4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.123137.October17,2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL,

MACARIOASTELLERO,andJANUARIODOSDOS,accusedappellants.
DECISION
QUISUMBING,J.:

OnappealisthedecisiondatedMay17,1995,oftheRegionalTrialCourtofCebuCity,Branch10,
in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU30350 for murder and CBU33664 for illegal possession of firearms,
findingappellantsAlbertAbriol,MacarioAstellero,andJanuarioDosdosguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt
ofmurderandviolationofPresidentialDecreeNo.1866onIllegalPossessionofFirearms.Its decretal
portionreads:
WHEREFORE,judgementisherebyrendered:
InCriminalCaseNo.CBU30350forMurder,theCourtfindsaccusedAlbertAbriol,MacarioAstellero
andJanuarioDosdos,GUILTYofmurderbeyondreasonabledoubtandeachisherebysentencedto
reclusionperpetua,withtheaccessorypenaltiesprovidedbylawtoindemnifytheheirsofdeceased
AlejandroFloresthesumofP50,000.00actualdamagesofP30,000.00,representingareasonable
amountfortheembalming,vigil,wake,andburialexpensesP30,000.00forattorneysfeesandtopay
thecosts.
Forinsufficiencyofevidence,accusedGaudiosoNavalesisherebyACQUITTEDwithcostsdeofficio.
InCriminalCaseNo.CBU33664forIllegalPossessionofFirearms,accusedAlbertAbriol,Macario
AstelleroandJanuarioDosdos,areherebysentencedtosufferanindeterminatepenaltyof14years,8
monthsand1dayto17yearsand4monthsandtopaythecosts.
The.38caliberrevolver,SNP08445andthetwo.45caliberpistolswithSNPGO13506andSN52469,
areherebyconfiscatedandforfeitedinfavoroftheGovernmentandaccordingly,theClerkofCourtof
thisBranchisdirectedtoturnoverthesaidfirearmstotheChiefofPolice,CebuCity,ortotheFirearms
andExplosivesOffice(FEO)ofthePNPRegion7,uponproperreceipt.
TheCebuCityChiefofPoliceisdirectedtoreleaseimmediatelyuponreceipthereof,thepersonof
GaudiosoNavales,unlesstherebeanyothervalidreasonforhiscontinueddetention.
SOORDERED.[1]
ThisjudgmentwastheculminationofproceedingsbeginningwiththeAmendedInformationdated
September6,1993,docketedasCriminalCaseNo.CBU30350,whereinappellantsPO2AlbertAbriol
ofthePhilippineNationalPolice(PNP),MacarioAstellero,JanuarioDosdos,andPNPP/ChiefInspector
GaudiosoNavaleswerechargedwithmurderallegedlycommittedasfollows:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

1/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

Thatonoraboutthe5thdayofJune,1993,atabout11:50P.M.,intheCityofCebu,Philippinesand
withinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,thesaidaccused,armedwithhandguns,connivingand
confederatingtogetherandmutuallyhelpingoneanother,withtreacheryandevidentpremeditation,with
deliberateintent,withintenttokill,didthenandthereshotoneAlejandroFloresaliasAlexwiththesaid
handguns,hittinghimonthedifferentpartsofhisbody,therebyinflictinguponhimthefollowing
physicalinjuries:
CARDIORESPIRATORYARRESTDUETOSHOCKANDHEMORRHAGESECONDARY
TOMULTIPLEGUNSHOTWOUNDSTOTHETRUNKANDTHEHEAD
asaconsequenceofwhichthesaidAlejandroFloresaliasAlexdiedlater.
CONTRARYTOLAW.[2]
At the time of the incident, appellantAbriol, a policeman previously detailed as a jailguard at the
BagongBuhayRehabilitationCenter(BBRC)inCebuCity,washimselfadetentionprisonerinBBRC.
Hewaschargedwithmurder,anonbailableoffense,inCriminalCaseNo.CBU28843beforetheRTC
ofCebuCity,Branch14.[3]
AppellantAstellerowasaformerprisoneratBBRC,whohadservedtimeforgravethreats. [4]The
wardenthen,ChiefInspectorNavales,[5] employed him as his personal driver and general factotum.[6]
NavaleswasfoundguiltyofgravemisconductinAdministrativeCaseNo.0193forallowingAbrioland
DosdosoutofBBRConthedayofthemurderandwassummarilydismissedfromthepoliceforce.
DosdoshadbeenconvictedbytheRTCofCebuCity,Branch10,ofhighwayrobberyinCriminal
CaseNo.CBU18152butNavalesfailedtoactonthemittimusorderingDosdostransfertothenational
penitentiary,andheremainedinBBRC.[7]AbriolandDosdosenjoyedspecialprivilegesatBBRCasthe
wardenserrandboys[8]ortrustees.
Thevictim,AlejandroFloresaliasAlex,wasaformerpoliceman.HewasdismissedfromthePNPin
August1992aftertestingpositiveforprohibiteddrugs.[9]
Abriol,Astellero,andDosdoswerealsoindictedforillegalpossessionoffirearmsinCriminalCase
No.CBU33664.Thechargesheetreads:
Thatonoraboutthe5thdayofJune1993atabout11:48P.M.intheCityofCebu,Philippines,and
withinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,thesaidaccused,connivingandconfederatingtogether
andmutuallyhelpingoneanother,withdeliberateintent,didthenandtherekeepundertheircontroland
possessionthefollowing:
1.one(1).38cal.revolver(Armscor)withSNP08445withsixemptyshells
2.one(1).45cal.pistol(Colt)withSNP6013506with9liveammunitions(sic)
3.one(1).45cal.Pistol(Colt)withSN52469withfiveliveammunitions.
withoutfirstobtainingapermitorlicensethereforfromcompetentauthority.
CONTRARYTOLAW.[10]
Whenarraigned,alltheaccusedpleadednotguiltytobothcharges.Sincetheindictmentsarosefrom
thesameincident,thecaseswerejointlytried.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

2/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

Thefactsofthecaseareasfollows:
Ataround11:50P.M.,June5,1993,RomeoSta.Cruz,Jr.,aradionewsreporterthenaboardhisjeep,
hadjustreachedtheABSCBNcompoundinP.delRosarioStreet,CebuCity,whenheheardacoupleof
gunshots.HelookedaroundandsawamanrunningunsteadilytowardstheintersectionofP.delRosario
StreetandJonesAvenue(OsmeaBoulevard).ThemanwasshoutingTabang,tabang!(Help!Help!).Sta.
Cruz,Jr.,sawaredJiffymakeaUturnnearthegateofthecitycentralschoolthatnearlyranoverthe
manshoutingforhelp.ThemanturnedbackandstaggeredtowardsthedirectionofBacalsoAvenueand
UrgelloPrivateRoad,butafterafewmetersonwobblylegs,hestoppedandcollapsed.
Meanwhile,theJiffyfollowed.Itstoppedbesidethefallenfigureandatall,thinmanalighted.The
manfiredseveralshotsattheprostratefigure.HeboardedtheJiffywhichspedawaytowardsLeonKilat
Street.RomeoSta.Cruz,Jr.,movedhisjeepandfocuseditsheadlightsonthevictim.
Inthemeantime,PO3AlexanderRustelawasatavulcanizingshopneartheintersectionofBacalso
AvenueandLeonKilatStreet,whenheheardgunshotscomingfromthenorth.Herantowardswherethe
gunshotscameandsawpeoplescampering.Allofasudden,theJiffywiththreepersonsonboardsped
pasthimandmadeanabruptleftturnatLeonKilatStreet.Rustelaimmediatelyradioedforassistance.
Minuteslater,patrolcarNo.201withPO2HerbertRamosonboardarrived.Rustelaboardedthecarand
theyfollowedtheJiffy,whilebroadcastinganalarmtopoliceheadquartersandothermobilepatrolcars.
On nearby Colon Street, SPO1 EleazarAbrigana and PO2 RomeoAbellana were cruising aboard
patrol car No. 208, when they heard a radio message that the suspects in the shooting incident were
aboard a Jiffy. As they turned left at Leon Kilat Street, they saw the Jiffy heading towards Carbon
Market. They pursued the Jiffy which stopped in front of the Don Bosco Building near BBRC, when
policecarNo.205,withPOEugenioBadrinasandPO2GeraldCueaboard,blockedtheJiffyspath.Cue
fired a warning shot and three persons alighted. The driver was appellant Astellero, whom Cue had
recognizedandseenbeforeattheBBRC.AbriganaandCueapproachedthetriowhostoodameteraway
fromtheJiffy.SPO1AbriganafriskedAbriolandseizedfromhiswaista.38caliberrevolverwithserial
numberPO8485withsix(6)emptyshellsinitscylinder.[11]UnderAbriolsseat,thepolicealsofounda
.45caliberpistolbearingserialnumberPGO13506withnine(9)liveroundsinitsmagazineandanother
.45caliberpistolwithserialnumber52469loadedwithfive(5)unfiredbullets.[12]
While the patrol cars were chasing the Jiffy, another police team proceeded to the crime scene in
responsetothealarm.ThisteamfromPoliceStationNo.3inSanNicolas,CebuCityrushedthevictim
to the Cebu City Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Meanwhile, PO3 Celso
Seville,Jr.,ahomicideinvestigatorofPoliceStationNo.3foundfour(4).45calibershellssomefour(4)
feetawayfromthevictimsbody,andtwo(2)deformedslugswherethevictimhadlain,andsubmitted
themtotheRegion7PNPCrimeLaboratoryforballisticstesting.[13]
Dr.LadislaoDiola,Jr.,ChiefofthePNPRegion7CrimeLaboratoryautopsiedthevictimsbody.He
found that the cause of the victims death was cardiorespiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage
secondarytomultiplegunshotwoundstothetrunkandhead.[14]Dr.Diolarecovereda.38caliberslug
fromthecorpse,whichhelatersubmittedforballisticsexamination.
SPO4LemuelCaser,ballisticianofthePNPCrimeLaboratory,reportedthefollowing:
1.FiredcartridgecasesmarkedJA1toJA3possessessimilarindividualcharacteristicsmarkingswith
thetestcartridgecasesfiredfromcal.45withSN:PGO13506
2.FiredcartridgecasesmarkedJA4andE696possessessimilarindividualcharacteristicsmarkings
withthetestcartridgecasesfiredfromcal.45pistolwithSN:52469
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

3/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

3.FiredbulletmetaljacketmarkedJA5possessessimilarindividualcharacteristicsmarkingswithtest
bulletsfiredfromcal.45pistolwithSN:PGO13506
4.FiredcartridgecasesmarkedE451toE456possessessimilarindividualcharacteristicsmarkings
withthetestcartridgecasesfiredfromcal.38Rev.SN:P8445
5.FiredbulletsmarkedasJA6andLDpossessessimilarindividualcharacteristicmarkingswiththetest
bulletsfiredfromcal.38Rev.SN:P8445.[15]
Thefollowingday,appellantsunderwentaparaffintest.Thehandsofappellantswerefoundpositive
for gunpowder residues. A chemistry test on the firearms showed that the three handguns were also
positive. Inspector Myrna Areola, Chief of the Chemistry Section of the PNP Region 7 Crime
Laboratory,statedinhertestimonythatthefirearmshadbeenfired,[16]andthatappellantshadfiredthe
gunswithinaperiodofseventytwo(72)hourspriortotheexamination.
The widow and relatives of the victim testified on the possible motive behind the killing. They
claimedthevictim,aconfesseddruguser,mayhavebeenrubbedoutontheordersofNavalesforfailure
toremitP31,000asproceedsfrompushingprohibiteddrugs.Afterfailingtodeliverthedrugmoneyto
Navales, for whom he was repeatedly pushing drugs, the victim went into hiding, but later returned to
CebuCitybecausehemissedhisfamily.[17]
Appellantsdenytheaccusations.AbriolaverredthatheandDosdoswereamongtheseveraltrustees
atBBRCassignedtoworkinthekitchen.AppellantAstellero,whowasthewardensdriver,wasalsoin
chargeofmarketingfortheprisonersfood.Onthedayoftheincident,Astellerorealizedthattherewas
nomoneyforthenextdaysmarketingsoheaskedAbrioltoaccompanyhimtothehouseofNavales,but
sincehewasnotin,theyreturnedtoBBRCandsawNavalesanhourlater.Aftertheyreceivedthemoney
fromNavalesnieceontheirwaybacktoBBRC,Dosdosheardgunshots.AbriolorderedAstellero,who
wasdriving,toturnback.ThenAbriolclaimedhesawatall,slimmanalightfromaJiffyandshootata
pronefigureontheground.Secondslater,thegunmanreturnedtotheJiffy,whichspedoff.Abriolsaid
heorderedAstellerotochasethatJiffybutithadtoomuchofaheadstartandtheylostsightofit.Abriol
orderedAstellerotoproceedtoBBRC.AtColonStreet,theyheardgunshotsbehindthemandtheblaring
sirenofapolicecar.Theyexplainedthatsincetheyweredetentionprisoners,theyhadtoevademeeting
thepolice.Theyheardmoregunshots.UponreachingBBRC,thegateswereclosed,sotheydrovetothe
old airport. On their way back to BBRC several police cars blocked them and arrested them. SPO4
EleazarAbriganafriskedhimandtookthe.38servicerevolverfromhiswaist.[18]
Abriol also testified that he surrendered his service firearm to the BBRC Administrative Officer
when he was served a warrant of arrest for murder in Criminal Case No. CBU28843. However, the
handgunwasdefectiveanditwasreturnedtohimforrepairbyArmscor,anduponrepairhehandedit
overtotheBBRCarmory.Thearmorerreturnedittohimsincetherewasnoplacetokeepit.Hesaidthat
although he was a detention prisoner, he had yet to be discharged from the service. He was assigned
guardandescortdutiesbythewarden.[19]Abriolsaidthatonthedayoftheincidenthewas,asaBBRC
jailguard, authorized to carry his service firearm.[20] He presented a Memorandum Receipt[21]
authorizinghimtocarrythegovernmentissued.38revolver.[22]
Onthewitnessstand,AstelleroandDosdosnarratedasimilarversionoftheincidentasdidAbriol.
Bothvehementlydeniedhavinganyknowledgeofthetwo.45caliberpistolsfoundbyPO3Cueinthe
Jiffy.[23]
ThedefensealsopresentedDr.JesusP.Cerna,medicolegalofficeroftheCebuCityPNPCommand,
to testify on the caliber of the firearms which might have caused the gunshot wounds of the victim.
Relying on the Necropsy Report prepared by Dr. Diola, Dr. Cerna declared that wound nos. 1 and 2,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

4/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

whicheachmeasured0.6cm.by0.6cm.,mayhavebeencausedbya.38caliberfirearm.Astowound
nos.3and4,whicheachmeasured0.5cm.by0.5cm.,itwaspossiblethata.38handgunwasused,or
one with a smaller bore. Dr. Cerna opined that a .45 pistol could not have inflicted all the foregoing
wounds,astheentrypointsweretoosmallfora.45caliberbullet.Withrespecttothegrazingwounds
found on the victims body, Dr. Cerna testified that it was impossible to determine the caliber of the
firearmused.[24]
The trial court found appellants version of the incident neither convincing and credible and, as
earlierstated,itbelievedtheprosecutionsversion.Petitionerswereconvictedoftheoffensescharged.
Hence,thisappeal,withappellantsassigningthefollowingerrors:
I

THELOWERCOURTERREDINCONVICTINGTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANTSOFTHECRIMES
OFMURDERANDILLEGALPOSSESSIONOFFIREARMSDESPITETHEFLIMSYAND
UNRELIABLEEVIDENCEPRESENTEDBYTHEPROSECUTION.
II

THELOWERCOURTERREDINFINDINGTHEGUILTOFTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANTSOF
THECRIMEOFMURDERANDILLEGALPOSSESSIONOFFIREARMSBEYOND
REASONABLEDOUBT.
At issue is whether the prosecutions evidence, which is mainly circumstantial, suffices to convict
appellantsformurderandviolationofPresidentialDecreeNo.1866,beyondreasonabledoubt.
A.CriminalCaseNo.CBU30350
On their conviction for murder, appellants argue that the prosecutions circumstantial evidence
againstthemisweak,ambiguous,andinconclusive.Specifically,appellantscontendthattheyshouldbe
acquittedbecause:
First,eyewitnessRomeoSta.Cruz,Jr.,didnotpersonallyidentifythemastheculprits.Atnopoint
inhistestimonydideyewitnessSta.Cruz,Jr.,positivelyidentifyanyoftheappellantsorappellantAbriol
asthegunman.Sta.Cruz,Jr.onlygaveageneraldescriptionoftheassailants,despiteattemptstomake
himgiveacategoricalidentification.HeadmittedhefoundoutthenameofAbriolfromtelevisionand
newsreportsandcouldnotidentifyAbriolastheonewhomhesawshotthevictim.Thetranscriptofhis
testimonyisrevealing.
Q:ThenaftertheJiffystoppedinfrontofthefallenvictim,whathappenednext?
A:IsawthattherewasamanwhodisembarkedfromtheJiffy.Hewasatall,thinfellowwhodisembarked
fromtheJiffyandatthesametime,heshotthefallenvictim.
Q:Howmanytimesdidheshootthevictim?
A:IcannotcountattorneybutIsawhimshootingthevictim.
Q:Inyouraffidavit,yousaidthatthepersonwhodisembarkedfromtheJiffy,whosenameyouknowlateron
asPO2AlbertAbriol,PNP,shotthevictiminthedifferentpartsofhisbody. IfAlbertAbriolisnowin
thecourtroom,willyoupleasepointtohim?
A:IwillknowhimattorneybecauseoftheTVshowsandnewspapers.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

5/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

COURT:(TOWITNESS)
Q:You are referring to the name of that man who disembarked from the Jiffy and fired several shots at the
fallenvictim?
A:Yes,IknowhisnameYourHonoron(sic)thenewscast.
COURT:(TOWITNESS)
Q:Alright,forgetthenews.ThemanyousawwhenhealightedfromtheJiffyandpoured(sic)severalbullets
onthefallenman,lookaroundifheisinthecourtroom?
A:IcannotidentifyYourHonor.
COURT:
Q:Youcannot?
A:But[because]whatIsawisamanwhoistallandthinbecauseitwasdark.

xxx
Q:Howmanypersonsfiredashotatthefallenman?
A:IonlysawthatmanYourHonorwhoalightedfromtheJiffy.
Q:Didyouseehisphysicalfeatures?

A: Only (t)his, I can only tell his height, he was tall and his body build is thin. Tall and thin.
(Emphasissupplied)[25]
Sincethesoleeyewitnesscouldnotidentifythegunmanandhiscompanions,theprosecutionrelied
on circumstantial evidence from which the trial court could draw its findings and conclusion of
culpability.[26] Circumstantial evidence may be relied upon, as in this case, when to insist on direct
testimonywouldresultinsettingfelonsfree.
Second, appellants assert that the paraffin tests are judicially recognized as unreliable and
inconclusive.Aparaffintestcouldestablishthepresenceorabsenceofnitratesonthehand.However,it
cannotestablishthatthesourceofthenitrateswasthedischargeoffirearms.Nitratesarealsofoundin
substancesotherthangunpowder.Apersonwhotestspositivemayhavehandledoneormoresubstances
with the same positive reaction for nitrates such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals,
tobacco,andleguminousplants.Hence,thepresenceofnitratesshouldonlybetakenasanindicationofa
possibilitythatapersonhasfiredagun.[27]However,itmustbeborneinmindthatappellantswerenot
convictedonthesolebasisoftheparaffintest.
Third, appellants claim that the autopsy report of prosecution witness Dr. Ladislao Diola revealed
seriousambiguities.[28]Dr.JesusP.Cerna,usingthesameautopsyreport,saidthatthegunshotwounds
measuring0.6x0.6centimeterscouldnothavebeencausedbya.45caliberpistolbecauseanentrance
woundofthatsizewastoosmallfora.45caliberbullet.[29]Dr.Cernaclaimedthatawoundinflictedby
a.45pistolwouldhaveanentrypointofanywherefrom1.1to1.3centimeters.Hedeclaredthatitwas
withmorereasonthatanentrancewoundmeasuring.5x.5centimeterscouldnotbecausedbyacaliber
.45bullet.[30]Sincenofirearmsmallerthana.38caliberpistolwasseizedfromappellants,theyclaim
theobservationofDr.Cernaonlyshowsthattheycouldnothaveshotthevictim.
We note, however, that during crossexamination, Dr. Diola carefully explained that a firearms
caliberisnottheonlybasisfordeterminingthecauseofthegunshotwound.Hesaid:
ATTY.REMOTIQUE:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

6/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

Q:So,normallythesizeof.5cmx.5cmwhichisthepointofentryofgunshotwoundNo.3thismayhave
beencausedbyafirearmoflessercaliberthancaliber.38?
A:Notnecessarily.Thereisaverysmalldifferenceinthesizeandthisdoesnotprecludethatgunshotwound
No.3mayhavealsobeencausedbythesamefirearmwhichcausedgunshotwoundsNos.1and2.There
arefactorswhichoftenaffectthesizeofthewoundsatthetimeoftheexamination,perhapsarecission
(sic) of the skin in the area where gunshot Wound No. 3 was inflicted so that gunshot wound becomes
smaller.
Q:Didyounotsaythatnormallythepointofentryofthegunshotwoundsvarywiththecaliberofthefirearm
which caused it, so that the point of entry caused by one firearm of a particular caliber may be bigger
thanthepointofentryofagunshotwoundcausedbyanotherfirearmoflessercaliber?
A:Itoldyouofotherfactorsthatoftenaffectthesizeoftheentryofthebulletalthoughthecaliberisonebasis
ofthesizeofthewounds.

xxx
Q:Willyouexplainfurtheronthatbecausemyunderstandingisthat.5cmwoundmustperforcebecausedby
afirearmoflessercaliberthanthatwhichcausedthe.6cmwound?
A:As I said there are ranges in the size of the wounds.The variance in the size of the wound when it is
minimaldoesnotexcludethepossibilitythatawoundwitha.5cmsizeand.6cmsizecouldhavebeen
causedbythesamecaliber.(Emphasissupplied).[31]

TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralpointsoutthatDr.DiolastestimonyissupportedbyDr.PedroP.
Solis,amedicalexpert,inhisbookentitledLegalMedicine.Thefactorswhichcouldmakethewoundof
entrancebiggerthanthecaliberinclude:(1)shootingincontactornearfire(2)deformityofthebullet
which entered (3) a bullet which might have entered the skin sidewise and (4) an acute angular
approachofthebullet.However,wherethewoundofentranceissmallerthanthefirearmscaliber,the
samemaybeattributedtothefragmentationofthebulletbeforeenteringtheskinortoacontractionof
theelastictissuesoftheskin(stresssupplied).[32]Dr.Diolatestifiedthata.45caliberpistolcouldhave
caused the grazing wounds on the victims head and extremities.[33] Dr. Cerna corroborated Dr. Diolas
findingsinthisregard.[34]Suchexpertopinionsdisproveappellantstheorythatthe.45caliberhandguns
confiscatedfromthemcouldnothavebeenusedinkillingthevictim.
Fourth,appellantsallegethatthetestimonyofP/InspectorLemuelCaser,theprosecutionsballistics
expert, clearly shows that: (1) He is ignorantabout such ballistics instrumentssuchas themicrometer,
goniometer, and pressure barrel.[35] (2) He is not conversant with the required references concerning
ballistics, particularly books on the subject by foreign authorities.[36] (3) He could not scientifically
determinethe caliber of a bullet.[37] Since P/Inspector Caser lacked adequate training and expertise in
ballistics,theyclaimthathisopinionthatthetestbulletsandcartridgesmatchedtheslugsandcartridges
recoveredfromthesceneofthecrimewasnotreliable.AppellantsalsoassailCasersfailuretotakethe
necessaryphotographstosupporthisfindings.
Anexpertwitnessisonewhobelongstotheprofessionorcallingtowhichthesubjectmatterofthe
inquiryrelatesandwhopossessesspecialknowledgeonquestionsonwhichheproposestoexpressan
opinion.[38]Thereisnodefinitestandardofdeterminingthedegreeofskillorknowledgethatawitness
must possess in order to testify as an expert. It is sufficient that the following factors be present: (1)
trainingandeducation(2)particular,firsthandfamiliaritywiththefactsofthecaseand(3)presentation
of authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based.[39] The question of whether a witness is
properlyqualifiedtogiveanexpertopiniononballisticsrestswiththediscretionofthetrialcourt.[40]
IngivingcredencetoCasersexperttestimony,thetrialcourtexplained:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

7/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

ThedefensedowngradedthecapabilityofCaserinforensicsballisticsandidentifyingfirearms.Much
stressisgiventotheabsenceofphotographsofhisexamination.Nonetheless,theCourtissatisfied
(with)Casersexamination,findingsandconclusionswiththeuseofamicroscope.Casersconclusion
basedonhisexaminationdeservescredit.Hefoundtheimpressionsontheprimerofthefiredcartridges
thatweretestfiredtohavethesamecharacteristicswiththoserecoveredatthesceneofthecrime.
Wheneveratriggermanpumpsabullet(into)thebodyofhisvictim,hereleasesachunkofconcrete
evidencethatbindshiminseparablytohisact.Everygunbarreldeeplyimprintsoneverybulletits
characteristicmarkingpeculiartothatgunandthatgunalone.Thesemarkingmightbemicroscopicbut
theyareterriblyvocalinannouncingtheirorigin.Andtheyareasinfallibleforpurposesofidentification,
astheprintleftbythehumanfinger.[41]
WeagreewiththetrialcourtthatP/InspectorCaserqualifiesasaballisticsexpert.Heisalicensed
criminologist, trained at the Ballistics Command and Laboratory Center in Fort Bonifacio, in the PNP
Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, and in the National Bureau of Investigation. He had previously
testified as an expert witness in at least twentyseven (27) murder and homicide cases all over the
country.[42] An expert witness need not present comparative microphotographs of test bullets and
cartridgestosupporthisfindings.[43]Examinationunderacomparisonmicroscopeshowingthatthetest
bulletandtheevidencebulletbothcamefromthesamegunissufficient.[44]Moreover,theballistician
conclusivelyfoundsimilarcharacteristicmarkingsintheevidence,testcartridgesandslugs.
Fifth,appellantsaverthattheprosecutionfailedtoshowanyplausiblemotiveforappellantstokill
thevictim.TheprosecutiontriedtoprovethattheircoaccusedNavalesinstigatedthemtokillthevictim
because Navales had a grudge against him. However, as Navales was acquitted, appellants insist that
Navalesacquittalshouldredoundtotheirbenefitsincenomotivewasimputedontheirpart.
Motiveisnotanessentialelementofacrime,[45]particularlyofmurder.[46]Itbecomesrelevantonly
wherethereisnopositiveevidenceofanaccusedsdirectparticipationinthecommissionofacrime.[47]
Stated otherwise, proof of motive becomes essential to a conviction only where the evidence of an
accusedsparticipationinanoffenseiscircumstantial.[48]AcarefulperusaloftheStatesevidencereveals
that the prosecution had established sufficient motive why appellants killed the victim, independent of
anygrudgewhichNavalesmayhavehadagainstthelatter.Atthetimeoftheincident,appellantsAbriol
and Dosdos were both BBRC detention prisoners during Navales term as warden. Abriol and Dosdos
weretreatedashighlyfavoredtrusteesofNavalesandwereneverlockedup.Abriol and Dosdos were
even allowed to go out of BBRC to do the marketing for the prisons kitchen. Appellant Astellero, a
formerdetentionprisoner,wasalsoarecipientofNavalesfavors.NavaleshiredAstelleroashispersonal
driver after the latter served his sentence. Navales and the victim, a former BBRC jailguard, were
associatesindealingwithprohibiteddrugs,untiltheyhadafallingoutallegedlyafterthevictimfailedto
remit to Navales proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs amounting to P31,000. Appellants apparently
killed the victim to return the special favors Navales had showered them. Lack of a motive does not
necessarilyprecludeconviction.Personshavebeenkilledorassaultedfornoreasonatall,andfriendship
orevenrelationshipisnodeterrenttothecommissionofacrime.[49]
Sixth, in the present case, appellants contend that the PNP cannot be presumed to have done their
work since it committed errors and blunders in transferring possession and custody of the physical
evidence. They allege there was a possibility that the evidence was tainted, planted, or manufactured.
Besides, appellants point out that the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the constitutional
presumptionofinnocenceoftheaccused.
Therecordshowsthatthepoliceofficersdidnotissueacknowledgementreceiptsinsomeinstances.
However,minorlapsesdonotmeanthattheStatehadfailedtoshowanunbrokenchainofcustodyofthe
subjectfirearmsandammunition,northatsaidfirearmsandammunitionweretampered.Theslugsand
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

8/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

spentshellsrecoveredfromthesceneofthecrimeandthevictimscorpsewereplainlyidentifiedinopen
courtbythePNPinvestigators.Theballisticiantestifiedthatthebulletsandcartridgesrecoveredfromthe
crimescenehadbeenfiredfromthesubjecthandguns.Underthesecircumstances,wemustrespectthe
presumptionoftheregularityintheperformanceofduties.
Seventh, appellants insist that the prosecution failed to show that the red Jiffy used by them and
seized by the police officers was the same vehicle used by the gunmen who killedAlejandro Flores.
AppellantspointoutthatPO3Rustela,whowasaboardpolicecarNo.201,testifiedthattheylostsightof
theredJiffywhilechasingitalongLeonKilatStreet.AppellantsarguethattheJiffywhichwaschasedby
patrolcarNo.208untilitwascornerednearBBRCbytheotherpursuingpatrolcarswasnotthesame
vehicleoriginallysightedandtailedbypatrolcarNo.201.
Inrejectingthistheory,thetrialcourtstatedthat:
PO3Rustelawhowasnearby,immediatelyrantothesceneofthecrimeandmettheredjiffywiththree
personsonboard,thatspeedilypassedbyhimproceedingtowardsLeonKilatStreet.Car208readily
pickedupthetrailandpursuedtheredjiffyfromLeonKilat,thenmakingabruptturnsondowntown
streetsuntilotherpatrolcarsjoinedthechaseandcapturedtheminLahug,neartheBBRC.Theidentity
oftheredjiffywasneverinterrupted.MembersoftheMobilePatrolCarsidentifiedincourtwithout
battinganeyelash,theredjiffywhichwastheobjectoftheshootingalarm.Therewasnointerruption,no
letupinthechase,rightafterAlejandroFloreswasshotandtherewasnootherredjiffythatthecrewsof
the(pursuing)patrolcarsnoticed.
TheCourtrejectstheirclaimofinnocence,fortheirveryactsbeliedthesame.
Astellerocouldhavestoppedthejeepuponnoticingthatpatrolcarswerealreadyrunningafterthemwith
sirens,blinkersandwarningshotsfired.FromLeonKilatStreettoLahugairport,therewereseveral
policestationsthattheycouldhavesoughtshelterandpoliceassistance.Guilthasmanywaysof
surfacing.Insteadofstopping,AbriolorderedAstellerotoacceleratetheirspeed.Theirobviouspurpose
wastoeludethepatrolcars.Flightisindicativeofguilt.[50]
But,inthiscase,isthetotalityofthecircumstantialevidencerelieduponbythetrialcourtsufficient
tosupportaconviction?
Circumstantialevidenceisthatwhichindirectlyprovesafactinissue.Forcircumstantialevidenceto
besufficienttosupportaconviction,allthecircumstancesmustbeconsistentwitheachother,consistent
withthetheorythattheaccusedisguiltyoftheoffensecharged,andatthesametimeinconsistentwith
thehypothesisthatheisinnocentandwitheveryotherpossible,rationalhypothesis,exceptthatofguilt.
[51]An accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence where all the circumstances
constituteanunbrokenchainleadingtoonefairandreasonableconclusionpointingtotheaccused,tothe
exclusionofallothers,astheculprit.[52]
Inourassessment,theprosecutionsevidenceconstitutesanunbrokenchainofeventsleadingtothe
inevitable conclusion of guilt on the part of appellants. First, the fatal shooting of Alejandro Flores
occurredataround11:50P.M.ofJune5,1993infrontoftheABSCBNcompoundinCebuCity. The
gunman,whowastallandthin,alightedfromaredJiffy,pumpedseveralbulletsintothepronevictim,
andgotbackaboardtheJiffywhichthenspedtowardsLeonKilatStreet.Second,eyewitnessRomeoSta.
Cruz,Jr.sdescriptionofthegunmanastallandthinperfectlymatchesthephysiqueofappellantAbriol.
Third,PO3AlexanderRustela,whowasclosetothecrimescene,heardthegunshotsandrantowardsthe
placewherethesoundofgunshotsemanated.AredJiffywiththreepersonsaboardwhizzedbyhimand
abruptlyturnedatLeonKilatStreet.AfterSta.Cruz,Jr.informedhimthatthegunmenwereaboardared
Jiffy, Rustela boarded patrol car No. 201, radioed an alarm, and commenced a pursuit of the fleeing
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

9/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

vehicle.Police car no. 208 received the alarm, and on turning into Leon Kilat Street, encountered the
speedingredJiffy.TheyimmediatelychasedtheJiffybutfailedtocatchit.PolicecarsNos.208and205
corneredthevehicleinfrontoftheDonBoscobuildingnearBBRC.PO2GeraldCue,onpatrolcarno.
205firedawarningshotatthevehicleanddirectedallthoseaboardtodisembark.Three men got out,
with their hands raised. SPO1 Abrigana, on patrol car no. 208 and PO2 Cue approached the trio.
Abrigana frisked the man who was seated in the front passenger seat, who turned out to be appellant
Abriol,andrecoveredfromhiswaista.38caliberrevolverwithsixemptyshells.Cuesearchedthered
Jiffy and found two loaded .45 caliber pistols under the front seat whereAbriol had sat. Other police
officers immediately went to the crime scene where they found the victim barely alive. PO3 Seville
retrieved four .45 caliber slugs and two deformed slugs at the spot where the victim was shot. The
autopsy of the victims remains showed that he died of cardio respiratory arrest due to shock and
hemorrhagesecondarytogunshotwounds.Adeformedmetaljacketofa.38caliberslugwasrecovered
from the corpse. Ballistics tests showed that the bullets and cartridges had identical individual
characteristics with those of the test bullets and cartridges. Paraffin tests conducted on each of the
appellants,onedayaftertheincident,revealedthatallwerepositiveforgunpowderresidues.Thesubject
firearmswerealsochemicallyexaminedandfoundpositiveforgunpowderresidue.Beforetheshooting
incident,appellantswereseenatNavaleshouseuntilaround7:30P.M.,whentheyleftaboardNavales
red Jiffy with Astellero driving, Abriol in the front passenger seat, and Dosdos in the back seat. [53]
Appellantsseatingarrangementswereexactlythesame,severalhourslater,aftertheywerepursuedand
corneredbypolicecarsnearBBRC.AppellantsadmittedthattheydroppedbytheNavalesresidenceat
around7:00P.M.and11:00P.M.
Theseunbrokenchainofeventsprovenotonlyappellantsidentitiesbutalsotheirparticipationand
collectiveresponsibilityinthemurderofAlejandroFlores.Theyrevealaunityofpurposeandconcerted
actionevidencingtheirconspiracytokillhim.Againstthismatrixoffactsandcircumstances,appellants
bare denials cannot stand. Their story of chasing a red Jiffy is merely a disingenuous diversion of no
evidentiaryvalueforthedefense.
Finally, the information for murder alleged treachery and evident premeditation. We note, though,
thatthetrialcourtdidnotstatewhichcircumstancequalifiedthekillingintomurder.
A review of the record would reveal that there was no evident premeditation. There is evident
premeditationwhenthefollowingareshown:(a)thetimewhentheaccuseddeterminedtocommitthe
crime(b)anactoractsmanifestlyindicatingthattheaccusedhasclungtohisdeterminationand(c)a
lapseoftimebetweenthedeterminationtocommitthecrimeandtheexecutionthereofsufficienttoallow
himtoreflectupontheconsequencesofhisact.[54]Evidentpremeditationindicatesdeliberateplanning
andpreparation.Nowhereintherecordisitshownwhenandhowappellantsplannedandpreparedtokill
thevictim.
Concerning treachery, however, it was shown that: (1) the means of execution employed gave the
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate and (2) the means of execution was
deliberatelyorconsciouslyadopted.[55]Thesetwinrequisiteswereadequatelyproved.
Appellantshadsuperiorityinnumbersandweapons.Thevictimwaswithoutanymeanstodefend
himselfasnoweaponwasfoundorevenintimatedtobeinhispossession.Thevictimwasrunningaway
fromtheJiffypriortothekilling.Thathewaswarnedorthreatenedearlierisofnomoment.Evenwhen
the victim is warned of danger to his person, if the execution of the attack made it impossible for the
victim to defend himself or to retaliate, treachery can still be appreciated.[56] The victim was lying
prostrate on the ground when he was deliberately and mercilessly riddled with bullets. The weapons
used,thenumberofassailants,theswiftandplannedmanneroftheattack,andthemultiplenumberof
woundsinflicteduponthevictimalldemonstrateadeterminedassaultwithintenttokillthevictim. No
doubttherewastreachery.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

10/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

B.CriminalCaseNo.CBU33664
On their conviction for illegal possession of firearms, appellants contend that the handguns and
ammunitionsallegedlytakenfromthembythepoliceofficerswereillegallyseized.Theyassertthatthe
police had no warrant to effect a search and seizure, such that these illegally seized firearms were
inadmissibleasevidence,anditwaserrorforthetrialcourttoadmitthem.
Thereareeight(8)instanceswhereawarrantlesssearchandseizureisvalid.Theyare:(1)consented
searches[57](2)asanincidenttoalawfularrest[58](3)searchesofvesselsandaircraftforviolationof
immigration, customs, and drug laws[59] (4) searches of moving vehicles[60] (5) searches of
automobilesatbordersorconstructiveborders(6)wheretheprohibitedarticlesareinplainview[61](7)
searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations and (8) stop and
friskoperations.[62]
Inthiscase,thewarrantlesssearchandseizureofthesubjecthandgunsandammunitionisvalidfor
tworeasons.Itwasasearchincidentaltoalawfularrest.Itwasmadeafterafatalshooting,andpursuitof
afastmovingvehicleseekingtoeludepursuingpoliceofficers,andamorethanreasonablebeliefonthe
part of the police officers that the fleeing suspects aboard said vehicle had just engaged in criminal
activity.Theurgentneedofthepolicetotakeimmediateactioninthelightoftheforegoingexigencies
clearly satisfies the requirements for warrantless arrests under the Rules of Court.[63] Moreover, when
caught in flagrante delicto with firearms and ammunition which they were not authorized to carry,
appellantswereactuallyviolatingP.D.No.1866,anothergroundforvalidarrestundertheRules.[64]
AppellantsfurthercontendthatthetrialcourterredinconvictingappellantsAstelleroandDosdosof
illegalpossessionoffirearms.Theypointoutthatthe.38caliberrevolverwasrecoveredfromappellant
Abriol, who as a policeman was authorized to carry and possess said firearm, as evidenced by his
MemorandumReceipt(MR),whichhadnotbeenrecalled,cancelledorrevokeduntilthetimeofthetrial
of these cases.Appellants claim that the two .45 caliber pistols could have been left in the vehicle by
PNPpersonnelassignedatBBRC,consideringthattheredJiffywasgenerallyusedasaservicevehicle
byBBRCpersonnel.Theyalsoarguethattheprosecutionfailedtoproveappellantsownership,control,
andpossessionofthe.45caliberpistols,consideringthatappellantsweresixmetersawayfromtheJiffy
whensaidhandgunswereallegedlyfound.
TosustainaconvictionforviolationofP.D.No.1866,theprosecutionmustprovetwoelementsof
theoffense:(1)theexistenceofthesubjectfirearm(2)thefactthattheaccusedwhoownedorpossessed
thefirearmdoesnothavethecorrespondinglicenseorpermittopossessit.[65]Thesetheprosecutiondid.
It presented a .38 caliber revolver with serial number PO8445, a .45 caliber pistol with serial number
PGO13506ParaOrdinance,anda.45caliberpistolwithserialnumber52469.The.38caliberhandgun
wasrecoveredfromappellantAbriol,whilethetwo.45caliberautomaticswerefoundandseizedfrom
under the front passenger seat of appellants vehicle. SPO4 Aquilles Famoso of the Cebu City PNP
MetropolitanDistrictCommandsFirearmsandExplosiveUnittestifiedthatappellantswerenotlistedas
licensed firearm owners in Cebu City.[66]The prosecution also presented a certification from P/Senior
InspectorEdwinRoqueoftheFirearmsandExplosivesDivisionofPNPHeadquartersatCampCrame,
Quezon City that appellantAbriol is not licensed to hold any firearm that the .45 caliber pistols were
unlicensedandthatacertificationfromthePNPFirearmsandExplosivesOfficeattestingthataperson
isnotalicenseeofanyfirearm,provesbeyondreasonabledoubtthesecondelementofillegalpossession
offirearm.[67]
AbriolinsiststhathehadavalidMRauthorizinghimtocarrythe.38revolver.We agree with the
observationofthetrialcourtthat:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

11/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

TheclaimofAbriolthat.38caliberwasissuedtohim,asevidencedbythecorrespondingreceipt(MR),
isofnomoment.WhileanMRisanauthorityofAbrioltopossessthegovernmentfirearmthatwas
issuedtohim,whenhewaschargedanddetainedatBBRCforanearliercaseofmurder,otherthanthe
caseatbar,hewasalreadythenatthatmomentadetainedprisonerandtherefore,(un)authorizedtocarry
afirearm.AmilitarymanoramemberofthePNPwhocommitsacrime,isimmediatelydisarmedupon
hisarrestandstrippedofalltherightsandprivilegesthatgowiththefunctionofhisoffice,andthis
includes,inthecaseofAbriol,hisMR.Thus,whenheshotAlejandroFloreswithhis.38caliber
revolver,thisfirearmwasalreadyunauthorizedanditsuseandpossessionillegal.[68]
EvenifAbriolsMRwasvalid,saidauthorizationwaslimitedonlytothe.38caliberrevolverandnot
thetwo.45caliberautomaticpistolsfoundunderthefrontpassengerseatoftheJiffy.Appellantswere
stillintheunlawfulpossessionofthe.45caliberpistols.UnderP.D.No.1866,possessionisnotlimited
toactualpossession.[69]Inthiscase,appellantshadcontroloverthepistols.They were all liable since
conspiracywasestablishedandtheactofoneistheactofall.[70]
AppellantsclaimthattheyweresixmetersawayfromtheJiffywhenitwassearchedandthetwo.45
caliberpistolswereseized.Theysuggestthatthepolicemenwhosearchedthevehiclecouldhaveplanted
saidfirearms.Thetrialcourtfoundthattheywereinfactonlyonemeterawayfromthevehicle.Findings
of fact of the trial court, when supported by the evidence on record, are binding and conclusive upon
appellatecourts.[71]
Alltold,onthechargeofillegalpossessionoffirearms,noreversibleerrorwascommittedbythe
trialcourtwhenitfoundappellantsguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt.
The Office of the Solicitor General recommends that although appellants were charged with and
convicted of two separate offenses of murder and violation of P.D. No. 1866, R.A. No. 8294, which
amendedsaiddecree,shouldbeappliedtoappellantsretroactively,citingPeoplev.Molina,292SCRA
742,779(1998)interpretingR.A.No.8294.
Weagree.WeruledinMolinathatwiththepassageofR.A.No.8294onJune6,1997,theuseofan
unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is not a separate crime, but merely a special aggravating
circumstance. This was recently reiterated in People v. Castillo, G.R. Nos. 13159293, February 15,
2000.[72]Appellantsarethusguiltyonlyofmurderwiththespecialaggravatingcircumstanceofuseof
unlicensed firearms. The imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua cannot however be modified
sincethemurdertookplacebeforetheeffectivityofR.A.No.7659.
Afinalwordonthedamages.InadditiontotheawardofP50,000asindemnityexdelicto,thetrial
courtawardedP30,000 in actual damages, representing a reasonable amount for the embalming, vigil,
wakeandburialexpenses,andP30,000asattorneysfees.Tobeentitledtoactualdamages,itisnecessary
toprovetheactualamountoflosswithareasonabledegreeofcertainty,premiseduponcompetentproof,
andonthebestevidenceobtainablebytheinjuredparty.[73]Nosuchevidencewasoffered.Theawardof
actual damages must, therefore, be deleted. However, temperate damages may be awarded since the
familyofthevictimhasdemonstrablyspentforthewake,funeralandburialarrangements.Theamount
ofP20,000shouldsufficeastemperatedamages.Inaddition,wefindanawardofexemplarydamagesin
order,pursuanttoArticle2230oftheCivilCode. [74]Thekillingwasattendedbythespecialaggravating
circumstanceofuseofunlicensedfirearms.Moreover,thepublicgooddemandsthatdetainedprisoners
shouldnotabusetheirstatusastrustees.Hadthepolicebeenunsuccessfulintheirpursuitofappellants,
thelatterwouldhaveusedtheBBRCasshelterandasanalibithattheycouldnothavecommittedthe
crimesincetheywerethenindetention.Thus, we find an award of P10,000 as exemplary damages in
order.Accordingly,theawardofattorneysfeesissustained.[75]
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 10, in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

12/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

Criminal Cases Nos. CBU30350 and CBU33664 is hereby MODIFIED. Appellants Albert Abriol,
MacarioAstellero, and Januario Dosdos are hereby found GUILTY of murder, qualified by treachery,
with the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms and are hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided for by law. Appellants
Abriol,Astellero,andDosdosarealsoorderedtopay,jointlyandseverally,theheirsofAlejandroFlores
thesumofP50,000asdeathindemnity,P20,000astemperatedamages,P10,000asexemplarydamages,
andP30,000asattorneysfees,aswellasthecosts.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo,(Chairman),Mendoza,Buena,andDeLeon,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
[1]Rollo,pp.132133.
[2]Vol.I,Records,p.149.
[3]TSN,August24,1994,pp.12,3940.
[4]TSN,July27,1993,pp.89.
[5]Rollo,p.196.SeealsoTSN,October14,1994,pp.34.
[6]TSN,June29,1993,p.3TSN,July21,1994,pp.89TSN,September6,1994,pp.45.TSN,October14,1994,pp.89.
[7]TSN,September7,1994,pp.12,24TSN,September13,1994,pp.34,TSN,October14,1994,pp.915.
[8]TSN,May4,1994,pp.7,1416TSN,July27,1993,pp.1213TSN,April19,1994,pp.89TSN,July21,1994,p.41.
[9]TSN,July14,1994,p.47.
[10]Vol.III,Records,p.1.
[11]TSN,June17,1993,p.30.
[12]TSN,June17,1993,pp.2243.
[13]TSN,March23,1994,pp.47.TSN,May3,1994,pp.46.
[14]ExhibitP,Crim.CaseNo.CBU30350,Vol.I,Records,p.409.
[15]ExhibitG,Crim.CaseNo.CBU30350,Vol.I,Records,pp.404405TSN,July2,1993,A.M.,pp.1014.
[16]TSN,July8,1993,pp.316.
[17]TSN,July14,1994,pp.4749TSN,July21,1994,pp.1718.
[18]TSN,August24,1993,pp.2335.
[19]TSN,August24,1993,pp.1217,41.
[20]TSN,August24,1993,p.15.
[21]ExhibitX,Crim.CaseNo.CBU30350,Vol.I,Records,p.434.
[22]TSN,August24,1993,pp.1721.
[23]TSN,September6,1994,pp.619TSN,September7,1994,pp.1520.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

13/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

[24]TSN,November8,1994,pp.1115TSN,November17,1994,pp.48.
[25]TSN,June17,1993,pp.9,11
[26]Peoplev.Salas,G.R.No.115192,327SCRA319,328(2000)citingPeoplev.Lopez,G.R.No.131151,313SCRA114
(1999),Peoplev.DeLaCruz,G.R.No.111704,304SCRA702(1999).
[27]Peoplev.Mumar,G.R.No.123155,333SCRA221,231(2000)citing Peoplev.DeGuzman,G.R.No.116730,250
SCRA118(1995).
[28]Rollo,p.164.
[29]TSN,November8,1994,p.12.
[30]Rollo,pp.165166.
[31]TSN,July2,1993,pp.67.
[32]Solis,PedroP.,LegalMedicine,(1987ed.)p.359.
[33]TSN,July2,1993,p.9.
[34]TSN,November17,1994,pp.612.
[35]Rollo,pp.168169.
[36]Id.at168.
[37]Id.at22,169.
[38]Moreno,Phil.LawDictionary(1988ed.)p.348.
[39]Ibid.
[40]McGuirev.State,239Ala315,194So185(1940)Cantuv.State,141Tex.Crim.99,135SW2d705(1940),cert.den.
312US689,85LEd.1126,61S.Ct.617(1941)Burchettv.State,35OhioApp.463,172NE555(1930).
[41]Rollo,pp.121122.
[42]TSN,July2,1993,pp.24TSN,September17,1993,pp.3839.
[43]McKennav.People,124Colo.112,235P2d.301(1951).
[44]Robertsv.State,164So.2d817(1964).
[45]Peoplev.SanGabriel,G.R.No.110103,235SCRA80,86(1994).
[46]Peoplev.Andres,G.R.No.122735,296SCRA318,338(1998).
[47]Peoplev.Lozada,G.R.No.130589,334SCRA602,622(2000)citingPeoplev.Padlan,G.R.No.111263,290SCRA
388(1998).
[48]Peoplev.Orcula,Sr.,etal.,G.R.No.132350,335SCRA129,142(2000)citingPeoplev.Villaran,G.R.No.119058,
269SCRA630(1997),Peoplev.Nemeria,G.R.No.96288,242SCRA448(1995).
[49]Peoplev.Briones,G.R.No.97610,219SCRA134,145(1993),citing Peoplev.Laureta,Jr.,G.R.No.L31245,159
SCRA256(1988).
[50]Rollo,pp.119120.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

14/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

[51]Peoplev.Salas, G.R. No. 115192, supraat 328329, citing People v. Olivarez, Jr., G.R. No. 77865, 299 SCRA 635
(1998).
[52]Peoplev.Labuguen,G.R.No.127849,337SCRA488,497(2000)citingPeoplev.Andal,G.R.No.124933,279SCRA
474(1997).
[53]TSN,July14,1994,pp.810,1620TSN,July6,1994,pp.49.
[54]Peoplev.Saragina,G.R.No.128281,332SCRA219,239(2000)citingPeoplev.Platilla,G.R.No.126123,304SCRA
339(1999).
[55]Peoplev.Fuertes,G.R.Nos.9589192,326SCRA382,408409(2000)citingPeoplev.Villablanca,etal.,G.R.No.
89662,316SCRA382,408409(2000).
[56]Peoplev.Arizala,G.R.No.130708,317SCRA244,257(1999).
[57]Peoplev.Solayao,G.R.No.119220,262SCRA255,261(1996) Peoplev.Ramos,G.R.Nos.10180407,222SCRA
557(1992).
[58]Peoplev.Catan,G.R.No.92928,205SCRA235,242(1992) Peoplev.Malmstedt,G.R.No.91107,198SCRA401
(1991).
[59]Hizonv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.119619,265SCRA517,527528(1996)Roldan,Jr.v.Arca,G.R.No.L25434,65
SCRA336(1975).
[60]MustangLumberv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.Nos.104988,106424,123784,257SCRA430(1996)Peoplev.Balingan,
G.R.No.105834,241SCRA277(1995).
[61]Peoplev.Musa,G.R.No.96177,217SCRA597,610(1993).
[62]Malacatv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.123595,283SCRA159,174175(1997).
[63]Rule113,Sec.5.Arrestwithoutwarrantwhenlawful.Apeaceofficeroraprivatepersonmay,withoutawarrant,arrest
aperson:
xxx
(b)Whenanoffensehasinfactjustbeencommitted,andhehaspersonalknowledgeoffactsindicatingthattheperson
tobearrestedhascommittedit
xxx
[64]Rule113,Sec.5.Arrestwithoutwarrantwhenlawful.Apeaceofficeroraprivatepersonmay,withoutawarrant,arrest
aperson:
(a)When,inhispresence,thepersontobearrestedhascommitted,isactuallycommitting,orisattemptingtocommitan
offense
xxx
[65] Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95523, 277 SCRA 518, 525 (1997), citing People v. Lualhati, G.R. Nos.
10528990,234SCRA325(1994).
[66]TSN,July14,1993,pp.1417ExhibitB,CriminalCaseNo.CBU33664,Vol.III,Records,p.59.
[67]Mallariv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.110569,265SCRA456,465(1996),Peoplev.Solayao,G.R.No.119220,262
SCRA255(1996).
[68]Rollo,pp.122123.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

15/16

4/21/2016

PeoplevsAbriol:123137:October17,2001:J.Quisumbing:SecondDivision

[69]Peoplev.DeGracia,G.R.Nos.10200910,233SCRA716,725(1994),citingPeoplev.Cruz,L76728,165SCRA135
(1988),Peoplev.Fajardo,etal.,L18257,123Phil.1348(1966).
[70]Peoplev.Carillo.,G.R.No.129528,333SCRA338,352(2000).
[71]Peoplev.AlagonandRafael,G.R.Nos.12653637,325SCRA297,308(2000).
[72]MolinasupersedesearlierrulingsofthisCourtinPeoplev.Tobias,G.R.No.114185,267SCRA229(1997)Peoplev.
Quijada,G.R.Nos.11500809,259SCRA191(1996)Peoplev.Somooc,G.R.No.100921,244SCRA731(1995)People
v.Fernandez,G.R.No.113474,239SCRA174(1994)Peoplev.Deunida,G.R.Nos.105199200,231SCRA520(1994)
Peoplev.Jumamoy,G.R.No.101584,221SCRA333(1993) Peoplev.Caling,G.R.No.94784,208SCRA821(1992)
Peoplev.Tiozon,G.R.No.89823,198SCRA368(1991)andPeoplev.Tacan,G.R.Nos.7633839,182SCRA601(1990)
thatonewhokillsanotherwiththeuseofanunlicensedfirearmcommitstwoseparateoffensesofeitherhomicideormurder
undertheRevisedPenalCodeandaggravatedillegalpossessionoffirearm,underthesecondparagraphofSection1ofP.D.
No.1866.
[73]Peoplev.Samolde,G.R.No.128551,336SCRA632,654(2000),citingPeoplev.Suelto,G.R.No.126097,325SCRA
41(2000).
[74]ART.2230.Incriminaloffenses,exemplarydamagesasapartofthecivilliabilitymaybeimposedwhenthecrimewas
committedwithoneormoreaggravatingcircumstances.Suchdamagesareseparateanddistinctfromfinesandshallbepaid
totheoffendedparty.
[75]CivilCode,ART.2208.Intheabsenceofstipulation,attorneysfeesandexpensesoflitigation,otherthanjudicialcosts,
cannotberecovered,except:
(1)Whenexemplarydamagesareawarded
xxx

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/123137.htm

16/16