G.R. 196735 People v. Feliciano Promulgated 5th May 2014 Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen

3&epublic of toe
$>upreme QCourt
:fflnnila
THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-appellee,
G.R. No. 196735
Present:
SERENO, C.J,*
-versus-
PERALTA, J., Acting Chairperson,**
DEL CASTILLO ***
'
DANILO FELICIANO, JR.,
JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA,
CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA,
WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, and
ABAD, and
L.EONEN,JJ
ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN Promulgated:
ALVIR, May 5, 2014

DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
Ii is in the hallowed grounds of a university where students, faculty,
and research personnel should feel safest. After all, this is where ideas that
could probably solve the sordid realities in this world are peacefully nurtured
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno was designated as Acting Member of the Third Division, vice
Associate Justice Presbi,tero J. Velasco, Jr., per Raffle dated February 1, 2012.
Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta was designated as Acting Chairperson of the Third Division,
vice Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. recused himself due to close relation to one of the
parties.
Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo was designated as Acting Member of the Third Division,
vice Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza who penned the lower court decision, per Raffle dated . /J
April 29, 2014. rr
Decision 2 G.R. No. 196735
and debated. Universities produce hope. They incubate all our youthful
dreams.
Yet, there are elements within this academic milieu that trade
misplaced concepts of perverse brotherhood for these hopes. Fraternity
rumbles exist because of past impunity. This has resulted in a senseless death
whose justice is now the subject matter of this case. It is rare that these cases
are prosecuted. It is even more extraordinary that there are credible
witnesses who present themselves courageously before an able and
experienced trial court judge.
This culture of impunity must stop. There is no space in this society
for hooliganism disguised as fraternity rumbles. The perpetrators must stand
and suffer the legal consequences of their actions. They must do so for there
is an individual who now lies dead, robbed of his dreams and the dreams of
his family. Excruciating grief for them will never be enough.
It is undisputed that on December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1:00 in
the afternoon, seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho fraternity were eating
lunch at the Beach House Canteen, near the Main Library of the University
of the Philippines, Diliman, when they were attacked by several masked men
carrying baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of them sustained injuries that
required hospitalization. One of them, Dennis Venturina, died from his
m J u n e ~
An information
1
for murder, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q95-
6113 3, was filed against several members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity,
namely, Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor L. Medalla, Warren L. Zingapan,
Robert Michael Beltran Alvir, Christopher L. Soliva, Reynaldo G. Ablanida,
Carlo Jolette Fajardo, George Morano, Raymund E. Narag, Gilbert Merle
Magpantay, Benedict Guerrero, and Rodolfo Penalosa, Jr. with the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219. The information reads:
That on or about the 8
1
h day of December 1994, in Quezon
City, Philippines, the above-named accused, wearing masks and/or
other forms of disguise, conspiring, confederating with other
persons whose true names, identities and whereabouts have not as
yet been ascertained, and mutually helping one another, with intent
to kill, qualified with treachery, and with evident premeditation,
taking advantage of superior strength, armed with baseball bats,
lead pipes, and cutters, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the
person of DENNIS F. VENTURINA, by then and there hitting him
on the head and clubbing him on different parts of his body thereby
inflicting upon him serious and mortal injuries which were the
direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and
Original records, vol. I, p. 3.
prejudice of the heirs of said DENNIS F. VENTURINA.
(Emphasis supplied)
Separate informations were also filed against them for the attempted
murder of Sigma Rl).o fraternity members Cesar Mangrobang, Jr.,2 Cristobal
Gaston, Jr.,
3
and Leandro Lachica,
4
and the frustrated murder of Sigma Rho
fraternity members Mervin Natalicio
5
and Amel Fortes.
6
Only 11 of the
accused stood trial since one of the accused, Benedict Guerrero, remained at
large.
A trial on the merits ensued.
The facts, according to the prosecution, are as follows:
Leandro Lachica, Amel Fortes, Derinis Venturina, Mervin Natalicio,
Cristobal Gaston, Jr., Felix Tumaneng,7 and Cesar Magrobang, Jr. are all
members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity. On December 8, 1994, at around
12:30 to 1 :00 p.m., they were having lunch at Beach House Canteen, located
at the back of the Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman,
Quezon City.
8
Dennis Venturina shouted, "Brads, brods!"
9
According to Leandro Lachica, Grand Archon of Sigma Rho
Fraternity, he looked around when Venturina shouted, and he saw about ten
(10) men charging toward them.
10
The men were armed with baseball bats
and lead pipes, and their heads were covered with either handkerchiefs or
shirts.
11
Within a few seconds, five (5) of the men started attacking him,
hitting him with their lead pipes.
12
During the attack, he recognized one of
the attackers as Robert Michael Beltran Alvir because his mask fell off.
13
Lachica tried to parry the blows of.his attackers, suffering scratches
and contusions.
14
He was, however, able to run to the nearby College of
Education.
15
Just before reaching it, he looked back and saw Warren
Zingapan and Julius Victor L. Medalla holding lead pipes and standing
where the commotion was.
16
Both of them did not have their masks on.
17
He
Docketed as Q95-6 l l 34;.
Docketed as Q95-61135.
4
Docketed as Q95-6 l l 36.
6
7
Felix Tumaneng was not presented as a witness by the prosecution.
TSN, June 5, 1995, pp. 9-11.
9
TSN, July 3, 1995, p. 7.
10
TSN, June 5, 1995, p. 25.
11
Id. at 11-12.
12
Id. at 12.
13 Id.
14
Id. at 13.
15
Id. at 13-14.
16
Id. at 45-46.
was familiar with Alvir, Zingapan, and Medalla because he often saw them
in the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP) and Zingapan used
to be his friend.
18
The attack lasted about thirty (30) to forty-five ( 45)
seconds.
19
According to Mervin Natalicio, the Vice Grand Archon of Sigma Rho,
he looked to his left when Venturina shouted.
20
He saw about fifteen (15) to
twenty (20) men, most of who were wearing masks, running toward them.
21
He was stunned, and he started running.
22
He stumbled over the protruding
roots of a tree.
23
He got up, but the attackers came after him and beat him up
with lead pipes and baseball bats until he fell down.
24
While he was parrying
the blows, he recognized two (2) of the attackers as Warren Zingapan and
Christopher L. Soliva since they were not wearing any masks.
25
After about
thirty (30) seconds, they stopped hitting him.
26
He was lying on his back and
when he looked up, he saw another group of four (4) to five (5) men coming
toward him, led by Benedict Guerrero.
27
This group also beat him up.
28
He
did not move until another group of masked men beat him up for about five
(5) to eight (8) seconds.
29
When the attacks ceased, he was found lying on
the ground.
30
Several bystanders brought him to the U.P. Infirmary where he
stayed for more than a week for the treatment of his wounds and fractures.
31
According to Cesar Mangrobang, Jr., member of Sigma Rho, he also
looked back when Venturina shouted and saw a group of men with baseball
bats and lead pipes. Some of them wore pieces of cloth around their heads.
32
He ran when they attacked, but two (2) men, whose faces were covered with
pieces of cloth, blocked his way and hit him with lead pipes.
33
While
running and parrying the blows, he recognized them as Gilbert Merle
Magpantay and Carlo Jolette Fajardo because their masks fell off.
34
He
successfully evaded his attackers and ran to the Main Library.
35
He then
decided that he needed to help his fraternity brothers and turned back toward
Beach House.
36
There, he saw Venturina lying on the ground.
37
Danilo
17
Id. at 13-14.
18
Id.
19
Id. at 33.
20
TSN, July 3, 1995, p. 7.
21
Id.
22
Id. at 10.
23
Id.
24
Id. at 12-13.
25
Id. at 14-16.
26
Id. at 16.
27
Id.atl6-17.
28
Id. at 17.
29
Id. at 19.
30
Id. at 19-20.
31
Id.
32
TSN, September28, 1995, pp. 14-15.
33
Id. at 16.
34
Id. at 17-18.
35
Id. at 20-21.
36
Id. at 21-22.
37
Id. at 23.
Feliciano, Jr. was beating Venturina up with a lead pipe while Raymund E.
Narag was aiming to hit Venturina.
38
When they saw him, they went toward
his direction.
39
They were about to hit him when somebody shouted that
policemen were coming. Feliciano and Narag then ran away.
40
Cesar Mangrobang, Jr. then saw Amel Fortes. Fortes accompanied
him to his car so they could bring Venturina to the U.P. Infirmary.
41
When
they brought the car over, other people, presumably bystanders, were already
loading Venturina into another vehicle.
42
They followed that vehicle to the
U.P. Infirmary where they saw Natalicio.
43
He stayed at the infirmary until
the following morning.
44
According to Cristobal Gaston, Jr., member of Sigma Rho, he
immediately stood up when he heard someone shout, "Brods!"
45
He saw a
group of men charging toward them carrying lead pipes and baseball bats.
46
Most of them had pieces of cloth covering their faces.
47
He was about to run
when two (2) of the attackers approached him.
48
One struck him with a
heavy pipe while the other stabbed him with a bladed instrument.
49
He was
able to parry most of the blows from the lead pipe, but he sustained stab
wounds on the chest and on his left forearm.
50
He was able to run away.
51
When he sensed th.at no one was chasing him, he looked back to Beach
House Canteen and saw Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Warren Zingapan, and George
Morano.
52
He decided to go back to the canteen to help his fraternity
brothers.
53
When he arrived, he did not see any of his fraternity brothers but
only saw the ones who attacked them.
54
He ended up going to their hang-out
instead to meet with his other fraternity brothers.
55
They then proceeded to
the College of Law where the rest of the fraternity was already discussing
h
. "d 56
t e mc1 ent.
According to Amel Fortes, member of Sigma Rho, he also ran when
he saw the group of attackers coming toward them.
57
When he looked back,
38
Id. at 23-26.
39
Id. at 28.
40
Id. at 28-29.
41
Id. at 33.
42
Id. at 34.
43
Id. at 35.
44
Id. at 36.
45
TSN,Octoberll, 1995,p.15.
46 Id.
47
Id. at 16-17.
48
Id. at 17-18.
49
Id. at 19-20.
50
Id. at 24.
51
Id.at31.
52
Id. at 31-32.
53
Id. at 33.
54
Id. at 34-35.
55
Id. at 40.
56
Id. at 44-45.
57
TSN, October 30, 1995, p. 74.
he saw Danilo Feliciano, Jr. hitting Venturina.
58
He was also able to see
Warren Zingapan and George Morano at the scene.
59
Leandro Lachica, in the meantime, upon reaching the College of
Education, boarded a jeepney to the College of Law to wait for their other
fraternity brothers.
60
One of his fraternity brothers, Peter Corvera, told him
that he received information that members of Scintilla Juris were seen in the
west wing of the Main Library and were regrouping in SM North.
61
Lachica
and his group then set off for SM North to confront Scintilla Juris and
identify their attackers.
62
When they arrived in SM North, pillboxes and stones were thrown at
them.
63
Lachica saw Robert Michael Beltran Alvir and Warren Zingapan and
a certain Carlo Taparan.
64
They had no choice but to get away from the mall
and proceed instead to U.P. where the Sigma Rho Fraternity members held a
65
meetmg.
On the night of December 8, 1994, the officers of Sigma Rho advised
the victims to lodge their complaints with the National Bureau of
Investigation.
66
Their counsel, Atty. Frank Chavez, told the U.P. Police that
the victims would be giving their statements before the National Bureau of
Investigation, promising to give the U.P. Police copies of their statements. In
the meantime, Venturina was transferred from the U.P. Infirmary to St.
Luke's Hospital on December 8, 1994. He died on December 10, 1994.
67
On December 11, 1994, an autopsy was conducted on the cadaver of
Dennis V enturina.
68
Dr. Rolando Victoria, a medico-legal officer of the
National Bureau of Investigation, found that Venturina had "several
contusions located at the back of the upper left arm and hematoma on the
back of both hands,"
69
"two (2) lacerated wounds at the back of the head,
70
generalized hematoma on the skull,"
71
"several fractures on the head,"
72
and
"inter-cranial hemmThage."
73
The injuries, according to Dr. Victoria, could
58
Id. at 30-31.
59
Id. at 77-78.
60
TSN,June21, 1995,pp.5-6.
61
TSN, June 5, 1995, p. 14.
62 Id.
63
Id. at 14-15.
64
Id.at17.
65
Id.atl5.
66
Id. at 20.
67
TSN, September 16, 1996, pp. 10-14.
68
TSN, July 24, 1995, pp. 6-7.
69
Id. at 14-16.
70
Id. at 16-1 7.
71
Id.at18.
72
Id. at 19-20.
73
Id. at 22.
have been caused by a hard blunt object.
74
Dr. Victoria concluded that
Venturina died of traumatic head injuries.
75
On December 12, 1994, Lachica, Natalicio, Mangrobang, Fortes, and
Gaston executed their respective affidavits
76
before the National Bureau of
Investigation and underwent medico-legal examinations
77
with their medico-
legal officer, Dr. Aurelio Villena. According to Dr. Villena, he found that
Mervin Natalicio had "lacerated wounds on the top of the head, above the
left ear, and on the fingers; contused abrasions on both knees; contusion on
the left leg and thigh,"
78
all of which could have been caused by any hard,
blunt object. These injuries required medical attendance for a period of ten
(10) days to thirty (30) days from the date of infliction.
79
Dr. Villena found on Amel Fortes "lacerated wounds on the head and
on the right leg which could have been caused by a blunt instrument."
80
These injuries required hospitalization for a period of ten (10) days to thirty
(30) days from date of infliction.
81
He also found on Cesar Mangrobang, Jr.
a "healed abrasion on the left forearm which could possibly be caused by
contact with [a] rough hard surface and would require one (1) to nine (9)
days of medical attention."
82
He found on Leandro Lachica "contusions on
the mid auxiliary left side, left forearm and lacerated wound on the infra
scapular area, left side."
83
On Christopher Gaston, Jr. he found "lacerated
wounds on the anterior chest, left side, left forearm; swollen knuckles of
both hands; contusions on the mid auxiliary left side, left forearm and
lacerated wound on the infra scapular area, left side."
84
On September 18, 1997, after the prosecution presented its evidence-
in-chief, the court granted the demurrer to evidence filed by Rodolfo
Penalosa, Jr. on the ground that he was not identified by the prosecution's
witnesses and that he was not mentioned in any of the documentary evidence
f h
. 85
o t e prosecut10n.
Upon the presentation of their evidence, the defense introduced their
own statement of the facts, as follows:
74
Id. at 4 l.
75
Id. at 23.
76
TSN, June 5, I 995, p. 17; TSN, July 3, 1995, p. 20; TSN, September 28, 1995, pp. 116-117; TSN,
October 20, 1995, p. 34; TSN, October 11, 1995, p. 48.
77
TSN,June5, 1995,p.17.
78
TSN, July 31, 1995, p. 14.
79
Id. at 46.
80
Id. at 26-28.
81
Id. at 46.
82
Id. at 40.
83
Id.at31-33.
84 Id.
85
RTC decision, p. 15.
According to Romeo Cabrera,
86
a member of the U.P. Police, he was
on foot patrol with another member of the U.P. Police, Oscar Salvador, at
the time of the incident. They were near the College of Arts and Sciences
(Palma Hall) when he vaguely heard somebody shouting, "Rumble!" They
went to the place where the alleged rumble was happening and saw injured
men being helped by bystanders. They helped an injured person board the
service vehicle of the Beach House Canteen. They asked what his name was,
and he replied that he was Mervin Natalicio. When he asked Natalicio who
hit him, the latter was not able to reply but instead told him that his attackers
were wearing masks. Oscar Salvador
87
corroborated his testimony.
Benjamin Lato,
88
a utility worker of the Beach House Canteen,
likewise testified that the identities of the attackers were unrecognizable
because of their masks. He, however, admitted that he did not see the attack;
he just saw a man sprawled on the ground at the time of the incident.
Frisco Capilo,
89
a utility worker of U.P. assigned to the Main Library,
was buying a cigarette at a vendor located nearby. From there, he allegedly
saw the whole incident. He testified that ten (10) men, wearing either masks
of red and black bonnets or with shirts covering their faces, came from a red
car parked nearby. He also saw three (3) men being hit with lead pipes by
the masked men. Two (2) of the men fell after being hit. One of the victims
was lifting the other to help him, but the attackers overtook him. Afterwards,
the attackers ran away. He then saw sfudents helping those who were
injured. He likewise helped in carrying one of the injured victims, which he
later found out to be Amel Fortes.
A U.P. student and member of the Sigma Alpha Nu Sorority, Eda
Panganiban,
90
testified that she and her friends were in line to order lunch at
the Beach House Canteen when a commotion happened. She saw around
fifteen (15) to eighteen (18) masked men attack a group of Sigma Rhoans.
She did not see any mask fall off. Her sorority sister and another U.P.
d
91
stu ent, Luz Perez, corroborated her story that the masked men were
unrecognizable because of their masks. Perez, however, admitted that a
member of Scintilla Juris approached her to make a statement.
Another sorority sister, Bathalani Tiamzon,
92
testified on substantially
the same matters as Panganiban and Perez. She also stated that she saw a
person lying on the ground who was being beaten up by about three (3) to
five (5) masked men. She also stated that some of the men were wearing
86
TSN, November 11, 1995.
87
88
89
TSN, December 4, 1995.
90
91 Id.
92
,R
black masks while some were wearing white t-shirts as masks. She did not
see any mask fall off the faces of the attackers.
According to Feliciana Feliciano,
93
accused-appellant Danilo
Feliciano, Jr.'s motlier, her son was in Pampanga to visit his sick grandfather
at the time of the incident. She alleged that her son went to Pampanga before
lunch that day and visited the school where she teaches to get their house
key from her.
According to Robert Michael Beltran Alvir,
94
he had not been feeling
well since December 5, 1994. He said that he could not have possibly been
in U.P. on December 8, 1994 since he was absent even from work. He also
testified that he wore glasses and, thus, could not have possibly been the
person identified by Leandro Lachica. He also stated that he was not
enrolled in U.P. at the time since he was WQrking to support himself.
According to Julius Victor Medalla,
95
he and another classmate,
Michael Vibas, were working on a school project on December 8, 1994. He
also claimed that he could not have participated in the rumble as he had an
injury affecting his balance. The injury was caused by an incident in August
1994 when he was struck in the head by an unknown assailant. His
testimony was corroborated by Jose Victor Santos
96
who stated that after
lunch that day, Medalla played darts with him and, afterwards, they went to
Jollibee.
Christopher Soliva,
97
on the other hand, testified that he was eating
lunch with his girlfriend and another friend in Jollibee, Philcoa, on
December 8, 1994. They went back to U.P. before 1:00 p.m. and went
straight to their fraternity hang-out where he was told that there had been a
rumble at the Main Library. He also met several Sigma Rhoans acting
suspiciously as they passed by the hang-out. They were also told by their
head, Carlo Taparan, not to react to the Sigma Rhoans and just go home.
Anna Cabahug,
98
his girlfriend, corroborated his story.
Warren Zingapan
99
also testified that he was not in U.P. at the time of
the incident. He claimed to have gone to SM North to buy a gift for a
friend's wedding but ran into a fraternity brother. He also alleged that some
Sigma Rhoans attacked them in SM North that day.
93
TSN, November27, 1995.
94
TSN, February 2, 2000.
95
TSN, September 22, 1999.
96
TSN, August 11, 1999.
97
TSN, June 16, 1999.
98
99
TSN; May 12, 1999.
On February 28, 2002, the trial court rendered its decision
100
with the
finding that Robert Michael Alvir, Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Christopher Soliva,
Julius Victor Medalla, and Warren Zingapan were guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of murder and attempted murder and were sentenced to, among other
penalties, the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
101
The trial court, however,
acquitted Reynaldo Ablanida, Carlo Jolette Fajardo, Gilbert Magpantay,
George Morano, and Raymund Narag.
102
The case against Benedict
Guerrero was ordered archived by the court until his apprehension.
103
The trial court, m evaluating the voluminous evidence at hand,
concluded that:
After a judicious evaluation of the matter, the Court is of
the considered view that of the ten accused, some were sufficiently
identified and some were not. The Court believes that out of the
amorphous images during the pandemonium, the beleaguered
victims were able to espy and identify some of the attackers
etching an indelible impression in their memory. In this regard, the
prosecution eyewitnesses were emphatic that they saw the
attackers rush towards them wielding deadly weapons like baseball
bats, lead pipes, pieces of wood and bladed ones, and pounce on
their hapless victims, run after them, and being present with one
another at the scene of the crime during the assault. Although each
victim had a very strong motive to place his fraternity rivals
permanently behind bars, not one .of them testified against all of
them. If the prosecution eyewitnesses, who were all Sigma Rhoans,
were simply bent on convicting Scintilla Juris members for that
matter, they could have easily tagged each and every single
accused as a participant in the atrocious and barbaric assault to
make sure that no one else would escape conviction. Instead, each
eyewitness named only one or two and some were candid enough
to say that they did not see who delivered the blows against
them.
104
Because one of the penalties meted out was reclusion perpetua, the
case was brought to this court on automatic appeal. However, due to the
amendment of the Rules on Appeal,
105
the case was remanded to the Court
of Appeals.
106
In the Court of Appeals, the case had to be re-raffled several
times
107
before it was eventually assigned to Presiding Justice Andres B.
Reyes, Jr. for the writing of the decision.
100
Penned by the Hon. Jose Catral Mendoza, now an Associate Justice of this court (CA rollo, pp. 576-
644). .
101
RTC decision, pp. 81-83.
102
Id. at 82-83.
103
Id. at 83.
104
Id. at 48-49.
105
Per People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640, which modified the rules on
direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
106
Per resolution of this co.urt dated April 13, 2005, CA rollo, p. 297.
107
Justice Romeo F. Barza voluntarily inhibited due to membership in Sigma Rho Fraternity. Justices
Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Isaias P. Dicdican also voluntarily inhibited, but the reason was not
shown in the records.
Decision
11
G.R. No. 196735
On December 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in a Special First
Division of Five, affirmed
108
the decision of the Regional Trial Court, with
I 09 d ( 1 ) d 1 10
three (3) members concurrmg an one 1ssentmg.
The decision of the Court of Appeals was then brought to this court
for review.
The issue before this court is whether the prosecution was able to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants attacked private
complainants and caused the death of Dennis Venturina.
On the basis, however, of the arguments presented to this court by
both parties, the issue may be further refined, thus:
1. Whether accused-appellants' constitutional rights were violated
when the information against them contained the aggravating
circumstance of the use of masks despite the prosecution
presenting witnesses to prove that the masks fell off; and
2. Whether the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals
correctly ruled, on the basis of the evidence, that accused-
appellants were sufficiently identified.
An information is sufficient
when the accused is fully
apprised of the charge against
him to enable him to prepare
his defense
I
It is the argument of appellants that the information filed against them
violates their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against them. They argue that the prosecution should not have
included the phrase "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the
information since they were presenting testimonial evidence that not all the
accused were wearing masks or that their masks fell off.
108
Rollo, pp. 4-72; CA rollo, pp. 1480-1551.
109
Justices Amelita G. Tolentino, Jose C. Reyes, Jr., and Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo.
110
Justiee Stephen C. Cruz.
j
It is enshrined in our Bill of Rights that "[ n ]o person shall be held to
answer for a criminal offense without due process of law."
111
This includes
the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and "to
b
. d f h d . . h" ,,112
e m1onne o t e nature an accusation agamst im.
l)pon a finding of probable cause, an information is filed by the
prosecutor against the accused, in compliance with the due process of the
law. Rule 110, Section 1, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides that:
A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the
accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the
offended pmiy; the approximate date of the commission of the offense;
and the place where the offense was committed.
In People v. Wilson Lab-ea,
113
this court has stated that:
The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a
person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the
court to render judgment properly. x x x The purpose is to allow the
accused to fully prepare for his defense, precluding surprises during the
trial.
114
Contrary to the arguments of the appellants, the inclusion of the phrase
"wearing masks and/or other fonns of disguise" in the information does not
violate their constitutional rights.
It should be remembered that every aggravating circumstance being
alleged must be stated in the information. Failure to state an aggravating
circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such.
115
It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the aggravating
circumstance of "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the
information in order for all the evidence, introduced to that effect, to be
admissible by the trial court.
In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance because,
like nighttime, it allows the accused to remain anonymous and unidentifiable
as he carries out his crimes.
111
CONST., art. Ill, sec. 14 ( l ).
112
CONST., art. lll, sec. 14 (2).
113
424 Phil. 482 (2002) [Per J. Carpio, Third Division].
114
People v. Wilson Lab-ea, 424 Phil. 482, 497 (2002) [Per J. Carpio, Third Division], citing Jumawan v.
Ev iota, G.R. Nos. 85512-13, July 28, 1994, 234 SCRA 524 [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].
115
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 110, Sec. 8.
1
The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence that tends
to prove that the accused were masked but the masks fell off does not
prevent them from including disguise as an aggravating circumstance.
116
What is important in alleging disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that
there was a concealment of identity by the accused. The inclusion of disguise
in the information was, therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the accused
that in the commission of the offense they were being charged with, they
tried to conceal their identity.
The introduction of evidence which shows that some of the accused
were not wearing masks is also not violative of their right to be informed of
their offenses.
The information charges conspiracy among the accused. Conspiracy
presupposes that "the act of one is the act of all."
117
This would mean all the
accused had been one in their plan to conceal their identity even if there was
evidence later on to prove that some of them might not have done so.
In any case, the accused were being charged with the crime of murder,
frustrated murder, . and attempted murder. All that is needed for the
infonnation to be sufficient is that the elements of the crime have been
alleged and that there are sufficient details as to the time, place, and persons
involved in the offense.
II
Findings of the trial court,
when affirmed by the
appellate court, are entitled
to great weight and credence
As a general rule, the findings of fact by the trial court, when affirmed
by the appellate court, are given great weight and credence on review. The
rationale for this was explained in People v. Daniel Quijada,
118
as follows:
116 s
Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court,
especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great
weight and respect. For, the trial court has the advantage of
observing the witnesses through the different indicators of
truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted
assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous
mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply;
ee People v. Sabangan Cabato, 243 Phil. 262 (1988) [Per J. Cortes, Third Division] and People v.
Veloso, 197 Phil. 846 (1982) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
117
People v. Hali/ Gambao, G.R. No. t 72707, October I, 2013 [Per J. Perez, En Banc].
118
328 Phil. 505 (1996) [Per J. Davide, En Banc].
or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation,
the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness,
the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full
realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.
119
There are, of course, recognized exceptions to this rule. In People v.
Leticia Labarias,
120
this court stated that:
It is the policy of this Court to sustain the factual findings
of the trial court on the reasonable assumption that it is in a better
position to assess the evidence before it, particularly the
testimonies of the witnesses, who reveal much of themselves by
their depotiment on the stand. The exception that makes the rule
is where such findings arc clearly arbitrary or erroneous as
when they are tainted with bias or hostility or are so lacking in
basis as to suggest that they were reached without the careful
study and perceptiveness that should characterize a judicial
decision.
121
(Emphasis supplied)
In criminal cases, the exception gains even more importance since the
presumption is always in favor of innocence. It is only upon proof of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt that a conviction is sustained.
In this case, a total of eleven (11) witnesses for the prosecution and
forty-two ( 42) witnesses for the defense were put on the stand from 1995 to
2001. In an eighty-three (83)-page decision, the trial court acquitted six (6)
and convicted five (5) of the accused. On the basis of these numbers alone, it
cannot be said that the trial court acted arbitrarily or that its decision was "so
lacking in basis" that it was arrived at without a judicious and exhaustive
study of all the evidence presented.
Inasmuch, however, as the trial court's findings hold great persuasive
value, there is also nothing that precludes this court from coming to its own
conclusions based on an independent review of the facts and the evidence on
record.
The accused were sufficiently
identified by the witnesses for
the prosecution
119
People v. Daniel Quijada, 328 Phil. 505, 530-531 (1996) [Per J. Davide, En Banc], citing People v. De
Guzman, G.R. No. 76742, August 7, 1990, 188 SCRA 407 [Per J. Cruz, First Division]; People v. De
Leon, 315 Phil. 584 (1995) [Per J. Davide, Jr., First Division]; People v. Delovino, 317 Phil. 741
(1995) [Per J. Davide, Jr., First Division]; Creamer v. Bivert, 214 MO 473, 474 [1908]; M. Frances
Mcnamara, 200 Famous Legal Quotations [ 1967], 548.
120
G.R. No. 87165, January 25, 1993, 217 SCRA 483 [Per J. Cruz, First Division].
121
Id. at 484.
Decision
15 G.R. No. 196735
The trial court, in weighing all the evidence on hand, found the
testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution to be credible. In its
decision, the trial court stated that:
x x x. Although each victim had a very strong motive to place his
fraternity rivals permanently behind bars, not one testified against all of
them. If the prosecution eyewitnesses, who were all Sigma Rhoans,
were simply bent on convicting Scintilla Juris members for that
matter, they could have easily tagged each and every accused as a
participant in the atrocious and barbaric assault to make sure no one
would escape conviction. Instead, each eyewitness named only one or
two and some were candid enough to say that they did not see who
delivered the blows against them.
Thus, the prosecution witnesses, Ernest Paulo Tan, Dennis Gaio
and Darwin Asuncion, testified to have seen it all but they could not, and
did not, disclose any name. Lachica, on the other hand, said that he did not
have the opportunity to see and identify the person who hit him in the back
and inflicted a two-inch cut. His forearm was also hit by a lead pipe but he
did not see who did it. Natalicio, one of the other three who were
hospitalized, was severely beaten by three waves of attackers totalling
more than 15 but he could only name 3 of them. He added, however, that
he would be able to recognize those he saw if he would see them again. Of
them, Mangrobang pointed to at least 5 but he stressed that he did not see
Zingapan, Soliva, Guerrero, Del Rosario, Daraoay, Denoista, and Penalosa
during the onslaught. Gaston could have named any of the accused as the
one who repeatedly hit him with a heavy pipe and stabbed him but he
frankly said their faces were covered. Like Natalicio, Fortes was
repeatedly beaten by several groups but did not name any of the accused
as one of those who attacked him. The persons he identified were those
leading the pack with one of them as the assailant of Venturina, and the
two others who he saw standing while he was running away. He added
that he saw some of the accused during the attack but did not know then
their names.
122
(Emphasis supplied)
We agree.
The trial court correctly held that "considering the swiftness of the
incident,"
123
there would be slight inconsistencies in their statements. In
People v. Adriano Cabrillas,
124
it was previously observed that:
It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying
on the occurrence of a crime to give varying details as there
may be some details which one witness may notice while the
other may not observe or remember. In fact, jurisprudence even
warns against a perfect dovetailing of narration by different
122
123
Id. at 57.
124
G.R. No. 175980, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 174 [ ~ r J. Del Castillo, First Division].
witnesses as it could mean that their testimonies were prefabricated
and rehearsed.
125
(Emphasis supplied)
According to their testimonies, Lachica was able to identify Alvir,
Zingapan, and Medalla;
126
Natalicio was able to identify Medalla, Zingapan,
and Soliva;
127
and Fortes was able to identify Feliciano, Medalla, and
Zingapan.
128
Their positive identification was due to the fact that they either
wore no masks or that their masks fell off.
It would be in line with human experience that a victim or an
eyewitness of a crime would endeavor to find ways to identify the assailant
so that in the v ~ n t that he or she survives, the criminal could be
apprehended. It has also been previously held that:
It is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal
violence to strive to see the looks and faces of their assailants and
observe the manner in which the crime was committed. Most often
the face of the assailant and body movements thereof, creates a
lasting imcfression which caimot be easily erased from their
memory.
12
In the commotion, it was more than likely that the masked assailants
could have lost their masks. It had been testified by the victims that some of
the assailants were wearing masks of either a piece of cloth or a
handkerchief and that Alvir,
130
Zingapan,
131
Soliva,
132
and Feliciano
133
had
masks on at first but their masks fell off and hung around their necks.
Equally telling was the testimony of defense witness Frisco Capilo during
cross-examination who observed that some of the attackers were wearing
masks and some were not, thus:
Q Mr. Capilo, do you know this Scintilla Juris Fraternity?
A No, sir.
Q During the incident of December 8, 1994, there were a lot
of people eating in the Beach House Canteen, and then
running towards different directions, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q And some people were wearing masks and some were not?
125
Id. at 191, citing People v. Lacbayan, 393 Phil. 800, 807. (2000) [Per J. Ynares- Santiago, First
Division].
126
TSN,June5, 1995,pp. ll-13.
127 s l
T N,Juy3, 1995,pp.21-22.
128 s b
T N, Octo er 30, 1995, pp. 91, 112.
129
People v. Opiniado Dolar, G.R. No. 100805, March 24, 1994, 231 SCRA 414, 423 [Per J. Puno,
Second Division], citing People v. Sartagoda, G. R. No. 97525, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 251, 257 [Per
J. Campos, Jr., Second Division].
130 TS
N, June 21, 1995, p. 33.
131 l
TSN, Ju y 5, 1995, p. 24.
132
Id. at 48-52.
133
TSN, September 28, 1995, p. 24.
J
Decision
17
G.R. No. 196735
Y
. 134
A es, sir.
While the attack was swift and sudden, the victims would have had
the presence of mind to take a look at their assailants if they were
identifiable. Their positive identification, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, must be upheld to be credible.
It has been argued that the trial court did not give Mangrobang's
testimony credence while Gaston's testimony was found to be "hazy." This
argument is unmeritorious.
It should be noted that it was the trial court itself that stated that the
acquittal of the Scintilla Juris members identified by Mangrobang "should
not be. misinterpreted to mean that the tt:'.stimony of Mangrobang was an
absolute fabrication."
135
The court went on to state that they "were
exonerated merely because they were accorded the benefit of the doubt as
their identification by Mangrobang, under tumultuous and chaotic
circumstances were [sic] not corroborated and their alibis, not refuted."
136
There was, therefore, no basis to say that Mangrobang was not credible; it
was only that the evidence presented was not strong enough to overcome the
presumption of innocence.
Gaston's testimony, on the other hand, was considered "hazy"
137
by
the trial court only with regard to his identification of Zingapan' s
companion. Gaston testified that he saw Zingapan with Morano, with
Zingapan moving and Morano staying in place. Fortes, however, testified
that both Zingapan and Morano were running after him. Lachica also
testified that it was Medalla, not Morano, who was with Zingapan. Because
of this confusion, the trial court found that there was doubt as to who was
really beside Zingapan. The uncertainty resulted into an acquittal for
Morano. Despite this, the court still did not" impute doubt in their testimonies
that Zingapan was present at the scene.
Be that as it may, the acquittals made by the trial court further prove
that its decision was brought about only upon a thorough examination of the
evidence presented: It accepted that there were inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the victims but that these were minor and did not affect their
credibility. It ruled that "[s]uch inconsistencies, and even probabilities, are
not unusual 'for there is no person with perfect faculties or senses."'
138
134
TSN, December 4, 1995, p. 47; See also RTC decision, p. 51.
135
136 Id.
137
Id. at 65.
138
Id. at 58.
Decision
Evidence as part of the res
gestae may be admissible but
have little persuasive value in
this case
18 G.R. No. 196735
According to the testimony of U.P. Police Officer Salvador,
139
when
he arrived at the scene, he interviewed the bystanders who all told him that
they could not recognize the attackers since they were all masked. This, it is
argued, could be evidence that could be given as part of the res gestae.
As a general rule, "[a] witness can testify only to the facts he knows
of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own
perception, x x x."
140
All other kinds of testimony are hearsay and are
inadmissible as evidence. The Rules of Court, however, provide several
exceptions to the general rule, and one of which is when the evidence is part
of res gestae, thus:
Section 42. Part of res gestae. - Statements made by a person
while a starting occmTence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may
be given in evidence as pmi of res gestae. So, also, statements
accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it
a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.
141
In People v. Rodrigo Salafranca,
142
this court has previously
discussed the admissibility of testimony taken as part of res gestae, stating
that:
A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res gestae
and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when
the following requisites concur, to wit: (a) the principal act, the res gestae,
is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements are made before the declarant
had time to contrive or devise; and ( c) the statements must concern the
occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
xx xx
The term res gestae has been defined as "those circumstances
which are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which
are admissible when illustrative of such a ~ t . In a general way, res gestae
refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the
main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and
contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation
and fabrication. The rule on res gestae encompasses the exclamations and
statements made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime
139
TSN, November 20, 1995, p. 20.
140
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 130, Sec. 36.
141
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 130 (C) (6), Sec. 42.
142 G
.R. No. 173476, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 501 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
Decision
19 G.R. No. 196735
immediately before, during, or immediately after the commission of the
crime when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a
spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the
occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and
to fabricate a false statement. The test of admissibility of evidence as a
part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or
exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal
fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the
transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation
f:
. 143
or purpose to manu acture testimony.
There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group peacefully eating
lunch on a school campus is a startling occurrence. Considering that the
statements of the bystanders were made immediately after the startling
occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible as evidence given in res gestae.
In People v. Albarido,
144
however, tliis court has stated that "in accord
to ordinary human experience:"
x x x persons who witness an event perceive the same from
their respective points of reference. Therefore, almost always,
they have different accounts of how it happened. Certainly, we
cannot expect the testimony of witnesses to a crime to be
consistent in all aspects because different persons have different
impressions and recollections of the same incident. x x x
145
(Emphasis supplied)
The statements made by the bystanders, although admissible, have
little persuasive value since the bystanders could have seen the events
transpiring at different vantage points and at different points in time. Even
Frisco Capilo, one of the bystanders at the time of the attack, testified that
the attackers had their masks on at first, but later on, some remained masked
and soine were unmasked.
When the bystanders' testimonies are weighed against those of the
victims who witnessed the entirety of the incident from beginning to end at
close range, the former become merely corroborative of the fact that an
143
People v. Rodrigo Salafranca, G.R. No. 173476, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 501, 512-514 [Per J.
Bersamin, First Division], citing People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 94570, September 28, I 994, 237 SCRA
218, 224 [Per J. Cruz, First Division]; People v. Maguikay, G.R. Nos. 103226-28, October 14, 1994,
237 SCRA 587, 600 [Per J. Puno, Second Division]; Alhambra Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. DeCelle, I 18 P.
2d 19, 47 C.A. 2d 409; Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. v. Lewis, 61 N.E. 2d 297, 326 Ill. App. 117;
Kaiko v. Dolinger, 440 A. 2d 198, I 84 Conn. 509; Southern Surety Co. v. Weaver, Com. App. 273
S.W. 838; People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 74740, August 28, 1992, 213 SCRA 70, 79 [Per J. Davide, Jr.,
Third Division]; Molloy v. Chicago Rapid Transit Co., 166 N.E. 530, 335 Ill. 164; Campbell v.
Gladden, 118 A. 2d 133, 383 Pa. 144, 53 A.LR. 2d 1222.
144
420 Phil. 235 (2001) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division].
145 d
I . at 245, citing People v. Real, 367 Phil. 524 (1999) [Per J. Pardo, First Division]. This statement was
used in order to justify that minor inconsistencies do not affect the witnesses' credibility so long as
they concur on the material aspects of the incident.
attack occurred. Their account of the incident, therefore, must be given
considerably less weight than that of the victims.
The belated identification by
the victims do not detract from
their positive identification of
the appellants
It is argued that the fact that the victims stayed silent about the
incident to the U.P. Police or the Quezon City Police but instead executed
affidavits with the National Bureau of Investigation four (4) days after the
incident gives doubt as to the credibility of their testimonies.
U.P. Police Officer Romeo Cabrera
146
testified that on their way to the
U.P. Infirmary, he interviewed the victims who all told him they could not
recognize the attackers because they were all wearing masks. Meanwhile,
Dr. Mislang
147
testified to the effect that when she asked Natalicio who
attacked them, Natalicio answered that he did not know because they were
masked.
It must be remembered that the parties involved in this case belong to
rival fraternities. While this court does not condone their archaic and
oftentimes barbaric traditions, it is conceded that there are certain practices
that are unique to fraternal organizations.
It is quite possible that at this point in time, they knew the identities of
their attackers but chose not to disclose it without first conferring with their
other fraternity brothers. This probability is bolstered by the actions of
Sigma Rho after the incident, which showed that they confronted the
members of Scintilla Juris in SM North. Because of the tenuous relationship
of rival fraternities, it would not have been prudent for Sigma Rho to
retaliate against the wrong fraternity.
Their act of not disclosing the correct information to the U.P. Police
or to Dr. Mislang does not make the police officer or the doctor's
testimonies more credible than that of the victims. It should not be forgotten
that t ~ victims actually witnessed the entire incident, while Officer
Salvador, Officer Cabrera, and Dr. Mislai;i.g were merely relaying second-
hand information.
The fact that they went to the National Bureau of Investigation four
(4) days after the incident also does not affect their credibility since most of
146
TSN, November 13, 1995, pp. 37-38.
147
TSN, September 16, 1998, p. 20.
them had been hospitalized from their injuries and needed to recover first.
Since a fraternity moves as one unit, it would be understandable that they
decided to wait until all of them were well enough to go to the National
Bureau of Investigation headquarters in order to give their statements.
Seniority is also often the norm in fraternities. It was upon the advice
of their senior "brads" and their legal counsel that they executed their sworn
statements before the National Bureau of Investigation four (4) days after the
incident.
The decision to report the incident to the National Bureau of
Investigation instead of to the U.P. Police was the call of their legal counsel
who might have deemed the National Bureau of Investigation more
to handle the investigation. This does not, however, affect the
credibility of the witnesses since they were merely following the legal
advice of their counsel.
Indeed, there is reason to believe that the National Bureau of
Investigation is equipped than the U.P. Police to handle the
investigation of the case. As stated in the U.P. College of Economics
website:
The UP Diliman Police (UPDP) is tasked with maintaining
campus security. Their station is located in front of the College of
Architecture.
The primary missions of the UPDP are to maintain peace and
order, secure and protect lives and property, enforce basic laws,
applicable Quezon City Ordinances, and University Rules and
Regulations including policies and.standards; and to perform such
other functions relative to the general safety and security of the
students, employees, and residents in the U.P. Diliman Campus. x
x x.
148
(Emphasis supplied)
It can be seen that the U.P. Police is employed by U.P. primarily for
campus security. They are by no means an actual police force that is
equipped to handle a full-blown murder investigation. Fraternity-related
violence in U.P. has also increasingly become more frequent, which might
possibly have desensitized the U.P. Police in such a way that would prevent
their objectivity in the conduct oftheir investigations. The victims' reliance
on the National Bureau of Investigation, therefore, is understandable.
III
148
UP Diliman Police, <http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/up-di1iman-po\ice/> (visited March 4, 2014).
Alibi cannot prevail over the
positive identification of the
victim
It is settled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive
.d .fi . f h . .
149
I P l B . . P l
150
h.
I entl icatlon o t e victim. n eop e v: en1amzn ete una, t is court
stated that:
It is a time-honored principle that the positive identification of the
appellant by a witness destroys the defense of alibi and denial. Thus:
x x x. It is well-entrenched that alibi and denial are inherently
weak and have always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due
to the facility with which they can be concocted. They warrant the
least credibility or none at all and cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses. For
alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that appellant was
somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must also
demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been
at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Unless
substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is
negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law.
Denial, like alibi, as an exonerating justification[,] is inherently
weak and if uncorroborated regresses to blatant impotence. Like
alibi, it also constitutes self-serving negative evidence which
cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration
of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.
151
In this case, t ~ victims were able to positively identify their attackers
while the accused-appellants merely offered alibis and denials as their
defense. The credibility of the victims was upheld by both the trial court and
the appellate court while giving little credence to the accused-appellants'
alibis. There is, thus, no reason to disturb their findings.
Accused-appellants were
correctly charged with
murder, and there was
treachery in the commission
of the crime
149
People v. Benjamin Peteluna, GR. No. 187048, January 23, 2013, 689 SCRA 190, 197 [Per J. Perez,
Second Division].
150
GR. No. 187048, January 23, 2013, 689 SCRA 190 [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
151
Id. at 197, citing People v. Barde, GR. No. 183094, September 22, 20 I 0, 631 SCRA 187, 211 [Per J.
Perez, First Division]; People v. Estepano, 367 Phil. 209, 217-218 (1999) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second
Division]; People v. Berdin, 462 Phil. 290, 304 (2003) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc]; People v.
Francisco, 397 Phil. 973, 985 (2000) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].
Decision
23
G.R. No. 196735
According to the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
the accused-appellants were correctly charged with murder. Article 248
states:
ART. 248. Murder.-Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of
murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the
aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense,
or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
xx xx
It is undisputed that on December 8, 1994, a group of men armed with
lead pipes and baseball bats attacked Dennis Venturina and his companions,
which resulted in Venturina's death.
As correctly found by the trial court and the appellate court, the
offense committed against Dennis Venturina was committed by a group that
took advantage of its superior strength and with the aid of armed men. The
appellate court, however, incorrectly ruled out the presence of treachery in
the commission of the offense.
It has been stated previously by this court that:
[T]reachery is present when the offender commits any of
the crimes against persons, employ\ng means, methods, or forms in
the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.
152
Similarly, in People v. Leozar Dela Cruz,
153
this court stated that:
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the
execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the
attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and
unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery
152
People v. Gary Vergara, G.R. No. 177763, July 3, 2013, 700 SCRA 412, 423 [Per J. De Castro, First
Division], citing People v. Lauria, G.R. No. 182523, September 13, 2012, 680 SCRA 560, 571-572
[Per J, Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
153 G
.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 738 [PerJ. Velasco, Third Division].
to be considered, two elements must concur: ( 1) the employment
of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no
opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of
execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
154
(Emphasis
supplied)
The appellate court, in affirming the conviction of the accused-
appellants, ruled that contrary to the findings of the trial court, there was no
treachery involved. In particular, they ruled that although the attack was
sudden and unexpected, "[i]t was done in broad daylight with a lot of people
who could see them"
155
and that "there was a possibility for the victims to
have fought back or that the people in the canteen could have helped the
victims."
156
This reasoning is clearly erroneous. The victims in this case were
eating lunch on campus. They were not at a place where they would be
reasonably expected to be on guard for any sudden attack by rival fraternity
men.
The victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked with lead pipes
and baseball bats. The only way they could parry the blows was with their
arms. In a situation where they were unanned and outnumbered, it would be
impossible for them to fight back against the attackers. The attack also
happened in less than a minute, which would preclude any possibility of the
bystanders being able to help them until after the incident.
The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity
for the victims to retaliate or even to defend themselves. Treachery,
therefore, was present in this case.
The presence of conspiracy
makes all of the accused-
a ppellan ts liable for murder
and attempted murder
In the decision of the trial court, all of the accused-appellants were
found guilty of the murder of Dennis Venturina and the attempted murder of
Mervin Natalicio, Cesar Mangrobang, Jr. Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes,
and Cristobal Gaston, Jr. The appellate court, however, modified their
liabilities and found that the accused-appellants were guilty of attempted
154
People v. Leozar Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 738, 747 [Per J. Velasco,
Third Division], citing People v. Amazan, 402 Phil. 247, 270 (2001) [Per J. Mendoza, Second
Division]; People v. Bato, 401Phil.415, 431 (2000) [Per J. Pardo, First Division]; People v. Albarido,
420 Phil. 235, 252 (2001) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division], citing People v. Francisco, 389
Phil. 243, 266 (2000) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].
155
CA decision, p. 59.
156 Id.
Decision
25 G.R. No. 196735
murder only against Natalicio and Fortes, and not against Mangrobang,
Lachica, and Gaston.
It is the appellate court's reasoning that because Lachica and
Mangrobang "were no longer chased by the attackers,"
157
it concluded that
accused-appellants "voluntary desisted from pursuing them and from
inflicting harm to them, which shows that they did not have the intent to do
more than to make them suffer pain by slightly injuring them."
158
It also
pointed out that the wound inflicted on Gaston "was too shallow to have
been done with an intent to kill."
159
Thus, it concluded that the accused-
appellants would have been guilty only of slight physical injuries.
This is erroneous.
It should be remembered that the trial court found that there was
conspiracy among the accused-appellants
160
and the appellate court sustained
this finding.
161
Conspiracy, once proven, has the effect of attaching liability
to all of the accused, regardless oftheir degree of participation, thus:
Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of
the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the
extent and character of their respective active participation in
the commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in
furtherance of the conspiracy because in contemplation of law
the act of one is the act of all. The foregoing rule is anchored on
the sound principle that "when two or more persons unite to
accomplish a criminal object, whether through the physical
volition of one, or all, proceeding severally or collectively, each
individual whose evil will actively contributes to the wrong-doing
is in law responsible for the whole, the same as though performed
by himself alone." Although it is axiomatic that no one is liable for
acts other than his own, "when two or more persons agree or
conspire to commit a crime, each is responsible for all the acts of
the others, done in furtherance of the agreement or conspiracy."
The imposition of collective liability upon the conspirators is
clearly explained in one case where this Court held that
... it is impossible to graduate the separate liability
of each (conspirator) without taking into
consideration the close and inseparable relation of
each of them with the criminal act, for the
commission of which they all acted by common
agreement ... The crime must therefore in view of
the solidarity of the act and intent which existed
between the ... accused, be regarded as the act of the
157
CA decision, p. 61.
15s Id. .
159 Id.
160
See RTC decision, pp. 78-79.
161
See CA decision, pp. 22-23.
band or party created by them, and they are all
equally responsible
Verily, the moment it is established that the malefactors
conspired and confederated in the commission of the felony
proved, collective liability of the accused conspirators attaches
by reason of the conspiracy, and the court shall not speculate
nor even investigate as to the actual degree of participation of
each of the perpetrators present at the scene of the crime. x x
x.
162
(Emphasis supplied)
The liabilities of the accused-appellants m this case arose from a
single incident wherein the accused-appellants were armed with baseball
bats and lead pipes, all in agreement to do the highest amount of damage
possible to the victims. Some were able to run away and take cover, but the
others would fall prey at the hands of their attackers. The intent to kill was
already present at the moment of attack and that intent was shared by all of
the accused-appellants alike when the presence of conspiracy was proven. It
is, therefore, immaterial to distinguish between the seriousness of the
injuries suffered by the victims to determine the respective liabilities of their
attackers. What is relevant is only as to whether the death occurs as a result
of that intent to kill and whether there are qualifying, aggravating or
mitigating circumstances that can be appreciated.
The appellate court, therefore, erred in finding the accused-appellants
guilty only of slight physical injuries. It would be illogical to presume that
despite the swiftness and suddenness of the attack, the attackers intended to
kill only Venturina, Natalicio, and Fortes, and only intended to injure
Lachica, Mangrobang, and Gaston. Since the intent to kill was evident from
the moment the accused-appellants took their first swing, all of them were
liable for that intent to kill.
For this reason, the accused-appellants should be liable for the murder
of Dennis Venturina and the attempted murder of Mervin Natalicio, Cesar
Mangrobang, Jr., Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, and Cristobal Gaston, Jr.
A Final Note
It is not only the loss of one promising young life; rather, it is also the
effect on the five other lives whose once bright futures are now put in ,!
162
People v. Peralta, et al., 134 Phil. 703 (1968) [Per Curiam, En Banc], citing US. v. Ramos, 2 Phil. 434
(1903) [Per J. Willard, En Banc]; U.S. v. Maza, 5 Phil. 346 (1905) [Per J. Johnson, En Banc]; U.S. v.
Grant and Kennedy, 18 Phil. 122 (1910) [Per J. Trent, En Banc]; U.S. v. !pi!, 27 Phil. 530 (1914) [Per
J. Johnson, En Banc]; U.S. v. Synder, 3 McCrary, 377; People v. Bannaisan, 49 Phil. 423 (1926) [Per J.
Villa-Real, En Banc]; U.S. v. Bunda!, et al., 3 Phil. 89 (1903) [Per J. Torres, En Banc].
jeopardy because of one senseless act of bravado. There is now more honor
for them t<;> accept their responsibility and serve the consequences of their
actions. There is, however, nothing that they can do to bring back Dennis
Venturina or fully compensate for his senseless and painful loss.
This is not the first fraternity-related case to come to this court;
neither will it be the last. Perhaps this case and many cases like it can
empower those who have a bette\ view of masculinity: one which valorizes
courage, sacrifice and honor in more life-saving pursuits.
"Giting at dangal" are words of the anthem of the University of the
Philippines. It colors the stories of many who choose to expend their energy
in order that our people will have better lives. Fraternity rumbles are an
anathema, an immature and useless expenditure of testosterone. It fosters a
culture that retards manhood. It is devoid of "giting at dangal."
Th.is_ kind of shameful violence must stop.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
N). 01158 dated November 26, 2010 is AFFIRMED insofar as the accused-
appellants Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor Medalla, Christopher Soliva,
Warren L. Zingapan, and Robert Michael Beltran Alvir are found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of Murder in. Criminal Case No. Q95-61133 with
the MODIFICATION that they be fouhd GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of Attempted Murder in Criminal Case Nos. Q95-61136, Q95-61135,
Q95-61134, Q95-61138, and Q95-61137.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
MARIA SERENO
Chief Justice
Decision

PERALTA
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
28 G.R. No. 196735

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
oflMCW\

Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
vv&
PERALTA
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
G.R. Nos. 196735 --
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, versus DANILO FELICIANO
JR., ET AL., Respondents.
Promulgated:
x ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x
DISSENTING OPINION
ABAD, J.:
I strongly dissent from the majority Decision.
The incident in this case was an offshoot of a campus war between
members of two fraternities at the University of the Philippines (UP) where
one group, allegedly masked, surprised and beat up the other, resulting in
injuries to some and death to one.
Alleging conspiracy, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City filed an
information for murder, two informations for frustrated murder, and three
informations for attempted murder against 12 accused, belonging to the
Scintilla Juris Fraternity, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon
City in Criminal Cases Q95-61133 to 38 with no bail recommended. Only
11 of the accused were tried, however, since accused Benedict Guerrero
remained at large.
The Facts and Case
The evidence for the prosecution shows that seven Sigma Rho
Fraternity members were taking lunch at the Beach House Canteen inside
the UP campus in Diliman, Quezon City, between 12:30 and 1 :00 p.m. on
December 8, 1994 when about 15 men, carrying baseball bats or lead pipes,
with some wearing masks, swooped down upon them. SR Dennis Venturina
shouted an alarm, "Brods ! Brods ! " His brods scampered away but the
attackers got to some of them. (To avoid confusion, SR or SJ is affixed
before the names of those involved to distinguish members of the Sigma
Rho Fraternity from members of the Scintilla Juris Fraternity.)
SR Leandro Lachica, his fraternity's Grand Archon, testified that the
attackers all wore improvised masks of cloth or t-shirts. Five of them wenv
Dissenting Opinion 2 GR. No. 196735
after SR Lachica, hitting him on the back and forearms as he parried the
blows. In the course of that attack, the mask of one of them, SJ Robert
Michael Beltran Alvir, with whom he was familiar, fell off. SR Lachica got
away from those who were beating him but he looked back while running
and saw SJ Warren Zingapan and Julius Victor Medalla, two of the attackers,
no longer wearing masks. The attack lasted for about 30 to 45 seconds.
1
SR Mervin Natalicio, a 4
111
year law student and Vice-Grand Archon of
his fraternity, testified that while most of the attackers running towards their
group wore masks, one of them, SJ Medalla, wore none. Natalicio tried to
scamper away but he tripped on a tree root and fell. About 10 attackers,
including SJ Zingapan and Christopher Soliva who also wore no masks,
bludgeoned him on the back, arms, left shoulder, hips, toes, and right hand.
2
After his initial attackers left SR Natalicio, a group of four or five
others led by SJ Benedict Guerrero, took over and beat him up, too. A third
group came and also mauled him on the left side of his body. When
Natalicio was so hurt he could no longer move, some people brought him to
the UP Infirmary where they treated his injuries.
3
SR Natalicio later went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
gave his statement, and submitted himself to medico-legal examination. He
said that Scintilla Juris members attacked them as an offshoot of an August
1994 rumble despite a signed truce.
4
SR Cesar Mangrobang testified that after SR Venturina sounded the
alarm, he saw a group of men, some with cloth masks, approach with lead
pipes and clubs. As he received a blow on his back, he tried to run but two
masked men blocked his way and repeatedly beat him up. When their masks
fell off, the two turned out to be SJ Gilbert Magpantay and Carlo Fajardo.
5
SR Mangrobang succeeded in running away until he reached the
corner of the Main Library. On glancing back, he saw no one after him. He
then decided to retmn to the scene of the commotion where he saw from
three to four meters away SJ Danilo Feliciano, Jr. and Raymund Narag
hitting SR Venturina with lead pipes. SJ Feliciano's cloth mask had fallen
off. SR Mangrobang also saw SJ Reynaldo Ablanida wielding a lead pipe
while running.
6
SJ Narag and Feliciano were about to turn on SR Mangrobang when
somebody shouted, "Pulis! Takbo! Takbo!," prompting the two to run in the
direction of the Main Library. SR Mangrobang and others helped carry SR
1
TSN,June5, 1995,pp. ll-14.
2
TSN, July 3, 1995, pp. 6-16.
3
ld.at17-19.
4
Id. at 20-23.
5
TSN,September28, 1995,pp.14-19.
6
Id. at 20-30.
Dissenting Opinion 3 G.R. No. 196735
Venturina into a passenger jeepney to bring him to the Infirmary.
7
SR Cristobal Gaston, Jr. testified that, of the men who came, two
attacked him: the first with a lead pipe, hitting him on the arms and hands as
he tried to cover his head, while the second stabbed him on the left chest and
forearm. The two wore masks. SR Gaston got away and ran towards Palma
Hall but, as he looked back, he saw SJ Zingapan, Feliciano and George
Morano at the scene.
8
SR Gaston went to confer with his fraternity brothers
at the College of Law building. Later that evening, they met with their
alumni brothers.
9
SR Arnel Fortes testified that some of the men who attacked them
wore masks but some did not. He saw SJ Feliciano, whom he recognized
despite a cloth mask, and SJ Medalla who wore none. SR Fortes managed to
run away but, as he looked back, he saw SJ Zingapan and Morano, who also
wore no masks, running after him. They hit him on the back, causing him to
fall. He stood up and tried to run again but a group of 10 men attacked him
for five to eight seconds, hitting his head five to seven times. They also hit
him on the legs. He did not recognize any of his attackers. But, standing up
again after the second attack, SR Fortes saw SJ Feliciano beating up SR
Venturina. SJ Feliciano 's mask fell off in the process.
10
Dr. Rolando Victoria described the injuries that SR Venturina
suffered.
11
Dr. Aurea Villena, on the other hand, testified on the results of
her medical examinations of SR Natalicio, Fortes, Mangrobang, Lachica,
and Gaston four days after the mauling incident.
12
Emmanuel Batungbakal testified that he saw a group of men board
three cars that had no plate numbers. The cars sped past the back of the law
library. SJ Feliciano was one of those on board. Batungbakal did not,
however, witness the reported incident that followed.
13
Ernesto Paolo Tan testified that he was at the Beach House Canteen
during the incident. He saw three separate groups of men, some of whom
wore masks, attack SR Natalicio. After the attackers left, he helped
Natalicio board a service vehicle.
14
Dennis Gaio testified that he was having lunch outside the canteen
when three of the attackers came from the Arts and Science Building
followed by 10 more from the College of Law. Some wore masks but the
others did not. They attacked the group that was having lunch, including SR
7
Id. at 28-34.
8
TSN, October 11, 1995, pp. 17-38.
9
Id. at 44-46.
10
TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 42-63.
11
TSN, July 24, 1995, pp. I 1-24.
12
TSN, July 31, 1995, pp. 9- I 0.
13
TSN, November 6, I 995, pp. 33-39; 61-62.
14
TSN, September 3, I 996, pp. I 6-17; 24-54.
Venturina. He tried to help the latter after he had fallen but one of the
attackers stopped him. Gaio had two women companions but he told them
to run towards the sunken garden when he sensed the arrival of the masked
15
men.
The defense presented 42 witnesses. To prove its claim that the
identities of the attackers were unrecognizable because of their masks, the
defense presented, among others, Benito Lato and Frisco Capilo, both utility
workers at UP and some student customers at the canteen. Lato recalled that
he was collecting plates at the canteen when the attackers came. But he was
unable to recognize them because they wore masks and he could see only
their eyes.
16
Capilo, on the other hand, testified that he was on his way to
the Main Library to work when several men, all wearing masks and carrying
lead pipes, rushed towards the canteen and attacked some who were eating
there.
17
Daniel Mabazza testified that he was on his way out of the canteen
when 15 men arrived from the South wing of the Main Library and attacked
some customers who were eating at the tables. He testified further that he
was about 3 to 5 meters from where SR Venturina was attacked but he could
not identify any of the attackers because they were all wearing masks and
none of these fell off during the attack.
18
Alpha Sigma Nu Sorority members, Eda Pangilinan, Luz Perez, and
Bathalani Tiamson testified that they were unable to identify the attackers
because they all wore masks. Pangilinan and Tiamson insisted that they did
not see any of the attackers' masks fall off.
19
UP police officer Romeo Cabrera testified that he and fellow officer,
Oscar Salvador, were at the Arts and Science Building when they responded
to reports that a rumble was taking place at the back of the Main Library.
On arrival at the Beach House Canteen, they saw the wounded SR Natalicio
with some companions. They put him on board a jeepney and brought him
to the UP Infirmary with his companions. On the way, Cabrera asked SR
Natalicio who attacked his group. He replied that he did not recognize any
of them because they wore masks. Cabrera asked SR Natalicio the same
question after he had received treatment. SR Natalicio gave the same
answer. Cabrera could not interrogate SR Venturina because the latter
suffered serious injuries.
20
UP police officer Salvador testified that when he and Cabrera
responded to reports of commotion, they noticed a mauling victim, SR
Natalicio, surrounded by some people. Salvador asked some of the
15
TSN,April 3, 1997, pp. 10-22.
16 T
SN, November27, 1995, pp. 10-12.
17
TSN, December4, 1995, p. 13.
18
19
RTC Decision, p. 37.
20
TSN, November 13, 1995, pp. 22-53.
Dissenting Opinion
5 G.R. No. 196735
bystanders who the culprits were. They said they did not recognize them
. h . k 21
smce t ey were wearmg mas s.
The police officers brought SR Natalicio and his three companions to
the Infirmary using the canteen's jeepney. On the. way, Cabrera asked SR
Natalicio and the others with him who attacked them. They replied that they
could not tell since the men wore masks. Salvador saw SR Venturina and
Gaston being treated at the Infirmary. After SR Natalicio was treated,
Cabrera asked him again if he recognized the men who hit him. Natalicio
replied that he did not because they wore masks. When asked how many hit
him, Natalicio said that he could not tell because he had his back on them.
22
SJ Feliciano testified that he was in Pampanga on December 8, 1994,
visiting his grandfather whom he thought had undergone surgery of the
prostate gland.
23
His mother, Feliciana, and an elementary school teacher,
Rogelio Yumul, corroborated his testimony. Yumul testified that he was on
his way to the principal 's office at around noon of December 8 when he saw
Feliciano seated at a waiting shed.
24
SJ Alvir testified that he had been ill since December 5.
Consequently, he neither reported for work nor went to UP on December 8.
25
SJ Medalla testified that on the day in question he was with his
classmate Michael Vibas working on a school project. He claimed that he
could not have taken part in the rumble since he suffered from an August
1994 head injury that affected his balance.
26
Jose Victor Santos testified that
he and Medalla played darts after lunch on December 8 and they later went
to Jolibee since Medalla had to treat him after losing the game.
27
Dr.
Gerardo Legaspi corroborated Medalla's testimony regarding his previous
h d
. . . 28
ea mJunes.
SJ Soliva testified that he was having lunch with his girlfriend and her
lady friend at Jollibee Philcoa when the incident took place. They returned
to UP at around 1 :00 p.m. Soliva went straight to his "tambayan" where he
learned of the rumble at the main library.
29
Anna Cabahug, Soliva's
girlfriend, corroborated his testimony.
30
SJ Zingapan testified that he could not have taken part in the incident
at UP since he was at that time having lunch with Teodoro Canay in
Kamuning, Quezon City. From there, he went to the SM City mall at around
21
TSN, November 20, 1995, pp. 15-22.
22
Id. at 22-40.
?3
- TSN, February 17, 1999, pp. 8-9.
?4
- TSN, November 12, 1997, pp. 7-10.
?5
- TSN, February 2, 2000, pp. 9-16.
26
27 s
T N, August 11, 1999, pp. 7-12.
?8
- TSN, September 15, 1999, pp. 10-25.
?9
- TSN, June 16, 1999, pp. 12-21.
30
TSN, November23, 1998, pp. 5-27.
1 :00 p.m. to buy an electric thermos as a wedding gift for a town mate. He
was on his way out of the mall when he chanced upon two of his "brods."
31
The RTC absolved SJ Rodolfo Penalosa on a demurrer to evidence
since none of the prosecution witnesses testified that he had taken part in the
attack.
On February 28, 2002 the RTC rendered judgment
32
finding SJ Alvir,
Feliciano, Soliva, Medalla, and Zingapan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
one count of murder and four counts of attempted murder. The comi gave
credence to the testimonies of the victims who identified their attackers. It
thought little of the failure of some of the victims to name them when asked
by the UP police officers and the physicians at the Infirmary. It did not
agree that the victims' delayed identification of their attackers tainted their
testimonies. The RTC held that the accused conspired in the commission of
the crimes charged. But it acquitted SJ Ablanida, Fajardo, Magpantay,
Morano, and Narag for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), Special First Division of
Five,
33
with one Justice dissenting, affirmed the RTC Decision and found SJ
Alvir, Feliciano, Soliva, Medalla, and Zingapan guilty of three counts of
slight physical injuries in Criminal Cases Q95-61136, Q95-61135, and Q95-
61134; two counts of attempted murder in Criminal Cases Q95-61138 and
Q95-61137; and one count of murder in Criminal Case Q95-61133. The CA
imposed on the accused the penalties that corresponded to the offenses and
ordered them to pay various civil indemnities to the victims or, in the case of
SR Venturina, to his heirs.
The CA ruled that the witnesses' positive identification of SJ Alvir,
Feliciano, Soliva, Medalla, and Zingapan prevailed over the latter's defenses
and alibis. It regarded the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses
as trivial and did not tarnish their credibility. The CA held that the delay in
the identification of the accused had been explained: SR Natalicio and F01ies
needed medical attention; the others with them wanted to come together
when they filed their complaints.
The CA explained that it characterized the crimes charged in Criminal
Cases Q95-61136, Q95-61135, and Q95-61134 as mere slight physical
injuries since the intent to kill was not evident, given that none of the
accused chased them. SR Gaston, said the CA, suffered only a lacerated
wound near his breast, precluding an attempt on his life.
31
TSN, May 12, 1999, pp. 7-18.
32
Penned by Hon. Jose Catral Mendoza, now a member of the Court.
33
The cases were re-raffled many times after several Couti of Appeals justices inhibited themselves,
claiming close relation with a party, a counsel, or a fraternity involved in the case. See: Court of Appeals
Decision, pp. 26-27.
The Issue Presented
The central issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred, like the
RTC, in not rejecting the victims' identification of their assailants as mere
fabrications to go around the fact that the latter wore masks and in thus not
absolving the accused of the charges.
In every criminal action, the prosecution has to establish the identity
of the offender, like the crime itself, by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Indeed, its first duty is to prove the identity of the offender for, even if the
commission of the offense can be established, no conviction can take place
without proof of his identity beyond reasonable doubt.
34
True, alibi is a weak defense in the face of positive testimonies of
prosecution witnesses that the accused committed the crime. But such
testimonies must be credible and must come from credible witnesses.
35
Several circumstances militate against the mauling victims'
testimonies that they were able to identify their attackers:
1. SR Lachica, one of the victims, himself testified that the men he
saw coming to attack his group, at least 10 in number, all wore masks. He
said:
Q: When one of your brod you heard shouted "Brads'', what did you
do?
A: I stood up and I was alarmed. I stood up and looked back and from
my side, I saw at least ten (10) armed men and masked men.
Q: You said armed men, you saw armed men when you looked back.
With what were they armed with?
A: They were armed with lead pipes and baseball bats.
Q: You also mentioned that these men were wearing masks. What
kind of masks?
A: They were wearing handkerchiefs, piece of clothes, and some
t-shirts.
36
SR Lachica also said that, as five of the attackers beat him up on the
back, he covered his head with his forearms.
37
Consequently, it was not
likely that, as he would claim, he saw SJ Alvir's mask fall off his face.
SR Lachica also testified that as he ran away from his assailants, he
looked back running and was able to place the accused SJ Zingapan and
Medalla at the scene.
38
But, considering that SR Lachica was trying to get
34
People v. Pineda, 473 Phil. 517, 548 (2004); People v. Tresvalles, Jr., 313 Phil. 471, 492 (1995), citing
Tuason v. Court of Appeals, 311 Phil. 813, 817 ( 1995).
:: People v. Mansueto, 391 Phil. 611, 633 (2000); People v. Crispin, 383 Phil. 919, 932 (2000).
TSN, June 5, 1995, p. 11. o/.
37
Id. at 29.
38
Id. at 13.
away from the men who were beating him up, it was not likely, having
succeeded in sprinting away, that he would look back and risk slowing down
his escape. He did not even claim that SJ Zingapan and Medalla were
among those who attacked him. He appears to have just made up the
statement to get on record evidence that the two were paii of the attackers.
2. SR Natalicio testified that the men who attacked them mostly
wore masks but SJ Medalla who led those men wore no mask.
39
This is not
easy to believe since SR Lachica, the other prosecution witness, testified that
the attackers all wore masks but when he looked back while getting away, he
saw SJ Medalla already without a mask, implying that the latter lost it, thus
belying SR Natalicio's testimony that SJ Medalla wore no mask from the
staii.
SR Natalicio testified that while parrying his attackers' blows, he saw
SJ Zingapan and Soliva.
40
These two must be near each other since he saw
them at glance. But, contradicting SR Natalicio, SR Gaston also saw SJ
Zingapan, not with Soliva but with Morano.
41
3. The RTC itself gave no credence to SR Mangrobang's
testimony and for this reason acquitted SJ Magpantay and Fajardo, two of
his attackers whose masks supposedly fell off. The trial court also acquitted
SJ Narag, whom SR Mangrobang said he saw, when he returned to the scene
of the commotion, hitting SR Venturina with the aid of SJ Feliciano. It is
quite unbelievable that having narrowly escaped his attackers, SR
Mangrobang would go back while the mauling was still in progress. Finally,
the trial court acquitted SJ Ablanida whom SR Mangrobang said he saw
wielding a lead pipe while running because it simply could not believe this
witness.
4. After SR Lachica and Natalicio, the third witness to use the
look-back proposition was SR Gaston. He testified that one of two masked
men tried to bludgeon him on the head as the other lunged at him with a
knife, wounding his chest and forearm. As SR Gaston ran and escaped from
those two men, he managed to look back just to place SJ Zingapan and
Morano at the scene of the mauling.
The trial court itself found something terribly wrong with SR Gaston's
testimonies. It said:
In this regard, Gaston related a hazy story. At one point, he said
that he saw Zingapan and Morano at the same place but not at the same
time explaining that the former was there first and when he moved, the
latter stood in the same place. Later, he said that both were there at the
same time. Granting arguendo that Morano was moving, his story does
39
TSN, July 3, 1995, p. 9.
40
Id. at 14-16.
41
TSN,October II, 1995,p. 143.
not entirely jibe with that of Fortes.
42
5. SR Fortes was the fourth witness to foist the same look-back
proposition. He ran away after seeing about 15 men, armed with lead pipes
and clubs, coming to attack his group. But he looked back while on the run
to see SJ Zingapan and Morano, who supposedly had no masks, right behind
him. They hit him on the back, causing him to fall. As he stood up and tried
to run again, a group of 10 men attacked him for five to eight seconds. He
recognized none of them. But, standing up again after the second attack, he
supposedly saw SJ Feliciano whose mask fell off while beating up SR
Venturina.
Just what are the chances that four out of five witnesses who were
fleeing and, indeed, running for their lives would just look back, risk
stumbling and crashing down, to put in evidence the identities of some of
those whom the RTC and the CA convicted? Very little. It appears a
convenient excuse for providing evidence where none existed. The
circumstances of the separate identifications, taking place in split seconds,
defy belief. What baffles me is the fact that the trial court acquitted SJ
Morano whom SR Fortes and Gaston identified while looking back on the
run but convicted SJ Zingapan, Soliva, and Medalla who were also targets of
look-back testimonies.
said:
The trial court had reason to further doubt SR Fortes' testimonies. It
By the way, the Court has not ignored the testimony of Amel
Fortes that Morano repeatedly struck him with a lead pipe. It was,
however, given during the rebuttal stage. When he sat at the witness stand
for the first time, he said nothing of that sort. He could have been saying
the truth and that what he related was not an afterthought but still the
cloud of doubt remains. As there still that haziness, the barrier remains
uncleared.
43
6. Emmanuel Batungbakal of course testified that he saw three
plate-less cars rush out towards the Main Library
44
with SJ Feliciano on
board one car. But this testimony is inconclusive since Batungbakal
admitted on cross-examination that he was not sure it was SJ Feliciano he
saw. Besides, as pointed out above, no credible testimony supports the view
that SJ Feliciano in fact took part in the mauling.
The trial court acquitted some of the accused after rejecting the
testimonies of SR Mangrobang who fingered SJ Feliciano as well. On the
other hand, although SR Gaston did not mention SJ Feliciano on direct
testimony, he brought up his name only on cross, a catch-up kind of

rejected in SJ Morano's case. SR Fortes,

final witness against SJ Feliciano, said an uncanny thing: two groups of
attackers had just bludgeoned him one after the other, yet SR Fortes claimed
that he still managed to stand up in time to observe SJ Feliciano attacking
SR Venturina.
7. Notably, the two sides gave conflicting testimonies regarding
the victims' opportunity to identify their attackers. The prosecution
witnesses claim that some of the attackers could be identified because they
wore no masks or their masks fell off. The defense witnesses testified that
all the attackers wore masks and none of these fell off. Since identification
of the attackers is the key issue, the Court has to consider which witnesses
and stories appear to be more credible.
I am impressed with the testimony of UP police officer Salvador, who
had served the UP's police force for 18 years and had no motive to fabricate
or lie. He testified that when he and fellow officer Cabrera arrived at the
scene of the mauling, he asked the bystanders the identities of the assailants.
The bystanders replied that they were unable to identify the attackers
because they wore masks. Salvador testified:
Q: Upon being informed by the blue guard that there was a rumble
near the Beach House canteen, tell the Court what did you and
Cabrera do?
A: We rushed to the place where the incident took place, sir.
Q: And upon reaching the area of the Beach House Canteen, what did
you notice?
A: I noticed one victim together with some people, sir, and I asked
some of the bystanders if they saw what happened and they said
they did not recognize the attackers because they were wearing
mask.
45
The statement of the bystanders, made while some of the wounded
were bleeding there and the excitement lingered, may be given in evidence
as part of the res gestae. Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence
provides:
Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae. - Statements made by a person
while a staiiling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given
in evidence as part of the res gestae. x x x
These statements are spontaneous reactions inspired by the excitement
of the moment. It may be assumed that, unlike tardy witnesses, the
bystanders who made the statements had no opportunity to deliberate or
fabricate. The words they uttered are paii of the commotion they
described.
46
The res gestae contradicts the attempt of prosecution witnesses
to show that a number of the attackers wore masks or that identification was
45
TSN, November 20, 1995, pp. 19-20.
4
r' 2 Jones, Sec. 10: I, 6th Edition.
Dissenting Opinion
11 G.R. No. 196735
possible because the masks of some fell off.
In fact, Luz Perez, a 3rd year Interior Design student, then lining up to
get food at the Beach House Canteen, testified like many others that she was
unable to identify the attackers because they all wore masks. She said:
Q. How many masked men did you see Miss Perez?
A. There were about ten to fifteen masked men.
xx xx
ATTY. W. CHUA
Q. And can you identify any of the attackers that you saw?
WITNESS
A. No, I cannot.
Q. Why can you not identify them?
A. Because they were wearing masks.
47
8. In the same way, while the startling incident and the pains it
caused still occupied their minds, SR Natalicio and his three companions
admitted to the two UP police officers investigating the mauling incident that
they could not identify their attackers because the latter wore masks. UP
police officer Cabrera testified:
q- On you way to the Infirmary, please tell the court if anything had
transpired.
a- I asked Marvin Natalicio of his names, sir.
q- What else did you ask him, if any?
a- I asked him who hit him, sir.
q- What did he say?
a- He told me he did not recognize any of them because they were
wearing masks, sir.
q- What about his companions who were with you in this vehicle, did
you not ask them?
a- They answered the same thing, they did not recognize any of them,
Slf.
xx xx
q- Now, upon arriving at the Infirmary, please tell the Court what
transpired?
a- At the Infirmary, there were two (2) other persons who were also
injured, Sir.
q- Please tell the court what you did at the U.P. Infirmary?
a- I asked Marvin again if he recognized the two (2) other persons
" TSN,
:::
5
he answered ilie same iliffig as what I have a'ked
him when we were at the vehicle, Sir.
48
Notably, as SR Fortes testified, it was "SOP" for all fratmen to
familiarize themselves with the faces and names of the members of other
fraternities.
49
This being the case, there was no reason for SR Natalicio and
his companions, all fratmen, not to promptly name the attackers from the
rival fraternity when first queried by the police officers.
9. Besides, Dr. Carmen Mislang, a physician who had been
serving at the UP Infirmary for 20 years, also testified that when asked, SR
Natalicio and his companions told her that they could not identify their
attackers because the latter were masked.
50
Dr. Mislang in fact included this
information in her medical rep01i. She thus testified:
Q: You said doctor, in this history of present illness, marked as
Exhibit 9-a-2=zingapan, that I quote: "x x x he was allegedly hit by
a lead pipe during the rumble by unknown assailants." What was
the basis of your statement here?
A: He told us, the group because they came with friends, they alleged
that he was hit by a group of people masked by a lead pipe. I
asked if they know the assailants and they said no because they are
masked.
Q: You said he, to whom are you referring to?
A: The patient and their friends around because there arc also
commotion in the emergency room, sir.
Q: Are you referring to the patient by the name of Mervin Natalicio?
A
v 51
: ies, sir.
SR Natalicio of course denied having said that he could not identify
their assailants when the police officers and the doctor asked him and his
companions about it. But between the latter, on the one hand, and those
officers and the doctor, on the other, the Court should have been more
inclined to believe the latter.
Indeed, there is no evidence that SR Natalicio, Lachica, Fortes,
Gaston, Mangrobang, and Tumaneng, who survived the mauling, gave
statements shortly after the incident either to the UP police officers or the
Quezon City police which had primary jurisdiction over the crimes. They
took four days mulling over it before going to the NBI to name their
assailants.
10. SR Natalicio of course gave a different version of his interview
with the UP police officers. When they asked him who their assailants were,
he said that he requested them to come back as he was not feeling well.
52
48
TSN, November 13, 1995, pp. 37-40.
49
TSN, October 30, 1995, p. 12.
so TSN, September 16, 1998, pp. 20-21.
s1 Id.
52
TSN, July 12, 1995, p. 3.
There is testimony that two of his Sigma Rho brothers conferred with him to
discuss what happened and their strategy for getting back at those whom
they believed were responsible. Further to this, SR Lachica
53
and Gaston
54
testified that they met with their alumni brothers that evening. SR Natalicio
said that when the police officers came back to ask him the identities of the
attackers, a senior fraternity brother-lawyer was present and he told the
police officers that the statements would be given to the NBI and they would
just be furnished copies.
55
This is ludicrous. The right to silence is given to persons under
suspicion for committing some crimes, not to the victims whose duty is to
promptly assist the police investigators in pinpointing criminal
responsibilities. No evidence has been presented to show that the UP police
force was partial to the opposing fraternity. I am thus unable to blame the
accused for believing that the only possible reason in this case for
withholding information from the police from day one was that the victims
and their counsel had yet to put their acts together.
11. The supposed identification of the accused came four days later
at the NBI office in Manila. Admittedly, the victims and their brods waited
for everyone to be ready before they came as a group to give their statements
at the NBI office. The excuse that SR Natalicio and Fortes needed medical
attention and that the others with them wanted to come together when they
filed their complaints at the NBI is not a valid excuse. Since they claim that
they were terribly aggrieved and that one of them lost his life, the natural
thing was for them to demand immediate justice and action from the police
or the NBI on the afternoon of December 8, 1994.
12. The prosecution witnesses testified that the masks of five of the
accused just fell off to reveal who they were. These were (a) SJ Alvir per
SR Lachica's testimony;
56
(b) SJ Zingapan and ( c) SJ Medalla also per SR
Lachica's testimony that the two were not wearing masks when he looked
back and saw them,
57
implying that they had masks at the beginning of the
attack; (d) SJ Magpantay and (e) SJ Fajardo per SR Mangrobang's testimony
that the masks of these two fell off.
58
SR Fortes also testified that he saw SJ
Feliciano's mask fell off as he was hitting SR Venturina.
59
Just what are the chances that the masks of five out of 12 accused just
fell off during the mauling? Quite little or nil since it was not actually a
fraternity rumble where the protagonists hit each other creating the
possibility that any mask they were wearing could fall off. Here, the victims
testified that they bore the punishment and were unable to fight back since
53
TSN, June 5, 1995, p. 15.
54
TSN, October 11, 1995, pp. 46, 148-149.
55 b
TSN, Fe ruary 7, 2001, p. 31.
56 s
T N, June 5, 1995, p. 12.
57
Id.atl3.
58
59
TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 62-63.
their attackers were numerous and carried lead pipes and clubs. Indeed,
none of the victims testified that his action in protecting his head resulted in
the unmasking of one or some of his attackers. Evidently, the attackers
deliberately wore masks to hide their identities. It made no sense for them to
wear masks that would just fall off when one sneezes.
Those who swing bats to strike at objects before them rarely hit their
own faces. Only in funny movies like The Three Stooges can that happen.
What are the chances that a mask would just fall off from the face of the
person wearing it? Construction and industrial laborers doing strenuous
work wear mask all day long to protect themselves from dusts, chemicals, or
fumes. Food processing workers wear them at work to prevent food
contamination. They are not likely to be heard experiencing unpredictable
falling off of masks taking place in great number. Here, if the prosecution
were to be believed, five out of just 12 accused lost their masks in only 30 to
45 seconds. The odds of this happening are unbelievable.
Indeed, prosecution witness Gaio himself who was at the scene of the
commotion testified that he did not see any of the attackers losing their
masks at any point in time. He said:
ATTY. CHUA:
Q: At any point in time, did you see any mask pulling [sic] ofl:'?
WITNESS:
A: I did not see anything, sir.
60
Gaio also belied SR F01ies' testimony that SJ Feliciano's mask fell off
while he was hitting SR Venturina. Gaio said:
Q: Mr. Dennis Venturina was hit and foll down, was the person who
hit Dennis wearing mask?
A: Their faces were covered, sir.
Q: All of them?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: There is no way to recognize them?
A N
. 61
: one, sir.
While the attack by masked men is doubly condemnable, not only for
the treachery involved but also for the cowardice and deception that came
with it, the Court cannot hastily send to prison those charged with these
crimes without proof beyond reasonable doubt that they committed them.
The Constitution ordains this.
In a case like this, where the identities and participations of the
several accused involved are difficult to prove, the ideal solution is to
60
TSN, Apri I 3, 1997, pp. 48-49.
61
Id. at 49.
convince the least guilty of them, the one who showed the most reluctance
and delivered the lightest blows, to turn state witness. I am unable to say if
efforts in this direction were taken by the NBI or the prosecutors to ensure
that they had a good case.
I condemn the senseless death of SR Venturina and commiserates with
the sufferings of his family. Fraternity wars, many of them cruel and
barbaric, are the scourge of many campuses. New recruits are romanticized
with the mystery, pride, and drama of brotherhood or kinship with senior
members of great reputation. This of course invites envy and annoyance
from other brotherhoods for none is greater or more courageous than one's
own. They thus test each other's unity, capability, and resolve, destroying
each other, and subordinating the real purpose of their being in school. They
forget that true brotherhood comes from mutual kindness and respect.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the petition, REVERSE AND
SET ASIDE the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court in
Criminal Cases Q95-61133 to 38 dated February 28, 2002, and ACQUIT
the accused-appellants Robert Michael Beltran Alvir, Danilo A. Feliciano,
Jr., Christopher L. Saliva, Julius Victor L. Medalla, and Warren L. Zingapan
on ground of reasonable doubt.

ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice

G.R. 196735 People v. Feliciano Promulgated 5th May 2014 Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

G.R. 196735 People v. Feliciano Promulgated 5th May 2014 Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

3&epublic of toe

rejected in SJ Morano's case. SR Fortes,

Вам также может понравиться