ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 123951 January 10, 2000 - ROMEO RANOLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1360 January 18, 2000 - ELISEO SOREÑO v. RHODERICK MAXINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114683 January 18, 2000 - JESUS C. OCAMPO v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118441-42 January 18, 2000 - ARMANDO JOSE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119594 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENZON ONG

  • G.R. No. 125994 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ANDALES

  • G.R. No. 127135 January 18, 2000 - EASTERN ASSURANCE AND SURETY CORP. (EASCO) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129846 January 18, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130944 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALIB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131675 January 18, 2000 - PEDRO C. LAMEYRA v. GEORGE S. PANGILINAN

  • G.R. No. 132378 January 18, 2000 - ROGELIO JUAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 132767 January 18, 2000 - PHIL. VETERANS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134854 January 18, 2000 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO, ET AL. v. EDUARDO F. FIGUERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139465 January 18, 2000 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. RALPH C. LANTION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1245 January 19, 2000 - ANTONIO YU-ASENSI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-97-1129 January 19, 2000 - FLAVIANO B. CORTES v. FELINO BANGALAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1513 January 19, 2000 - ALFREDO B. ENOJAS v. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT

  • G.R. No. 107320 January 19, 2000 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113666-68 January 19, 2000 - GOLDEN DONUTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114761 January 19, 2000 - ALEMAR’S SIBAL & SONS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119217 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL S. LUCBAN

  • G.R. No. 122104 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO ORBITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122297-98 January 19, 2000 - CRESCENTE Y. LLORENTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122739 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. PANTORILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123655 January 19, 2000 - ANGEL BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123183 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN SISON

  • G.R. No. 126516 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SHIRLEY ALAO

  • G.R. No. 127572 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR VILLAR

  • G.R. No. 129072 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ABUBU

  • G.R. No. 130957 January 19, 2000 - VH MANUFACTURING v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132152 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO ADRALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132248 January 19, 2000 - ERLINDA C. PEFIANCO v. MARIA LUISA C. MORAL

  • G.R. No. 132657 January 19, 2000 - WILLIAM DIU, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR IBAJAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132779-82 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONATO BERNALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 134003 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERT NAGUM

  • G.R. No. 134329 January 19, 2000 - VERONA PADA-KILARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134535 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MAGNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137560 January 19, 2000 - MARIA G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4749 January 20, 2000 - SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-00-1241 January 20, 2000 - NAPOLEON S. VALENZUELA v. REYNALDO B. BELLOSILLO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1242 January 20, 2000 - DANIEL DUMO, ET AL. v. ROMEO V. PEREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1522 January 20, 2000 - ROMULO SJ TOLENTINO v. POLICARPIO S. CAMANO

  • G.R. No. 76371 January 20, 2000 - MARIANO TURQUESA, ET AL. v. ROSARIO VALERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87134 January 20, 2000 - PHIL. REGISTERED ELECTRICAL PRACTITIONERS, ET AL. v. JULIO FRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100718-19 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106282 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUINCIANO RENDOQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108067 January 20, 2000 - CYANAMID PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109376 January 20, 2000 - PANFILO O. DOMINGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110807 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALD T. NARVASA

  • G.R. No. 110929 January 20, 2000 - ABELARDO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119652 & A.M. No. P-00-1358 January 20, 2000 - VENTURA O. DUCAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123860 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN NAAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125451 January 20, 2000 - MARCIANA MUÑOZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126151 January 20, 2000 - MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. SERGIO D. MABUNAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128887 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. EDGARDO AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 130713 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL FLORES

  • G.R. No. 130986 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR PAILANCO

  • G.R. No. 131512 January 20, 2000 - LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE [LTO] v. CITY OF BUTUAN

  • G.R. No. 132368 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACITO GARCES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 133775 January 20, 2000 - FIDEL DABUCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131894-98 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. JESUS DOCENA

  • G.R. No. 134167 January 20, 2000 - NASSER IMMAM v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125965 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO GOZANO

  • G.R. No. 133477 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN RAFALES

  • G.R. No. 135904 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN TAN

  • G.R. Nos. 89591-96 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 100518 January 24, 2000 - ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU), ET AL. v. OSCAR N. ABELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101932 January 24, 2000 - FRANCISCO H. ESCAÑO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111285 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE VALLA

  • G.R. No. 116066 January 24, 2000 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124715 January 24, 2000 - RUFINA LUY LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125031 January 24, 2000 - PERMEX INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129693 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY CORTES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1525 January 25, 2000 - MARTIN D. PANTALEON v. TEOFILO L. GUADIZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. 80129 January 25, 2000 - GERARDO RUPA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 102706 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON LUMILAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107427 January 25, 2000 - JAMES R. BRACEWELL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113518 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN ARLEE

  • G.R. No. 113684 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO GALLARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116332 January 25, 2000 - BAYNE ADJUSTERS AND SURVEYORS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119595 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVITO BARONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120267 January 25, 2000 - CLARA ESPIRITU BORLONGAN, ET AL. v. CONSUELO MADRIDEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121439 January 25, 2000 - AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (AKELCO) v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129246 January 25, 2000 - GREENFIELD REALTY CORP., ET AL. v. LORETO CARDAMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131633-34 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIANO ENOLVA

  • G.R. No. 133132 January 25, 2000 - ALEXIS C. CANONIZADO, ET AL. v. ALEXANDER P. AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135874 January 25, 2000 - SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-12-192-MTC January 26, 2000 - HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER ISSUED BY ACTING JUDGE ANICETO L. MADRONIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1524 January 26, 2000 - LUCIA F. LAYOLA v. BASILIO R. GABO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 107395 January 26, 2000 - TOURIST DUTY FREE SHOPS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126115 January 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BALGOS

  • G.R. No. 131374 January 26, 2000 - ABBOTT LABORATORIES PHIL. v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133842 January 26, 2000 - FEDERICO S. SANDOVAL v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133969 January 26, 2000 - NEMESIO GARCIA v. NICOLAS JOMOUAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102961-62, 107625 & 108759 January 27, 2000 - JESUS P. LIAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117040 January 27, 2000 - RUBEN SERRANO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130843 January 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOILO BORROMEO

  • Adm. Case No. 1474 January 28, 2000 - CRISTINO G. CALUB v. ABRAHAM SULLER

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1246 January 28, 2000 - HEIRS OF JUAN and NATIVIDAD GERMINANDA v. RICARDO SALVANERA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211 January 28, 2000 - ZENAIDA S. BESO v. JUAN DAGUMAN

  • A.M. No. P-93-985 January 28, 2000 - MARTA BUCATCAT v. EDGAR BUCATCAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112177 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO ZUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112329 January 28, 2000 - VIRGINIA A. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115824 January 28, 2000 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125279 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS TANAIL

  • G.R. No. 124129 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BRIGILDO

  • G.R. Nos. 124384-86 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMENCIANO "OMENG" RICAFRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125671 January 28, 2000 - CONDO SUITE CLUB TRAVEL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000 - JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG) v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 126802 January 28, 2000 - ROBERTO G. ALARCON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127568 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO BACULE

  • G.R. Nos. 129756-58 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN DEEN ESCAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131520 January 28, 2000 - ESTELITA AGUIRRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131778 January 28, 2000 - HERMAN TIU LAUREL v. PRESIDING JUDGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132138 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ROMEO LLAMO

  • G.R. No. 133486 January 28, 2000 - ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 133987 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. 136805 January 28, 2000 - DIESEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. v. JOLLIBEE FOODS CORP.

  • G.R. No. 137537 January 28, 2000 - SMI DEVT. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137718 January 28, 2000 - REYNALDO O. MALONZO, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139545 January 28, 2000 - MAIMONA H. N. M. S. DIANGKA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1226 January 31, 2000 - GLORIA LUCAS v. AMELIA A. FABROS

  • G.R. Nos. 88521-22 & 89366-67 January 31, 2000 - HEIRS OF EULALIO RAGUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105827 January 31, 2000 - J.L. BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112139 January 31, 2000 - LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL DEVT. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115045 January 31, 2000 - UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS SERVICES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116729 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON LERIO

  • G.R. No. 120706 January 31, 2000 - RODRIGO CONCEPCION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123094 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO PAGLINAWAN

  • G.R. No. 125440 January 31, 2000 - GENERAL BANK AND TRUST CO., ET AL. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127797 January 31, 2000 - ALEJANDRO MILLENA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128536 January 31, 2000 - ROQUE G. GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128607 January 31, 2000 - ALFREDO MALLARI SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129071 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MILLIAM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129505 & 133359 January 31, 2000 - OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II v. PACITA DE LOS REYES PHILLIPS

  • G.R. No. 130104 January 31, 2000 - ELIZABETH SUBLAY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130666 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO JOSE

  • G.R. No. 134437 January 31, 2000 - NATIONAL STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139758 January 31, 2000 - LUCIEN TRAN VAN NGHIA v. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 132152   January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO ADRALES, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 132152. January 19, 2000.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EUGENIO ADRALES and JESSIE PANAO, Accused-Appellants.

    D E C I S I O N


    VITUG, J.:


    The case before the Court calls for an automatic review of the decision, dated 09 July 1997, of the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Carigara, Leyte, Branch 13, in Criminal Case No. 2512, convicting Jessie Panao and Eugenio Adrales of the crime of murder and sentencing each of them to the penalty of death.

    On 18 March 1996, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Cesar Merin filed with the Carigara RTC an INFORMATION charging Eugenio Adrales and Jessie Panao with murder, as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    "That on or about the 25th day of January, 1996, in the municipality of Tuñga, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with deliberate intent, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one MANUEL ARIZO with a sharp pointed weapon (sundangay) which the accused have provided themselves for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon the latter the following wounds, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Stab wound, 3.5 cm., vertical at level 9th ICS PAL (R) penetrating, thorace-abdominal (R) with massive hemothorax; penetrating (R) lobe of liver thru and thru towards bed of gallbladder with perforation of gall bladder thru and thru penetrating transverse colon M/3 thru and thru.

    "Operation: E/L, perihepatic packing (lateral & intrahepatic) Pringles maneuver, cholecystectomy, exteriorization of injured colonic segment. Peritoneal drain.

    which wounds caused the death of said Manuel Arizo.

    "CONTRARY TO LAW." 1

    Upon arraignment, both accused entered a plea of NOT GUILTY. Trial on the merits ensued.

    The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimony of eyewitness Jovencio Briones, as well as of the victim’s spouse Salvacion Arizo, and of the arresting officer SPO1 Hector Dincol.

    At about eight o’clock in the evening of 25 January 1996, the two accused, Eugenio Adrales and Jessie Panao, evidently after having had too much to drink, were strolling down the road in Brgy. San Pedro, Tuñga, Leyte, challenging anybody to a fight. Curious at the noise being created by the duo, Jovencio Briones looked out to investigate. He saw Adrales and Panao walking towards the direction of the residence of Manuel Arizo. Briones followed at a distance. Adrales and Panao loudly called out to Manuel inviting him to have a drink with them. Manuel refused but the two persisted until eventually Manuel opened the door of his house. Adrales and Panao insisted that Manuel come out. As soon as the latter stepped out, Jessie Panao pulled Manuel while Adrales forthwith stabbed Manuel with a small bolo hitting him on the right side of his back. Panao pushed Manuel. Thrown to the wall, Manuel fell to the ground face down. Panao unsheathed his bolo to inflict a second blow on Manuel but he was forestalled by the shout for help of Salvacion Arizo. Briones, who had witnessed the entire episode, approached the fallen victim and, seeing Manuel to be still alive, lifted him up and brought him to the side of the road.

    Responding neighbors helped bring Manuel to the Bethany Hospital. He was later transferred to the Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center ("EVRMC"). Manuel was unconscious when Salvacion saw him the following morning of 26 January 1996. Manuel never recovered and eventually died the next day (27 January 1996).

    SPO1 Hector Dincol testified that the police had responded to the criminal incident right after it was reported to them on the night of 25 January 1996. The investigation led to the arrest of Panao and Adrales that same evening.

    The defense presented the two accused at the witness stand. Its version of the incident was that Panao and Adrales, together with Manuel, went home from a drinking spree held in the house of one Lito Arintok who had earlier hired them to do some farmwork. Manuel invited Panao and Adrales to drop by his house for another round of drink. Manuel asked Panao for some money to buy tuba but Panao refused and started to leave. Infuriated, Manuel caught up with Panao and at once boxed and kicked him. Panao did not retaliate and attempted to flee but he was chased by Arizo. Fearing that Manuel might kill Panao, Adrales followed, overtook Manuel and stabbed the latter. Eugenio Adrales went home where he was arrested later that same evening.

    The court a quo saw the case for the prosecution. Stating firstly the factual and legal bases for its decision, the trial court finally adjudged:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court finds the accused JESSIE PANAO and EUGENIO ADRALES GUILTY of the crime of MURDER and hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos without, however, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

    "SO ORDERED." 2

    This Court is fully convinced that the trial court did not conclude wrongly in finding accused-appellants guilty of murder. The testimony of the two eyewitnesses, Salvacion Arizo and Jovencio Briones, to the commission of the crime, is impressive and hardly suffers from serious flaws.

    SALVACION ARIZO, the surviving spouse of the deceased victim, testified thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Q And who are those?

    "A Jessie Panao and Eugenio Adrales.

    "Q You are referring to the two (2) accused in this case?

    "A Yes, sir.

    "Q Now, you mentioned that they were approaching while shouting did they in fact reach your house?chanrobles.com : virtual law library

    "A Yes, sir just very near our door.

    "Q When the two (2) accused were already near your door, what happened next?

    "A They kept on calling my husband.

    "Q Will you please tell the honorable the exact words?

    "A Manuel, Manuel go out from your house, let’s have a drink.

    "Q And what was the reaction of your husband if any?

    "A He stood up.

    "Q When your husband stood up, what did he do?

    "A I told him not to go with them.

    "Q Now, when you told your husband, not to go with them, then what did your husband do if any?

    "A They kept on shouting Manuel to go with them.

    "Q When you said they, you are referring to the accused?

    "A Yes, sir.

    "Q And after that, what did your husband do?

    "A He went down.

    "Q From the place where you were to the ground, how high is that?

    "A Two (2) stairs [steps] distance.

    "Q Where did he go when your husband went down?

    "A To the ground.

    "Q How about you, where did you go?

    "A I called him.

    "Q When you said on the ground, is it inside your house or outside your house?

    "A Still inside our house.

    "Q When you were already on the ground inside your house, where did your husband go next?

    "A Because they kept on shouting my husband to go with them, my husband opened the door and just let his head out of the door.

    "Q So your husband partially opened the door to let his head out?

    "A Yes, sir.

    "Q When the head of your husband was already out of the door, what next happened if any?

    "A My husband told them, I will not go with you I will go to sleep.

    "Q What was the response coming from the two (2) accused?

    "A They insisted my husband to go with them.

    "Q Between the two (2) accused who is really persistent?

    "A It was Jessie Panao, and Eugenio Adrales was helping.

    "Q Now, what happened next if any?

    "A My husband opened widely the door.

    "Q At that time when your husband opened the door so wide where were you at that time?

    "A I was at the back of my husband.

    "Q At that time was there any light in your house?

    "A There was a light upstairs and also downstairs.

    "Q What did you see, if any, when your husband opened the door?

    "A Eugenio Adrales peeped in through the door.

    "Q At that time where was Jessie Panao?

    "A He was infront of my husband.

    "Q When your husband opened the door and was already infront of Jessie Panao, what happened next if any?

    "A My husband went out from our house by the door.

    "Q When your husband went out from the door, what happened next if any?

    "A Jessie Panao held my husband on the act of pulling.

    "Q When Jessie Panao held your husband and also by pulling what happened next if any?

    "A Eugenio Adrales stabbed my husband.

    "Q What did Eugenio Adrales used in stabbing your husband?

    "A Small bolo.

    "Q When this small bolo will be shown to you, will you recognize it?

    "A I can recognize it.

    "Q When your husband was stabbed by Eugenio Adrales was your husband hit?

    "A Yes, sir.

    "Q In what part of his body?

    "A At the right side of his back.

    "Q Now, after your husband was stabbed by Eugenio Adrales what happened next if any?

    "A Jessie Panao pushed my husband and hit at the wall and fell down to the ground.

    "Q What was the position of your husband when he fell down to the ground?

    "A Face down.

    "Q When your husband was lying on the ground faced down, what happened next if any?

    "A Jessie Panao draw his long bolo and was about to hack my husband.

    "Q Did Jessie Panao hacked your husband?

    "A No, sir.

    "Q Why, what was the reason that he was not able to hack your husband?

    "A Because I shouted. Don’t hack my husband and Help me.

    "Q After you shout those words, what happened next if any?

    "A They ran away.

    "Q When this two (2) accused ran away, what did you do if any?

    "A I drew near to my husband and I saw that he was bleeding.

    "Q What happened next when you draw near to your husband who was already bleeding?

    "A I cried for help and Jovencio Briones approached and some of the neighbors approach us.

    "Q Can you name these people who approached after you called for help?

    "A Basilia, Martinito and Isidro." 3

    The other eyewitness to the incident, JOVENCIO BRIONES, likewise gave a credible testimony. His declaration at the witness stand:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Q Will you please tell the Honorable Court the words used in calling Manuel Arizo?

    "A Manuel, Manuel, come and let us drink some more.

    "Q Was there any response coming from Manuel Arizo?

    "A Yes, sir.

    "Q What was the response if any?

    "A He did not want to go with them to drink.

    "Q While these two accused were calling the name of Manuel Arizo and Manuel Arizo responded that he will not go with them what did you do then?

    "A While they were calling the name of Manuel Arizo I was approaching them.

    "Q What did they do next considering that Manuel Arizo did not want to go with them?

    "A When they were calling Manuel Arizo, Manuel Arizo opened the door of his house.

    "Q When Manuel Arizo opened the door of his house what happened?

    "A When Manuel Arizo opened the door he let his head out of the door and again insisted that he will not go with them.

    "Q What happened next after Manuel Arizo opened the door and told them that he will not go with them?

    "A They were insisting to come and go with them. (Witness is making a demonstration by trying to move in order to let Manuel Arizo out).

    "Q Who particularly was doing that move of that hand?

    "A Jesse Panao.

    "Q What did Manuel Arizo do?

    "A While they were insisting Manuel Arizo to come out from his house Manuel Arizo indeed came out of the door.

    "Q When Manuel Arizo came out of the door where was Jesse Panao?

    "A At the front of Manuel Arizo.

    "Q How about the other accused Adrales where was he?

    "A He was at the left side of Manuel Arizo beside the door.

    "Q What happened next after Manuel Arizo opened the door and came out?

    "A Jesse Panao heard Manuel Arizo and pulled him towards him (Witness is demonstrating by using his two hands as a gesture that Jesse Panao was using his two hands to pull Arizo).

    "Q What part of the body of Manuel Arizo was held by Jesse Panao?

    "A (Witness is demonstrating by holding his two arms.)

    "Q What happened after Jesse Panao held and pushed towards him, Manuel Arizo?

    "A That was already the time that Manuel Arizo was stabbed.

    "Q Who particularly stabbed Manuel Arizo?

    "A Eugenio Adrales.

    "Q Which part of the body of Manuel Arizo was stabbed?

    "A At the back.

    "Q Which hand was used by Eugenio Adrales in stabbing the back of Manuel Arizo?chanrobles.com : virtual law library

    "A His right hand.

    "Q Did you see the instrument used in stabbing Manuel Arizo?

    "A Yes, sir.

    "Q About how long was that instrument?

    "A More or less nine inches.

    "Q Including the handle?

    "A Yes, sir.

    "Q After Eugenio Adrales stabbed the back of Manuel Arizo what happened next if any?

    "A Jesse Panao pushed Manuel Arizo.

    "Q What happened to Manuel Arizo when he was pushed by Jesse Panao?

    "A Manuel Arizo after he was pushed by Jesse Panao was thrown to the wall and fell down.

    "Q What was the position of Manuel Arizo when he fell to the ground?

    "A After he was pushed and fell down to ground his position was that his face was facing to the ground.

    "Q What happened next after Manuel Arizo fell down his face touching the ground?

    "A After Manuel Arizo fell to the ground Jesse Panao again pulled his bolo.

    "Q What did he do with that bolo after he unsheathed that?

    "A He was in the act of hacking Manuel Arizo.

    "Q Did he in fact deliver a hacking blow to Manuel Arizo?

    "A No, sir.

    "Q What was the reason why he did not hack?

    "A Because the wife shouted.

    "Q The wife of whom are your referring?

    "A The wife of Manuel Arizo.

    "Q Where was she at that time when Manuel Arizo was already sprawled to the ground?

    "A She was near by the door inside their house.

    "Q Will you please tell the Court the shout made by the wife of Manuel Arizo?

    "A The wife of Manuel Arizo shouted, don’t, don’t, help, help.

    "Q What happened next after this wife of Manuel Arizo shouted or asked for help what happened?

    "A While she was shouting they ran.

    "Q To what direction did the two accused run?

    "A On the way to return to the house of Jesse Panao.

    "Q About you what did you do after the two accused ran?

    "A When the two accused ran away I approached the body of Manuel Arizo.

    "Q What did you do with Manuel Arizo when you approached him?

    "A I lifted him up.

    "Q At that time was he still alive?

    "A Yes, sir.

    "Q What happened when you picked him up?

    "A We brought him to the side of the road.

    "Q When you said ‘we’ whom are you referring to?

    "A Our neighbor, Martinito Bodo and my wife." 4

    Accused-appellant Eugenio Adrales admitted in his testimony before the trial court that he had stabbed Manuel Arizo although, he said, it was in defense of Jessie Panao. This admission charged him with proving any claim for an extenuating circumstance. Given the facts established by the prosecution, particularly the narration by the eyewitnesses on how the killing was done, vis-a-vis the testimony of accused-appellants, the trial court came out with the finding that the defense version was but a "feeble concoction" on their part in order to deflate the strong indication of a conspiratorial attack on the victim.

    The Court sees no reason to disturb that evaluation made by the court a quo. In the matter of appreciating testimonial evidence and assigning values to the declaration of different witnesses, this Court has invariably accorded great respect to the assessment of the trial judge as being the person who is best equipped to make such an estimation.

    The two accused, on the basis of records under review, clearly acted in coordination with one another in committing the crime. Panao pulled the victim towards him while Adrales promptly delivered the fatal stab. Panao then pushed the victim against a wall and pulled out a bolo to give another blow on the hapless Manuel had it not been for the latter’s wife, Salvacion, who started to shout for help compelling the malefactors to hastily depart. Proof of previous agreement among the malefactors to commit the crime would be unnecessary to establish conspiracy when by their overt acts it could be deduced that they conducted themselves in concert with one another in pursuing their unlawful design. 5

    The trial court qualified the killing to murder because of the presence of treachery; it explained:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "As observed by the court, the actual, physical facts flatly contradict the whole theory advanced by the defense. The nature, character, location and extent of the wound as testified to by the prosecution witness dearly show that the victim was struck from behind by accused Eugenio Adrales while being held by accused Jessie Panao. Indubitably, therefore, the stab wound sustained by the victim at his back was caused by no other than the physical acts of the two accused conspiring and confederating in the commission of the crime. Right from the start, the innocent victim, Manuel Arizo, never thought that he would be a victim of a criminal design. The urge to answer the call of the two accused while he was already resting in bed forced him to go out of his house. The victim never thinking that on that very night something fatal will happen to him.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

    "As [so] well noted, the two accused have prepared themselves for the criminal assault depriving the victim, Manuel Arizo, [of] the right to defend himself. The treacherous affront resulting in the death of the victim was so designed by the two accused to protect themselves worsened by the fact that it was nighttime and the attack was so sudden, placing the victim at their mercy. Stabbed once as shown by the certificate of death, the cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest second to massive blood loss second to penetrating thorace abdominal stab wound. When the victim was pushed by accused Jessie Panao after he was stabbed and fell to the ground, the thought of a consummated crime was entertained by the accused, causing them to run from the scene. The wife of the victim, Salvacion Arizo, who was witnessing the act of the accused could not do anything but shout for assistance from the neighbors. Treachery in the instant case [was] present." 6

    Indeed, treachery 7 attended the commission of the killing. The stabbing of Manuel came without warning. It was executed in a most deliberate and unexpected manner on a hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim that afforded him no real chance to resist, defend himself or escape. 8 The victim was struck from behind. 9 Even a frontal attack, in fact, could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim 10 who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. 11

    Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the defense that the trial court has erred in imposing the death penalty. Republic Act No. 7659 imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the crime of murder, both indivisible in character. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides that when a law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, and "there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied." 12

    The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, although alleged in the information, has not been adequately shown. The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the crime is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon a resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. In order to aptly appreciate treachery, it is necessary to prove (a) the time when the offender has determined to commit the crime, (b) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination and (c) an interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime enough to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The record contains nothing to indicate that the two accused, prior to the killing, did resolve to commit the crime as a result of meditation, calculation or reflection.

    No aggravating circumstance having been established, the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua than the maximum prescribed by law should be applied. 13

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Carigara, Leyte, Branch 13 in Criminal Case No. 2512 convicting the two accused of the crime of MURDER is AFFIRMED but the penalty imposed by it is MODIFIED by reducing it to reclusion perpetua. In all its other aspects, the decision appealed from stands.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Records, p. 1.

    2. Records, p. 59.

    3. TSN, 11 September 1996, pp. 6-10.

    4. TSN, 09 September 1996, pp. 5-8.

    5. People v. Silong, 232 SCRA 487; People v. Amaguin, 229 SCRA 166.

    6. Records, pp. 57-58.

    7. There is treachery when the offender commits the killing by employing means, methods or forms to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make (Article 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code).

    8. People v. Landicho, 258 SCRA 1.

    9. People v. Patrolla, Jr., 254 SCRA 467; People v. Paragua, 257 SCRA 118; People v. Paynor, 261 SCRA 615; People v. Tuson, 261 SCRA 711; People v. de Manuel, 263 SCRA 49.

    10. People v. Tampon, 258 SCRA 115; People v. De Manuel, 263 SCRA 49.

    11. People v. Miranday, 242 SCRA 620.

    12. Article 63, 2nd paragraph, no. 2.

    13. Article 63, Revised Penal Code.

    G.R. No. 132152   January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO ADRALES, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED