Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

104629 November 13, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ULIUS !INO! "#$"% &'OS (L)*)N& "+, T)P)NTE S)LIG)N "#$"% &T)P)NTE (L)*)N&, accused-appellants. S)N-O.)L*GUTIERRE/, J.0 ppeal f!o" the decision of the Re#ional T!ial $ou!t, %!anch &', Davao del Su!, & in $!i"inal $ase No. ()'*+, ,People vs. -ulius .ino/ alias ,Yos Bla-an, and Tapante Sali#an alias ,Tapante Bla-an,, convictin# both accused of "u!de! and sentencin# the" to reclusion perpetua 0ith accesso!1 penalties. The "ended Info!"ation dated 2eb!ua!1 34, &''* filed a#ainst the accused !eads5 ,That on o! about the 36th da1 of Septe"be!, &'7' in the Municipalit1 of .ibla0an, P!ovince of Davao del Su!, Philippines, and 0ithin the 8u!isdiction of this Hono!able $ou!t, said accused, conspi!in#, confede!atin# to#ethe!, and "utuall1 helpin# one anothe!, and a!"ed 0ith a fi!ea!", did, then and the!e 0illfull1, unla0full1 and feloniousl1, attac/, assault and 0ound the!e0ith 9illia" #uipo, in the vital pa!t of his bod1, inflictin# upon hi" #unshot 0ound, 0ith t!eache!1 and evident p!e"editation, said accused havin# inflicted said 0ound 0hile 9illia" #uipo is asleep, and as a !esult the!eof, said 9illia" #uipo died instantl1. $ONTR R: TO ; 9.3 <pon a!!ai#n"ent, the t0o accused pleaded NOT =<I;T:. The!eafte!, t!ial on the "e!its ensued. The theo!1 of the p!osecution, as aptl1 stated b1 the Solicito! =ene!al in the appellee>s b!ief, is !ep!oduced he!eunde!5 , fte! ta/in# suppe! at a!ound 75** o>cloc/ in the evenin# of Septe"be! 3(, &'7', ;u? #uipo, to#ethe! 0ith fou! of he! five child!en, 0ent upstai!s in he! house at .i"la0is, .ibla0an, Davao del Su!, 0hile he! husband, 9illia" #uipo p!oceeded inside the sto!e in the fi!st floo! and slept the!ein )pp. 6-4, tsn, Ma1 (*, &''*+. t a!ound 75(* o>cloc/ of the sa"e evenin#, ;u? hea!d t0o pe!sons callin# out to bu1 !ise )p. 4, id+. 9hen 9illia" late! called out to ;u? 0hethe! she had chan#e fo! P&**.**, she ans0e!ed that she had none )id.+. She 0ent do0n the house and sa0 accused -ulius .ino/ and Tapante Sali#an. The duo 0e!e thus unable to bu1 the !ice as the couple had no chan#e )id.+. The t0o accused then as/ed if the couple had co!n #!its )p.@, id.+. The1 !eplied that the!e 0as none available. The!eafte!, the t0o accused !eAuested 9illia" to acco"pan1 the" to the sto!e o0ned b1 Ro#e! MiBo?a )id.+. 9illia" acceded )id.+. %et0een 75(* and '5** o>cloc/ in the sa"e evenin#, 9illia" !etu!ned to thei! sto!e and p!oceeded to sleep )p. 7, id.+. The!eupon, ;u? 0ent bac/ upstai!s, listened to a !adio p!o#!a" until si#n-off, and the!eafte! slept at a!ound "idni#ht )id.+. t a!ound &35(* o>cloc/ past "idni#ht, ;u? 0as a0a/ened b1 a "uffled #unbu!st. She i""ediatel1 #ot up, loo/ed ove! the 0indo0 and sa0 the t0o accused both holdin# #uns 0hich 0e!e pointed at 0he!e he! husband, 9illia", 0as late! found dead )pp. 7-', id.+. She 0as able to identif1 the t0o as the "oon and sta!s 0e!e shinnin# b!i#htl1 and besides the!e 0as a pile of 0oods and ba"boos )Cba#aca1>+ 0hich 0e!e bu!nin# a!ound ei#ht )7+ "ete!s a0a1 f!o" 0he!e the t0o accused 0e!e )p. ', id.+. Not lon# afte!, the t0o accused !an a0a1 )id.+. The!eafte!, ;u? 0ent bac/ to lie do0n on he! bed )p.&*, id.+. She could not #o bac/ to sleep because she 0as sca!ed that the t0o 0ould co"e bac/ to st!afe thei! house and /ill the" all )pp. &*, &4&@,id.+.

9hile all these 0e!e #oin# on, Ronel Mande, the &(-1ea! old nephe0 of the couple, 0ho 0as sleepin# in the fi!st floo! 0ith the othe! child, Ro""el #uipo )on the othe! side of the 0all of split ba"boos f!o" 0he!e 9illia" 0as sleepin#+, 0as hi"self a0a/ened b1 the noise co"in# f!o" the ho!se and pi#s )pp. 3-D, tsn, Ma1 &&, &''*+. 9hen he t!ied to loo/ at the place 0he!e the ho!se and pi#s 0e!e, he sa0 the t0o accused both holdin# fi!ea!"s 0hich 0e!e di!ected and po/ed at the 0allin# of the sto!e 0he!e 9illia" 0as sleepin# )pp. 6-4, id.+. He sa0 both accused clea!l1 since the "oon 0as shinin# b!i#htl1 and the pile of 0oods he had p!eviousl1 set fi!e ea!lie! in the evenin# 0as bu!nin# 8ust a!ound ei#ht )7+ "ete!s a0a1 f!o" 0he!e the accused 0e!e )id.+. <pon noticin# that both accused had pointed thei! #uns to0a!d the sto!e 0he!e his uncle 9illia" 0as sleepin#, he t!ied to loo/ at the 0ooden !ailin#s )id.+. s he 0as loo/in#, he hea!d a "uffled #unbu!st )id.+. The!eupon, he duc/ed and la1 do0n on the floo! )id.+. 2eelin# ve!1 "uch sca!ed, he cove!ed hi"self 0ith a blan/et )p. @, id.+. bout one and a half hou!s late!, still bein# unable to sleep, Ronel noticed that his clothes 0e!e 0et )pp. 7&3, id.+. Thin/in# that the child!en upstai!s had u!inated, he 0ent upstai!s and 0o/e his unt ;u? co"plainin# that he 0as 0et 0ith u!ine )id.+. ;u? chec/ 0ho of the child!en u!inated, and findin# no one, she li#hted the lu"p to chec/ 0h1 he 0as 0et and, then discove!ed that it 0as blood )pp. 7, &(, id.E p. &*, tsn, Ma1 (*, &''*+. She found out that the blood ca"e f!o" 9illia" 0hose 0ounds 0e!e oo?in# 0ith blood )pp. 7-', &(, tsn, Ma1 &&, &''*E pp. &*-&&, tsn, Ma1 (*, &''*+. She noticed that 9illia" had t0o 0ounds, one on the !i#ht side of the bod1 and anothe! on the left 0!ist )p. &&, tsn, Ma1 (*, &''*+. She sta!ted c!1in#, 8oined b1 Ronel )p. ', tsn, Ma1 &&, &''*E p. &&, tsn, Ma1 (*, &''*+. 9hile ;u? 0as c!1in# , Ronel told he!, C untie, I sa0 the pe!sons 0ho shot hi"> )pp. &&-&3, tsn, Ma1 (*, &''*+. She 0a!ned hi" not to tell an1 one because the accused "i#ht co"e bac/ and !etaliate a#ainst the" )p. &4, tsn, Ma1 &&, &''*+. ;u?, then, b!ou#ht the dead bod1 of he! husband outside of the sto!e and 0!apped it 0ith a "at )p. &3, tsn, Ma1 (*, &''*+. The!eupon, she info!"ed he! pa!ents-in-la0 )id.+. t about 65(* o>cloc/ in the afte!noon, the1 p!oceeded to the "unicipal hall of .ibla0an and subseAuentl1 to the =!e#o!ia Matas Dist!ict Hospital fo! an autops1 of the cadave! )id.+. The eFa"inin# ph1sician, D!. Re1naldo Villanueva, found, as !evealed in his Outside Patient>s Reco!d $a!d, that5 GPRH5 )&+ ent!ance 0ound, ; post late!al 0!ist *.D c". dia"ete! )3+ eFit 0ound ; ant-"edial 0!ist & c". dia". eve!ted )(+ ent!ance 0ound R ant-level of 7th !ib abdo"en R uppe! Auad!ant 8ust belo0 the R co!tal "a!#in &.D c". inve!ted c no eFit $ause of Death5 $P 3I to #unshot 0oundG )Outside Patient>s Reco!d $a!d, HFhibit C G, Reco!ds, p. @&E tsn, Ma!ch &6, &''*, pp. (, D-4+ ;u? had fou! police"en f!iends in .ibla0an 0ho told he! to !eveal the identities of the culp!its )pp. 3@-37, tsn, Ma1 (*, &''*+. She told the" that she 0ould do so at the p!ope! ti"e )p. 37, id.+. fte! the bu!ial of he! husband on Octobe! ', &'7', she 0ent to the .ibla0an Police Station and eFecuted a s0o!n state"ent to suppo!t he! co"plaint a#ainst the t0o accused )pp. 3@-37, id.E p. @, S0o!n State"ent, HFhibit C&>, Reco!ds+.,( Neithe! of the t0o accused too/ the 0itness stand. In thei! defense, onl1 lf!edo $anacan and 2laviana Solo testified. lf!edo $anacan, a !esident and ba!an#a1 council"an of .i"la0is, testified that at about D5** o>cloc/ in the "o!nin# of Septe"be! 36, &'7', he fetched 0ate! f!o" a 0ell. 9hile passin# b1 the #uipos> place, he hea!d so"e c!ies and bein# cu!ious, he ente!ed thei! house and the!e he sa0 the bod1 of 9illia" #uipo l1in# on the floo! 0!apped b1 a blan/et 0et 0ith blood. He noticed that 0hen ;u? sa0 the fo!ea!" of he! husband, she shouted, ,#i0a/-#i0a/, #i/it/it si 9illia",, 0hich "eans, ,9illia" 0as eaten b1 the 0itch,. 9hen he told he! that 9illia" "i#ht have been shot to death, she disa#!eed, sa1in# she did not see an1 pe!son no! hea! an1 #unshot the ni#ht befo!e.6

2laviana Solo, ba!an#a1 captain of .i"la0is, co!!obo!ated lf!edo $anacan>s testi"on1 D and fu!the! decla!ed that she inte!!o#ated Ronel Mande. 9hen she as/ed hi" about his uncle>s condition, he ans0e!ed that his uncle 0as t!e"blin# and he )Ronel+ believed the incident 0as 8ust a ni#ht"a!e. 4 fte! hea!in#, the t!ial cou!t !ende!ed a decision, the dispositive po!tion of 0hich !eads5 ,9HHRH2ORH, p!e"ises conside!ed and in vie0 of the fo!e#oin#, this cou!t find the accused -ulius .ino/ alias :os %la-an and Tapante Sali#an alias Tapante %la-an #uilt1 of the c!i"e of "u!de! as cha!#ed. The1 a!e he!eb1 o!de!ed to suffe! i"p!ison"ent 0ith a penalt1 of reclusion perpetua );ife sentence+ each 0ith the accesso!1 penalties of the la0. It appea!in# that the!e is no pa1"ent of the filin# and doc/et fees, this $ou!t cannot p!onounce an1 civil liabilit1, fo! 8u!isdiction ove! the sa"e is acAui!ed onl1 f!o" the "o"ent of its pa1"ent. SO ORDHRHD.,@ In this appeal, appellants asc!ibe to the t!ial cou!t ten inte!!elated e!!o!s 0hich "a1 be su""ed up as follo0s5 ) 1+ in findin# that the evidence fo! the p!osecution has established the identit1 of the /ille!sE ) 2+ in concludin# that dela1 on the pa!t of ;u? #uipo in na"in# the assailants did not 0ea/en he! testi"on1E ) 3+ in holdin# that Ronel Mande, althou#h the victi">s nephe0, is a c!edible 0itnessE and )4+ in convictin# the appellants despite the fact that no ill "otive on thei! pa!t has been established b1 the p!osecution. Incidentall1, du!in# the pendenc1 of this appeal, o! on -ul1 36, &''6, appellant Tapante Sali#an died due to ca!dio !espi!ato!1 a!!est 0hile confined at the National %ilibid P!ison in Muntinlupa. 7 Hence, in a Resolution dated Ma!ch 7, &''D, this $ou!t dis"issed the appeal 0ith !espect to hi" fo! bein# "oot and acade"ic. ' fte! a "eticulous !evie0 of the enti!e !eco!ds of this case, 0e find the appeal be!eft of "e!it. Ronel Mande, p!osecution 0itness, positivel1 identified appellants. His testi"on1 in point is Auoted as follo0s5 ,DIRH$T HJ MIN TION TT:. $ RPHNTHRO5 K No0, 0hile 1ou 0e!e sleepin# that evenin#, 0hat unusual incident have 1ou noticed if an1L

9hen I hea!d the sound co"in# f!o" the ho!se and I noticed that the pi#s 0e!e nois1, I 0as a0a/ened and t!ied to loo/ at the place 0he!e the ho!se and pi#s 0e!e, I sa0 the t0o accused :os %la-an and Tapante %la-an b!in#in# fi!ea!"s to the place 0he!e "1 uncle 9illia" #uipo 0as sleepin#. F K F F

Ho0 0he!e 1ou able to see this 0hen it 0as in the evenin#L %ecause the "oon 0as shinin# ve!1 b!i#ht and besides I 0as bu!nin# file of 0ood in f!ont of the !oad.

$O<RT5 K 9h1 0he!e 1ou bu!nin# those 0oodsL I bu!ned in that place because the!e 0e!e so "an1 #a!ba#e, 1ou! hono!, so I have to bu!n the". TT:. $ RPHNTHRO5 K Ho0 fa! 0as that bu!nin# fi!e to the place 0he!e the accused 0he!eL bout 7 "ete!s.

K Seein# the t0o holdin# fi!ea!"s pointed to the place 0he!e 1ou! uncle 9illia" 0as sleepin#, acco!din# to 1ou, 0hat did 1ou do neFtL 9hen I noticed that the1 0e!e po/in# thei! fi!ea!"s to0a!ds the sto!e 0he!e "1 uncle 0as sleepin#, I t!ied to loo/ at the 0ooden !ailin#s and as I loo/ed, I hea!d #un bu!st. K 9hat /ind of bu!st 0as thatL "uffled bu!st. K Hea!in# the "uffled bu!st at that ti"e, 0hat did 1ou doL I duc/ed and laid do0n to0a!ds the floo!L K 9h1 did 1ou d!op to0a!ds the floo!L %ecause I 0as af!aid. F F F

K No0, afte! 0!appin# 1ou!self 0ith the blan/et and /no0in# that ;u? #uipo 0as upstai!s, 0hat did 1ou do neFtL I did nothin# but to lie do0n cove!in# "1self 0ith a blan/et because I 0as ve!1 "uch af!aid., &* ;i/e0ise, ;u? #uipo positivel1 identified the appellants as the pe!pet!ato!s of the c!i"e, thus5 ,DIRH$T HJ MIN TION TT:. $ RPHNTHRO5 K 9hile 1ou 0e!e sleepin#, 0hat unusual incident happenedL

fte! I 0ent to sleep that 0as about &35(* o>cloc/ past "idni#ht, I 0as su!p!ised 0hen I hea!d a #unshot, so I i""ediatel1 !ose up f!o" the bed. K 9hat /ind of bu!st did 1ou hea!L #un bu!st 0ith a dull sound o! in the local dialect ,bun#ol n#a boto,. K 9he!e did that #un bu!st e"anateL 2!o" the do0nstai!s of ou! house. K . K s 1ou hea!d a #un bu!st, 0hat did 1ou do, if an1L 9hen I hea!d a #un bu!st, I i""ediatel1 opened the 0indo0 of ou! house. 9hat did 1ou notice as 1ou opened the 0indo0 of 1ou! houseL 9hen I opened the 0indo0 of ou! house, I sa0 t0o pe!son, the t0o accused, holdin# a #un. F F F

K 9hat 0as thei! !espective positions 0hen 1ou sa0 the accused fo! the fi!st ti"e afte! openin# the 0indo0L 9hen I opened the 0indo0 of ou! house and loo/ed ove! the 0indo0, I sa0 the t0o accused pointin# thei! #uns at the place 0he!e "1 husband 0as /illed. K Ho0 0e!e 1ou able to !eco#ni?e the t0o since it 0as past &35(* o>cloc/ "idni#ht #oin# to da0nL

I !eco#ni?ed the t0o accused th!ou#h the illu"ination co"in# f!o" the "oon and sta!s because the1 0e!e shinin# ve!1 b!i#htl1, and besides the!e 0as a pile of 0ood and ,ba#aca1, bu!ned b1 "1 son that ea!l1 evenin# and because of the continuos blo0in# of the 0ind, these pile of 0oods and ba"boos 0e!e li#htin#. K Ho0 fa! 0as the bu!nin# 0oods and ba"boos f!o" the place 0he!e the t0o accused 0e!eL Mo!e o! less 7 "ete!s.&& Instead of cont!ove!tin# the above testi"onies and defendin# the"selves, appellants "e!el1 chose to !e"ain silent. The1 !elied solel1 on the testi"onies of thei! ba!!io"ates 0ho clai"ed that Luz Aguipo and Ronel Mande did not infor the of the na es of the perpetrators . In c!i"inal cases, the p!osecution bea!s the onus to p!ove be1ond !easonable doubt not onl1 the co""ission of the c!i"e but li/e0ise to establish, 0ith the sa"e Auantu" of p!oof, the identit1 of the pe!son o! pe!sons !esponsible the!efo!.&3 This bu!den of p!oof does not shift to the defense but !e"ains in the p!osecution th!ou#hout the t!ial.&( Ho0eve!, 0hen the p!osecution has succeeded in discha!#in# the bu!den of p!oof b1 p!esentin# evidence sufficient to convince the cou!t of the t!uth of the alle#ations in the info!"ation o! has established a pri a facie case a#ainst the accused, the !urden of e"idence shifts to the accused "a/in# it incu"bent upon hi" to adduce evidence in o!de! to "eet and nullif1, if not to ove!th!o0, that pri a facie case.&6 s 0e held in #eople ". Resano5&D ,F F F MThe 0itnessN, of cou!se, has a !i#ht not to do so and his failu!e andOo! !efusal to testif1 shall not in an1 "anne! p!e8udice o! be ta/en a#ainst hi". %ut 0hen the p!osecution has al!ead1 established a p!i"a facie case, "o!e so 0hen the offense cha!#ed is #!ave and sufficient enou#h to send the accused behind ba!s fo! life o! "a1 even 0a!!ant the i"position of the sup!e"e penalt1 of death, then in o!de! to "eet and dest!o1 the effects of said p!i"a facie case and so as to shift the bu!den of p!oducin# fu!the! evidence to the p!osecution, the pa!t1 "a/in# the denial "ust p!oduce evidence tendin# to ne#ate the bla"e asse!ted to such a point that, if no "o!e evidence is #iven, his adve!sa!1 cannot 0in the case be1ond !easonable doubt. $n such a situation% it a& !e necessar& for the accused to ha"e a co plete destruction of the prosecution's pri a facie case% that he ta(e the stand since no hardship )ill in an& )a& !e i posed upon hi nor ad"antage !e ta(en of hi ., ppellants> uneFplainable silence, in the "idst of the ove!0hel"in# evidence established b1 the p!osecution a#ainst the", leads to no othe! conclusion than that the1 a!e #uilt1 as cha!#ed. nent ;u? #uipo>s dela1 in !epo!tin# the incident to the p!ope! autho!ities, 0e a#!ee 0ith the Solicito! =ene!al that such dela1, 0hich cove!ed onl1 siFteen )&4+ da1s, 0as satisfacto!il1 eFplained b1 he!. ;u? testified that she fea!ed fo! he! life as 0ell as he! fa"il1. She 0as also convinced that appellants 0ould flee to the "ountains and "i#ht no lon#e! be app!ehended. ;i/e0ise, in he! ba!an#a1, "an1 !esidents have been /illed in the past. lthou#h the culp!its 0e!e identified, the ba!an#a1 officials 0ould usuall1 ,fiF the cases, because the1 the"selves a!e af!aid of the people in the "ountains. Si"ila!l1, she did not i""ediatel1 b!in# the "atte! to the police autho!ities because she 0as then bus1 attendin# to the bu!ial a!!an#e"ents of he! husband. &4 9ith these thin#s in he! "ind, co"pounded b1 the t!au"atic shoc/ of findin# he!self suddenl1 a 0ido0 0ith five child!en to suppo!t, ;u? could not be eFpected to i""ediatel1 ta/e the p!ope! action. NeFt, appellants assail Ronel>s c!edibilit1 on the #!ound that he is a nephe0 of ;u? #uipo and he! husband 0ho 0e!e then sendin# hi" to school. Me!e !elationship b1 itself does not #ive !ise to the p!esu"ption of bias o! ulte!io! "otive, no! does it ipso facto i"pai! the c!edibilit1 o! ta!nish the testi"on1 of a 0itness. ntitheticall1, a 0itness>

!elationship to a victi" of the c!i"e 0ould even "a/e his o! he! testi"on1 "o!e c!edible as it 0ould be unnatu!al fo! a !elative 0ho is inte!ested in vindicatin# the c!i"e to accuse so"ebod1 othe! than the !eal culp!it. &@Indeed, at &6, Ronel>s act of accusin# his ba!!io"ates of such a se!ious c!i"e even st!en#thens the ve!acit1 of his testi"on1. ppellants also vi#o!ousl1 contend that since the!e 0as no ill "otive on thei! pa!t a#ainst the victi", then the1 should be acAuitted. Suffice it to state that the p!osecution 0itnesses positivel1 identified the" as the "alefacto!s. It is a settled p!inciple !eAui!in# ini al discussion that "otive is not essential fo! conviction 0hen the!e is no doubt as to the identit1 of the accused.&7 The a##!avatin# ci!cu"stance of t!eache!1, 0hich Aualified the /illin# to "u!de!, 0as p!ope!l1 app!eciated b1 the t!ial cou!t. The t0o conditions of t!eache!1 concu!!ed, na"el1, )a+ that the "eans, "ethods, and fo!"s of eFecution e"plo1ed #ave the pe!son attac/ed no oppo!tunit1 to defend hi"self o! to !etaliate, and )b+ that such "eans, "ethods, and fo!"s of eFecution 0e!e delibe!atel1 and consciousl1 adopted b1 the accused 0ithout dan#e! to his pe!son. ppellants, then full1 a!"ed, shot the victi" to death 0hile he 0as asleep and the!efo!e, could not have put up an1 /ind of defense.&' The Info!"ation also alle#es the p!esence of evident p!e"editation in the co""ission of the c!i"e. 2o! evident p!e"editation to be app!eciated, the evidence fo! the p!osecution "ust establish 0ith eAual ce!taint1 and clea!ness as the c!i"inal act itself3* all its ele"ents, to 0it5 )&+ the ti"e the offende! dete!"ined to co""it the c!i"eE )3+ an act indicatin# that the offende! had clun# to his dete!"inationE and )(+ sufficient lapse of ti"e bet0een the dete!"ination to co""it the c!i"e and the eFecution the!eof to allo0 the offende! to !eflect upon the conseAuences of his act.3& pe!usal of the !eco!ds of this case !eveals that not one of these ele"ents 0as sufficientl1 established b1 the p!osecution. The t!ial cou!t, the!efo!e, co!!ectl1 dis!e#a!ded the sa"e. <nde! !ticle 36733 of the Revised Penal $ode, then the applicable p!ovision 0hen the c!i"e 0as co""itted, "u!de! is punishable b1 reclusion te poral in its "aFi"u" pe!iod to death. It appea!in# that no othe! "odif1in# ci!cu"stances attended the co""ission of the c!i"e, the t!ial cou!t co!!ectl1 i"posed on the appellants the penalt1 of reclusion perpetua.3( Ho0eve!, the t!ial cou!t e!!ed in not holdin# that appellants a!e civill1 liable. ;u? #uipo is clai"in# actual da"a#es. She testified that she spent no less than P&*,***.** du!in# the bu!ial of he! husbandE and P&*,***.** as atto!ne1>s fees and othe! eFpenses. Ho0eve!, this $ou!t can onl1 a0a!d such da"a#es if suppo!ted b1 !eceipts. 36 9e scou!ed the !eco!ds fo! an1 !eceipt in suppo!t of he! clai" but found none. The hei!s, ho0eve!, a!e entitled to a fiFed su" !ep!esentin# civil inde"nit1 fo! the death of 9illia" #uipo. Pe! p!evailin# 8u!isp!udence, death inde"nit1 is fiFed in the su" of PD*,***.**. 3D This /ind of civil inde"nit1 is sepa!ate and distinct f!o" othe! fo!"s of inde"nit1 fo! da"a#es 34 and is auto"aticall1 a0a!ded 0ithout need of fu!the! p!oof othe! than the fact of death and that the accused is !esponsible the!efo!. 3@ ;u? #uipo is li/e0ise p!a1in# fo! "o!al da"a#es. Such da"a#es !ecove!able in c!i"inal offenses !esultin# in ph1sical in8u!ies o! the victi">s death "ust be suppo!ted b1 factual basis 37 o! sufficient p!oof of ph1sical suffe!in#, "ental an#uish, f!i#ht, se!ious anFiet1, bes"i!ched !eputation, 0ounded feelin#s, "o!al shoc/ and si"ila! in8u!1.3';u? #uipo testified that she 0as in #!ief because of the death of he! husband and encounte!ed so "an1 difficulties the!eafte!.(* She thus as/s fo! the a"ount of PD*,***.** as "o!al da"a#es. Obviousl1, she is entitled to "o!al da"a#es and the a"ount she p!a1s fo! is dee"ed p!ope! and 8ustified. 2u!the!"o!e, because of the p!esence of the Aualif1in# a##!avatin# ci!cu"stance of t!eache!1, eFe"pla!1 da"a#es, no0 fiFed at P3D,***.**, is also !ecove!able pu!suant to !ticle 33(* of the $ivil $ode. It is no0 0ell-settled that 0ith !espect to the civil aspect of a c!i"inal case, an a##!avatin# ci!cu"stance, 0hethe! o!dina!1 o! Aualif1in#, should entitle the offended pa!t1 to an a0a!d of eFe"pla!1 da"a#es. (& 9HHRH2ORH, the decision of the t!ial cou!t is 22IRMHD, sub8ect to the MODI2I$ TION that appellant -ulius .ino/ alias ,Yos Bla-an, is ORDHRHD to pa1 the hei!s of the victi" PD*,*** as civil inde"nit1, PD*,***.** as "o!al da"a#es and P3D,***.** as eFe"pla!1 da"a#es. $ost a#ainst appellant -ulius .ino/ al1as , Yos Bla-an,. SO ORDHRHD. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

2IRST DIVISION =.R. No. &((''* -une 34, 3**&

PHOP;H O2 THH PHI;IPPINHS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HECTOR M)RI)NO 1 TENGCO, accused-appellant. P)R-O, J.: The case is an appeal f!o" the decision& of the Re#ional T!ial $ou!t, %!anch 3@4, Muntinlupa $it1 findin# accused Hecto! Ma!iano 1 Ten#co #uilt1 be1ond !easonable doubt of possession of "etha"pheta"ine h1d!ochlo!ide )shabu+,3 a !e#ulated d!u#, and sentencin# hi" to life i"p!ison"ent. On Septe"be! 3&, &''D, Senio! State P!osecuto! Theodo!e M. Villanueva filed 0ith the Re#ional T!ial $ou!t, %!anch 3@4, Muntinlupa $it1 an Info!"ation( cha!#in# accused 0ith violation of Section &4, !ticle III, R. . No. 463D, as a"ended, to 0it5 ,That on o! about u#ust &*, &''D in the $it1 of Muntinlupa and 0ithin the 8u!isdiction of this Hono!able $ou!t above-na"ed accused did then and the!e, 0ilfull1, unla0full1, feloniousl1 and /no0in#l1 have in his possession, custod1 and cont!ol th!ee hund!ed fo!t1 t0o and point fou! )(63.6+ #!a"s "o!e o! less of "etha"pheta"ine h1d!ochlo!ide )shabu+, a !e#ulated d!u#, 0ithout an1 p!esc!iption, autho!it1, pe!"it o! license f!o" the #ove!n"ent to have and possess such !e#ulated d!u#. ,$ONTR R: TO ; 9., On Nove"be! ', &''D, upon a!!ai#n"ent, the accused pleaded not #uilt1. 6 2o!th0ith, t!ial ensued. On u#ust (, &''D, POS!. Insp. -oselito M. Daniel !eceived an info!"ation that a ce!tain Osca! =. San#a, o! ,Oca, 0as en#a#ed in the ille#al t!affic of dan#e!ous d!u#s. POS!. Insp. Daniel !ela1ed the info!"ation to PO$hief Inspecto! -oel D. Pa#dilao, 0ho o!de!ed the fo!"ation of a bu1-bust tea" to be headed b1 POS!. Insp. Daniel. D POS!. Insp. Daniel and the confidential info!"ant p!oceeded to the house of Osca! San#a. POS!. Insp. Daniel p!esented hi"self as a bu1e! of shabu, and that he 0as bu1in# th!ee )(+ /ilos. Osca! San#a Auoted the p!ice at P'D*,***.** pe! /ilo. The1 a#!eed that the sale 0ould ta/e place at the house of the confidential info!"ant in Mintco! Subdivision, laban# in the "o!nin# of u#ust 7, &''D. 4 fte! t0o failed atte"pts, the sale finall1 too/ place in the ea!l1 "o!nin# of u#ust &*, &''D. Osca! San#a a!!ived past &35** "idni#ht on boa!d a #!een .I P!ide 0ith Plate No. T;.-D4*. His d!ive! !e"ained inside the ca!, 0hile Osca! San#a and POS!. Insp. Daniel p!oceeded to the #a!a#e. Osca! San#a as/ed POS!. Insp. Daniel if he had the "one1, and 0hen he ans0e!ed in the affi!"ative, Osca! San#a 0ent to the .I P!ide ca! and too/ out a blac/ and 0hite 2eliF the $at pillo0case f!o" the bac/ seat. He to!e the pillo0case open and !e"oved t0o plastic ba#s containin# so"e 0hite c!1stalline substance. t this point, POS!. Insp. Daniel beeped his Vo1a#e!, a t0o-0a1 !adio t!ans"itte!, as a p!e-a!!an#ed si#nal to the othe! "e"be!s of the tea" 0ho 0e!e st!ate#icall1 positioned 0ithin the vicinit1.@ The tea" i""ediatel1 !ushed to the #a!a#e. POS!. Insp. Daniel and PO3 2!ancisco T. Du!an app!ehended Osca! San#a, 0hile SPO3 Ruben T. Manibo chec/ed on the d!ive! of the .I P!ide ca!, late! identified as accused Hecto! Ma!iano 1 Ten#co. SPO3 Manibo confiscated a blac/ belt ba# f!o" accused Ma!iano. The ba# contained five )D+ s"all plastic ba#s of shabu 0ith a total 0ei#ht of "o!e o! less (63.6 #!a"s. SPO3 Manibo a!!ested accused Ma!iano.7 Sepa!ate cha!#es 0e!e filed a#ainst accused San#a and Ma!iano. Ho0eve!, on Nove"be! 3', &''D, befo!e SPO3 Manibo could testif1, he 0as /illed 0hile conductin# anothe! bu1bust ope!ation.' The p!osecution 0as const!ained to p!esent the testi"onies of POS!. Insp. Daniel and PO3 Du!an a#ainst accused Ma!iano.

POS!. Insp. Daniel testified that SPO3 Ruben Manibo app!ehended accused Ma!iano. He had no pa!ticipation in the f!is/in# of accused Ma!iano and has no /no0led#e 0hethe! the (63.6 #!a"s of shabu 0e!e actuall1 found in accused Ma!iano>s possession. &* PO3 Du!an testified that he assisted POS!. Insp. Daniel in app!ehendin# Osca! San#a. He clai"ed that, at the sa"e ti"e, SPO3 Manibo conducted a sea!ch on accused Ma!iano. SPO3 Manibo !ecove!ed five s"all pieces of plastic f!o" the blac/ belt ba# 0hich accused Ma!iano 0as then 0ea!in#. && 9hile testif1in# in the cou!t a *uo, a blac/ belt ba#&3 0as sho0n to PO3 Du!an and he identified the sa"e as the ba# 0o!n b1 accused Ma!iano. &(Du!in# the c!osseFa"ination, accused Ma!iano>s counsel as/ed accused to 0ea! the belt ba#, but the sa"e did not fit his 0aistline. &6 The p!osecution dispensed 0ith the testi"on1 of the fo!ensic che"ist, -ulieta $. 2lo!es. He! Aualification as an eFpe!t 0itness, the pu!pose of he! testi"on1 and he! labo!ato!1 !epo!ts 0e!e the sub8ect of a stipulation of facts. &D fte! the p!osecution !ested its case, the defense filed a de"u!!e! to evidence, but the t!ial cou!t b1 !esolution dated Nove"be! 3@, &''@, denied the de"u!!e!.&4 On Dece"be! &4, &''@, accused Ma!iano filed a "otion fo! !econside!ation, but the t!ial cou!t li/e0ise denied the sa"e. &@ In the "eanti"e, accused Ma!iano 8u"ped bail p!io! to the filin# of the "otion fo! !econside!ation. Ho0eve!, the bonds"an subseAuentl1 su!!ende!ed hi" to the cou!t on 2eb!ua!1 3(, &''7. &7 On p!il 37, &''', the t!ial cou!t !ende!ed a 8ud#"ent &' sans defense evidence, the dispositive po!tion of 0hich !eads as follo0s5 ,PRHMISHS conside!ed, fo! Possession of Metha"pheta"ine H1d!ocholo!ide in the Auantit1 of (63.6 #!a"s, Hecto! Ma!iano is found #uilt1 be1ond !easonable doubt, and is sentenced to suffe! life i"p!ison"ent. He should the!efo!e be co""itted to the Ne0 %ilibid P!ison 0he!e he "a1 se!ve his sentence. ,It is SO ORDHRHD. ,Muntinlupa $it1, p!il &4, &''7. ,)S#d.+ N. $. Pe!ello P!esidin# -ud#e, Hence, this appeal.3* ccused-appellant Ma!iano contends that the t!ial cou!t e!!ed in convictin# hi" on the basis of the unco!!obo!ated testi"onies of the p!osecution 0itnesses.3& The Solicito! =ene!al contends that the p!osecution 0itnesses> testi"onies 0e!e c!edible and do not i"pai! the fact that (63.6 #!a"s of ille#al d!u#s 0e!e sei?ed f!o" accused-appellant. 33 9e find the appeal "e!ito!ious. No less than the $onstitution "andates that an accused shall be p!esu"ed innocent until the cont!a!1 is p!oved. In c!i"inal cases, the Auantu" of evidence !eAui!ed to ove!tu!n this p!esu"ption is p!oof be1ond !easonable doubt. 3( It is that p!oof 0hich p!oduces "o!al ce!taint1 in an unp!e8udiced "ind. 36 In a lon# line of cases, the $ou!t has held consistentl1 that 0he!e the inculpato!1 facts ad"it of seve!al inte!p!etations, one consistent 0ith accused>s innocence and anothe! 0ith his #uilt, the evidence thus adduced fails to "eet the test of "o!al ce!taint1. 3D It is incu"bent upon the p!osecution to p!ove, fi!st, that a c!i"e has been co""itted, and second, that the accused is !esponsible the!efo!.34 In the case at ba!, it is undisputed that five )D+ pieces of s"all plastic ba#s containin# shabu 0e!e sei?ed du!in# the bu1-bust ope!ation. Ho0eve!, the!e is 0ant of evidence to establish the fact of possession of the sa"e b1 accused-appellant Ma!iano, the ve!1 c!i"e fo! 0hich he 0as cha!#ed 0ith. The testi"on1 of PO3 Du!an is va#ue on this point, thus5

+uestions of the ,ourt K5 5 K5 5 K5 5 K5 5 K5 5 K5 5 9hen 0as the belt ba# opened, 0hile still in the 0aist of Ma!ianoL :es 1ou! hono!. nd it 0as opened b1 ManieboL :es 1ou! hono!. 9hile the belt ba# 0as still tied a!ound the 0aist of Ma!iano, it 0as opened b1 ManieboL :es 1ou! hono!. nd afte! openin# it he de"anded that it be !e"oved f!o" his bod1L :es 1ou! hono!. nd acco!din#l1 Ma!iano !e"oved it f!o" his bod1L :es 1ou! hono!. nd 0hat did Maniebo do 0ith itL He i""ediatel1 confiscated itL :es 1ou! hono!.

K5 So the fi!st ti"e that 1ou sa0 the contents of this belt ba# 0as al!ead1 0hen it 0as al!ead1 at the stationL 5 K5 5 K5 5 K5 5 No 1ou! hono!, I sa0 it opened fi!st b1 Ruben Maniebo du!in# the ti"e of a!!est 1ou! hono!. %ut 1ou did not see it open but the!efo!e 1ou did not see it 0hen it 0as openedL No 1ou! hono! I sa0 it 0hen it 0as al!ead1 opened. %ut it 0as still in his bod1L :es 1ou! hono!. nd 1ou a!e ( feet a0a1 f!o" Hecto! and ManieboL :es 1ou! hono!.

K5 nd 1et 1ou 0e!e able to see the contents of that ba# 0hich 0e!e still tied a!ound the 0aist of ManieboL 5 :es, I sa0 it 1ou! hono!. FFF K5 5 K5 FFF FFF

So 1ou onl1 sa0 so"e plastic ba# contained in the belt ba# 0hich 0as still tied to the bod1 of Hecto!L :es 1ou! hono!. %ut 1ou cannot also tell the si?e of the belt ba#L

:es 1ou! hono!. FFF FFF FFF

K5 5 K5 5

:ou onl1 sa0 that the!e 0as plastic ba# insideL :es 1ou! hono!. So 1ou do not /no0 if all the plastic ba# contained so"ethin#L :es 1ou! hono!.3@

PO3 Du!an 0as ve!1 insistent that the plastic ba#s 0e!e found inside the belt ba# 0hich accused-appellant Ma!iano 0as then 0ea!in# afte! he 0as as/ed to ali#ht f!o" the ca!. %ut 0hen accused-appellant Ma!iano 0as as/ed to fit the belt ba# du!in# the t!ial, the cou!t had this to sa15 ,ourt P I cannot see ho0 he #!o0 )sic+ his 0ei#ht 0hile unde! detention. ;et the !eco!d sho0 that 0hen the belt ba# 0as placed a!ound to the 0aist of Hecto! Ma!iano it did not fit and the!e is still an allo0ance of about ( inches bet0een to the othe! )sic+, and i""ediatel1 Hecto! Ma!iano has been detained f!o" u#ust &''D until date.37 The ve!acit1 of the alle#ation that accused 0as 0ea!in# the belt ba# f!o" 0hich the plastic ba#s 0e!e ta/en thus beca"e Auestionable. SPO3 Manibo 0ould have been the best 0itness to testif1 on the cha!#e a#ainst accusedappellant Ma!ianoE unfo!tunatel1, he 0as /illed in anothe! bu1-bust ope!ation befo!e he could ta/e the 0itness stand. 9hile his de"ise evo/es s1"path1 f!o" the $ou!t, it "a1 not be used as a 8ustification fo! !e#a!din# the testi"on1 of PO3 Du!an as ve!itable, especiall1 since it pe!tains to the ve!1 essence of the c!i"e cha!#ed a#ainst accused-appellant Ma!iano. Hven assu"in# that accused-appellant 0as indeed 0ea!in# the belt ba#, PO3 Du!an 0as still not ce!tain 0hethe! the plastic ba#s actuall1 contained shabu. 3' The evidence, ta/en in its enti!et1, "ust be clea! and convincin# to p!ove an accused>s #uilt be1ond !easonable doubt. (* Othe!0ise, he is entitled to an acAuittal.(& 2HEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Re#ional T!ial $ou!t, %!anch 3@4, Muntinlupa $it1, in $!i"inal $ase No. 'D-373 is he!eb1 RE.ERSE-. ccused-appellant HH$TOR M RI NO 1 THN=$O is )C3UITTE- of the c!i"e cha!#ed, fo! lac/ of p!oof be1ond !easonable doubt. The Di!ecto! of P!isons is di!ected to fo!th0ith !elease accusedappellant unless he is held fo! anothe! case, and to info!" the $ou!t of his !elease 0ithin ten )&*+ da1s f!o" notice. $osts de oficio. SO ORDHRHD. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila 2IRST DIVISION G.R. No. 131421 November 14, 2002

1-)phi1.n.t

GERONIMO -)-O, petitione!, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, !espondent. DH$ISION 'N)RES*S)NTI)GO, J.:

%efo!e us is a petition fo! !evie0 unde! Rule 6D of the Rules of $ou!t assailin# the -une 34, &''@ decision of the $ou!t of ppeals& in $ -=.R. $R No. &4774, 0hich affi!"ed the decision3 dated p!il 33, &''6, of the Re#ional T!ial $ou!t of Sultan .uda!at, %!anch &', in $!i"inal $ase No. 3*D4, findin# petitione! =e!oni"o Dado and his coaccused 2!ancisco H!aso #uilt1 of the c!i"e of ho"icide. In an Info!"ation dated u#ust 36, &''(, petitione! =e!oni"o Dado and accused 2!ancisco H!aso 0e!e cha!#ed 0ith "u!de! alle#edl1 co""itted as follo0s5 That in the evenin# of Ma1 3D, &''3, at Sitio Paitan, %a!an#a1 Sa#asa, Municipalit1 of Hspe!an?a, P!ovince of Sultan .uda!at, Philippines, and 0ithin the 8u!isdiction of this Hono!able $ou!t, the said accused, a!"ed 0ith fi!ea!"s, 0ith intent to /ill, 0ith evident p!e"editation and t!eache!1, did then and the!e, 0illfull1, unla0full1 and feloniousl1, attac/, assault and shot one SI;VHSTRH % ;IN S 0ith the use of the afo!e-"entioned 0eapons, the!eb1 inflictin# #unshot 0ounds upon the latte! 0hich caused his instantaneous death. $ONTR R: TO ; 9, pa!ticula!l1 !ticle 367 of the Revised Penal $ode of the Philippines, 0ith the a##!avatin# ci!cu"stance of ta/in# advanta#e of supe!io! st!en#th. ( <pon a!!ai#n"ent on Septe"be! 33, &''3, petitione! and his co-accused pleaded not #uilt1. 6 T!ial the!eafte! follo0ed. The antecedent facts as na!!ated b1 p!osecution 0itnesses lf!edo %alinas D and Rufo l#a4 a!e as follo0s5 On the ni#ht of Ma1 3D, &''3, the Hspe!an?a, Sultan .uda!at Police Station fo!"ed th!ee tea"s to inte!cept cattle !ustle!s f!o" %a!an#a1 ;a#uindin#, Sultan .uda!at. The tea", co"posed of petitione! SPO6 =e!o"ino Dado and $ 2=< "e"be!s 2!ancisco H!aso, lf!edo %alinas, and Rufo l#a, 0aited behind a la!#e di/e at Sitio Paitan, Sultan .uda!at. lf!edo %alinas and Rufo l#a, 0ho 0e!e both a!"ed 0ith M&6 a!"alite !ifles, positioned the"selves bet0een petitione!, 0ho 0as a!"ed 0ith a calibe! .6D pistol, and accused 2!ancisco H!aso, 0ho 0as ca!!1in# an M&4 a!"alite !ifle. The1 0e!e all facin# south0a!ds in a half-/neelin# position and 0e!e about 3 a!"s len#th a0a1 f!o" each othe!. t a!ound &&5** of the sa"e evenin#, the tea" sa0 so"ebod1 app!oachin# at a distance of D* "ete!s. Thou#h it 0as a "oonless ni#ht, the1 noticed that he 0as half-na/ed. 9hen he 0as about D "ete!s a0a1 f!o" the tea", lf!edo %alinas noticed that 2!ancisco H!aso, 0ho 0as on his !i#ht side, 0as "a/in# so"e "ove"ents. %alinas told H!aso to 0ait, but befo!e %alinas could bea" his flash li#ht, H!aso fi!ed his M&4 a!"alite !ifle at the app!oachin# "an. I""ediatel1 the!eafte!, petitione!, 0ho 0as on the left side of Rufo l#a, fi!ed a sin#le shot f!o" his .6D calibe! pistol. The victi" shouted, ,Ta1 Dolfo, a/o ini,, ),Ta1 Dolfo, Mthis isN "e,+ @ as he fell on the #!ound. The victi" tu!ned out to be Silvest!e ,%utso1, %alinas, the nephe0 of lf!edo %alinas and not the cattle !ustle! the tea" 0e!e o!de!ed to inte!cept. Repentant of 0hat he did, accused H!aso e"b!aced lf!edo %alinas sa1in#, ,Pa!e, this 0as not intentionall1 done and this 0as "e!el1 an accident., 7 Silvest!e %alinas died as a !esult of the #unshot 0ounds he sustained. The post-"o!te" eFa"ination conducted on his cadave! b1 D!. Rhodo!a T. nteno!, 1ielded the follo0in# !esults5 =unshot 0ounds located at5 &. )Point of Hnt!1+ - at !i#ht oute! late!al a!" 0ith a dia"ete! of *.3D c" cou!sin# tan#entiall1 and eFitin# at the !i#ht inne! a!", about 6 c" belo0 the elbo0, 3.D c" b1 (c" in dia"ete! )Point of HFit+. No po0de! bu!ns noted. 3. )Point of Hnt!1+ P 3.D b1 '.D c" in dia"ete! at uppe! "id-inne! thi#h, about D c" f!o" the ischial spine. HFposed 0e!e the da"a#ed "uscles, blood vessels and the su!!oundin# tissues alon# the fe"o!al t!ian#le. The 0ound cou!sed up0a!ds to0a!d the pelvic a!ea th!ou#h the in#uinal canal 0ith blast in8u!ies noted MatN the u!ina!1 bladde! p!ostate #land, u!eth!a, pa!t of the u!ete!, the "id-pelvic bone )s1"ph1sis pubis+, and the su!!oundin# vessels and tissues of the pelvis. Ma!/ed bleedin# 0as noted alon# the in8u!ed pelvic a!ea. Th!ee )(+ pieces of i!!e#ula!l1 shaped "etallic slu#s 0e!e !ecove!ed f!o" the bod1E one, silve!1 colo!ed, alon# the iliac spine al"ost #lued to the boneE t0o, coppe! colo!ed, e"bedded in the u!ina!1 bladde! substanceE th!ee, coppe! colo!ed, e"bedded in blasted substance al"ost on the pelvic floo!. He"ato"a noted alon# the penile a!ea. No othe! in8u!ies noted.'

D!. Rhodo!a T. nteno! testified that the fatal 0ound that caused the death of the victi" 0as the one inflicted on the "id-inne! thi#h. The bullet pie!ced th!ou#h and in8u!ed the o!#ans in the pelvic !e#ion 0he!e she found th!ee i!!e#ula!l1 shaped "etallic f!a#"ents. D!. nteno! added that the position of the victi" at that ti"e of the shootin# 0as hi#he! than the assailant conside!in# that the t!a8ecto!1 of the bullets 0as up0a!ds. She added that the 0ound on the victi">s !i#ht oute! late!al a!" alone, 0ould not b!in# about death, unless not i""ediatel1 t!eated.&* <pon eFa"ination b1 N%I %allistician Hl"e! Nelson D. Piedad, the th!ee "etallic f!a#"ents !ecove!ed f!o" the fatal 0ound of the victi" tu!ned out to be f!a#"ents of a D.D4 "" 8ac/eted bullet, thus5 2INDIN=S ND $ON$;<SION5 FFFFFFFFF &. Hvidence "a!/ed ,S%-&, is a pa!t of a coppe! 8ac/et of a calibe! D.D4"" 8ac/eted bullet and 0as fi!ed th!ou#h the ba!!el of a calibe! D.D4"" fi!ea!"s. 3. Hvidence "a!/ed ,S%-3, and ,S%-(, could be pa!ts of the lead co!e of evidence coppe! 8ac/eted "a!/ed ,S%-&,. F F F F F F F F F.&& On c!oss-eFa"ination, he decla!ed that he is not su!e 0hethe! the 3 othe! "etallic f!a#"ents )"a!/ed as eFhibit ,S%-3, and ,S%-(,+ !ecove!ed f!o" the fatal 0ound of the victi" a!e indeed pa!ts of ,S%-&, 0hich is a pa!t of a coppe! 8ac/et of a calibe! D.D4 "". 8ac/eted bullet. &3 2o! his pa!t, petitione! testified that on the ni#ht of the incident, he 0as a!"ed 0ith a .6D calibe! pistol. He clai"ed that 0hile 0aitin# fo! the cattle !ustle!s, he and his tea" positioned the"selves beneath a bi# hole f!o" 0hich a bi# t!ee had been up!ooted. He 0as facin# east0a!d 0hile his co"panions, $ 2=< "e"be!s, 2!ancisco H!aso, lf!edo %alinas, and Rufo l#a, 0e!e facin# south0a!ds. 9hen he hea!d !apid #un bu!sts, he thou#ht the1 0e!e bein# fi!ed upon b1 thei! ene"ies, thus, he i""ediatel1 fi!ed a sin#le shot east0a!d. It 0as onl1 0hen accused H!aso e"b!aced and as/ed fo!#iveness f!o" lf!edo %alinas, that he !eali?ed so"ebod1 0as shot. &( On c!oss-eFa"ination ho0eve!, he ad"itted that he /ne0 the !apid #un bu!st 0hich he thou#ht to be f!o" thei! ene"ies ca"e f!o" 3 "ete!s behind hi". He eFplained that his a!" 0as then b!o/en "a/in# it difficult fo! hi" to "ove. Thus, 0hen he hea!d the #un bu!st, he did not tu!n to face the sou!ce the!eof and instead fi!ed his .6D calibe! pistol in f!ont of hi". He decla!ed that his pu!pose in fi!in# his .6D calibe! pistol opposite the sou!ce of the !apid #un bu!st 0as to de"o!ali?e thei! ene"1. &6 On p!il 33, &''6, the t!ial cou!t convicted petitione! and accused H!aso of the c!i"e of ho"icide. The dispositive po!tion the!eof !eads5 9HHRH2ORH, upon all the fo!e#oin# conside!ations, the $ou!t finds the accused, SPO6 =e!oni"o Dado and 2!ancisco H!aso, #uilt1 be1ond !easonable doubt of the c!i"e of HOMI$IDH. $$ORDIN=;:, appl1in# the Indete!"inate Sentence ;a0, the $ou!t he!eb1 sentences the accused, SPO6 =e!oni"o Dado and 2!ancisco H!aso, to suffe! the indete!"inate penalt1 of i"p!ison"ent, !an#in# f!o" HI=HT )7+ :H RS and ONH )&+ D : of p!ision "a1o!, as "ini"u", to 2O<RTHHN )&6+ :H RS, HI=HT )7+ MONTHS and ONH )&+ D : of !eclusion te"po!al, as "aFi"u"E to inde"nif1 8ointl1 and seve!all1 the hei!s of the late Silvest!e %alinas, -!.5 a+ the a"ount of P(,***.** as actual da"a#es 0hich 0as dul1 established in !elation to the eFpenses incu!!ed fo! the co"plete fune!al se!vices #iven to the deceased victi"E b+ the a"ount of P&D,***.**, as "o!al da"a#esE c+ the a"ount of P&*,***.**, as eFe"pla!1 da"a#esE

d+ the a"ount of PD*,***.**, as inde"nit1 fo! deathE and to pa1 the costs. IT IS SO ORDHRHD.&D The afo!esaid 8ud#"ent of conviction 0as affi!"ed b1 the $ou!t of ppeals on -une 34, &''@. &4 petition fo! !evie0&@ 0as filed b1 accused 2!ancisco H!aso but the sa"e 0as denied in a Resolution dated 2eb!ua!1 &&, &''7,&7 0hich beca"e final and eFecuto!1 on Ma!ch (*, &''7. &' Hence, as !e#a!ds 2!ancisco H!aso, the decision of the $ou!t of ppeals findin# hi" #uilt1 of ho"icide has beco"e final. Petitione!, on the othe! hand, filed the instant petition contendin# that the t!ial cou!t and the $ou!t of ppeals e!!ed5 )&+ in !ulin# that he acted in conspi!ac1 0ith accused 2!ancisco H!asoE and )3+ in findin# hi" #uilt1 of ho"icide on the basis of the evidence p!esented b1 the p!osecution. In convictin# the petitione!, both the t!ial cou!t and the $ou!t of ppeals found that conspi!ac1 attended the co""ission of the c!i"e. The $ou!t of ppeals !uled that petitione! and accused H!aso conspi!ed in /illin# the deceased, thus, it is no lon#e! necessa!1 to establish 0ho caused the fatal 0ound inas"uch as conspi!ac1 "a/es the act of one conspi!ato! the act of all. !eadin#, ho0eve!, of the info!"ation filed a#ainst petitione! 0ill !eadil1 sho0 that the p!osecution failed to alle#e the ci!cu"stance of conspi!ac1. Pe!tinent po!tion of the info!"ation states5 , F F F the said accused, a!"ed 0ith fi!ea!"s, 0ith intent to /ill, 0ith evident p!e"editation and t!eache!1, did then and the!e, 0illfull1, unla0full1 and feloniousl1, attac/, assault and shot one SI;VHSTRH % ;IN S 0ith the use of the afo!e-"entioned 0eapons, the!eb1 inflictin# #unshot 0ounds upon the latte! 0hich caused his instantaneous death. F F F, <ndoubtedl1, the info!"ation does not satisf1 the !eAui!e"ent that conspi!ac1 "ust be conve1ed in ,app!op!iate lan#ua#e., 3* The 0o!ds ,conspi!ed,, ,confede!ated,, o! the ph!ase ,actin# in conce!t, o! ,in conspi!ac1,, o! thei! s1non1"s o! de!ivatives do not appea! in the indict"ent. The lan#ua#e used b1 the p!osecution in cha!#in# the petitione! and his co-accused contains no !efe!ence to conspi!ac1 0hich "ust be alle#ed, not "e!el1 infe!!ed f!o" the info!"ation. bsent pa!ticula! state"ents in the accusato!1 po!tion of the cha!#e sheet conce!nin# an1 definitive act constitutin# conspi!ac1, the sa"e cannot be conside!ed a#ainst the petitione! 0ho "ust pe!fo!ce be held accountable onl1 fo! his o0n acts o! o"issions.3& In all c!i"inal p!osecutions, the accused shall fi!st be info!"ed of the natu!e and cause of the accusation a#ainst hi". To ensu!e that the due p!ocess !i#hts of an accused a!e obse!ved, eve!1 indict"ent "ust e"bod1 the essential ele"ents of the c!i"e cha!#ed 0ith !easonable pa!ticula!it1 as to the na"e of the accused, the ti"e and place of co""ission of the offense, and the ci!cu"stances the!eof. 33 Mo!eove!, even if conspi!ac1 0as sufficientl1 alle#ed in the info!"ation, the sa"e cannot be conside!ed a#ainst the petitione!. $onspi!ac1 eFists 0hen t0o o! "o!e pe!sons co"e to an a#!ee"ent conce!nin# the co""ission of a felon1 and decide to co""it it. lthou#h the a#!ee"ent need not be di!ectl1 p!oven, ci!cu"stantial evidence of such a#!ee"ent "ust nonetheless be convincin#l1 sho0n. Indeed, li/e the offense itself, conspi!ac1 "ust be p!oved be1ond !easonable doubt. Thus, it has been held that neithe! 8oint no! si"ultaneous action is pe! se sufficient p!oof of conspi!ac1.3( In the case at ba!, petitione! and accused H!aso>s see"in#l1 conce!ted and al"ost si"ultaneous acts 0e!e "o!e of a spontaneous !eaction !athe! than the !esult of a co""on plan to /ill the victi". Si"ultaneit1 alone 0ould not be enou#h to de"onst!ate the concu!!ence of 0ill o! the unit1 of action and pu!pose that could be the basis fo! collective !esponsibilit1 of t0o o! "o!e individuals pa!ticula!l1 if, as in the case at ba!, the incident occu!!ed at the spu! of the "o"ent. In conspi!ac1, the!e should be a conscious desi#n to pe!pet!ate the offense. 36 Thus, petitione! can onl1 be held !esponsible fo! the acts o! o"issions 0hich can be p!oved to have been co""itted b1 hi" pe!sonall1. In othe! 0o!ds, his c!i"inal accountabilit1, if an1, should be dete!"ined on an individual !athe! than on a collective basis. Petitione! could not be "ade to ans0e! fo! the acts done b1 his co-accused, 2!anciso H!aso, unless it be sho0n that he pa!ticipated di!ectl1 and pe!sonall1 in the co""ission of those acts. It beco"es i"po!tant the!efo!e to dete!"ine 0hethe! petitione! inflicted the fatal 0ound that di!ectl1 caused the death of the victi". The t!ial cou!t found that a .6D calibe! bullet 0ill c!eate a bi##e! ent!ance 0ound as co"pa!ed to a D.D4 "". bullet 0hich is of a lo0e! calibe!. It concluded that the 0ound on the inne! thi#h of the victi" "ust have been caused b1 a .6D calibe! bullet because said 0ound had a bi##e! ent!ance than the 0ound sustained b1 the victi" on the !i#ht

oute! late!al a!".3D Ho0eve!, this conclusion is enti!el1 devoid of basis because no evidence 0as p!esented to substantiate said conclusions. 9hat is decisive is the !esult of the %allistic HFa"ination conducted b1 N%I %allistician Hl"e! D. Piedad, on the ( "etallic f!a#"ents !ecove!ed f!o" the fatal 0ound of the victi". Piedad found that one of said f!a#"ents, "a!/ed ,S%-&,, ,is a pa!t of a coppe! 8ac/et of a calibe! D.D4 "". 8ac/eted bullet and 0as fi!ed th!ou#h the ba!!el of a calibe! D.D4 "". fi!ea!",, 34 and not a pa!t of a .6D calibe! bullet. 3@ Pe!tinent po!tion of his testi"on1, !eads5 TT:. MONTH2HRIO5 K5 :ou have p!esented befo!e this Hono!able $ou!t MaN piece of pape! Q "a!/ed , -&,. This !efe! to the ve!1 sa"e HFhibit , -&,L 5 :es, si!. FFFFFFFFF K5 QPlease tell us, ho0 did 1ou a!!ive in 1ou! findin#s that S%-& is pa!t of a coppe! 8ac/et of a calibe! D.D4 "". 8ac/eted bulletE ho0 did 1ou a!!iveL 5 In a coppe! 8ac/etMedN bullet, the!e is al0a1s MaN coppe! 8ac/et, that is uppe! pa!t of the bullet, si!. K5 Ho0 did 1ou a!!ive at the conclusion that this is pa!t of a coppe! 8ac/et of D.D4 "".L 5 I ca!efull1 eFa"ined S%-& in "1 !epo!t to a coppe! 8ac/etMedN bullet fi!ed f!o" MaN D.D4 ""., and I found out that the lands and #!ooves of the evidenced /sic0 coppe! 8ac/et "a!/ed S%-& is !iflin#s of the standa!d D.D4 ""., the1 have the sa"e lands and #!ooves. K5 Did 1ou utili?e inst!u"ents in o!de! to dete!"ineL 5 bullet co"pa!ison "ic!oscope.37

FFFFFFFFF TT:. P SO.5 FFFFFFFFF K5 M!. 0itness, bein# a ballistic eFpe!t, 1ou /no0 the co"position of the bullet of MaN .6D calibe! and that of ManN a!"aliteL 5 $oppe! 8ac/et. K5 The co"position on the content of the lead of .6D calibe! and that of a!"aliteL 5 9e a!e not in the co"position but 0e a!e on a calibe! /sic0. K5 9ith that ans0e!, it "a1 be possible that this HFhibit ,3,, S% -&, S%-3 and S%-(, could be bullet f!o" a calibe! .6D, M-&6 o! M-&4L 5 It could not be possible. S%-& is pa!t of a coppe! 8ac/et of D.D4 "". and the lead co!e evidenced /sic0"a!/ed S%-3 and S%-( could be pa!ts of the coppe! 8ac/et evidenced /sic0 "a!/ed S%-&.3' FFFFFFFFF K5 ;oo/ at 1ou! $e!tification and in HFhibit ,(- ,, in pa#e 3 unde! the colu"n, ,2indin#s and $onclusions, and I Auote5 ,Hvidenced /sic0 "a!/ed S%-3 and CS%-(> could be pa!ts of the lead co!e of

evidenced /sic0coppe! 8ac/et "a!/ed MasN CS%-&>. M1 Auestion, 1ou said could be pa!t of coppe! 8ac/et "a!/ed S%-&, a!e 1ou tellin# the $ou!t, 1ou a!e su!e that this HFhibits ,S%-3, and ,S%-(, Ma!eN not Q pa!t of a coppe! . . . 8ac/et "a!/ed as S%-&L 5 It could be pa!ts o! it could not be pa!ts. K5 :ou a!e in doubt that this is !eall1 pa!t of S%-&L 5 It could be pa!t, I a" doubtin#. $O<RT5 K5 If it could not be pa!ts of the lead co!e of the coppe! 8ac/et of D.D4 "". calibe! a""unition, 0ould 1ou sa1 that the sa"e 0ould be pa!t of the lead co!e of the coppe! 8ac/et of a diffe!ent calibe! o! a""unitionL 5 The coppe! 8ac/et is pa!ts /sic0 of the calibe! D.D4 and the lead co!e could be pa!ts. 9e cannot evidentl1 conclude. It could be pa!ts of coppe! 8ac/et evidenced "a!/ed S%-&. The!e is no basis. $O<RT5 K5 :ou a!e sa1in# that p!acticall1, an1 a""unition has coppe! 8ac/etL 5 The calibe! D.D4 "". the!e is coppe! 8ac/et /sic0 but so"ethin# in calibe! .(7 coppe! 8ac/et, !ubbe! putted and lead /sic0. K5 Ho0 about .6D fi!ea!"L 5 The calibe! .6D, the1 a!e coppe! 8ac/eted bullet o! coppe! putted /sic0 o! lead. K5 The sa"e thin# 0ith D.D4 "".L 5 :es. ll 8ac/eted, D.D4 a!e all 8ac/eted. $O<RT5 K5 That is the !eason 0h1 1ou said that 1ou! findin#s and conclusion that the evidenced /sic0 "a!/ed as S%3 and S%-( could be possibl1 pa!ts of the lead co!e o! the evidenced /sic0 coppe! 8ac/et "a!/ed as S%-&L 5 $ould be, :ou! Hono!. $O<RT5 $!oss fo! the p!osecution. 2IS$ ; DH PHR ;T 5 FFFFFFFFF K5 calibe! .6D bullet has coppe! 8ac/et, is that co!!ectL

5 So"e calibe! .6D has coppe! 8ac/et, so"e coppe! putted /sic0, so"e lead. K5 If a calibe! .6D bullet has coppe! 8ac/et, then 0h1 is it that in 1ou! findin#s in HFhibit ,3,, pa!ticula!l1 S%-&, 1ou "ade it appea! that this is pa!t of a coppe! 8ac/et of D.D4 "". and not f!o" a .6D calibe!L

5 It is pa!t of a coppe! 8ac/et of D.D4 ""., si!. K5 9h1 did 1ou specificall1 state that S%-& is pa!t of a coppe! 8ac/et of D.D4 ""L 5 %ecause it is onl1 a pa!t of a coppe! 8ac/et of D.D4 ""Q because it is onl1 a pa!t. $O<RT5 K5 %ut 1ou said it could be a pa!tL 5 It is a pa!t, :ou! Hono!. 2IS$ ; DH PHR ;T 5 K5 9hat is the distinction of coppe! 8ac/et of D.D4 "". and coppe! 8ac/et of .6D calibe!L 5 The1 have the sa"e /sic0, but in "1 findin#s, I co"pa!ed that to a calibe! D.D4 "". coppe! 8ac/et fi!ed f!o" a!"alite unde! a "ic!oscope, the lands and #!ooves of the coppe! 8ac/et and the standa!d bullet fi!ed f!o" D.D4., the1 a!e the sa"e in 0idth. K5 Did 1ou co"pa!e !iflin#s of .6D calibe! f!o" the speci"en "a!/ed S%-&L 5 No need to co"pa!e because the calibe! .6D lands and #!ooves is too 0ide, the lands and #!ooves of .6D calibe! is ve!1 0ide. The1 a!e not the sa"e. K5 Ho0 about the lands and #!ooves of a calibe! D.D4 "". co"pa!ed to a .6D calibe!L 5 The calibe! D.D4 "". is s"alle! but on a calibe! .6D a!e ve!1 0ide. (* The doubt ente!tained b1 N%I %allistician Hl"e! D. Piedad, as to 0hethe! the 3 othe! "etallic f!a#"ents )"a!/ed as eFhibit ,S%-3, and ,S%-(,+ a!e indeed pa!ts of the lead co!e of the ,S%-&,, 0hich is pa!t of a coppe! 8ac/et of a calibe! D.D4 "". 8ac/eted bullet, "ust be !esolved in favo! of petitione!E that is, said "etallic f!a#"ents cannot be p!esu"ed to be pa!ticles of a .6D calibe! bullet fi!ed f!o" the .6D calibe! pistol of petitione!. <nde! eAuipoise !ule, 0he!e the evidence on an issue of fact is in eAuipoise o! the!e is doubt on 0hich side the evidence p!eponde!ates, the pa!t1 havin# the bu!den of p!oof loses. The eAuipoise !ule finds application if, as in the p!esent case, the inculpato!1 facts and ci!cu"stances a!e capable of t0o o! "o!e eFplanations, one of 0hich is consistent 0ith the innocence of the accused and the othe! consistent 0ith his #uilt, fo! then the evidence does not fulfill the test of "o!al ce!taint1, and does not suffice to p!oduce a conviction. %!iefl1 stated, the needed Auantu" of p!oof to convict the accused of the c!i"e cha!#ed is found lac/in#. (& Hvidentl1, the p!osecution failed to p!ove that the "etallic f!a#"ents found in the fatal 0ound of the victi" a!e pa!ticles of a .6D calibe! bullet that e"anated f!o" the .6D calibe! pistol fi!ed b1 petitione!. 2o! this !eason, the $ou!t cannot in #ood conscience affi!" his conviction fo! the c!i"e of ho"icide. In the sa"e vein, petitione! cannot be held !esponsible fo! the 0ound inflicted on the victi">s !i#ht oute! late!al a!" fo! the sa"e !eason that the!e is no evidence p!ovin# be1ond "o!al ce!taint1 that said 0ound 0as caused b1 the bullet fi!ed f!o" petitione!>s .6D calibe! pistol. Neve!theless, petitione! is not co"pletel1 0ithout liabilit1. The $ou!t sustains the findin# of the t!ial cou!t that petitione! fi!ed his .6D calibe! pistol to0a!ds the victi". 2!o" the attendant ci!cu"stances, it appea!s that the!e is no evidence tendin# to p!ove that petitione! had ani"us inte!ficendi o! intent to /ill the victi". Note that the p!osecution 0itnesses did not see 0hethe! petitione! ai"ed to /ill the victi". (3 Intent to /ill cannot be auto"aticall1 d!a0n f!o" the "e!e fact that the use of fi!ea!"s is dan#e!ous to life. (( ni"us inte!ficendi "ust be established 0ith the sa"e de#!ee of ce!taint1 as is !eAui!ed of the othe! ele"ents of the c!i"e. The infe!ence of intent to /ill should not be d!a0n in the absence of ci!cu"stances sufficient to p!ove such intent be1ond !easonable doubt. (6

bsent an intent to /ill in fi!in# the #un to0a!ds the victi", petitione! should be held liable fo! the c!i"e of ille#al discha!#e of fi!ea!" unde! !ticle 3D6 of the Revised Penal $ode. (D The ele"ents of this c!i"e a!e5 )&+ that the offende! discha!#es a fi!ea!" a#ainst o! at anothe! pe!sonE and )3+ that the offende! has no intention to /ill that pe!son.(4 Thou#h the info!"ation cha!#ed the petitione! 0ith "u!de!, he could be validl1 convicted of ille#al discha!#e of fi!ea!", an offense 0hich is necessa!il1 included in the c!i"e of unla0ful /illin# of a pe!son. <nde! Rule &3*, Section 6, of the Revised Rules on $!i"inal P!ocedu!e, 0hen the!e is a va!iance bet0een the offense cha!#ed in the co"plaint o! info!"ation and that p!oved, and the offense as cha!#ed is included in o! necessa!il1 includes the offense p!oved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense p!oved 0hich is included in the offense cha!#ed, o! the offense cha!#ed 0hich is included in the offense p!oved. Pu!suant to !ticle 3D6 of the Revised Penal $ode, ille#al discha!#e of fi!ea!" is punishable 0ith p!ision co!!eccional in its "ini"u" and "ediu" pe!iods The!e bein# no "odif1in# ci!cu"stances and appl1in# the Indete!"inate Sentence ;a0, petitione! should be sentenced to suffe! the penalt1 of siF )4+ "onths of a!!esto "a1o!, as "ini"u" to t0o )3+ 1ea!s and eleven )&&+ "onths of p!ision co!!eccional, as "aFi"u". 9HHRH2ORH, in vie0 of all the fo!e#oin#, the -une 34, &''@ decision of the $ou!t of ppeals in $ -=.R. $R No. &4774, affi!"in# the conviction of petitione! fo! the c!i"e of ho"icide is SHT SIDH and petitione! is $K<ITTHD of the c!i"e cha!#ed on the #!ound of !easonable doubt. ne0 decision is ente!ed findin# petitione! =e!oni"o Dado #uilt1 of the c!i"e of ille#al discha!#e of fi!ea!" and sentencin# hi" to suffe! the indete!"inate penalt1 of siF )4+ "onths of a!!esto "a1o!, as "ini"u", to t0o )3+ 1ea!s and eleven )&&+ "onths of p!ision co!!eccional, as "aFi"u". SO ORDHRHD. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila HN % N$ G.R. No. 136449 O56ober 23, 2003

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. NESTOR CO-ERES 1 )(L)/), appellant. DH$ISION )USTRI)*M)RTINE/, J.: %efo!e us fo! auto"atic !evie0 is the decision of the Re#ional T!ial $ou!t, %!anch 63, Pina"ala1an, O!iental Mindo!o findin# appellant Nesto! $ode!es 1 bla?a #uilt1 be1ond !easonable doubt of !apin# his dau#hte!, Hlsa $ode!es 1 Mauha1, sentencin# hi" to suffe! the penalt1 of death and o!de!in# hi" to inde"nif1 Hlsa in the a"ount of PD*,***.**. The c!i"inal co"plaint,& dated -anua!1 36, &''@, filed b1 Hlsa a#ainst he!ein appellant !eads as follo0s5 That on o! about the &4th da1 of Nove"be!, &''4 at 75** o>cloc/ in the evenin#, "o!e o! less, in ba!an#a1 Subaan, "unicipalit1 of Soco!!o, p!ovince of O!iental Mindo!o, Philippines and 0ithin the 8u!isdiction of this Hono!able $ou!t, the above-na"ed accused, NHSTOR $ODHRHS 1 bla?a, b1 "eans of fo!ce and inti"idation, 0ith le0d and unchaste desi#n, did then and the!e 0illfull1, unla0full1, and feloniousl1 la1 0ith and have ca!nal /no0led#e of the unde!si#ned co"plainant a#ainst he! 0ill and 0ithout he! consent. That the co""ission of the c!i"e is attended b1 the a##!avatin# ci!cu"stance of the victi" bein# onl1 &4 1ea!s old and the offende!-accused is he! o0n fathe! and livin# in the sa"e house.

$ONTR R: TO RT. 331 O2 THH RP$ IN RH; TION TO R. . @4D'. 3 9hen a!!ai#ned on Ma!ch (, &''@, appellant pleaded not #uilt1. T!ial ensued. The p!osecution p!esented the co"plainant and D!. lita 2eti?anan Ventu!an?a as 0itnesses. $o"plainant Hlsa, &@ 1ea!s old, decla!ed on the 0itness stand that she had been !epeatedl1 !aped b1 he! fathe! since she 0as ei#ht 1ea!s old, the fi!st seFual "olestation havin# been co""itted on Nove"be! 3(, &'77 and the latest on Nove"be! &4, &''4 0hen she 0as al!ead1 siFteen 1ea!s old. !ound 75** in the evenin# of Nove"be! &4, &''4, Hlsa testified that she 0as sleepin# to#ethe! 0ith he! t0o siste!s in one of the !oo"s of thei! house located at Subaan, Soco!!o, O!iental Mindo!o. She 0o/e up findin# appellant l1in# beside he!. He und!essed he! and, the!eafte!, inse!ted his penis in he! va#ina. Hlsa /ne0 that he! siste!s 0e!e a0a!e of the va!ious ti"es that thei! fathe! !aped he! but the1 did not info!" an1bod1 about these incidents. $o"plainant he!self did not tell thei! "othe! that thei! o0n fathe! 0as !apin# he!. Ho0eve!, afte! she 0as !aped on Nove"be! &4, &''4, she 0as p!o"pted b1 he! conscience and he! fea! that he! siste!s "i#ht suffe! the sa"e fate in the hands of thei! fathe! to !eveal he! o!deal to he! ;ola Me!cedes 0ho in tu!n info!"ed he! ;ola ;eono!. %oth #!and"othe!s b!ou#ht he! to the Municipal Health Office! in Soco!!o and had he! eFa"ined. ( Testif1in# on the ph1sical eFa"ination she conducted on Hlsa, D!. Ventu!an?a confi!"ed he! findin#s that co"plainant>s seFual o!#an had a ,healed lace!ated h1"en 0ith non-coaptible bo!de!s and !et!action of the ed#es, @ o>cloc/ position, 0hich could have been caused b1 the penet!ation of a ha!d ob8ect, li/e a penis, o! b1 the st!etchin# of the thi#h.6 Defense, on the othe! hand, p!esented appellant as its lone 0itness. He ad"itted that co"plainant Hlsa is he! dau#hte! and that she 0as bo!n in &'7*. Ho0eve!, he denies he! accusations a#ainst hi". ppellant testified that since the bi!th of Hlsa, she sta1ed 0ith he! "ate!nal #!and"othe!, ;eono!a Mauha1, 0hose house is located at Rone I, Soco!!o, O!iental Mindo!o. $o"plainant onl1 0ent to live 0ith he! pa!ents fo! one 1ea! in &''3. On Nove"be! &@, &''4, co"plainant !etu!ned to he! pa!ents> house. She told he! fathe! that she eloped 0ith he! bo1f!iend fou! da1s ea!lie!. Su!p!ised b1 he! dau#hte!>s !evelation, appellant hit he! tellin# he! that she is still too 1oun#. $o"plainant ans0e!ed bac/ sa1in#, ,Isinusu"pa /o /a1o bilan# "a#ulan#,. The!eafte!, appellant !etu!ned co"plainant to the ca!e of he! #!and"othe!. On Dece"be! 7, &''4, appellant ca"e to /no0 of the cha!#es a#ainst hi". He cannot thin/ of an1 !eason 0h1 he! dau#hte! accused hi" of !apin# he!. D fte! evaluation of the evidence p!esented b1 the opposin# pa!ties, the t!ial cou!t upheld the p!osecution evidence and !ende!ed 8ud#"ent convictin# appellant of the c!i"e of !ape, i"posin# upon hi" the penalt1 of death. 4 Hence, this auto"atic !evie0 unde! !ticle 6@ of the Revised Penal $ode, as a"ended. In his %!ief, appellant assails the decision of the t!ial cou!t and sub"its the follo0in# ssi#n"ent of H!!o!s5 I THH TRI ; $O<RT =R VH;: HRRHD IN NOT $K<ITTIN= THH $$<SHD- PPH;; NT ON THH =RO<ND O2 RH SON %;H DO<%T. II SS<MIN= R=<HNDO TH T THH $$<SHD- PPH;; NT H D $ RN ; .NO9;HD=H O2 THH $OMP; IN NT, THH TRI ; $O<RT HRRHD IN IMPOSIN= THH S<PRHMH PHN ;T: O2 DH TH NOT9ITHST NDIN= THH 2 I;<RH O2 THH PROSH$<TION TO PROVH THH K< ;I2:IN= $IR$<MST N$H O2 RH; TIONSHIP.@ 9e find the appeal "e!ito!ious. In !evie0in# !ape cases, 0e have al0a1s been #uided b1 the follo0in# p!inciples5 )&+ an accusation of !ape can be "ade 0ith facilit1 and 0hile the accusation is difficult to p!ove, it is even "o!e difficult fo! the pe!son accused, thou#h innocent, to disp!ove the cha!#eE )3+ conside!in# that, in the natu!e of thin#s, onl1 t0o pe!sons a!e usuall1 involved in the c!i"e of !ape, the testi"on1 of the co"plainant "ust be sc!utini?ed 0ith #!eat cautionE and )(+ the

evidence fo! the p!osecution "ust stand o! fall on its o0n "e!it, and cannot be allo0ed to d!a0 st!en#th f!o" the 0ea/ness of the evidence fo! the defense. 7 In the case at ba!, 0e find that the p!osecution failed to discha!#e its bu!den of p!ovin# the #uilt of the appellant be1ond !easonable doubt. The!e 0as no evidence that appellant fo!ced o! th!eatened Hlsa in havin# ca!nal /no0led#e 0ith hi" on Nove"be! &4, &''4. 9e Auote ve!bati" he! testi"on1, thus5 K5 9ill 1ou please tell the Hono!able $ou!t 0h1 1ou filed this case, in $ou!tL 5 %ecause the !eason behind is that even "1 siste! 0ill be !aped b1 hi" if I 0ill not file this case si!. K5 Ho0 about 1ou, 0hat did 1ou! fathe! do to 1ou 0hich co"pel 1ou to file this caseL 5 He often ti"es in8u!e "e si!. K5 side f!o" bittin# 1ou o! in8u!in# 1ou! ph1sical bod1, 0hat did he do to 1ouL 5 He th!eatened "e si!. K5 9hat 0as done to 1ou b1 1ou! fathe!, please tell the Hono!able $ou!t. 5 He !aped "e si!. Q K5 nd the last ti"e that 1ou 0e!e !aped b1 1ou! o0n fathe!, 0hen 0as that if 1ou still !e"e"be!L 5 Nove"be! &4, &''4 si!. K5 9hat ti"e "o!e o! less, if 1ou still !e"e"be!L 5 75** o>cloc/ in the evenin# si!. K5 In 0hat place 0e!e 1ou !apeL 5 t Subaan, Soco!!o si!. K5 In 0hose houseL 5 In ou! o0n house si!. K5 9ill 1ou please tell the Hono!able $ou!t, ho0 1ou 0e!e !aped b1 1ou! o0n fathe! on Nove"be! &4, &''4L 5 He laid beside "e in ou! !oo" and und!essed "e si!. K5 nd the!eafte!, 0hat did he doL 5 He a#ain inse!ted his penis in "1 va#ina si!. K5 This ti"e, afte! 1ou 0e!e !ape b1 1ou! fathe! on Nove"be! &4, &''4, 0hat did 1ou do in o!de! to p!otect 1ou! !i#htsL 5 I !epo!ted this "atte! to "1 ;ola Me!cedes.' It is clea! f!o" co"plainant>s above-Auoted testi"on1 that 0hile she clai"s that she 0as th!eatened and in8u!ed b1 appellant, Hlsa did not specif1 ho0 she 0as th!eatened, 0h1 she 0as th!eatened and on 0hat pa!ticula! occasion

she 0as th!eatened b1 appellant. Thus, the p!osecution failed to establish that th!eat o! in8u!1 0as e"plo1ed b1 appellant du!in# o! on the occasion of the !ape alle#edl1 co""itted on Nove"be! &4, &''4 as a "eans to fo!ce co"plainant to have seF 0ith hi". In !ape co""itted th!ou#h fo!ce o! inti"idation unde! !ticle ((D, pa!a#!aph & of the Revised Penal $ode )as a"ended b1 Republic ct No. 23140% the p!osecution "ust p!ove that fo!ce o! inti"idation 0as actuall1 e"plo1ed b1 the appellant upon his victi" to achieve his end. 2ailu!e to do so is fatal to p!osecution>s cause. &* In the instant case, the p!osecution failed to establish the p!esence of sufficient fo!ce o! inti"idation that 0ould have c!eated a state of fea! in the "ind of Hlsa so as to effectivel1 p!event he! f!o" puttin# up a dete!"ined !esistance. It is t!ue that in a lon# line of cases,&& the "ost !ecent of 0hich is #eople "s. 5er"ano%&3 0e held that in !ape co""itted b1 a fathe! a#ainst his o0n dau#hte!, the fo!"e!>s "o!al ascendanc1 o! influence ove! the latte! substitutes fo! violence and inti"idationE that ascendanc1 o! influence necessa!il1 flo0s f!o" the fathe!>s pa!ental autho!it1 as 0ell as the child!en>s dut1 to obe1 and obse!ve !espect to0a!ds thei! pa!entsE that such !eve!ence and !espect a!e deepl1 in#!ained in the "inds of 2ilipino child!enE that abuse of both b1 a fathe! can sub8u#ate his dau#hte!>s 0ill, the!eb1 fo!cin# he! to do 0hateve! he 0ants. &( Ho0eve!, a !evie0 of the evidence p!esented in the p!esent case discloses that the !ule on "o!al ascendanc1 cannot be applied in this pa!ticula! case. 9e find that the t!ial cou!t failed to app!eciate the fact that appellant could have ha!dl1 0ielded an1 "o!al ascendanc1 o! pa!ental influence ove! co"plainant as evidenced b1 the7+re876e, testi"on1 of appellant that since he! bi!th, Hlsa lived 0ith he! #!and"othe! and sta1ed in the house of he! pa!ents fo! onl1 one 1ea! in &''3 0hen she 0as onl1 t0elve 1ea!s old o! fou! 1ea!s befo!e the co"plained incident. On Nove"be! &4, &''4, Hlsa 0as al!ead1 siFteen 1ea!s old. Thus, she could ha!dl1 be conside!ed to be of such tende! a#e that she 0ould be easil1 conditioned o! cont!olled into sub"ittin# he!self to appellant>s seFual desi!es speciall1 so, 0hen she lived 0ith appellant fo! onl1 one 1ea! 0hen she 0as t0elve 1ea!s old. In his %!ief, appellant does not den1 havin# seFual inte!cou!se 0ith co"plainant. He clai"s that she consented to the seFual act. s ea!lie! found b1 us, the p!osecution failed to adduce evidence to p!ove that co"plainant !esisted the seFual advances of appellant 0hen she 0as alle#edl1 !aped on Nove"be! &4, &''4. The #!ava"en in the c!i"e of !ape is ca!nal /no0led#e of a 0o"an a#ainst he! 0ill o! 0ithout he! consent. &6 9e find nothin# in the testi"on1 of co"plainant to sho0 that she offe!ed an1 se"blance of !esistance 0hen appellant alle#edl1 !aped he!. 9hile it "a1 be said that tenacious !esistance f!o" the victi" is not a !eAui!e"ent fo! the c!i"e of !ape, the lac/ of evidence si#nif1in# obstinate !esistance to sub"it to the inte!cou!se, natu!all1 eFpected f!o" an un0illin# victi", could li/e0ise indicate that no !ape has occu!!ed.&D Nothin# in p!ivate co"plainant>s testi"on1 indicates that she st!u##led a#ainst the seFual advances of appellant. The!e 0as no evidence of appellant>s use of fo!ce o! th!eat in havin# seF 0ith he! that evenin# of Nove"be! &4, &''4. So too, 0e a!e not un"indful of the doct!ine that 0hen a 0o"an sa1s that she has been !aped, she sa1s, in effect, all that is necessa!1 to p!ove that !ape 0as co""itted. Mo!eove!, the!e is no Auestion that a !ape b1 a fathe! of his o0n dau#hte! is an odious and despicable c!i"e that dese!ves conde"nation in the st!on#est possible te!"s. In the p!esent case, afte! sc!utin1 of the testi"onies of co"plainant and appellant, 0e found ce!tain facts and ci!cu"stances that evince !easonable doubt as to the #uilt of appellant. <nfo!tunatel1, the t!ial cou!t failed to co"p!ehend the sa"e. 2i!st, 0hen co"plainant 0as as/ed, du!in# he! di!ect eFa"ination, as to 0hat i"pelled he! to info!" he! #!and"othe! of the !ape co""itted a#ainst he! b1 appellant on Nove"be! &4, &''4, she testified as follo0s5 K5 fte! 1ou 0e!e !aped b1 1ou! o0n fathe! on Nove"be! &4, &''4 0hat p!o"pted 1ou to !epo!t this "atte! to 1ou! lolaL 5 Na/u/unsens1a po a/o at ba/a #a0in sa a/in# "#a /apatid an# #ahasain din n# a/in# "a#ulan#. &4 Du!in# he! c!oss-eFa"ination, she testified thus5 K5 nd the !eason 0h1 1ou finall1 !evealed 0hat acco!din# to 1ou, 1ou! fathe! did a#ainst 1ou 0as that 1ou 0e!e na/u/unsens1a, is it notL

5 :es "a>". K5 nd 1ou 0e!e na/u/unsens1a because 1ou /no0 fo! a fact that 0hat 1ou and 1ou! fathe! 0e!e doin# 0as a sin a#ainst 1ou! "othe!, is it notL 5 :es "a>".&@ 9hile 0e find the last Auoted Auestion p!opounded b1 the counsel fo! appellant to be do0n!i#ht "isleadin# unde! the Rules on Hvidence, to 0hich the inattentive p!osecuto! unfo!tunatel1 did not ob8ect, p!ivate co"plainant could have easil1 denied the sa"e, if it 0e!e not !eall1 t!ue. %ut she did not. lthou#h "isleadin#, the Auestion is si"ple enou#h to be easil1 unde!stood and evaluated b1 Hlsa 0ho, on the date of he! testi"on1 0as al!ead1 seventeen 1ea!s old. He! above-Auoted state"ents a!e open to diffe!ent inte!p!etations. 9as she bothe!ed b1 he! conscience ),na/unsi1ens1a,+ because she 0as af!aid that appellant 0ould also !ape he! siste!sE o! 0as she bothe!ed b1 he! conscience because she !eali?ed that 0hat she and he! fathe! 0e!e doin# 0as a sin a#ainst he! "othe!L In a c!i"inal case, eve!1 ci!cu"stance o! evidence favo!in# a "an>s innocence "ust be ta/en into account. If the inculpato!1 facts and ci!cu"stances a!e capable of t0o o! "o!e inte!p!etations, one of 0hich is consistent 0ith innocence and the othe! 0ith #uilt, then the evidence does not pass the test of "o!al ce!taint1 and is not sufficient to suppo!t a conviction. &7 Thus, the p!esu"ption of innocence founded on the basic p!inciple of 8ustice as e"bodied in ou! $onstitution p!evails in the p!esent case. Second, appellant>s act of t!1in# to settle the case filed b1 Hlsa a#ainst hi" cannot be conside!ed in this pa!ticula! case as an i"plied ad"ission that he !aped his dau#hte!. Du!in# his c!oss-eFa"ination, the public p!osecuto! p!opounded Auestions on hi" to 0hich he ans0e!ed, as follo0s5 K5 M!. 9itness, I 0ould li/e 1ou to listen ve!1 0ell and unde!stand "1 Auestion befo!e 1ou ans0e!, because this is a #!ave offense cha!#ed a#ainst 1ou and if the $ou!t 0ill find 1ou #uilt1, 1ou "a1be included in the list of those 0ho 0ill be #iven lethal in8ection. I 0ould li/e to !e"ind 1ou that I filed this case 0ith a 0ea/ hea!t, bea!in# in "ind that 1ou a!e the fathe! of the co"plainant. nd to !e"ind 1ou clea!l1, 0hen 1ou and 1ou! 0ife 0as )sic+ c!1in# in ou! office. Do 1ou !e"e"be! thatL 5 :es, si!. K5 nd 1ou 0e!e pleadin# to 1ou! 0ife that 1ou be #iven pit1 and co""ensu!ation )sic+. Is it notL 5 :es, si!. K5 nd that 0as fo! seve!al occasion )sic+. If I !e"e"be! !i#ht, the!e 0e!e 3-1 ti"es co"in# to ou! office and t!1in# to settle the case bet0een 1ou and 1ou! 0ife and HlsaL 5 :es, si!. K5 :ou 0ill a#!ee 0ith "e that 1ou! 0ife, at that ti"e, as 0ell as Hlsa $ode!es did not confo!" 0ith the a"icable settle"ent, fo! 0hich !eason, I 0as const!ained to file this case as actuall1 1ou 0e!e !apin# he! since childhood. Is it notL 5 No, si!. K5 9hen Hlsa $ode!es testified he!e in $ou!t, 1ou 0e!e p!esent, and 0hen I di!ected he! to point at 1ou, she 0ent do0n f!o" that 0itness stand and shouted to 1ou, in this 0ise5 ,Ito po an# a/in# 0alan# hi1an# a"a na #u"ahasa sa a/in,. Do 1ou still !e"e"be! thatL 5 :es, si!.

K5 nd 0hen 1ou 0e!e pointed at, 1ou! head bo0ed as if in acceptance. Is it notL 5 No, si!.&' 2!o" the fo!e#oin#, it can be seen that 0hile appellant ad"its that he t!ied to settle the case filed a#ainst hi" b1 his dau#hte!, he, nonetheless, denied that he !aped he!. Thus, the fact that appellant ad"itted havin# t!ied to settle the case a#ainst hi" "a1 not be used as a basis of his conviction in the absence of co"petent evidence p!esented b1 the p!osecution that co"plainant 0as !aped th!ou#h fo!ce and inti"idation. The p!osecution "a1 not !el1 on the 0ea/ness of the evidence fo! the defense. Instead, it "ust depend on the st!en#th of its o0n evidence and establish the #uilt of appellant be1ond !easonable doubt. This, the p!osecution failed to do. 9he!e the p!osecution has failed to discha!#e the onus pro!andi fo! a p!onounce"ent of #uilt be1ond !easonable doubt, the constitutional p!esu"ption of innocence in favo! of the accused 0ill !esult in acAuittal. 3* 9e need to e"phasi?e ho0eve! 0hat 0e have enunciated in #eople "s. 6liarda% to 0it5 In an acAuittal, an accused is set f!ee not necessa!il1 because he did not co""it the offense but, "o!e li/el1 than not, because the eFactin# p!oof fo! conviction "a1 not have been "et. pe!son is p!esu"ed innocent of a c!i"e unless his #uilt has been p!oven be1ond an1 !easonable doubt. Thus, an acAuittal does not al0a1s "ean that the defense evidence is #iven full c!edence, but, !athe! that the p!osecution has failed to ove!co"e the p!esu"ption of innocence.3& 9HHRH2ORH, fo! failu!e of the p!osecution to p!ove the #uilt of appellant be1ond !easonable doubt, the decision of the Re#ional T!ial $ou!t, %!anch 63, Pina!nala1an, O!iental Mindo!o in $!i"inal $ase No. P-DD74 is RHVHRSHD and SHT SIDH. ppellant Nesto! $ode!es 1 bla?a is $K<ITTHD and his i""ediate RH;H SH f!o" confine"ent is o!de!ed, unless so"e othe! la0ful cause 0a!!ants his fu!the! detention. The Di!ecto! of P!isons is DIRH$THD to info!" this $ou!t i""ediatel1 of the action ta/en he!eon 0ithin five )D+ da1s f!o" !eceipt he!eof $osts de oficio. SO ORDHRHD. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila HN % N$ G.R. No%. 13999:*94 "+7"r1 30, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. EMM)NUEL 3UE/)-), appellant. DH$ISION P)NG)NI()N, J.: Othe! than the passin#, ba!e testi"on1 of the victi", no othe! evidence has been p!esented to p!ove he! "ino!it1. To 8ustif1 the i"position of the death penalt1, 8u!isp!udence !eAui!es that the a#e of the victi" should both bealleged in the info!"ation and pro"en 0ith "o!al ce!taint1 du!in# the t!ial. In-cou!t identification of the offende! is essential onl1 0hen the!e is a Auestion o! doubt on 0hethe! the one alle#ed to have co""itted the c!i"e is the sa"e pe!son 0ho is cha!#ed in the info!"ation and sub8ect of the t!ial. In the p!esent case, the!e is no doubt at all that the !apist is the sa"e individual "entioned in the Info!"ation and desc!ibed b1 the victi" du!in# the t!ial. Hence, in-cou!t identification is not absolutel1 necessa!1. The $ase

2o! auto"atic !evie0 b1 this $ou!t is the Decision& dated -ul1 &@, &''7 p!o"ul#ated b1 the Re#ional T!ial $ou!t )RT$+ of Tanda#, Su!i#ao del Su! )%!anch 3@+, findin# H""anuel Kue?ada #uilt1 be1ond !easonable doubt of t0o counts of !ape and sentencin# hi" to death. The dec!etal po!tion of the Decision !eads as follo0s5 ,9HHRH2ORH, findin# accused H""anuel Kue?ada 1 =adu#du# =<I;T: be1ond !easonable doubt of the c!i"e of R PH in both $!i"inal $ase Nos. (D@D and (D@4, co""itted 0ith the attendant ci!cu"stance that the victi" is unde! ei#hteen )&7+ 1ea!s of a#e and the offende! is a !elative b1 affinit1 0ithin the thi!d civil de#!ee, and pu!suant to !ticle ((D of the Revised Penal $ode, as a"ended b1 Section && of Republic ct No. @4D', the $ou!t he!eb1 sentences hi" to suffe! the sup!e"e penalt1 of DH TH in each case. ccused is fu!the! o!de!ed to pa1 co"plainant H"il1 D. O!illaneda the a"ount of fift1 thousand pesos )PD*,***.**+ as civil inde"nit1 in each case o! a total of one hund!ed thousand pesos )P&**,***.**+, in addition to "o!al da"a#es of fift1 thousand )PD*,***.**+ pesos in each case o! a total of one hund!ed thousand )P&**,***.**+ pesosE and to pa1 the costs. , ccused bein# detained, he is c!edited in the se!vice of his sentence 0ith the full te!" of his p!eventive i"p!ison"ent, if he a#!eeMsN in 0!itin# to abide b1 the sa"e disciplina!1 !ules i"posed on convicted p!isone!s, othe!0ise fou!-fifths )6OD+ the!eof. ,;et the enti!e !eco!ds of these cases, to#ethe! 0ith all the eFhibits and t!ansc!ipts of steno#!aphic notes of the p!oceedin#s, be elevated to the Hono!able Sup!e"e $ou!t fo! auto"atic !evie0., 3 P!ovincial P!osecuto! P!eteFtato . Montene#!o filed on -ul1 3', &''4 t0o Info!"ations ( a#ainst appellant doc/eted as $!i"inal $ase Nos. (D@D and (D@4. HFcept fo! the dates of the co""ission of the offenses, both Info!"ations 0e!e si"ila!l1 0o!ded as follo0s5 ,That so"eti"e in the "onth of Dece"be! &''D, at about 75(* o>cloc/ in the evenin#, "o!e o! less, at Poblacion $a#0ait, P!ovince of Su!i#ao del Su!, Philippines and 0ithin the 8u!isdiction of this Hono!able $ou!t, the abovena"ed accused, 0ith le0d desi#n and b1 "eans of fo!ce and inti"idation, did, then and the!e, 0illfull1, unla0full1 and feloniousl1 have seFual inte!cou!se 0ith his siste!-in-la0, H"il1 O!illaneda, a &( 1ea!-old #i!l, a#ainst the 0ill of the latte!, to the da"a#e and p!e8udice of said H"il1 O!illaneda in the a"ount of PD*,***.**. ,$ONTR R: TO ; 9. )In violation of !ticle ((D of the Revised Penal $ode+, 6 l"ost identicall1 0o!ded as the fi!st, the second Info!"ation D indicted appellant fo! !ape albeit on a diffe!ent date, ,so"eti"e in the "onth of 2eb!ua!1 &''4., On t0o sepa!ate dates -- 2eb!ua!1 &&, &''@ 4 and Ma!ch 3*, &''@@ -- he 0as a!!ai#ned fo! each cha!#e. 9ith the assistance of counsel, 7 he pleaded not #uilt1 to both of these cha!#es. fte! t!ial in due cou!se, the RT$ -- as ea!lie! stated -- convicted hi". The 2acts 7ersion of the #rosecution In its %!ief,' the Office of the Solicito! =ene!al p!esents the p!osecution>s ve!sion of the facts in this 0ise5 ,$o"plainant H"il1 O!illaneda had lived 0ith appellant H""anuel Kue?ada and his 0ife Hloida O!illaneda Kue?ada, co"plainant>s elde! siste! at the couple>s !esidence in $a#0ait, Su!i#ao del Su! since she 0as ei#ht )7+ 1ea!s old. She lived 0ith the" since she 0as in =!ade II up to fi!st 1ea! hi#h school. The1 too/ he! in because the1 0anted to suppo!t he! education. 9hile sta1in# in the couple>s house, co"plainant slept in one of the !oo"s ad8acent to the !oo" of the couple and 0hich 0as sepa!ated onl1 b1 a cabinet )apa!ado!+. ,So"eti"e in Dece"be! of &''D, at a!ound 756D in the evenin#, 0hile co"plainant 0as sleepin# in he! !oo", she 0as a0a/ened b1 appellant 0ho Mla1N on top of he!. ppellant 0as Cpu"pin#> on he!. $o"plainant st!u##led to f!ee he!self but could not do an1thin# because appellant 0as pointin# a s"all bolo at he!. She lost consciousness because of fea!. 9hen she !e#ained he! consciousness and 0o/e up the follo0in# da1, she 0as co"pletel1 na/ed. She felt pain 0hen she u!inated. $o"plainant did not tell an1one about the incident as appellant th!eatened to /ill all of the" if she should tell an1one 0hat happened. t the ti"e of the incident, co"plainant>s siste! 0ho 0as a teache! 0as in Tanda#, Su!i#ao del Su!. The couple>s child!en, the eldest of 0ho" 0as ba!el1 siF )4+ 1ea!s old, 0e!e in the couple>s !oo" sleepin#. $o"plainant 0as onl1 thi!teen 1ea!s old then and 0as in fi!st 1ea! hi#h school.

,;ate!, o! so"eti"e in 2eb!ua!1 &''4, at a!ound 75(* in the evenin#, co"plainant 0as a0a/ened 0hen appellant lifted he! f!o" he! bed to0a!ds the sala. She st!u##led but appellant slapped he!. She lost consciousness. 9hen she 0o/e up at a!ound da0n, she noticed that she 0as co"pletel1 na/ed. She found he! t-shi!t, s/i!t and pant1 beside he! and she 0as cove!ed 0ith a blan/et. She 0as 0ea/ and felt pain 0hen she u!inated. $o"plainant c!ied and d!essed up. She 0anted to !elate 0hat happened to he! siste! but because of appellant>s th!eats, she 8ust /ept it to he!self. , t the closin# of the school 1ea!, co"plainant>s b!othe! Hl"e! O!illaneda ca"e to fetch he! and b!ou#ht he! to thei! ho"e in $antilan, Su!i#ao del Su!. s she 0as actin# abno!"all1, he! "othe! and b!othe! as/ed he! 0hat happened to he!. She na!!ated to the" that appellant !aped he!. The1 had he! eFa"ined b1 D!. 9elhel"ina &* n# 0ho issued a "edical ce!tificate. SubseAuentl1, sepa!ate co"plaints fo! !ape 0e!e filed a#ainst appellant., &&)$itations o"itted+ 7ersion of the 8efense On the othe! hand, appellant na!!ated his ve!sion of the facts in his %!ief as follo0s5 &3 ,The accused e"plo1ed the defense of #ene!al denial. He p!esented Me!c1 =ascon, a &3 1ea!-old !oo""ate of the p!ivate co"plainant, his 0ife Hloida O!illaneda and hi"self MoNn the 0itness stand. Me!c1 =ascon testified and told the cou!t that she sta1ed in the !esidence of the accused as ea!l1 as Dece"be! (, &''D. That in that house she used to sleep to#ethe! 0ith the p!ivate co"plainant in the othe! !oo", said house of the accused havin# onl1 t0o bed!oo"s. She also told the cou!t that the p!ivate co"plainant and MsheN f!eAuentl1 0atched bold beta sho0s sho0n in the house of one -ac/ ;a"i#o, thei! nei#hbo!. nd that eve!1ti"e the1 0atched such bold sho0s, she eFpe!ienced that the p!ivate co"plainant used to inse!t he! fin#e!s includin# he! bi# toe into he! p!ivate pa!t 0hile the1 slept to#ethe! in that !oo" of the accused>s house. That these incidents 0e!e !epeated seve!al ni#hts b1 the p!ivate co"plainant until she 0ent ho"e to $antilan, Su!i#ao del Su! afte! the classes ended. , ccused and his 0ife Hloida testified in cou!t that the !ape cha!#es a#ainst hi" M0e!eN a f!a"eup. The1 told the cou!t that eve! since the1 #ot "a!!ied, and even befo!e that, accusedMCsN in-la0s 0e!e hesitant to accept hi" as the husband of Hloida, the accused bein# 8obless and "o!eove!, he is a seventh da1 dventist. That du!in# thei! union as husband and 0ife, the accused>s in-la0s had F F F seve!al ti"es atte"pted to sepa!ate the" and o!chest!ated so"e di!t1 st!ate#ies to sepa!ate the" as a couple. %ut because of thei! love and devotion to each othe!, the1 su!vived and 0e!e able to p!ese!ve thei! "a!!ia#e until these ti"es 0heMnN accused H""anuel Kue?ada 0as p!osecuted fo! the instant !ape cases at the eFpense of MhisN siste! in-la0 H"il1 O!illaneda 0ho" the accused and his 0ife senMtN to school since she 0as 1et a =!ade II pupil at the a#e of ei#ht )7+ until that unfo!tunMatNe ti"e the said co"plainant 0as al!ead1 fi!st 1ea! hi#h school at the a#e of thi!teen )&(+. cco!din#l1, accused>s in-la0s had al!ead1 "anifested thei! intent to d!op the cases at ba! if the1 M0ould co"pl1 0ithN thei! conditions that the1 should bu!n thei! house in $a#0ait, Su!i#ao del Su!, and the accused "ust conve!t his faith f!o" a MSNeventh MDNa1 dventist to a MRNo"an M$Natholic. 2o! failu!e to co"pl1 M0ithN thei! conditions, accusedM>sN in-la0s p!oceMeNded 0ith the cases at ba! and p!osecuted the accused. <nfo!tunatel1, the accused 0as convicted of the t0o cha!#es of !ape and 0as sentenced to double death penalties., &( )$itations o"itted+ Rulin# of the T!ial $ou!t Desc!ibin# the testi"on1 of the victi" as ,un!ehea!sed and uncoached,, &6 the RT$ believed it. The t!ial cou!t obse!ved that he! depo!t"ent on the 0itness stand 0as ,unaffected, st!ai#htfo!0a!d and candid., &D It did not #ive c!edence to the clai" of appellant that the cha!#es had si"pl1 been fab!icated b1 his in-la0s, 0ho did not app!ove of hi" as thei! son-in-la0. It said that a "othe! 0ould not sub8ect he! o0n dau#hte! to a hu"iliatin# public t!ial, unless the fo!"e! is "otivated b1 a since!e desi!e to secu!e 8ustice fo! the latte!. 2inall1, it held that appellant>s identit1 0as indubitabl1 established. Hence, this auto"atic !evie0.&4 ssi#n"ent of H!!o!s In his %!ief, appellant faults the cou!t a *uo 0ith the follo0in# alle#ed e!!o!s5

,&. The lo0e! cou!t e!!ed in holdin# that the identit1 of the accused-appellant 0as positivel1 established despite the fact that the!e 0as no cou!t!oo" identification eve! "ade oMfN the pe!son of the accused. ,3. The lo0e! cou!t e!!ed in holdin# that the evidence of the p!osecution haMdN sufficientl1 p!oved the #uilt of the accused be1ond !easonable doubt despite itMsN bein# inhe!entl1 0ea/ and cont!a!1 to co""on eFpe!ience and natu!al occu!!ence. ,(. The lo0e! cou!t e!!ed in holdin# that the "edical ce!tificate )HFh. C >+ 0as co!!obo!ative MofN the p!ivate co"plainant>s testi"on1, the sa"e bein# pu!e hea!sa1., &@ The $ou!t>s Rulin# This $ou!t finds no sufficient #!ound to !eve!se o! "odif1 the conviction of the accusedE ho0eve!, fo! !easons to be eFplained late!, his penalt1 should be !educed to reclusion perpetua. 2i!st Issue5 ,ourtroo $dentification

ppellant sub"its that p!ivate co"plainant "e!el1 !efe!!ed to a ce!tain ,<ncle H""anuel, as he! seFual to!"ento!, but that she did not point to hi" in the cou!t!oo" du!in# the t!ial. He a!#ues that5 ,0hile it is t!ue that he ad"itted that he 0as the accused in both casesMEN nonetheless, he did not ad"it that he 0as that ce!tain <ncle H""anuel !efe!M!Ned to b1 the p!ivate co"plainant as he! seFual attac/e!., &7 9e disa#!ee. s co!!ectl1 pointed out b1 the solicito! #ene!al, co"plainant positivel1 and cate#o!icall1 identified appellant as the autho! of the c!i"e. 9e also hold that the RT$ did not e!! in !ulin# thus5 ,2!o" the ti"e the p!osecution p!esented the co"plainant as fi!st 0itness, until the defense p!esented its evidence and !ested, and up to the ti"e the p!osecution int!oduced !ebuttal evidence, the !efe!ence had al0a1s been on he!ein accused H""anuel Kue?ada as co"plainant>s seFual attac/e!. The p!osecuto!s and even the defense counsel inva!iabl1 and consistentl1 adve!ted and alluded to accused H""anuel Kue?ada as the one co"plainant had been accusin# of havin# !aped he!. The defense neve! at an1 point ob8ected to such !efe!ence and "ention of the identit1 of accused H""anuel Kue?ada., &' Indeed, du!in# he! testi"on1, co"plainant positivel1 and cate#o!icall1 identified appellant, husband of he! siste! ;oida, as the offende!. This cate#o!ical and positive identification leaves no doubt as to the identit1 of ppellant Kue?ada as the !apist. 9e do not see the absolute need fo! co"plainant to point to appellant in open cou!t as he! attac/e!. 9hile positive identification b1 a 0itness is !eAui!ed b1 the la0 to convict an accused, it need not al0a1s be b1 "eans of a ph1sical cou!t!oo" identification. s the $ou!t held in #eople ". #aglina)an5 ,F F F. lthou#h it is !outine p!ocedu!e fo! 0itnesses to point out the accused in open cou!t b1 0a1 of identification, the fact that the 0itness F F F did not do so in this case 0as because the public p!osecuto! failed to as/ he! to point out appellant, hence such o"ission does not in an1 0a1 affect o! di"inish the t!uth o! 0ei#ht of he! testi"on1., 3* In-cou!t identification of the offende! is essential onl1 0hen the!e is a Auestion o! doubt on 0hethe! the one alle#ed to have co""itted the c!i"e is the sa"e pe!son 0ho is cha!#ed in the info!"ation and sub8ect of the t!ial. This is especiall1 t!ue in cases 0he!ein the identit1 of the accused, 0ho is a st!an#e! to the p!osecution 0itnesses, is dubitable. In the p!esent case, ho0eve!, the!e is no doubt at all that the !apist is the sa"e individual "entioned in the Info!"ations and desc!ibed b1 the victi" du!in# the t!ial. Indeed, the!e is no Auestion that the seFual attac/e! identified b1 co"plainant as the husband of he! siste! ;oida is in fact the accused in $!i"inal $ase Nos. (D@D and (D@4. $o"plainant even eFplained in he! testi"on1 0h1 she !efe!!ed to the accused as an ,uncle, 0hen actuall1 he 0as he! b!othe!-in-la05 ,$O<RT5 2!o" the $ou!t.

K. Ho0 is accused !elated to 1ou! te ;oidaL . He! husband, si!. K. 9hen 1ou said <ncle H""anuel, 1ou 0e!e !efe!!in# to the accusedL . :es, si!. K. This ;oida is 1ou! elde! siste!L . :es, si!. K. 9h1 do 1ou call the accused <ncle instead of .u1aL . I beca"e used to it since I 0as still ve!1 1oun#. K. Ho0 old 0e!e 1ou 0hen 1ou fi!st sta1ed in the house of the accusedL . Hi#ht )7+ 1ea!s old.,3& 9ell-settled is the !ule that testi"onies of 1oun# victi"s dese!ve full c!edence 33 and should not be so easil1 dis"issed as a "e!e fab!ication.3( No 0o"an, especiall1 one of tende! a#e, 0ould concoct a sto!1 of deflo!ation, allo0 an eFa"ination of he! p!ivate pa!ts and the!eafte! pe!"it he!self to be sub8ected to a public t!ial, unless she is "otivated solel1 b1 the desi!e to have the culp!it app!ehended and punished. $onside!in# that the 1oun# victi" had not been eFposed to the 0a1s of the 0o!ld, it is "ost i"p!obable that she 0ould i"pute a c!i"e so se!ious as !ape to an1 "an, if the cha!#e 0e!e not t!ue.36 $o"plainant did not asc!ibe the c!i"e 8ust to an1 "an, but to he! ve!1 o0n b!othe!-in-la0 0ho 0as in fact feedin# he!, attendin# to he! basic needs and spendin# fo! he! schoolin#. =iven the positive and uneAuivocal identification of appellant b1 the offended pa!t1, the defense of denial "ust pe!fo!ce fail. $ate#o!ical and consistent positive identification, absent an1 sho0in# of ill "otive on the pa!t of the e1e0itness testif1in# on the "atte!, p!evails ove! the defense of denial. In this case, the!e is no sho0in# of an1 i"p!ope! "otive on the pa!t of the victi" to testif1 falsel1 a#ainst the accused o! to i"plicate hi" falsel1 in the co""ission of the c!i"eE hence, the lo#ical conclusion is that no such i"p!ope! "otive eFists and that the testi"on1 is 0o!th1 of full faith and c!edence.3D Second Issue5 9uilt Be&ond Reasona!le 8ou!t ppellant then a!#ues that the Info!"ations did not alle#e the victi" to be unconscious du!in# the !apes. Hence, he could not be convicted of the t1pe of !ape co!!espondin# to such state. 9e a!e not pe!suaded. T!ue, unconsciousness 0as not alle#ed in the Info!"ations. Ho0eve!, fo!ce and inti"idation 0e!e. $o"plainant>s unconsciousness 0as the i""ediate and di!ect conseAuence of the fo!ce, violence and th!eats e"plo1ed b1 appellant in !apin# he!. In si"ila! cases,34 this $ou!t has al!ead1 debun/ed this a!#u"ent b1 holdin# that a dul1 p!oven alle#ation of fo!ce and inti"idation is sufficient fo! conviction. It is not necessa!1 fo! the conseAuent unconsciousness to be alle#ed in the info!"ation. Indeed, in the p!esent case, the loss of consciousness 0as the i""ediate !esult of appellant>s violence.3@ Thus, in the fi!st incident of !ape, co"plainant 0as a0a/ened as appellant /ept pu"pin# on top of he!. Penet!ation occu!!ed even as she st!u##led to f!ee he!self. Du!in# the second incident, she 0as ca!!ied to the sala and the!eafte! slapped. The violence inflicted, the th!eatenin# 0o!ds hu!led and the st!ain caused b1 the bladed inst!u"ent ),s"all bolo,+ po/ed at he! 0e!e enou#h to !ende! he! unconscious and to enable hi" to satisf1 his beastl1 passion. <pon !e#ainin# consciousness in both instances, she found he!self co"pletel1 na/ed -- he! t-shi!t, s/i!t and pant1 beside he!. She also felt pain in he! p!ivate pa!t.

The na!!ation of the incidents b1 co"plainant 0as st!ai#htfo!0a!d, cate#o!ical and f!ee of an1 se!ious cont!adiction. 9e find no co"pellin# !eason to distu!b o! set aside the findin#s of the lo0e! cou!t, 0hich #ave due 0ei#ht and c!edence to he! testi"on1. The conclusions of t!ial cou!ts on the c!edibilit1 of 0itnesses and thei! testi"onies a!e #ene!all1 not distu!bed b1 appellate cou!ts. Havin# hea!d the 0itnesses the"selves and obse!ved thei! depo!t"ent and "anne! of testif1in#, the1 0e!e in a bette! position to decide the issue. 37 In the p!esent case 0e ta/e into account the RT$>s obse!vation of co"plainant>s de"eano!, conduct and attitude 0hen she testified in cou!t thus5 ,The testi"on1 of the co"plainant, obviousl1 un!ehea!sed and uncoached, pe!haps even 0ithout the benefit of an1 b!iefin# befo!e Mbein# calledN to the 0itness stand, appea!s to the $ou!t to be unaffected, st!ai#htfo!0a!d and candid. She #ave #uileless ans0e!s to the Auestions, un"indful of the conseAuences., 3' It should also be noted that co"plainant could not cont!ol he! e"otion du!in# the t!ial of the case. He! poi#nant c!1 0hile testif1in# on he! ha!!o0in# eFpe!ience is a testa"ent to the t!uth. This is a "atte! of 8udicial co#ni?ance, its ve!it1 bo!ne out b1 hu"an natu!e and eFpe!ience. (* 2u!the!, co"plainant 0ho 0as sub8ected to a #!uelin# c!oss-eFa"ination b1 the defense counsel, neve! falte!ed in he! sto!1. She !e"ained consistent all th!ou#hout he! testi"on1. Neithe! can appellant find sanctua!1 in the p!ohibition a#ainst a conviction fo! !ape unde! the second ci!cu"stance ),unconscious,+ set fo!th in !ticle ((D(& of the Revised Penal $ode, 0hen the Info!"ation cha!#ed hi" 0ith !ape unde! the fi!st pa!a#!aph ),fo!ce o! inti"idation,+. (3 This p!osc!iption p!oceeds f!o" the constitutional !i#ht of the accused to be info!"ed of the natu!e of the cha!#es a#ainst the". (( It is clea! that appellant 0as convicted b1 the t!ial cou!t, not unde! the second pa!a#!aph of !ticle ((D, but unde! the fi!st one -- th!ou#h ,fo!ce o! inti"idation., Inst!uctive is the cou!t a *uo's Decision on the "atte!5 ,<nde! !ticle ((D of the Revised Penal $ode, as a"ended b1 Republic ct No. @4D', !ape is co""itted b1 havin# ca!nal /no0led#e of a 0o"an unde! an1 of the follo0in# ci!cu"stances5 )a+ b1 usin# fo!ce o! inti"idationE )b+ 0hen the 0o"an is dep!ived of !eason o! othe!0ise unconsciousE and )c+ 0hen the 0o"an is unde! t0elve )&3+ 1ea!s old o! is de"ented. The Info!"ations alle#e the fi!st ci!cu"stance, na"el1, that accused had ca!nal /no0led#e of the co"plainant, 0ho is his siste!-in-la0, Cb1 "eans of fo!ce and inti"idation>. P!osecution>s evidence sufficientl1 established this ci!cu"stance. F F F. ,$o"plainant "i#ht not have put up a dete!"ined fi#ht o! !esistance 0hen she 0as seFuall1 attac/ed, such as boFin#, /ic/in# o! sc!atchin# the accused, but this does not "ean that she consented to the seFual assault. F F F. ,On the cont!a!1, she could be, as she 0as, easil1 subdued o! co0ed into sub"ission to the seFual assault on he!, "o!e so, because accused po/ed a s"all bolo MatN he!, causin# he! to lose consciousness due to eFt!e"e fea!., (6 ppellant also contends that the behavio! of co"plainant afte! the !ape incidents is ,cont!a!1 to co""on eFpe!ience and natu!al occu!!ence,(D He Auestions ho0 she could have slept the 0hole ni#ht despite havin# been seFuall1 abused and "entall1 to!"ented. 9e should vie0 co"plainant>s behavio! afte! those t0o fateful ni#hts in the li#ht of t0o le#al p!inciples. :irst, diffe!ent people !eact diffe!entl1 to a #iven t1pe of situation, the!e bein# no standa!d fo!" of hu"an behavio!al !esponse 0hen one is conf!onted 0ith a st!an#e, sta!tlin# o! f!i#htful eFpe!ience. (4 5econd, it is not p!ope! to 8ud#e the actions of child!en 0ho have unde!#one t!au"atic eFpe!iences b1 the no!"s of behavio! eFpected f!o" "atu!e pe!sons unde! si"ila! ci!cu"stances.(@ This $ou!t has been cate#o!ical in decla!in# that ,the 0o!/in#s of a hu"an "ind placed unde! e"otional st!ess a!e unp!edictable and people !eact diffe!entl1 -- so"e "a1 shout, so"e "a1 faint, and so"e "a1 be shoc/ed into insensibilit1 0hile othe!s "a1 openl1 0elco"e the int!usion., (7 :et it can neve! be a!#ued that the ones 0ho appa!entl1 0elco"e it a!e seFual victi"s an1 less than the othe!s. (' =iven these decla!ations, the fact that afte! co"plainant 0as !aped she slept on until "o!nin# is not unusual o! unnatu!al. Nobod1 can tell ho0 a victi" of seFual a##!ession is supposed to act o! behave afte! he! o!deal. t an1 !ate, in the p!esent case it 0ould not be too fa!fetched to suppose that, out of fea! o! a desi!e to fo!#et the ho!!o! 8ust co""itted upon he! chastit1, the victi" slept soundl1 the!eafte!, as alle#ed. 6*

ppellant fu!the! Auestions the behavio! of co"plainant 0ho did not i""ediatel1 !epo!t the incident to he! "othe!, to he! f!iends o! to the autho!ities. Deepl1 i"bedded in ou! 8u!isp!udence is the !ule that the failu!e of the co"plainant to !epo!t the !ape i""ediatel1 to the "e"be!s of he! fa"il1 o! to the police autho!ities does not det!act f!o" he! c!edibilit1, he! hesitation bein# att!ibutable to he! a#e, the "o!al ascendanc1 of appellant o! his th!eats a#ainst he!. 6& It is not unli/el1 that a "ino! 0ould be inti"idated into silence b1 the "ildest th!eat a#ainst he! life o! the lives of "e"be!s of he! fa"il1. 63 1oun# #i!l, unli/e a "atu!e 0o"an, cannot be eFpected to have the cou!a#e and the intelli#ence to !epo!t i""ediatel1 a seFual assault co""itted a#ainst he!, especiall1 0hen a death th!eat han#s ove! he! head. 6( The above doct!ines also ans0e! the contention of appellant that it 0as unusual fo! co"plainant to have continued livin# no!"all1 in his house despite havin# supposedl1 been !aped b1 hi" t0ice. It 0as not unusual because she "i#ht have been pa!al1?ed b1 fea!, conside!in# his "o!al ascendanc1 ove! he!. 2u!the!, 0e do not #ive "uch c!edence to the alle#ation that the accusation a#ainst appellant 0as i"pelled b1 ill "otive on the pa!t of co"plainant>s fa"il1. This $ou!t has !epeatedl1 opined that it is unli/el1 fo! a 1oun# #i!l li/e co"plainant -- o! fo! he! fa"il1 -- to i"pute the c!i"e of !ape to no less than a !elative and to face social hu"iliation, if not to vindicate he! hono!.66 Decla!ed the t!ial cou!t5 ,The fo!e#oin# ci!cu"stances belie the defense>s clai" that accused>s in-la0s disli/ed hi" to the point of fab!icatin# the instant !ape cases. 9e!e the1 !eall1 a#ainst hi", the1 0ould not allo0 he!ein co"plainant to sta1 0ith hi" fo! 1ea!s )and he 0ould have no occasion to !ape he!+, 0ould not allo0 his 0ife to "a!!1 hi" in the fi!st place, and 0ould not be so solicitous about his and his fa"il1>s p!oble"s in $a#0ait, to the eFtent of p!ovidin# hi" and his 0ife 0ith 8obs o! additional sou!ces of inco"e. F F F. The $ou!t finds it difficult to believe that a "othe! 0ould sac!ifice he! o0n dau#hte! and allo0 he! to be the sub8ect of a hu"iliatin# public t!ial if she had not been "otivated b1 a since!e desi!e to have he! dau#hte!>s attac/e!, 0ho !uined he! life, punished. It is unnatu!al fo! a "othe! to use he! o0n dau#hte! to !eali?e he! desi!e to sepa!ate he! elde! dau#hte! f!o" the latte!>s husband )0hose "a!!ia#e she he!self facilitated+ and, in the p!ocess, sub8ect he! dau#hte! to unnecessa!1 e"ba!!ass"ent and lastin# sti#"a, 8ust as it is unbelievable fo! he!ein co"plainant, a 1oun# #i!l at that, to ad"it in public that she 0as deflo0e!ed b1 he! b!othe!-in-la0, unless she 0as tellin# the t!uth fo!, in doin# so, she 0ould be co"p!o"isin# he! o0n futu!e., 6D In a despe!ate atte"pt to cast doubt on the c!edibilit1 of co"plainant, appellant paints he! as seFuall1 p!o"iscuous. This 0as easil1 dis"issed b1 the t!ial cou!t in this 0ise5 ,$o"plainant, 0ho 0as 1et in he! ea!l1 adolescence livin# in a !u!al a!ea, 0as !eAui!ed st!ictl1 to act 0ith ci!cu"spection and p!udence and avoid indul#in# in an1thin# i""odest, "uch MlessN, in seFual pe!ve!sit1, 0hich 0ould su!el1 ble"ish he! !eputation and !uin he! hono!. The $ou!t finds Me!c1 =ascon>s sto!1 too fantastic to be t!ue, MnNa1, it belon#s to the !eal" of the insc!utable and is thus be1ond 8udicial co#ni?ance., 64 %esides, assu"in# =ascon>s sto!1 to be t!ue, still, the !ape victi">s cha!acte! in this c!i"e is i""ate!ial. 6@ Hven a p!ostitute can be a victi" of !ape.67 Thi!d Issue5 Medical ,ertificate 2inall1, appellant ave!s that the RT$ #!avel1 e!!ed 0hen it #ave p!obative value to the Medical $e!tificate si#ned b1 D!. 9elhil"ina n#, despite he! failu!e to testif1 in cou!t. %ut even 0ithout this $e!tificate, co"plainant>s testi"on1 is al!ead1 sufficient to convict appellant of !ape.6' To be su!e, a "edical ce!tificate is not necessa!1 to p!ove the co""ission of !ape.D* It is "e!el1 co!!obo!ative in cha!acte! and not an indispensable ele"ent in !ape. 9hat is i"po!tant is that the co"plainant>s testi"on1 about the incident is clea!, uneAuivocal and c!edible, D& as in the instant case. P!ope! Penalt1 9e ho0eve! hold that the RT$ e!!ed in i"posin# the death penalt1 on appellant. !ticle ((D of the Revised Penal $ode, as a"ended b1 Section && of Republic ct No. @4D' )the Death Penalt1 ;a0+, !eads, inter alia, as follo0s5 ,F F F FFF FFF

,The death penalt1 shall also be i"posed if the c!i"e of !ape is co""itted 0ith an1 of the follo0in# attendant ci!cu"stances5 ,&. 0hen the victi" is unde! ei#hteen )&7+ 1ea!s of a#e and the offende! is a pa!ent, ascendant, step-pa!ent, #ua!dian, !elative b1 consan#uinit1 o! affinit1 0ithin the thi!d civil de#!ee, o! the co""on-la0 spouse of the pa!ent of the victi"., 9hile the !elationship of co"plainant and appellant 0as alle#ed in the Info!"ations and established th!ou#h both the p!osecution and the defense 0itnesses> testi"onies, the fo!"e!>s "ino!it1 thou#h si"ila!l1 alle#ed, 0as not satisfacto!il1 p!oven, ho0eve!. HFcept fo! he! ba!e, passin# testi"on1 that she 0as still a "ino! 0hen the offenses cha!#ed 0e!e co""itted, no othe! evidence 0as adduced to suppo!t he! state"ent. No bi!th !eco!d o! even baptis"al ce!tificate 0as offe!ed. It is evident that the p!osecution did not discha!#e the bu!den of p!ovin# 0ith ce!taint1 the fact that she 0as unde! &7 1ea!s of a#e 0hen the !ape 0as co""itted. Thus, the i"position of the death penalt1 unde! the above-cited p!ovision 0as not 8ustified. D3 9hen the alle#ed a#e of the victi" at the ti"e of the seFual assault is bet0een &( and &7 1ea!s, neithe! he! ba!e testi"on1 no! that of he! "othe! 0ould suffice to p!ove he! a#e and conseAuentl1 Aualif1 the c!i"e to 8ustif1 the i"position of the death penalt1. D( This is because in this e!a of "ode!nis" and !apid #!o0th, the victi">s "e!e ph1sical appea!ance is not enou#h to #au#e he! eFact a#e. 2o! the eFt!e"e penalt1 of death to be upheld, nothin# but p!oof be1ond !easonable doubt of eve!1 fact necessa!1 to constitute the c!i"e "ust be substantiated. Ve!il1, the "ino!it1 of the victi" should be not onl1 alle#ed but li/e0ise p!oved 0ith eAual ce!taint1 and clea!ness as the c!i"e itself.D6 %e it !e"e"be!ed that the p!oof of the victi">s a#e in the p!esent case spells the diffe!ence bet0een life and death. The a0a!d of PD*,*** as civil inde"nit1 e; delicto fo! each count of !ape is sustained. ;i/e0ise, the t!ial cou!t>s a0a!d of PD*,*** as "o!al da"a#es fo! each !ape stands. This a"ount is a0a!ded to a !ape victi" 0ithout the necessit1 of additional pleadin# o! p!oof othe! than the fact of !ape. DD
1-)phi1

2HEREFORE, the appealed Decision is A::$RM68 0ith the M<8$:$,AT$<= that the penalt1 i"posed is !educed to reclusion perpetua fo! each count of !ape. SO ORDHRHD. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SH$OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 49329 )7;7%6 16, 1994 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. E--IE )P)2)N "+, RU(EN S)USE, accused-appellants. The 5olicitor 9eneral for plaintiff-appellee. #u!lic Attorne&>s <ffice for accused-appellants.

PUNO, J.: In an Info!"ation dated Dece"be! (, &'7D, accused-appellants HDDIH P 9 N and R<%HN S <SH 0e!e cha!#ed 0ith the c!i"e of RO%%HR: 9ITH R PH, 1 alle#edl1 co""itted as follo0s5

That on o! about the &'th of Septe"be!, &'7D at about &*5** oGcloc/ in the evenin# the!eof, at Sitio $!ossin# Sulit, %a!an#a1 Sulit, Municipalit1 of Polo"olo/, P!ovince of South $otabato, Philippines, and 0ithin the 8u!isdiction of the Hono!able $ou!t, the above-na"ed accused, in )the+ co"pan1 0ith )sic+ th!ee )(+ othe! pe!sons 0hose na"es, identities and 0he!eabouts a!e un/no0n, conspi!in# and confede!atin# to#ethe! and "utuall1 helpin# one anothe!, 0ith delibe!ate intent, intent of )sic+ #ain, b1 "eans of fo!ce, violence and inti"idation, 0ithout the consent and a#ainst the 0ill of the o0ne! the!eof, did then and the!e 0illfull1, unla0full1 and feloniousl1 ta/e and ca!!1 a0a1 the follo0in#5 &. One )&+ unit cassette )valued at+ P 6*.** 3. One )&+ 0!ist )S+ei/o 0atch . . . D**.** (. One )&+ leathe! ba# (*.** 6. One )&+ blan/et 3**.** D. One-half )&O3+ )sac/+ clean !ice 3@D.** 4. sso!ted pe!sonal belon#in#s (,***.** @. =!oce!ies 3**.** 7. $ash "one1 4**.** SSSSS TOT ; S P D,3*D.**

to the da"a#e and p!e8udice of M!s. 2e Pal"on in the afo!e"entioned a"ount of 2ive Thousand T0o Hund!ed 2ive )PD,3*D.**+ pesosE that afte! ta/in# the above-enu"e!ated ite"s and on the occasion of said !obbe!1, accused Hddie pa0an held 2e Pal"on b1 the hand and fo!cibl1 pulled he! to0a!ds the /itchen of the house and b1 "eans of th!eat, fo!ce, violence and inti"idation, and a#ainst he! 0ill, did then and the!e 0illfull1, unla0full1 and feloniousl1 have ca!nal /no0led#e 0ith he!. $ONTR R: TO ; 9. 9hen a!!ai#ned, Hddie pa0an and Ruben Sause pleaded not #uilt1. 2 The1 unde!0ent t!ial. The !eco!ds !eveal that 2H P ;MON is a "a!!ied 0o"an and a "othe! of five child!en. She !esides 0ith he! fa"il1 in $!ossin# Sulit, Polo"olo/, South $otabato. In the evenin# of Septe"be! &', &'7D, 2e 0as at ho"e loo/in# afte! he! child!en. That ni#ht, he! "othe!, $andela!ia -unsa1, and he! 1oun#e! b!othe!Gs 0ife, Se!e"ia -unsa1, sta1ed 0ith he! as he! husband and 1oun#e! b!othe! 0e!e in %an#a to ha!vest pala1. 3 t a!ound &*5** P.M., Se!e"ia hea!d so"eone fo!cin# to open the doo! leadin# to the /itchen. She 0ent to the /itchen and sa0 that the /itchen doo! 0as bein# opened 0ith a /nife. Se!e"ia hu!!iedl1 0o/e up and 2e and $andela!ia. The1 hea!d voices do0nstai!s. The int!ude!s 0e!e sa1in#5 ,9e a!e "e"be!s of the )ala& sapatos% a!rehe (a i., So"eone said fu!the!5 , llo0 us to #o upstai!s because 0e 0ant to eat., The int!ude!s co""anded the 0o"en to s0itch off the li#hts. 4 2e follo0ed. T0o )3+ of the int!ude!s, late! identified as accused Ruben Sause and Hddie pa0an, ente!ed the /itchen. Ruben 0as holdin# a flashli#ht. 9 The bea" co"in# f!o" the flashli#ht illu"inated the a!ea, allo0in# 2e, $andela!ia, and Se!e"ia to see the faces of Ruben and Hddie. RubenGs head 0as shaved, 0hile Hddie, 0ho 0as in fati#ue unifo!", had lon# hai!. !"ed 0ith a /nife, 6 Hddie i""ediatel1 #!abbed 2e, po/ed the /nife at he! nec/ and de"anded fift1 thousand pesos )PD*,***.**+ f!o" he!. 9hen she denied havin# that su" of "one1, Hddie o!de!ed he! to open the , aparador,

)cabinet+, but the latte! onl1 found P&**.**. <pon sea!chin# the house, Hddie and Ruben "ana#ed to ta/e seve!al ite"s, "iz5 a 0!ist 0atch, a cassette, a ba#, a blan/et, a half sac/ of !ice, so"e #!oce!1 ite"s, and five hund!ed pesos )PD**.**+ cash f!o" $andela!ia. The loot, valued at app!oFi"atel1 five thousand t0o hund!ed five pesos )PD,3*D.**+, 0as #athe!ed in the /itchen.:

The!eafte!, Hddie led 2e to the /itchen, sa1in# he 0ould tell he! about the , )a& sapatos., ppa!entl1, Hddie had othe! siniste! intent in "ind. He "ade 2e sit on a stool and th!eatened he! to let hi" have seFual inte!cou!se 0ith hi", othe!0ise, he 0ould /ill he! child. ppalled, 2e 0as unable to spea/. Hddie then laid he! on the floo! and too/ he! pant1 off. He lifted he! s/i!t and, 0ithout "uch ado, "ounted he!. The1 had coitus. 2e 0as too ne!vous to !e"e"be! fo! ho0 lon# Hddie sta1ed on top of he! as his th!eat, that he 0ould /ill he! child, lin#e!ed on he! "ind.4 She did not shout o! !esist, fea!ful that Hddie 0ould /ill he! if she did. 9 She could see Se!e"ia and $andela!ia, 0ho 0e!e in the ad8oinin# !oo" ba!el1 t0o )3+ "ete!s f!o" he!, but Ruben Sause 0as #ua!din# the". 10 Du!in# the !ape, Ruben indisc!i"inatel1 focused the flashli#ht to0a!ds the /itchen, thus, albeit the!e 0as a ,t!anspa!ent, cu!tain cove!in# the doo! bet0een the /itchen and the !oo" 0he!e $andela!ia and Se!e"ia had been /ept at ba1, the1 sa0 the bestial act. 11 2ifteen "inutes late!, Hddie and 2e e"e!#ed f!o" the /itchen. 2e 0as c!1in# as she told Se!e"ia and $andela!ia that she 0as !aped. The1 c!ied as the1, too, sa0 0hat happened. 12 fte! the !obbe!1 and !ape, accused-appellants left but 0a!ned the th!ee )(+ 0o"en not to !epo!t the incident to the autho!ities, othe!0ise, the1 0ould be /illed. 13 That sa"e evenin#, $andela!ia, Se!e"ia, 2e, and he! child!en p!oceeded to0a!ds the house of 2eGs "othe!-in-la0. The!e, 2e !ecounted he! o!deal to he! "othe!-in-la0 0ho advised he! not to i""ediatel1 divul#e he! "isfo!tune to he! husband, H!!ol Pal"on, as he "i#ht ta/e so"e d!astic action on the "atte!. 14 The follo0in# "o!nin#, Septe"be! 3*, &'7D, 2e !epo!ted the !obbe!1 to the autho!ities but 0ithheld the !ape f!o" the" since he! husband had 1et to be info!"ed about it. On Septe"be! 36, &'74, 2e, acco"panied b1 he! husband and he! "othe!-in-la0, !epo!ted the !ape to the autho!ities. Police"an Rodolfo %uenavide? investi#ated the case. "on# those he investi#ated 0as HddieGs 0ife, -ovel1n pa0an. <pon %uenavide?G !eAuest, -ovel1n handed to %uenavide? a solo blac/ and 0hite photo#!aph of Hddie 0ho 0as then in "ilita!1 unifo!". 19 SubseAuentl1, said photo#!aph 0as sho0n to 2e and she !eco#ni?ed Hddie as the !apist. 16 ccused-appellants hoisted the defense of denial and alibi. Hddie pa0an and Ruben Sause, both !esidents of %a!an#a1 Sulit )p!ope!+, Polo"olo/, South $otabato, clai"ed the1 0e!e in thei! !espective houses 0hen the incident happened. Ruben ave!!ed he 0as sleepin# in his house the ni#ht the !obbe!1 and !ape 0e!e co""itted as it 0as al!ead1 late. The follo0in# da1, he 0as a!!ested b1 the autho!ities. He denied /no0in# the co"plainant, 2e Pal"on, p!io! to the incident. Hddie, fo! his pa!t, alle#ed he sta1ed in his house, f!o" 45** P.M. of Septe"be! &', &'7D until 45** .M. the follo0in# "o!nin#, as his child 0as sic/. He ad"itted havin# a fati#ue unifo!", clai"in# he 0as a fo!"e! "e"be! of the a!"1. In the ea!l1 "o!nin# of Septe"be! 3*, &'7D, he alle#edl1 0ent to the (!d Infant!1 %attalion, in Polo"olo/. He ave!!ed he 0as in the co"pan1 of so"e $HD2 "e"be!s f!o" said date until his a!!est on Septe"be! 36, &'7D. t the police station, he "et the victi" fo! the fi!st ti"e, and the victi" c!ied upon seein# hi". HddieGs 0ife, -ovel1n, co!!obo!ated the testi"on1 of he! husband that he sta1ed in thei! house the 0hole evenin# of Septe"be! &', &'7D and left fo! the (!d Infant!1 %attalion the follo0in# "o!nin#. fte! t!ial, the lo0e! cou!t, in its Decision dated u#ust 3, &'77, convicted Hddie pa0an and Ruben Sause of the co"pleF c!i"e of Robbe!1 0ith Rape. The dispositive po!tion of the Decision 1: of the t!ial cou!t !eads5 $$ORDIN=;:, findin# the accused Hddie pa0an and Ruben Sause #uilt1 be1ond !easonable doubt of the co"pleF c!i"e of !obbe!1 0ith !ape attended b1 the a##!avatin# ci!cu"stances of noctu!nit1 and abuse of supe!io! st!en#th 0ithout bein# off-set )sic+ b1 an1 "iti#atin# ci!cu"stance, the1 a!e both sentenced to suffe! the sup!e"e )sic+ penalt1 of R6,L?5$<= #6R#6T?A% to 8ointl1

and seve!all1 pa1 the a##!ieved pa!ties 2e Pal"on and $andela!ia -unsa1 co"pensato!1 da"a#es of PD,***.** )and+ "o!al da"a#es to )sic+ the !ape victi" in the a"ount of PD,***.** )sic+ plus costs. SO ORDHRHD. Hence, this appeal. These a!e the assi#ned e!!o!s5 I THH TRI ; $O<RT HRRHD IN NOT T .IN= INTO $$O<NT TH T $$<SHD- PPH;; NT HDDIH P 9 N 9 S NOT P<T IN PO;I$H ;INH-<P 2OR IDHNTI2I$ TION %: THH O22HNDHD P RT: %<T 9 S INSTH D IDHNTI2IHD THRO<=H HIS PI$T<RH SHO9N %: THH PO;I$H TO THH O22HNDHD P RT: PRIOR TO HIS RRHST. II THH TRI ; $O<RT HRRHD IN 2INDIN= TH T THH =<I;T O2 THH $$<SHD- PPH;; NTS 2OR THH $RIMH $H R=HD 9 S PROVHN )SI$+ %H:OND RH SON %;H DO<%T. 9e affi!" the 8ud#"ent of conviction. ccused-appellants clai" the1 0e!e not p!ope!l1 identified b1 p!osecution 0itnesses, "iz5 2e, Se!e"ia, and $andela!ia, as the!e 0as no police line-up conducted befo!e the1 0e!e pinpointed as the culp!its. Specificall1, the defense assails HddieGs identification, clai"in# that the act of Pat. %uenavide?, i.e., in bo!!o0in# HddieGs photo#!aph and sho0in# it to the victi", 2e, p!io! to HddieGs a!!est, 0as pointedl1 su##estive. The defense, fu!the! alle#es, that usin# HddieGs pictu!e fo! identification pu!poses depa!ts f!o" the standa!d police p!ocedu!e of placin# the suspects in a police line-up to test the accu!ac1 of the offended pa!t1 in identif1in# the !eal culp!it. 9e a!e not pe!suaded. The!e is no !ule !eAui!in# that befo!e a suspect can be identified as the culp!it, he should fi!st be placed in a police line-up and then pinpointed b1 the victi". 9hat is i"po!tant, is the positiveness of the victi" that the pe!sons cha!#ed 0e!e the "alefacto!s. Such identification #oes to the c!edibilit1 of the 0itness 0hich 0as tested at the t!ial. 14 9e have eFa"ined the !eco!ds of this case and 0e a#!ee 0ith the findin#s of the t!ial cou!t on the positive identification of the accused-appellants. The !eco!ds !eveal that accused-appellants sta1ed in the victi"Gs house fo! al"ost an hou!. 19 9hile sea!chin# fo! so"e valuables to !ob, the flashli#ht held b1 Ruben Sause 0as on, thus allo0in# p!osecution 0itnesses 2e, $andela!ia, and Se!e"ia to see the faces of accused-appellants. Mo!eove!, Hddie pa0an constantl1 held 2e close to hi", pa!ticula!l1 du!in# the !ape, thus #ivin# he! enou#h ti"e to ta/e a #ood loo/ at hi". s !e#a!ds Ruben Sause, his shaved head left a distinctive "a!/ in the "inds of the 0itnesses, not to "ention that he, too, 0as seen at close !an#e b1 0itnesses Se!e"ia and $andela!ia, 0hile he 0as /eepin# an e1e on the" du!in# the !ape. 9e have !uled that it is the "ost natu!al !eaction fo! victi"s of c!i"inal violence to st!ive to see the appea!ance of thei! assailants and obse!ve the "anne! in 0hich the c!i"e 0as co""itted. Most often, the face and bod1 "ove"ents of the assailants c!eate a lastin# i"p!ession 0hich cannot be easil1 e!ased f!o" thei! "e"o!1. 20 The !eco!ds a!e be!eft of an1 evidence that the p!osecution 0itnesses have i"p!ope! "otives to falsel1 point to accused-appellants as the culp!its. Si#nificantl1, accused-appellants 0e!e not /no0n to these 0o"en p!io! to the incident. Thus, 0e adhe!e to the established !ule that in the absence of an1 evidence to sho0 that the 0itnesses fo! the p!osecution 0e!e actuated b1 an1 i"p!ope! "otive, thei! identification of the accused-appellants as the assailants should be #iven full faith and c!edit. 21 The alle#ation of 2e Pal"on that she 0as !aped b1 Hddie pa0an inspi!es belief as it is unli/el1 fo! he!, a "a!!ied 0o"an 0ith five child!en, to cont!ive such a painful eFpe!ience. He! failu!e to !esist du!in# the ca!nal act is of no

"o"ent since the !apist had al!ead1 inti"idated the victi" 0ith his continued th!eats on the victi"Gs life and child!en. In this 8u!isdiction, the testi"on1 of a 0o"an, 0hose "o!alit1 is be1ond dispute, ca!!ies a lot of 0ei#ht. 2o! no decent 2ilipina 0ould publicl1 ad"it that she has been abused and !avished unless it is the t!uth. He! natu!al instinct is to p!otect he! hono!. 22 2eGs conduct i""ediatel1 afte! the assault, pa!ticula!l1, )&+ in i""ediatel1 tellin# he! siste! in-la0, Se!e"ia, that she 0as !aped, and )3+ consultin# he! husbandGs fa"il1 on 0hethe! o! not to info!" he! husband of the incident, bolte!s he! clai" that the !obbe!1 0as acco"panied b1 !ape. In cont!ast, the denial and alibi inte!posed b1 accused-appellants fail to pe!suade us that the1 a!e innocent of the c!i"e i"puted a#ainst the". libi is a 0ea/ defense, pa!ticula!l1, 0hen it is not ph1sicall1 i"possible fo! accused to be at the scene of the c!i"e at the ti"e of its co""ission. 23 In the case at bench, it 0as not ph1sicall1 i"possible fo! accused-appellants to be at the scene of the c!i"e at the ti"e of its co""ission as thei! houses 0e!e onl1 about one and one-half /ilo"ete!s a0a1 f!o" the !esidence of 2e Pal"on. 9e a#!ee 0ith the t!ial cou!tGs conclusion that accused-appellants a!e liable as co-conspi!ato!s conside!in# these ci!cu"stances5 )&+ accused-appellants acted in unison and coope!ated 0ith each othe! du!in# the !obbe!1E )3+ 0hile Hddie 0as !apin# 2e, Ruben /ept Se!e"ia and $andela!ia at ba1, and he 0as nonchalantE and )(+ accusedappellants left to#ethe! and 0a!ned the th!ee )(+ 0o"en not to !epo!t the incident to the autho!ities. Since conspi!ac1 had been established, all the conspi!ato!s a!e liable as co-p!incipals !e#a!dless of the eFtent of thei! pa!ticipation because in conte"plation of la0, the act of one is the act of all. 24 ll thin#s conside!ed, 0e hold that accused-appellants Ruben Sause and Hddie pa0an a!e #uilt1 be1ond !easonable doubt of the c!i"e of Robbe!1 0ith Rape, as defined in !ticle 36' )3+ of the Revised Penal $ode. 29$onside!in# the p!esence of a##!avatin# ci!cu"stances of d0ellin#, ni#hti"e, and abuse of supe!io! st!en#th, 0ithout an1 "iti#atin# ci!cu"stance to offset the sa"e, accused-appellants should be sentenced to death penalt1. In vie0, ho0eve!, of the constitutional p!ohibition on the i"position of death penalt1, 26 accused-appellants 0e!e co!!ectl1 "eted the penalt1 ofreclusion perpetua. 9HHRH2ORH, p!e"ises conside!ed, the decision appealed f!o" is 22IRMHD 0ith "odification. Thus, the "o!al da"a#es a0a!ded in favo! of 2e Pal"on is inc!eased f!o" five thousand pesos )PD,***.**+ to fift1 thousand pesos )PD*,***.**+..2: $osts a#ainst accused-appellants. SO ORDHRHD. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SH$OND DIVISION G.R. No. 119944 Febr7"r1 29, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUFINO G)MER 1 M)LIT, accused-appellant. 3UISUM(ING, J.: On appeal is the decision dated p!il 7, &''6, of the Re#ional T!ial $ou!t of n#eles $it1, %!anch D@, & convictin# appellant of the c!i"e of ca!nappin#, i"posin# upon hi" the penalt1 of life i"p!ison"ent, and o!de!in# hi" to pa1 p!ivate co"plainant the a"ount of PD*,***.** as inde"nit1, P&6,***.** as fune!al eFpenses, P6D,***.** as cost of the bu!ial lot and P6*,***.** fo! the value of the p!ope!ties stolen. The facts, based on the !eco!ds, a!e as follo0s. On Septe"be! 3D, &'7', at a!ound 75(* p."., at the Villa H"ilia Subdivision, Pa!ala1a, Po!ac, Pa"pan#a, ntonio ;o!e"as and his 0ife, $o!a?on Na?al ;o!e"as, 0e!e on thei! 0a1 ho"e on boa!d thei! o0ne!-t1pe stainless 8eep.

9hen the 8eep slo0ed do0n to pass a hu"p, t0o )3+ "en 0ent to each side of the 8eep and announced a hold-up. ntonio stepped on the #as but one of the "en shot hi" at the bac/. The 8eep s0e!ved to a stop. The t0o pe!sons too/ a0a1 the spousesG "one1, clothin#, asso!ted 8e0el!ies, i"po!ted and local ci#a!ettes, ca! ste!eo and eAuali?e! and tools, and d!ove off 0ith the 8eep in the di!ection of n#eles $it1. fte! the assailants fled, $o!a?on, 0ith the help of passe!s-b1, b!ou#ht ntonio to the n#eles $it1 Medical $ente! fo! "edical t!eat"ent. <nfo!tunatel1, ntonio died that sa"e ni#ht f!o" the #unshot 0ound. The 8eep 0as found abandoned the follo0in# da1. 3 %oth Po!ac Police and n#eles $it1 Police conducted investi#ations of the ca!nappin# incident 0ithout an1 p!o#!ess. $o!a?on then sou#ht the help of S!. Inspecto! $a!los ;. 2lo!es, -!., $hief of the $!i"inal Investi#ation Se!vice )$IS+, n#eles $it1. ctin# on $o!a?onGs co"plaint, the $IS conducted intelli#ence #athe!in# ope!ations. So"e ti"e in -une &''3, $aptain 2lo!es o!de!ed th!ee $IS a#ents, na"el1, =alve?, %esana and =anal, to ,invite, appellant fo! Auestionin# at the $IS 2ield Office in Dia"ond Subdivision, %aliba#o, n#eles $it1. ( On -une &@, &''3, at a!ound 35** p."., the $IS a#ents ,pic/ed up, appellant and his five 1ea!-old son 0hile the1 0e!e in f!ont of a stall bu1in# so"ethin#.6 ppellant and his son 0e!e "ade to boa!d a ca! and then b!ou#ht to $IS 2ield Office. D ppellant 0as investi#ated b1 the $IS until a!ound @5** p.". 4 t the sa"e ti"e, one Teodo!o Si!on, -!., 0as also invited b1 the $IS #ents fo! Auestionin#. @ The!eafte!, appellant and Si!on, 0e!e placed in a police line-up 0he!e $o!a?on identified appellant as one of the ca!nappe!s.7 That sa"e afte!noon, $o!a?on eFecuted he! s0o!n state"ent )HFhibit ,%,+ befo!e the $IS a#ents. ppellant 0as "ade to si#n a s0o!n state"ent )HFhibit ,$,+ identif1in# his d!in/in# co"panions 0ho alle#edl1 too/ pa!t in the ca!nappin#. Si!on did not eFecute an1 s0o!n state"ent. The follo0in# da1, appellant 0as b!ou#ht befo!e a public p!osecuto! fo! inAuest. The!eafte!, the public p!osecuto! issued a Resolution' findin# a pri a facie case a#ainst five )D+ pe!sons, th!ee )(+ of 0ho" 0e!e at-la!#e. The othe! t0o )3+, appellant and Si!on, 0e!e cha!#ed 0ith ca!nappin# 0ith !obbe!1 and ho"icide unde! the follo0in# Info!"ation5&* That on o! about the 3Dth da1 of Septe"be!, &'7', at about 756D oGcloc/ in the evenin# at Villa H"ilia Subdivision, ba!an#a1 Manibau#, "unicipalit1 of Po!ac, p!ovince of Pa"pan#a, Philippines, and 0ithin the 8u!isdiction of this Hono!able $ou!t, the above-na"ed accused, conspi!in# and confede!atin# to#ethe! and "utuall1 helpin# one anothe!, 0ith the use of a .6D calibe! #un, 0ith intent of #ain and b1 "eans of violence and inti"idation on the pe!son of the Spouses ntonio ;o!e"as and $o!a?on Na?al, and 0ithout thei! consent, did then and the!e 0illfull1, unla0full1 and feloniousl1 ta/e, steal and ca!!1 a0a1 one )&+ o0ne! t1pe-8eep bea!in# Plate No. $ V 3&7 and on the occasion the!eof, shot and /ill 0ith a .6D calibe! #un ntonio ;o!e"as, the d!ive! of the ca!napped "oto! vehicle and ca!!1 a0a1 0ith the" cash "one1 in Philippine and <.S. cu!!encies, asso!ted 8e0el!ies, clothin#s, i"po!ted and local ci#a!ettes, ste!eo cassette, eAuali?e! and tools 0ith a total value of 2o!t1 Thousand Pesos )P6*,***.**+ belon#in# to said Spouses ntonio ;o!e"as and $o!a?on Na?al, to the da"a#e and p!e8udice of the said o0ne! in the said su" of P6*,***.**. ll cont!a!1 to la0, and 0ith the a##!avatin# ci!cu"stances that the said offense 0as co""itted at ni#htti"e, evident p!e"editation, t!eache!1 and 0ith the use of supe!io! st!en#th to facilitate the co""ission of the c!i"e. ppellant and Si!on filed sepa!ate Motions fo! Reinvesti#ation && 0ith the t!ial cou!t 0hich #!anted&3 said Motions. s a !esult of the !einvesti#ation, the public p!osecuto! filed a Motion to Dis"iss &( as to accused Si!on on the #!ound of insufficienc1 of evidence. The t!ial cou!t #!anted &6 said "otion. Hence, onl1 appellant 0as t!ied fo! the c!i"e of ca!nappin#. <pon a!!ai#n"ent on -anua!1 D, &''(, appellant, assisted b1 counsel de parte, ente!ed a plea of not #uilt1. &DT!ial ensued. P!ivate co"plainant $o!a?on ;o!e"as, the 0ido0 of the victi", identified appellant as the one 0ho boa!ded he! side of the 8eep, and pointed a #un at he!.&4 Renaida Na?al, p!ivate co"plainantGs siste!, li/e0ise testified that she 0itnessed the c!i"e f!o" a distance of t0ent1 )3*+ "ete!s and sa0 appellant ta/e pa!t in the ca!nappin#. &@ S!. Inspecto! $a!los ;. 2lo!es, -!., $hief of the (*6th $IS in %aliba#o, n#eles $it1, testified that afte! intelli#ence #athe!in#, he o!de!ed his "en to ,invite, appellant fo! Auestionin# at the $IS office. &7 SPO6 Re1naldo T. =alan# too/ do0n the state"ents of the appellant and the p!ivate co"plainant. &' SPO( I!eneo $. =alve? testified that he 0as one of the ope!atives 0ho eFtended the ,invitation, to appellant. 3*

2o! the defense, appellant vehe"entl1 denied an1 pa!ticipation in the offense cha!#ed. ppellant contends that on Septe"be! 3D, &'7', at a!ound 45** p."., he 0as d!ivin# a t!uc/ loaded 0ith sand and #!avel to Manila acco"panied b1 t0o helpe!s and his e"plo1e!, Renato Si"billo, and that the1 !etu!ned to Pa"pan#a at a!ound 65** a.". of the follo0in# da1. 3& He fu!the! !ecounted that on -ul1 &@, &''3, he and his son 0e!e pic/ed up b1 the $IS a#ents, fo!cibl1 boa!ded on a ca!, and b!ou#ht to the $IS 2ield Office. The!e he 0as st!ipped na/ed, and handcuffed. His le#s 0e!e tied, his "outh 0as stuffed 0ith a 0et !u#, 0ate! 0as pou!ed on his nose and hot liAuid pou!ed on his #enitals.33 2inall1, he 0as coe!ced into si#nin# a s0o!n state"ent 3( 0he!ein he na"ed the pe!sons 0ho alle#edl1 too/ pa!t in the ca!nappin#. 36 ppellant denied bein# placed in a police line-up. M!. Si"billo testified that on Septe"be! 3D, &'7', as ea!l1 as D5** p."., he 0as 0ith appellant and t0o helpe!s p!epa!in# to delive! sand and #!avel in Manila. The1 left Pa"pan#a at a!ound 45** p.". and !etu!ned at a!ound D5** a.". the follo0in# da1. He !e"e"be!ed the eFact date because he hea!d a !adio !epo!t about the ;o!e"as ca!nappin# on thei! 0a1 bac/ to Pa"pan#a. 3D M!. Si"billo also testified that on -une &@, &''3, appellant failed to !epo!t fo! 0o!/, and he late! lea!ned that appellant 0as pic/ed up b1 the $IS and 0as detained at the P!ovincial -ail.34 Teodo!o Si!on, -!., testified that on -une &@, &''3, he 0as also pic/ed up b1 $IS a#ents and b!ou#ht to the $IS Office fo! Auestionin#. He sa0 appellant in the $IS Office ,handcuffed and both feet padloc/ed, na/ed and blindfolded., Si!on and appellant 0e!e "ade to conf!ont each othe! fo! about five )D+ "inutes. The1 0e!e pu??led as to 0h1 the1 0e!e alle#edl1 i"plicatin# each othe! in the ca!nappin# incident. Si!on also denied that he 0as placed in a police line-up 0ith appellant.3@ On p!il 7, &''6, the t!ial cou!t !ende!ed a decision37 findin# appellant #uilt1 as cha!#ed. The dispositive po!tion of the decision p!ovides5 9HHRH2ORH, p!e"ises conside!ed, 8ud#"ent is he!eb1 !ende!ed findin# accused R<2INO = MHR =<I;T: be1ond !easonable doubt of the c!i"e of Violation of nti-$a!nappin# ct of &'@3 as defined and penali?ed unde! R. . 4D(' and he!eb1 acco!din#l1 sentences hi" to ;ife I"p!ison"ent and to inde"nif1 co"plainant $o!a?on ;o!e"as the a"ount of PD*,***.** as life inde"nit1E the a"ount of P&6,***.** as cost of fune!al eFpenses, P6D,***.** as cost of the bu!ial lot and the a"ount of P6*,***.** fo! the value of the p!ope!ties stolen.
1-)phi1.n.t

9ith !e#a!d the othe! accused 0ho a!e still un/no0n and have not p!ope!l1 been identified "uch less app!ehended, send this case to the a!chives to be !evived upon the app!ehension of said accused. SO ORDHRHD. Hence, appellant no0 p!esents the follo0in# issues fo! !esolution5 3' I. 9HHTHHR THH TRI ; $O<RT DHPRIVHD $$<SHD R<2INO M. = MHR O2 HIS S<%ST NTI ; RI=HT TO D<H PRO$HSS %: DMITTIN= THH HVIDHN$H O2 THH PROSH$<TION TH T POINT TO THH IDHNTIT: O2 THH S ID $$<SHD IN N ;;H=HD PO;I$H ;INH-<P 9ITHO<T %HIN= 22ORDHD HIS VIT ; RI=HTS ND =< R NTHHS S PROVIDHD 2OR IN O<R $ONSTIT<TION. II. 9HHTHHR THH TRI ; $O<RT IN RHNDHRIN= HIS -<D=MHNT O2 $ONVI$TION H S 2 I;HD TO OVHR;OO. OR $ONSIDHRHD $HRT IN SPH$T O2 HVIDHN$H %: THH $$<SHD TH T $O<;D H VH S<%ST NTI ;;: 22H$THD OR $H N=HD THH $ON$;<SION RHNDHRHD IN THIS INST NT $ SH. III. 9HHTHHR THH TRI ; $O<RT $THD IN =R VH %<SH O2 DIS$RHTION 9HHN IN THH PRHP R TION ND PRHSHNT TION O2 2 $TS IN THH DH$ISION, IT 2O$<SHD ON;: IN -<STI2:IN= THH PROSH$<TION HVIDHN$H %<T DISRH= RDIN= SOMH SI=NI2I$ NT 2 $TS TH T M : %H IMPORT NT TO THH $$<SHDGS $H N$H O2 $K<ITT ;. In his b!ief, appellant dec!ies the fla#!ant violation of his constitutional !i#ht a#ainst un!easonable sei?u!es and his !i#hts unde! custodial investi#ation. ppellant Auestions his identification b1 p!ivate co"plainant conside!in# that no police line-up 0as conducted. ppellant also Auestions the c!edibilit1 of $o!a?onGs siste! conside!in# that she onl1 su!faced du!in# t!ial. ppellant fu!the! contends that the t!ial cou!t e!!ed in dis!e#a!din# appellantGs testi"on1 of his o!deal in the hands of the $IS a#ents.

The Office of the Solicito! =ene!al, fo! the State, a!#ues that as held b1 the t!ial cou!t, the positive identification of the appellant b1 the p!osecution 0itnesses "ust p!evail ove! the appellantGs defense of alibi and denial. The OS= !eco""ends affi!"ance of the conviction and sentence i"posed upon the appellant. The substantial issue he!e, in ou! vie0, involves the ad"issibilit1 as 0ell as sufficienc1 of the evidence to convict appellant. ppellant clai"s, and the p!osecution ad"its, that he 0as a!!ested 0ithout a 0a!!ant on -une &@, &''3. His a!!est, ho0eve!, cannot be 8ustified unde! an1 of the ci!cu"stances allo0in# 0a!!antless a!!ests unde! Section D of Rule &&( of the Rules on $!i"inal P!ocedu!e.(* Hence, an1 evidence obtained in violation of appellantGs !i#hts unde! Section 3 of !ticle III of the &'7@ $onstitution (& shall be inad"issible fo! an1 pu!pose and in an1 p!oceedin#.(3=!antin# that b1 ente!in# a plea 0ithout fi!st Auestionin# the le#alit1 of his a!!est, appellant is dee"ed to have 0aived an1 ob8ection conce!nin# his a!!est,(( the s0o!n state"ent )HFhibit ,$,+ ta/en f!o" appellant is clea!l1 inad"issible fo! havin# been obtained in violation of his constitutional !i#hts unde! custodial investi#ation. 9hen appellant 0as invited to the $IS office, he 0as clea!l1 placed unde! ,custodial investi#ation, fo! the!e the Auestionin# 0as neve! a ,#ene!al inAui!1 into an unsolved c!i"e, but al!ead1 focused on appellant as a ,pa!ticula! suspect, in the ;o!e"as ca!nappin#. (6 t that ve!1 instance, appellant should have been affo!ded his !i#hts unde! Section &3 )&+ and )3+ !ticle III of the &'7@ $onstitution. (D Hence the s0o!n state"ent, 0hich also contains "ostl1 hea!sa1, should be th!o0n out fo! bein# patentl1 inad"issible in evidence a#ainst hi". It "a1 be noted, fu!the!, that appellant 0as convicted b1 the t!ial cou!t upon the identification of appellant "ade b1 $o!a?on ;o!e"as and he! siste!, Renaida Na?al, du!in# the t!ial. s evidence, the value of the in-cou!t identification, ho0eve!, is he!e la!#el1 dependent upon an out-of-cou!t identification "ade du!in# an alle#ed police line-up. %oth appellant and Si!on, consistentl1 denied that a line-up 0as conducted b1 the police, thus di!ectl1 cont!ove!tin# the testi"on1 of the p!osecutionGs 0itnesses. In #eople ". 7erzosa,(4 the $ou!t enu"e!ated facto!s to be conside!ed, follo0in# the totalit& of circu stances test, in o!de! to !esolve the ad"issibilit1 of an out-of-cou!t identification of suspects, "iz5 . . . )&+ the 0itnessG oppo!tunit1 to vie0 the c!i"inal at the ti"e of the c!i"eE )3+ the 0itnessG de#!ee of attention at that ti"eE )(+ the accu!ac1 of an1 p!io! desc!iption #iven b1 the 0itnessE )6+ the level of ce!taint1 de"onst!ated b1 the 0itness at the identificationE )D+ the len#th of ti"e bet0een the c!i"e and the identificationE and )4+ the su##estiveness of the identification p!ocedu!e. These facto!s a!e pe!tinent to and applicable in this case. The totalit1 test has been fashioned p!ecisel1 to assu!e fai!ness as 0ell as co"pliance 0ith constitutional !eAui!e"ents of due p!ocess in !e#a!d to out-of-cou!t identification. These cited facto!s "ust be conside!ed to p!event the conta"ination of the inte#!it1 of in-cou!t identifications bette!. In this case, the ca!nappin# happened at 75(* p."., and the evidence does not disclose 0hethe! the locus cri inis 0as sufficientl1 li#hted fo! pu!poses of identification. In fact, 0hile $o!a?on testified that the 8eep 0as not li#hted at the ti"e of the incident, (@ he! siste! clai"ed that the 8eep 0as in fact li#hted, 0hich enabled he! to !eco#ni?e appellant he!ein as one of the ca!nappe!s. (7 lthou#h $o!a?on !epo!ted the incident to the Po!ac Police the follo0in# da1, she did not fu!nish said police"en a desc!iption of the pe!pet!ato!s of the c!i"e.(' Hence, the authenticit1 as 0ell as accu!ac1 of the p!esent and futu!e desc!iptions of the suspected assailants has been placed in doubt fo! lac/ of basis. 2u!the!"o!e, the c!i"e occu!!ed so"e t0o )3+ 1ea!s and )7+ "onths p!io! to the a!!est of appellant. %ecause of this lapse of ti"e, ce!tain ph1sical chan#es "i#ht have occu!!ed in his ph1sical appea!ance and othe! att!ibutes al!ead1. $o!a?on also clai"ed that she vie0ed the police line-up th!ou#h a 8alousie 0indo06* 0hile $apt. 2lo!es testified that the pe!sons in the police line-up 0e!e in full vie0 of $o!a?on.6& This and othe! cont!adictions in the testi"on1 of p!osecution 0itnesses 0ea/en the !eliabilit1 of the outof-cou!t identification of appellant. 9e a!e no0 const!ained to a#!ee that the in-cou!t identification of the appellant "ade b1 p!ivate co"plainant and he! siste! could have been tainted b1 the out-of-cou!t )police line-up+ p!ocedu!e, even if 0e #!ant, arguendo, that such line-up did ta/e place. In addition, the t!ial cou!t ove!loo/ed ce!tain "ate!ial inconsistencies in the testi"on1 of the p!osecution 0itnesses. $o!a?on 0ave!ed in identif1in# 0ho actuall1 shot he! husband. Initiall1, she said it 0as the pe!son nea! he! husband 0ho shot hi".63 ;ate! on she said that she did not see 0ho actuall1 shot he! husband 6( and that she "e!el1 hea!d the #un shot.66 cco!din# to $o!a?on, the!e 0e!e onl1 t0o )3+ ca!nappe!s, 6D 0hile he! siste! testified that the!e 0e!e about five )D+ "en, includin# appellant he!ein, 0ho boa!ded the 8eep. 64

In su", the identification of appellant as one of the assailants could in no 0a1 be conside!ed as positive and c!edible. Note that it is not "e!el1 an1 identification 0hich 0ould suffice fo! conviction of the accused. It "ust be positive identification "ade b1 a c!edible 0itness o! 0itnesses, in o!de! to attain the level of acceptabilit1 and c!edibilit1 to sustain "o!al ce!taint1 conce!nin# the pe!son of the offende!. Thus appellantGs defense of alibi and denial #ains conside!able st!en#th in the face of the un!eliable identification of the alle#ed pe!pet!ato! of the c!i"e.6@ Hvidence a#ainst hi" is si"pl1 Auite 0ea/ to hold hi" even fo! t!ial. The public p!osecuto! should have "oved to dis"iss the cha!#es, as he did in favo! of the co-accused, Teodo!o Si!on, -!. The lite!al si#nification of the 0o!d ,alibi, is ,else0he!e, 67 and fo! alibi to p!ospe!, the !eAuisites of ti"e and place6' "ust be established b1 clea! and convincin# evidence. D* He!e, appellant and his e"plo1e!, Renato Si"billo, testified that as ea!l1 as D5** p."., the1 0e!e p!epa!in# to leave fo! Manila, and at a!ound '5** p."., the1 0e!e al!ead1 so"e0he!e in the vicinit1 of the Manila a!ea unloadin# the sand and #!avel. D& That M!. Si"billo is a f!iend and nei#hbo! of the victi"D3 pe!suades us that he has no possible "otive to fab!icate his testi"on1 in favo! of appellant. Ou! c!i"inal 8ustice s1ste" st!esses that the ove!!idin# conside!ation in a case is not 0hethe! the cou!t doubts the innocence of the accused, but 0hethe! it ente!tains !easonable doubt as to his #uilt. D( 9he!e the pieces of evidence a#ainst the appellant a!e insufficient to dete!"ine #uilt 0ith "o!al ce!taint1, the appellant is entitled to an acAuittal. D6 9HHRH2ORH, the assailed decision of the t!ial cou!t is RHVHRSHD and SHT SIDH. The appellant is he!eb1 $K<ITTHD fo! insufficienc1 of evidence and o!de!ed !eleased f!o" confine"ent i""ediatel1 unless he is held fo! an1 othe! la0ful cause. No costs.
1-)phi1.n.t

SO ORDHRHD. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT %a#uio $it1 HN % N$ G.R. No. 141:6: )<r$# 2, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HIL)RION TE.ES 1 C)NTOR, accused-appellant. -E LEON, R., J.0 %efo!e us on auto"atic !evie0 is the Decision& of the Re#ional T!ial $ou!t of %inan, ;a#una, %!anch 3D, in $!i"inal $ase No. '43*-% convictin# the appellant, Hila!ion $. Teves, of the c!i"e of pa!!icide and sentencin# hi" to suffe! the sup!e"e penalt1 of death.
1-)phi1.n.t

The lifeless bod1 of Te!esita Teves 1 $apuchino 0as found b1 a #!oup of ba!an#a1 tanods in %a!an#a1 Macablin#, Santa Rosa, ;a#una in the late evenin# of u#ust 3D, &''4. The bod1 of the victi" bo!e st!an#ulation "a!/s a!ound the nec/ and a stab 0ound 8ust belo0 the left a!"pit. Du!in# the investi#ation of the case, the husband of the victi", he!ein appellant, Hila!ion $. Teves, 0as identified as the d!ive! of the passen#e! 8eep that 0as alle#edl1 "et b1 the ba!an#a1 tanods sho!tl1 befo!e the1 chanced upon the dead bod1 of the victi" on that fateful evenin# of u#ust 3D, &''4. It 0as also #athe!ed b1 the police that the spouses pu!po!tedl1 had "isunde!standin# p!io! to the incident. On Dece"be! (, &''4, Hila!ion Teves 1 $anto! 0as cha!#ed 0ith the c!i"e of pa!!icide defined and penali?ed unde! !ticle 364 of the Revised Penal, $ode, as a"ended, in an Info!"ation 3 that !eads5 That on o! about u#ust 3D, &''4, in the Municipalit1 of Santa Rosa, P!ovince of ;a#una, Philippines and 0ithin the 8u!isdiction of this Hono!able $ou!t, accused HI; RION THVHS 1 $ NTOR, 0hile convenientl1 a!"ed 0ith a deadl1 0eapon, 0ith intent to /ill his 0ife THRHS $ P<$HINO 1 THVHS )sic+ 0ith 0ho" he 0as united in la0ful 0edloc/, did then and the!e 0ilfull1, unla0full1 and feloniousl1 stab and st!an#le the

said THRHS $ P<$HINO THVHS 0ith the afo!esaid deadl1 0eapon, stabbin# the latte! on the left side of he! chest causin# he! instantaneous death, to the da"a#e and p!e8udice of he! su!vivin# hei!s. $ONTR R: TO ; 9. <pon bein# a!!ai#ned on -anua!1 &(, &''@, he!ein appellant, assisted b1 his counsel, ente!ed the plea of ,Not #uilt1, to the cha!#e as contained in the Info!"ation. The!eafte!, t!ial on the "e!its ensued. It appea!s f!o" the evidence adduced b1 the p!osecution that on u#ust 3D, &''4 at a!ound &*5(* oGcloc/ in the evenin# fou! )6+ ba!an#a1 tanods, na"el15 Mila#!os Ta1a0a, -e!!1 Pantilla, n#el ;apitan and -ose %ello, 0e!e pat!ollin# on boa!d a ba!an#a1 pat!ol vehicle in %a!an#a1 Macablin#, Santa Rosa, ;a#una. Mila#!os 0as behind the stee!in# 0heel. 2!o" the old national hi#h0a1, the1 ente!ed the NI !oad 0hich 0as an isolated di!t !oad seldo" used b1 co""ute!s due to its na!!o0 0idth, The!e 0e!e no houses and st!eetli#hts alon# the i""ediate vicinit1 as the !oad 0as bound b1 an i!!i#ation canal on one side and a st!etch of !ice field on the othe!. SubseAuentl1, the1 "et a passen#e! 8eep that 0as co"in# f!o" the opposite di!ection. Mila#!os had to "aneuve! bac/0a!d to acco""odate the othe! vehicle.( s the pat!ol vehicle advanced, the ba!an#a1 tanods sa0 a bod1 of a 0o"an l1in# on the left side of the NI !oad. The 0o"anGs 0hite polo shi!t 0as !aised above the chest eFposin# he! !i#ht b!east and a s"all 0ound 8ust belo0 he! a!"pitE 0hile he! blac/ pants 0e!e lo0e!ed do0n to he! /nees. <pon asce!tainin# that the 0o"an 0as dead, Mila#!os and he! co"panions i""ediatel1 info!"ed thei! chief befo!e p!oceedin# to the Santa Rosa, ;a#una Police Station to !epo!t the incident.6 The police eFa"ined the cadave!, and then too/ the s0o!n state"ent D of Mila#!os Ta1a0a on the sa"e evenin# of u#ust 3D, &''4. D!. H!0in Hscal, "edico-le#al office!, conducted the autops1 on the bod1 of Te!esa Teves upon the !eAuest of PO3 Ton1 =an#ano. D!, Hscal identified in cou!t the utops1 Repo!t 4 0hich sho0s the follo0in# findin#s5 Post Mo!te" HFa"ination5 2ai!l1 developed, fai!l1 nou!ished fe"ale cadave! in !i#o! "o!te" 0ith post "o!te" lividit1 at the dependent po!tion of the bod1. Palpab!al con8unctive a!e pale. ;ips and nail beds a!e c1anotic. The!e a!e petechial he"o!!ha#es on the face and nec/ and subcon8unctival he"o!!ha#e on the left late!al conthal !e#ion. Head, Nec/, T!un/ and HFt!e"eties5 &. He"ato"a *.D F *.D c". "id-pa!iento occipital a!ea left. 3. He"ato"a *.D F *.D c". pa!ieto occipital a!ea !i#ht. (. $ontusion he"ato"a !i#ht late!al nec/, "easu!in# 4 c"E F *.& c". 6. Punctu!ed 0ound t!ian#ula! in shape at the "id-aFilla!1 line, left pecto!alis !e#ion "easu!in# & F *.D F *.D c"., non- penet!atin#. D. $ontusion he"ato"a &3 F 6 c". !i#ht late!al abdo"inal !e#ion. 4. b!asion 6 F 3 c". !i#ht lu"ba! !e#ion. @. !ea of contusion he"ato"a 0ith ab!asion !i#ht buttoc/s "easu!in# @ F 4 c". On openin# up5 The scalp 0as deflicted to eFpose the s/ull and 0as sa0in# it off co!onall1. No s/ull f!actu!e noted and the b!ain 0as #!ossl1 no!"al. $onclusion5

The cause of death is asph1Fia b1 st!an#ulation. cco!din# to D!. Hscal, the victi" could have been st!an#led ),bini#ti,+ 0ith the use of a const!ictin# "ate!ial 0hich "a1 be a 0i!e, a !ope o! a n1lon co!d and that the victi" "a1 have been dead fo! not less than thi!t1-siF )(4+ hou!s 0hen it 0as b!ou#ht to hi" fo! autops1 eFa"ination at D5** oGcloc/ in the afte!noon on u#ust 34, &''4. @ On u#ust 3', &''4 Mila#!os 0as invited to the Santa Rosa, ;a#una Police Station b1 the PNP P!ovincial Di!ecto!, Supt. !thu! $astillo, to identif1 a ce!tain pe!son and a passen#e! 8eep in connection 0ith the incident on u#ust 3D, &''4. She !e"e"be!ed the pe!son, 0ho tu!ned out to be the husband of the victi", he!ein appellant Hila!ion $. Teves, as the d!ive! of the passen#e! 8eep that the1 "et on the NI !oad in %a!an#a1 Macablin#, Santa Rosa, ;a#una sho!tl1 befo!e the1 chanced upon the bod1 of a dead 0o"an late! identified as Te!esa $. Teves. She !eco#ni?ed the appellant 0hen thei! !espective vehicles "o"enta!il1 stopped facin# each othe! 0ith thei! headli#hts s0itched on. She had also seen the appellant 0hile the latte! 0as sittin# on a bench at the bac/ of , the Santa Rosa, ;a#una Police Station 0hen she ca"e to ve!if1 the status of the case on u#ust 3@, &''4. Mila#!os li/e0ise !eco#ni?ed the passen#e! 8eep 7 as the sa"e vehicle bein# d!iven b1 the appellant 0hen the1 "et on the NI !oad in the late evenin# of u#ust 3D, &''4. Mila#!os eFplained that she inst!ucted he! fello0 ba!an#a1 tanods to t!ain thei! flashli#ht on its di!ection afte! the passen#e! 8eep speed a0a1 and she !ead pa!tl1 the plate nu"be! at the bac/ as ,D-N 4, 0hich she 0!ote on a ci#a!ette foil ' ),pala!a,+. She also noted the distin#uishin# featu!es of the passen#e! 8eep such as5 a+ the "a!oon paint on the bu"pe!E b+ the s"all li#hts attached to the bu"pe!E and c+ the #!een !eflecto!i?ed paints on the bu"pe!. fte! identif1in# the appellant and the passen#e! 8eep, Mila#!os eFecuted anothe! s0o!n state"ent &* befo!e the police. <pon his detention on the sa"e date of u#ust 3', &''4, the appellant alle#edl1 !eAuested the aunt of the victi", Ma!ia lulod, 0ho 0as p!esent at the Santa Rosa, ;a#una Police Station, to send his Tata Hnten# )Vicente lulod+ to the police station and to b!in# "one1 fo! a ce!tain ba!an#a1 tanod of %a!an#a1 Macablin# so that his sentence fo! the co""ission of the c!i"e 0ould be !educed.&& Vicente, tu!ned do0n the !eAuest as he noted du!in# the 0a/e of Te!esa that Hila!ion 0as not actuall1 so!!1 fo! his 0ifeGs death althou#h he appea!ed 0o!!ied ),balisa,+. &3 It also appea!s that befo!e he! unti"el1 de"ise, Te!esa 0as able to confide 0ith an aunt, Paula %eato Dia, that she had a "a!ital p!oble". Paula counseled he! that it 0as natu!al fo! an1 husband and 0ife to have occasional p!oble"s. She even su##ested to Te!esa to see/ the advice of he! Tata 2eliF. &( In -ul1 &''4 Te!esa app!oached he! uncle, 2eliF Padua, to see/ the, latte!Gs advice conce!nin# he! "a!ital p!oble". ppa!entl1, he! husband, he!ein appellant Hila!ion Teves, p!oposed that the1 live sepa!atel1. He also 0anted to secu!e an a!!an#e"ent !e#a!din# the custod1 of thei! child!en and his 0ifeGs consent !e#a!din# the disposition of thei! house and lot. Te!esa could not !ecall an1 se!ious !eason fo! he! husbandGs behavio! but she su!"ised that the appellant !esented he! co""ent that his pee!s 0e!e all ,dala#a, and ,binata,. Since 2eliF 0as bus1 at that ti"e, he advised Te!esa to visit hi" on anothe! occasion so that the1 could discuss he! p!oble" tho!ou#hl1. &6 In the sa"e "onth of -ul1, Te!esa and the appellant 0ent to the house of 2eliF Padua in Santa Rosa, ;a#una. 9hen as/ed about thei! p!oble", the appellant disclosed that he could no lon#e! put up 0ith Te!esaGs 8ealous1 that often caused hi" e"ba!!ass"ent befo!e his f!iends. 2eliF t!ied to eFplain that it 0as co""on bet0een an1 husband and 0ife to #et 8ealous and that appellant should !eali?e that his 0ife si"pl1 loved hi" ve!1 "uch. Ho0eve!, the appellant 0ould not listen and even i"puted that his 0ife had a bad cha!acte!. &D On -ul1 3*, &''4 Paula %eato Dia lea!ned f!o" Te!esa that the couple had finall1 decided to live sepa!atel1 afte! confe!!in# 0ith thei! Tata 2eliF. On -ul1 (*, &''4 Te!esa info!"ed Paula that the appellant beca"e violent ),na#0ala,+ ove! he! !efusal to sell thei! p!ope!ties. Paula then advised he! niece to b!in# the "atte! to the ba!an#a1 officials.&4 The evidence of the defense sho0s that the appellant sta1ed in thei! house du!in# the da1 on u#ust 3D, &''4. He helped his 0ife, Te!esa, 0ashed thei! clothes. In the afte!noon, he 0atched bas/etball #a"e on the television and also helped his child!en 0ith thei! school assi#n"ents. He sta!ted to pl1 the %inan-$abu1ao !oute 0ith his passen#e! 8eep at 45(* oGcloc/ in the evenin#, as it 0as his usual schedule. %efo!e leavin# ho0eve!, he told his 0ife that he 0ould spend the ni#ht in the house of his uncle $alo1 in %a!an#a1 Ta#apo, Santa Rosa, ;a#una. &@ Itappea!s that the dau#hte! of his uncle $alo1 celeb!ated he! debut 0hich the appellant and his child!en attended on u#ust

36, &''4. 9hen the pa!t1 ended, he 0as !eAuested b1 the fa"il1 to help in !etu!nin# so"e of the bo!!o0ed eAuip"ent on the follo0in# da1. Te!esa also left the house at about 75(* oGcloc/ in the evenin# on the sa"e da1 alle#edl1 to confe! 0ith so"ebod1. She inst!ucted he! dau#hte!, ;ei?el, not to loc/ the doo! 0hen the1 #o to sleep. ;ei?el sa0 he! "othe! boa!d a t!ic1cle behind the d!ive!, inas"uch as the!e 0e!e al!ead1 t0o passen#e!s in its sideca!. &7 Te!esa 0as also seen b1 anothe! t!ic1cle d!ive!, a ce!tain Hd0in $a!apatan, at a!ound '5** oGcloc/ in the evenin# 0hile she 0as on boa!d a t!ic1cle behind the d!ive! 0hich 0as bound fo! the to0n p!ope!. %oth even #!eeted each othe!. &' Mean0hile due to heav1 t!affic, the appellant "ana#ed to pl1 his !oute 3 T ti"es onl1 afte! 0hich he p!oceeded to the house of his Ti1o $alo1 in %a!an#a1 Ta#apo, Santa Rosa, ;a#una. <pon a!!ival at eFactl1 75(* oGcloc/ in the evenin#, the appellant ate his suppe!. The!eafte!, the1 a!!an#ed the thin#s fo! hi" to b!in# ho"e on the follo0in# da1. %efo!e #oin# to sleep, the appellant 8oined the fa"il1 in 0atchin# bas/etball #a"e on the television until the #a"e 0as ove! at &*5** oGcloc/ in the evenin#. 3* 9hen the appellant a!!ived ho"e in %a!an#a1 Sinalhan, Santa Rosa, ;a#una on u#ust 34, &''4, he 0as info!"ed b1 his 1oun#est child that his 0ife 0as not a!ound. cco!din# to appellant, he thou#ht that his 0ife left ea!l1 on that da1 to loo/ fo! a 8ob. He lea!ned that his 0ife left the house at 75(* oGcloc/ in the p!evious evenin# upon a!!ival of his second eldest dau#hte!, ;alaine, f!o" school at &35** oGcloc/ noon. 3& The appellant and his nei#hbo!s sea!ched fo! Te!esita in the enti!e afte!noon but in vain. t &*5** oGcloc/ in the evenin#, he hea!d of tal/s that a bod1 of a dead 0o"an 0as found in %a!an#a1 %aliba#o, Santa Rosa, ;a#una. He 0ent to Santa Rosa, ;a#una Police Station to#ethe! 0ith a ce!tain ;ebon# Dia and 0as inst!ucted b1 the police to p!oceed to 2une!a!ia ;i" afte! hea!in# his desc!iption of his 0ife. t &&5(* in the evenin#, he sa0 the dead bod1 of his , 0ife at the fune!al pa!lo! 0hich he b!ou#ht ho"e afte! "idni#ht. 33 On u#ust 3@, &''4, the appellant 0ent bac/ to the police station in Santa Rosa, ;a#una 0he!e he 0as initiall1 info!"ed b1 a ce!tain police office! ;au!el that his 0ife "i#ht be a victi" of #an# !ape. Ho0eve!, he lea!ned late! that he 0as a suspect in the /illin# of his 0ife 0hen he 0as investi#ated b1 the police. On u#ust 3', &''4, he !etu!ned to the police station in Santa Rosa, ;a#una upon bein# info!"ed that Supt. !thu! $astillo 0ould investi#ate the case. Th!ee )(+ ba!an#a1 tanods, na"el15 n#el ;apitan, Mila#!os Ta1a0a and =e!!1 Pantilla 0e!e p!esent in the police station. $astillo !eAuested the" to identif1 the appellantE ho0eve!, none of the th!ee )(+ 0as able to !eco#ni?e hi". The appellant 0as as/ed to sit behind the stee!in# 0heel of his passen#e! 8eep and 0as even o!de!ed to 0ave his hand 0hile pictu!es of hi" 0e!e bein# ta/en. SubseAuentl1, $astillo u!#ed the th!ee )(+ ba!an#a1 tanods to ta/e a #ood loo/ at the appellant to !ef!esh thei! "e"o!1 afte! 0hich he as/ed5 , no sa tin#in ni1oL, 9hen no !esponse f!o" the tanods 0as fo!thco"in#, $astillo a#ain as/ed5 ,Hindi pa ba nin1o na/i/ilala 1anL, fte! puttin# his hand on the shoulde! of %a!an#a1 Tanod Mila#!os Ta1a0a, the latte! !e"a!/ed5 ,Pa!an# /aha0i# ni1a., The!eafte!, $ol. $astillo o!de!ed the appellantGs a!!est. 3( On Dece"be! @, &''', the t!ial cou!t !ende!ed a Decision, the dispositive po!tion of 0hich !eads5 9HHRH2ORH, this cou!t finds accused Hila!ion Teves 1 $anto!, =<I;T: be1ond !easonable doubt of the c!i"e of Pa!!icide, defined and penali?ed unde! !ticle 364 of the Revised Penal $ode, !esto!ed in R. . No. @4D', I"posin# Death Penalt1 on $e!tain Heinous $!i"es, and the!e bein# p!esent the a##!avatin# ci!cu"stances the he!ein accused /illed his 0ife )a+ du!in# ni#htti"eE )b+ in an uninhabited placeE and )c+ 0ith the use of a "oto! vehicle )8eepne1+, he!eb1 i"poses upon hi" the DH TH PHN ;T: and o!de!s hi" to inde"nif1 the hei!s of Te!esa Teves the su" of P&**,***.**, as "o!al da"a#es. . The P!ovincial -ail 9a!den of Santa Rosa, ;a#una is he!eb1 o!de!ed to t!ansfe! accused Hila!ion Teves 1 $anto! to the National Penitentia!1, Ne0 %ilibid P!ison, Muntinlupa $it1, i""ediatel1 upon !eceipt he!eof. SO ORDHRHD. ##!ieved b1 the decision, Hila!ion $. Teves appealed to this $ou!t !aisin# the follo0in# assi#n"ent of e!!o!s5 I

THH TRI ; $O<RT HRRHD IN $ONVI$TIN= $$<SHD- PPH;; NT O2 THH $RIMH O2 P RRI$IDH S $H R=HD IN $RIMIN ; $ SH NO. '43*-% DHSPITH 2 I;<RH O2 THH PROSH$<TION TO PROVH THH M THRI ; ;;H= TIONS IN THH IN2ORM TION. II THH TRI ; $O<RT HRRHD IN 2INDIN= THH $$<SHD =<I;T: %H:OND RH SON %;H DO<%T DHSPITH THH IN$OHHRHN$H, IN$RHDI%I;IT: ND IN DHK< $: IN 9HI=HT ND V ;<H O2 THH $IR$<MST NTI ; HVIDHN$H RH;IHD <PON. III THH TRI ; $O<RT HRRHD IN $ON$;<DIN= TH T THH $$<SHD IS THH PHRPHTR TOR O2 THH $RIMH $H R=HD % SHD ON THH THSTIMONIHS O2 MI; =ROS T : 9 ND M RI ;<;OD 9HI$H RH IN$RHDI%;H % SHD ON $OMMON O%SHRV TION ND H<M N HJPHRIHN$H. IV THH TRI ; $O<RT ;I.H9ISH HRRHD IN INTHRPRHTIN= THH HK<IVO$ ; THSTIMON: O2 DR. HD9IN HS$ ; IN 2 VOR O2 =<l;T ND = INST THH INNO$HN$H O2 THH $$<SHD. V THH TRI ; $O<RT HRRHD IN DISRH= RDIN= THH DH2HNSH O2 ;I%I. VI THH TRI ; $O<RT HRRHD IN PPRH$I TIN= THH PRHSHN$H O2 ==R V TIN= $IR$<MST N$HS. In his b!ief,36 the appellant contends, in essence, that the p!osecution failed to establish the identit1 of the pe!pet!ato! of the c!i"e. <nde! the factual "ilieu of the case, Mila#!os could not have !eco#ni?ed the vehicle and its d!ive! 0hich she alle#edl1 "et on u#ust 3D, &''4. He also contends that the testi"onies of p!osecution 0itnesses 2eliF Padua and Paula %eato Dia to the effect that the appellant and his 0ife had a "isunde!standin# 0e!e basicall1 ancho!ed on "e!e suspicion. Mo!eove!, the alle#ed i"plied ad"ission b1 the appellant of his alle#ed #uilt befo!e Ma!ia lulod, 0ho is an aunt of the victi" is inc!edible as it cont!adicts co""on hu"an eFpe!ience. ;astl1, the testi"on1 of D!. Hd0in Hscal su##ests that seve!al "alefacto!s "a1 be !esponsible fo! the /illin# of the victi". The facts of this case clea!l1 sho0 that nobod1 had actuall1 0itnessed the /illin# of the victi", Te!esita Teves, in the evenin# of u#ust 3D, &''4. To p!ove its case of pa!!icide a#ainst the appellant, the p!osecution !elied on ci!cu"stantial evidence. In o!de! to convict an accused based on ci!cu"stantial evidence, it is necessa!1 that5 &+ the!e is "o!e than one ci!cu"stanceE 3+ the facts f!o" 0hich the infe!ences a!e de!ived a!e p!ovenE and (+ the co"bination of all the ci!cu"stances is such as to p!oduce a conviction be1ond !easonable doubt. 3D In othe! 0o!ds, ci!cu"stantial evidence is sufficient to suppo!t a conviction 0he!e the "ultiple ci!cu"stances a!e p!oven and a!e consistent 0ith the h1pothesis that the accused is #uilt1 and at the sa"e ti"e inconsistent 0ith the h1pothesis that the accused is innocent as 0ell as inco"patible 0ith eve!1 !ational h1pothesis eFcept that of #uilt on the pa!t of the accused.34 In convictin# the appellant of the c!i"e of pa!!icide based on ci!cu"stantial evidence, the t!ial cou!t found that the testi"onies of the p!osecution 0itnesses 0e!e c!edible and sufficient. It is 0ell-settled !ule that the t!ial 8ud#eGs assess"ent of the c!edibilit1 of 0itnessesG testi"onies is acco!ded #!eat !espect on appeal. 3@ ppellate cou!ts 0ill #ene!all1 not distu!b the factual findin#s of the t!ial cou!ts since the latte! a!e in a bette! position to 0ei#h conflictin# testi"onies, havin# hea!d the 0itnesses the"selves and obse!ved thei! depo!t"ent and "anne! of testif1in#, unless it is found that the t!ial cou!ts have ove!loo/ed ce!tain facts of substance and value that, if conside!ed, "i#ht affect the !esult of the case.37 fte! tho!ou#h !evie0, ho0eve!, 0e find sufficient basis to 0a!!ant the !eve!sal of the assailed 8ud#"ent of conviction. The t!ial cou!t !elied on the identification "ade b1 Mila#!os Ta1a0a du!in# the t!ial of this case in findin#

that the appellant 0as the pe!son d!ivin# the passen#e! 8eep that 0as alle#edl1 "et b1 the fou! )6+ ba!an#a1 tanods alon# the NI !oad in %a!an#a1 Macablin#, Santa Rosa, ;a#una in the late evenin# of u#ust 3D, &''4 sho!tl1 befo!e the1 accidentall1 found the dead bod1 of Te!esita Teves. 9e note, ho0eve!, the i!!e#ula! "anne! b1 0hich the p!e-t!ial identification of the appellant and his passen#e! 8eep du!in# the custodial investi#ation on u#ust 3', &''4 0as "ade b1 Mila#!os. t that ti"e, the appellant, 0ho 0as al!ead1 a suspect in his 0ifeGs "u!de!, 0as alone inside the investi#ation !oo" of the Santa Rosa, ;a#una Police Station and 0ithout his counsel. He 0as also o!de!ed b1 Supt. $astillo to boa!d his passen#e! 8eep, eFtend pa!t of his bod1 outside of the vehicle 0hile 0avin# his hand, as if doin# so"e /ind of a !e-enact"ent, to be obse!ved b1 Mila#!os and t0o )3+ othe! ba!an#a1 tanods na"el15 -e!!1 Pantilla and n#el ;apitan. 9e a#!ee 0ith the Solicito! =ene!alGs obse!vation that the p!e-t!ial identification in 0hich the p!osecution 0itness 0as "ade to identif1 the suspect )he!ein appellant+ in a one-on-one conf!ontation, 0as pointedl1 su##estive, #ene!ated confidence 0he!e the!e 0as none, activated visual i"a#ination and, all told, subve!ted the identification of the appellant b1 the 0itness. This "ethod of identification is as tainted as an uncounseled confession and thus, falls 0ithin the sa"e a"bit of the constitutionall1 ent!enched p!otection. 3' %esides, the!e is !eason to doubt the !eliabilit1 of the said testi"on1 of Mila#!os Ta1a0a. Mila#!os alle#edl1 !eco#ni?ed the appellant 0hen thei! !espective vehicles "o"enta!il1 stopped facin# each othe! 0hile thei! headli#hts 0e!e s0itched on. In the ocula! inspection conducted du!in# the t!ial on -ul1 3, &''@, it 0as de"onst!ated that the t0o )3+ vehicles 0e!e initiall1 t0ent1 and one-half )3* &O 20 feet apa!t 0hen the1 stopped facin# each othe!. 9hen the ba!an#a1 pat!ol vehicle bac/ed off to acco""odate the passen#e! 8eep, the t0o )3+ vehicles 0e!e thi!t1-siF and one-half )(4 &O30 feet apa!t, at 0hich distance the t!ial cou!t "ade the obse!vation that the "an behind the stee!in# 0heel 0as not co#ni?able in b!oad da1li#ht. (* If the "an on the d!ive!Gs seat 0as not co#ni?able in b!oad da1li#ht, this cou!t is not convinced that an accu!ate identification of the d!ive! of the passen#e! 8eep, 0ho 0as alle#edl1 "et b1 the ba!an#a1 tanods at a!ound &*5(* oGcloc/ in the evenin# on u#ust 3D, &''4, can be "ade even f!o" a distance of t0ent1 and one-half )3* &O3 0 feet b1 the p!osecution 0itness. It "ust be pointed out that the t0o )3+ vehicles 0e!e then passin# alon# an isolated di!t !oad 0he!e the!e 0e!e no houses and st!eetli#hts in the i""ediate vicinit1. <nde! the ci!cu"stances, clea! visibilit1 0as p!acticall1 i"p!obable, if not i"possible, f!o" a distance. The!e is "o!e !eason to doubt the !eliabilit1 of the testi"on1 of Mila#!os Ta1a0a upon conside!ation of the s0o!n state"ent(& that she #ave befo!e the police autho!ities du!in# the investi#ation of this case. He! s0o!n state"ent contains a na!!ation of the ci!cu"stances leadin# to the discove!1 of Te!esitaGs dead bod1. Si#nificantl1, no "ention 0as "ade the!ein that she had seen the d!ive! of the passen#e! 8eep that the1 alle#edl1 "et in the late evenin# of u#ust 3D, &''4 on the NI !oad, "uch less desc!ibed his face o! his othe! ph1sical featu!es. It is absu!d to believe that Mila#!os fo!#ot o! the police investi#ato!s had been so ne#li#ent as to ove!loo/ this o"ission in he! affidavit. In the fi!st place, the pu!pose of the investi#ation 0as to elicit basic info!"ation about the /illin#, such as the identit1 of the pe!pet!ato! the!eof. It 0as onl1 du!in# the custodial investi#ation on u#ust 3', &''4 that Mila#!os clai"ed in he! subseAuent affidavit (3 that she had seen the d!ive! of the sa"e passen#e! 8eep afte! the i!!e#ula! one-on-one conf!ontation 0ith the appellant and afte! un0a!!anted su##estions had been "ade to the said 0itness b1 the police office!. Notabl1, the p!osecution failed to p!esent the testi"on1 of the othe! ba!an#a1 tanods 0ho 0e!e li/e0ise p!esent du!in# the incident on u#ust 3D, &''4 to co!!obo!ate the testi"on1 of Mila#!os. This is not difficult to unde!stand conside!in# that the state"ents elicited f!o" n#el ;apitan du!in# the investi#ation of the case !un counte! to the testi"on1 that she #ave du!in# the t!ial, to 0it5 Tanon#5 Na/ilala ba nin1o an# na#"a"aneho at na/uha ba nin1o an# pla/a nitoL

Sa#ot 5 Hindi na"in na/ilala an# d!ive! dahil pata1 an# /an1an# ila0 sa loob at n# a"in# ila0an an# /an1an# li/u!an a1 0alan# pla/a. (( Due to the above state"ent of n#el ;apitan befo!e the police investi#ato!, even the testi"on1 of Mila#!os Ta1a0a that she !eco#ni?ed the passen#e! 8eep of the appellant as the sa"e vehicle that the1 "et alon# the NI !oad sho!tl1 befo!e havin# accidentall1 discove!ed the dead bod1 of the victi", 0as also !ende!ed doubtful. %esides, the

passen#e! 8eep of the appellant had been i"pounded at the Santa Rosa, ;a#una Police Station since u#ust 3@, &''4 o! t0o )3+ da1s befo!e the p!e-t!ial identification of the said vehicle. (6 9e also doubt the testi"on1 of Ma!ia lulod fo! bein# cont!a!1 to co""on hu"an eFpe!ience. It 0ould be hi#hl1 unli/el1 and cont!a!1 to co""on sense fo! the appellant to ad"it his #uilt befo!e this 0itness, 0ho is an aunt of the victi", 0hile vehe"entl1 den1in# to the police autho!ities an1 pa!ticipation fo! the death of his 0ife. It is 0ell-settled !ule that evidence, to be 0o!th1 of c!edit, "ust not onl1 p!oceed f!o" a c!edible sou!ce but "ust, in addition, be c!edible in itself.(D The "otive that alle#edl1 d!ove the appellant to /ill his 0ife, as testified b1 p!osecution 0itnesses 2eliF Padua and Paula Dia, is not convincin#. %oth p!osecution 0itnesses si"pl1 stated in #ene!al te!"s that the appellant and his 0ife 0e!e havin# a fa"il1 p!oble" out of the latte!Gs 8ealous attitude and that the1 decided to sepa!ate. These p!osecution 0itnesses failed to fu!nish an1 specific incident to the effect that Te!esita had actuall1 fea!ed fo! he! life o! that appellant had beco"e so despe!ate as to 0ill the death of his 0ife. t the "ost, thei! testi"onies si"pl1 "anifest a suspicion of appellantGs !esponsibilit1 fo! the c!i"e. Needless to state, ho0eve!, suspicion no "atte! ho0 st!on# can not s0a1 8ud#"ent. (4 On the othe! hand, the victi"Gs dau#hte!, ;ei?el Teves, testified that he! fa"il1 0as a no!"al and happ1 fa"il1. ;ei?elGs testi"on1 0as co!!obo!ated b1 the victi"Gs cousin, Mine!va Dia?, 0ho testified that the Teves fa"il1 0as a ha!"onious and happ1 fa"il1. (@ dditionall1, Rosita %a!!eto, a f!iend of the Teves fa"il1 and a nei#hbo! fo! ove! seventeen )&@+ 1ea!s, attested that the !elations of the appellant and his 0ife 0e!e #ene!all1 s"ooth. (7 Hven if 0e 0ould assu"e that the testi"onies of the p!osecution 0itnesses 0e!e t!ue, it can not be !easonabl1 infe!!ed the!ef!o" that the appellant is !esponsible fo! /illin# his 0ife in the absence of an1 othe! ci!cu"stance that could lin/ hi" to the said /illin#. To be su!e, "otive is not sufficient to suppo!t a conviction if the!e is no othe! !eliable evidence f!o" 0hich it "a1 !easonabl1 be adduced that the accused 0as the "alefacto! .(' In vie0 of the fo!e#oin#, 0e cannot sustain the appealed 8ud#"ent of the t!ial cou!t in the case at ba!. The p!osecution "ise!abl1 failed to establish the ci!cu"stantial evidence to p!ove its case a#ainst the appellant be1ond !easonable doubt. $onseAuentl1, 0e need not pass upon the "e!its of his defense of alibi. 6* It is 0ell-ent!enched !ule in c!i"inal la0 that the conviction of an accused "ust be based on the st!en#th of the p!osecutionGs evidence and not on the 0ea/ness o! absence of evidence of the defense. 6& 2HEREFORE, the appeal is GR)NTE-. The assailed Decision in $!i"inal $ase No. '43*-% is !eve!sed and set aside. The appellant Hila!ion Teves 1 $anto! is acAuitted of the c!i"e of pa!!icide on the #!ound of !easonable doubt. <nless convicted fo! an1 othe! c!i"e o! detained fo! so"e la0ful !eason, appellant Hila!ion Teves 1 $anto! is o!de!ed !eleased i""ediatel1.
1-)phi1.n.t

SO ORDHRHD. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. L*44009 Febr7"r1 3, 1992 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. M)RCELINO -E.)R)S, FELI= C)>)S, FLOR)NTE SERR)NO "+, (ERN)R-O -E.)R)S, "557%e,. M)RCELINO -E.)R)S, FELI= C)>)S "+, FLOR)NTE SERR)NO, accused-appellants.

The 5olicitor 9eneral for plaintiff-appellee. 9e iniano 9. Laus for accused-appellants.

-).I-E, R., J.: This is an appeal to the $ou!t of ppeals 1 inte!posed b1 the accused-appellants f!o" the decision 2 of the then $ou!t of 2i!st Instance )no0 Re#ional T!ial $ou!t+ of ;e1te in $!i"inal $ase No. 3*63, p!o"ul#ated on 33 p!il &'@@, findin# the" #uilt1 of the c!i"e of "u!de! and sentencin# each of the" to suffe! the penalt1 of reclusion perpetua and to inde"nif1, 8ointl1 and seve!all1, the hei!s of the victi" in the a"ount of P&3,***.**. In vie0 of the penalt1 i"posed, 3 the t!ial cou!t fo!0a!ded the !eco!ds of the case to this $ou!t 0hich accepted the appeal in its !esolution of &3 p!il &'@4. Du!in# the pendenc1 of the appeal, t0o )3+ of the appellants, Ma!celino Deva!as and 2eliF $aBas, died. Deva!as died on 3( Ma!ch &'7* and his counsel filed a notice of death 0ith a "otion to dis"iss onl1 on 3( Ma!ch &'7(, 4 attachin# the!eto the death ce!tificate. 9 fte! havin# ve!ified the death ce!tificate to be authentic, the Solicito! =ene!al filed a $o""ent, statin# the!ein that the People offe!s no ob8ection to the dis"issal of the case insofa! as appellant Deva!as is conce!ned 0ithout, ho0eve!, p!e8udice to his civil liabilit1 a!isin# f!o" the co""ission of the offense. 6 In the !esolution of 3* -ul1 &'7(, this $ou!t !esolved ,to DISMISS this case a#ainst accused Ma!celino Deva!as insofa! as his c!i"inal liabilit1 is conce!ned but 0ithout p!e8udice, ho0eve!, to his afo!esaid civil liabilit1 a!isin# f!o" the co""ission of the c!i"e in favo! of the offended pa!ties., : ppellant 2eliF $aBas, on the othe! hand, died on 36 Nove"be! &'73 and his counsel info!"ed this $ou!t of such fact onl1 on &D -ul1 &'77. The Solicito! =ene!al confi!"ed the fact of death on such date in his Manifestation of 7 Septe"be! &'77. This case then is li/e0ise dis"issed as a#ainst appellant 2eliF $aBas 0ithout p!e8udice, ho0eve!, to his civil liabilit1 a!isin# f!o" the co""ission of the c!i"e. This decision then is li"ited to the appeal of :lorante 5errano. The accused-appellants, to#ethe! 0ith %e!na!do Deva!as, 0e!e cha!#ed 0ith the c!i"e of "u!de! in an Info!"ation filed on @ u#ust &'@D, the accusato!1 po!tion of 0hich !eads as follo0s5 That on o! about the 4th da1 of -ul1, &'@D, in the Municipalit1 of Dula#, P!ovince of ;e1te, Philippines and 0ithin the 8u!isdiction )sic+ of this Hono!able $ou!t, the above-na"ed accused, conspi!in# and confede!atin# and actin# in conce!t 0ith one anothe!, 0ith intent to /ill and 0ith t!eache!1 and evident p!e"editation, did then and the!e 0ilfull1, unla0full1 and feloniousl1 attac/, assault, stab and 0ound one THODORO %ISN R 0ith bolos 0ith 0hich said accused pu!posel1 p!ovided the"selves, the!eb1 inflictin# upon said Teodo!o %isna! the follo0in# 0ounds to 0it5 &. Stab 0ound, ( inches lon# F & inch F 6 inches deep, cuttin# second costal ca!tilla#e, penet!atin# the hea!t, at the second inte!costal space, leftE 3. Stab 0ound, & &O3 inch )sic+ lon# F &O3 inch 0ide F &O3 inch deep, p!oFi"al of a!" !i#htE (. Stab 0ound, & inch lon# F &O6 inch 0ide F &O7 inch deep, !i#ht H1pochon!iu"E 6. Stab 0ound, & inch lon# F &O3 inch 0ide F &O7 inch deep, unbilical !e#ionE D. Incised 0ound, 3 inches lon# F &O3 inch 0ide F &O3 inch deep, 0!ist poste!io!, leftE 4. Incised 0ound, 6 inches lon# F & inch 0ide F & inch deep, scapula! !e#ion, !i#htE @. Incised 0ound, & &O3 inches lon# F & inch 0ide F &O3 inch deep, sup!a-scapula! !e#ion, !i#htE

7. Incised 0ound, l &O3 inches lon# F &O3 inch 0ide F & inch 0ide F & inch deep, late!al po!tion of a!", !i#htE '. Stab 0ound, & &O3 inches F &O3 inch 0ide F & inch deep, inf!ascapula! !e#ion, !i#htE &*. Stab 0ound, 3 inches lon# F & inch 0ide & &O3 deep, !i#ht lu"ba! !e#ionE &&. Stab 0ound, & &O3 inches lon# F &O3 inch 0ide F &O3 inch deep, "idaFilla!1 line at the level of the @th !ib !i#htE &3. Incised 0ound, 3 &O3 inches lon# F &O6 inch 0ide F &O7 inch deep, cuttin# the scalp at the pe!ietote"po!al !e#ion, !i#htE &(. Incised 0ound, 3 inches lon# F &O6 inch 0ide F &O7 inch deep, occipital !e#ionE &6. Incised 0ound, ( inches lon# F &O3 inch 0ide F &O7 inch deep, ante!io! aspect of thi#h !i#htE 9hich caused his death. $ont!a!1 to la0.
4

Hach of the accused ente!ed a plea of not #uilt1 upon thei! a!!ai#n"ent on &@ Septe"be! &'@D. 9 Sho!tl1 the!eafte!, upon "otion of the p!osecution on the #!ound of insufficienc1 of evidence, the t!ial cou!t o!de!ed the p!ovisional dis"issal of the case as a#ainst %e!na!do Deva!as. fte! due t!ial on the "e!its, the t!ial cou!t !ende!ed its decision, the dispositive po!tion of 0hich !eads as follo0s5 IN VIH9 O2 THH 2ORH=OIN=, 8ud#"ent is he!eb1 !ende!ed decla!in# accused Ma!celino Deva!as, 2eliF $aBas and 2lo!ante Se!!ano #uilt1 of the offense of "u!de!, 0ithout the attendance of an1 a##!avatin# no! )sic+ "iti#atin# ci!cu"stance, and each of the" is he!eb1 sentenced to suffe! the penalt1 of reclusion perpetua, and to inde"nif1 8ointl1 and seve!all1 the hei!s of the deceased Teodo!o %isna! in the a"ount of P&3,***.**. The p!eventive i"p!ison"ent !espectivel1 unde!#one b1 accused in, this case shall be deducted f!o" the !espective te!"s of i"p!ison"ent i"posed he!ein the full eFtent, if the1 si#ned an a#!ee"ent to abide b1 the sa"e !ules i"posed upon convicted p!isone!s 0hile on detention, o! onl1 6OD the!eof if the1 have not si#ned said a#!ee"ent ) !t. 3', Rev. Penal $odeE <.S. vs. O!tencio, (7 Phil. (6&E People vs. ;in#ao, ;-37D*4, -an. (&, &'@@+. cco!din# to the !eco!d, the he!ein accused have been unde! detention since )sic+ -ul1 &3, &'@D )p. &&, !eco!d+ until Nove"be! &@, &'@D in the case of 2lo!ante Se!!ano )p. &**, !eco!d+ until Nove"be! 36, &'@D+ in the case of 2eliF $aBas )p. &(&, !eco!d+. ccused a!e finall1 sentenced to !espectivel1 pa1 &O6 of the costs. SO ORDHRHD. T!eache!1 0as conside!ed b1 the t!ial cou!t as the Aualif1in# ci!cu"stance. The evidence fo! the p!osecution, upon 0hich the t!ial cou!t based its decision, is su""a!i?ed in the PeopleGs %!ief as follo0s5 In the afte!noon of -ul1 4, &'@D bet0een 65** to D5** oGcloc/, Paulita %o!8a, 0ife of Teodo!o %isna!, and thei! dau#hte!, 0e!e fetchin# 0ate! f!o" the pu"p about 3 "ete!s a0a1 f!o" the house of %e!na!do Deva!as in %a!!io =ina0as, Dula#, ;e1te. 9hile fetchin# 0ate! f!o" the pu"p, she sa0 Ma!celino Deva!as, 2eliF $aBas, 2lo!ante Se!!ano and %e!na!do Deva!as, d!in/in# in the /itchen of the house of %e!na!do Deva!as. The doo! of the /itchen 0as facin# the 0ate! pu"p. 9hile she 0as

then d!a0in# 0ate! f!o" the 0ate!pu"p, she hea!d %e!na!do Deva!as tell his co"panions5 ,:ou d!in/ no0 1ou! tuba., fte!0a!ds, she and he! dau#hte! 0ent ho"e )pp. 3-D, tsn, Oct., @, &'@DE pp. 3-7, &@, tsn, Nov. &&, &'@D+. That sa"e afte!noon of -ul1 4, &'@D at about 65(* oGcloc/ -oel %e!in#uel, then &* 1ea!s old and a =!ade V pupil, !esidin# at %o. Vecinal, Dula#, ;e1te, 0as at the sto!e of %e!na!do Deva!as. The sto!e 0as located on the po!ch of the said house, 0hich 0as about t0o and a half "ete!s a0a1 f!o" its /itchen. The!e 0as no 0all bet0een the po!ch and the /itchen. -oel 0as sent to the said sto!e b1 his #!and"othe! H"a Deva!as to bu1 su#a! ca/e. 9hile in the said sto!e, -ose ) sic+ sa0 %e!na!do Deva!as, Ma!celino Deva!as and t0o othe! pe!sons 0ho" he late! !eco#ni?ed and identified in cou!t as 2eliF $aBas and 2lo!ante Se!!ano d!in/in# in the /itchen of the said house. He ove!hea!d Ma!celino Deva!as sa15 ,;et us #o to hi",, and then he hea!d 2lo!ante Se!!ano !epl15 ,This evenin#., fte! bu1in# the su#a! ca/e, -oel !etu!ned to the house of his #!and"othe! )pp. &4-3*. tsn, -an. &4, &'@4+. fte! Paulita %o!8a and he! dau#hte! a!!ived at thei! house f!o" fetchin# 0ate! that afte!noon of -ul1 4, &'@D, he! husband Teodo!o %isna! left to fish at the Da#uitan Rive!, also located in the sa"e "unicipalit1 )p. 4, tsn, Oct. @, &'@DE p. 3*, tsn, Nov. &&, &'@D+. Thus, at about @5** to @5(* oGcloc/ in the evenin# of -ul1 4, &'@D, Teodo!o %isna! 0as then fishin# in the Da#uitan Rive!, usin# a net and a li#hted to!ch. On the sa"e occasion, Rosita Deva!as and he! son, Pascual Deva!as, of %a!!io Saban#, and Victo!iano =ab!ino, a fishe!"an and a !esident of %a!!io Ri?al, both ba!!ios located in the sa"e "unicipalit1 of Dula#, 0e!e also fishin# nea!b1, althou#h at diffe!ent places in the sa"e !ive!. =ab!ino had his child fo! a co"panion 0ho 0as then at the ban/ of the said !ive!. flashli#ht, 0hich 0as not then li#hted, 0as in the possession of his child )pp. 3, 4, tsn, Oct. @, &'@DE pp. 3(-36, 3@, tsn, Ma!ch (, &'@4E pp. &-6, &@-&7, tsn, Dec. D, &'@D+. Rosita Deva!as, 0ho 0as catchin# sh!i"ps and fish fo! bait on one side of the !ive!, noticed that Teodo!o %isna! 0as fishin# 0ith net )sic+, usin# a li#hted to!ch )dulgal)ong+ at the opposite side of the !ive! about &D "ete!s a0a1 f!o" he! )pp. 36, 3@, 3', tsn, Ma!ch (, &'@4+. =ab!ino, on the othe! hand, 0ho 0as fishin# on one side of the !ive!, sa0 Teodo!o %isna! about &D "ete!s a0a1 f!o" hi", fishin# 0ith the use of a li#hted to!ch )dugal)ong+ )pp. 3-D, tsn, Dec. D, &'@D+. t about 45(* oGcloc/ in the evenin# of that sa"e da1, -ul1 4, &'@D, 0hile Paulita %o!8a 0as in thei! house, Ma!celino Deva!as ca"e to as/ he! 0he!e he! husband Teodo!o %isna! 0as. She told hi" that he! husband 0as at the Da#uitan Rive! catchin# fish. He as/ed he! 0hat ti"e he! husband usuall1 !etu!ned ho"e, and she !eplied5 ,So"eti"es ei#ht oGcloc/ and so"eti"es &*5** oGcloc/, )pp. 4-@, tsn, Oct. @, &'@DE p. 3&, tsn, Nov. &&, &'@D+. In the "eanti"e, 0hile Rosita Deva!as 0as fishin# in the "iddle of the !ive!, she sa0 Ma!celino Deva!as, 2eliF $aBas and 2lo!entino )sic+ Se!!ano app!oachin# he!. 9hen the1 ca"e nea! he!, the1 as/ed he! if she had seen Do!in#, !efe!!in# to Teodo!o Deva!as. She !eplied in the affi!"ative, and then she pointed to the place 0he!e Teodo!o %isna! 0as fishin# about &D "ete!s a0a1 f!o" he!. The!eafte!, the th!ee above-na"ed pe!sons left he! and p!oceeded to the place pointed to b1 he! )pp. 3D-34, 3'-(*, tsn, Ma!ch (, &'@4+. Not lon# the!eafte!, Rosita Deva!as and =ab!ino hea!d a shout fo! help, co"in# f!o" the place 0he!e Teodo!o %isna! 0as then fishin#. %oth !eco#ni?ed that the voice shoutin# fo! help 0as that of Teodo!o %isna! )pp. D-4, tsn, Dec. D, &'@DE p. 34, tsn, Ma!ch (, &'@4+. %oth i""ediatel1 tu!ned to0a!ds the di!ection 0he!e the shout fo! help ca"e f!o", and the1 sa0 pe!sons attac/in# Teodo!o %isna!. =ab!ino, in pa!ticula!, sa0 Ma!celino Deva!as, 2eliF $aBas and 2lo!ante Se!!ano in the !ive! stabbin# and hac/in# Teodo!o %isna!. =ab!ino also sa0 %e!na!do Deva!as on the ban/ of the !ive!, flashin# his flashli#ht to0a!ds the #!oup attac/in# Teodo!o %isna!. Seein# thus ) sic+, =ab!ino 0ent asho!e and left fo! his house because he 0as af!aid )pp. 4-', 33-36, tsn, Dec. D, &'@D+. In he! case, Rosita Deva!as sa0 2lo!ante Se!!ano slash Do!in#, 0hile Ma!celino Deva!as 2eliF $aBas 0e!e stabbin# Do!in#. She !eco#ni?ed the assailants because the place 0he!e Do!in# 0as bein# attac/ed 0as b!i#ht 0ith a li#hted to!ch at the ban/ of the !ive!. She then sa0 Teodo!o %isna! fall into the !ive!, and thus p!esu"ed hi" to be dead. She app!oached he! son and told hi"5 ,;et us #o ho"e because the!e is fi#ht the!e., %oth "othe! and son thus 0ent ho"e because the1 0e!e af!aid )pp. 34-3@, (*-(&, ((-(6, (@-(7, tsn, Ma!ch (, &'@4+.

In the case of Paulita %o!8a, 0hen it 0as al!ead1 75** oGcloc/ that sa"e evenin# of -ul1 4, &'@D, and he! husband has )sic+ not 1et !etu!ned f!o" the !ive!, she beca"e app!ehensive. %!in#in# alon# he! son, Ro#elio Deva!as, the1 0ent to the !ive! to loo/ fo! he! husband. She b!ou#ht alon# a flashli#ht )pp. @-7, Oct. @ &'@D+. On thei! 0a1 to the !ive!, Paulita %o!8a and he! son Ro#elio Deva!as "et 2lo!ante Se!!ano, 2eliF $aBas and Ma!celino Deva!as. She !eco#ni?ed the" because she had flashed he! flashli#ht at the" 0hen the1 ca"e nea! he!, althou#h the1 s0e!ved to one side about &* "ete!s a0a1 f!o" he!. She noticed that thei! pants 0e!e 0et and the1 0e!e ca!!1in# boloes. She and he! son did not tal/ to the". %ein# al!ead1 app!ehensive fo! he! husband, and seein# the th!ee pe!sons ca!!1in# boloes, she beca"e af!aid )pp. 7-', tsn, Oct. @, &'@DE pp. &*-&&, &6-&@, 3(-36, tsn, Nov. &&, &'@D+. 9hen she and he! son !eached the !ive!, he! husband 0as no0he!e to be found the!e. Hence, "othe! and son !etu!ned ho"e. That evenin# she could not sleep because she beca"e "o!e app!ehensive 0hen he! husband still did not !etu!n ho"e )pp. '-&*, tsn, Oct. @, &'@D+. Ha!l1 in the follo0in# "o!nin# of -ul1 @, &'@D, Paulita %o!8a and thei! fou! child!en 0ent to Da#uitan Rive! to loo/ fo! he! husband. He! son Ro#elio late! found his fathe! unde! the 0ate! al!ead1 dead. Ro#elio then ca!!ied the cadave! of his fathe! to the ban/ of the !ive!. The!e, Paulita %o!8a noticed that he! deceased )sic+ husband sustained seve!al 0ounds on all pa!ts of the bod1, so"e at the bac/ of the head )pp. &*-&&, tsn, $d.+. The!eafte!, a. siste!-in-la0 of Paulita %o!8a 0ent to the police depa!t"ent of Dula# to !epo!t on thei! #!i" discove!1. police"an 0ent to the !ive! to investi#ate the "atte!. The cadave! of the said deceased 0as late! b!ou#ht to his house )pp. &&-&3, tsn, $d.+. t about one oGcloc/ in the afte!noon of -ul1 @, &'@D, Victo!iano =ab!ino 0ent to the house of the deceased Teodo!o %isna!, 0he!e he sa0 the deceased la1 )sic+ in state. He then tal/ed to Paulita %o!8a, the su!vivin# 0ido0, info!"in# he! that he had 0itnessed and seen the pe!sons /ill he! husband in the !ive!, 0hile he )=ab!ino+ 0as also catchin# fish the!e )pp. '-&*, &'-3*, tsn, Dec. D, &'@DE p. &3, tsn, Oct. @, &'@DE pp. 7-', tsn, Nov. &&, &'@DE pp. 3*-3&, tsn, Dec. D, &'@D+. t about (5** oGcloc/ in the afte!noon of the sa"e da1, -ul1 @, &'@D, D!. Rodolfo Se!!ano, "unicipal health office! of Dula#, ;e1te, conducted a post"o!te" eFa"ination of the cadave! of the deceased Teodo!o %isna!. The cadave! 0as al!ead1 in co"plete rigor ortis. The docto! found fou!teen stab and incised 0ounds on the bod1 of the said deceased )0hich a!e enu"e!ated in the above-Auoted info!"ation+. The said 0ounds 0e!e caused b1 blunt and sha!p-ed#ed inst!u"ents. cco!din# to the said docto!, 9ound No. & 0as a fatal 0ound, 0hich the death of the victi", because it penet!ated the hea!t. Ta/en individuall1, the othe! 0ounds 0ould not cause his death, but so collectivel1, said othe! 0ound )sic+ 0ould cause his death due to he"o!!ha#e )pp. 3 D, tsn, Sept. 34, &'@DE p. &3, tsn, Oct. (*, &'@D+. D!. Se!!ano issued the co!!espondin# "edical !epo!t, of his post orte eFa"ination of the said deceased, the ent!ies of 0hich he confi!"ed as t!ue in the cou!se of his testi"on1 in cou!t )pp. (, D, tsn. Sept. 34, &'@DE HFhibit , ,+. ;ate!, Rosita Deva!as "et Paulita %o!8a so"eti"e on a Thu!sda1 in -anua!1, &'@4, du!in# a "a!/et da1 of the said "unicipalit1. She sa0 the 0ido0 0ea!in# blac/ )sic+ d!essE and she as/ed he! 0h1 she 0as 0ea!in# a blac/ d!ess. The latte! told he! that he! husband 0as /illed at the Da#uitan Rive!. She as/ed the 0ido0 0ho /illed he! husband, and the latte! told he! husband 0as /illed b1 2lo!ante Se!!ano )sic+, 2eliF $aBas and Ma!celino Deva!as. Rosita Deva!as then told Paulita %o!8a that she had seen and 0itnessed the incident. The 0ido0 then as/ed he! to be a 0itness in this case )pp. 3@37, (3, (4-(@, tsn, Ma!ch (, &'@4+. On the othe! hand, Victo!iano =ab!ino, upon he! p!evious !eAuest, acco"panied Paulita %o!8a to the P$ 0he!e she then filed a c!i"inal co"plaint 0ith the P$ a#ainst the assailants of he! deceased husband. =ab!ino 0as also investi#ated b1 the P$ on the sa"e occasion )pp. 3&-33, tsn, Dec. D, &'@D+. 10 In eFculpation, appellant Se!!ano, li/e his co-appellants, put up the defense of alibi, 0hich the t!ial cou!t su""a!i?ed as follo0s5 2o! his pa!t, accused 2lo!ante Se!!ano, and 0ith ntonio Tonido also testif1in# to co!!obo!ate hi", also denied havin# an1thin# to do 0ith Teodo!o %isna!Gs death because at 45** oGcloc/ in the evenin# of -ul1 4, &'@D, acco!din# to this accused, he 0as on the po!ch of his house in Dula# conve!sin# 0ith ntonio 2e!nande? and Ro#elio SeBase 0hen ntonio Tonido a!!ived and told the"

that he had an en#ine t!ouble of )sic+ his boat 0ith the !eAuest that help hi" d!a# it asho!e. Sho!tl1 afte! this, the o0ne! of the boat, RoAue %ode! and a "echanic, a!!ived in his house 0he!e the en#ine had been b!ou#ht afte! these t0o left the house, Tonido, upon 0!itten invitation of Se!!anoGs 0ife, too/ his suppe! 0ith said accused and fa"il1, leavin# the house at '5** p.". He /ne0 of the /illin# of Teodo!o %isna! onl1 the follo0in# da1 0hen he 0as info!"ed that a police"an 0ent to his house )he 0as out then+ loo/in# fo! hi" and left 0o!d that he #o to the "unicipal buildin#. 11 The pa!ties a#!ee that all the accused had been detained since &3 -ul1 &'@DE the1 0e!e ,invited, in connection 0ith this case in the evenin# of && -ul1 &'@D b1 the Philippine $onstabula!1 )P$+ autho!ities at $a"p %u"pus, Tacloban $it1, and 0e!e ta/en into custod1. The1 si#ned a 0aive! of detention. t the ti"e the info!"ation 0as filed and the a!!est 0a!!ants 0e!e issued, the1 0e!e al!ead1 in detention. 12 In the ppellantGs %!ief, appellant Se!!ano insists on his innocence and contends that the t!ial cou!t e!!ed in5 2IRST. . . . holdin# clea! and positive the identification of the appellants )and of Teodo!o %isna!+ as the assailants )and the assaulted+ in the stabbin# incident alle#ed to have been 0itnessed b1 Victo!iano =ab!ino and Rosita Deva!as at about seven o! seven-thi!t1 in the evenin# of -ul1 4, &'@DE SH$OND. . . . i#no!in# and dis!e#a!din# o! ove!loo/in# the substantial fact that Teodo!o %isna! "et his death on -ul1 @, &'@D )not, -ul1 4+ and 0ithin the fi!st hou! i""ediatel1 afte! he 0as 0ounded, 0hich fact if p!ope!l1 app!eciated 0ould offset the !esults of the caseE THIRD. .. . den1in# the appellantGs "otion to dis"iss filed fo! insufficienc1 of evidenceE 2O<RTH. . . . not #ivin# the appellantGs defense of alibi co""ensu!ate st!en#th "is-a-"is the absence of sufficient and convincin# evidence of identificationE 2I2TH. . . . holdin# the appellants !esponsible fo! the unti"el1 death of Teodo!o %isna! 0ithout the necessa!1 p!oof of "otive in the absence of convincin# p!oof of identit1E SIJTH. . . . holdin# that the Aualif1in# ci!cu"stance of t!eache!1 0as attendant in the /illin# of Teodo!o %isna!E and SHVHNTH. . . . not conside!in# the attendance of the "iti#atin# ci!cu"stance of volunta!1 su!!ende! in the i"position of the p!ope! penalt1. ll of these e!!o!s, eFcept fo! the seventh assi#ned e!!o! to 0hich it #!aciousl1 concedes and concu!s, a!e !efuted b1 the People in its 0ell-0!itten %!ief. 9e have ca!efull1 and "eticulousl1 eFa"ined and studied the !eco!ds of this case and the evidence adduced b1 the pa!ties and 9e find ou!selves in full a#!ee"ent 0ith the findin#s of the t!ial cou!t that appellant Se!!ano 0as a"on# those !esponsible fo! the death of Teodo!o %isna!. Ho0eve!, as shall he!eafte! be discussed, in connection 0ith the siFth assi#ned e!!o!, 9e a!e unable to a#!ee 0ith the t!ial cou!tGs conclusion that the /illin# 0as Aualified b1 t!eache!1. 9e shall ta/e up the assi#ned e!!o!s in the o!de! the1 a!e p!esented. &. The fi!st assi#ned e!!o! is 0ithout basis. P!osecution 0itnesses Rosita Deva!as and Victo!iano =ab!ino positivel1 identified appellant Se!!ano and his co-accused. Rosita Deva!as, 0hose husband ;o!en?o Deva!as is a cousin of accused Ma!celino Deva!as, and 0ho had /no0n the appellants lon# befo!e 4 -ul1 &'@D, testified as follo0s5 K 9hile 1ou 0e!e catchin# fish fo! bait 0ith 1ou! son, in that !ive! at about @5(* in the evenin# of -ul1 4, &'@D, tell us if 1ou have )sic+ "et these accusedL :es, because the1 0e!e app!oachin# us.

K 9hat did the1 do o! 0hat did the1 sa1 in )sic+ app!oachin# 1ou. 9hen the1 app!oached "e and "1 son catchin# )sic+ fish and sh!i"ps, the1 as/ed "e 0hethe! I sa0 Do!in#. K 9ho as/ed 1ouL Ma!celino Deva!as. K Do 1ou /no0 this Do!in# the1 0e!e as/in# 1ou aboutL Teodo!o %isna!. K 9hat 0as 1ou! ans0e! to thatL I said that one 0he!e the!e is li#ht. That is Do!in# 0ho is catchin# fish b1 the use of a net )sic+. K :ou pointed to fifteen "ete!s )sic+ distance 0he!e Do!in# 0asL :es, because it 0as b!i#ht and I sa0 clea!l1. K fte! pointin# Teodo!o %isna! to the th!ee accused 0ho app!oached 1ou 0he!e did these th!ee accused #oL The1 app!oached Do!in#. K Did 1ou #o 0ith the"L No, si!. I 8ust sho0ed the" the place. K 2e0 "inutes afte! these th!ee accused left #oin# to the place 0he!e 1ou pointed the" )sic+, tell the cou!t if the!e 0as an1thin# unusual 0hich 1ou sa0 o! hea!d o! 0hich happenedL I hea!d so"ebod1 said )sic+5 ,Help., K $o"in# f!o" 0hat di!ectionL 2!o" Do!in#. K 9e!e 1ou able to !eco#ni?e the voice c!1in# fo! helpL :es, it 0as the voice of Do!in#. K fte! that 0hat did 1ou do, afte! 1ou hea!d the c!1 fo! helpL I tu!ned "1 face to0a!ds the". K Tu!nin# 1ou! face, 0hat did 1ou see, please tell the cou!tL @hen $ turned & face to the $ sa) :lorante 5errano slash 8oring 0hile Ma!celino Deva!as and 2eliF $aBas 0e!e stabbin# hi". K 9h1 did 1ou see the" 0hen it 0as ni#htL

It 0as b!i#ht because the!e 0as a to!ch. K 9hose to!chL The to!ch of Do!in# %isna!. K Seein# the attac/ "ade b1 the accused on the deceased, 0hat did 1ou do and 0he!e did 1ou #oL I app!oached "1 son and said to "1 son, let us #o ho"e because the!e is a fi#ht )sic+ the!e. K So 1ou 0ent ho"eL :es, si!. 13 The c!oss-eFa"ination of Rosita b1 counsel fo! the accused st!en#thened fu!the! he! positive identification of Se!!ano and elicited f!o" he! a clea!e! pictu!e of 0hat Se!!ano did. Thus5 K 9ill 1ou please sho0 to the cou!t ho0, acco!din# to 1ou, 1ou sa0 2lo!ante Se!!ano hac/ Teodo!o %isna!L I onl1 sa0 that he slashed Teodo!o %isna!, but I did not "ind ho0 it 0as delive!ed. K Did 1ou not sa1 that 1ou sa0 2lo!ante Se!!ano hac/ Teodo!o %isna!L I sa0 that he hac/ )sic+, but I did not see ho0 he delive!ed the blo0, but the fact is he hac/ed hi". K -ust eFactl1 tell us ho0 2lo!ante Se!!ano o! 0hat 0as 2lo!ante Se!!ano doin# 0hen 1ou sa0 hi". :ou i"itate. )0itness standin# and then !aisin# he! !i#ht hand "a/in# a do0n0a!d "ove"ent as if slashin# do0n, t0o ti"es+ sa1in#, hittin# hi" on the head and othe! pa!ts of the bod1. 14 The c!oss-eFa"ine! "a1 not have eFpected this volunta!1 !evelation f!o" RositaE ho0eve!, he ca!elessl1 ove!did his !ole b1 p!essin# the 0itness to de"onst!ate 0hat eFactl1 the accused did, a tas/ 0hich p!ope!l1 pe!tains to the p!osecutin# fiscal on di!ect eFa"ination to st!en#then fu!the! the case a#ainst the accused. 9itness Victo!iano =ab!ino li/e0ise positivel1 identified the appellant as a"on# the th!ee pe!pet!ato!s of the c!i"e. Thus, on di!ect eFa"ination, he testified as follo0s5 K. No0, 0hile 1ou 0e!e the!e fishin# nea! one ban/ of the !ive! 0hile Teodo!o %isna! ove! the!e )sic+ at the opposite side, 0ill 1ou /indl1 tell the $ou!t of an1thin# unusual that 1ou hea!dL The!e 0as. K 9hat 0as it 0hich 1ou hea!dL I hea!d a shout fo! help. K 2!o" 0hich di!ection did that voice co"e and 0hose voice 0as that 0hich 1ou said 1ou hea!dL

That 0as Teodo!o %isna!Gs voice. K Hea!in# that shout fo! help co"in# f!o" Teodo!o %isna!, 0hat did 1ou doL I 0ent asho!e. K 9hen 1ou hea!d this voice shoutin# )sic+, 0ill 1ou /indl1 tell us 0h1 did Teodo!o %isna! shout fo! helpL :es, si!. K 9h1 did he shout fo! helpL The!e 0e!e pe!sons nea! hi". K 9ho 0e!e the pe!sons nea! hi" 0hen he shouted fo! helpL =ear Teodoro 0e!e 2eliF $aBas, %e!na!do Deva!as and :lorante 5errano. K Do 1ou /no0 a pe!son b1 the na"e of Ma!celiano Deva!asL :es, si!. K Do 1ou /no0 0he!e Ma!celiano Deva!as 0as at the ti"e that Teodo!o %isna! 0as shoutin# fo! helpL He 0as nea! Teodo!o %isna!. FFF FFF FFF K 9ho 0e!e stabbin# Teodo!o %isna! andOo! hac/in# hi"L :lorante 5errano and 2eliF $aBas. K Ho0 "an1 0e!e the1L The1 0e!e th!ee. K 9ill 1ou na"e these th!eeL 2eliF $aBas, :lorante ,aAas and Ma!celiano Deva!as. 19 3. It is t!ue that, as ente!ed in the death ce!tificate of the victi", Teodo!o %isna!, 16 the date of his death is the @th S not the 3th S of -ul1 &'@D. Ho0eve!, 9e a#!ee 0ith the eFplanation of the People that the date ,-ul1 @, &'@D, 0as e!!oneousl1 ente!ed on the space fo! ,Date of Death,, to 0it5 !eadin# of both the post"o!te" !epo!t, HFhibit , ,, and the death ce!tificate in Auestion, HFhibits , -&, o! ,3,, both issued on that sa"e da1, -ul1 @, &'@D, b1 D!. Rodolfo Se!!ano, Dula# "unicipal health office!, ho0eve!, !eveals that the date ,-ul1 @, &'@D, 0as e!!oneousl1 ente!ed on the space fo! ,6. Date of Death, in the said death ce!tificate )HFhibit ,3- ,+. It 0as al!ead1 (5** oGcloc/ in the afte!noon of -ul1 @, &'@D 0hen the said docto! conducted his post"o!te" eFa"ination on the cadave! of the said deceased )p. &&, tsn, Oct. (* &'@D+. The bod1 of the deceased 0as al!ead1 in co"plete rigor ortis )p. &3, tsn, $d. + fte! eFa"inin# the 0ounds, the cause of death he )sic+ placed on the said post"o!te" !epo!t 0as5 ,HHMORRH =H, seconda!1 to stab 0ound of the hea!t, )HFhibit , ,, p. ', Reco!ds+, and soon the!eafte!, on the sa"e da1, -ul1 @, &'@D, he issued the co!!espondin# death ce!tificate of the deceased, 0he!ein he placed the cause o! causes of death as5 ,)a+ HHMORRH =H, and )b+ Stab 0ound of the hea!t, )HFhibits, , -l, o! ,3,, p. &*, Reco!ds+. Medicall1,

the stab 0ound of the hea!t 0ould cause he"o!!ha#e 0hich 0ill eventuall1 cause the death of the victi". %ut, as found b1 the said docto!, the stab o! 9ound No. &, 0hich is ,Stab 0ound, ( inches lon# F & inch F 6 inches deep, cuttin# second costal ca!tilla#e, penet!atin# the hea!t, at the second inte!costal space, left, )HFhibit , ,+, is a fatal one, caused b1 a sha!p-pointed inst!u"ent )pp. 6-D, tsn, $d.+. The said fatal 0ound, acco!din# to the said docto!, "a1 not cause instant death, but the victi" 0ould onl1 live fo! a fe0 "inutes, o! not "o!e than one hou! )p. &*, tsn, Oct. (*, &'@D+. The t!uth of the "atte! is that 0hen D!. Se!!ano stated that the victi" "ust have been dead ,fo! "o!e than siF hou!s, upon findin# that the cadave! 0as al!ead1 in co"plete rigor ortis )p. &3, tsn. $d.+, the point of ti"e that the victi" "ust have succu"bed to the assault of the appellants and eventuall1 died could even be lon# befo!e the ,siF hou!, li"itation co"putin# f!o" the ti"e rigor ortis sta!ts to set in and be co"pleted. The evidence sho0s that D!. Se!!ano found the bod1 of the deceased at (5** oGcloc/ in the afte!noon of -ul1 @, &'@D, 0hen he conducted his post"o!te" eFa"ination of said cadave!, al!ead1 in co"pleterigor ortis, but he did not state that rigor ortis of the deceasedGs bod1 set in o! 0as co"pleted at (5** oGcloc/ in the afte!noon of -ul1 @, &'@D. $onseAuentl1, 0hen D!. Se!!ano stated that the victi" "ust have been dead ,fo! "o!e than siF hou!s,, it could have been that the victi" died even the ni#ht befo!e. 1: Mo!eove!, in his c!oss-eFa"ination of D!. Rodolfo Se!!ano, counsel fo! the accused, instead of castin# doubt on the alle#ation that the death of the victi" occu!!ed in the evenin# of 4 -ul1 &'@D, o! bolste!in# the appellantGs contention that it occu!!ed on @ -ul1 &'@D, elicited the !esponse that it could have ta/en place befo!e o! afte! @5(* in the evenin# of 4 -ul1 &'@D. Thus5 K :ou 0ant to sa1 Docto!, in 1ou! opinion that the bod1 of the victi" could have been /illed at @5(* of -ul1 4 in the afte!noonL %efo!e o! afte! that ti"e.
14

(. The thi!d assi#ned e!!o! is absolutel1 0ithout "e!it. ppellantGs "otion to dis"iss 0as actuall1 a de"u!!e! to evidence, filed afte! the p!osecution !ested its case on the #!ound of ,insufficienc1 of evidence to p!ove the #uilt of the accused be1ond !easonable doubt., 19 The t!ial cou!t denied it because5 . . . #oin# ove! the evidence p!esented b1 the p!osecution, the $ou!t is of the opinion that the p!osecution has established pri a facie the #uilt of accused Ma!celino Deva!as, 2lo!ante Se!!ano and 2eliF $aBas in this case. 20 and set the case fo! the !eception of the evidence fo! the defense. ppellant did not even as/ fo! a !econside!ation of the O!de!E instead, he and his co-accused "e!el1 as/ed fo! ti"e to p!epa!e thei! evidence 210hich, on subseAuent dates, the1 p!esented. Such acts effectivel1 estopped hi" f!o" !esu!!ectin# a "otion the denial of 0hich 0as, in the fi!st place, p!ope! and co!!ect as bo!ne out b1 the subseAuent conviction of the accused and, in the second place, final as no "otion fo! its !econside!ation 0as the!eafte! pu!sued. 6. libi is one of the 0ea/est defenses that can be !eso!ted to b1 an accused, 22 not onl1 because it is inhe!entl1 0ea/ and un!eliable but also because of its eas1 fab!ication, 0ithout "uch oppo!tunit1 at chec/in# o! !ebuttin# it. 23 It "ust be p!oved b1 positive, clea!, and satisfacto!1 evidence, 24 and 0hen the accused 0e!e identified b1 the 0itnesses fo! the p!osecution b1 clea!, eFplicit and positive testi"on1, the alibi 0ill not be c!edited. 29 In nu"e!ous !ecent cases too "an1 to enu"e!ate, this $ou!t has !epeatedl1 !eite!ated the !ule that the defense of alibi cannot p!evail ove! the positive identification of the accused b1 the 0itnesses fo! the p!osecution and that to establish it, an accused "ust sho0 that he 0as at so"e othe! place fo! such a pe!iod of ti"e that it 0as i"possible fo! hi" to have been at the place 0he!e the c!i"e 0as co""itted at the ti"e of its co""ission. In the instant case, appellant 0as, as ea!lie! stated, positivel1 identified b1 the p!incipal 0itnesses fo! the p!osecutionE besides, he did not even atte"pt to establish that it 0as i"possible fo! hi" to be at the place 0he!e the c!i"e 0as co""itted. D. The fifth assi#ned e!!o! is based on the assu"ption that the!e 0as no convincin# p!oof of identit1. The assu"ption, ho0eve!, as sho0n in the fo!e#oin# discussion, is clea!l1 unfounded. Settled is the !ule that "otive is not essential to conviction 0hen the!e is no doubt as to the identit1 of the culp!it. 26 Motive is not essential 0hen the!e a!e !eliable e1e0itnesses 0ho full1 identified the accused as the pe!pet!ato! of the offense. 2: nd lac/ of "otive fo!

co""ittin# the c!i"e does not p!eclude conviction fo! the offense 0hen the c!i"e and the pa!ticipation of the accused a!e definitel1 p!oved. 24

4. Neve!theless, 9e a#!ee 0ith appellant Se!!ano that the t!ial cou!t e!!ed in holdin# that the Aualif1in# ci!cu"stance of t!eache!1 0as p!esent in the /illin# of Teodo!o %isna!. The!e is t!eache!1 0hen the offende! co""its an1 c!i"es a#ainst pe!sons, e"plo1in# "eans, "ethods o! fo!"s in the eFecution the!eof 0hich tend di!ectl1 and speciall1 to insu!e its eFecution, 0ithout !is/ to hi"self a!isin# f!o" the defense 0hich the offended pa!t1 "i#ht "a/e. 29 It should be app!eciated onl1 a#ainst the assailant 0ho !eso!ted to that "ode of attac/. 30 In the instant case, the!e is an obvious paucit1 of evidence to sho0 ho0 the a##!ession 0as co""enced o! ho0 the acts 0hich !esulted in the death of Teodo!o %isna! be#an and developed. ll that the p!osecution had 0e!e the testi"onies of Rosita Deva!as and Victo!iano =ab!ino 0ho both sa0 the appellant onl1 afte! tu!nin# thei! faces to0a!ds 0he!e the victi" 0as afte! hea!in# the latte!Gs shout fo! help. t that pa!ticula! instance, the1 sa0 the appellant and his co-accused hac/in# and stabbin# the victi". The1 0e!e not, the!efo!e, in a position to see ho0 the attac/ 0as be#un and 0e!e not able to obse!ve the position of the victi" !elative to each of the assailants, "o!e pa!ticula!l1 to that of Se!!ano. In?.5. "s. #erdon, 31 and ?.5. "s. #angilion, 32 this $ou!t held that 0he!e no pa!ticula!s a!e /no0n as to the "anne! in 0hich the a##!ession 0as "ade o! ho0 the act 0hich !esulted in the death of the victi" be#an and developed, it can in no 0a1 be established f!o" "e!e suppositions that the /illin# 0as pe!pet!ated b1 t!eache!1. Thus, it cannot be conside!ed 0he!e the lone 0itness did not see the co""ence"ent of the assault. 33 cco!din#l1, Se!!ano could onl1 be liable fo! Ho"icide, and not Mu!de!, since no Aualif1in# ci!cu"stance attended the /illin# of Teodo!o %isna!. @. Despite the PeopleGs concu!!ence 0ith the seventh assi#ned e!!o!, 9e find that the t!ial cou!t did not e!! in failin# to app!eciate in favo! of the appellant Se!!ano the "iti#atin# ci!cu"stance of volunta!1 su!!ende!. He did not offe! an1 evidence to p!ove this ci!cu"stance. t the ve!1 least, he should have testified on di!ect eFa"ination that he volunta!il1 su!!ende!ed. 9hile it is t!ue that the investi#atin# fiscal "entioned in his !esolution that at the ti"e the !eco!ds of the case 0e!e tu!ned ove! to hi" fo! pu!poses of the p!eli"ina!1 investi#ation, all the accused 0e!e detained at the P!ovincial -ail of ;e1te 0he!e the1 0e!e t!ansfe!!ed f!o" the Detention $ente! of the Philippine $onstabula!1 in $a"p %u"pus, Tacloban $it1, 34 the!e is nothin# on !eco!d to sho0 that such detention 0as b1 vi!tue of a volunta!1 su!!ende!, 8ust as the!e is nothin# to suppo!t the appellantGs clai" that, 0ith his co-accused, he 0ent to the P$ HeadAua!te!s to co"pl1 0ith an invitation fo! an investi#ation in connection 0ith the /illin# of Teodo!o %isna! and volunta!il1 si#ned a 0aive! of detention. On the cont!a!1, in thei! 9aive!, the1 eFplicitl1 ad"itted that the1 0e!e a!!ested b1 ele"ents of the (D&st P$ $o"pan1. The 9aive! 39 !eads as follo0s5 9 IVHR 2OR )sic+ DHTHNTION That )e the undersigned ha"ing !een arrested b1 ele"ents of the (D&st P$ $o"pan1, $a"p %u"pus, Tacloban $it1, 0e 0aive )sic+ ou! !i#hts and sub"it ou! pe!sons volunta!il1 unde! the custod1 of the a!!estin# office!sOa#enc1. IN 9ITNHSS 9HHRHO2, 0e have set ou! hands this 12th da1 of -ul1 &'@6, at Tacloban $it1, ;e1te, Philippines. SOT M R$H;; NO )sic+ DHV R S SOT 2;OR NTH SHRR NO ) ffiant+ ) ffiant+ SOT %HRN RDO DHV R S SOT 2H;IJ $ U S ) ffiant+ ) ffiant+ 9itnesses5 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV S<%S$RI%HD ND S9ORN TO befo!e, "e this 12th da1 of -ul1 &'@D, at Tacloban $it1, Philippines. SOT HNRIK

<H $. SIS &;T - =S )P$+ HP$, Spl Detail fo! ;e1te and Sa"a! $onst $o"" and 2o! volunta!1 su!!ende! to be app!eciated, it "ust be spontaneous and "ade in such "anne! that it sho0s the inte!est of the accused to su!!ende! unconditionall1 to the autho!ities, eithe! because he ac/no0led#es his #uilt o! because he 0ishes to save the" the t!ouble and eFpenses necessa!il1 incu!!ed in his sea!ch and captu!e. 36 The fact of the a!!est of the appellant, even if "ade befo!e the issuance of a 0a!!ant of a!!est, belies an1 clai" of volunta!1 su!!ende! since the ele"ent of spontaneit1 is necessa!il1 absent. 9hat see"s clea! in this case is that all the accused 0e!e a!!ested b1 the P$ autho!ities 0ithout a 0a!!ant unde! pa!a#!aph )b+, Section 4, Rule &&( of the &'46 Rules of $ou!t, 3:!eadin# as follo0s5 Sec. 4. Arrest )ithout )arrant B )hen la)ful. S 0a!!ant, a!!est a pe!son5 peace office! o! a p!ivate pe!son "a1, 0ithout a

FFF FFF FFF )b+ 0hen an offense has in fact been co""itted, and he has !easonable #!ound to believe that the pe!son to be a!!ested has co""itted it. FFF FFF FFF t the ti"e of the a!!est, the s0o!n state"ents of p!osecution 0itnesses Paulita %o!8a )0ido0 of Teodo!o %isna!+, -oel %e!in#uel and Victo!iano =ab!ino 0e!e al!ead1 ta/en b1 the P$ autho!ities 34 and the latte! had al!ead1 !easonable #!ound to believe that Se!!ano and his co-accused co""itted the c!i"e. The fo!e#oin# conside!ed, appellant should be convicted of the c!i"e of Ho"icide sans the "iti#atin# ci!cu"stance of volunta!1 su!!ende!. The!e bein# no p!oof of an1 o!dina!1 a##!avatin# ci!cu"stance, follo0in# the fi!st !ule p!esc!ibed b1 !ticle 46 of the Revised Penal $ode, the "ediu" of the penalt1 fo! ho"icide, 0hich is reclusion te poral unde! !ticle 36' of the sa"e $ode, shall be i"posed. ppellant is, ho0eve!, entitled to the benefits of the Indete!"inate Sentence ;a0, 39 0hich "andates the i"position of an indete!"inate penalt1 the "aFi"u" te!" of 0hich shall be that 0hich, in vie0 of the attendin# ci!cu"stances, could be p!ope!l1 i"posed unde! the !ules of the Revised Penal $ode and the "ini"u" of 0hich shall be 0ithin the !an#e of the penalt1 neFt lo0e! to that p!esc!ibed b1 the $ode fo! the offense. s !e#a!ds the inde"nit1, follo0in# !ecent decisions of this $ou!t, 40 the a0a!d of P&3,***.** should be inc!eased to PD*,***.**, the pa1"ent of 0hich should ta/e into account the effect the death of appellants Ma!celino Deva!as and 2eliF $aBas as ea!lie! adve!ted to. 9HHRH2ORH, ta/in# into account the above "odifications, 8ud#"ent is he!eb1 rendered finding appellant :L<RA=T6 56RRA=< guilt& !e&ond reasona!le dou!t of the cri e of Co icide , as defined and penali?ed unde! !ticle 36' of the Revised Penal $ode, fo! the death of Teodo!o %isna! and, conside!in# the absence of an1 "iti#atin# o! a##!avatin# ci!cu"stance and appl1in# in his favo! the Indete!"inate Sentence ;a0, said appellant is here!& sentenced to suffer an indeter inate penalt& ranging fro 6ight /D0 &ears and <ne /10 da& of #rision Ma&or% as ini u % to :ourteen /140 &ears% 6ight /D0 onths and <ne /10 da& of Reclusion Te poral% as a;i u , and to inde nif&, 8ointl1 and seve!all1 0ith the estates of Ma!celino Deva!as and 2eliF $aBas, the heirs of the deceased Teodoro Bisnar in the a ount of #1E%EEE.EE. He is fu!the! ordered to pa& one-third /1F30 of the costs.

IT IS SO ORDHRHD.