FIRST DIVISION.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
142505
December 11, 2003
-versus-
EDUARDO FELIPE
(AT
LARGE),MA. LOURDES
FELIPE
AND DIONISIO FELIPE,
Accused,
MA. LOURDES
FELIPE
AND DIONISIO FELIPE,
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J.:
In rejecting this
appeal, the Court reiterates the well-entrenched rule that the factual
findings of trial courts are entitled to great respect and will not be
disturbed unless they plainly overlooked or neglected material evidence
which, if considered, will affect the disposition of the case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case
Before us is an appeal
from the October 6, 1999 Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan (Branch 82) in
Criminal
Case No. 16-M-95, convicting Dionisio Felipe and Ma. Lourdes Felipe of
murder and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The decretal portion
of the RTC Decision reads as follows:
"IN VIEW OF
THE FOREGOING, the Court finds accused DIONISIO FELIPE and MA. LOURDES
FELIPE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, qualified
by treachery, as defined in and penalized under Article 248 of the
Revised
Penal Code, and hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of their victim Eduardo
Bagtas, jointly and severally, the sum of P50,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Let the records
of
the above-entitled case be sent to the files for archives with respect
to accused EDUARDO FELIPE, who remains at large, without prejudice to
the
revival of the case when supervening circumstances so warrant."[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Information[3]
dated December 29, 1994, charged appellants, together with their
co-accused
Eduardo Felipe, as follows:
"That on or
about the 20th day of November 1994, in the municipality of San Miguel,
province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, armed with bladed weapon and pieces of
wood and with intent to kill one Eduardo Bagtas, conspiring,
confederating
and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously, with evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength
and treachery, attack, assault and stab with the said bladed weapon the
said Eduardo Bagtas, hitting the latter on the different parts of his
body,
thereby causing him serious physical injuries which directly caused his
death."[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Although appellants
have
remained in detention, their co-accused — Eduardo Felipe — has remained
at large. During their arraignment on July 5, 1995, appellants,
assisted
by counsel de oficio,[5]
pleaded not guilty after the Information had been read to them in a
language
that they fully understood.[6]
After trial on the merits, the lower court promulgated its assailed
Decision.
Counsel[7]
for appellants then filed the Notice of Appeal[8]
on December 9, 1999. The Facts
Version of the
Prosecution
In its Brief,[9]
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents the prosecution's
version
of the facts as follows:
"About
10:00
in the evening of November 20, 1994, Willy, Gerardo, Randy and Eduardo,
all surnamed Bagtas, were walking along the irrigation canal situated
in
Batasang Matanda, San Miguel, Bulacan. They were going home from the
wake
of the late Bibang de los Reyes. Upon reaching the part of the feeder
road
where both sides are covered by about seven (7) feet tall 'talahib'
grasses,
accused Eduardo Felipe and herein appellants suddenly emerged from the
'talahib' grasses. Since the moon was brightly shining and being their
neighbors, Willy, Gerardo and Randy were able to recognize them. As
Eduardo
Felipe was coming out from the 'talahib' he uttered 'wala na kayong
ligtas'
and suddenly hacked by the use of a scythe the neck of Eduardo Bagtas,
which caused the latter to fall down on the ground. Appellants Lourdes
and Dionisio uttered 'sige patayin mo, patayin mo. 'While blocking the
road, appellants told the group 'huwag kayong makialam, pati kayo
mamamatay.'
Appellant Dionisio or Boy Bulag stated, 'mamatay kayong lahat dahil
galit
kami sa mga Bagtas.' Willy, Gerardo and Randy were shocked and when
they
recovered their wits, they tried to help Eduardo Bagtas. But because of
the threats of accused Eduardo Felipe and the two appellants, they got
scared and ran away from where the victim Eduardo Bagtas was being
hacked.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"On that same
night
of November 20, 1994, Hipolito Bagtas was irrigating his palay fields
when
suddenly Randy Bagtas emerged running and told him about the hacking
incident.
Thereafter, Hipolito went to the scene of the incident and saw, by the
bright light of the moon, Eduardo Bagtas lying on the ground while
still
being hacked by accused Eduardo Felipe and being hit by a piece of wood
by Dionisio Felipe. Hipolito saw the incident while he remained hidden
by the 'talahib' grasses. Hipolito heard appellant Lourdes Felipe
saying,
'dalian natin, umalis na tayo, baka tayo abutan.'
"The bloody
cadaver
of Eduardo Bagtas was brought in front of his father Almario's house at
Batasang Matanda, San Miguel, Bulacan. Out of anger, the Bagtas family
shouted and threw stones at the house of Eduardo Felipe and appellants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Marifel Dulo, a
common
neighbor of the Bagtas and Felipe families, testified that about
midnight
of November 20, 1994, appellant Ma. Lourdes went to their house. Ma.
Lourdes
borrowed Marifel's t-shirt to change her blood-stained striped t-shirt.
Marifel brought the already washed t-shirt left to her by Ma. Lourdes
to
SPO4 George Villena. The t-shirt was duly identified and marked as
Exhibit
'C'. The t-shirt which Marifel lent to Ma. Lourdes and later reacquired
by her was likewise identified and marked as Exhibit 'Q'. On that same
night, Marifel executed her affidavit stating that appellant Ma.
Lourdes
told her, 'nakapatay kami' and that when Ma. Lourdes said 'kami' she
was
referring to her brother, appellant Dionisio, and nephew, accused
Eduardo
Felipe. Marifel also alleged that appellant also told her that same
night
that they killed Eduardo Bagtas in the field, which was only about 150
meters away from her house. Marifel is a good friend of appellant Ma.
Lourdes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Batasang Matanda,
San
Miguel, Bulacan Brgy. Captain Diogracias Francisco testified: When he
went
to the crime scene, he saw the victim dead, lying with his face towards
the ground. On that same night, he and some policemen went to the house
of appellant Ma. Lourdes and was told that the latter was sleeping.
When
appellant Ma. Lourdes was awakened and appeared, Francisco saw that
there
was mud all over said appellant's feet. He was told by appellant Ma.
Lourdes,
'I did not do it' and 'lumusong nga ako at pinigil ko sila' in the
presence
of the policemen who were with him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Brgy. Captain
Nestor
Sangalang of Brgy. Lourdes, Candaba, Pampanga (illegible portion) San
Miguel,
Bulacan) testified that between 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning of
November
21, 1994, he saw appellant Dionisio Felipe or Boy Bulag pass by their
Barangay.
Having earlier been informed about the incident, Sangalang asked said
appellant
what he was doing in that place at that time. Appellant Dionisio
replied,
'sabit ako sa pagpatay'. Sangalang apprehended and surrendered said
appellant
to Brgy. Capt. Francisco. The incident of Sangalang's arrest of
appellant
Dionisio Felipe was entered in the Barangay Blotter of Brgy. Lourdes,
Candaba,
Pampanga.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Dr. Lilia C. Aure
conducted
the post mortem examination of victim Eduardo Bagtas and issued a
Certificate
of Death.
"Dr. Aure
described
in her testimony the wounds sustained by the victim, as follows:
'The
anterior
position meaning the front of the body. To the neck is 1 cm. length and
the total cut off is from here up to the back. Cut throat at the back
neck
meaning all the blood vessels, the esophagus, the trachea, the
bronchia,
all in all the air passage have been cut off totally, the skin left
here
is only 1 cm., the total cut off, that is why all the organs have been
cut off and the upper extremities, the radical arteries are also cut
off,
both hands and the lower extremities, the anterior side and posterior
side
have multiple abrasions, numbering so many, as indicated in the
diagram.'
"Dr. Aure also
testified
that based on the nature of the injuries (hack wounds and abrasions),
there
were at least two or more persons who inflicted the wounds on the body
of the victim. The hack wounds on the neck were inflicted by five (5)
or
more hack blows. The nature and number of the wounds indicate that the
victim offered no resistance to his attackers. The wounds must have
been
caused by a 'sharp instrument, sharp object or bladed' and 'a piece of
wood or a blunt instrument'.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
"Before the
incident
in question, the accused Eduardo Felipe's family and the victim Eduardo
Bagtas' family had a land boundary dispute. These two families were not
in good terms also because the Bagtas family suspected that the Felipe
family poisoned their chickens, and in turn, the Felipe family
suspected
that Almario Bagtas, the father of the victim Eduardo Bagtas, poisoned
their chicken (illegible portion) between the two families is recorded
in the barangay blotter."[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Version of the
Defense
Resorting to plain denial,
appellants contend that their individual participation in the killing
has
not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Further, there was no
conspiracy,
and the act of one should not be deemed the act of all. They summarize
the evidence in their behalf as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The first
witness presented was the accused Ma. Lourdes Felipe who testified that
on said date and time she was already in her house since 5:00 o'clock
in
the afternoon as she was very tired from her planting of palay in the
farm
of Olimpio Urbano. She did not leave her house until the evening of
said
date when she was awakened by her sister who told her that there were
policemen
looking for her together with Bgy. Captain Deogracias Francisco who
told
her to go with them to the Municipal Hall of San Miguel, Bulacan,
telling
her further that she was involved in the killing of Eduardo Bagtas. She
denied having passed the house of Marifel Dulo on the night of November
24, 1994 and the reason why she has the T-shirt of Marifel was that it
was given to her as a Christmas gift on December 1993 and denied having
uttered the following words, 'dalian natin, umalis na tayo, baka tayo
abutan.'
She denied any participation in the killing of Eduardo Bagtas.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"On
cross-examination,
she admitted having borrowed or given a T-shirt by Marifel which
T-shirt
according to her was given to her by Marifel on December 25, 1993 as a
gift. She stated that she has not given any gift to any other person
before
1994.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"For his defense,
Dionisio
Felipe testified as follows: He stated that he is a resident of
Batasang
Matanda, San Miguel, Bulacan since birth. Between the hours of 10:00 to
11:00 o'clock in the evening of November 10, 1994, he was in their
house
at Batasang Matanda, San Miguel, Bulacan and from 8:00 o'clock in the
morning
up to 9:00 in the evening, he was at San Fernando Pampanga, as he
attended
the interment of his relative. He was with Olimpio Urbano and Marciana
Bagtas to attend the interment of his relative on that said date and
upon
his return from the interment of his relative, he drove the vehicle of
Olimpio Urbano to convey passengers to their respective residences.
After
conveying or transporting his passengers, he arrived [at] his home at
about
9:00 o'clock in the evening and after resting for a while, he
transferred
to the house of his sister to rest which is just located more than one
(1) meter away from his house. He rested and watched the television and
slept there from 8:00 to 9:00 in the morning. While asleep, he was
awakened
by his sister Ma. Lourdes Felipe (Baby) from whom he came to know that
he was being taken by the policemen to San Miguel, Bulacan. After he
was
awakened from the house of his sister Baby, he was taken by the
policemen
to fetch his brother-in-law and another sister by the name of Linda at
Batasang Bata, but was not able to fetch them. He further testified
that
there is no truth to the testimony of Brgy. Captain Nestor Sanggalang
of
Brgy. Lourdes, Candaba, Pampanga of the prosecution that when he met
him,
he told Brgy. Captain Sanggalang that 'nasabit ako sa patayan' because
the truth of the matter is that he was not able to get to the house of
his sister on that time and date.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"On
cross-examination,
he admitted that he did not know the name of the deceased whose funeral
he allegedly attended in San Fernando, Pampanga and who is not in any
way
related to him. When he suddenly decided to take the usual route in
going
to his sister and brother-in-law and passed by Brgy. Lourdes, he was
confronted
by unknown persons.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"In support of
their
defense, Marissa Velasquez testified that she is a resident of Batasang
Matanda, San Miguel, Bulacan, since birth up to the present. She knows
Eduardo Felipe, one of the accused in this case who is still at large,
being her cousin. On the evening of November 20, 1994, while she was in
their house together with her family, Eduardo Felipe came to their
house
knocking their door rapidly and she opened the door. After she opened
the
door she saw Eduardo Felipe bloodied and was asked by Eduardo Felipe to
fetch his parents at Batasang Matanda, San Miguel, Bulacan because he
killed
somebody. She was able to ask Eduardo Felipe who was killed by him and
he answered Eduardo Bagtas. She further asked who are his companions
and
answered that he was alone. Because of his request to fetch his
parents,
she went to Batasang Matanda in the following morning to inform the
parents
of Eduardo Felipe and that they are being requested by Eduardo Felipe
to
fetch them.
"The last defense
witness
was Edna Reyes who testified that on November 20, 1994, she was in the
house of her brother Glandino delos Reyes at Batasang Matanda, San
Miguel,
Bulacan at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening because her auntie died on
that day. They attended the wake of their auntie at Batasang Matanda.
[Her]
brother invited them to sleep in their house with her father Joaquin
delos
Reyes and when they reached the house of her brother, it was already
past
8:00 o'clock in the evening. Dionisio (Boy) Felipe and Ma. Lourdes
(Baby)
Felipe were in the house of her brother when they came. Baby Felipe was
sleeping in the house near the house of her brother. At about past
10:00
o'clock in the evening, they heard two (2) gunshots and noise coming
from
the compound of the victim. Boy Felipe was there and later on her
brother
opened the door, so they heard the shoutings. At first she heard that
somebody
died and she heard the shout 'Ed, bakit mo pinatay si Edward?' After
she
heard that noise, they learned that the house of Eduardo Felipe was
being
stoned. After a few minutes when she heard those shoutings, the police
officers together with the Brgy. Captain of Batasang Matanda came and
they
proceeded to the compound of his brother because they want to talk to
Baby
Felipe. For them to talk to Baby Felipe, they instructed her
sister-in-law
Marciana to wake up Baby Felipe, who was already sleeping at that time.
After Baby Felipe was awakened by her sister-in-law, Brgy. Captain and
his companions brought Baby Felipe immediately to the Municipal Hall
but
Boy Felipe stayed in the house of her brother. When Baby Felipe
immediately
was brought by the Brgy. Captain and his companions, she started to
panic
and said that they have no involvement in the killing. Her
sister-in-law
followed Baby Felipe in the Municipal Hall where she was brought by the
Brgy. Captain and his companions. Boy Felipe proceeded to the house of
his brother to fetch the latter and she saw Boy Felipe when he left.
She
found out on the following day that Boy Felipe and Baby Felipe were
arrested
and incarcerated.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"On
cross-examination,
she stated that she only heard the voice of an old woman shouting, 'Ed,
bakit mo pinatay si Eduard' but she cannot recognize her because they
did
not do anything when the house of the assailants was being stoned."[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ruling of
the
Trial Court
Confronted with a question
of credibility, the trial court opted to give more weight to the
testimony
of the prosecution witnesses. In particular, it described as unaffected
and convincing the testimonies of the following:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1) Willy,
Gerardo
and Randy — all surnamed Bagtas;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2) Marifel Dulo, a
common neighbor of appellants and the victim;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3) Deogracias
Francisco,
the barangay captain who had gone to the house of Appellant Ma. Lourdes
Felipe after the hacking incident; and
4) Dr. Lilia C. Aure,
who had conducted the autopsy on the victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The court a quo ruled
that
the three accused had clearly acted in concert in killing the victim.
It
also dismissed appellants' denial and alibi, holding that such defenses
could not prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, the lower court
held that the killing was qualified by treachery. However, it rejected
the allegation of evident premeditation for insufficiency of evidence.cralaw:red
Hence, this appeal.[12]
The Issues
In their appeal, appellants
raise the following alleged errors of the trial court:
"I. The
trial
court gravely erred in holding that there was conspiracy among the
accused.
"II. The trial
court
erred in not giving weight and credence to the testimony of all the
defense
witnesses, which if considered will lend a reasonable doubt on their
guilt."[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court's
Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.cralaw:red
Main Issue: Prosecution
Evidence Vis-à-Vis Conspiracy
The defense anchors
its case on the testimony of Marisa Vasquez. She testified that on the
night in question, Eduardo Felipe had gone to her house to ask her to
fetch
his parents. When she asked him what had happened, he admitted having
killed
Eduardo Bagtas.[14]
In reply to her question who his companions were, he said that he was
alone.[15]
Relying on this testimony, appellants now question the finding of
conspiracy.
They maintain that the only evidence that implicates Ma. Lourdes Felipe
"was her dirty feet, and when summoned by the police, she was there in
her house already sleeping."[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As in most criminal
cases, the crux of the controversy lies in the evaluation of the
credibility
of the witnesses.[17]
In the present case, the lower court based its decision on the positive
and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It ruled as
follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The Court
finds no cause to doubt the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who
were keenly perceived by the Court to have delivered narrations of the
events and their observations of what transpired in their presence in a
direct, unaffected and convincing manner x x x "[18]
After judiciously
reviewing
the testimonies of all the witnesses, we find no cogent reason to
reject
the trial court's evaluation. The three key ones presented by the
government
were the actual companions of the victim on the night he was killed.
Willy
Bagtas testified in this manner:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Atty.
Kliatchko:
Q You said 'we,'
who
were your companions?
A Randy Bagtas,
Eduardo
Bagtas and Gerry Bagtas, Sir.
Q In going home,
where
did you pass together with your companions?
A On the road of
the
irrigation, Sir.
Q While you were
walking
on the road of the irrigation together with your companions, was there
anything unusual that happened?
A Yes, Sir.
Q What happened,
please
tell this Honorable Court?
A While we were
walking
along the road these accused suddenly appeared coming from the
'talahiban,'
Sir.
Atty. Liwanag:
We would
like
to request that the answer of the witness in Tagalog, Your Honor,
'nanggaling
sa talahiban,' be reflected on the record.
Note:
(Interpreter repeating
the answer of the witness)
While we
were
walking along the road these accused suddenly appeared coming from the
'talahiban.' (Nanggaling sa talahiban.)
Atty. Kliatchko:
Q You stated
that when
you were walking and upon reaching that place where 'talahib' grasses
grew
in abundance the three persons suddenly appeared and you mentioned the
names of Eduardo Felipe, Dionisio Felipe and Ma. Lourdes Felipe, will
you
please point to Dionisio Felipe if he is in Court?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, Sir.
Q Will you
please point
to him?
A He is there,
Sir.
(Witness pointing to a person who is wearing a stripe T-shirt, and when
asked his name answered that he is Dionisio Felipe.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q How about this
Ma.
Lourdes Felipe, if she is in Court will you please point to her?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Please point
to her?
A She is there,
Sir.
(Witness pointing to a woman who is wearing a green T-shirt, and when
asked
her name answered that she is Maria Lourdes Felipe.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q How about this
Eduardo
Felipe, if he is in Court, please point to him?
A He is not
around,
Sir.
Q Do you know by
what
other name this Dionisio Felipe is also known? I am referring to his
nickname
or alias if you know?
A Yes, Sir.
Q What?
A Boy Bulag, Sir.
Q How about this
Maria
Lourdes Felipe, do you know if she is known by any other name or alias?
A Baby tomboy,
Sir.
Q When,
according to
you, you and your companions were walking on the irrigation road there
were several persons who suddenly appeared coming from the 'talahiban,'
who were those persons?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Ed, Baby and
Boy,
Sir.
Q When you said
Eduardo,
Baby and Boy, are you referring to these three accused?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Now, when
these three
persons suddenly appeared in that area where 'talahib' grasses [grew]
in
abundance, what happened?
A Ed hacked
Eduardo
Bagtas, Sir.
Q Who is this Ed
whom
you are referring to who killed Eduardo Bagtas?
A Eduardo
Felipe, Sir.
Q When Eduardo
Bagtas
was hacked by Eduardo Felipe, in what part of his body was he hit by
hacking?
A On the neck,
Sir.
Q And when
Eduardo Bagtas
was hacked on his neck, what happened to him?
A He fell down,
Sir.
Q When Eduardo
Bagtas,
after he was hacked on his neck by Ed, fell to the ground, then what
happened?
A Baby and Boy
told
Ed 'sigi patayin mo, sigi patayin mo,' Sir.
Q At this
stage , what did you and your companions do?
A We were
shocked then,
Sir.
Q After
suffering from
that shock because you said you were 'nabigla,' what, if any, did you
and
your companions do?
A We ran, Sir.
Q Who ran with
you?
A Gerry, Randy
and myself,
Sir.
Q And when the
three
of you ran away, where was Eduardo Bagtas, the person who was hacked on
his neck?
A We left him,
Sir.
Q Where did you
and
your companions proceed when you ran away?
A I proceeded to
our
house, Sir.
Q How about
Randy and
Gerry, where did they proceed?
A We separated
from
one another, Sir.
Q After you
reached
your house, then what happened if anything happened?
A I told it to
my brother
Almario, Sir.
Q What exactly
did you
tell your brother Almario?
A I told him Ed
hacked
Eduardo Bagtas together with Baby and Boy, Sir."[19]
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"Q By the way,
what
was the weapon used by Ed Felipe in hacking Eduardo Bagtas?
A Scythe
(karet), Sir.
Q Will you
describe
that weapon which, according to you, you saw Ed Felipe use in hacking
Eduardo
Bagtas?
A Curved bladed
weapon,
Sir.
Atty. Kliatchko:
Q Where is that
curve?
In what part of the weapon was it located?
A At the end of
the
weapon, Sir.
Q By the way,
was there
a handle provided in this bladed weapon?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Now, which
portion
of the bladed weapon is curved, the bladed portion or the handle?
A The bladed
portion,
Sir.
Q How about this
Dionisio
Felipe, what weapon, if any, did you see him hold during the incident?
A A piece of
wood, Sir.
Q How long was
it?
A More or less,
1-1/1
feet, Sir.
Q Now, did you
see this
Dionisio Felipe after the incident?
A No more, Sir.
Q How about this
Maria
Lourdes Felipe alias Baby Tomboy, did you see her again after the
incident?
A No more, Sir.
Q Did you attend
the
burial of Eduardo Bagtas?
A Yes, Sir.
Q How about the
accused
Baby Tomboy and Boy Felipe, did you see them attend the burial?
A No, Sir."[20]
On cross-examination,
Willy
Bagtas identified appellants as follows:
"Q Last
hearing
of this case when you testified on direct testimony, you claimed that
you
were present during the hearing of Eduardo Bagtas, do you remember
having
stated that?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you
recall whether
before the said hacking of Eduardo Bagtas by Eduardo Felipe there was
first
a conversation or altercation between them?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A None, sir.
Q Now, at the
place
where this hacking incident took place, Mr. Witness, you stated that it
was NIA road along the farm, is that correct?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir, but
it is
near the field.
Q How far is
that road
to the nearest house in that place, Batasang Matanda?
A More or less
200 meters,
sir.
Q And the place
was
not lighted, is that correct, because it is a place where there is no
Meralco,
nor lights that will illuminate the place?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A There is no
light,
sir.
Q And
considering that
the nearest house is two hundred (200) meters from that place, the
lights
coming from the house will not reach the place where the alleged
incident
took place, is it not?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, if that
is so,
how did you come to recognize Eduardo Felipe and the two (2) other
accused,
Baby Felipe and Bulag Felipe?
A I know them
very well
because there was a light coming from the moon and they are our
neighbors.
Q When Eduardo
Felipe
allegedly hacked Eduardo Bagtas, you, as a companion, what did you do,
what was your immediate reaction?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Kliatchko:
Your Honor, the
objection
here is not a serious one, I would like to put in the record that when
this witness testified, he did not say 'allegedly' but what he actually
saw.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Liwanag:
Alright, I will
consider
the word 'alleged' just to avoid any discussion, Your Honor.
Court:
Witness
may answer.
A I was shocked,
sir.
Q You were
shocked and
you did not do anything?
A None, sir.
Q How far were
you from
Eduardo Bagtas at the time of the hacking?
A More or less
four
(4) arms-length, sir.
Q And how far
were you
to the two (2) other accused?
Atty. Kliatchko:
Who among
the
two?
Atty. Liwanag:
The other
accused Baby
and Bulag.
A More or less
five
(5) arms-length, sir.
Q Were you
facing them?
A Yes, sir.
Q How about your
other
companions, where were they?
A They were
towards
my back following each other.
Q Did I get you
right
that at the very moment of the hacking as stated by you in your
direct-examination
(missing portion) according to you, you were afraid?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A No, sir, we
were dispersed
from one another."[21]
The testimony of
Gerardo
Bagtas is equally positive and convincing, as shown by the following
excerpts
from his testimony:
"Q Will you
kindly tell
this Honorable Court how the death of your brother happened?
A While we were
going
home together with Randy and the late Eduardo Bagtas suddenly three
persons
came out from the 'talahiban' and those were Eddie, Baby and Boy, Sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q When these
three persons
whom you named as Eddie, Baby and Boy suddenly came out from the
'talahiban,'
what happened?
A Eduardo Felipe
said
'wala na kayong ligtas' and he suddenly hacked Eduardo Bagtas, Sir.
Q Who suddenly
hacked
Eduardo Bagtas?
A Eduardo
Felipe, Sir.
Q And when
Eduardo Felipe
suddenly hacked Eduardo Bagtas, what were his companions Baby and Boy
doing?
A The two said
'sigi
patayin mo, patayin mo,' Sir.
Q Did you see
anything
from these two when they were uttering those words?
Atty. Liwanag:
Objection, Your
Honor,
leading.
Court:
Objection
sustained.
Atty. Kliatchko:
Q And then what
happened
afterwards?
A The two also
said
'Huwag kayong makikialam pati kayo mama[ma]tay', Sir.
Q By the way,
who uttered
those words?
A The two, Sir.
Q Who were those
two?
A Boy and Baby,
Sir.
Q While Baby and
Boy
were uttering those words, what was Eduardo Felipe doing?
A He was still
hacking
my brother, Sir.
Q Now, this Baby
and
Boy, if they are present in Court, will you please point to them?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Please point
to them.
A They are
there, Sir.
(Witness pointing to a person wearing fuchsia red T-shirt and when
asked
his name answered that he is Dionisio Felipe and a woman wearing a
white
T-shirt who when asked her name answered that she is Maria Lourdes
Felipe.)
Q When you and
your
companions were told that 'Do not interfere otherwise you will die,'
what
happened after that?
A When we were
about
to help our brother Eduardo Bagtas they turned on us, Sir.
Q Who turned on
you
and your companions?
A The two, Sir.
Q What did these
two
do? By the way, who were those two?
A Boy and Baby,
Sir.
Q What did they
do,
when these two you said confronted you?
A They chased
us, Sir.
Q And when you
were
being chased, what happened?
A We ran away,
Sir.
Q Who ran away
with
you?
A My companions
Willy,
Randy and me, Sir.
Q What about
Eduardo
Bagtas?
A He was left
behind,
Sir.
Q Why was he
left behind?
A Because he was
hacked,
Sir.
Q And until
where were
you pursued or chased, you and your companions, x x x by
Boy
and Baby?
A They already
stopped
chasing us, Sir.
Q Where did you
and
your companions proceed when these persons Baby and Boy stopped chasing
you?
A I went to my
parents
and told them what happened, Sir.
Q How about your
other
two companions, do you know where they proceeded?
A Randy went
home already
and Willy Bagtas went to our house ahead of me, Sir."[22]
Gerardo Bagtas
remained
unwavering during his cross-examination, pertinent parts of which we
reproduce
below:
"Q And at that
time,
according to your direct testimony, you noticed the accused in the case
at around 4 meters from where you were standing, is it not?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, Sir.
Q How were you
able
to recognize them?
A Because of the
light
coming from the moon.
Q And you want
to impress
upon the court that the moon was then shining in full moon that's why
it
was not dark there as you had claimed before.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, Sir.
Q Is it not true
that
it was not dark as what you have stated a while ago?
A It was also
dark.
Q So you want to
maintain
that it was also dark in that place?
Atty. Kliatchko:
Already
answered.
Atty. Liwanag:
I'm on
cross-examination,
it is very vital.
Court:
Answer for
the
last time.
A Yes, Sir.
Atty. Liwanag:
You claimed also
in
your direct testimony that the accused Baby and Boy Bulag ran after you
when they turned against you after the other companion x x
x Eduardo Felipe hacked Eduardo Bagtas, they turned against you, you
and
your companion ran away. Where did you proceed?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A In our house.
Q Who were your
companions?
A Randy Bagtas
while
Willy Bagtas went to our house."[23]
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"Q Now back to
the scene
of the incident, you claim that you have recognized Baby Felipe and Boy
Bulag on that night, how were you able to recognize these two persons?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Because we are
residents
of the same barangay and we are neighbors.
Q What are the
particular
signs of things that made you recognize them considering that according
to you the night is dark and they were around 4 meters away from you?
What
signs or what particular identification made you recognize them?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A They are our
barangay
mates and from their voices alone I know them already.
Q Did they talk
to you
that you recognized them?
A No, Sir, butthey talked.
Q What was the
particular
time when they talked?
A More or less
10:00
o'clock in the evening.
Q What did they
talk?
A They told
'huwag kayong
makikialam pati kayo ay mamamatay.'
Q Why did they
tell
you that?
Atty. Kliatchko:
Incompetent,
Your Honor.
Court:
Reform.
Atty. Liwanag:
What was the
exact words
that according to you they told you then?
A Sige patayin
ninyo,
huwag kayong makikialam pati kayo mamamatay.
Q Who among the
three
uttered those words?
A The two, Sir.
Int:
Witness
referring to
Baby Felipe and Boy Bulag.
Atty. Liwanag:
At the time they
uttered
these words what were they doing?
A They were just
guarding.
Q What do you
mean by
they were just guarding?
A Nakaakma at
nakabantay.
Atty. Kliatchko:
May we ask Your
Honor
that the answer of the witness be quoted in tagalog.
Atty. Liwanag:
Whey you say
nakaakma
at nakabantay how far were you then when they were nakabantay at
nakaakma?
A More or less
four
(4) meters.
Atty. Liwanag:
How far is the
victim
at that moment?
A Almost very
near.
Q What was
happening
at that time when these two allegedly uttered those words?
A When we were
helping
my brother they turned to us.
Q You were not
able
to help your brother?
A Yes, Sir.
Q What you did
is to
run away?
A Yes, Sir."[24]
Finally, Randy Bagtas
further
strengthened the case for the prosecution with his testimony, from
which
we quote:
"Q Now on
that
night of November 20, 1994 at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening, where
were you?
A In the NIA
road, sir.
Atty. Kliatchko:
May we ask if
Your Honor
please, that the answer x x x in tagalog 'nasa
kalsada ng patubig' be made to appear on the record.
Court:
Okay.
Atty. Kliatchko:
Where is that
kalsada
ng patubig?
A By Batasang
Matanda,
sir.
Q Why is it
called kalsada
ng patubig, if you know?
A It is a water
way
of the NIA.
Q Now, in that place where you said that you were on that date
and
time, will you please tell the Honorable Court where is the road and
where
is the patubig?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A The patubig is
between
the road.
Q Were you alone
on
that date and time when you said you were on that place?
A No, sir.
Q If you were
not alone
will you please tell this Honorable Court who were your companions?
A Gerardo
Bagtas, Willy
Bagtas, Eduardo Bagtas and myself, sir.
Q You said you
were
there at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening, why were you there?
A We were on our
way
home.
Q Where did you
and
your companions come from?
A At the wake,
sir.
Q Now, on your
way home
with your companions coming from that wake, was there any unusual thing
that happened?
A There was, sir.
Q What happened?
A About the
killing
of Eduardo Bagtas.
Q Now tell the
Honorable
Court how that killing of Eduardo Bagtas took place?
A While we were
walking
at the NIA road on our way home Baby Tomboy, Eduardo Felipe the one at
large, and alias Boy Bulag suddenly appeared.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Now, to
clarify your
answer, how many persons suddenly appeared while you and your
companions
were walking along the kalsada sa Patubig?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A 3, sir.
Q Where did
these three
(3) persons come from when according to you they suddenly appeared?
A At the place
where
talahib grasses were growing in abundance.
Q And when these
persons
came out of this place where talahib grasses were growing in abundance,
what happened?
A They came out,
sir,
and Eduardo Felipe suddenly hacked Eduardo Bagtas.
Q How about
these Dionisio
Felipe alias Boy Bulag and Lourdes Felipe alias Baby Tomboy, what if
any
did they do?
A The two of
them said
'mamamatay kayong lahat dahil galit kami sa mga Bagtas.'
Q And who
uttered those
words?
A Boy Felipe and
Baby
Tomboy.
Q As you were
testifying
on that point, you pointed to x x x certain persons, who
are
these persons you are pointing to?
A Boy Felipe and
Baby
Tomboy, sir.
Q How about this
Boy
Bulag what did he do?
A He uttered the
words.
Q What did he
say?
A He uttered the
words
'mamamatay kayong lahat dahil galit kami sa mga Bagtas.'
Q Now at this
juncture
what happened?
A I ran away.
Q Why did you
run away?
A I might also
be killed
if I will not ran away.
Q Why, what did
you
see that made you run away?
A Eduardo Bagtas
was
hacked.
Q Who hacked
Eduardo
Bagtas?
A Eduardo
Felipe, sir.
Q And where was
Eduardo
Bagtas hit by the hack made by Eduardo Felipe?
Atty. Liwanag:
We will object
because
he said he already ran away
It
will be noticed in the statement given by the witness that he ran away
after this Boy Bulag according to him uttered the words 'mamamatay kayo
dahil galit kami sa mga Bagtas'. So the next question here will have no
bearing to the incident that transpired before the hacking was
allegedly
made, Your Honor, that is my point.
Atty. Kliatchko:
Your Honor
please, we
take exception to the manifestation of counsel because the record will
show that he ran away after he saw Eduardo Felipe hack Eduardo Bagtas.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Liwanag:
For clarity let
us go
back to the question.
Court:
Reform the
question.
Atty. Kliatchko:
We are appealing
to
the records because it is our position that he ran away after Eduardo
Felipe
hacked Eduardo Bagtas.
Court:
You clarify.
Atty. Kliatchko:
When did you run
away?
You said you ran away, when did you [run] away during that incident? At
what part of the incident did you run away?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A After Eduardo
Felipe
hacked Eduardo Bagtas.
Q You said you
ran away
after you saw this Eduardo Felipe hack Eduardo Bagtas, in what part of
the body was Eduardo Felipe hit?
Atty. Liwanag:
He may be
incompetent
because once Eduardo Bagtas was allegedly hacked he already ran away so
he had no chance to find out in what part of the body he was hacked.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Court:
May answer.
A At his neck.
Q Then according
to
you after you saw that Eduardo Bagtas was hacked and hit on his neck
you
ran away, where did you go?
A I went home."[25]
Categorical, candid and
convincing were the testimonies of these witnesses. Precisely because
of
the unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes, they
remembered
with a high degree of reliability the identities of the criminals.[26]
This Court has noted that in many crimes of violence, the most natural
reaction of persons involved in an attack — either instinctively or as
a means to fend off any further attack — is to strive to see the faces
and the appearances of the assailants,[27]
to observe the manner in which the crime is committed, and to
approximate
what might be the latter's next move.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Time and time again,
this Court has declared that when the issue is one of credibility of
the
witnesses and their testimonies, the findings of a trial court will
generally
not be disturbed,[29]
unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts or circumstances of
substance
and value which, if considered, might well affect the result of the
case.[30]
This doctrine is premised on the undisputed fact that the trial court
had
the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while
they
were on the stand; thus, it was in the best position to discern whether
they were telling the truth.[31]
Appellants have not given the Court sufficient reason to deviate from
this
doctrine.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
They deny any participation
in the death of Eduardo Bagtas, maintaining that it was Eduardo Felipe
who actually hacked and killed the victim. According to appellants, the
testimony of their witness, Marisa Velasquez, showed that there was no
conspiracy among them. Hence, they pass the blame to their co-accused
in
the belief that the latter, who has not yet been apprehended, will be
in
no position to contradict their assertions. This Court notes, though,
the
patent weakness of their arguments.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First,
appellants' defenses contradict one another, to say the least. They
testified
that they had not been present at the locus criminis. In their Brief,
however,
they argue that the prosecution failed to prove their active
participation
in the killing, thus impliedly admitting their presence therein and
contradicting
their testimonies. Interestingly, they even cite cases[32]
holding that mere presence during the commission of the crime is
insufficient
to prove conspiracy. By applying these cases, they necessarily abandon
their stand that they were not present when the victim was killed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court will not leave
this point without issuing a warning to the counsel of appellants.
Going
over the cases cited in their Brief, the Court noted that she had
incorrectly
presented these. For instance, on page 7 thereof, she alleges that in
People
v. Ramos,[33]
"the Supreme Court [had the] occasion to state that criminal conspiracy
must always be founded on facts, not on mere inferences, conjectures
and
presumptions. It must be proven like any other crime accusation, that
is,
independently and beyond reasonable doubt."[34]
But a review of the said case, shows absolutely no mention of criminal
conspiracy. How can there be any when the accused therein was charged
with
committing the crime of kidnapping all by his lonesome self?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, also on page
7 of appellants' Brief, counsel made it appear that in People v. Carpo,[35]
"the Supreme Court held that mere presence, even with approval but
without
active participation of the accused, is not enough for purposes of
conviction.
Thus, it was held, the acts of accused-appellant in allowing the three
unidentified men to board the tricycle despite the victim's payment for
the unoccupied seats and in deviating from the usual route, which were
the basis for his conviction — are not sufficient evidence to prove or
to suggest a concerted action, much less unity of purpose in
perpetuating
the slay of the victim. While it may elicit suspicion on the
accused-appellants'
actuations, there is no evidence to prove the existence of criminal
conspiracy.
Conspiracy to be a basis for conviction should be proved as clearly and
convincingly as the commission of the crime itself, for conspiracy is
not
the product of negligence but of intention on the part of the cohorts."[36]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Again, we reviewed the
cited case in its entirety, but we did not find any of the facts and
ruling
that counsel had quoted. We caution her to be more careful in citing
cases
in her pleadings, for any similar act committed in the future will be
dealt
with severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second,
in the light of the positive identification of appellants as
participants
in the perpetration of the crime, their denial and alibi cannot be
sustained.[37]Well-settled
is the rule that such positive identification, when categorical and
consistent,
prevails over these twin defenses.[38]
Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, they are negative,
self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law.[39]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Alibi is the weakest
of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to
disprove.[40]
For it to prosper, proof that the accused were somewhere else when the
crime was committed is insufficient; it must likewise be shown that it
was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the
crime
at the time.[41]
In the case before us, appellants failed to show the physical
impossibility
thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Equally important is
the fact that the denial and alibi proffered by Appellant Ma. Lourdes
Felipe
was made even weaker by her good friend Marifel Dulo. Since what she
was
wearing was bloodied, the former allegedly went to the latter's house
around
midnight of November 20, 1994, to borrow a t-shirt.[42]
When Marifel asked what had happened, appellant answered, "Nakapatay
kami."[43]
Upon further inquiry, the latter revealed that she was with "Boy her
brother
and her nephew named Eduardo."[44]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On direct examination
by Atty. Rodolfo P. Liwanag — appellants' former counsel — Ma. Lourdes
Felipe positively testified on the events of November 20, 1994.
According
to her, she went to the house of Marifel to change her bloodstained
t-shirt
with a clean one lent by the latter.[45]
Atty. Liwanag repeatedly asked this question to make sure appellant
knew
what question she was answering, but she persisted. She, however,
completely
changed her testimony when examined by their new counsel, Atty.
Bernardina
R. Ariñas. Appellant testified that she had never changed any
bloodied
t-shirt, much less gone to the house of Marifel.[46]
This inconsistency in the statements of the former works against her,
as
it shows that her defenses of denial and alibi were mere afterthoughts
concocted to exonerate her from criminal liability.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to Appellant Dionisio
Felipe, the trial court characterized his alibi as follows:
"Accused
Dionisio
Felipe, on the other hand, in his vain attempt to escape and exculpate
himself, proceeded towards Brgy. Lourdes, Candaba, Pampanga where he
was
caught by the barangay tanods led by Brgy. Captain Nestor Sanggalang of
Lourdes, Candaba, Pampanga while walking along the said place. He
admitted
later, when confronted by the barangay tanods, that he was involved in
a killing incident."[47]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, Barangay
Captain
Sanggalang positively testified during direct and cross-examinations
that
the said appellant had told him, "Sabit ako sa pagpatay."[48]
We see absolutely no reason why the barangay captain would fabricate
this
part of his testimony. He did not stand to gain anything by making up
statements
allegedly relayed to him by appellant. What this fact demonstrates is
that
the prosecution presented witnesses whose positive testimonies about
the
events — prior to, during and immediately after the killing — were
rebutted
by appellants with bare denials and negative statements. As a rule,
greater
weight is accorded to the positive narration of prosecution witnesses
than
to the negative testimonies of the defense.[49]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third, to rebut the
prosecution's allegation of conspiracy, appellants rely on the
testimony
of Marisa Velasquez that Eduardo Felipe admitted having killed the
victim
all by himself. Velasquez testified in the following manner:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Atty.
Ariñas:
Q Between the
hours
of 11:00 and 12:00 of November 20, 1994, do you recall if there was any
incident that transpired?
A There was, Ma'am.
Q What was that
incident?
A Eduardo Felipe
came
to our house and he [knocked] at our door.
Q How did he knock
at
your door?
A He was knocking
rapidly,
Ma'am.
Q What did you do?
A I opened the
door,
Ma'am.
Q What did you
find
out, what did you do?
A I saw him
bloodied,
Ma'am.
Q Was there any
conversation
between you and Eduardo Felipe?
A There was, Ma'am.
Q What was that
conversation
all about?
A He asked me to
fetch
his parents at Batasan[g] Matanda.
Q Why did he ask
you
to fetch his parents?
A According to
him,
he killed somebody.
Q Did you ask him
who
was that person whom he killed?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q What was his
answer?
A Eduardo Bagtas,
Ma'am.
Q Did you ask him
any
question other than that?
A I asked him who
were
his companions.
Q What was his
reply?
Atty. Kliathcko:
We object, Your
Honor
please, that calls for a hearsay answer.
Atty.
Ariñas:
That was the
conversation
between the witness and Eduardo Felipe, Your Honor. It's not hearsay.
Court:
Witness may answer.
WITNESS
A He told us that
he
was alone."[50]
We, however, agree with
the OSG that the foregoing testimony will not lead to appellants'
acquittal.
Velasquez was not an eyewitness to the incident; hence, her testimony
cannot
defeat the positive declarations of the actual witnesses to the crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The OSG further asserts
that "the alleged conversation does not clearly show that the accused
was
alone while killing the victim."[51]
We find reason in the OSG's explanation, as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Facts show
that indeed accused Eduardo delivered the mortal hack blows that nearly
totally severed the neck of the victim. Thus, viewed in this light,
said
accused indeed killed the victim. However, this fact does not rule out
the fact that accused had company while hacking to death his victim.
The
uncontroverted fact alone that the cadaver of the victim sustained not
only hack wounds but likewise abrasions indubitably show that said
accused
was not alone at the crime scene and in attacking the victim."[52]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, conspiracy may
be inferred from the acts of the accused — before, during and after the
crime — which are indicative of design, concerted action and
concurrence
of sentiments.[53]
Once it is shown that there was conspiracy in action or action in
concert
to achieve a criminal design, the act of one is deemed the act of all
the
conspirators; and the precise extent or modality of participation of
each
of them becomes secondary.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Conspiracy among appellants
and their co-accused was established from the attendant facts: they had
suddenly emerged from the talahiban and blocked the path of the victim
and his companions; without any remonstration coming from either of
them,
appellants allowed Eduardo Felipe to hack the victim; by prodding
Eduardo
with shouts of "Sige patayin mo, sige patayin mo!" they even encouraged
the killing of the victim; they prevented his companions from helping
him
by threatening them, "Huwag kayong makialam, pati kayo mamamatay!"; to
show their agreement with all the actions done, appellants shouted,
"Mamamatay
kayong lahat, dahil galit kami sa mga Bagtas!"; they chased the
victim's
companions, thus showing that they deliberately employed means to
ensure
that the crime would be consummated; and, finally, all of the accused
fled
together, with one of them shouting, "Dalian natin, umalis na tayo,
baka
tayo abutan." The three were thus united in a common end — to assault
and
kill Eduardo Bagtas — and, as shown by their concerted acts, they were
also united in the consummation of the evil plan.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Two or more persons
had inflicted the wounds on the victim,[54]
as the doctor who had conducted the autopsy opined:
"Because
the
injury on the neck will mean at least one (1) person and the abrasions
will mean another person, so it involves two or more because the cut
length
can be done by several persons. The cut [on] that neck cannot be done
x
x x once only to penetrate the whole organ."[55]
There is conspiracy
when
two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.[56]
It comes to life at the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or
impliedly,
to commit and forthwith to pursue it actually.[57]
It is not, however, necessary that direct proof be adduced to establish
such agreement; it may be inferred from the acts of the assailants
before,
during and after the commission of the crime.[58]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Conspiracy is present
so long as the acts of the accused clearly manifest a concurrence of
will
and a common intent or design to commit a crime. It may be inferred if
it is proven that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the
accomplishment
of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts —
although
apparently independent — were in fact connected and cooperative, thus
indicating
a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.[59]
The act of one therefore becomes the act of all, and each of the
accused
will thereby be deemed equally guilty of all the crimes committed.[60]
There must be a showing
that each co-accused cooperated in the commission of the offense —
either
morally, through advice, encouragement or agreement; or materially,
through
external acts indicating a manifest intent of supplying aid in the
efficacious
perpetration of the crime.[61]
This fact is more than apparent in the present case. The common purpose
of all the accused was manifestly shown by the deliberate and
methodical
manner in which the crime was committed. In view of the presence of
conspiracy,
all the perpetrators of the crime bear equal responsibility.[62]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Final Issue:
Crime
and Penalty
In convicting appellants
of murder, the trial court appreciated treachery.cralaw:red
To prove this qualifying
circumstance, the following must be shown: (1) the employment of such
means
of execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity for
self-defense
or retaliation; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the
means
of execution.[63]
Case law requires that where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack
must be proven.[64]
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an
aggressor
without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, thereby
depriving
the latter of any real opportunity for self-defense and ensuring the
commission
of the crime without risk to the aggressor.[65]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, treachery
was already present when the three accused emerged from the talahiban —
one of them armed with a scythe and another, with a piece of wood — and
suddenly attacked the victim. He and his companions were vulnerable to
the attack. Due to its suddenness, the members of his group were not
able
to do anything. As they themselves testified later, they were shocked
by
its viciousness. Its suddenness and the absence of the slightest
provocation
from the victim — who was unarmed and had no opportunity to repel the
aggression
or defend himself — necessarily qualifies the crime with treachery.[66]
As correctly found by
the trial court:
"The three
accused made a deliberate and surprise attack on Eduardo Bagtas in such
a manner that there was no risk to themselves arising from any defense
which the said victim might make. There was no pause nor a moment's
hesitation
in the action of the three therein accused from the time that they
emerged
from the tall 'talahib' grasses, and x x x
promptly
positioned themselves strategically at a distance from where they could
safely and accurately hack the victim. It happened so fast that Eduardo
Bagtas[,] who was unarmed, did not have any chance. He was not able to
say anything, nor to take any defensive or evasive action. His neck
linking
the head with the body was almost totally cut. Apparently, the
victim[,]
together with his companions[, was] totally taken by surprise by the
very
swift and coordinated attack, [that they] could not put up a shred of
defense.
This deliberate, surprise attack shows that the three accused employed
a mode of execution that insured the consummation of the crime without
any risk to themselves."[67]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The RTC also
appreciated
abuse of superior strength, but considered it absorbed in treachery.
That
is correct.[68]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, the trial
court aptly rejected the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation,
because none of its elements[69]
has been established in the present case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As regards appellants'
pecuniary liabilities, the heirs of the victim were correctly given by
the trial court a fixed sum representing civil indemnity for the death
of Eduardo Bagtas. This indemnity is fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.[70]
This award is separate and distinct from other forms of damages and is
automatically given without need of further proof other than the fact
of
death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the appeal
is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against appellants.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Ynares-Santiago,
Carpio and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 36–53. Penned by Judge Oscar P. Barrientos.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Assailed RTC Decision, p. 18; rollo, p. 53.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo, p. 7. Signed by 3rd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Rita M.
Gammad.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Atty. Benjamin C. Pineda assisted the accused only for purposes of
arraignment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
See Order dated July 5, 1995; records, p. 14. See also Certificate of
Arraignment;
records, p. 15.
[7]
Atty. Bernardina R. Ariñas.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Records, Vol. I, p. 286.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Rollo, pp. 119–144. Signed by Assistant Solicitors General Carlos N.
Ortega
and Cecilio O. Estoesta and Associate Solicitor Rebecca S. Dacanay.
[10]
Appellce's Brief, pp. 4–10; rollo, pp. 125–131. Citations omitted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Appellants' Brief, pp. 2—6; id., pp. 83—87. Signed by Atty. Bernardina
R. Ariñas.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
This case was deemed submitted for decision on August 13, 2003, upon
this
Court's receipt of appellee's Brief. Appellants' Brief was received by
the Court on March 6, 2003. The submission of a Reply Brief was deemed
waived, as none had been filed within the reglementary period.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Appellants' Brief, p. 6; rollo, p. 87. Original in upper case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id., pp. 8 & 89.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id., pp. 9 & 90.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Id., pp. 6–7 & 87–88.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
People v. Mendoza, 369 SCRA 268, November 16, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Assailed RTC Decision, p. 13; rollo, p. 48.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
TSN, August 21, 1995, pp. 5–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id., pp. 13–14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
TSN, October 6, 1995, pp. 2–5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
TSN, August 7, 1996, pp. 5–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
TSN, August 14, 1996, pp. 3–4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id., pp. 6–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
TSN, January 21, 1997, pp. 3–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
People v. De Leon, 378 SCRA 495, March 6, 2002; People v. Porras, 413
Phil.
563, July 17, 2001; People v. Sumallo, 367 Phil. 14, May 24, 1999.
[27]
People v. Teehankee Jr., 319 Phil. 128, October 6, 1995; People v.
Salazar,
248 SCRA 460, September 20, 1995.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
People v. Avillano, 336 Phil. 534, March 13, 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
People v. Monterey, 330 Phil. 44, September 3, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
People v. Jose, 367 Phil. 68, May 24, 1999; People v. Laceste, 355
Phil.
136, July 30, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
People v. Baltazar, 352 SCRA 678, February 26, 2001; People v.
Barrameda,
342 SCRA 568, October 11, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Appellants erroneously cited in their Brief People v. Ramos, GR No.
136304,
January 25, 2001; the correct citation is People v. Rama, 350 SCRA 266,
January 25, 2001. They also cited People v. Carpo, GR No. 132676, April
4, 2001; and People v. Cui, GR No. 121982.
[33]
This should be People v. Rama, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Appellants' Brief, p. 7; rollo, p. 88.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
356 SCRA 248, April 4, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
Appellants' Brief, p. 7; rollo, p. 88.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
People v. Balmoria, 351 Phil. 188, March 20, 1998; People v. Baydo, 273
SCRA 526, June 17, 1997; People v. Datun, 338 Phil. 884, May 7, 1997;
People
v. Apongan, 337 Phil. 393, April 4, 1997; People v. Caritativo, 326
Phil.
1, April 1, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
People v. Lovedorial, 349 SCRA 402, January 17, 2001; People v.
Enriquez,
354 Phil. 659, July 20, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
People v. Sansaet, 376 SCRA 426, February 6, 2002; People v. Jose, 381
Phil. 207, January 31, 2000; People v. Orbita, 379 Phil. 334, January
19,
2000.
[40]
People v. Lachica, 382 SCRA 162, May 9, 2002; People v. Sansaet, supra;
People v. Cuenca, 375 SCRA 119, January 29, 2002.
[41]
People v. Hofileña, 389 Phil. 553, June 22, 2000; People v.
Legaspi,
387 Phil. 108, April 27, 2000; People v. Llanes, 381 Phil. 733,
February
4, 2000; People v. Rendoque, 379 Phil. 671, January 20, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
TSN, February 2, 1996, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
Id., p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
TSN, November 21, 1997, pp. 7–9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
TSN, March 31, 1998, pp. 3–5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
Assailed RTC Decision, p. 16; rollo, p. 51.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[48]
TSN, September 20, 1996, pp. 7 & 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
People v. Amba, 417 Phil. 852, September 20, 2001; People v. Bares, 355
SCRA 435, March 27, 2001; People v. Samudio, 353 SCRA 746, March 7,
2001.
[50]
TSN, January 7, 1999, pp. 4–6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[51]
Appellee's Brief, p. 12; rollo, p. 133.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[52]
Id., pp. 13 & 134.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[53]
People v. Quinicio, 417 Phil. 571, September 13, 2001; People v.
Parungao,
332 Phil. 917, November 28, 1996.
[54]
TSN, June 17, 1996, p. 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[55]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[56]
2nd Paragraph of Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[57]
People v. Appegu, 379 SCRA 703, April 1, 2002; People v. Quitlong, 354
Phil. 372, July 10, 1998.
[58]
People v. De Leon, supra; People v. Bejo, 376 SCRA 651, February 13,
2002;
People v. Templa, 415 Phil. 523, August 16, 2001.
[59]
People v. Quinicio, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[60]
People v. Dumalahay, 380 SCRA 37, April 2, 2002; People v. Drew, 371
SCRA
279, December 3, 2001; People v. Medios, 371 SCRA 120, November 29,
2001.
[61]
People v. Visaya, 352 SCRA 713, February 26, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[62]
People v. Sabadao, 344 SCRA 432, October 30, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[63]
People v. Casingal, 337 SCRA 100, August 1, 2000; People v. Aquino, 379
Phil. 845, January 20, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[64]
People v. Mendoza, supra; People v. Parba, 416 Phil. 902, September 5,
2001; People v. Samudio, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[65]
People v. Tejero, 381 SCRA 382, April 19, 2002; People v. Castillano,
377
SCRA 79, February 15, 2002; People v. Medios, supra.
[66]
People v. Cabillan, 376 SCRA 290, February 6, 2002; People v. Taclan,
367
Phil. 648, June 17, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[67]
Assailed RTC Decision, p. 17; rollo, p. 52.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[68]
People v. Suyum, 378 SCRA 415, March 6, 2002; People v. Pascua Jr., 370
SCRA 599, November 27, 2001; People v. Julianda Jr., 370 SCRA 448,
November
23, 2001.
[69]
People v. Calago, 381 SCRA 448, April 22, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[70]
People v. Callet, 382 SCRA 43, May 9, 2002; People v. Dumalahay, supra;
People v. Kinok, 368 SCRA 510, November 13, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |