421 Phil. 765
PUNO, J.:
Not content to simply take away
the life of the victim, Rogelio Alcantara, the accused Balag and Cantonjos, in
utter disregard of human life and disrespect for the human body, stabbed the
victim at least fifty times to ensure a painful and gruesome death.
An information was filed against
the accused Juanito Cantonjos @ Bong, Herlino Mortel Balag y Cantonjos, and
Ernesto Arañas @ Japong, viz:
“The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses JUANITO CANTONJOS @ BONG, HERLINO MORTEL BALAG Y CANTONJOS and ERNESTO ARAÑAS @ JAPONG with the crime of MURDER, committed as follows:
That on or about the 16th day of November, 1997 at Rosario Institute Compound, Municipality of Rosario, Province of Cavite, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, being then armed with bladed weapons and ice-pick, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, with treachery and. evident premeditation and taking advantage of their superior strength, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said weapons one ROGELIO ALCANTARA y JIMENEZ inflicting stab wounds on the different vital parts of his body which caused his subsequent death, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Both accused Balag and Arañas
pleaded not guilty. Accused Cantonjos has remained at-large. Trial proceeded
only against Balag and Arañas.
Joselito Bolon was the
prosecution’s principal witness. He is a native of Masbate but lived in
Tagaytay. He went to Rosario, Cavite for the first time on November 15, 1997 to
meet the accused Juanito Cantonjos. Bolon had previously met Cantonjos in
Tagaytay and the latter had agreed to teach him how to drive a tricycle so he
could earn a living. Cantonjos was a driver of one of the tricycles of the
victim, Rogelio Alcantara. He told Bolon that when he learns how to drive, he
could also drive one of Alcantara’s tricycles.
When Bolon arrived in Rosario,
Cavite on November 15, 1997, he stayed in the house of his cousin, Jimmy Olaje.
At around 11:00 a.m. the following day, Bolon met Cantonjos at the parking area
for tricycles. Cantonjos then brought him to a wedding party in Rosario and
stayed there until nighttime. Rogelio Alcantara was also at the party.
Cantonjos and his companions drank liquor, but Bolon did not. Bolon saw and
heard Cantonjos and Rogelio Alcantara argue about the latter’s tricycle which
Cantonjos was driving. When the argument was already heated, Cantonjos left the
place driving a tricycle and brought with him Bolon and a person whom the
latter did not know. Cantonjos was still sober enough to drive. Bolon was
behind Cantonjos in the driver’s seat while the other person was inside the
tricycle. The group went to the accused Balag’s residence and Cantonjos”
invited Balag to come along. Balag obliged, and the four of them went to the
house of Jimmy Olaje. When they arrived at the latter’s residence, Cantonjos
and Balag borrowed a bolo from Olaje, to no avail. Without Bolon knowing
where they were headed, Cantonjos drove the tricycle to Rosario Institute.
Bolon insisted that Cantonjos already teach him how to drive’ a tricycle as it
was getting late. Cantonjos assured him that he would, and told him that it was
in fact better to learn how to drive at night as people were no longer out in
the streets.
The group arrived at Rosario
Institute before 8:00 p.m. Cantonjos parked the tricycle at a sidestreet and
told Bolon to stay behind as he and accused Balag were going somewhere else.
Bolon stayed in the tricycle while the other unidentified man stood at a
distance from the tricycle, outside the gate of the Rosario Institute. Bolon
saw Cantonjos and Balag enter the gate of Rosario Institute. Cantonjos pulled
out an icepick from the waist of his pants. After some time, Cantonjos and
Balag came out running from the Rosario Institute with bloodied hands.
Cantonjos told Bolon that they (Cantonjos and Balag) killed Rogelio Alcantara
and warned him to keep silent and “Bahala ka sa buhay mo” if he would report
the matter to anybody. Cantonjos also told Bolon that he was wounded by Balag’s
fan knife when he was trying to stop Balag from further stabbing Rogelio
Alcantara.
After the stabbing incident, the
group left the Rosario Institute on board the tricycle driven by Cantonjos. The
latter returned the tricycle to its owner and thereafter, the group walked to
the house of a certain Henry where Cantonjos lived. Henry was also a native of
Masbate and a cousin of Olaje. Bolon spent the night there as the group did not
want him to leave for fear that he might report the killing to the police. He
was warned not to reveal what happened, otherwise Cantonjos and Balag would
kill him. At about 5:00 in the morning the following day, November 17, 1997,
Cantonjos drove Henry’s tricycle and plied his route. Bolon, on the other hand,
went back to Olaje’s house then headed back to Tagaytay and talked to his wife
about the killing of Rogelio Alcantara. On November 21, 1997, Bolon’s wife went
to Rosario, Cavite and learned that Bolon was implicated in the crime. That
same day, he went to his cousin’s place in Rosario, Cavite to clear his name. The
following day, he went to the family of the victim and told them what happened
on the night of November 16, 1997. Together, the victim’s family and Bolon went
to the municipal hail and approached a certain Officer Gregorio Gener. The
latter investigated Bolon who gave a sworn statement narrating the killing
incident.
Bolon had known the accused
Cantonjos for a long time as the latter’s sister is the wife of his brother. He
also knew the accused Balag as the latter is his townmate and the nephew of
Cantonjos. Bolon, Cantonjos, and Balag are all natives of Masbate. Bolon,
however, does not know the accused Arañas.[1]
Maria Caridad Alcantara,
daughter-in-law of the deceased Rogelio Alcantara, also testified. At around
7:00 p.m. of November 16, 1997, she was at home in Rosario, Cavite, putting her
child to sleep. Rogelio Alcantara then arrived, very angry. He had taken liquor
at a wedding party from where he came. He asked Caridad, “Anak, nasaan ang
baril ko?” He got his gun and immediately left. Worried about her
father-in-law, Caridad went upstairs and told her mother-in-law to follow her
father-in-law. She obliged and followed Rogelio up to a store, but did not
proceed as she thought that her husband brought his tricycle and just plied his
route. But Caridad was still worried, so she went to Rosario Institute to check
if her father-in-law really plied his route or went to Rosario Institute for
his tour of duty as a security guard. Upon arriving at the institute, she saw
her father-in-law’s tricycle, normally driven by Arañas, parked outside the
institute. She entered through the gate and saw Arañas standing beside the
folding bed where her father-in-law was lying down. She was about seven to
eight meters away from Arañas. She thought that the latter was just giving her
father-in-law his boundary so she went home at about 8:00 p.m. When she got
home, she went to bed. She was later roused from slumber by her crying husband.
She asked her husband why he was crying and he replied that his father was
stabbed to death. She awakened her brother-in-law, Russel, and broke to him the
news.
Caridad and Russet proceeded to
Rosario Institute and arrived there at past 10:00 p.m. The tricycle driven by
Arañas was no longer there. She went inside the institute and saw the lifeless
body of her father-in-law and some investigators. The investigator asked her if
she knew the drivers of her father-in-law’s four tricycles. Replying in the
affirmative, the investigator asked her to look for Rogelio’s missing tricycle,
if there was any. As she went out of the institute, she saw along an alley one
of her father’s tricycles, parked near the house of Arañas. She went back to
the institute and informed one of the investigators that one of the tricycles
was parked along the first alley outside of the institute. Caridad accompanied
the investigators to the tricycle and the investigators knocked at the door of
Arañas’ house. The policemen talked to Arañas and the other residents in the
house. Meantime, Caridad and some companions looked for the other tricycle
drivers of the deceased Rogelio. Caridad’s group brought a certain Lando to the
police station. At the station, Caridad saw Arañas’ wife. The policemen
informed her group that they already talked to Arañas and that he had already
gone home.
Caridad personally knew the
accused Cantonjos as he was a driver of the deceased Rogelio Alcantara. She
knew that the latter and Cantonjos had a misunderstanding at a wedding party.
With respect to Arañas, however, she was not aware of any bad blood between him
and her father-in-law.[2]
Emerito Alcantara, like Rogelio
Alcantara, was a company security guard at the Rosario Institute. At about 7:30
in the evening of November 16, 1997, he went to the Rosario Institute and
stayed inside the canteen to rest as there was a ceiling fan there. He talked
with Adelia, the canteen manager, but after a while, Adelia left him alone and
watched TV inside her bedroom in the canteen where she also lived. Rogelio
Alcantara was supposed to be the guard on duty at that time, his tour of duty
being from 4:00 in the afternoon to 12:00 midnight. Emerito’s tour of duty was
next to Rogelio’s, i.e., from 12:00 midnight to 7:00 in the morning.
Emerito, however, normally arrives at the Rosario Institute at 7:30 in the
evening to rest and then relieves Rogelio from duty at 12:00 midnight.
Shortly after Emerito arrived at
the Rosario Institute at about 7:30 in the evening of November 16, 1997,
Rogelio also arrived in a tricycle. He appeared to have taken some liquor. He
took his post and sat on his folding bed. About five minutes after Rogelio
arrived, the accused Ernesto Arañas, whom he personally knew since childhood,
entered the Rosario Institute compound. Two other men followed Arañas, the
accused Juan Cantonjos and another man whom Emerito did not know. He later
learned, upon inquiry, that the third man was the accused Balag. At about 8:40
p.m., Emerito heard noise and looked towards the place from where it came. He
saw the three accused stabbing Rogelio who was then lying on his folding bed.
Arañas was near Rogelio’s head, Balag was by the victim’s side, while Cantonjos
was sitting on top of the victim. Emerito clearly saw the stabbing incident as
it took place in a well-lighted area, about five arms’ length from the canteen
where he was. Emerito was terrified by what he saw, thus he rushed home on his
bicycle to tell Rogelio’s sister, Alicia Alcantara, that Rogelio had been
killed. The accused were still stabbing Rogelio when Emerito left the place. He
passed by the Rosario police station but did not report the incident to the
police as he was afraid that if he did so, he would be killed next. From
Alicia’s house, he went home and stayed there until 12:00 midnight when it was
time for his duty at the Rosario Institute. When he arrived at the institute,
he saw Rogelio’s bloodstained folding bed. He kept mum about the stabbing
incident until he was so moved by pity for his deceased nephew that he mustered
enough courage and executed on November 22, 1997 a written statement narrating
the killing incident. He identified pictures of the bloodied victim lying on
his broken folding bed.
Emerito had known Balag,
Cantonjos, and Arañas for a long time as they were drivers of Rogelio’s
tricycles. Balag and Cantonjos had even slept beside him. In one part of his
testimony, however, he stated that it was the first time he saw Balag on the
night of November 16, 1997. On cross-examination, he clarified that he had
known Balag by face for some time as he (Balag) had been Rogelio’s driver for
two months prior to Rogelio’s death. In those two months, Balag used to sleep
at night at the Rosario Institute, thus, contrary to his initial testimony, he
stated that he had seen Balag several times prior to November 16, 1997. But he
(Emerito) did not know Balag’s name even until Rogelio was fatally stabbed.
Emerito surmised that the three accused killed Rogelio for firing them from
their jobs as drivers of Rogelio’s tricycles because they would sometimes fail
to remit their boundary or would cause the tricycles to break down.[3]
On November 16, 1997, Alicia
Alcantara, sister of Rogelio Alcantara, was at home in Silangan II, Rosario,
Cavite. At about 8:40 in the evening, her uncle Emerito Alcantara arrived in
her house. He was nervous and he reported to her that her brother Rogelio
Alcantara was killed. She immediately dressed up and with her son headed to the
Rosario Institute in Abueg, Rosario, Cavite where the victim worked as a
security guard. Emerito was left behind as he was not feeling well. When Alicia
arrived at the institute, she saw her brother’s broken folding bed and
belongings scattered on the bloodied cement floor. She proceeded to Funeraria
Samson where she saw her brother’s corpse with multiple stab wounds. During her
brother’s wake, she found out from Joselito Bolon the identities of her
brother’s assailants. According to her, Rogelio’s wife spent P18,000.00
for the funeral service[4] and P69,000.00 for the wake of the victim.[5] At the time of his death,
he was earning about P4,000.00 a month.[6]
SPO4 Gregorio B. Gener also took
the witness stand. He is a member of the PNP and he investigated the killing of
Rogelio Alcantara. On November 16, 1997, he was assigned as a duty investigator
at the Rosario Municipal Police Station in Rosario, Cavite. At about 10:00 p.m.
that night, a certain Rex Asigurado of Rosario Institute went to the station
informing them that the security guard of Rosario Institute was bathing in his
own blood. Gener, and two other policemen on night duty, SPO3 Apostol and SPO1
Mercado, and their official photographer, Oliver De Guzman, immediately
responded and proceeded to Rosario Institute. The investigating team arrived
there at about 10:00 p.m. and saw the lifeless Rogelio Alcantara lying down on
a folding bed. They found a gun under his pillow and took a picture of it. They
investigated the vicinity, searching for a suspect. They were able to talk to
Caridad Alcantara who told them that Rogelio Alcantara’s tricycles were
missing. The team looked for the tricycles and found one near the residence of
Arañas at around 11:00 p.m. They tried to talk to Arañas in his residence, but
his wife told him that he was not home.
The following morning, Gener’s
companion saw Cantonjos plying his route. He invited him and Arañas to the
police station for an interview. The two denied involvement in the killing of
Rogelio Alcantara. During the interview, Gener noticed that Cantonjos’ right
thumb was wounded. When inquired about the cause of the wound, Cantonjos explained
that he sustained it while repairing his tricycle. After the investigation, the
two were released for lack of evidence linking them to the killing.
Subsequently, however, witnesses Joselito Bolon and Emerito Alcantara surfaced
and narrated the stabbing incident. Emerito broke his silence only after seven
days from the killing because he was afraid. After reinvestigation, Arañas was
arrested in Rosario and Balag was arrested in his home province of Masbate.
Cantonjos has remained at large.[7]
Dr. Jocelyn Dignos, Rural Health
Physician of the Rural Health Unit of Rosario, Cavite, took the witness stand.
On November 20, 1997, she examined the body of the deceased, Rogelio Alcantara,
which sustained about 50 stab wounds. She issued a death certificate,[8] indicating therein that Rogelio’s cause of death was
“irreversible shock due to massive hemorrhage and multiple stab wounds,
internal and external, head and body.” She opined that the wounds could have
been inflicted by at least two weapons, a long, pointed and rounded one which
could be an ice pick or screw driver and a sharp knife because some wounds were
clean, 3/4 inches in width and about one foot long. She testified that some of
the stab wounds inflicted with an ice pick as well as some of the stab wounds
caused by a knife were fatal. She also surmised that there was more than one
assailant based on the number and location of the wounds.[9]
The accused Balag took the witness
stand. He is a native of Masbate, but has been residing with his parents in
Rosario, Cavite since 1996. He is the nephew of his co-accused Cantonjos. From
1996 to 1997, Balag worked in a rice store in Rosario Municipal Market in
Salinas. In 1996, he also worked as a tricycle driver of the deceased Rogelio
Alcantara. The latter owned three tricycles. Before he started driving for
Alcantara, Balag’s uncle, co-accused Cantonjos, was already driving one of
Alcantara’s tricycles. After driving for Alcantara for four months, Balag asked
his permission to resign as his earnings were not sufficient for his domestic
expenses. Alcantara agreed and did not get angry with Balag. Thereafter, a
certain Arnel employed Balag in his rice store and as a tricycle driver. Balag
worked in the store until November 7, 1997.
On November 8, 1997, Balag went
home on a boat to Masbate with his live-in partner, Lita Balag, to spend the
new year there. Balag claims that on the night of November 16, 1997, he was in
their residence in Mubo, Masbate. Balag and his partner planned to go back to
Rosario, Cavite after the new year, but never got to do so as Balag’s mother
requested him to attend to their coconuts and copra business in Masbate.
Sometime after new year, Balag was arrested in Masbate. Thereupon, his uncle
who was a policeman took from Balag his boat tickets for his trip home to
Masbate on November 8, 1997 supposedly to show them to the authorities. Balag
never got to retrieve the tickets from his uncle as he (Balag) was hurriedly
brought to Manila upon being arrested. Aside from this, his policeman uncle, whom
he claims to have been bribed by the private complainant, was one of those who
arrested him and brought him to Manila even if he knew that he was in Masbate a
week before the killing incident.
Balag knows the prosecution’s
principal witness, Joselito Bolon, as their fathers are first cousins and Bolon
is also a native of Masbate. He met Bolon in 1992 in Masbate, but never saw him
again there nor in Rosario, Cavite when they were both residing there. He did
not have any quarrel with Bolon prior to the latter’s testifying against him.
He also knew Jimmy Olaje as he is also from Masbate, but denied meeting him on
November 16, 1997. Balag also denied having been with the accused Cantonjos and
Arañas on the night of November 16, 1997 and having killed Rogelio Alcantara.
According to him, he did not even know Arañas.[10]
The trial court acquitted accused
Ernesto Arañas alias Japong and convicted accused Herlino Balag, viz:
“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, this court hereby renders judgment as follows:
1) Accused Ernesto Arañas alias Japong is hereby acquitted on ground of reasonable doubt;
2) Accused Herlino Balag alias Mortel is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as charged in (sic) Information, qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation and scoffing or outraging at the corpse of the victim, and accordingly hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of death, and is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Rogelio Alcantara the amount ofP50,000.00 as death indemnity; and the amount ofP87,000.00 as actual damages.”
Hence, this automatic review with
the lone assignment of error, viz:
“THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”
In ascertaining the facts
regarding the brutal killing of Rogelio Alcantara on the night of November 16,
1997, the trial court relied mainly on the testimony of Joselito Bolon. It
discarded the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Emerito Alcantara, as it found
several parts of his testimony incredulous, thus rendering suspect his
credibility. We find no cogent reason to disturb this finding of the trial court.
It is axiomatic that the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best
left to the discretion of the trial court which, unlike a review court,
observed the demeanor and conduct of witnesses while testifying and thus was in
a better position to asses their capacity for truth.[11]
Nevertheless, even without direct
evidence, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of
the accused Balag beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction may be had even on the
basis of circumstantial evidence provided three requisites concur: (1) there is
more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived
are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[12] To our mind, the following circumstances, taken
together, lead to no other conclusion than that the accused Balag was one of
the perpetrators of Rogelio Alcantara’s gruesome slay:
1. On November 16, 1997, Cantonjos and Rogelio Alcantara were at a wedding party and had a heated argument regarding Rogelio’s tricycle which Alcantara was driving.
2. In the middle of the heated argument, Cantonjos left the party on a tricycle, tagging along Bolon and another identified man. The group then fetched the accused Balag from his house.
3. The group thereafter proceeded to the house of Jimmy Olaje where Cantonjos and Balag borrowed a bolo, but to no avail.
4. Before 8:00 p.m. that night, Cantonjos’ group arrived at the Rosario Institute. Cantonjos and Balag went inside the institute, while Bolon and another unidentified man were left outside of the institute upon Cantonjos’ instructions.
5. As Cantonjos entered the institute’s gate, he pulled out an icepick from the waist of his pants.
6. Sometime after Cantonjos and Balag went inside the Rosario Institute, they came out running with bloodied hands.
7. Cantonjos exclaimed that they (he and Balag) killed Rogelio Alcantara and that Balag cut Cantonjos’ right thumb with his fan knife when Cantonjos tried to stop him from further stabbing Rogelio. Cantonjos threatened Bolon that he and Balag would kill him if he reported the killing to anybody.
8. Dr. Jocelyn Dignos, the physician who examined the body of the deceased, Rogelio Alcantara, found about 50 stab wounds on Rogelio’s body. She opined that the wounds could have been inflicted by at least two weapons, a long, pointed and rounded one which could be an ice pick or screw driver and a sharp knife because some wounds were clean, 3/4 inches in width and about one foot long. Some of the stab wounds inflicted by a knife and others inflicted by a weapon like an icepick were fatal. She surmised that there was more than one assailant based on the number and location of the wounds. The cause of Rogelio’s death was “irreversible shock due to massive hemorrhage and multiple stab wounds, internal and external, head and body.”
Apart from the above
circumstantial evidence, the accused Balag’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt is
also supported by Cantonjos’ statements when they came out of the Rosario
Institute. Cantonjos told Bolon that they (Cantonjos and Balag) killed Rogelio
Alcantara and that Balag cut him with his (Balag’s) fan knife when Cantonjos
tried to stop him from further stabbing Rogelio. These declarations form part
of the res gestae. Res gestae utterances refer to those exclamations and
statements made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime
immediately before, during, or after the commission of the crime, when the
circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction
or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no
opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement.[13] A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and
thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the
following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a
startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had
time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence
in question and its immediately attending circumstances.[14] All these requisites are fulfilled by Cantonjos’
statements. The principal act, the brutal stabbing of Rogelio Alcantara, was a
startling occurrence. The statements were made shortly after the accused
Cantonjos and Balag came out of the Rosario Institute running and with bloodied
hands. The statements concern the circumstances surrounding the stabbing of
Rogelio Alcantara.
That there was conspiracy between
the accused Cantonjos and Balag is clear from the circumstantial evidence
presented. To establish conspiracy, direct proof is not essential as conspiracy
may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and
design.[15] The accused Cantonjos and Balag were united in their
purpose to kill Rogelio Alcantara as shown by the following circumstances: (1)
the two went inside the Rosario Institute together; (2) they came out of the institute
running together with bloodied hands; (3) the accused Cantonjos exclaimed that
they (Cantonjos and Balag) killed Rogelio Alcantara; (4) the accused Balag,
with his fan knife, cut Cantonjos on his right thumb when the latter was trying
to stop him from further stabbing Rogelio Alcantara; (5) some of the
stab wounds caused by a knife and a weapon like an ice pick which Cantonjos
pulled out from the waist of his pants as he entered the Rosario Institute were
inflicted On vital parts of the body and were thus fatal. With conspiracy, it
is immaterial who between accused Cantonjos and Balag held what weapon and
inflicted which wound upon the victim. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act
of all.[16]
We give short shrift to accused’s
defense of alibi. He claims that he could not possibly have been at the scene
of the crime on November 16, 1997 as he was in Masbate at that time. Apart from
his own testimony, however, there is no other evidence to support his claim and
we thus reject the same. Well-settled is the rule that alibi is the weakest
defense not only because of its inherent weakness and unreliability, but also
because it is easy to fabricate. As a general rule, it is rejected when the
accused is positively identified by a witness.[17]
We come now to the modifying
circumstances attending the killing of the hapless victim. The trial court
appreciated treachery as the circumstance qualifying the killing to murder. We
disagree. Treachery exists when the following facts are proved: (1) the
employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity
to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the deliberate and conscious
adoption of the means of execution.[18] Where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must
be proved. Without any particulars on the manner in which the aggression
commenced or how the act which resulted in the victim’s death unfolded,
treachery cannot be appreciated.[19] Circumstances qualifying criminal responsibility
cannot rest on mere conjectures, no matter how reasonable or probable, but must
be based on facts of unquestionable existence.[20] In the instant case, there is a dearth of evidence
with respect to the manner by which the accused Balag and Cantonjos stabbed
Rogelio Alcantara to death. Contrary to the prosecution’s position, treachery
cannot be presumed from the mere fact that Rogelio was found dead lying on his
folding bed and must therefore have been sleeping when he was attacked.[21]
The trial court was also in error
in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. In order
that evident premeditation may be appreciated, the prosecution must show: (1)
the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act
manifestly indicating that the culprit had clung to his determination; and (3)
a sufficient interval of time between the determination or conception and the
execution of the crime that would be sufficient to allow him to reflect upon
the consequence of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will if he desired to hearken to its warnings.[22] The prosecution in the instant case, however, has
failed to show when the plan to kill Rogelio was hatched and that sufficient
time had elapsed between that time and the execution of the plan on November
16, 1997 so as to allow the accused Balag and Cantonjos to reflect upon the
consequences of their acts. Mere presumptions and inferences, no matter how
logical and probable they might be, would not suffice to establish evident
premeditation.[23]
Abuse of superior strength cannot
likewise be appreciated even if there were at least two assailants as
superiority in number vis-a-vis that of the victim does not of itself warrant a
finding of abuse of superior strength. There must exist proof that the
attackers deliberately took advantage of their superior strength,[24] but the prosecution in the instant case has not
adduced such evidence.
Neither can we appreciate scoffing
or outraging at the corpse of the victim as this was not alleged in the information.[25]
Anent the damages, the trial court
was correct in ordering the accused to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00
as civil indemnity. Additionally, the accused is ordered to pay the victim’s
heirs P50,000.00 as moral damages in accord with prevailing
jurisprudence.[26] We reduce the award of actual damages of P87,000.00
to P18,000.00 as only this amount is supported by the evidence on
record.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the impugned decision is MODIFIED. The
accused-appellant is found guilty of Homicide and sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum
and seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as
maximum, and to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as
moral damages, and P18,000.00 as actual damages. Costs against the
accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
[1] TSN, Joselito Bolon,
May 25, 1998, pp. 3-71.
[2] TSN, Maria Caridad
Alcantara, June 1, 1998, pp. 4-42.
[3] TSN, Emerito
Alcantara, May 18, 1998, pp. 21-99; Exhibit “G”, Original Records, p. 4.
[4] Exhibit “B”,
Original Records, p. 67.
[5] Exhibit “C”, handwritten
list of expenses, Original Records, p. 68.
[6] TSN, Alicia
Alcantara, May 18, 1998, pp. 8-18; 101-108.
[7] TSN, Gregorio Gener,
June 1, 1998, pp. 46-71.
[8] Exhibit “I”.
[9] TSN, Dr. Jocelyn
Dignos, June 16, 1998, pp. 4-18.
[10] TSN, Herlino Balag, August
11, 1998, pp. 4-29.
[11] People v.
Mendoza, G.R. No. 134004, December 15, 2000, citing People v. Pacina,
G.R. No. 123150, August 16, 2000.
[12] People v.
Lopez, 313 SCRA 114 (1999), citing Section 4, Rule 133, Revised Rules on
Evidence and People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 117471, 295 SCRA 99; People
v. Quitorio, et al., 285 SCRA 196 (1998); People v.
Berroya, 283 SCRA 111 (1997); People v. Abrera, 283 SCRA 1 (1997);
People v. Doro, 282 SCRA 1 (1997); People v. Dabbay, 277 SCRA 432
(1997); People v. Bonola, 274 SCRA 238 (1997); People v.
Grefaldia, 273 SCRA 591 (1997); People v. Constante, 12 SCRA 653 (1964).
[13] People v.
Mansueto, 336 SCRA 715 (2000), citing People v. Manhuyod, Jr., 290 SCRA
257, 272 (1998).
[14] People v.
Manegdeg, 316 SCRA 689 (1999), citing People v. Maguikay, 237 SCRA 587
(1994).
[15] People v.
Mansueto, supra note 13, citing People v. Quilaton, G.R. No.
131835, February 3, 2000, 324 SCRA 670, citing People v. Sumalpong, 284
SCRA 464 (1998).
[16] People v.
Carugal, 341 SCRA 319 (2000).
[17] People v.
Apostol, G.R. Nos. 123267-68, December 9, 1999, citing People v. Roger
Vaynaco, G.R. No. 126286, March 22, 1999.
[18] People v.
Albacin, 340 SCRA 249 (2000), citing People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 128887,
January 20, 2000, citing People v. Hubilla, 252 SCRA 471, 481 (1996).
[19] People v.
Rios, 333 SCRA 823 (2000), citing People v. Nalangan, 336 Phil. 970, 975
(1997).
[20] People v.
Lopez, supra note 12, citing People v. Rapanut, 263 SCRA 515.
[21] Rollo, pp.
127-128; Appellee’s Brief, pp. 25-26.
[22] People v. De
La Tongga, 336 SCRA 687 (2000), citing People v. Manzano, 58 SCRA 250
(1974), citing U.S. v. Gil, 13 Phil. 530; People v. Fuentesuela,
73 Phil. 553 (1942).
[23] People v.
Peñaflorida, 313 SCRA 563 (1999), citing People v. Villanueva, 265 SCRA
216, 226 (1996).
[24] Id., citing
People v. Castor, 216 SCRA 410, 421 (1992).
[25] People v.
Gano, G.R. No. 134373, February 28, 2001, citing Rule 110, Secs. 8 and 10 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure effective December 1, 2000.
[26] People v.
Panado, et al., G.R. No. 133439, December 26, 2000.