RELOVA, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court in Pasig, Rizal, convicting Norberto Quinto and Romeo Ibiaz of the crime of murder; sentencing them to suffer the penalty of death; and ordering them to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of Vicente Ballestamon in the amount of P12,000.00, to pay the amount of P10,000.00 as moral damages, and another P5,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to pay their proportionate share of the costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Both appellants are represented by separate counsels, who submitted their separate appellants' brief.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The statement of facts in the brief filed by the People of the Philippines is as follows: chanrobles virtual law library

Appellants Norberto Quinto and Romeo Ibiaz at the time of the incident were policemen of the municipality of Rosario, Cavite. At around 6:00 o'clock in the evening of June 16, 1971 at Barrio Sapa, Abdilla Street, Rosario, Cavite, appellants and another person by the name of Renato Diusen alias Dagul stopped a tricycle (p. 14, t.s.n., March 10, 1972). The three men who were in fatigue uniform (p. 17, tsn., March 10, 1972) asked the passenger of the tricycle, who was later on Identified as Vicente Ballestamon, the deceased (p. 15, tsn., March 10, 1972), to alight from the tricycle (Ibid) and to raise is hands (Ibid). The appellants policemen then fired successive shots at the deceased (Ibid).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The mother of the deceased upon being informed that her son had been shot ran to the place of the incident (pp. 16-27, tsn., April 17, 1972). Upon her arrival at the place of the incident she saw her son lying prostrate on the ground (p. 39, tsn., April 17, 1972) but his feet were still moving, (p. 140, tsn., April 17, 1972). She also saw appellants Norberto Quinto and Romeo Ibiaz and their companion Renato Diusen alias Dagul surrounding her son (Ibid) and an of them were carrying long arms (p. 41, tsn., April 17, 1972). Then she shouted "Bakit ninyo ginanyan ang aking anak" (p. 42, tsn., April 17, 1972) and appellants told her "Do not meddle here. This is the command of the mayor. Utos ito ni mayor, huwag kang makialam dito. Lumayo ka" (p. 41, tsn., April 17, 1972). When the mother remonstrated that her son should be brought to the hospital as his feet were still moving (p. 42, tsn., April 17, 1972), appellant Norberto Quinto shot again her son (pp. 42-43, tsn., April 17, 1972).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The apparent motive for the killing was that the deceased witnessed the killing of one Lamberto Alcantara by Danny Enriquez, son of the mayor, and his bodyguards. He was going to be a witness against them (pp. 44-47, tsn., April 17,1972).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The deceased suffered eight (8) gunshot wounds (p. 8, tsn., March 10, 1972). Cause of death was severe hemorrhage (p. 10, tsn., March 10, 1972). Both hands of the victim were subjected to paraffin test and were found negative for the presence of camphor residue prints (p. 3, tsn., March 10, 1972).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Appellant Norberto Quinto admitted in open court that he killed the deceased (p. 6, tsn., November 27, 1972).

Both appellants went to the municipal building to surrender after the incident.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On February 11, 1972, Norberto Quinto alias "Obet", Romeo Ibiaz and Renato Diusen alias "Dagul" were charged before the Circuit Criminal Court in Pasig, Rizal of the crime of murder by District State Prosecutor Cornelio M. Melendres and Assistant City Fiscal Enrique A. Cube in an information which reads: chanrobles virtual law library

That on or about the 16th day of June 1971, in the Municipality of Rosario, Province of Cavite, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- named accused NORBERTO QUINTO alias OBET, ROMEO IBIAZ, and RENATO DIUSEN alias DAGOL, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another without justifiable cause, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, armed with firearms of different calibers, taking advantage of their public position; that the wrong done in the commission of the crime was deliberately augmented by other wrong not necessary for its commission, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot one VICENTE BALLESTAMON y GERON in the different parts of his body thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds which directly caused his instantaneous death.

Upon arraignment, Norberto Quinto and Romeo Ibiaz pleaded not guilty. The other co-accused Renato Diusen has not been brought to trial. As aforesaid, the two: Quinto and Ibiaz were convicted and they appealed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Norberto Quinto gave the following assignment of errors, to wit: chanrobles virtual law library

I. That the Circuit Criminal Court erred in giving credit and weight to the false and fabricated testimonies of two prosecution witnesses, Antonio Giron and Rosalina G. Ballestamon, who are uncle and mother of the victim; chanrobles virtual law library

II. That the Circuit Criminal Court erred in refusing to give credit and belief to the legitimate self-defense presented by herein defendant-appellant; chanrobles virtual law library

III. That the Circuit Criminal Court erred in convicting herein defendant- appellant in the absence of the proof of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt."

Romeo Ibiaz made a lone assignment of error, to wit. "that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of the crime charged." chanrobles virtual law library

The appellants claim self-defense, stating that at about six o'clock in the late afternoon of June 16, 1971, Lt. Enrique Banzon told them to go to barrio Sapa, Rosario, Cavite and to apprehend Vicente (Boyet) Ballestamon who was making trouble at the place. Upon being informed that Ballestamon was armed with a long gun and indiscriminately firing shots, Quinto brought with him, aside from his caliber .38 service pistol, an armalite. Ibiaz had at the time his caliber .45 service pistol. As they approached the place, they heard a shot followed by another. Whereupon, Quinto jumped Out Of the tricycle they were riding in going to barrio Sapa and turning his head saw the victim, Boyet Ballestamon, pointing his gun at them.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On the other hand, Ibiaz, overcame with fear, stayed in the tricycle and, looking at the direction where the shot came from, saw Ballestamon with his gun pointed at them.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

At this juncture, Quinto, without waiting for Ballestamon to shoot, fired at the latter inflicting upon him multiple gunshot wounds which caused his death.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Further, the defense contends that Ballestamon was known to be a police character even before the advent of martial law. They claim that considering his irascibility in the use of guns, Quinto immediately fired before he himself would be the victim.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The killing of the deceased by appellant Norberto Quinto being admitted by the latter, the burden of proving that the slaying was legally justifiable lay upon him. Our view of the evidence discloses that this burden was not adequately met. In the first place, both hands of the deceased were examined by Major Crispin B. Garcia of the Philippine Constabulary and they gave "negative results to the test for the presence of gun powder residue." (Exhibit A). Thus, the claim that the deceased was armed with a carbine and was firing the same shortly before he was shot is not true. Quinto's explanation about this consists mainly of speculation, like possible tampering of the specimen or reference to the rare cases where a person fires a gun and yet his hand is negative for gunpowder nitrate.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Secondly, Quinto's claim that empty carbine shells, were found in the vicinity is denied by defense witness, PC Sgt. Mario Genuino, who testified, thus:

Q What did you do in the vicinity, where you found the victim, and took the carbine and gave it to Lt. Banzon? chanrobles virtual law library

A I looked around if I could find any empty shells.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did you find any empty shells? A I did not find.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

COURT: chanrobles virtual law library

Was there any magazine in the carbine? chanrobles virtual law library

A There was.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q How many? chanrobles virtual law library

A Around twenty, but it was a banana type magazine.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

COURT: chanrobles virtual law library

Proceed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. DOLORFINO: chanrobles virtual law library

Q Were you able to examine the carbine before you gave that to Lt. Banzon? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Were you able to see the contents of the magazine in relation to the said carbine? chanrobles virtual law library

A The magazine was tucked in the carbine and the bullets were jammed in the muzzle of the gun. (tsn. pp. 15-17, Oct. 13, 1972 hearing),

Further, Sgt. Genuino declared that when he arrived at the crime scene there was nobody there except the appellants, Lt. Banzon and a photographer. The People's theory that the carbine was placed by the police after the incident could be true. The photographer was fetched after the shooting incident and he arrived at the crime scene about 7:15 in the evening. As found by the trial court, "the accused did not allow the people to go near the body of Boyet for almost thirty minutes, which time was more than enough opportunity for them to place the carbine beside the body of Boyet." chanrobles virtual law library

In the third place, the claim of Quinto that prosecution ,witnesses Antonio Giron and Rosanna Ballestamon, uncle and mother, respectively of the deceased, were biased to the point of falsifying and fabricating evidence against them, is untenable. As aptly stated by the Solicitor General in his brief: chanrobles virtual law library

The rule on evidence provides that a party or any other person interested in the outcome of a case may testify (Sec. 18, Rule 130, Rules of Court). Hence, the testimony, of an interested witness can not be rejected on the ground of his apparent interest alone, but must be judged on its own merits, and if the testimony is clear and convincing and not destroyed by other evidence on record, it may be believed (Carandang vs. Cabatuando, L-25384, October 26, 1973 citing the case of U.S. vs. Mante, 27 Phil. 134 (1914). Other than their relationship to the deceased there is no other reason why their testimony should be rejected.

To prove justification, the accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if it were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused had admitted the killing (People vs. Ansoyon, 75 Phil. 772). The first requisite of self-defense is that there should be unlawful aggression on the part of the person injured or killed by the accused. There can be no self-defense in the absence of unlawful aggression (People vs. Apolinario, 58 Phil. 586). Without it, the second requisite would not apply since there would be nothing to prevent or repel. There is nothing to defend from or against and there will be no occasion to require that the means of defense employed be reasonable. In the case at bar, the appellants failed to sustain this first requisite of self-defense. The victim did not have any firearm at the time he was fired at, slain and killed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We now come to the claim of appellant Ibiaz that he is not a principal by direct participation or a co-conspirator. He argues that he had no motive to kill Ballestamon and that the only evidence against him was his passive presence at the scene of the crime. Otherwise stated. it is his contention that he did not use his gun against the deceased.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

This contention of Ibiaz is contradicted by NBI Dr. Dario Nalagan who testified that from the nature an extent of the injuries inflicted upon the deceased, at least two (2) malefactors participated in the killing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Hereunder is the testimony of Dr. Nalagan on this point:

Fiscal Melendres - chanrobles virtual law library

Q Where is this third gunshot wound? chanrobles virtual law library

A The third gunshot wound is shown in the left lower chest pointed by a white arrow.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Fiscal Melendres - chanrobles virtual law library

I request that the same be encircled and marked as Exhibit C-9A.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

COURT - chanrobles virtual law library

Mark it.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

(So marked.) chanrobles virtual law library

Fiscal Melendres - chanrobles virtual law library

Q What was the trajectory'? chanrobles virtual law library

A Directed from left to right, backwards and slightly downwards making wound of exit on the right lumbar region.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Do you have the picture of that exit wound? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes. sir. (pp. 18-19, tsn, April 14, 197 2 hearing)

xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library

Q Considering the numerous gunshot wounds, would you say that there are two persons involved in the shooting or more than one person? chanrobles virtual law library

Atty. Buenviaje - chanrobles virtual law library

The witness is incompetent to testify on that.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Court chanrobles virtual law library

Witness may answer.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Witness -chanrobles virtual law library

A Based on the different directions of the bullet in the body of the victim, one going upwards and laterally which means that the victim was in the lying position, and the other going downwards, so I would say there are two (2), unless the victim was lying first and then transferred to another place." (tsn. pp. 30-3 1, April 14, 1972 hearing) chanrobles virtual law library

xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library

Atty. Buenviaje - chanrobles virtual law library

Q You also testified that the wounds inflicted upon the body of the victim could have been inflicted by at least two persons? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

(tsn., p. 40, April 14, 1972 hearing)

Besides, according to Rosalina Ballestamon, as early as four o'clock in the afternoon, or two (2) hours before the shooting incident, appellant Ibiaz, together with Quinto and Diusen was already at the scene of the crime going back and forth. They were in fatigue uniform, apparently waiting for the deceased who was eventually slain because he was a witness against the son of the mayor for killing one Lamberto Alcantara, And, consider the testimony of Antonio Giron, as follows:

Q On June 16,1971 at around 6:00 P.M. where were you? chanrobles virtual law library

A At the waiting shed of a resting place in Rosario, Cavite.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Were you alone at that time? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Was there anything unusual that happened at the hour and date mentioned? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, I saw 3 policemen stop a tricycle, asking the passenger to alight.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Were they all in uniform and did you recognize the three? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, (Witness Identifies Norberto Quinto and Romeo Ibiaz who are inside the courtroom), chanrobles virtual law library

Q About the third one? chanrobles virtual law library

A He is not here; his name is Renato Diusen alias Dagul, chanrobles virtual law library

Q How far away were you from the 3 policemen? chanrobles virtual law library

A Twelve meters.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q How did they ask the passenger to alight? chanrobles virtual law library

A I saw Dagul pull out the passenger, saying: 'Bumaba ka diyan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Who was the passenger? chanrobles virtual law library

A Vicente Ballestamon.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What happened then? chanrobles virtual law library

A The companions of Dagul poked their guns at Ballestamon asking him to raise up both hands.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What firearms were they using? chanrobles virtual law library

A Long firearms.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Where was Ballestamon facing when ordered to raise his hands? chanrobles virtual law library

A Facing the aplaya with his back turned towards the policemen.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What happened afterward? chanrobles virtual law library

A Ballestamon was ordered to walk; after making 3 steps the 3 policemen fired successive shots at him. He turned around and fell to the ground.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What did the 3 policemen do after shooting their victim? chanrobles virtual law library

A They lay themselves prostrate on the ground, in firing position and I heard the words: 'Derating ang kanyang ama; mapapalaban tayo diyan.' chanrobles virtual law library

Q What did you do then? chanrobles virtual law library

A After observing the policemen on the ground for 3 minutes, I left the place.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Where there people in the vicinity of the shooting at that time? chanrobles virtual law library

A Many, but they ran away.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Where did you go then? chanrobles virtual law library

A To our place where I saw the mother of the victim. I informed her that her son had been shot.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What is the name of the mother? chanrobles virtual law library

A Rosanna Ballestamon, (tsn. pp. 14-15, March 10, 1972 hearing)

To establish a conspiracy, it is not essential that there be proof as to a previous agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient that the malefactors acted in concert to attain the same objective (People vs. San Luis, 86 Phil. 485, 497). The concurrence of wills, which is the essence of conspiracy, may be deduced from the evidence of facts and circumstances, which taken together, indicate that the parties cooperated and labored to the same end (People vs. Macul, 86 Phil. 423, 426; People vs. Cabonel, 48 Phil. 868, 875).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In the case at bar, it is quite clear that appellants, by their acts, aimed towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object. They arrived together at the scene of the crime, in fatigue uniform, as early as 4:00 in the afternoon. Upon seeing the victim, they stopped the tricycle he was riding and, thereafter, fired at him. Applying the foregoing rules to this case, We hold that the assault by the assailants and their companion against Vicente Ballestamon, as declared by Antonio Giron, reveals a conspiracy and a tacit understanding to put him out of the way.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the penalty that should be imposed on appellants is reclusion perpetua.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified in the sense that appellants are hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.