Court of Appeals

MANILA

Republic of the Philippines

EIGHTH DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, -versusREYNALDO CABUTE Y MIGUEL, Accused-Appellant. CA-GR CR No. 29640 Members: SABIO, JR.,J. L.,,Chairman REYES, JR., J. C.,, and DIMARANAN VIDAL, JJ. Promulgated: November 29, 2007 x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION
VIDAL,M.D., J: Before Us is an appeal from the Decision1 dated 24 May 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch 67, of Paniqui, Tarlac presided by Judge CESAR M. SOTERO (hereinafter Court a quo), in Criminal Case No. 1875 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Rommel Dela Cruz and Reynaldo Cabute y Miguel, finding the AccusedAppellant REYNALDO M. CABUTE (hereinafter Appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide committed against the deceased Victim JOEL ADOLFO (hereinafter Victim). On the other hand, his co-accused ROMMEL DELA CRUZ (hereinafter accused DELA CRUZ) remains at large.

Rollo, pp. 32-37

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 2

THE ANTECEDENTS In the fallo2 of its Decision, supra, the Court a quo disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, and finding accused Reynaldo Cabute y Miguel GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for(sic) the crime of homicide judgment is hereby rendered sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day (of) prision mayor as minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. To pay heirs of the deceased the amount of P50,000.00 for the death of Joel Adolfo. So ordered.

The indictment of the Appellant stemmed from the Information3 dated 22 November 2002 filed by 1th Assistant Provincial Prosecutor ALADIN C. BERMUDEZ, Jr., which reads:

That on or about the 28th day of September, 2002, in the Municipality of Anao, Province of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused conspiring together, mutually helping each other and confederating with one another, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and assault Joel Adolfo with a knife hitting him at the back of his body twice causing his instantaneous death. Contrary to law.

2 3

Id., p. 36-37 Records, p., 1

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 3

During his arraignment on 05 February 20034, Appellant, assisted by his counsel Atty. MARCELITO MILLO (hereinafter Atty. MILLO), pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial on the merits ensued with the prosecution presenting four (4) witnesses namely: Dr. AMELIA BULSECO (hereinafter Dr. BULSECO), the doctor who submitted the Victim's medical certificate; Dr. EDUARDO T. VARGAS, Jr. (hereinafter Dr. VARGAS), of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Medico-Legal Officer who conducted the Victim's autopsy; RODELLO DASALLA (hereinafter RODELLO), the Victim's companion at the time of the incident; JOVEN SANTOS (hereinafter JOVEN), an alleged eyewitness to the crime. For the defense, three (3) witnesses were presented in court namely: the Appellant himself; PO3 EDUARDO TORRES (hereinafter PO3 TORRES), the police officer to whom the Appellant allegedly surrendered; SOTERO BERNAL (hereinafter SOTERO), one of the Appellant's companions at the time of the incident.

THE FACTS The Prosecution's Version, as synthesized by the Office of the Solicitor General5(hereinafter OSG):
On the night of September 28, 2002, Joel Adolfo and Rodolfo (name stated in the TSN of July 15, 2003 as Rodello) Dasalla went together to the Dayang Video Bar located at Brgy. San Jose, Anao, Tarlac to drink beer (TSN, July 15, 2003, p. 2). While they were inside the videoke bar, seated around a table and drinking beer, a man wearing a red T-shirt (who was later
4 5

Id., p. 49 Rollo, pp. 68

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 4

identified as appellant Reynaldo Cabute) rose up from the nearby table occupied by five (5) men, approached them and hit Adolfo on the head with a beer bottle (TSN, July 15, 2003, pp. 3, 8; Nov. 12, 2003, pp. 5, 6, 12, 19-20). Adolfo ran towards the comfort room to hide but was followed by Cabute and two (2) of his companions (TSN, July 15, 2003, pp. 3, 8). Dasalle tried to help Adolfo, but he was held and warned by Cabute's two (2) other companions who were left behind at their table (ibid). Then Adolfo dashed out of the comfort room, bloodied and asking for help, and staggered out of the videoke bar (TSN, July 15, 2003, pp. 3-4, 8-9; Nov. 12, 2003, pp. 6, 7, 16). Cabute and an identified companion followed Adolfo outside the videoke bar, and, once there the unidentified man hit Adolfo on the head with a beer bottle, while Cabute followed suit by boxing Adolfo again several times on the stomach, causing him to stagger and fall down on the pavement, after which Cabute and company left (TSN, July 15, 2003, pp. 4, 9; Nov. 12, 2003, pp. 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 18; Dec. 5, 2003, pp. 2-5). Joven Santos and some others, who were outside the videoke bar at the time, brought Adolfo to the St. Rose Clinic in Paniqui, Tarlac, for medical treatment, but Adolfo died soon thereafter (TSN, July 15, 2003, p. 6; Nov. 12, 2003, pp. 14-16). The autopsy conducted by Dr. Eduardo T. Vargas, Jr., NBI Medico-Legal Officer, revealed that Adolfo sustained two (2) stab wounds on the lower portion of the back and another stab wound at the right side of the back; contusions on the head, on the anterior left side of the chest, and on the temporal region, possibly caused by a hard object like a beer bottle (TSN, Aug. 20, 2003, pp. 3-5). Dr. Vargas declared that, of the three (3) stab wounds, the most fatal is the stab wound on the right side of the back which entered the chest cavity and hit the right lung (ibid); and that the cause of Adolfo's death is attributed to stab wound, posterior chest wall right side (ibid.; Exh. B-3)6 xxx

The Appellant's version as alleged in his Brief7:

At about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of September 28, 2002, accused-appellant Cabute, Sotero Bernal, Edwin Aliado,Jayson Laglagura and Rommel
6 7

Id., pp. 68-70 Id., pp. 19-31

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 5

dela Cruz entered a videoke bar at Brgy. San Jose, Anao, Tarlac, where they drunk beer. They previously attended a birthday party where Cabute already consumed seven (7) bottles of beer. He had consumed five (5) bottles of beer in the videoke bar when Joel Adolfo and Rodello Dasalla, arrived. (T.S.N., testimony of Cabute, hearing June 16, 2004, p. 14). Upon arrival thereat, Joel Adolfo (Adolfo, for brevity), who and his companion were already drunk, banged a table about 1 and meters from the table of Cabute's group. Rommel dela Cruz stood up, and took hold of a bottle with which he hit the head of Adolfo. Adolfo ran to the comfort (sic), followed by Rommel dela Cruz (,) and Cabute went near to see what Rommel dela Cruz would do. Cabute was one (1) meter from Rommel dela Cruz and when he saw the latter holding a knife, he ran outside the videoke bar because he was shocked. Two (2) of their companions, namely, Aliado and Bernal were already outside while one (1) remain(ed) at their table (ibid., pp. 4-8). About a minute after Cabute ran outside, and while standing, Adolfo came out. He boxed Adolfo because of the latter's trouble with Rommel dela Cruz, hitting him twice (2) in the face, Adolfo retaliated with four (4) punches which Cabute was able to evade, and at this juncture Sotero Bernal, alias Dyanggo pacified them. Cabute went home. The following morning, Cabute learned that Adolfo died, and as (sic) he was a suspect, he surrendered to the police of Anao, Tarlac. Rommel dela Cruz had gone into hiding and he has not been arrested until now. Adolfo died at the St. Rose Hospital in Paniqui, Tarlac where Dyanggo rushed him in an ambulance in the night of September 28, 2002.8 xxx

THE ISSUES Interposing instant appeal, the Appellant raises the following assignment of errors9:

8 9

Id., pp. 23-24 Rollo, p. 96

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 6

I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT CABUTE PROVOKED THE QUARREL AND HE PURSUED ADOLFO WHEN THIS (SIC) RAN OUTSIDE THE VIDEOKE BAR AND BOXED HIM THERE. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING CABUTE ALTHOUGH HE WAS NOT THE ONE WHO STABBED TO THE (SIC) DEATH THE VICTIM, JOEL ADOLFO, BECAUSE OF CONSPIRACY.

OUR RULING

The appeal is unmeritorious. The Appellant is being indicted with the crime of Homicide as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Its essential elements are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him without any justifying circumstances; (3) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and
(4) the

killing is not attended by any of the qualifying

circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide10

10

Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two., p. 457

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 7

Anent the first assigned error, as in most criminal cases, the main issue hinges on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. In his brief, the Appellant avers that the Court a quo erred in finding that the Appellant provoked the trouble that led to the death of the Victim. The Appellant maintains that it was accused DELA CRUZ who hit the Victim with a beer bottle at the head and further claims that it was DELA CRUZ whom he saw holding a knife when they followed the Victim to the comfort room of the videoke bar. Human experience, according to the Appellant, tells us that an untoward incident, such as the stabbing of the Victim, is caused by an overt act or provocation and in this case, it was the Victim who provoked the Appellant and his group when the former banged a table next to that of the Appellant's group. The Appellant mainly insists that the prosecution witness RODELLO is biased and unreliable and should not be considered as a credible witness.11 We are not convinced. After a judicious perusal of the recorded evidence, We find the prosecution has aptly established the guilt of the Appellant beyond an iota of doubt. Let Us listen to the sound disquisition of the Court a quo as to the facts proved by the prosecution, viz:
xxx Established by the prosecution are the following facts: That on September 28, 2002, in the evening the deceased and Rodello Dasalla
11

Id., pp. 24-28

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 8

were inside the Dayang Videoke Bar, located at Brgy. San Jose, Anao, Tarlac, drinking beer. While drinking a man wearing red tshirt, who was later on identified as accused Reynaldo Cabute, hit the deceased with a bottle of beer. The deceased ran towards the comfort room followed by three (3) men, one ofl them was Reynaldo Cabute, in red T-shirt. Then the deceased came out of the comfort room bloodied, asking for help. When the deceased went out of the videoke bar he was followed by Reynaldo Cabute, who again, boxed the deceased three (3) times on the stomach, causing the decased to fall down on the pavement. Then an ambulance arrived and brought the deceased to the hospital where he died.12 xxx

Undoubtedly, the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime of Homicide as charged. There exist no compelling reason for Us to reject the Court a quo's logical and sound findings of facts. The Appellant desperately tries to destroy the credibility and cast serious doubt on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses insisting that the Court a quo erred in given credence to their narration of the incident. The argument is misplaced. Nevertheless, RODELLO, the prosecution's principal witness, was noted to be steadfast, clear and convincing in his testimony as he recounts the events that transpired on that faithful evening of 28 September 2002. As borne by the evidentiary record, the defense miserably failed to impeach the credibility of RODELLO. Contrary to the Appellant's contention, there is no proof showing that RODELLO or JOVEN are biased witnesses. Thus, one cannot successfully claim ill motive on the part of a witness without basis therefor. A witness is said
12

Rollo, pp. 34-35

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 9

to be biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color to his statements, or to suppress or to prevent the truth, or to state what is false. 13 For failure to show proof on this line, there is no cogent reason why the Court a quo should deny RODELLO's testimony the full faith and credit it deserves. Let Us listen to the candid and straightforward testimony of RODELLO as he vividly narrated the events which transpired on that fateful night of 28 September 2002:
xxx DIRECT TESTIMONY BY Prosecutor MANGLICMOT: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A:
13

Mr. Witness, do you know one Joel Adolfo? Yes, sir. Where is Joel Adolfo now? He is dead already, sir. Now, on the night of September 28, 2002, you were with Joel Adolfo? Yes, sir. Where were you then, Mr. Witness? At San Jose, Anao, Tarlac, sir. And upon entering the Video Bar, what did you(sic), if any? We drink(sic) beer, sir. Were you able to consume a bottle of beers(sic)? No, sir. And was there anything happened on that night? Yes, sir. unusual incident(sic)

What was that unusual incident, Mr. Witness? That Joel Adolfo was hit with a bottle of beer on his head. And who hit Joel with a bottle of beer? I donot(sic) know but he was hit by a man wearing red strip T-shirt. What happened to Joel when he was hit on his head with a bottle of beer? He ran towards the comfort room, sir.

People vs. Garin, 432 SCRA 394

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 10

Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q:

What happened when Joel ran towards the comfort room? He was followed by a (sic) three (3) persons, sir. Do you know the identity of those persons who followed Joel? I donot(sic) remember who they are, sir. How about the person who stuck (sic) Joel with a bottle of beer, was he among the three (3) who ran towards Joel? Yes, sir. Did you see him reach the comfort room? Yes, sir. And what happened to Joel upon reaching the comfort room, Mr. Witness? I donot(sic) know sir, I just saw him blooded(sic). How far were you when you saw Joel blooded(sic)? About three (3) meters, sir. Did you notice what part of his(sic) body of Joel was blooded(sic)? No, sir. What happened when Joel came out from the comfort room? I was about to help him but suddenly there was(sic) two (2) persons held (sic) my shoulder sir. What happened after that? That Joel asked help and to be brought him(sic) to a Doctor. Do you know the names of those persons, Mr. Witness? No, sir. And what happened after that, Mr. Witness? After that Joel asked help, I brought him to a Doctor. Where was he at that time that he asked help? He was about to go out from the video bar, sir. Was he able to went(sic) out from the video bar? Yes, sir. What happened when he went out from the video bar? He was asking for help sir, but the two (2) men held my hand. And when you went out, what did you see? I saw the man wearing in(sic) red shirt. What did the man wearing in (sic) red-shirt do when you went out?

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 11

A: Q: A: xxx Q: A: xxx

He boxed Joel several times, sir. Was Joel hit, Mr. Witness? Yes, sir.

What happened to Joel when he was boxed by the man in red t-shirt? Joel fell down in sitting position, sir.14

In the course of the said direct examination, RODELLO positively identified the Appellant as one of the Victim's assailants and the one who hit the Victim's head. In identifying the Appellant, RODELLO testified:
xxx COURT Q: Did you come to know later the man that you pointed who hit the head of Joel? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: A: Q: What is the name? Cabute, Your Honor. Proceed.

FISCAL MANGLICMOT: Q: Is he inside the court room, Mr. Witness? A: Yes, sir. Q: A: xxx Will you please point the person whom you saw hitting Joel with the bottle of beer? Him, sir. Witness is pointing to a person when asked his name, he answered Reynaldo Cabute.15

Moreover, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies regarding the part of the Victim's body where the wounds were inflicted was bolstered by the declaration of Dr. VARGAS, the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the Victim's body. His pertinent testimony follows:
14 15

TSN, dated 15 July 2003 pp. 2-4 Id., pp. 5-6

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 12

xxx DIRECT EXAMINATION Q: A: Q: A: How did you conduct the autopsy, Dr.? I did the internal and external examination, sir. What did you find out, Dr.? Several wounds were noted on the body particularly at the back, sir. There are two (2) stab wounds on the lower portion of the back and another stab wound at the right portion of the back, sir. Which of the wounds was fatal, Dr.? The wound on the right side portion of the back, sir. What was the nature of the wound at that time, Dr.? It was a stab wound that entered the chest cavity and hit the right lung, sir. By the way, Dr., did you prepare your post mortem examination report? Yes, sir. And according to you, you noted several wounds on the body of the deceased? Yes, sir. How about the other wound, Dr.? There was contusion on the head, the anterior portion of the chest on the left side, sir. You said there was contusion, where was this, Dr.? On the tempora (sic) region, sir. What might have caused this kind of injury, Dr.? It was caused by any hard object, sir. Like bottle of beer hitting the head? It is possible, sir.16

Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A; Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: xxx

A fortiori, case law has it that the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the collective testimonies of the witnesses, its assessment of the probative weight of the evidence of the parties as well as its conclusion anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate court with high respect.17 Unless it is shown that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied certain facts and
16 17

TSN, dated 20 August 2003, pp. 3-5 People vs. Sibonga, 404 SCRA 10

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 13

circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case, appellate court are bound by its findings.18 Given the opportunity to observe the witness on the stand, the trial judge is in a vantage position to assess the demeanor of the witnesses and determine if they are telling the truth or not.19 As succinctly held by the Supreme Court in People vs. Dy20, to wit:
Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath. xxx All of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity.

In the case at bar, the Appellant miserably fails to convince Us to deviate from the doctrines stated above. Anent the second issue, the Appellant avers that the Court a quo erred in finding that the Appellant conspired with accused DELA CRUZ in killing the Victim. The Appellant insist that it was accused DELA CRUZ who struck the Victim's head with a beer bottle and stabbed him causing his eventual demise. Although the Appellant admits that he punched the Victim while they were already outside the videoke bar, he claims, however, that he did not intend to kill the Victim because if he really wanted to do so he should have used a chair or a piece of wood or a knife in hitting the Victim. The Appellant further asserts that boxing the hapless Victim was more of a lapse in judgment since he was then under the influence of liquor. With these assertions, the Appellant maintains that conspiracy does not exist and was not proven in this case. The contentions have no leg to stand on.
18 19

People vs. Navarro, 414 SCRA 395 People vs. Alzaga, 424 SCRA 1 20 375 SCRA 15

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 14

In finding the existence of conspiracy, the Court a quo ruled:

xxx The prosecution clearly established that accused Cabute performed an overt act in pursuance to a common design and unity of purpose. He was the one who provoked and started the incident by striking the head of Joel Adolfo with a bottle of beer. When the latter ran to the comfort room he was one among the three men, who pursued Joel Adolfo. When Joel Adolfo went outside the videoke bar he again assaulted him boxing him three times on the stomach, causing Joel Adolfo to fall on the ground. The acts performed by accused Cabute logically inferred the existence of a common design to commit the offense charged. The fact that accused Cabute had not inflicted a mortal wound on the deceased is immaterial. Where conspiracy has been established, evidence as to who among the malefactors rendered the fatal blow is not necessary. (People vs. Cruz, 297 SCRA 299) In conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. According to accused Cabute he saw Rommel dela Cruz holding a knife when the latter pursued Joel Adolfo to the comfort room. He did nothing to prevent Rommel from pursuing Joel Adolfo. Worst he even boxed Joel Adolfo when the latter went out to the videoke bar asking help. His failure to prevent or deter Rommel from pursuing Joel to the comfort room coupled by his act of boxing Joel Adolfo when he came out of the videoke bar asking for help bolstered the existence of conspiracy. Also, his failure to prevent Rommel who was holding a knife from pursuing Joel Adolfo demonstrates that he conspired with his co-accused. If he did not conspire with his co-accused he should have performed overt acts to stop or dissociate himself from the unlawful plan of Rommel dela Cruz from committing the offense.21 xxx

As in most criminal cases, it must be remembered that direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found, for criminals do not write down their lawless plans and plots.22 Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime which

21 22

Rollo, p. 36 People v. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267 [1998].

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 15

indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest.23 In People v. Heracleo Manriquez y Alia, et al.24, the Supreme Court emphatically held:
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To establish the existence of a conspiracy, direct proof is not essential since it may be shown by facts and circumstances from which may be logically inferred the existence of a common design among the accused to commit the offense charged, or it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.25

In another case, the Supreme Court pronounced:

. . . conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence of acts charged, but may and generally must be proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances, which vary according to the purpose accomplished. Previous agreement to commit a crime is not essential to establish a conspiracy, it being sufficient that the condition attending to its commission and the acts executed may be indicative of a common design to accomplish a criminal purpose and objective. If there is a chain of circumstances to that effect, conspiracy can be established.26

Simply stated, the rule is that conspiracy must be shown to exist by direct or circumstantial evidence, as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself.27 In the absence of direct proof thereof, as in the present case, it may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.28 Thus, it is necessary that
23

People v. Lotoc, G.R. No. 132166, 19 May 1999, 307 SCRA 471, citing People v. Magallano, 266 SCRA 305 [1997]. 24 G.R. No. 122510-11, 17 March 2000 25 Citing People v. Silvestre, 244 SCRA 479 [1995]; People v. Hubilla, Jr., supra.; People v. Pecho, 262 SCRA 26 People v. Maranion, 199 SCRA 421 [1991]. 27 People v. Trinidad, 162 SCRA 714 [1988]. 28 People v. Datun, 272 SCRA 380 [1997].

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 16

a conspirator should have performed some overt acts as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators.29 Conspiracy transcends mere companionship, it denotes an intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.30 "Conspiracy to exist does not require an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence.31 From the legal standpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution."32 In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to adduce convincing evidence that clearly establish the existence of conspiracy between and among the assailants showing their common design to carry out the commission of the crime. This Court is unpersuaded by the Appellant's contention that it was the Victim who provoked the Appellant and his group when the former banged the table near the latter and his companions. Assuming that the Victim did in fact banged a table, it goes against human experience and logic to assume that such act constitutes an overt act of aggression or provocation. In finding the existence of conspiracy between and among the Appellant and his co-accused, a careful perusal of the recorded evidence reveals that: (a) it was the
29

People v. Ramil Dacibar, et al., G.R. No. 111286, 17 February 2000, pp. 13-14, citing People v. Berroya, 283 SCRA 111 [1998]; emphasis supplied. 30 People v. Alejandro Marquita, et al., G.R. Nos. 119958-62, 1 March 2000, citing People v. Quinao, 269 SCRA 495 [1997]; People v. Manuel, 234 SCRA 532 [1994]; People v. Aniel, 96 SCRA 199 [1980] and People v. Izon, et al., 106 Phil. 690 [1958]. 31 People v. Patalinghug, G.R. Nos. 125814-15, p. 18; People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 126047, 16 September 1999, p. 5. 32 People v. Cielito Buluran y Ramirez, et al. G.R. No. 113940, 15 February 2000, p. 9.

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 17

Appellant's overt act which initiated the entire commotion when he hit the Victim on the head with a beer bottle despite the absence of any sufficient provocation on the part of the Victim; (b) after the Victim's head was hit and he hurried to the comfort room to escape his assailants, the Appellant and his two (2) other companions followed the Victim and continued their assault which left the Victim with two (2) stab wounds; (c ) when the Victim rushed out of the comfort room and the videoke bar naked waist up, and bleeding due to the stab wounds he sustained, instead of giving the necessary assistance to save the Victim's life, the Appellant showed no remorse and again boxed the battered Victim at his stomach, causing the latter to fall down on the ground. These acts, taken collectively, is sufficient to establish that conspiracy indeed attended the killing of the Victim. Perforce, it is of no import whether it was the Appellant who inflicted the fatal blow causing the death of the Victim because in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Moreover, We hold that the assertions made by the Appellant that the killing of the Victim is solely attributable to the accused DELA CRUZ, who remains at large, is self-serving and undeserving of any probative weight. The denial of the Appellant cannot overcome the direct and categorical testimony of the prosecution witnesses identifying him as the perpetrator of the crime. Negative and self-serving denial deserves no weight in law when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence33. The defense of denial is intrinsically weak, a self-serving negative evidence that cannot prevail over the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.34 Time and again, the Supreme Court has invariably and consistently held that where positive identification of the accused was categorical and consistent and without
33 34

People vs. Dulay, 423 SCRA 652 People vs. Remullo, 383 SCRA 93; People vs. Orbita, 384 SCRA 393; People vs. Elona, 388 SCRA 587.

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 18

any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, such as in the case at bar, the same prevail over denial.35 Further, although PO3 TORRES testified36 to the effect that the Appellant voluntarily surrendered himself to the police, this Court, nevertheless, did not appreciate such act to constitute voluntary surrender. The conduct of the Appellant in not fleeing and his act in going to the police station after committing the crime, without however admitting complicity in the killing, did not amount to voluntary surrender to the authorities, thus, this circumstances cannot be appreciated in this case37. Indeed, the Appellant never evinced any desire to own the responsibility for the killing of the deceased.38 WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein appeal is hereby DISMISSED for evident lack of merit and the assailed Decision supra is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED.

MYRNA DIMARANAN VIDAL Associate Justice WE CONCUR: JOSE L. SABIO, Jr. Associate Justice JOSE C. REYES, Jr. Associate Justice

35 36

People vs. Mejares, 387 SCRA 373People vs. Barcelon, Jr. 389 SCRA 556 TSN, dated 01 December 2004, p. 3 37 People vs. Canoy, 90 Phil. 633; People vs. Rubinal, G.R. No. L-12275, 29 November 1960 38 People vs. Rogales, 6 SCRA 830

CA GR CR No. 29640 Decision

page 19

CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

JOSE L. SABIO, Jr. Associate Justice Chairman, 8th Division