Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

8th Judicial Branch
Branch 34
Bulwagan ng Katarungan
Tacloban City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO.
-versus- 93-03-110

ROGELIO MARGA, DANNY MARGA

And FELICITO BALILI,
Accused.

x-------------------------------------x

DECISION

At bar is the above-captioned case charging Rogelio Marga, Danny Marga and Felicito Balili for
the crime of Frustrated Murder as defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
The accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about March 14, 1999 at about 3:00 o’clock in the morning at Barangay 83-C Taguictic, San Jose
Tacloban City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused,
conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping another, with intent to kill and by means
of treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously assaulted RENANTE ONGUE, by kicking him and hacking him on his head, thus performing
all the acts of execution, which would have produced the crime of murder as a consequence but nevertheless
did not produce by reason of a cause independent of the will of the latter, that is due to timely and able
medical attention rendered to the said victim, which prevented his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

All the accused after being arraigned, pleaded NOT GUILTY.

The version of the Prosecution

During the direct examination of the Prosecution witnesses, the following information were provided.

RENANTE ONGUE testified that:

At around 7:00 o’clock in the evening of March 13, 1999, he was at the house of his employer
named Artemio to initially collect his salary. However, after being handed with their salary, Artemio invited
him to a drinking session with Rolly Tinapan, Lito and Chicay.

At around 3 o’clock in the morning the following day of March 14, 1991, they ended their drinking
session and decided to accompany Lito to get a ride home. On their way to the highway, they noticed that
there was trouble, but did not mind it and proceeded to the highway. After accompanying Lito, Renante
then decided to go home because he felt sleepy.

On way home, he was suddenly held by both arms, his left hand was held by Danny Marga and his
right hand was held by Felicito Balili and was kicked by Rogelio Marga. Subsequently, he was then structed
by a hacking blow on the head with a long bolo by Sonny Salvador. Then, the accused’s ran away and
escaped. Edwin Lago and Crispin Botictic, both Barangay Tanods approached him when they saw him
wounded and brought him to the Hospital which he was treated for a week. The prosecution marked the
Statement of Account from the Hospital dated March 18, 1999 issued by Divine Word Hospital, Tacloban
City as “Exhibit A” and the total amount he paid in the hospital of P34, 541.25 as “Exhibit A-1”.

Edwin Lago further testified that:

At around 3:00 o’clock in the morning of March 14, 1999, he was on duty as Barangay Tanod with Crispin
Botictic at Taguictic, Burayan. Further, he saw Rogelio Marga, Felicito Balil, Danilo Marga and Sonny
Salvador blocked the way of Renante Ongue. He then saw Renante Ongue being kicked and was
subsequently hacked in the head with a long bolo by Sonny and was at the same time being held by Rogelio
and Felicito. Upon seeing Renante being wounded, Edwin Lago then brought Renante near Coca-Cola and
boarded him to a motorcycle so that Renante will be ferried to the Hospital. Rogelio, Dannu, Felicito and
Sonny then ran after the incident.

The prosecution presented the Medical Certificate as an evidence and the defense then admitted
the genuineness and due execution of the findings contained in the Medico-Legal Report. Medical
Certificate of Renante Ongue was marked as Exhibit “B” and the findings as Exhibit “B-1” and
the physician’s signature as Exhibit “B-2”. Both evidence were admitted by the Court in evidence. Right
after the admission of the Exhibits for the prosecution, the prosecution rested its case.

The version of the Defense:

The defense presented three witnesses.

Rogelio Marga, testified that:

At around 2 o’clock at dawn of March 14, 1999, he accompanied his elder brother Danny Marga to ferry a
passenger from Burayan to V&G for only Php 40.00 via Marasbaras passing City Hospital. After ferrying
the passenger, they returned the motorcycle to their elder brother who owns the motorcycle, around 3:00
o’clock in the morning. They then decided to go to Taguiktik to buy cigarette. While walking he was
approached by Renante Ongue and was punched subsequently. Renente Ongue then threatened him that
they will see each other again. His brother, Danilo was just near him and was talking with Edwin Lago. He
then saw Renante heading towards the Coca-Cola junction because Renante was already wounded on the
right side of his eye. They then decided to go home bu was arrested by Tanods Edwin Lago and “Boryak”
who were both present during the incident and alleged that he and Danilo was the one who wounded Renante
Ongue. Police Officers arrived and then brought them to San Jose Police Station.

Felicito Balili also testified that:

During the incident he was just 16 years old. He then presented to the Honorable Court his Birth Certificate
which was marked as Exhibit “1”. He further testified that at around 3:00 o’clock in the morning of March,
1999, he was with his friends Jerome Caña, Ryan Voces, Butch Arcilla, Roland Bugate, Anton Daban and
others at the corner of Burayan. He also testified that they came from a birthday party of one Melanie
Dotado. During the incident of fistfight, he was standing at the back of Edwin Lago and “Botictic”. He
further testified that he saw somebody hack somebody after the fistfight and later learned that it was Sonny
Doe who hacked Renante Ongue. During the whole incident he did not know who Danilo and Rogelio
Marga was. The was then accused by the Barangy Tanods as one of the culprit and was arrested just after
the bridge in Burayan.
Danilo Marga, on the other hand, testified that:

On March 14, 1999 at around 2:30 o’clock in the morning, he roused his younger brother Rogelio Marga,
to ferry a passenger from Burayan to V&G passing by Pajara and not along the Marasabaras road that may
apss through the City Hospital going to V&G. After ferrying the passenger and returning the motorcycle to
his elder brother they proceeded to Taguictic to buy cigaretter. On their way to buy a cigarette they were
blocked by Renante Ongue and Renanate was then punched. After Renante was punched he then decided to
go home. While passing the bridge on their way home, Barangay Tanods arrested them.

Issue

The following issues were raised based on the aforementioned facts.

Whether or not the accused are guilty of the crime Frustrated Murder.
Whether or not there was a conspiracy in the commission of the crime.
Whether or not Felicito Balili is exempted for criminal liability, being a minor during the
commission of the crime.

Discussions
 This Court find complainant’s testimony credible, while the accused’s defense of alibi and denial
are lacking in truth and candor. Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi and
denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the complainant and its witness. Alibi is an inherently
weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be fabricated.
Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be supported with strong evidence of non-culpability to
merit credibility.

We find that the testimonies of brothers Rogelio and Danilo, contradictory and implausible. First,
when there statements were conflicting stating the roads where they passed by in ferrying the passenger
they brought to V&G. Second, when Rogelio said he was boxed by Renante, who was then wounded when
he beat the former. It is physically impossible for Renante, who was wounded on his head already, to inflict
force to another. For someone to employ force to another person, he must be physically able to do so. A
seriously wounded person will prioritize treating himself first than to engage in another fight. Lastly, in
saying that his brother Danilo was just near when Rogelio was boxed by Renante and did nothing. As to
family customs and human experience, no brother will just watched his sibling being hit by another and not
help him instead.

As to the crime committed by the accused, this court finds that treachery attended the commission of the
offense. Our Honorable Supreme Court said in People vs. Quillosa2:

“For treachery to be present, two conditions must be shown: (1) the employment of means of execution that
give the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption
of the means of execution.32

In this case, the accused’s held the hands of the victim to enable their companion to stab him while he was
in a defenseless position. While abuse of superior strength apparent, it is already absorbed in treachery and
need not be appreciated separately.

Furthermore, After Careful evaluation of the foregoing facts and circumstances, this court is convinced that
the accused is guilty of attempted murder and not frustrated murder.

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines the stages in the commission of felonies:

Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those
which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and
does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

2
People of the Philippines vs. REYNALDO QUILLOSA Y FORMANES GR No. 115687 February 17, 2000
The Supreme Court ruled in People vs Labiaga3:

“In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the wound would have been fatal were it not
for timely medical intervention. If the evidence fails to convince the court that the wound sustained would
have caused the victim’s death without timely medical attention, the accused should be convicted of
attempted murder and not frustrated murder.

In the instant case, it does not appear that the wound sustained by Renante Ongue was fatal. He was even
able to sign an affidavit while he was at the emergency room of the hospital where he was brought, four
(4) hours after the incident happened.

During the cross examination:4

Q: Now, kindly tell us what time is that when you affixed your signature?

A: I was in the police hospital at the time when the police officer has made to sign me, it was 7:00
o’clock.

Q: 7:00 o’clock what? In the morning or in the evening?

A: Morning, your Honor.

Q: Where were you in that hospital when you signed that affidavit?

A: At the emergency room, your Honor.

In ruling that there was a conspiracy in the commission of the crime, It was ruled in PEOPLE
vs. MANALO et al.5 that, “Conspiracy was evident from the acts of the four accused, with two of them
seizing the victim’s arms and holding him immobile, one holding his back, and another thrusting a knife on
the victim. These acts indubitably point to a joint purpose, concerted action, and community of interest.
Having joined in the criminal conspiracy, appellant in effect adopted as his own the criminal design of his
co- conspirators. Hence, as a co-conspirator whose participation emboldened the actual killer and
contributed to the success of the common design, appellant is liable as a co-principal in the killing of
Rodrigo.”

Viewed on the foregoing facts, this court believes that the prosecution was able to prove that there was
indeed a conspiracy on the commission of the crime. Conspiracy as defined in Article 8 of Revised Penal
Code;

Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially
provides a penalty therefore.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.

3
People of the Philippines v. Labiaga, G.R. No. 202867, 15 July 2013
4
TSN, September 24, 2004, P14
5
People vs Manalo et al G.R. No. 144734 March 7, 2002
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some
other person or persons.

There are two ways for a conspiracy to exist:

(1) There is an agreement.
(2) The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the
minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. When several offenders act in a
synchronized, coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the
meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement.

Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators.

On the minority of the accused, Felicito Balili, there is no denial that in the evidence presented by the
defense marked as Exhibit “1”, it was clearly shown that Felicitio Balili was a minor at the time of the
commission of the crime.

Section 7 Paragraph 1 and Section 38 of RA 9344 otherwise known as “AN ACT ESTABLISHING A
COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE SYSTEM, CREATING THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE COUNCIL UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES” provides that:

[S]EC. 7. Determination of Age. - The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption
of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be
eighteen (18) years old or older. The age of a child may be determined from the child's birth certificate,
baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based
on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the
child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her
favor.

xxx

SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at
the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine
and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of
pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under
suspended sentence, without need of application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall
still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt.

Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of the child, the court shall
impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in
Conflict with the Law.
As provided in People vs. Jacinto6:

“These developments notwithstanding, we find that the benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer
apply to appellant. The suspension of sentence lasts only until the child in conflict with the law reaches
the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.161 Section 40162 of the law and Section 48163 of the Rule
are clear on the matter...”

In the case at bar, FELICITO BALILI is already 28 years old. As provided in RA 9344, suspension of
sentence is only until 21 years of age.

In People vs. Jacinto7, the Supreme Court stated that:

“Be that as it may, to give meaning to the legislative intent of the Act, the promotion of the welfare of a
child in conflict with the law should extend even to one who has exceeded the age limit of twenty-one
(21) years, so long as he/she committed the crime when he/she was still a child. The offender shall be
entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the Act in order that
he/she is given the chance to live a normal life and become a productive member of the community. The
age of the child in conflict with the law at the time of the promulgation of the judgment of conviction is
not material. What matters is that the offender committed the offense when he/she was still of tender
age.”

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Court finds the accused Rogelio
Marga, Danilo Marga, Sonny “Doe” and Felicito Balili, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
ATTEMPTED MURDER. ROGELIO MARGA, DANILO MARGA and SONNY DOE is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of Pricion Correcional; as MINIMUM,
to 8 years & 1 day of Pricion Mayor; as MAXIMUM. FELICITO BALILI, will be confined in an
agricultural camp or any other training facility in accordance with Section 51 of RA 9344. Accused’s are
further ordered to pay RENANTE ONGUE, the actual damages paid for hospitalization in the amount of
P34,541.25, moral damages of P50,000.00 for the moral suffering that the victim has undergone
and P50,000.00 for Attorney’s Fees.

SO ORDERED.

MAY CONCEPCION C. DELOS REYES

Designated Judge

6
People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011
7
Id.