344 Phil. 580
VITUG, J.:
That on or about the 10th day of December, 1989, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, armed with pipes, stones and bladed weapon, conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting with one another, with intent to kill, evident premeditation and with treachery, that is, by suddenly and without warning assault, attack, hit, hurl and stab several times at the back of the person of ESICIO ALONSO y STA. MARIA, with the use of said weapons that they were then armed with, thereby inflicting multiple injuries and mortal stab wounds on the different parts of the victim’s body which directly caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said victim.The four accused pleaded not guilty to the charge; thereupon, trial proper commenced.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.” [1]
Nicanor rushed to his father’s side, vainly calling for help. Nicanor ran home and came back with his mother. He covered the lifeless body of his father with a “tapis.” Moments later, his mother left to report the matter to the authorities. She returned to the scene together with some police officers who, forthwith, conducted an investigation. The victim’s body was taken to the La Merced Funeral Parlor for a post mortem examination.
Barangay captain Eugenio Julian testified that he assisted in the investigation of the incident. On cross-examination, the barangay official said that when he and some policemen went to Remoto’s residence immediately after the crime, he saw the latter standing inside the house wearing a t-shirt with blood stains on the chest. [2]Following the conclusion of the trial, the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, 9th Judicial Region, presided over by Judge Jaime T. Hamoy, promulgated its decision finding all the accused guilty of the crime charged; concluding, the court held:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds the accused JONATHAN ANTONIO y Garcia, EFREN SALVADOR y Antonio, EDUARDO REMOTO y Santos and DANILO LLEDO y Agyong, GUILTY as principals of the crime of murder qualified by treachery, and there being no generic aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attending the commission of the crime, hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, together with all the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Esicio Alonso jointly and severally in the amount of P50,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs.Accused-appellants appealed to this Court. Later, however, Jonathan Antonio withdrew his appeal.
“The accused JONATHAN ANTONIO y Garcia is further ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased the amount of P4,500.00 representing the value of the watch, plus P1,500.00 representing the money in his wallet, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
“The case against accused FREDO LIM y Toribio is ARCHIVED without prejudice to its revival and prosecution as soon as he shall have been arrested. Let an Alias Warrant of arrest be issued which need not be returned until he is arrested.
“SO ORDERED.” [3]
1. The lower court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the son of the victim.Accused-appellant Efren Salvador simply raised, in his lone assignment of error, that -
“2. The lower court erred in finding there was conspiracy among the accused when Ecisio Alonzo was killed.
“3. The lower court erred in finding accused-appellant Lledo guilty of murder.” [4]
In his case, accused-appellant Eduardo Remoto contended that -
“1. The lower court erred in basing the decision of conviction of accused-appellant Eduardo Remoto, solely on the biased, uncorroborated and baseless testimony of the son of the victim.
“x x x x x x x x x
“2. The lower court erred in not believing the testimony of accused-appellant as corroborated by his witnesses and in relying solely on the testimony of Nicanor Alonzo, the police investigator as well as the Barangay Captain, of the prosecution, instead of weighing the evidence adduced during the trial in favor of appellant that accused-appellant Eduardo Remoto never had serious misunderstanding much less engaged into any trouble orally or physically with deceased Encisio Alonzo.
“x x x x x x x x x
3. The lower court erred in convicting all the accused of the crime of murder on the basis that they acted in conspiracy.” [5]
The trial court erred in finding the accused Efren Salvador guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder of Esicio Alonzo y Sta. Maria in conspiracy with Jonathan Antonio y Garcia and three others despite insufficient evidence to hold him liable thereon.” [6]With great care, the Court has gone over the records, and it sees nothing substantial to warrant a reversal of the findings of the trial court. The testimony of Nicanor Alonso, particularly, is replete with enough details to preclude any probability of his having been a perjured eyewitness. In his narration of the incident, Nicanor gave clear, spontaneous and straightforward answers. Thus -
Nicanor’s testimony was bolstered by the medical findings made on the victim’s cadaver. The Autopsy Report submitted by Dr. Rodolfo M. Valmoria of the Medical Corps, Chief of the PC/INP Crime Laboratory Service, Regional Command 9, indicated that the contusions, lacerations and stabbed wounds found on the body of the deceased corresponded with Nicanor Alonso’s narration of how the accused had acted together in attacking the victim; viz:
Q
Were you able to reach the place of the benefit dance, the Atilano’s residence? A Yes, sir. Q When you reach the dance was there any unusual incident that took place? A Yes, sir. Q What was that incident that took place in the dance hall? A There was a trouble with my father. Q You said `they’ who are these they that you are mentioning? A Eduardo Remoto. Q Who else? A Danilo Lledo, Efren Salvador and Pedro Lim and Jonathan Antonio. Q When you reach in the dance hall at the Atilano residence you said that you said the four accused were making trouble, how far were you then to them when you said they were making trouble? A About 5 to 6 meters. Q How were you able to identify these four (4) accused? A Because there was lights. Q You said you saw your father with the four (4) accused, what was he doing? A He was discussing with them. Q At this particular time when they were discussing with the four (4) accused what happened if any? COURT: Q Who are these people they are discussing? A Eduardo Remoto, Efren Salvador, Fredo Lim, Danilo Lledo and Jonathan Antonio. FISCAL Q Do you know what were they discussing? A I do not know. Q At this particular juncture was there anything that took place while you are 5 to 6 meters away from them, what happened? A They are helping one another. FISCAL: All right, let us make this very clear. Q Who were helping each other when you saw them in the dance hall making some discussion? A Eduardo Remoto, Efren Salvador, Fredo Lim, Danilo Lledo. Q You saw the accused helping each other, the question is: what was Eduardo Remoto doing when you saw him? A Remoto was holding my father. Q Will you demonstrate? A He is embracing my father (witness demonstrating that Remoto is at the back of the father embracing) Q At the time you saw Eduardo Remoto embracing your father, what was Efren Salvador doing? A He got a stone and hit my father at the head. Q When you saw Salvador throw the stone to the head of your father, can you tell the Honorable Court was he using one hand or two hands? A Two hands. Q What particular part, you said Efren Salvador hit the head of your father, what particular part of the head of your father was hit? A (Witness pointing back of the head) Q What happened to your father when he was hit by the stone? A He was dizzy. FISCAL: Q Now, after Salvador hit your father’s head with a stone what was Alfredo Lim doing? A: ATTY. PUNO: Your Honor, please, just for clarification the name of the accused is Fredo Lim. WITNESS: A: He got a pipe and hit my father. FISCAL: Q Where did your father hit, in what part of your father’s body was hit with the water pipe? A (Witness demonstrating at the right forehead) Q How many times was your father hit by the water pipe? A Once. Q After hitting your father with the pipe what did Lim do? A He move backward and throw the pipe. Q After your father was hit by the pipe where was Danilo at that time? A Infront of my father. Q What was he doing? A He box(ed) my father. Q How many times did he box your father? A Three (3) times. Q After Lledo boxed your father where was Jonathan Antonio at that time? A He was together with Danilo Lledo. Q What did he do if any? A He got his knife and stab my father. Q How many times did Jonathan Antonio stab your father? A I think three (3) times or more. Q Do you know the parts of the body your was hit with the stab? A ATTY. ELUMBA: Leading, Your Honor. COURT: Answer, if he knows. WITNESS: A (Witness demonstrating at the right stomach and front stomach - umbilicus and left breast) Q What happened to your father when you saw him stabbed several times by Jonathan Antonio? A He fell down. Q Were you able to seek the help of the neighbors in assisting your father? A I was trying to seek the help of our neighbors but they did not help. Q So when did you do about your father? A I ran home to ask the help of my mother and inform them that my father is already dead. Q Were you able to reach home? A Yes, sir. Q And what else happen when you reach home? A We went to the place of the incident together with my mother. Q Only you and your mother went to the place of incident where your father was? A There were others.”[7]
1. Contusion, proximal third, right arm, just anterior measuring 6 cm x 3.
“2. Stabbed wound, right chest close to armpit, measuring 0.6 cm x 0.7 x 0.6, penetrating.
“3. Stabbed wound, right supramammary region, measuring 1 cm x 1.2 x 1.2, penetrating.
“4. Stabbed wound, left mammary region, measuring 1.5 cm x 1.5 x 1.7, 2.5 cm from the AML directed upwards and to the right and posterior, penetrating.
“5. Stabbed wound, left inferior chest, measuring 1.3 cm x 1.2 x 1.3, perforating.
“6. Stabbed wound, left hypochondriac region, measuring 1.5 cm x 1.6 x 1.5, perforating.
“7. Contusion, anterior chest, measuring 5 cm x 10.
“8. Contusions with abrasion, dorsum of right hand, right wrist joint, just posterior, distal third, right wrist joint.
“9. Lacerated wounds, bone deep, left supraorbital region and, occipital region, just along the posterior midline, measuring 0.3 cm x 2.5 and 5.5. cm x 0.8 respectively.
“CAUSE OF DEATH: Cardiorespiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage secondary stabbed wounds, chest, lacerated wounds, head.” [8]
The manner in which the crime was committed would indicate, quite convincingly, that accused-appellants have cooperated with one another toward a common criminal design with neither one of them having prevented or attempted to prevent the other from inflicting injury on the victim. The coordinated acts of accused-appellants heretofore shown sufficiently bear out their having been parties to the conspiracy. [15] It is not necessary, for that collective responsibility to be established, that the conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime. [16]
Q Can you still identify this Jonathan Antonio? A Yes, sir. Q Why do you know him? A He is our neighbor and he usually go to the creek and wash I usually saw him in the creek. Q For how many years have you known him? A For more than one year. Q Where do you usually see him? A Sometime he goes with the jeep of my father to the city proper and then go back. Q Can you still identify him? A Yes, sir. Q Where is he now? A (Witness pointing to a person seated in court who when asked of his name identify himself as Jonathan Antonio) Q About this Danilo Lledo how do you know him? A He is our neighbor also. Q For how many years have you been a neighbor? A More than one (1) year. Q And can you still identify him? A Yes, sir. Q Where is he now? A (Witness pointing to a person seated in Court who when asked of his name identify himself as Danilo Lledo) Q About Efren Salvador, do you know him? A He is our neighbor also. Q For how many years? A For more than (1) year. Q Can you still identify him? A Yes, sir. Q Where is he now? A Second (Witness pointing to a person seated in Court who when ask of his name identify himself as Efren Salvador) Q About Eduardo Remoto how do you know him? A He is also our neighbor. Q And how many years have you been his neighbor? A For more than (1) year Q Can you still identify him? A Yes, sir. Q Where is he now? A The last person. (Witness pointing to a person seated in Court who when asked of his name identify himself as Eduardo Remoto) Q About Fredo Lim, where is he now? A He was not apprehended. COURT: Q Do you know him? A Yes, Your Honor. Q Why do you know? A He is our neighbor, Your Honor. Q If you can see this accused can you still identify? A Yes, Your Honor.” [14]