shouting at her 14-year-old
daughter, Miriam, to fetch the local faith-healer to treat her infant. 3
Miriam was about to leave the house when suddenly, appellant
Ernesto Belo forced open the door and announced "Mayo nang
magkorahaw ta hold-up ini!" (Don't shout; this is a hold-up!) 4
Appellant poked a foot-long double bladed knife at the neck of
Leonila and demanded money from her. Leonila begged him not to
kill her and fearfully opened the cabinet ("aparador") where she
kept the family's money from the recent rice harvest and handed
over cash amounting to P5,060.00. 5 Suddenly, the "gasera" placed
near the window was furtively struck with a piece of wood from the
outside. 6 Appellant demanded more money and threatened to rape
and kill her and her daughter unless he was given more money.
Leonila pleaded that she had already given him all the money she
had. 7 Heedless of her pleas, appellant, with the knife still pointed at
Leonila's neck, dragged her towards the kitchen and forced her to
lie on top of the sacks of rice. Appellant loosened his short pants
and brought it down to his knees. He removed the victim's short
pants and undergarments and forcibly had sexual intercourse with
her. 8
When Miriam saw her mother being dragged to the kitchen, she
had the presence of mind to grab her youngest brother, and with
another brother (Joel), jumped out of the window to seek help from
Elmer Taguilid whose house was some 500 meters away. She
instructed her younger sisters (Melanie and Mirlan) to hide inside a
cabinet. Miriam frantically tried to awaken Elmer from his drunken
stupor. Thereafter, Elmer and six other men armed themselves and
rushed to the house of the victim only to find Leonila in a distraught
state and the appellant gone. 9
William Pellosis, the husband of the victim, spent the night guarding
their palay harvest at the San Juan-San Lorenzo Cooperative
Bodega. When he arrived in the early morning of October 11, 1991,
his wife tearfully related to him her tragic ordeal. 10 Enraged, he
immediately hurried to the Minalabac Police Station to report the
incident. PO3 Antonio Algora and other police officers sprung into
action and scoured the vicinity to locate appellant, to no avail.
William Pellosis and the police officers then went to the house of
appellant where they found his common-law wife, Leonida Belo,
who didn't know the whereabouts of her husband. Eventually,
however, the police officers tracked down appellant and took him
into custody. 11
On October 14, 1991, the Chief of Police of Minalabac, Camarines
Sur, Gil V. De la Cruz, filed a Complaint 12 with the Municipal Trial
Court of Minalabac, Camarines Sur, accusing appellant of the crime
of Robbery with Rape.
On January 9, 1992, the Municipal Trial Court of Minalabac,
Camarines Sur, 13 issued a Resolution 14 finding that the case did not
fall under its jurisdiction, and hence, ordered the Clerk of Court to
forward the original records to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office in
Naga City.
On January 21, 1992, Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Romeo
S. Daas filed an Information 15 accusing appellant of Robbery with
Rape, committed as follows:
That on or about the 11th day of October 1991, at Barangay San
Felipe-Santiago, Municipality of Minalabac, Province of Camarines
Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the aid accused, with intent of (sic) gain, and by means of violence
and intimidation of person, while armed with a knife and after an
unlawful entry in the middle of the night, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and rob from one
LEONILA NUEZ-PELLOSIS the sum of FIVE THOUSAND AND SIXTY
(P5,060.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency; that the aforesaid robbery is
(sic) accompanied by rape when said accused then and there had
accused by the victim and her daughter vis a vis appellant's tainted
alibi.
In the present appeal, 21 appellant now assigns the sole error that: 22
In Robbery with Rape, "[i]t is enough that robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape to be punishable under the Revised Penal
Code which does not differentiate whether the rape was committed
before, during or after the robbery." 25
and that the victim suffered abrasion and contusions on the neck
area, which were probably sustained when the victim tried to
defend herself. 37 The finding of seminal constituents in a rape
victim is important evidence for substantiating the fact that sexual
intercourse has taken place, but their absence does not necessarily
mean that a rape did not occur. Physical injuries such as bruises or
bleeding tend to confirm the fact that a violent assault did take
place." 38 The presence of sperm cells in her violated organ affirmed
her charge more than words or anger could prove. 39 In a
prosecution for rape, the complainant's physical condition as shown
by a medical examination is given considerable weight in proving
that a crime has been committed by testimony of the physician as
to evidence of recent sexual intercourse 40 and marks of violence
and bruises on her person. 41
Appellant's invocation of alibi to exculpate himself is insufficient to
overcome the positive identification made by the victim and her
daughter. In comparison with the clear and straightforward
testimony of the complainant and her witnesses, the defenses of
denial and alibi, which appellant relies upon, are discredited and
shopworn. 42 His alibi is self-serving and his bare denial is a negative
declaration which deserves no consideration and cannot prevail
over the affirmative testimony of complainant which was
corroborated by further evidence. 43 More importantly, "[i]n the
case of alibi, it is elementary case law that the requirements of time
and place be strictly complied with by the defense, meaning that
the accused must not only show that he was somewhere else but
that it was also physically impossible for him to have been at the
scene of the crime at the time it was committed." 44 While appellant
could have been in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, from October to December
FIRST DIVISION
QUIASON, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 15, Tabaco, Albay, finding Ricardo, Manuel and Bonifacio, all
surnamed Buela, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder.
The information filed against appellants reads as follows:
INFORMATION
That on about the 27th day of December, 1988 at about 2:00 o'clock
(sic) in the afternoon, more or less, at Purok 9, Barangay San
Antonio, municipality of Tabaco, Province of Albay, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, taking
advantage of superior strength, with evident premeditation and
treachery, and with intent to kill, did then and there willfully,
Adalia Maduro, who rushed to the yard of the Bodinos. Adalia saw
Bodino lying prostrate on the ground with the three assailants still
taking turns in hitting him with their weapons.
Appellants then left. After having walked a distance of about three
meters, Ricardo returned to where the prostrate body of Bodino
laid and hacked him again.
According to the defense, on December 27, 1988, Ricardo went to
the house of Bodino to collect a P10.00 debt. After paying Ricardo,
Bodino invited him to have a drink at the house of Adalia Maduro.
Ricardo accepted the invitation.
Bodino and Ricardo were former members of the New People's
Army, who surrendered on December 31, 1987. While they were
drinking, Bodino tried to proselytize Ricardo back to the movement
but the latter rebuffed him. Afterwards, while they were dancing,
they tripped and fell on the floor. One of Ricardo's eyebrows
sustained a wound and bled. Bodino invited Ricardo for lunch but he
declined and instead went home. After lunch, Ricardo realized that
he had left his bolo at the house of Adalia Maduro; so he went back
for it. On his way home, Ricardo met Bodino, who tried to block his
path. Bodino asked him to rejoin the New People's Army and when
he resisted, Bodino got: angry. At this juncture, Aurora Buela,
Ricardo's mother, arrived together with his two brothers, Bonifacio
and Manuel.
Upon seeing them, Bodino went to the house of Adalia Maduro and
came back armed with a wooden club. He confronted the Buelas
and even taunted them to a fight. Then Bodino struck Ricardo with
his club. The latter was able to duck and evade the blow, which