1. Napone vs. People, G.R. No. 193085, 29 November 2017.

committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted
SCRIBD DIGEST brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees; and (2) that the felony
FACTS: is committed in vindication of such grave offense.
On 22 September 1992, at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening, at Barangay Mabunga,
Municipality of Baungon, Province of Bukidnon, Salvador and his son, Robert Espelita Although it was not witnessed by the Napones, the attack on Calib which put his life at risk
(Robert) arrived at Janioso’s house calling out for help. When Janioso came out of her must have infuriated them. The belief that the Espelitas were responsible for the grave
house, she saw Salvador whose forehead was oozing with blood, and Calib Napone (Calib) injuries sustained by a member of their family created rage in their minds which clouded
likewise bloodied on the face, mud-laden,7 and trying to extricate himself from Salvador their judgment. Upon seeing Calib bloody, prostrate on the ground and possibly clinging for
who held him by the back collar of his shirt. Calib is the son of Senior and the brother of dear life, the Napones were filled with resentment that resulted in the assault on Salvador.
Junior and Edgar. Their acts, therefore, were committed in vindication of a grave offense.

When Janioso asked what happened, Salvador replied that Calib waylaid him and struck him FULL TEXT:
with an iron bar while he and Robert were on their way home from their farm. Salvador G.R. No. 193085
turned over to Janioso the iron bar which he allegedly wrested from Calib. Thereafter,
Janioso directed one of her employees to find a vehicle to be used to bring Salvador and PETRONILO NAPONE, JR. and EDGAR NAPONE, Petitioners
Calib to the hospital. Janioso was Salvador’s balae. vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
After a while, the Napones arrived in a vehicle. To avoid further conflict, Janioso pulled
Salvador inside her house. Unfortunately, Senior followed them and immediately hacked DECISION
Salvador from behind using a borak, a big bolo ordinarily used for chopping wood, hitting
Salvador at the back of his head. Salvador, in retaliation, also hacked Senior. MARTIRES, J.:

Meanwhile, Edgar and Junior also alighted from the vehicle. Edgar threw a stone the size of This is a petition for review seeking the reversal of the 9 December 2009 Decision1 and 21 July
a fist at Salvador. Junior then shot Salvador three (3) times with a small firearm, hitting the 2010 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 00384 which affirmed with
latter on the chest which caused him to fall. Janioso immediately rushed to Salvador’s aid. modification the 14 November 2006 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Manolo
While she was trying to lift Salvador, she saw Junior running away with the gun. She no Fortich, Bukidnon (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 1190 finding accused-appellants Petronilo
longer took notice of Edgar and Senior as her concern was to bring Salvador to the hospital. Napone, Jr. (Junior) and Edgar Napone (Edgar) guilty of the crime of homicide.
At the hospital, Salvador was pronounced dead.
THE FACTS
The post-mortem findings on Salvador revealed that he sustained four (4) hack wounds on
the left side of his head and a gunshot wound on his chest. Dr. Vacalares, the medico-legal Junior and Edgar, together with their father, Petronilo Napone, Sr. (Senior; collectively, the
officer who conducted the autopsy, concluded that the cause of death was the perforation Napones), were charged with the crime of murder for the death of Salvador Espelita (Salvador)
of the left ventricule due to gunshot wound, which necessarily proved to be the fatal under an information, dated 13 November 1992, the accusatory portion of which reads:
wound. Dr. Vacalares also took the witness stand where he elaborated that the bullet
perforated Salvador’s left ventricule resulting in his death in less than ten (10) minutes. As That on or about the 22nd day of September, 1992, in the evening at [B]arangay
regards the hack wounds, Dr. Vacalares stated that they were caused by a sharp bladed Mabunga, [M]unicipality of Baungon, [P]rovince of Bukidnon, Philippines, and within
instrument. However, he did not state whether these hack wounds were fatal or not. the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, by means of
RTC: Junior and Edgar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. The trial treachery and superior strength, armed with a bolo, firearm and stone, did then and
court also ruled that no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attended the felony. there willfully, unlawfully and criminally attack, hack, shoot and throw stone at
CA: Affirmed. SALVADOR ESPELITA, inflicting mortal wounds to wit:

ISSUE: - Hack wounds, frontal left side of the head, (1) 4 x 1 cm. (2) 2.5 x 1 cm. (3)
Whether or not the Napones are entitled to benefit from any mitigating circumstance. 3.5 cm. (4) 1 cm. - Gunshot wound, left chest measuring 8cm. in diameter,
2 inches from the midline, at the 4th intercostal space [surrounded] by
RULING: Yes contusion collar, directed straight forward penetrating [and] perforating
The circumstances surrounding the unfortunate incident merit the appreciation of the the left ventricle thru [and] thru, traversing towards the right piercing the
mitigating circumstance of vindication for a grave offense. For such to be credited, the intervertebral muscle at the back at the level 5th inter space 4 inches from
following requisites must be satisfied: (1) that there be a grave offense done to the one the vertebral column.
 Vacalares also took the witness stand where he elaborated that the bullet perforated
that caused his death thereafter. Salvador’s left ventricule resulting in his death in less than ten (10) minutes.19 As regards the
hack wounds, Dr. Vacalares stated that they were caused by a sharp bladed instrument.20
To the damage and prejudice [of] the heirs of the deceased SALVADOR ESPELITA in However, he did not state whether these hack wounds were fatal or not.
such sum they are entitled to under the law.
Evidence for the Defense
Contrary to and in violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.4
The defense presented Senior, Junior, and Johnny Palasan (Palasan) as witnesses. Calib was
On 4 May 1993, the Napones were arraigned and pleaded not guilty.5 Trial ensued. also presented as a witness but his testimony was deemed inadmissible in evidence for being
hearsay because he was not sworn in when he took the witness stand. The testimonies of the
On 17 January 2005, the trial court ordered the dismissal of the case against Senior due to his defense witnesses tended to establish that the Napones acted in self-defense and in defense
death on 8 October 2003, a month after he completed his testimony. of a relative, as follows:

Evidence for the Prosecution On 22 September 1992, at around 8:00 o’clock in the evening, while Senior was chopping
firewood, and while Junior and Edgar were conversing inside their house at Mabunga,
The prosecution anchored mainly on the testimonies of three (3) witnesses, namely: Jocelyn Baungon, Bukidnon, a certain Ervin “Ungat” Tagocon (Tagocon) came and told them that he
Janioso (Janioso), Dante Sadaya (Sadaya), Janioso’s storekeeper, and Dr. Apolinar Vacalares, saw Calib bloodied and dragged by Salvador and Robert to the house of Janioso, located
M.D. (Dr. Vacalares), the medico-legal officer who conducted the post-mortem examinations approximately 100 meters from their house. Upon hearing the news, Junior hurriedly ran
on Salvador’s cadaver. Their combined testimonies tended to establish the following: towards Janioso’s house, while Edgar and Senior immediately followed.21 Before running to
Calib’s aid, Senior got hold of his borak,22 because he suspected that the Espelitas had hacked
On 22 September 1992, at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening, at Barangay Mabunga, Calib.23
Municipality of Baungon, Province of Bukidnon, Salvador and his son, Robert Espelita (Robert)
arrived at Janioso’s house calling out for help. When Janioso came out of her house, she saw Upon arriving at Janioso’s place, the Napones saw Calib bloodied and being held by the
Salvador whose forehead was oozing with blood,6 and Calib Napone (Calib) likewise bloodied Espelitas who, upon seeing them coming, dropped Calib, who was then prostrate and
on the face, mud-laden,7 and trying to extricate himself from Salvador who held him by the unconscious. The Espelitas then went inside the fenced premises of Janioso’s house. When
back collar of his shirt.8 Calib is the son of Senior and the brother of Junior and Edgar. Senior attempted to lift Calib from the ground, Salvador rushed towards him and hacked him
with a bolo multiple times. Senior, unable to retaliate because he was lifting Calib,24 parried
When Janioso asked what happened, Salvador replied that Calib waylaid him and struck him the attacks with his left hand but was unsuccessful. His ring and middle fingers were severed
with an iron bar while he and Robert were on their way home from their farm.9 Salvador turned from his left hand and his forehead was wounded. Thereafter, Senior fell to the ground and
over to Janioso the iron bar which he allegedly wrested from Calib. Thereafter, Janioso directed lost consciousness.25
one of her employees to find a vehicle to be used to bring Salvador and Calib to the hospital.10
Janioso was Salvador’s balae.11 Edgar tried to defend his father from Salvador by throwing a stone at the latter. Because of
this, Salvador shifted his attention towards Edgar and chased him with a bolo.26
After a while, the Napones arrived in a vehicle.12 To avoid further conflict, Janioso pulled
Salvador inside her house. Unfortunately, Senior followed them and immediately hacked Meanwhile, Junior was about to rush to Senior’s aid when a man, later identified to be Palasan,
Salvador from behind using a borak, a big bolo ordinarily used for chopping wood, hitting alerted him that Robert was aiming a firearm at him. Junior wrestled with Robert for the
Salvador at the back of his head.13 Salvador, in retaliation, also hacked Senior. possession of the firearm. When Junior got hold of the firearm, Robert allegedly shouted
“watch out, my firearm was taken” and ran away.27 Salvador stopped chasing after Edgar,
Meanwhile, Edgar and Junior also alighted from the vehicle. Edgar threw a stone the size of a turned to Junior, and hacked him three (3) times: the first blow missed, the second hit Junior’s
fist at Salvador.14 Junior then shot Salvador three (3) times with a small firearm, hitting the belt buckle, but the third struck Junior’s left leg.28
latter on the chest which caused him to fall.15 Janioso immediately rushed to Salvador’s aid.
While she was trying to lift Salvador, she saw Junior running away with the gun. She no longer Junior fell to the ground face down from the third strike. With Salvador still behind him, he
took notice of Edgar and Senior as her concern was to bring Salvador to the hospital. At the crawled away from his assailant. When he stood up and saw that Salvador was still coming
hospital, Salvador was pronounced dead.16 after him, Junior fired his gun at Salvador.29 Junior claimed that was the first time he had fired
a gun.30 Despite the first shot, Salvador kept advancing towards Junior; thus, he again shot at
The post-mortem findings on Salvador revealed that he sustained four (4) hack wounds on the Salvador hitting him in the chest.31 Thereafter, Junior left the gun by Janioso’s fence and took
left side of his head and a gunshot wound on his chest.17 Dr. Vacalares, the medico-legal officer Senior and Calib to the provincial hospital in Cagayan de Oro City, for treatment.32
who conducted the autopsy, concluded that the cause of death was the perforation of the left
ventricule due to gunshot wound,18 which necessarily proved to be the fatal wound. Dr.
On 23 June 1992, Junior surrendered to the authorities in Baungon, Bukidnon.33 However, the Likewise, the CA ruled that conspiracy could not be appreciated considering that the incident
firearm he used to shoot Salvador was never recovered. happened at “the spur of the moment.” Thus, the appellate court reduced Edgar’s liability to
that of a mere accomplice reasoning that his participation in throwing a stone at Salvador
The RTC Ruling during the incident, while showing community of criminal design, was otherwise not
indispensable to the commission of the felony.
In its 14 November 2006 decision, the RTC found Junior and Edgar guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of homicide. It gave more weight to the version of the prosecution The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads:
witnesses finding them to be more credible, straightforward, and duly supported by the post-
mortem findings. The trial court rejected petitioners’ claim of self-defense and in defense of a WHEREFORE, the assailed Judgment is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that
relative ratiocinating that they failed to establish the presence of unlawful aggression on the appellants Petronilo Napone, Jr. and Edgar Napone are found GUILTY beyond
part of Salvador. It further ruled that a conspiracy among the Napones existed as shown by reasonable doubt of HOMICIDE, as PRINCIPAL and ACCOMPLICE, respectively, and
their successive attacks on Salvador. The trial court also ruled that no aggravating or mitigating accordingly SENTENCED to suffer the penalt[ies] of:
circumstance attended the felony. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
As to PETRONILO NAPONE, JR.- eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the two minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
(2) remaining accused PETRONILO NAPONE, Jr. and EDGAR NAPONE GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the felony of HOMICIDE, and applying the indeterminate As to EDGAR NAPONE.- four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as
sentence law, the court hereby sentences the two (2) remaining accused aforecited minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS OF PRISION MAYOR IN
ITS MAXIMUM PERIOD AS MINIMUM TO SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS FOUR (4) MONTHS They are also mandated to PAY jointly the heirs of deceased Salvador Espelita, the
OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL AS MAXIMUM. following:

The two (2) remaining accused further hereby ordered to PAY, solidarily, the heirs of 1. Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) as death indemnity;
SALVADOR ESPELITA in the sum of One Hundred Eighty Thousand (₱180,000.00)
Pesos, as actual damages, Forty Three Thousand (₱43,000.00) Pesos, as Attorney’s 2. Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) as moral damages; and
Fees, and the amount of Seventy Five Thousand (₱75,000.00) Pesos, as moral
damages for the death of SALVADOR ESPELITA. The Bond for the provisional liberty 3. Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (₱25,000.00) as temperate damages, in lieu
of the accused are hereby CANCELLED. Let warrant of arrest issue and the accused of the award of actual damages which the prosecution failed to prove.
are hereby ordered committed to serve their sentence [at] the DAVAO PENAL
COLONY, PANABO, DAVAO DEL NORTE. And, pursuant to the Tampus35 ruling, (re: graduation of pecuniary penalties vis-a-
vis the different degrees of liability in the commission of the felony), Petronilo
Costs against [the] accused.34 Napone, Jr. (as a principal) has to pay 2/3 of the sum total of the above-mentioned
amounts, i.e., a total of EIGHTY-THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE
Aggrieved, petitioners appealed before the CA. PESOS and THIRTY-FOUR CENTAVOS (₱83,333.34), while Edgar Napone (as an
accomplice) shall bear 1/3 thereof, i.e., a total of FORTY-ONE THOUSAND SIX
The CA Ruling HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX PESOS and SIXTY-SIX CENT A VOS (₱41,666.66).

In its assailed decision, the CA affirmed the RTC decision, with modifications. With subsidiary imprisonment, in case of non-payment.36

The appellate court concurred that the testimonies of Janioso and Sadaya were more truthful Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in its Resolution,
and candid, but disagreed with the RTC with regard to the appreciation of modifying dated 21 July 2010
circumstance. While it conceded that no aggravating circumstance attended the killing of
Salvador, it opined that the trial court failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of Hence, the present petition.
passion and obfuscation. It observed that the unfortunate incident occurred at the “spur of
the moment” and because of the Napones’ “impulse reaction” upon seeing Calib wounded and THE ISSUE
lying on the ground. It also noted that the testimonies of both the prosecution and defense
witnesses showed that there was no prior animosity between the Espelitas and the Napones. WHETHER THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS ERRED WHEN THEY RULED THAT THE
In fact, Senior testified that Salvador was his friend or “compadre.” PETITIONERS DID NOT ACT IN SELF-DEFENSE AND/OR DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
 THE COURT’S RULING The version of the defense may be amusing, yet it still pales in comparison in terms of
credibility when faced with the testimonies of the eyewitnesses Janioso and Sadaya and the
The petition lacks merit. post-mortem report by Dr. Vacalares. Needless to state, the Court concurs with the findings of
the trial and appellate courts.
Justifying circumstances of self-defense
and defense of relatives It is doctrinally settled that findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses deserve a high
degree of respect and will not be disturbed during appeal in the absence of any clear showing
The petitioners interpose self-defense and defense of relatives. They insist that the actions that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of
they committed and which resulted in Salvador’s death were necessary and reasonable under weight and substance which could have altered the conviction of the appellant.43 Furthermore,
the circumstances to repel the latter’s unlawful aggression towards them and their father. factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are deemed binding and
conclusive.44 While this rule admits of exceptions, such as when the evaluation was reached
It has been held that when the accused invokes the justifying circumstance of self-defense and, arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or
hence, admits to killing the victim, the burden of evidence shifts to him. The rationale for this circumstances of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case,45 the Court is
shift is that the accused, by his admission, is to be held criminally liable unless he satisfactorily of the view that none of these exceptions is present in this case.
establishes the fact of self-defense.37 Thus, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove his
innocence by clear and convincing evidence.38 For this purpose, he must rely on the strength The prosecution was able to establish that the Napones, and not the Espelitas, were the
of his evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution for, even if the latter is unlawful aggressors. During her direct and cross-examinations, Janioso was steadfast in her
weak, it could not be denied that he has admitted to be the author of the victim’s death.39 account that Senior immediately hacked Salvador, thus:

To successfully claim self-defense, the accused must satisfactorily prove the concurrence of all ATTY. ADAZA:
of its elements, which are: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person Q. When you saw Petronilo Napone, Sr. and Petronilo Napone, Jr. with others arrive,
defending himself.40 Similarly, for defense of a relative to prosper, the following requisites what happened next?
must concur, namely: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) in case the provocation was given A. When Petronilo Napone, Sr. arrived he immediately hacked Salvador Espelita.
by the person attacked, that the person making the defense took no part in the provocation.41
Q. What instrument did he use?
In both self-defense and defense of relatives, whether complete or incomplete, it is essential
that there be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. After all, there would be nothing A. A bolo.
to prevent or repel if such unlawful aggression is not present. For unlawful aggression to be
appreciated there must be an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger Q. Where was Salvador Espelita hit?
thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.42
A. In the head.
The defense failed to prove self-defense
and defense of relative. Q. Which part of the head?

After a careful examination of the records, the Court finds that the defense failed to discharge A. Back of the head.46 (emphasis supplied)
the burden of proving that the petitioners acted in self-defense or defense of relatives.
xxx
The defense would have this Court believe that the Napones proceeded to the place of Janioso
without any malice in mind and with the only goal of rescuing Calib. To refute the accusations ATTY. MUSNI:
against them, they painted a picture of Salvador mercilessly attacking Senior who merely
wanted to carry his son who was then lying on the ground and covered with blood. They Q. When Petronilo, Sr. arrived together with Petronilo, Jr., there was no exchange of
maintain that the petitioners were forced to retaliate against Salvador who was unlawfully words between Salvador Espelita and Petronilo, Sr.?
attacking their father.
A. With Petronilo Napone, Sr., none.
The Court is not persuaded.
Q. And immediately, Petronilo Napone, Sr. immediately hack Salvador Espelita?
 A. Yes.47 (emphasis supplied) A. He face[d] Petronilo Napone, Sr. and retaliated by hacking then he was shot by
Petronilo Napone, Jr.
The view that Senior initiated the hostility was actually consistent with his testimony. During
the trial, Senior narrated that he brought his borak to defend himself against the Espelitas Q. How many times did you hear a shot?
because he was of the belief that they hacked Calib, thus:
A. Three (3) shots.50 (emphasis supplied)
ATTY. ADAZA:
xxx
Q. Alright, now, according to you, you believed that your son was already dead that
is why you brought along that weapon on that evening of September 22, 1992. ATTY. MUSNI:
Question, Mr. Napone, when you brought along that weapon, and you said in your
affidavit that you wanted to defend yourself against whom and from whom? Q. When Petronilo, Sr. arrived together with Petronilo, Jr., there was no exchange of
words between Salvador Espelita and Petronilo, Sr.?
A. It is to defend myself if he will include me.48
A. With Petronilo Napone, Sr., none.
xxx
Q. And immediately, Petronila Napone, Sr. immediately hacked Salvador Espelita?
Q. How did you know that it was Salvador Espelita who hacked your son when you
never talked to your son according to you, your son was sprawled on the ground A. Yes.51 (emphasis supplied)
bloodied?
On Sadaya’s part, his testimony was unwavering despite the defense counsel’s apparent
A. What I have said before, it was Ungat Tagocon who told me. attempts to confuse him during cross-examination, in this wise:

Q. But according to you, Ungat Tagocon never told you that these Espelitas injured ATTY. MUSNI:
your son, it was only the information that your son was bloodied, which is which
now? Q. You said in your affidavit that you already heard the two gunshots when you were
already inside the sala of the house of Jocelyn Janioso, is that right?
A. Because he was bloodied, I presumed that it was Salvador Espelita who caused
the injury because they were the ones who brought him to the store of Jocelyn A. I heard two gunshots when I was already inside the house of Janioso.
Janioso.49
Q. Now, you have read your affidavit, please go over your affidavit again Mr. Sadaya
Clearly, Senior armed himself with a bolo and was ready to use it against the Espelitas making and tell the Honorable Court whether you have stated that you have first heard a
them his specific targets because of his belief that they were his son’s assailants. At this gunshot when you were still inside the house, if there is a statement aside from
juncture, it is well to emphasize that the fact that Calib was seen lying on the ground is not the hearing two shots when you were already inside the house?
unlawful aggression required under the law. It was established during trial that any attack on
the person of Calib by the Espelitas, if there was any, had already ceased at the time the A. The answer of Question No. 11, last sentence “because of fear I entered the house
Napones arrived. No actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life or through the kitchen and when I was already at the sala I heard two gunshots.”
limb of Calib, therefore, could justify Senior’s attack on Salvador.
Q. So, that is your answer, you are referring to the last sentence of Question No. 11
Coming now to the actual shooting of Salvador, both Janioso and Sadaya’s testimonies were of your affidavit?
positive and categorical with respect to its material aspects. They were consistent and
corroborated each other in their narration of who committed the crime, and when and how it A. Yes sir.
was committed. During her direct and cross-examinations, Janioso recounted how the events
transpired, thus: Q. In this last sentence in your Answer to Question No. 11, it refers only to Mr. Sadaya
to two gunshots that you heard when you were inside the sala, is that correct?
ATTY. ADAZA:
A. Yes sir.
Q. When he was hit at the back of his head, what happened next?
 Q. It did not refer in any way to what you have testified that you heard a gunshot
while you were outside the house? The Court agrees with the appellate court that conspiracy does not obtain in the present case.
Settled is the rule that much like the criminal act itself, proof beyond reasonable doubt is
A. It’s not placed in the affidavit. necessary to establish the existence of conspiracy. It cannot be established by conjectures, but
by positive and conclusive evidence.55
Q. Because the truth of the matter Mr. Sadaya is that, you only heard two gunshots
on that particular night of September 22, 1992, is that correct? In this case, no other evidence was presented by the prosecution to establish conspiracy aside
from the circumstances that the accused were members of the same family, that they arrived
A. I saw the actual shooting then when I turned around and went inside the house I at the scene of the crime at about the same time, and that they attacked Salvador successively.
heard two gunshots.52 These pieces of circumstantial evidence would not suffice to establish conspiracy. It has been
held that the fact that the defendants were relatives and had acted with some degree of
xxx simultaneity in attacking their victim does not prove conspiracy in the absence of other
independent evidence positively and convincingly showing its presence.56
Q. So, that at the time you claimed that you have seen somebody shot Salvador
Espelita, your back was turned to where Salvador Espelita was standing, is that From the foregoing, no concerted action pursuant to a common criminal design could be
correct? attributed to the petitioners. In the absence of conspiracy, each of the accused, herein
petitioners, is responsible only for the consequences of his own acts.57
A. After he made the shot.
Edgar is liable only as an accomplice
Q. But you did not see at the time the shot was made, is that correct? to the attempted homicide.

A. I saw it.53 (emphasis supplied) While the appellate court ruled that no conspiracy could be ascribed to the Napones, it,
nevertheless, opined that Edgar’s act of throwing a stone at Salvador sufficiently showed that
The prosecution witnesses were not only credible but were also not shown to have harbored he agreed with Junior’s criminal design to kill Salvador thereby establishing his complicity to
any ill motive toward the Napones. Thus, the Court has no reason to doubt their respective the felony.
testimonies. They were surely entitled to full faith for those reasons, and both the RTC and the
CA properly accorded them such credence. Their positive and categorical statements that the The Court disagrees.
Napones assaulted Salvador without any unlawful aggression on his part prevail over the claim
of self-defense and defense of relative which were unsubstantiated by clear and convincing In order that a person may be considered an accomplice, the following requisites must concur:
proof. (1) that there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by
direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the
Petitioners capitalize on the apparent inconsistencies between the testimonies of Janioso and execution by previous or simultaneous act, with the intention of supplying material or moral
Sadaya, who testified that Senior was hacked at the back of his head, and the post-mortem aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and (3) that there be a relation between
report by Dr. Vacalares, which revealed that Senior sustained hacks wound on the “frontal left the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice.58
side of the head.” The variance as to the location of the hack wounds, however, is a relatively
minor matter which does not necessarily discredit Janioso and Sadaya as witnesses. This Edgar’s act which ensued prior to the shooting of Salvador did not necessarily demonstrate his
supposed discrepancy could be easily explained by the fact that the incident happened at concurrence with Junior’s criminal purpose. There was no showing that Edgar committed the
nighttime, at on or about 8 o’clock in the evening, which might have caused some minor deed knowing that Junior would shoot or otherwise harm Salvador moments after. Community
departures in the witnesses’ perception. Such minor inconsistency does not weaken, as in fact of design was lacking. Thus, Edgar could not be held liable as an accomplice to the
it serves to strengthen, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. consummated homicide because the cooperation which the law punishes is the assistance
knowingly or intentionally given and which is not possible without previous knowledge of the
Thus, the defense’s claim of self-defense and defense of relatives, which have been held to be principal’s criminal purpose.59
inherently weak defenses because they are easy to fabricate,54 were reduced into incredulity
when scrutinized against the prosecution’s evidence. The Court, therefore, sees no reason to Nevertheless, while Edgar’s complicity and participation in the consummated homicide was
disturb the trial and the appellate courts’ findings that the killing of Salvador was not attended not sufficiently shown, he should still be held liable for his participation in and concurrence
by any justifying circumstance. with Senior’s criminal purpose.

Conspiracy did not attend the

commission of the felony.
In Araneta, Jr. v. CA,60 the Court ruled that absent conspiracy, the liability of an accused who, Nevertheless, the circumstances surrounding the unfortunate incident merit the appreciation
with the intent to kill, slightly wounded the victim who was killed by his co-accused is limited of the mitigating circumstance of vindication for a grave offense. For such to be credited, the
to the “slight injury” he had caused the victim. following requisites must be satisfied: (1) that there be a grave offense done to the one
committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted
The prosecution was able to prove that Senior hacked Salvador at least four (4) times, inflicting brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees; and (2) that the felony is
upon the latter four (4) hack wounds. Senior’s intent to kill Salvador was also established by committed in vindication of such grave offense.63
the nature of the weapon he used and the location of the wounds. However, there was no
showing that these hack wounds had caused or would have caused Salvador’s death. In fact, Although it was not witnessed by the Napones, the attack on Calib which put his life at risk
Dr. Vacalares, both in his Post-Mortem Findings and during his testimony, was silent whether must have infuriated them. The belief that the Espelitas were responsible for the grave injuries
there was any mortal risk from the hack wounds. Instead, Dr. Vacalares was categorical that sustained by a member of their family created rage in their minds which clouded their
the mortal wound was the gunshot wound which caused Salvador’s death. judgment. Upon seeing Calib bloody, prostrate on the ground and possibly clinging for dear
life, the Napones were filled with resentment that resulted in the assault on Salvador. Their
Clearly, and considering that conspiracy is not attendant in this case, Senior would not be liable acts, therefore, were committed in vindication of a grave offense.
for the death of Salvador. Instead, he would have been held liable as a principal by direct
participation in the crime of attempted homicide, were it not for the total extinction of his The CA also erred when it failed to appreciate voluntary surrender in favor of Junior. In denying
criminal liability as a consequence of his demise during trial. him the benefit of this mitigating circumstance, the appellate court reasoned that no evidence
on record other than Junior’s own testimony was offered to prove that he voluntarily
Knowledge of the principal’s criminal design is shown by the fact that the person accused as surrendered to the authorities.
an accomplice has seen the criminal acts of the principal. It has been established that the
Napones arrived at the scene of the crime at the same time on board a jeepney. It is also In People v. Malabago,64 we held that where the accused testified that he voluntarily
beyond dispute that Edgar threw a stone at Salvador during the latter’s struggle with Senior surrendered to the police and the prosecution did not dispute such claim, the mitigating
which fact the defense had admitted but with the assertion that it was committed in defense circumstance should be appreciated in his favor. A perusal of the record revealed that the
of a relative. prosecution did not dispute Junior’s claim that he surrendered to the police authorities in
Baungon, Bukidnon, on 23 June 1992. Hence, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
The Court opines that Edgar witnessed his father’s assault on Salvador and was thus surrender must be credited in his favor.
knowledgeable of his criminal design. The simultaneous act of throwing a stone at Salvador
was made to assist Senior in achieving his criminal purpose. Thus, Edgar’s assent and In fine, the Court finds Junior liable as principal for the crime of homicide with the prescribed
participation to the criminal acts of his father were sufficiently established. As Edgar’s penalty of reclusion temporal. Considering, however, that the two mitigating circumstances
participation was not indispensable to the felony, he must be held liable as an accomplice to could be credited in his favor, and no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of
the criminal acts of Senior. Therefore, Edgar is guilty as an accomplice to the crime of the felony, the imposable penalty is prision mayor,65 lower than reclusion temporal, and within
attempted homicide. which the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be taken.

Mitigating circumstances which The Court finds Edgar liable as an accomplice to the attempted homicide and, thus, should be
attended the case; Appropriate meted a penalty three (3) degrees lower than that prescribed by the code for homicide.
penalties Further, the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense shall be credited in his
favor.
The appellate court erred when it credited passion or obfuscation in favor of the petitioners.
Acts done in the spirit of revenge cannot be considered acts done with passion or Appropriate monetary awards
obfuscation.61 Thus, to avail of the mitigating circumstance, it is necessary to show that the
passion and obfuscation arose from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or Since Edgar and Junior are liable for separate crimes which arose from different criminal
revenge.62 resolutions, they must also be separately liable for civil indemnities arising from these crimes.

The acts of the Napones after they were informed that Calib was dragged by the Espelitas were In People v. Jugueta,66 the Court summarized the amounts of damages which may be awarded
more consistently driven by revenge rather than mere impulsive reaction. Senior even got hold for different crimes. In said case, the Court held that for the crime of consummated homicide,
of his weapon first before going to the place where his son was reportedly harmed. Thus, the the following amounts may be awarded: (1) ₱50,000.00, as civil indemnity; (2) ₱50,000.00, as
extenuating circumstance of passion or obfuscation could not be appreciated in petitioners’ moral damages; and (3) ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages when no documentary evidence of
favor. burial or funeral expenses is presented in court. On the other hand, for attempted homicide,
the foilowing amounts may be awarded: (1) ₱20,000.00, as civil indemnity; and (2) ₱20,000.00,
as moral damages.
In People v. Tampus,67 the Court ruled that the penalty and liability, including civil liability,
imposed upon an accused must be commensurate with the degree of his participation in the
commission of the crime. Thus, the Court held that the principal must be adjudged liable to
pay two-thirds (2/3) of the civil indemnity and moral damages; while the accomplice should
pay one-third (1/3) portion thereof. The Court further advanced that the accomplice would not
be subsidiarily liable for the amount allotted to the principal if the latter dies before the finality
of the decision. The reason for this is that there would be nothing that could be passed to the
accomplice as the principal’s criminal liability, including the civil liability arising thereon, had
been extinguished by his death.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision, dated 9 December 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR No. 00384, which affirmed with modification the decision, dated 14 November 2006, of the
Regional Trial Court of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, Branch 11 in Criminal Case No. 1190, is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Petitioner Petronilo Napone, Jr. is found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt as principal for the crime of homicide and is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. He is further
ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Salvador Espelita the following amounts: (1)
₱50,000.00, as civil indemnity; (2) ₱50,000.00, as moral damages; and (3) ₱50,000.00 as
temperate damages in lieu of the award of actual damages which the prosecution failed to
prove.

Petitioner Edgar Napone is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as an accomplice to the
crime of attempted homicide and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of two (2) months of
arresto mayor. Further, he is ordered to pay the following amounts: (1) ₱6,667.00, as civil
indemnity; and (2) ₱6,667.00, as moral damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at
the rate of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until its full
payment.68

SO ORDERED.
2. People vs. Real, G.R. No. 93436, 24 March 1995. We affirm with modification, the appealed decision.
SCRIBD DIGEST
Facts: I
At about 9:00 A.M. on March 17, 1978, in the public market of Aroroy, Masbate, appellant
and Edgardo Corpuz, both vendors, engaged in a heated argument over the right to use the The information against appellant reads as follows:
market table to display their fish. Moreno de la Rosa, the Municipal Mayor, who happened
to be at the public market, tried to pacify them, saying that they were arguing over trivial That on or about March 11, 1978, in the morning thereof, at the Poblacion of the
matters. The two protagonists momentarily kept their peace but after a while Corpuz raised Municipality of Aroroy, Province of Masbate, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of
his voice again and said something to appellant. When Corpus kept on walking to and fro this Court, the said accused with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery,
near the disputed fish table, appellant started to sharpen his bolo while murmuring to did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and criminally attack, assault and
himself. Once Corpus turned around with his back towards appellant, the latter hacked him hack with a sharp bolo one Edgardo Corpus y Rapsing, hitting the latter on the nape,
on the nape which the blow caused Corpus to collapse and was rushed to a medical clinic. causing an injury which caused the death of the said Edgardo Corpus y Rapsing
A police investigator went to the clinic to take the dying declaration of Corpus, who said several days thereafter.
that it was appellant who stabbed him. Corpus died two days later.
That the accused is a recidivist having been convicted by the Municipal Court of
Issue: Aroroy, in the following cases:
Whether or not Treachery was employed in the case at bar.
Crime Date of Conviction
Ruling:
Yes. As a rule, a sudden attack by the assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is 1. Ill treatment by Deed — July 6, 1965
treachery if such mode of attack was cooly and deliberately adopted by him with the
purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. It is agreeable that the 2. Grave Threats — November 25, 1968
offense committed was homicide. He is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to whether
he acted with alevosia when he attacked the victim. As a rule, a sudden attack by the (Rollo, p. 14).
assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if such mode of attack was cooly
and deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to Upon being arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty.
either fight or retreat. The rule does not apply, however, where the attack was not
preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation on After trial, the court convicted appellant and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
the part of the accused because of the provocative act of the victim (People v. Aguiluz, 207 perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim the sum of P30,000.00 and costs.
SCRA 187 [1992]). This is more so, where the assault upon the victim was preceded by a
heated exchange of words between him and the accused (People v. Rillorta, 180 SCRA 102 Hence, this appeal.
[1989]). In the case at bench, the assault came in the course of an altercation and after
appellant had sharpened his bolo in full view of the victim. Appellant’s act of sharpening his II
bolo can be interpreted as an attempt to frighten the victim so the latter would leave him
alone. It was simply foolhardy for the victim to continue walking to and fro near appellant At about 9:00 A.M. on March 17, 1978, in the public market of Aroroy, Masbate, appellant and
in a taunting manner while the latter was sharpening his bolo. Edgardo Corpus, both vendors, engaged in a heated argument over the right to use the market
table to display their fish.
FULL TEXT
G.R. No. 93436 March 24, 1995 Moreno de la Rosa, the Municipal Mayor, who happened to be at the public market, tried to
pacify them, saying that they were arguing over trivial matters.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. The two protagonists momentarily kept their peace but after awhile Corpus raised his voice
MELCHOR REAL y BARTOLAY, accused-appellant. again and said something to appellant. The latter, in a soft voice, uttered “SOBRA NA INA NA
IMO PAGDAOGDAOG” (You are being too oppressive).
QUIASON, J.:
When Corpus kept on walking to and fro near the disputed fish table, appellant started to
This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Masbate, Masbate, sharpen his bolo while murmuring to himself. Once Corpus turned around with his back
in Criminal Case No. 1606 finding appellant guilty of murder. towards appellant, the latter hacked him on the nape. The blow caused Corpus to collapse. He
was rushed to a medical clinic. When asked by his wife as to who hacked him, he answered victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. The rule does not apply, however, where the attack
“Melchor Real.” was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden
infuriation on the part of the accused because of the provocative act of the victim (People v.
A police investigator went to the clinic to take the dying declaration of Corpus, who said that Aguiluz, 207 SCRA 187 [1992]). This is more so, where the assault upon the victim was preceded
it was appellant who stabbed him. Corpus died two days later. by a heated exchange of words between him and the accused (People v. Rillorta, 180 SCRA 102
[1989]). In the case at bench, the assault came in the course of an altercation and after
Appellant admitted hacking Corpus but claimed that he did so out of humiliation and anger appellant had sharpened his bolo in full view of the victim. Appellant’s act of sharpening his
when the victim threw his fish in the presence of so many people. bolo can be interpreted as an attempt to frighten the victim so the latter would leave him
alone. It was simply foolhardy for the victim to continue walking to and fro near appellant in a
He testified as follows: taunting manner while the latter was sharpening his bolo.

Q. When Edgardo Corpus was lambasting you in the presence of the public, what did The suddenness of the attack does not, by itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia where
you do, how did you feel? the decision to attack was made peremptorily and the victim’s helpless position was accidental
(People v. Ardisa, 55 SCRA 245 [1974]).
A. I got angry.
Appellant also claims that he is entitled to two mitigating circumstances: namely, vindication
Q. And what did you do? of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation. The peculiarity of these two mitigating
circumstances is that they cannot be applied at the same time if they arise from the same facts
A. So I hacked him. or motive.

Q. Was he hit? If appellant attacked his victim in the proximate vindication of a grave offense, he cannot
successfully claim in the same breath that he was also blinded by passion and obfuscation. At
A. Yes, Sir. most, only one of two circumstances could be considered in favor of appellant (People v. Yaon,
Court of Appeals, 43 O.G. 4142 cited in I Reyes, Revised Penal Code [1981]).
Q. In what part of his body was he hit?
The act of the victim in berating and humiliating appellant was enough to produce passion and
A. At the right neck. obfuscation, considering that the incident happened in a market place within full view and
within hearing distance of many people.
Q. Did you admit to the authorities that it was you who hacked Edgardo Corpus?
The trial court held, and the Solicitor General agreed, that the attendant aggravating
A. Yes, sir. circumstance was reiteracion and not reincidencia as alleged in the information. The trial court
and the Solicitor General are in error.
On cross-examination, he again admitted his guilt.
According to the information charging appellant of murder and the evidence, the accused was
Q. And when this Edgardo Corpus turn (sic) his back, you immediately hacked him on previously convicted of ill-treatment by deed on July 6, 1965 and grave threats on November
his neck? 25, 1968.

A. Yes, sir ( TSN, July 9, 1986, pp. 6-8; Emphasis supplied). In recidivism or reincidencia, the offender shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code (Revised
III Penal Code, Art. 14[g]). In reiteracion, the offender shall have been punished previously for an
offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to
Before us, appellant argues that the crime committed was only homicide and not murder and which it attaches a lighter penalty (Revised Penal Code, Art. 14[10]). Unlike in reincidencia, the
that he is entitled to two mitigating circumstances: namely, passion and obfuscation and offender in reiteracion commits a crime different in kind from that for which he was previously
vindication of a grave offense. tried and convicted (Guevarra, Penal Sciences and Philippine Criminal Law 129 [1974]).

We agree with appellant that the offense committed was homicide. He is entitled to the Appellant was previously convicted of ill-treatment by deed (Revised Penal Code, Art. 266, Title
benefit of the doubt as to whether he acted with alevosia when he attacked the victim. As a Eight) and grave threats (Revised Penal Code, Art. 282, Title Nine). He was convicted of
rule, a sudden attack by the assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if such homicide in the instant criminal case (Revised Penal Code, Art. 249, Title Eight). Inasmuch as
mode of attack was cooly and deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the homicide and ill-treatment by deed fall under Title Eight, the aggravating circumstance to be
appreciated against him is recidivism under Article 14[g] rather than reiteracion under Article
14(10) of the Revised Penal Code.

There is no reiteracion because that circumstance requires that the previous offenses should
not be embraced in the same title of the Code. While grave threats fall in title (Title Nine)
different from homicide (Title Eight), still reiteracion cannot be appreciated because such
aggravating circumstance requires that if there is only one prior offense, that offense must be
punishable by an equal or greater penalty than the one for which the accused has been
convicted. Likewise, the prosecution has to prove that the offender has been punished for the
previous offense. There is no evidence presented by the prosecution to that effect.

Appellant is convicted of homicide, appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of

passion and obfuscation, which is offset by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
appellant is convicted of the crime of homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of
TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor as minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS
of reclusion temporal as maximum. The indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victim is
increased to P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

3. People vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 118573-74, 31 May 2000. PERPETRATED OR INFERRED FROM THE ACTS OF THE ACCUSED EVINCING A JOINT OR
CDASIA SYNOPSIS AND SYLLABUS COMMON PURPOSE AND DESIGN, CONCERTED ACTION AND COMMUNITY OF INTEREST. —
Accused-appellants Ricardo, Reynaldo, and Teodoro, all surnamed Francisco, and Antonio A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
Sioco were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Malabon of the crimes of murder and commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of the agreement need not rest on
frustrated murder. Accused-appellants Francisco brothers contended that the testimony of direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a
the lone prosecution witness, Ariel De Dios, needed corroboration. They argued that his common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. It is
testimony was “erratic and unreliable” for being contrary to the evidence. Moreover, De not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit
Dios was a biased, partial and ill-motivated witness for he was impelled to get even with agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal
the accused-appellants for the injuries he suffered. Accused-appellant Antonio Sioco filed a objective is to be carried out. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the
separate appellant’s brief. He contended that the uncorroborated testimony of De Dios that offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or
the former uttered the words “Heto na sila, heto na sila” or yan na sila, ayan na sila” borders common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. The
on the physical impossibility, aside from the fact that no other witness confirmed such fact. circumstances leading to the stabbing of SERAFIN and ARIEL clearly and convincingly
Appellant Sioco allegedly opted to be left behind in the store and followed the group only establishes that a conspiracy existed between the accused-appellants. When SERAFIN
when both vehicles were already at the scene of the incident and the protagonists were refused to get down from the jeep after RICARDO grabbed his neck and attempted to pull
already shouting at each other. him out, John Doe attempted to loosen SERAFIN’s grip on the steering wheel. TEODORO
who was armed with a knife-like instrument then stabbed SERAFIN. At the same time,
The Supreme Court affirmed appellants’ conviction for murder and frustrated murder. REYNALDO pulled the arm of ARIEL and ordered ARIEL to get down from the jeep. While he
Appellant Antonio Sioco was, however, acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. The was getting down, REYNALDO suddenly stabbed him. ARIEL pushed REYNALDO then ran
Court found no cogent reason to disturb the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence and towards MANNY’s gate. TEODORO ran after him but was not able to catch him. Clearly, each
found no basis therein to rule that De Dios’ testimony was not credible. Appellants failed to of the accused-appellants performed distinct but simultaneous acts which when pieced
prove any improper motive on the part of De Dios to falsely impute such a terrible crime to together show unity of purpose and design. It therefore becomes irrelevant as to whom
appellants. The testimony of a single witness, when credible and trustworthy, is sufficient amongst them actually stabbed SERAFIN since in a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
to convict and must be given full faith and credence when no reason to falsely testify is all.
shown, and the mere fact that the principal witness was the victim of the crime did not
make him a biased witness and did not make his testimony incredible. In acquitting 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; THE PHRASE “HETO NA SILA, HETO NA SILA” DOES NOT HAVE CONCLUSIVE
appellant Sioco, the Court ruled that the latter’s participation in the stabbing incident was CONSPIRATORIAL MEANING FOR THE SUPPOSEDLY DAMNING UTTERANCES ARE
limited to his shouting from a distance the words “Heto na sila, heto na sila.” Said phrase, SUSCEPTIBLE OF VARIED INTERPRETATIONS. — In the case at bench, ANTONIO’S
did not have conclusive conspirational meaning for the supposedly damning utterances participation in the stabbing incident was limited to his shouting from a distance the words
were susceptible of varied interpretations. The Court also found that the facts as “Heto na sila, heto na sila.” In a case involving the phrase “andiyan na” which has a similar
established by the evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sioco uttered import to the phrase involved herein, this Court ruled that said phrase does not have
those words in order to give moral assistance to the Francisco brothers in the absence of conclusive conspiratorial meaning for the supposedly damning utterances are susceptible
any other concrete evidence to prove his complicity. of varied interpretations. We similarly find that the facts as established by the evidence do
not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he uttered those words in order to give moral
SYLLABUS assistance to the Francisco brothers in the absence of any other concrete evidence to prove
1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; THE MERE FACT THAT THE his complicity.
PRINCIPAL WITNESS WAS THE VICTIM OF THE CRIME DOES NOT MAKE HIM A BIASED
WITNESS AND DOES NOT MAKE HIS TESTIMONY INCREDIBLE. — We find no cogent reason 4. ID.; MURDER; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH; PRESENT
to disturb the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence and find no basis therein to rule that IN CASE AT BAR; ACCUSED-APPELLANTS TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THEIR NUMERICAL
ARIEL’s testimony was not credible. Besides, the appellant has failed to prove any improper SUPERIORITY AND THE FACT THAT THE TWO OF THEM WERE ARMED WITH BLADED
motive on the part of ARIEL to falsely impute such a terrible crime to herein accused- WEAPONS WHEN THEY ATTACKED THE UNARMED VICTIMS. — We rule that the RTC
appellants. The testimony of a single witness, when credible and trustworthy, is sufficient properly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength and
to convict and must be given full faith and credence when no reason to falsely testify is correctly convicted the accused-appellants of murder. Clearly, the accused-appellants took
shown. The mere fact that the principal witness was the victim of the crime does not make advantage of their numerical superiority and the fact that two of them were armed with
him a biased witness and does not make his testimony incredible. It would be unnatural and bladed weapons when they attacked SERAFIN and ARIEL. SERAFIN and ARIEL, who were
illogical for him to impute the crime to an innocent person and let the culprit escape unarmed and were seated inside the jeep without any means of defending themselves,
prosecution. were no match to their four assailants who overpowered them.

2. CRIMINAL LAW; CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY; CONSPIRACY; 5. ID.; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES; PHYSICAL DEFECT AND NO INTENTION TO COMMIT
MAY BE DEDUCED FROM THE MODE AND MANNER IN WHICH THE OFFENSE WAS SO GRAVE A WRONG; NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR; NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED IN
 RELATION THERETO OTHER THAN THE BARE ALLEGATION THAT THE ACCUSED IS SUFFERING Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon, Metro Manila, Branch 170 in Criminal Cases Nos. 12196-MN &
FROM A PHYSICAL DEFECT; FATAL LOCATION OF THE STAB WOUNDS BELIES CLAIM OF NO 12197-MN finding all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder and
INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG. — The accused-appellants fault the RTC for frustrated murder.
not appreciating as mitigating circumstances accused RICARDO’s physical disability, the
accused-appellant’s lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and the victim’s provocation, Two (2) Amended Informations2 for Murder and Frustrated Murder were filed against accused
which preceded the act. After a careful assessment of the established facts, we find that Ricardo Francisco y Cupcupin, Reynaldo Franciso y Cupcupin, Teodoro Francisco y Cupcupin,
these circumstances cannot be appreciated in their favor. The limp allegedly suffered by Antonio Sioco, Cesar Nuestro3 , Efren Francisco, Jaime @ Daga4 and John Doe @ Nonoy5 as
RICARDO has not been shown to restrict his means of action, defense or communication follows:
with his fellow beings as required by Article 13(8) of the Revised Penal Code as no evidence
was presented in relation thereto other than the bare allegation that he suffered from such Amended Information for Murder
a physical defect. Neither can the circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
be appreciated considering that SERAFIN was stabbed on his torso while ARIEL was stabbed That on or about the 27th day of October, 1992, in the Municipality of Malabon
in his stomach with the use of a bladed weapon. The location of the stab wounds manifest Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused-appellants’ intention to kill and belies their claim that they did not intend to above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon, conspiring, confederating
commit so grave a wrong as that committed. together with all the other accused, who are all at large, with intent to kill, evidence
(sic) premeditation and abuse of superior strength, did, then and there, willfully,
6. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES; INFORMATION; unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said weapon one
FACT THAT THE INFORMATION FOR FRUSTRATED MURDER FAILED TO ALLEGE “INTENT TO SERAFIN MANGALI, JR., hitting the victim on the chest, thereby inflicting upon the
KILL” DID NOT MAKE THE INFORMATION INSUFFICIENT. — We hold that the fact that the victim stab wound which caused his immediate death.
information for frustrated murder failed to allege “intent to kill” did not make the
information insufficient. An information is sufficient if it states “. . . the designation of the Amended Information for Frustrated Murder
offense by statute.” The information should, whenever possible, state the designation of
the offense by statute besides the statement of the acts or omissions constituting the same That on or about the 27th day of October, 1992, in the Municipality of Navotas,
and if there is no such designation, reference should be made to the section or subsection Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of his Honorable Court, the
of the statute punishing it. The information more than substantially satisfies the above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon, conspiring, confederating and
requirement of designating the offense of frustrated murder considering that it contains helping with one another, together with all the accused who are all at large, with
the acts constituting the felony, the name of the crime by statute and the stage (frustrated) evidence premeditation and abuse of superior strength, did, then and there, willfully,
of the commission of the crime by definition. Besides the absence of the averment of intent unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said weapon one ARIEL
to kill may be inferred from the allegation that the stab wound would have caused the death DE DIOS y FRANCISCO, hitting the latter on his abdomen and left finger, thereby
(in this case murder) of the victim. A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of Murder, but
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which did not produce the same for reason of cause independent of the will of the accused,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the that is due to the timely and able medical attendance given to said victim which
perpetrator. Since Dr. Dominador Chansiopen’s testimony that the wound sustained by prevented his death.
ARIEL as a result of the stabbing was sufficient to cause his death had the wound been left
untreated was not rebutted by the defense, we sustain the ruling of the RTC that the Upon arraignment, accused Ricardo Francisco (RICARDO), Reynaldo Francisco (REYNALDO),
accused-appellants are also guilty of frustrated murder. Teodoro Francisco (TEODORO), Efren Francisco (EFREN)6 and Antonio Sioco (ANTONIO)7 with
the assistance of counsel, individually entered a plea of not guilty.
FULL TEXT
G.R. No. 118573-74 May 31, 2000 EFREN underwent a psychiatric examination8 and was diagnosed as suffering “from psychosis
or insanity classified as schizophrenia rendering him incompetent to stand court trial”. The
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, criminal cases filed against him were therefore suspended and he was ordered confined at the
vs. National Center for Mental Health in Mandaluyong for treatment.9
RICARDO FRANCISCO y CUPCUPIN, REYNALDO FRANCISCO y CUPCUPIN, TEODORO
FRANCISCO y CUPCUPIN, ANTONIO SIOCO, accused-appellants. The RTC summarized the facts as culled from the testimonies of the witnesses presented by
the prosecution and by the defense as follows:
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
On October 27, 1992 at about midnight, Ariel De Dios and Serafin Mangali went to
This is an appeal interposed by accused Ricardo, Reynaldo, and Teodoro, all surnamed the house of Manny Pascual at Naval Street, Navotas. After a short talk at the gate,
Francisco, and Antonio Sioco from the Joint Decision 1 dated November 7, 1994 of the Regional the three proceeded in a nearby store on board a jeep. They ordered San Miguel Pale
Pilsen for each one of them, sat on a bench and continued their conversation. Shortly Emmanuel Pascual testified that after Serafin and Ariel left, he proceeded towards
thereafter, a man identified as Efren Francisco, who was sitting on the right side of their main door; that he was still knocking at their door when he heard Ariel called
Ariel spat at the latter. Ariel asked Manny why said man was acting like that and his name twice; that he walked casually towards the gate and opened it; that he saw
whether he knew the man. Manny told Ariel not to mind the man. The three people in front of the gate and somebody pointed to the right; that upon looking to
continued their conversation but Ariel got irked when the man spat at his right arm the right, he saw Ariel’s jeep and he walked faster towards the jeep; that he saw a
again. Ariel then told Manny that they better go home as he does not like what the body under the jeep and he ran; that while he was running, Teodoro who was a few
man was doing. Ariel paid the bill and told Manny and Serafin to board the jeep. Ariel feet away from the jeep told him “Pati lokoloko pinapatulan nila”; that there were
then talked with the man and asked the latter why he spat at him. The man did not other persons in the area but he was able to recognize only two, Boy and Tenok who
answer and just kept on smiling. Ariel then hit the man on the nape and the latter turned out to be Ricardo and Reynaldo, respectively; that he saw Serafin full of blood;
ran away. With Serafin on the wheel, the three proceeded to Manny’s house. After that he asked Serafin where Ariel was but Serafin did not answer; that he carried
talking for about five minutes at the gate, Serafin and Ariel boarded on the jeep while Serafin inside the jeep and brought him to Saint Joseph’s Clinic; that there were no
Manny went inside the house. facilities in said clinic so he brought Serafin to Martinez Hospital; that he made a few
phone calls after which, the doctor informed him that Serafin was already dead; and
Ariel De Dios narrated the incidents that took place thereafter as follows: that Serafin the he noticed that the two front teeth of Serafin were broken.
maneuvered the jeep along M. Naval on their way to Malabon; that upon passing by
the gate of Manny’s house, Ariel saw a man, who turned out to be accused Antonio Dr. Ludivino J. Lagat, the NBI Medical Specialist who conducted an autopsy on the
Sioco, a few meters from the gate pointing at them and saying “Heto na sila, heto na body of Serafin Mangali testified that the deceased sustained a linear abrasion on
sila” that immediately thereafter, the headlights of a coming jeep that was occupying the right cheekbone and stab wound on the left side of the body below the armpit;
the lane they were then traversing were turned on; that Serafin stepped on the that the stab wound was 2.0 cm big and 12 cm deep having one sharp and one blunt
brakes and their jeep went off at a distance of about two feet from the coming jeep; extremity directed backward medially and downward, entering the thoracic cavity
that there were about seven persons on board the other jeep, the driver, two were and penetrating the lower lobe of the left lung and that 1600 cc of blood was
seated in front, one on the left front fender and two or three at the back that the recovered inside; that the stabwound could have been caused by one bladed sharp
one on the fender, who turned out to be Ricardo Francisco was the first to alight pointed instrument and is the cause of death of Serafin Mangali.
followed by the rest; that Ricardo went towards Serafin, grabbed the latter by the
neck and said “Putang ina mo, bumaba ka diyan”; that Serafin held on the steering Serafin Mangali, Sr. testified that his son, the deceased Serafin Mangali, Jr. was an
wheel; and resisted the pull; that another person who came from the jeep grabbed employee of the Department of Agrarian Reform during his lifetime with an annual
Serafin by the arm and tried to loosen Serafin’s grip on the steering wheel; that income of P22,524.00 (Exhibit “E”) that he spent P29,500.0 for the funeral services
another person, who turned out to be accused Teodoro Francisco came armed with of his son (Exhibit “F”) and the additional sum of P15,000.00 for miscellaneous
a knife-like instrument and stabbed Serafin on the left armpit; that Ariel got stunned expenses during the wake; and that he will pay P50,000 for his share in the legal
and was holding. on the bar looking on what was happening when somebody, who services in these cases.
turned out to be Reynaldo Francisco, suddenly pull his right arm and ordered him to
get down; that when Ariel was in the act of alighting from the jeep, his right foot Dr. Joaquin Tan, a dentist at the Department of Agrarian Reform testified that on
already out, Reynaldo stabbed him on the left part of the stomach; that Ariel asked May 8, 1992, he made a thorough dental examination on the deceased Serafin
Reynaldo why he stabbed him but the latter got stunned (napatanga) and did not Mangali Jr. and as per dental record of the latter, his upper and lower teeth were
answer; that Ariel then pushed Reynaldo, ran at the rear portion of the jeep and told complete (Exhibit “G”); and that he issued a certification to that effect on March 16,
Serafin to run (“Pare, takbo na tayo”); that at that instance, Serafin was being mauled 1994 (Exhibit “G-1”).
beside the jeep; that Ariel ran towards Manny’s gate, knocked twice and called
Manny’s name twice; that Teodoro and Efren chased Ariel and the latter proceeded Dr. Dominador Chansiopen of the Manila Doctors Hospital identified the Medical
on the pathway going to the garage at the back but after two or three steps in the Record of Ariel De Dios (Exhibit “H”) and testified that he attended to Ariel De Dios
pathway which was very dark, Ariel went back to the street where he came from and at 1:30 o’clock in the early morning of October 27, 1992; that the latter sustained
he saw Serafin sprawled on the ground; that Ariel also saw Teodoro, after which, he wound at the mid clavicular line post gastric stomach, perforating the colon through
ran as fast as he can towards the back garage and called for Manny’s father; that and through, caused by a stab thrust, which required operation for gastric repair or
when no one was answering, Ariel scaled on the wall, went up the roof, knocked on gastrophy, and repair of the transverse colon or transverscolontraphy; that the said
the window and asked for help; that Manny’s father went out together with his wound if left untreated would have caused the patient’s death; that he further noted
daughter and Ariel told them to help Serafin as he was being mauled; that Manny’s lacerated wound in Ariel’s finger, abrasion in the side of the abdomen and in the
father went out and returned after a while informing Ariel that Serafin was okay and small area of the hand.
was brought to the hospital by Manny and that Ariel was thereafter brought at the
Manila Doctors Hospital. On the other hand, the defense witnesses confirmed the presence of the accused
Antonio Sioco and the Francisco brothers at the scene of the crime.
 Teodoro Francisco further corroborated the testimony that Reynaldo merely acted
Raul Sosa, a compadre of accused Teodoro and Ricardo Francisco claims to have in self-defense when he stabbed Ariel. He likewise stated that he ran after Ariel in
witnessed the incident while he and Rogelio Pineda were waiting for a ride. He order to help the latter. 10
testified that Teodoro Francisco, upon alighting from the jeep heading for Navotas,
immediately approached the driver of the jeep heading for Malabon, whom he came The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged and
to know later to be Serafin Mangali, and pulled out the latter while Reynaldo rendered judgment on November 7, 1994, the dispositive portion of which reads:
Francisco approached the passenger, whom he came to know later to be Ariel De
Dios, and thereupon stabbed the latter; that Ariel alighted and ran away; that WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Teodoro dropped off Serafin and chased Ariel but failed to overtake the latter who Teodoro, Reynaldo and Ricardo, all surnamed Francisco, as well as Antonio Sioco
turned to the next street; that Teodoro returned together with Manny Pascual whom guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder in Criminal Case
he met along the way; that there was a commotion on the jeep but his attention was No. 12196-MN and of Murder in Criminal Case No. 12197-MN, and hereby sentences
focused on Teodoro and Ariel; that he did not see Efren Francisco during the incident; each one of them as follows:
and that he saw Antonio Sioco on the way to the jeep.
1. In Criminal Case No. 12196-MN, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
Rogelio Pineda corroborated the testimony of Raul Sosa and further testified that eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen
while Teodoro was chasing Ariel, Serafin alighted and went at the back of the jeep (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as
where he met Ricardo; that the two had an argument and moments later, Ricardo maximum;
stabbed Serafin; that when Serafin sprawled on the ground, Ricardo disappeared and
the latter’s companion scampered away; that during the stabbing, Efren was 2. In Criminal Case No. 12197-MN, to suffer the penalty of reclusion
standing nearby while Antonio Sioco was in front of the jeep; and that Ricardo, Efren perpetua;
and Antonio left together.1âwphi1.nêt
3. To indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Serafin Mangali, Jr. the
For his part, accused Antonio Sioco testified that he was with Teodoro, Reynaldo, sum of P44,500.00 as actual damages plus the further sum of P50,000.00
Ricardo and some other companions drinking beer in a store when Teodoro was for the death of said Serafin Mangali, Jr. and the cost of suit.
informed by a saleslady that their brother Efren was kicked and hit at the nape by
three persons who left on board a vehicle; that Teodoro thereupon talked into going Let the accused be credited with whatever preventive imprisonment they have
after the said three persons to confront them why they did such thing; that the undergone in connection with these cases.
Franciscos and some of their companions hurriedly boarded a jeep while he was left
behind; that upon hearing the skidding sound of the jeep coming to a halt, he Let the records of these cases be sent to the archives pending the trial of accused
followed his companions; that upon arrival at the scene, he saw Ariel De Dios Efren Francisco and the arrest of all the other accused. 11
standing beside the jeep in confrontation with Reynaldo and Ricardo while Serafin
was still in the steering wheel in confrontation with Teodoro and two others; that In so ruling, the court a quo found that there was a conspiracy as the accused acted pursuant
when Ariel was about to hit Reynaldo, the latter stabbed the former; that Ariel who to a common criminal design as the acts performed by them individually thereafter were
thereafter ran was chased by Teodoro; that Serafin alighted from the jeep and a concerted and were so connected as to unequivocally show the existence of a conspiracy; and
commotion ensued and when Serafin went near Ricardo, the latter stabbed Serafin. that the accused took advantage of superior strength in executing their criminal design in that
Teodoro sought the assistance of his companions and despite the superiority in number, the
Ricardo Francisco claims that upon hearing the report that their brother Efren was conspirators even armed themselves with knives.
ill-treated by three persons, Teodoro told him and their brother Reynaldo to stay
behind and not to follow him as he will just talk to the persons concerned but he and Hence, the present appeal where the Francisco brothers RICARDO, REYNALDO and TEODORO,
Reynaldo insisted in going; that during the confrontation, Ariel was about to hit his assign the following errors allegedly committed by the trial court:
brother Reynaldo with a black hard thing when Reynaldo stabbed Ariel; that Ariel
who thereafter ran was chased by Teodoro; that Serafin alighted from the jeep and 1. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RELYING ON “POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION”
attacked him with a bottle of Coke which landed on his left shoulder; that when OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS AS THE PERPETRATORS OF THE CRIMES;
Serafin was about to draw something from his waist and uttered “I will kill you, I will
kill you”, he immediately stabbed him (Serafin); that he had a knife because he was 2. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO
peeling a mango during their drinking spree and he forgot to leave it. TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES ARIEL DE DIOS AND
EMMANUEL PASCUAL, DESPITE THEIR IMPROPER MOTIVES, BIASES AND
INTERESTS IN TESTIFYING AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS;
 3. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN LENDING CREDENCE TO PROSECUTION’S ill-motivated witness for he was impelled to get even with the accused-appellants for the
VERSION RATHER THAN ON THE DEFENSE VERSION ON HOW DECEASED injuries he suffered.
SERAFIN MANGALI, JR., WAS STABBED;
Accused-appellants further point out that ARIEL’S identification of the accused-appellants
4. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN IGNORING ACCUSED-APPELLANT RICARDO cannot be characterized as positive for it was unreliable considering that it was made
FRANCISCO’S JUDICIAL ADMISSION OF BEING THE ASSAILANT OF THE immediately after the warrantless arrest of TEODORO, RICARDO and REYNALDO who were
DECEASED SERAFIN MANGALI, JR.; brought to ARIEL’s bedside at the Manila Doctor’s Hospital for identification, which was
“pointedly suggestive” as the identities of the accused-appellants were “fed” by the police
5. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT TEODORO officers who arrested them. ARIEL was unfamiliar with the physical features of accused-
FRANCISCO THE ASSAILANT OF DECEASED MANGALI, JR.; appellants who being brothers, bear a striking resemblance with one another and it would be
extremely probable that ARIEL could have mistaken one for the other in making his
6. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT REYNALDO identification. Moreover, ARIEL’s view was obstructed by SERAFIN’s assailant since ARIEL was
FRANCISCO THE ASSAILANT OF ARIEL DE DIOS; seated in the front passenger seat of the jeep at the moment he was being attacked and
assaulted by two of the assailants. His attention was therefore focused on the latter and on his
7. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED- own safety and survival. In addition, accused-appellants claim that since the headlights of both
APPELLANTS ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT; jeeps were on, the sudden flash of glaring light from the headlights of the approaching vehicle
would have caused temporary blindness on the passengers of the other vehicle thus making it
AND ASSUMING IN GRATIA ARGUMENTI, THAT ACCUSED, OR SOME OF THEM, ARE highly improbable for ARIEL to see and identify the occupants of the other jeep.
GUILTY:
Accused-appellants also attack the veracity of the testimony of Emmanuel Pascual (MANNY).
8. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING CONSPIRACY AMONG THE They claim that MANNY lied when he testified that he did not know EFREN when, by his own
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS; admission, accused-appellants Francisco brothers were his neighbors since he “was a kid.” The
sudden decision to leave the eatery can be explained by the fact that MANNY may have warned
9. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE QUALIFYING and alerted ARIEL of the presence and possible retaliation from the Francisco brothers who
CIRCUMSTANCE OF ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH ATTENDED THE were then drinking inside the eatery.
COMMISSION OF THE TWO OFFENSES;
Accused-appellants maintain that SERAFIN was stabbed not while he was seated at the steering
10. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE MITIGATING wheel but while he was standing beside the jeep and engaged in a heated argument with the
CIRCUMSTANCE OF; accused-appellants after he alighted therefrom. According to them, the testimony of Raul Sosa
13 reveals that RICARDO, John Doe and TEODORO approached SERAFIN telling the latter to get

A. PHYSICAL DISABILITY; off the jeep and angrily demanded an explanation why the latter’s group maltreated EFREN.
After SERAFIN alighted from the jeep, ARIEL ran away in an attempt to flee from the assault of
B. LACK OF INTENT TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG; RICARDO and John Doe. When RICARDO and John Doe stabbed SERAFIN, TEODORO was
already in pursuit of the fleeing ARIEL. It is therefore improbable that TEODORO stabbed
C. OFFENDED PARTY’S PROVOCATION IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED SERAFIN because he was then pursuing the fleeing ARIEL.
THE ACT.
The theory of the defense is supported by RICARDO’s testimony where RICARDO admitted
IN IMPOSING THE PROPER PENALTIES; having stabbed SERAFIN in open court which, under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court
is a judicial admission that does not require proof.
11. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS; The above-mentioned theory’ is also alleged to be supported by the medico-legal findings as
can be seen from the nature and location of the injury sustained by SERAFIN. The direction of
12. CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS FOR FRUSTRATED MURDER the wound was “horizontal,” “directed backward medially and downward” which indicates
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12196-MN, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ALLEGATION that the assailant is in a position higher than the victim. If the sharp portion was located
OF INTENT TO KILL IN THE INFORMATION. 12 “medially”, it means that the assailant delivered the fatal thrust at a horizontal, swinging
motion, from a slightly higher position going downward towards the left armpit of SERAFIN.
Accused-appellants Francisco brothers contend that the testimony of lone prosecution Considering the nature and location of the stab wound of .SERAFIN, the relative positions of
witness, Ariel De Dios (ARIEL) needs corroboration. They argue that his testimony is “erratic TEODORO, RICARDO and John Doe, the only direction TEODORO could have delivered the fatal
and unreliable” for being contrary to the evidence. Moreover, ARIEL was a biased, partial and stab wound is sideways in an upward motion, in which case, the direction of the stab wound
should have been upward and not downward as found by the medical report. Besides, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT ANTONIO SIOCO GUILTY
TEODORO could not have inflicted the fatal stab wound as he was unarmed. Except for the AS A CONSPIRATOR IN THE CRIME OF FRUSTRATED MURDER AND MURDER. 15
lone testimony of ARIEL, witnesses ANTONIO and RICARDO were unanimous in stating that
TEODORO was not holding a knife. ANTONIO strongly disagrees with the finding of the court a quo that there was conspiracy as
all the accused acted pursuant to a common criminal design. He argues that TEODORO’s plan
Accused-appellants further claim that the prosecution’s theory of conspiracy does not find was only to talk to the persons who “hit and kicked” their brother; that there was no
support in law and evidence. The mere fact that accused-appellants were companions in a agreement or common design because when TEODORO asked the group to go and look for the
drinking spree does not make them conspirators. There was no clear and convincing proof that man who harmed their brother, he was addressing nobody in particular; and that appellant
their concerted acts were prompted by a common criminal design in the stabbing of the two ANTONIO himself and two other members of their drinking group were left behind. On the
victims. Accused-appellants never planned to kill the victims. The fact that they looked for the conspiracy angle, ANTONIO further contends that the uncorroborated testimony of ARIEL that
person who allegedly ill-treated EFREN is not indicative of the intention to kill the victims; the former uttered the words “Heto na sila, heto na sila” or “yan na sila, ayan na sila” borders
rather, it is in full accord with the common experience of mankind and it was a natural reaction on physical impossibility aside from the fact that no other witness confirmed such fact.
of TEODORO, being the eldest of the Francisco brothers, to look for those who maltreated his ANTONIO allegedly opted to be left behind in the store and followed the group only when both
brother. vehicles were already at the scene of the incident and the protagonists were already shouting
at each other. 16
Anent the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength, numerical
superiority is not the sole criterion. Even the sparse evidence established that there was only On the other hand, the appellee, through the private prosecutor and the Office of the Solicitor
one knife used during the two stabbing incidents; this knife was the one RICARDO admitted he General, maintain that the guilt of the accused-appellants has been proved beyond reasonable
used in stabbing SERAFIN, the same knife he previously used to peel mangoes while the group doubt. The appellee avers that ARIEL positively identified the accused-appellants as his and
of accused-appellants were drinking inside the eatery. There being no abuse of superior SERAFIN’s assailants. ARIEL was able to identify the accused-appellants as the assailants since
strength, the RTC should have made the conclusion that the killing was not murder but the street where the stabbing occurred was well lighted. His testimony is supported not only
homicide and only the culprit who actually perpetrated the crime is liable. by the physical evidence but also by the medico-legal report. Contrary to accused-appellants’
claim, the records disclose that ARIEL was not biased and not motivated to falsely testify
The accused-appellants likewise claim that the RTC erred in not appreciating the mitigating against the accused-appellants. On the contrary, ARIEL’s testimony is convincing and
circumstances of physical disability, lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, and the trustworthy and is sufficient to convict herein accused-appellants. Likewise unworthy of any
offended party’s provocation immediately preceding the act. RICARDO has a limp due to polio, weight is RICARDO’s admission that he stabbed SERAFIN because it was made not only to back
which should be considered as a physical defect analogous to Article 13 (8) or (10) of the up his claim of self-defense but also to absolve TEODORO from any responsibility for the death
Revised Penal Code. Moreover, the fact that the perpetrators had no intention to kill anybody of SERAFIN. It cannot therefore be considered as an admission against interest. As regards
considering that the stabbing arose out of uncontrolled impulse rather than a deliberate design accused ANTONIO, he is guilty as a conspirator in the commission of the crimes charged
to take the victims’ lives should also mitigate their liability. Finally, ARIEL’s admission that he inasmuch as the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses show that the accused-appellants
hit the nape of EFREN should be considered as constituting sufficient provocation that impelled had a common design to kill SERAFIN and ARIEL.
the perpetrators to do what they did.
It is further contended by the appellee that the accused-appellants were properly convicted of
As regards the conviction of Frustrated Murder, the Information is defective in the absence of murder. The RTC correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
an allegation of intent to kill pursuant to Section 6, Rule 110; the allegations, and not the strength, which attended the commission of the crimes. The accused-appellants not only relied
caption, in the indictment determine what offense is charged. In murder cases, the presence on their numerical superiority but the two, RICARDO and TEODORO, were also armed with
or absence of the allegation of “intent to kill” in the Information becomes decisive in deadly weapons when they attacked SERAFIN and ARIEL.
determining the proper offense. The Joint Decision violates Section 14, Article III of the
Constitution which is a basic right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of Finally, the accused-appellants’ claim that the RTC should have considered physical disability,
accusation in view of the conviction of accused-appellants for Frustrated Murder, in the lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and provocation as mitigating circumstances
absence of the allegation of intent to kill in the Information. Moreover, the stab wound deserves scant consideration. First, there was no showing that RICARDO’s physical defect i.e.
sustained by ARIEL in his abdomen was insufficient to cause his death; in fact, he was still able he had a limp caused by polio, restricted his means of defense or action or communication
to run and climb the roof of a with his fellow beings. Second, lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated
house. 14 when the wounds inflicted are serious enough to cause and in fact caused the crime charged.
Thirdly, the murder and frustrated murder committed by the accused-appellants is in great
Accused-appellant Antonio Sioco (ANTONIO) filed a separate appellant’s brief raising a single disparity with the provocation made by SERAFIN and ARIEL. Moreover, ample time had lapsed
assignment of error, to wit: from the time of the provocation to the time of the killing. Besides, the provocation did not
originate from ARIEL and SERAFIN but from EFREN, the brother of three of the accused-
appellants. 17
After a careful and meticulous review of the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason to Q: That day the rest are all involved in the assault against you?
depart from the RTC’s judgment convicting RICARDO, REYNALDO and TEODORO.
A: Yes, sir.18
In their first assigned error, the accused-appellants assail ARIEL’s identification of them and
claim that his identification was not positive. The fact that ARIEL was in the hospital when he identified the accused-appellants
will not affect his identification of them for there is no law, which requires a police
We are not persuaded. line-up as essential to a proper identification provided that the identification was not
suggested to the witness by the police. 19 As seen from the above, there is nothing in
Accused-appellants’ allegation that the police induced ARIEL’s identification of the accused- the testimony of ARIEL that shows that the police suggested that the suspects
appellants at the hospital is belied by the transcripts which read: presented to him were his assailants. The police merely asked him whether he could
recognize any of them and whether any of them were his assailants. He answered
Q: What did the police say when they brought to you the suspect? positively by pointing his finger at them. He could hot have been mistaken in the
identification of the accused-appellants considering that the street where he and
A: The police did not say anything just the doctor, sir. SERAFIN were assaulted was well lit. 20 His identification of the accused-appellants
was corroborated by the testimony of MANNY who identified the accused-appellants
Q: What did he say? as being present in the vicinity where the crimes were committed. 21 Significantly,
ARIEL also positively identified each of the accused-appellants in court. 22
A: If I can recognize or what. He asked me how many where they. My name
and where I live, sir. In their second to sixth assigned errors, the accused-appellants attack the veracity of the
testimony of ARIEL and claim that he was not a credible witness. They also fault the RTC for
Q: After that? not believing the witnesses for the defense.

A: After that the police brought in the suspects which I positively identified, We have carefully gone over the records and find nothing in his account of the events that
sir. would show that his testimony suffers from incredibility. ARIEL testified as follows:

Q: In what manner did you make your identification? ATTY. NARVASA:

A: I pointed at them, sir. Q: Where you able to identify or see how many people were in the jeep?

Q: Told them what? A: Inside the jeep? (asking)

A: I pointed my finger, sir (witness pointing his finger) Q: (Atty. Narvasa) Yes.

Q: To whom? A: Seven or maybe more because there were three in front — the driver, two persons
in the passenger seat, one was seated on the fender outside and maybe two or three
A: First the one in yellow shirt then the two other guys, sir. more, sir.

Q: After pointing your finger to the one in yellow shirt did you say Q: Again.
anything?
A: “repeating” two in front, excluding the driver, one at the fender, and maybe two
A: No. The policeman said “do you know this guy?” “Where they the ones to three more at the back of the jeep sir.
who assaulted you?,” and I said “Yes” and I pointed the three of them, sir.
Q: When you said there was person on the fender, what fender is this? Whose jeep?
Q: But during that time and day you never identified anyone among the
three who stabbed you? A: Theirs, sir.

A: I did. I pointed the one in yellow shirt. I recognized him because he was Q: The jeep that blocked your path?
the one who stabbed me, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
A: (the interpreter acting as Serafin-witness put his right hand on the nape and then
Q: Left side of the fender, right side, front or back? the left hand was on the left shoulder of the interpreter) Then he pulled Serafin
towards him, sir.
A: Left side of the front fender, sir.
ATTY. CALALANG:
Q: When this jeep blocked your way, what happened to your jeep?
Your honor, I think what was being demonstrated is grabbing at the base of the neck,
A: It stopped. Serafin stepped on the brakes and the engine went off, sir. it is not at the neck but grabbing more on the shoulder portion at the base near the
neck.
Q: Then what happened?
ATTY. NARVASA:
A: Thereafter, the occupants of the jeep started coming out and the person who was
seated on the fender was the first one to come towards Serafin, sir. The witness is probably the best person.

Q: Who was driving at this time? ATTY. CALALANG

A: Serafin, sir. We have seen the demonstration.

Q: You are saying the one who was seated outside the jeep? COURT:

A: He was the first one who came towards Serafin sir. Counsel’s observation is that the demonstration — he touched the shoulder not at
the neck. You make the correct demonstration.
Q: What happened?
WITNESS:
A: The persons inside the jeep immediately followed the one seated along the fender
grabbed Serafin by the neck sir. He grabbed Serafin by the neck then he uttered (repeating the demonstration)
“Putang Ina mo, bumaba ka diyan, Putang ina mo Bumaba ka diyan.”
ATTY. NARVASA:
Q: You said this person who was seated on the fender was the first who came
towards Serafin and grabbed Serafin by the neck. Did you know him at that time? I would like to point out that the portion of the hand, small finger, was placed closed
at the neck.
A: No, sir.
ATTY. CALALANG:
Q: But if you see him, would you be able to identify him?
Base of the neck the greater part is laid on the shoulder portion, Your Honor.
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. NARVASA:
Q: If you look around the courtroom, is he present in court?
It is for the appreciation of the Hon. Court.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Would you tell us what was Serafin doing at that time?
Q: Will you point to him.
A: He was resisting, sir.
A: (witness pointing to a man whom when asked his name answered Ricardo
Francisco) Q: Would you tell us what was his position?

Q: You said he grabbed him (Serafin) by the neck. Could you demonstrate to us how A: He was holding the wheel, both hands, because he was resisting the pull, sir.
he grabbed him (Serafin) by the neck.
Q: What happened?
A: I was stunned because I was holding on the bar and I was looking what was going
A: Then another person came from the jeep and he grabbed Serafin by the arm, sir. on, sir.

Q: What arm? Q: Then what happened?

A: Left arm, sit. He was trying to loosen Serafin’s grip on the steering wheel, sir. A: Then somebody just suddenly pulled my right arm and ordered me to get down
from the vehicle, sir.
Q: Then what happened?
Q: And what happened then?
A: There was another one who came, who was then armed with a thing which looked
like knife and stabbed Serafin below the armpit, sir. A: After he pulled me my right foot was out of the jeep, then he stabbed me sir.

Q: You said somebody came and was trying to get Serafin’s grip off the steering Q: Where did he stab you?
wheel?
A: Here at the left part of my stomach, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Then what happened?
Q: Do you know that person?
A: After stabbing me, I asked him why did he stab me, sir.
A: No, sir.
Q: Did he answer?
Q: If you see him, would you be able to identify him?
A: He did not answer, sir. He got stunned “napatanga”, got shock, that is why I was
A: Yes, sir. able to push him away, sir.

Q: Would you look around the courtroom and see if he is present. Q: Then what happened?

A: He is not around right now, sir. A: I was looking for Serafin, sir. I saw Serafin because I was looking for him to find
out what happened to him, sir.
Q: You said a person came and pulled out a knife and suddenly stabbed Serafin. Do
you know that person then? Q: You said that this person who stabbed you, did you know him then?

A: No, sir. A: No, sir.

Q: If you see him, would you be able to identify him? Q: If you see him again, would you be able to identify him?

A: Yes, sir. A: Yes, sir.

Q: Would you tell us if he is present here? Q: Look around the courtroom and see if this person is present in court.

A: Yes, sir. A: Yes, sir. He is the one (pointing to a person whom when asked his name answered
Reynaldo Francisco)
Q: Will you point at him.
Q: After you said he stabbed you and you were able to push him away, where did
A: He is the one, sir. (pointing to a person whom when asked his name answered you go?
Teodoro Francisco).
A: At the place near the rear of the jeep which we were then driving, sir.
Q: While this was happening, what were you doing?
Q: You mean you alighted from the jeep? A: One came from side of Serafin, sir.

A: Yes, sir. Q: Who was this guy?

Q: While you were on that position, what happened? What did you see? What did A: The guy who stabbed Serafin, sir.
you notice?
Q: And who was the other guy who was chasing after you?
A: I looked at Serafin and told him, “Pare, takbo na tayo, sir.
A: He was the one right behind the guy who stabbed me, sir.
Q: And were you able to see Serafin?
Q: Earlier when you were inside the jeep?
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was happening to Serafin?
Q: Who was this guy?
A: He was standing beside the jeep being mauled and I even heard him say “Tama
na, tama na”, sir. A: The person who was at the store spitting, sir. 23

Q: After you heard him said “Tama na, tama na”, what happened? ARIEL’s testimony, as found by the RTC, was straightforward, categorical and free from self-
contradiction. 24 This Court has ruled on countless occasions that the trial court is in the best
A: Somebody answered from those persons who were mauling him by saying “Anong position to determine facts and to assess the credibility of witnesses as it is in a unique position
tama na, anong tama na”, sir. to observe the witnesses’ deportment while testifying which opportunity the appellate court
is denied on appeal; this Court will respect the findings and conclusions of the trial court
Q: Then what happened? provided that they are supported by substantial evidence on record. 25 In the case at bar, we
find no cogent reason to disturb the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence and find no basis
A: I ran towards Manny’s jeep, sir. therein to rule that ARIEL’s testimony was not credible. Besides, the appellant has failed to
prove any improper motive on the part of ARIEL to falsely impute such a terrible crime to herein
Q: Why did you run towards Manny’s jeep? accused-appellants. The testimony of a single witness, when credible and trustworthy, is
sufficient to convict and must be given full faith and credence when no reason to falsely testify
A: It was the nearest place where I could go, sir. I knocked twice, sir. is shown. 26 The mere fact that the principal witness was the victim of the crime does not make
him a biased witness and does not make his testimony incredible. It would be unnatural and
Q: Did you reach Manny’s place? illogical for him to impute the crime to an innocent person and let the culprit escape
prosecution. 27
A: Yes, sir.
At any rate, ARIEL’s testimony is corroborated by the autopsy report the findings of which are
Q: Why did you have to run? as follows:

A: Because somebody was chasing me, sir. POSTMORTEM FINDINGS

Q: Chasing you? Pallor, generalized.

A: Yes, sir. Abrasion, linear, 2.3 cms. Right cheek.

Q: How many were chasing you? STAB WOUND, 2.0 cms. Elliptical, clean-cut edges, almost horizontally,
sharp medial and blunt lateral extremity, located at the left mid-axilliary
A: I think there were two of them, sir. line, level of the 7th intercostal space, 18.5 cms. From the anterior median
line, directed backwards, downward and medially, entering the left
Q: Who were chasing you? thoracic cavity, then penetrating the lower lobe of the left lung, through
 and through, then to the left spinuous process of the 8th thoracic
vertebrae, with an approximate depth of 12.0 cms. We however disagree with the finding of the RTC that the accused-appellant ANTONIO was
also part of the conspiracy. “In order to hold an accused liable as co-principal by reason of
Brain and visceral organs, pale. conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of
the conspiracy. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of
Hemathorax, left, 1,600 c.c. the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at
the time of the commission of the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-
Stomach, full of rice and other food particles. 28 conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the conspiracy.” 34 In the case at bench,
ANTONIO’s participation in the stabbing incident was limited to his shouting from a distance
ARIEL stated that SERAFIN was seated in the driver’s seat with his hands on the the words “Heto na sila, heto na sila”. In a case involving the phrase “andiyan na” which has a
steering wheel when he was stabbed. The location of the stab wound sustained by similar import to the phrase involved herein, this Court ruled that said phrase does not have
SERAFIN therefore corresponds to ARIEL’s testimony for in such position, most of the conclusive conspiratorial meaning for the supposedly damning utterances are susceptible of
left portion of his body, including the portion under his arm, was exposed to anyone varied interpretations. 35 We similarly find that the facts as established by the evidence do not
situated beside the driver’s door of the jeep. prove beyond reasonable doubt that he uttered those words in order to give moral assistance
to the Francisco brothers in the absence of any other concrete evidence to prove his
In their eighth and eleventh assigned errors, the accused-appellants argue that the prosecution complicity.
did not duly prove the existence of a conspiracy among them and should not have found them
collectively criminally liable. In their ninth assigned error, the accused-appellants claim that the qualifying circumstance of
abuse of superior strength was not attendant in the commission of the crime.
We disagree.
We rule that the RTC properly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the strength and correctly convicted the accused-appellants of murder. Clearly, the accused-
commission of a crime and decide to commit it. 29 Proof of the agreement need not rest on appellants took advantage of their numerical superiority and the fact that two of them were
direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a armed with bladed weapons when they attacked SERAFIN and ARIEL. 36 SERAFIN and ARIEL,
common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. It is not who were unarmed and were seated inside the jeep without any means of defending
necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit themselves, were no match to their four assailants who overpowered them.
agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal
objective is to be carried out. 30 It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the In their tenth assigned error, the accused-appellants fault the RTC for not appreciating as
offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common mitigating circumstances accused RICARDO’s physical disability, the accused-appellant’s lack
purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. 31 of intent to commit so grave a wrong and the victim’s provocation, which preceded the act.
After a careful assessment of the established facts, we find that these circumstances cannot
The circumstances leading to the stabbing of SERAFIN and ARIEL clearly and convincingly be appreciated in their favor. The limp allegedly suffered by RICARDO has not been shown to
establishes that a conspiracy existed between the accused-appellants. When SERAFIN refused restrict his means of action, defense or communication with his fellow beings as required by
to get down from the jeep after RICARDO grabbed his neck and attempted to pull him out, Article 13(8) of the Revised Penal Code as no evidence was presented in relation thereto other
John Doe 32 attempted to loosen SERAFIN’s grip on the steering wheel. TEODORO who was than the bare allegation that he suffered from such a physical defect. Neither can the
armed with a knife-like instrument then stabbed SERAFIN. At the same time, REYNALDO pulled circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong be appreciated considering that
the arm of ARIEL and ordered ARIEL to get down from the jeep. While he was getting down, SERAFIN was stabbed on his torso while ARIEL was stabbed in his stomach with the use of a
REYNALDO suddenly stabbed him. ARIEL pushed REYNALDO then ran towards MANNY’s gate. bladed weapon. The location of the stab wounds manifest accused-appellants’ intention to kill
TEODORO ran after him but was not able to catch him. Clearly, each of the accused-appellants and belies their claim that they did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
performed distinct but simultaneous acts which when pieced together show unity of purpose 37 Finally, the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended

and design. It therefore becomes irrelevant as to whom amongst them actually stabbed party cannot be considered absent proof that the same immediately preceded the act and that
SERAFIN since in a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of it was adequate to excite a person to commit a wrong, which must accordingly be
all. 33 proportionate in gravity. 38 While ARIEL’s act of hitting or kicking EFREN may have provoked
the accused-appellants, we find that the retaliation of the accused-appellants was grossly
Accused-appellants claim that it was RICARDO who stabbed SERAFIN and not TEODORO in an disproportionate to the provocation made by ARIEL. At any rate, evidence reveals that if there
attempt to discredit the testimony of ARIEL is unconvincing and is merely a futile attempt to was in fact any provocation, it was EFREN who started it when he spat at ARIEL several times.
get TEODORO “off the hook”. But even assuming that ARIEL was mistaken and it was in fact
RICARDO who stabbed SERAFIN, TEODORO is still criminally liable for a conspiracy existed Finally, in their twelfth assigned error, the accused-appellants aver that they cannot be
among them. convicted of frustrated murder in the absence of the allegation of intent to kill in the
information for said charge. We hold that the fact that the information for frustrated murder 3
failed to allege “intent to kill” did not make the information insufficient. An information is
sufficient if it states “. . . the designation of the offense by statute.” 39 The information should, x = 34 x 11,267.00
whenever possible, state the designation of the offense by statute besides the statement of
the acts or omissions constituting the same and if there is no such designation, reference Net Earning Capacity = P383,078.00
should be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. 40 In the case at bench,
the information for frustrated murder clearly states that the accused-appellants “armed with Prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 7659, murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
a bladed weapon, conspiring, confederating and helping with one another, together with all was punishable by reclusion temporal maximum to death. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article
the accused who are all at large, with evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, 64 of the Revised Penal Code, RICARDO, REYNALDO and TEODORO should suffer the penalty
did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said of reclusion perpetua, the medium period of the imposable penalty. 51
weapon one ARIEL DE DIOS y FRANCISCO, hitting the latter on his abdomen and left finger,
thereby performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of Murder, but The penalty for frustrated murder is the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by
did not produce the same for reason of cause independent of the will of the accused, that is law for the consummated felony which in this case is prision mayor maximum to reclusion
due to the timely and able medical attendance given to said victim which prevented his death.” temporal medium. 52 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and in the absence of any
The information more than substantially satisfies the requirement of designating the offense modifying circumstance, the penalty for frustrated murder should be eight (8) years of prision
of frustrated murder considering that it contains the acts constituting the felony, the name of mayor minimum as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight months of reclusion temporal
the crime by statute and the stage (frustrated) of the commission of the crime by definition. minimum as maximum. 53
Besides the absence of the averment of intent to kill may be inferred from the allegation that
the stab wound would have caused the death (in this case murder) of the victim. 41 ACCORDINGLY, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Metro Manila finding the
accused-appellants Ricardo Francisco y Cupcupin, Reynaldo Franciso y Cupcupin and Teodoro
A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would Francisco y Cupcupin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER and
produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of FRUSTRATED MURDER is hereby MODIFIED. For the crime of murder, they are sentenced to
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. 42 Since Dr. Dominador Chansiopen’s suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. For the crime of frustrated murder, they are
testimony 43 that the wound sustained by ARIEL as a result of the stabbing was sufficient to sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years of prision mayor
cause his death had the wound been left untreated was not rebutted by the defense, we minimum as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight months of reclusion temporal minimum
sustain the ruling of the RTC that the accused-appellants are also guilty of frustrated murder. as maximum. They are also ordered to pay the heirs of Serafin Mangali, Jr. P50,000.00 as moral
44 damages, P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P29,000.00 as actual damages and P383,078.00 for
loss of earning capacity.
For the death of SERAFIN, RICARDO, REYNALDO and TEODORO are liable for P50,000.00 as
moral damages 45 and P50,000.00 as death indemnity 46 to the heirs of SERAFIN as this is in Accused-appellant Antonio Sioco is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged based on reasonable
accord with current jurisprudence. RICARDO, REYNALDO and TEODORO are also liable to the doubt and is ordered released immediately from confinement unless he is held for some other
heirs of SERAFIN for funeral expenses amounting to P29,000.00 as actual damages which were lawful cause.
supported by a receipt. 47 Finally, RICARDO, REYNALDO and TEODORO are also liable to the
heirs of SERAFIN for loss of earning capacity. It was established during trial that SERAFIN was SO ORDERED.
twenty-nine (29) years old 48 at the time he was killed and that he was earning P22,534.00 per
annum. 49 Loss of earning capacity is computed based on the following formula: 50

Net life expectancy Gross living expenses

Earning = [2/3 (80-age at x Annual - (50% of GAI)

Capacity death)] Income

(x) (GAI)

x = 2 (80-29) x 22,534.00 - 11,267.00

————