G.R. Nos. 135068-72 September 20, 2001 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

MAXIMO RAMOS Y SAN DIEGO alias ''IMO," accused-appellant. Facts: Maximo Ramos y San Diego alias Imo was initially charged with two (2) counts of 2 murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation for the killing of Eleodoro Araranggol and Severino Araranggol, and three 3 (3) counts of attempted murder for the wounding of Marcelino Perez, Augusto Perez and Paulino Perez. But the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Br. 27, acquitted him of 4 three (3) counts of attempted murder for the failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; hence, this automatic review pertains only to Crim. Cases Nos. 7370AF and 7371-AF for murder. The Perez clan of Barangay Sta. Arcadia, Cabanatuan City, was planning a family reunion on 9 February 1997. A rectangular table and three (3) benches were set up about one and one-half (1 1/2) meters long in front of the house of Baby Maranan where a drinking spree was already underway as early as 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Among those drinking were father and son Eleodoro and Severino Araranggol, Marcelino Perez, Balat Fernando, Jose Maranan and Augusto Perez. At half past 8:00 o'clock that evening the preparations and the merrymaking were disrupted by a sudden burst of gunfire supposedly coming from an armalite rifle. Eleodoro and Severino were hit. Also wounded were Marcelino Perez, Augusto Perez and Paulino Perez who suffered minor injuries. Eleodoro and Severino were rushed to the hospital but the latter was declared dead on arrival while Eleodoro died the following day. According to Marcelino Perez, the gunman suddenly appeared near the house of Baby Maranan one and a half (1-1/2) meters away from Severino and three (3) meters from him and Eleodoro. The assassin was sporting a shoulder-length hair, a full beard and an earring on his left ear. The gunman aimed his rifle first at Severino hitting him instantly. He next aimed

his shots at Eleodoro who suffered several mortal wounds. After the initial burst of gunfire, the rest of the party scampered away for safety except for Marcelino who remained where he was while Severino and Eleodoro were sprayed with bullets. He focused his gaze at the gunman as he was shooting the rest of his relatives. In fact, it was only after the last shot was fired and the gunman had already left that Marcelino 5 thought of lying face down on the ground. In court, Marcelino Perez pointed to accusedappellant Maximo Ramos as the assailant. In his defense, Maximo Ramos denied participation in the crime. He averred that at the time Eleodoro and Severino were shot, he (Maximo) was in Tagpos, Soledad, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija resting inside the warehouse of his employer Epitacio Rivera and his co-worker Bonifacio Villanueva. In convicting Ramos of two (2) counts of murder the court a quo was convinced that based on the testimonies of Marcelino Perez and Luis Perez the identity of the accused as the gunman was adequately established. We do not see it the way the trial court did. The trial court gave undue credence to the testimonies of the "eyewitnesses" despite their improbabilities and inconsistencies which render them too unreliable for the conviction of accused-appellant. Held: The inconsistency between the statements of Marcelino and those of the police officers is very material and relevant to the instant case. The failure of the prosecution to explain and clarify this obvious discrepancy leads us to conclude that neither of the statements given by Marcelino nor those of the policemen was credible. Consequently, this renders dubious the identification by Marcelino of accused-appellant as the gunman. Also, it is difficult for this Court to take the word of Marcelino that he clearly saw the face of Ramos. According to Marcelino, when accusedappellant suddenly appeared the latter immediately fired the initial two (2) shots, followed by successive shots. We find it understandable for the assailant to have raced against time because he was already near his targets and to hesitate would not only derail his plan but also cost him his life. Thus, because of the time element involved, identification could not have been as easy and clear as manifested by Marcelino. Prior to the shooting, Marcelino

could not have had a good look at the attacker as to fix his eyes on his features. With a considerable portion of the attacker's face concealed by a full beard, Marcelino's ability and opportunity to recognize him was diminished. In all criminal cases, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused on the principle that it is better to free a guilty man than to unjustly keep in prison one whose guilt has not been proved by the required quantum of 25 evidence. It is only when the conscience is satisfied that the crime has been committed by the person on trial that the judgment must be for conviction. For only when there is proof beyond any shadow of doubt that those responsible 26 should be made answerable. WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused-appellant Maximo Ramos y San Diego alias "Imo" beyond reasonable doubt, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Br. 27, dated 26 June 1998, convicting accused-appellant Maximo Ramos of two (2) counts of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death on each count, and ordering him to pay the heirs of his victims P50,000.00 each as indemnity, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accusedappellant is ACQUITTED and ordered immediately released from custody unless held for some other lawful cause. [ G.R. No. 116122. September 6, 1996 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, vs. ARNOLD CASTILLO Y MANGUIAT, Accused-Appellant. . Salvador Delmo, a former mayor of Calamba, Laguna, was found dead with three gunshot wounds in the morning of 20 May 1990 on a dusty road in Barangay Baadero. For his death ARNOLD CASTILLO Y MANGUIAT, AURELIO CASTILLO and BENITO VIAS were charged with murder attended with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength before the Regional Trial Court of Calamba. On 30 June 1994 Arnold Castillo y Manguiat was declared by the trial court guilty as charged, sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and ordered "to indemnify the heirs of Salvador Delmo the amount of P200,175.00 as actual damages, P500,000.00 for the death of Salvador Delmo and moral damages, and to pay the costs." Aurelio Castillo and Benito Vias were acquitted.
1

The evidence shows that Aurelio Castillo had a house and lot situated in Baadero, Calamba, Laguna, which he mortgaged with the Rural Bank of Calamba. After he became delinquent in

the payment of his loan the bank foreclosed the mortgage and subsequently sold the property to Mayor Salvador Delmo. On 3 May 1993 the sheriff, the bank lawyer and bank officials, and the security guards hired by Mayor Delmo proceeded to Baadero to implement the writ of possession issued by the trial court. Aurelio pleaded with the bank lawyer not to implement the writ yet because he would elevate the case to the Court of Appeals. The bank lawyer however replied that he could not do anything anymore because the court order was already final and executory. After a while, a nephew of Aurelio came out. He informed the bank lawyer that they could proceed with the removal of the personal properties inside the house. On 20 May 1993, at around six o'clock in the morning, Juan Bongga, a helper of Mayor Delmo, went to the kalamansi-an of his father-inlaw in Baadero to gather kalamansi. A few minutes later Maria Cristina Delmo, wife of Salvador Delmo Jr. and daughter-in-law of Mayor Delmo, arrived and sought permission also to gather kalamansi. It was at about seven o'clock that same morning when Juan Bongga saw Mayor Delmo and Aurelio Castillo arguing in the middle of the road. Juan was about twenty meters away. With Aurelio were his son Arnold and brother-in-law Benito Vias. While Mayor Delmo and Aurelio were arguing, Arnold went suddenly behind the mayor and fired a shot at the back of his head causing him to fall to the ground with face downward. Arnold fired a second shot at the back of Delmo's body, and a third shot at the lower portion of his buttocks. Juan then ran towards the house of Salvador Delmo Jr. and informed him of the incident. He did not however name the perpetrator/s of the crime. After hearing the shots, Maria Cristina headed towards the direction where the shots came from. She was astounded when she saw her father-in-law lying on the road some forty to forty-five meters away. She also saw Arnold pointing a short firearm at her father-in-law with Aurelio and Benito standing nearby. Upon seeing the victim she ran towards home. The medico-legal report showed that Mayor Delmo suffered three gunshot wounds: at the back of his head, at the middle of his back, and at the back of his left thigh, and that he died of hemorrhage as a result of gunshot wounds. That same morning Arnold and Benito were invited by the investigators to the police station but were released after interrogation. Aurelio

also gave his statement to the police that afternoon. On 23 May 1993 Aurelio and Arnold went to Balele, Tanauan, Batangas. They stayed in the house of a sister of Aurelio and then in the house of a brother until June or July 1993. They returned to Calamba, Laguna, and stayed in a house in Bucal under the custody of Col. Cesario Barairo. They were later turned over to the Jail Warden. Arnold Castillo alleges in his appeal that the trial court erred (a) when it lent credence to the testimonies of Juan Bongga and Maria Cristina notwithstanding signs of fabrication and defiance of human nature; (b) when it did not appreciate the documentary evidence for the defense, i.e., the Initial Report dated 20 May 1993 and the Joint Affidavit of Arrest dated 8 June 1993; and, (c) when it ruled that the killing was attended with treachery while discarding his claim of voluntary surrender. Appellant assails Juan Bongga's Salaysay and his testimony in court: First, Juan's statement in his Salaysay that Mayor Delmo was shot by appellant three times at the back of his head runs counter to his testimony in court that the Mayor was shot at the back of his head, at the back of his body, and at the lower portion of his buttocks; Second, Juan admitted in his Salaysay that he did not know what the accused and Mayor Delmo were arguing about but later contradicted himself by testifying that they were arguing about the house and lot; and, Third, Juan made it appear in his Salaysay that he went to the palikong daan to ascertain what the accused and the mayor were quarreling about, and yet, failed to mention this fact at the witness stand. Appellant further disputes the credibility of Juan by calling attention to the fact that the latter did not immediately report to the police authorities or to the widow of Mayor Delmo what he had witnessed that morning of 20 May 1993 and that he executed a statement on the incident only on 8 June 1993. The initial silence of Juan Bongga should not be taken against him. The delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if 3 such delay is satisfactorily explained, as in this case. When Juan was asked during the crossexamination why he did not report the incident at once to the police authorities he answered that 4 he was then taken aback. Moreover, it is not uncommon for a witness to a crime to show some reluctance about getting involved in a

criminal case, as in fact the natural tendency of most people not to get involved is of judicial 5 notice. As regards the credibility of Maria Cristina, appellant argues that her story that she saw him pointing a gun at the body of Mayor Delmo is hard to believe considering her testimony that she was forty to forty-five meters away when the shots were fired. Moreover, according to him, it is highly incredible for her to remain silent and not to disclose to her husband the details of the slaying of her father-in-law. The distance of forty to forty-five meters away from the scene of the crime, taken by itself, may lead the Court to entertain doubt on the accuracy of what a witness has observed. In the present case, however, Maria Cristina could not have been mistaken in the identification of the 6 accused considering that it was broad daylight; 7 there were no other persons on the road; it 8 does not appear that her view was obstructed; and, most importantly, the accused were her 9 townmates. Once a person has gained familiarity with another, identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance. The initial silence of Maria Cristina was likewise sufficiently explained. According to her, she was shocked and scared. The Court thus affirms the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses not only because it had the advantage of observing first-hand the deportment of said witnesses and therefore was in a better position to form an accurate impression and conclusion, 13 but also because a review of the records reveals that their testimonies were categorical, straightforward and remained constant even under pressure of cross-examination. Also, they had no axe to grind against the accused. In the final analysis, the relationship of Maria Cristina and Juan to the victim although by mere affinity and employment, respectively, render their testimonies more worthy of belief as it would be unnatural for them who are interested in vindicating the crime to implicate persons other 14 than the real culprits. Lastly, appellant argues that assuming that his guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution failed to prove treachery. Aside from the statement of Juan that he saw appellant go behind Mayor Delmo andshoot him at the back of his head, there is no other evidence to establish treachery. As regards voluntary surrender, his surrender to Col. Barairo should mitigate his liability.

We do not agree. Arnold Castillo without any warning suddenly went at the back of (behind) Salvador Delmo while the latter was facing Aurelio Castillo, then fired a shot at the back of the head of Salvador Delmo. Arnold Castillo employed a means in the execution of the felony that directly and specially insured its execution. Undoubtedly, there was no risk to Arnold Castillo from the defense that Salvador Delmo might make because the latter was then apparently 19 unaware of what Arnold Castillo will (sic) do. We conclude that the trial court did not err in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the murder of Mayor Salvador Delmo. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from finding accused-appellant ARNOLD CASTILLO Y MANGUIAT guilty of murder and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as well as ordering him to pay the heirs of Salvador Delmo. G.R. No. 140759 January 24, 2002 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. JACINTO NARVAEZ, FERNANDO CUTON, and EFREN NARVAEZ, accused-appellants. CARPIO, J.: The Case Before this Court is the appeal filed by the appellants Jacinto Narvaez, Fernando Cuton 1 and Efren Narvaez assailing the Decision dated March 12, 1999 in Criminal Case No. 2576-93 of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 22, finding them guilty of the crime of murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Charge 2 An Information was filed by Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Jose M. Velasco, Jr. on February 23, 1993 charging appellants with the crime of murder, committed as follows: "That on or about 9:00 o'clock in the evening of June 24, 1992, at Barangay Langcaan, in the Municipality of Dasmarias, Province of Cavite, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery, evident premeditation and taking advantage of nighttime, while being armed with firearms, did, there and then, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack and

fire at Wilfredo Mantillas hitting the latter on different parts of the body and inflicting upon him mortal injuries which directly caused his death to the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of said Wilfredo Mantillas." The trial court accorded full faith and credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Mendoza and disregarded appellants' defense of alibi. It held that the inconsistencies between Mendoza's testimony in court and his sworn statement to the police strengthened rather than weakened his credibility. On the other hand, the trial court found the defense of alibi weak being unreliable and susceptible to fabrication. It further ruled that the fact that the warrants of arrest were returned unserved, since appellants could not be found in their given address, is indicative of flight and bolsters the finding of guilt against appellants. Lastly, the trial court disregarded the paraffin test for nitrates conducted on appellants Jacinto Narvaez and Fernando Cuton saying that the same is not conclusive proof that one has not fired a gun. Hence, the instant appeal. Issue: DID THE TRIAL COURT ERRED (SIC) WHEN IT GAVE DUE CREDENCE ON THE ASSERTION OF THE INCREDIBLE AND LIAR WITNESS ARNEL MENDOZA? Held: We find the appeal meritorious. It is highly doubtful if a person can recognize the faces of the assailants 70 meters away at around 9:00 p.m. without sufficient illumination directly hitting the faces of the assailants. It was 12 13 held that the distance of 40 to 50 meters from the scene of the crime, taken by itself, may lead the court to entertain doubt on the accuracy of what a witness had observed. Here, such doubt is magnified by the fact that the distance is about 70 to 150 meters with the surroundings quite dark. Prosecution witness SPO1 Simera confirmed that at 70 meters and even 150 meters, it would be difficult to recognize a person at nighttime. There is even greater difficulty in recognizing what lies ahead when the witness is lying flat on the ground, aided only by the light coming from a flashlight some 70 meters away. Mendoza's testimony in court that he laid flat on the ground at a distance of 70 meters from the shanty contradicts his sworn statement to the police

that he laid flat on the ground at a distance of 150 meters. The participation of appellants in the killing of the victim Wilfredo Mantillas not having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, we hold that the appellants should be absolved. WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 12, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 22, in Criminal Case No. 2576-93 finding appellants Jacinto Narvaez, Fernando Cuton and Efren Narvaez guilty of the crime of murder, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellants are ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. They are ordered IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from confinement unless held for any other lawful cause. No costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 178196 August 6, 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. RUDY BUDUHAN y BULLAN and ROBERT BUDUHAN y BULLAN, defendants-appellants. On 26 August 1998, 3 an Information was filed against Robert Buduhan, Rudy Buduhan, Boy Guinhicna, Boyet Ginyang and 3 John Does before the RTC of Maddela, Quirino, for the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. That on or about 10:40 oclock in the evening of July 24, 1998 in Poblacion Norte, Municipality of Maddela, Province of Quirino, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, four of them are armed and after first conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another and with force and violence did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob ROMUALDE ALMERON of his wallet and wrist watch and LARRY ERESE of his wrist watch to the damage and prejudice of the said ROMUALDE ALMERON and LARRY ERESE; That on the occasion of the Robbery, the said accused, armed with firearms of different caliber and after first conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, shoot and fire upon ROMUALDE ALMERON, LARRY ERESE and ORLANDO PASCUA resulting to their instanteneous (sic) death and the

injuries to the persons of FERNANDO PERA and GILBERT CORTEZ. On 20 October 1998, the accused filed a Motion 4 to Quash the above information, alleging that the court did not legally acquire jurisdiction over their persons. In an Order dated 25 August 1999, the RTC denied the above motion. When arraigned on 12 January 2000, the accused Rudy Buduhan, Robert Buduhan and Boyet Ginyang, with the assistance of their counsel de oficio, entered their pleas of "Not Guilty" to the crime charged. The prosecution presented the following witness: (1) Cherry Rose Salazar, an employee of the establishment where the crime was committed. The Peoples version of the incident as narrated by its principal witness, Cherry Rose Salazar (Cherry Rose), is as follows: On 24 July 1998, Cherry Rose was working as a guest relations officer at the RML Canteen, a beerhouse and a videoke bar in Maddela, 22 Quirino. At about 9:00 to 10:00 p.m., there were only two groups of men inside the 23 beerhouse. The group that went there first was 24 that of the appellants, which was composed of Robert Buduhan, who was wearing a white T25 shirt marked Giordano, Rudy Buduhan, who 26 was wearing a red T-shirt, a man wearing a 27 blue T-shirt, and another man wearing a blue 28 T-shirt with a black jacket. The second group was composed of Larry Erese and his companions Gilbert Cortez (alias Abe) and Fernando Pera (alias Nanding). At 10:40 p.m., while Cherry Rose was entertaining the group of Larry Erese, Robert 29 approached them and poked a gun at Larry. Immediately, the man wearing a blue T-shirt likewise approached Cherry Roses Manager Romualde Almeron (alias Eddie), who was 30 seated at the counter. The man in blue poked 31 a gun at Romualde and announced a hold-up. Larry then handed over his wristwatch to Robert. Instantaneously, all four men from Roberts group fired their guns at Larry and Romualde, 32 which caused them to fall down. Abe and Nanding ran out of the RML Canteen when the shooting occurred, and Cherry Rose hid below 33 the table. In a Decision dated 24 July 2003, the trial court found appellants guilty of the charges, On 1 August 2003, the appellants filed a Notice of Appeal. From the Court of Appeals, the case was then elevated to this Court for automatic review.

Issue: Whether or not cherry rose is a credible witness? Held: Inasmuch as the above-stated mandatory procedural requirements were not complied with, the credibility of Cherry Rose as a witness stands unimpeached. As found by the trial court, the testimony of Cherry Rose was straightforward throughout. The appellants were not able to adduce any reason or motive for her to bear false witness against them. As a matter of fact, Cherry Rose testified during crossexamination that she did not personally know appellant Robert, and that she had first seen him only during the night when the shooting incident took place. G.R. No. 182555 September 7, 2010 LENIDO LUMANOG and AUGUSTO SANTOS, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 185123 CESAR FORTUNA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 187745 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, vs. SPO2 CESAR FORTUNA y ABUDO, RAMESES DE JESUS y CALMA, LENIDO LUMANOG y LUISTRO, JOEL DE JESUS y VALDEZ and AUGUSTO SANTOS y GALANG, Accused, RAMESES DE JESUS y CALMA and JOEL DE JESUS y VALDEZ, Accused-Appellants. On June 13, 1996, at around 8:00 oclock in the morning, Abadilla left his house at Soliven I, Loyola Grand Villas, Loyola Heights, Quezon City and drove his car, a black Honda Accord with Plate No. RNA-777. Meanwhile, at about 8:40 a.m., Senior Police Officer (SPO) 2 Arthur Ortiz, the desk officer on duty at Station 8 of the Central Police District Command (CPDC) located at P. Tuazon Blvd., Project 4, Quezon City, answered a telephone call from a male person who reported a shooting incident along Katipunan Avenue. Upon reaching the area at 8:45 a.m., they saw several onlookers around and near a black Honda Accord with Plate No. RNA-777 on a stop position in the middle lane of Katipunan Avenue facing south going to Libis. They found the victims bloodied and bulletriddled body partly slumped onto the pavement at the cars left door, which was open. The victim

was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. The victims identity was confirmed by Susan Abadilla who had rushed to the hospital. Records indicate that immediately after the incident, elements of the CPDC, PNP-NCR at Camp Karingal were already coordinating with investigators of Station 8-CPDC who had turned over to said office the evidence gathered and referred the witnesses present at the crime 14 scene. As a result of follow-up operations, Joel de Jesus, alias "Tabong," was apprehended on June 19, 1996 at his house at Dahlia St., Fairview, Quezon City. He executed his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated June 20, 1996 and Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated June 15 21, 1996. In his first statement, Joel de Jesus narrated that on June 13, 1996 at 6:30 in the morning after parking his tricycle at the corner of Regalado and Camaro Streets, Fairview, he was fetched by Lorenzo "Larry" delos Santos who was his neighbor at Ruby St. Larry was accompanied by his nephew Ogie, and a certain "Tisoy" who drove the owner-type jeep. Larry told him they were going to kill a big-time personality ("may titirahin na malaking tao"), whose name was Abadilla, and that they were going to ambush the latter at Katipunan Avenue. The ambush would be carried out by Joel, Larry, Tisoy, Ram (de Jesus), Cesar who was a policeman, and four (4) others. Joel further stated that the ambush-slay of Abadilla was planned by the group three (3) days before, when they met at the house of Ram de Jesus also in Fairview near his house. Although he did not know the identity of the person who masterminded the ambush-slay of Abadilla. The afore-named suspects identified by Joel were apprehended during further follow-up operations conducted on June 20, 1996 by "Task Force Rolly" subsequently formed by the PNP after the lead initially provided by him. Said arresting officers were also able to seize certain firearms and other pieces of evidence. G.R. No. 140206 June 21, 2001 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. RODOLFO MATYAONG, accused-appellant. GONZAGA-REYES, J.: On 28 March 1996, accused appellant Rodolfo Matyaong was charged with the crime of parricide before the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, for hitting his

wife Rufina Matyaong with a piece of wood, in an information which states That on or about the 27th day of December, 1995, at Brgy. Latud, Municipality of Rizal, Province of Palawan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with evident premeditation, treachery and with intent to kill, while armed with a round wood (Bakawan), did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, maul and club one RUFINA MATYAONG Y PAZ, his lawfully wedded wife, hitting her in the different vital parts of her body and inflicting upon her multiple contusion and hematuas [sic] in the body which were the direct and immediate cause of her death shortly thereafter. 10 After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment, finding accused-appellant guilty of parricide, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, as the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong was appreciated in his favor. In addition, the court ordered accusedappellants to pay the heirs of Rufina Matyaong P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The trial court held that, although he may not have intended to kill her, Rufinas death was the direct and natural consequence of accused-appellants felonious act of clubbing her, and therefore, pursuant to Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, he is liable 11 for the same. Hence, the present appeal. Held: In the case at bar, it has been established that accused-appellant beat his wife with a piece of wood. This conclusion is based upon the unrebutted testimony of Rodolfo Matyaong, Jr. an eyewitness to the assault. Having failed to prove that the witness was impelled by improper motives, the Court has no reason to disbelieve the childs testimony, which the trial court found 17 to be credible. It is also undisputed that the victim died on 29 December 1995, or almost two days after the assault. However, we agree with the Solicitor General that the prosecution has not established the crucial link between the assault and the death. In other words, it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the beatings inflicted by accused-appellant upon his wife were the proximate cause of her death. It is significant that, in this particular case, no post mortem examination was conducted in order to determine the precise cause of death. There was neither an ante mortem nor post mortem

examination of the victims body for purposes of ascertaining the nature and extent of any wounds that may have been sustained as a result of the beating. The significance of evidence on the precise nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased is that it often leads the careful examiner to uncover the real cause of death. There being no evidence on the injuries sustained by Rufina Matyaong and the cause of her death, accused-appellant is entitled to an acquittal for the Court entertains a reasonable doubt that his actions have in fact caused the death of his wife. WHEREFORE, accused-appellant is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of parricide. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 72975 March 31, 1989 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. JUANITO JUTIE, accused-appellant. That on or about the 13th day of December, 1982, in the afternoon, at Barangay Longos Municipality of Calasiao, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, Pedro Aboy y Paris, together with Juanito Jutie who is still at large, conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping one another, armed with a gun (caliber .30), with intent to kill, and with evident premeditation, and treachery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot Elpidio Nepuscua y Joves, thereby inflicting upon him several gunshot wounds which caused his death. Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. (p. 28, Records) Aboy was arrested on the day following the incident and was arraigned and tried separately since Jutie was at large. On August 15, 1983, the trial court rendered its decision convicting Aboy of the offense charged and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Aboy did not appeal. Jutie, on the other hand, was arrested only on October 16, 1983. Upon being arraigned, he entered the plea of not guilty to the offense charged. After trial on the merits, the trial court, on September 24, 1985, rendered its decision convicting Jutie, Held: The evidence on record shows that at about four o'clock in the afternoon of December 13, 1982, Roberto Joves, a 14-year old boy, and

his younger brother, Romel, went to a field in Longos Calasiao, Pangasinan, to gather "dangla" leaves for their sick sister. On their way home, they met Elpidio Nepuscua who was then running and followed by Pedro Aboy and Juanita Jutie. Aboy later caught up with Nepuscua and pointed his gun at the latter. Nepuscua in turn raised both his hands and cried. Nepuscua also moved backwards and stopped upon reaching a small dike (pilapil), after which he knelt on the ground. Thereupon, Aboy shot Nepuscua, with his .30 caliber carbine. After ahoy shot Nepuscua, Jutie also fired at the latter with a 10inch long firearm. Frightened by the incident, Roberto and Romel ran home and reported the matter to their mother. The incident was later reported to the police authorities at Calasiao. The police investigators who went to the scene of the incident found the deceased, Nepuscua, covered with rice hay. They also found thereat three (3) empty shells of a.30 caliber carbine. ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of the lower court is modified in that appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased the amount of P 30,000.00 but with the right to demand contribution from his co-accused Pedro Aboy in the sum of P 1,000.00. Costs against the accused-appellant. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 113517 January 19, 1995 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. PAT. FLORESTAN NITCHA y DULAY, defendant-appellant. On October 1990, at around 7 o'clock in the evening, Jojo Belmonte went out of his house located at Purok IV, Barangay Alac, San Quintin, Pangasinan to buy some cigarettes in a nearby store. (p. 6, TSN, December 10, 1991) Before Jojo Belmonte could buy the cigarettes, Doro Nitcha arrived, uttered the words "You are one of them" ("Maysa ca met") in the vernacular, then started mauling him. (p. 7, TSN, December 10, 1991) Unable to endure the pain, Jojo fought back. (Ibid) A few minutes had gone into the fight when May Villarica (a.k.a. Lydia) Joselito, Agustin and Marcelina (Nenet), all surnamed Sibayan, arrived. (p. 8, TSN, December 10, 1991; p. 6, TSN, September 9, 1992) May and Joselito tried to pacify the two protagonists, however, their efforts proved futile as Doro Nitcha refused to be pacified. (Ibid.) The fighting stopped upon the arrival of Doro's sister Victoria Corpuz (Baby) who, upon seeing

the commotion, dragged Doro away from the fight and brought him home. (p. 7, TSN, march 30, 1993; pp. 6-7, TSN, March 1, 1993) Likewise, Marcelina (Nenet), Agustin, May and Joselito proceeded towards their house located in front of the store where the incident occurred. (p. 8, TSN, March 1, 1993) Not long thereafter and while the Sibayans were still on their way, appellant Florestan Nitcha, brother of Doro, arrived at the sari-sari store brandishing a gun and shouting in Tagalog, "Walanghiya kayo, putangina ninyo, papatayin ko kayong lahat!" (p. 7, TSN, February 2, 1993) After uttering those words, appellant fired his gun in the direction of the Sibayans, the bullet hitting May at the back of her head and existing through the middle of her forehead. (p. 11, TSN, December 10, 1991; p. 8, TSN, September 9, 1992; p. 7, TSN, February 2, 1993; p. 8, TSN, March 1, 1993; pp. 6-7, TSN March 8, 1993) Appellant then aimed his gun at Joselito but missed. (p. 12, TSN, December 10, 1991) May was brought to the Eastern Pangasinan District Hospital in Tayug, Pangasinan where she was given first aid treatment. (p. 10, TSN, February 2, 1993) Upon the advice of a doctor, the victim was brought to a hospital in Dagupan City. (Ibid.) May, however, expired on the way thereto. (Ibid.) Shortly after the shooting incident, appellant went back to his mother's house before proceeding to the police station of San Quintin, Pangasinan where he surrendered himself together with his service firearm. (p. 4, TSN, April 29, 1993; p. 4, TSN, June 14, 1993; p. 7, TSN, June 14, 1993) Held: What militates heavily against accusedappellant's pretense is the concocted tale to the effect that an unnamed assailant fired the gun but the bullet missed the brother of accusedappellant as he was sitting on top of the fallen Jose Belmonte tsn, March 23, 1993, p. 22), and that instead, the bullet penetrated the back of the head of the victim in a straight trajectory while the latter was walking on the earthen dike. Indeed, it is absurd to suppose that a bullet fired by an assailant from a standing position directed downwards against the so-called intended victim, such as accused-appellants brother on the ground, would, against the law or gravity, change course from its groundward trajectory and instead, suddenly ascend after missing the intended victim, and hit the back of the head of the victim who was at an elevated position. The crime committed by accused-appellant is, therefore, homicide and not murder. The penalty

for homicide, under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, is reclusion temporal. There being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the penalty imposable is reclusion temporal in its medium period; and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty that should be imposed upon accused-appellant is an indeterminate sentence within the range of prision mayor, as minimum, and reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED, and accused-appellant is hereby found guilty of HOMICIDE and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In all other respects, he appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. G.R. Nos. 105199-200 March 28, 1994 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. JESUS DEUNIDA Y ENRIQUEZ, accusedappellant. The undersigned accuses JESUS DEUNIDA Y ENRIQUEZ of violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, committed as follows: That on or about December 31, 1990, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control the following, to wit: one (1) caliber .38 revolver (Paltik) marked Smith and Wesson, without first having secured the necessary license or permit therefor from the corresponding authorities, which described firearm was used by the accused in the commission of the crime of homicide. 18 In its Decision promulgated on 3 April 1992, the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "qualified violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866" and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the deceased the amount of P50,000.00 by way of actual damages and P5,000.00 by way of indemnity. On 21 April 1992, the accused filed his notice of 21 appeal. Held: After a careful review and consideration of the records, the evidence, and the arguments of the parties, we find the appeal to be without merit.

In the first place, having pleaded self-defense, the accused necessarily admitted having shot and killed the victim with an unlicensed firearm (Exhibit "P"). It was then incumbent upon him, to avoid criminal liability, to prove that justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if that were weak it could not be disbelieved after he had admitted the killing. The accused failed to discharge the burden which was shifted to him by his plea of self-defense. He was not able to show unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The allegation that the testimonies of Belen Fortes and Cpl. Renon are not credible does not convince us. The trial court gave them full faith and credit thus: More, the Court belabored to monitor and keenly observe the conduct and demeanor of Belen Fortes and Cpl. Meneleo Renon when they testified before the Court, and the Court is fully convinced, without equivocation that they testified before the Court spontaneously, in a candid and straightforward manner, their testimonies bereft of tell-tale signs and the affectations and artificialities of perjured or 34 rehearsed witnesses. Finally, his own version of how the shooting took place further befuddled his belated claim that the victim himself pressed the trigger of the gun, thereby suggesting that the latter accidentally fired the gun and killed himself. This is belied by the physical evidence showing that the victim was shot from behind at a distance since there were no contusions or gunpowder burns on the skin at the point of entry of the bullet. The 39 demonstration made by the accused in court further showed that it was physically impossible for the victim to have shot himself, if indeed he was positioned in the manner demonstrated. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered AFFIRMING, with the above modification consisting of the deletion of the awards for actual and moral damages, the challenged amended Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 45 dated 10 April 1992, in Criminal Case No. 91-95987.