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
 

   
October-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137841 October 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 117512 October 2, 2001 - REBECCA ALA-MARTIN v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN

  • G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001 - RUBY L. TSAI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS EVER TEXTILE MILLS

  • G.R. No. 124037 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 126592 October 2, 2001 - ROMEO G. DAVID v. JUDGE TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129900 October 2, 2001 - JANE CARAS y SOLITARIO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133000 October 2, 2001 - PATRICIA NATCHER petitioner v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HEIRS OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO-LETICIA DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 133895 October 2, 2001 - ZENAIDA M. SANTOS v. CALIXTO SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135522-23 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMORSOLO G. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 137777 October 2, 2001 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 - GRACE J. GARCIA v. REDERICK A. RECIO

  • G.R. No. 138929 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. 139050 October 2, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and AGFHA

  • G.R. No. 142877 October 2, 2001 - JINKIE CHRISTIE A. DE JESUS and JACQUELINE A. DE JESUS v. THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN GAMBOA DIZON

  • G.R. No. 125081 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REMEDIOS PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 128195 October 3, 2001 - ELIZABETH LEE and PACITA YULEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. Nos. 128514 & 143856-61 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NILO LEONES

  • G.R. Nos. 142602-05 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA

  • A.M. No. 01-6-192-MCTC October 5, 2001 - Request To Designate Another Judge To Try And Decide Criminal Case No. 3713

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1610 October 5, 2001 - ATTY. EDGAR H. TALINGDAN v. JUDGE HENEDINO P. EDUARTE

  • G.R. No. 124498 October 5, 2001 - EDDIE B. SABANDAL v. HON. FELIPE S. TONGCO Presiding Judge

  • G.R. No. 127441 October 5, 2001 - DOROTEO TOBES @ DOTING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 130499 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAMFILO QUIMSON @ "NOEL QUIMSON

  • G.R. No. 130962 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE REAPOR y SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 131040 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA

  • G.R. No. 132044 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y BINAY

  • G.R. No. 132718 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE CASTILLON III and JOHN DOE

  • G.R. Nos. 135452-53 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO M. ALCOREZA

  • G.R. No. 139760 October 5, 2001 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 144189 October 5, 2001 - R & M GENERAL MERCHANDISE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121948 October 8, 2001 - PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. BENEDICTO FABURADA

  • G.R. No. 123075 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO L. NUELAN

  • G.R. No. 129926 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLE M. ZATE

  • G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT BAULITE and LIBERATO BAULITE

  • G.R. No. 138941 October 8, 2001 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY v. TANTUCO ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 141297 October 8, 2001 - DOMINGO R. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Twelfth Division) and PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • A.M. No. 01-9-246-MCTC October 9, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON

  • G.R. No. 138886 October 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SP01 WILFREDO LEAÑO SP01 FERDINAND MARZAN SPO1 RUBEN B. AGUSTIN SP02 RODEL T. MADERAL * SP02 ALEXANDER S. MICU and SP04 EMILIO M. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 141182 October 9, 2001 - HEIRS OF PEDRO CUETO Represented by ASUNCION CUETO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER FIRST DIVISION) and CONSOLACION COMPUESTO

  • A.M. No. 99-12-03-SC October 10, 2001 - RE: INITIAL REPORTS ON THE GRENADE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT ABOUT 6:40 A.M. ON DECEMBER 6, 1999

  • G.R. No. 129313 October 10, 2001 - SPOUSES MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA v. HON. FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge

  • G.R. Nos. 135679 & 137375 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 136258 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FELICIANO

  • A.M. No. 2001-9-SC October 11, 2001 - DOROTEO IGOY v. GILBERT SORIANO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1485 October 11, 2001 - TEOFILO C. SANTOS v. JUDGE FELICIANO V. BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. 80796 & 132885 October 11, 2001 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON

  • G.R. No. 118387 October 11, 2001 - MARCELO LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS and HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION and HON. JAIME T. HAMOY

  • G.R. Nos. 123913-14 October 11,2001

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO CALLOS

  • G.R. No. 130415 October 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALVIN YRAT y BUGAHOD and RAUL JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130562 October 11, 2001 - Brigida Conculada v. Hon. Court Of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001 - STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 122710 October 12, 2001 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS and REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION

  • G.R. Nos. 134769-71 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BATION

  • G.R. No. 137843 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO S. AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 139904 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 136470 October 16, 2001 - VENANCIO R. NAVA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 140794 October 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO T. AGLIDAY

  • A.M. No. P-00-7-323-RTJ October 17, 2001 - RE: RELEASE BY JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, RTC, BRANCH 54 MANILA, OF AN ACCUSED IN A NON-BAILABLE OFFENSE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1419 October 17, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAGDALENA G. MAGNO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 & AM RTJ-98-1411 October 17, 2001 - ATTY. CESAR B. MERIS v. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL

  • G.R. No. 124513 October 17, 2001 - ROBERTO ERQUIAGA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127540 October 17, 2001 - EUGENIO DOMINGO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127830 October 17, 2001 - MANOLET LAVIDES v. ERNESTO B. PRE

  • G.R. No. 129069 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO R. RECTO

  • G.R. No. 129236 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO G. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 129389 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEODORICO UBALDO

  • G.R. Nos. 132673-75 October 17, 200

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR C. GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. 136291 October 17, 2001 - LETICIA M. MAGSINO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 136869 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DENNIS MAZO

  • G.R. No. 141673 October 17, 2001 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY/AUGUSTO B. SUNICO v. NLRC (Third Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142726 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 143190 October 17, 2001 - ANTONIO P. BELICENA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

  • G.R. No. 143990 October 17, 2001 - MARIA L. ANIDO v. FILOMENO NEGADO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 121039-45 October 18, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAYOR ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 132869 October 18, 2001 - GREGORIO DE VERA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143486 October 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA

  • G.R. No. 144735 October 18, 2001 - YU BUN GUAN v. ELVIRA ONG

  • G.R. No. 116285 October 19, 2001 - ANTONIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS and the .C.C.P

  • G.R. Nos. 121201-02 October 19, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee v. GIO CONCORCIO @ JUN

  • G.R. No. 129995 October 19, 2001 - THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN v. HON. PEDRO VILLAFUERTE

  • G.R. No. 130730 October 19, 2001 - HERNANDO GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON and ZENAIDA FAUSTINO

  • G.R. No. 133002 October 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTOY GALLO @ PALALAM

  • G.R. No. 137904 October 19, 2001 - PURIFICACION M. VDA. DE URBANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS)

  • A.M. No. 99-12-497-RTC October 23, 2001 - REQUEST OF JUDGE FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • G.R. No. 121267 October 23, 2001 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124036 October 23, 2001 - FIDELINO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124295 October 23, 2001 - JUDGE RENATO A. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

  • G.R. No. 125193 October 23, 2001 - MANUEL BARTOCILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 130846 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO PAMILAR y REVOLIO

  • G.R. No. 131841 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN VILLARMOSA

  • G.R. No. 132373 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TIRSO ARCAY @ "TISOY" and TEODORO CLEMEN @ "BOY

  • G.R. No. 134740 October 23, 2001 - IRENE V. CRUZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 135481 October 23, 2001 - LIGAYA S. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136105 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO PAREDES y SAUQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 136337 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NELSON CABUNTOG

  • G.R. No. 139114 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMAN LACAP Y CAILLES

  • G.R. No. 139274 October 23, 2001 - QUEZON PROVINCE v. HON. ABELIO M. MARTE

  • G.R. No. 139329 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO MAKILANG

  • G.R. Nos. 140934-35 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONDE RAPISORA y ESTRADA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1634 October 25, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 102367 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABUNDIO ALBARIDO and BENEDICTO IGDOY

  • G.R. No. 126359 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CARLITO OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 127465 October 25, 2001 - SPOUSES NICETAS DELOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 133102 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DINDO AMOGIS y CRINCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 134449-50 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ y PALMA

  • G.R. No. 135813 October 25, 2001 - FERNANDO SANTOS v. Spouses ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES

  • G.R. No. 135822 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PIO DACARA y NACIONAL

  • G.R. Nos. 137494-95 October 25, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOTERO REYES alias "TURING"

  • G.R. Nos. 142741-43 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO MANAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-01-1474 October 26, 2001 - ANTONIO C. REYES v. JOSEFINA F. DELIM

  • G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA

  • G.R. Nos. 121492 & 124325 October 26, 2001 - BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K.H. UY

  • G.R. No. 132169 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANICO NUEVO @ "SANY

  • G.R. No. 133741-42 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LINO VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. 134802 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO Z. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 135920 October 26, 2001 - ENCARNACION ET AL. v. SEVERINA REALTY CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 140719 October 26, 2001 - NICOLAS UY DE BARON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140912 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO DIAZ Y SEVILLETA

  • G.R. No. 141540 October 26, 2001 - EDUARDO TAN v. FLORITA MUECO and ROLANDO MUECO

  • G.R. No. 143231 October 26, 2001 - ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 144237 October 26, 2001 - WINSTON C. RACOMA v. MA. ANTONIA B. F. BOMA

  • G.R. Nos. 146319 & 146342 October 26, 2001 - BENJAMIN E. CAWALING v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 146593 October 26, 2001 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 129926   October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLE M. ZATE

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 129926. October 8, 2001.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NOLE ZATE Y MATANOG, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    QUISUMBING, J.:


    On appeal is the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 40, in Criminal Case No. 95-442, finding appellant Nole Zate y Matanog guilty of murder and imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The information against him reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening more or less, on May 6, 1955, at Barangay Mapulog, Municipality of Naawan, Misamis Oriental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with intent to kill and by means of treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one CRISANTO ABABAO with the use of a knife, thereby inflicting upon him fatal injuries which caused his instantaneous death.

    CONTRARY TO and in violation of Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. 1

    On arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty. 2 But after trial on the merits, he was convicted as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, (the) court hereby finds accused Nole Zate y Matanog guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, with (sic) the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery, defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by section 6 (1) of R.A. 7659, as charged in the information and there being present voluntary surrender, without any aggravating circumstance to offset the same, hereby sentences said accused to suffer an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua with all the accessories of the law, to indemnify the surviving spouse Leonora Vda. de Ababao the sum of P27,000.00 as actual damages, representing death and burial expenses, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as standard indemnity in cases of Homicide and/or Murder (as established by existing jurisprudence) and to pay costs of suit. 3

    His conviction stemmed mainly from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Leonora Vda. de Ababao, Leo Gaid, PO3 Manuel Cabanilla, Dr. Jaime Roa, and Mark Anester Matanog. These witnesses established the following facts of the case according to the prosecution’s version.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    At around 7:00 o’clock P.M., May 6, 1995, witness Leo Gaid, with Oscar Gaid, Emer Ratunil, Mark Anester Matanog, and appellant Nole Zate were in a waiting shed in Purok I, Mapulog, Naawan, Misamis Oriental. There were three benches inside the waiting shed. Two benches faced each other with one end towards the entrance. A third bench was between the first two directly facing the entrance.

    Leo, Oscar, Emer, and appellant were drinking beer when the victim, Crisanto Ababao, arrived. Without uttering a word, Crisanto went directly to the third bench and laid down on his right side towards the direction of the waiting shed’s entrance. Crisanto’s feet were near appellant, while his head was beside Leo. Appellant and Leo, who were two meters away, were facing each other.

    About two minutes after Crisanto took his position on the bench, appellant suddenly stood up. Then without warning he stabbed Crisanto twice, hitting the latter on the left breast and below the left ribcage. Immediately, appellant fled southward, weapon in hand, leaving Crisanto dead and the others stunned by the startling occurrence. The event was so sudden that Leo and his companions failed to intercede and prevent the incident from happening. Upon seeing Crisanto’s body fall from the bench, Leo shouted for help. 4

    Thirty minutes later, Naawan Police Station Commander Gamaliel Dampal arrived at the crime scene with his policemen, one of whom was PO3 Cabanilla. They conducted a spot investigation, which pointed to appellant Nole Zate as the author of Crisanto’s untimely death. The police also found that there was no altercation between the victim and appellant before the stabbing incident. 5

    Crisanto’s cadaver was initially brought to the Naawan Municipal Building. However, since there were no facilities for an autopsy in Naawan, it was transferred to a funeral parlor in the Municipality of Initao where Dr. Jaime Roa, Naawan Municipal Health Officer, conducted an autopsy. Dr. Roa found the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) Incised wound 0.6 inches horizontal position 3 inches below the left breast penetrating and perforating involving the heart.

    (2) Incised wound 1 inch just below the left axilla penetrating involving the left lung.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Cause of Death:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Hemorrhage due to stab wound. 6

    Meanwhile Leonora Ababao, wife of the victim, was informed by one Eliseo Quilog of her husband’s death at 7:00 o’clock A.M., May 7, 1995. She rushed to Naawan Poblacion but was told to go to Somo Funeral Parlor in Initao. Thereafter, she brought her husband’s cadaver to the residence of her brother-in-law where it lay in state for five days. It was buried on May 11, 1995.

    During trial, Leonora informed the court that she incurred as burial and other expenses the sum of P27,000, evidenced by receipts marked as Exhibits "C" to "C-14." She added that she was deeply aggrieved and very worried since her husband, a farmer and blacksmith, was the sole breadwinner of the family. She asked for an award of P50,000 as moral damages. 7

    Expectedly, the defense presented a contrary version of the fatal incident. Appellant testified that at about 1:00 o’clock P.M., May 6, 1995, he left his residence at Sitio Digcamara, Mapulog, Naawan to notify his elder brother at the poblacion that their mother wanted their coconuts harvested. When he returned to Digcamara with his nephew Junie Zate, he was not able to go home directly because Junie requested him to have a drink at the waiting shed. While they were drinking Tanduay rhum at 4:00 o’clock P.M., Leo Gaid and Crisanto Ababao arrived. Appellant noticed that Crisanto was already drunk. Crisanto allegedly told appellant that they came from a drinking spree at another store, but since there was no more liquor for sale there, they decided to transfer to where appellant and Junie were drinking. nad

    According to appellant, he told Crisanto that he could not drink anymore since he had to work the following day. However, Crisanto insisted that appellant buy more beer, even on credit. According to appellant, Crisanto threatened that if he did not accede to the request, there would be trouble. Appellant obliged and bought five small bottles of beer and, later on, four bottles of ‘Beer Mucho’. Thereafter, Leo and Junie went their own way, leaving appellant and Crisanto in the waiting shed.

    Subsequently, appellant felt sleepy and dozed off in a crouching position with his feet on the bench. He was later awakened by a pain on his knee and discovered that Crisanto had struck him with a bamboo stick. When Crisanto was about to hit him again, he parried the attack with his left hand. Crisanto then moved to strike him once more in the forehead, but appellant timely and successfully wrestled the bamboo stick from Crisanto. Appellant threw away the stick.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    At this point, appellant said, Crisanto held appellant’s right shoulder with his left hand. Crisanto then used his right hand and raised his shirt to pull out a hunting knife tucked in his waist. When appellant saw what Crisanto was about to do, he struggled with Crisanto, then grabbed the knife from him, as appellant tried to run away.

    However, appellant added, Crisanto prevented him from leaving by holding on to the collar of his shirt and pulling him back. It was then, said appellant, that he was forced to stab the victim without knowing which part of the latter’s body he had hit. Despite the first wound inflicted upon Crisanto, the victim still refused to loosen his grip on appellant’s shoulder. Thus, appellant again stabbed Crisanto and this time, appellant set himself free. 8

    Appellant’s narration was partially corroborated by defense witness Benito Morala, who claimed that he was buying cigarettes at a nearby store when he saw the victim beating appellant with the bamboo stick. However, Benito admitted he got acquainted with appellant only in the provincial jail, where Benito was also detained on charges of illegal possession of firearms. 9

    After stabbing Crisanto, appellant said he ran and proceeded to his farm at Camaca, Digcamara, situated about one (1) kilometer away. There he stayed for the next two and a half days. Appellant added that he passed the time planning and thinking of a safe way to surrender to the authorities so that his life would not be endangered. 10 He decided to take a "trisikad" to the Naawan Police Station to give himself up. But along the way, in Barangay Tuburan, he was stopped by Vicky Madula, a member of the Civilian Volunteer Organization, who asked him who he was. Appellant readily introduced himself and, in the course of their conversation, revealed to Madula that he was on his way to surrender. Madula then sent a messenger to inform the police that appellant was in his residence. 11

    Later, Station Commander Gamaliel Dampal arrived, arrested appellant and brought him to the Naawan Police Station. A certification issued by Dampal showed that appellant voluntarily surrendered. While detained at the station, SPO1 Nashon Espino saw appellant’s wound on the knee. Appellant was then brought to Dr. Jaime Roa for treatment, but did not tell anybody about the cause of the injury. 12

    Rejecting appellant’s claim of self-defense, the trial court convicted him and, as already stated, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. He now urges us to reverse the trial court’s decision and acquit him on the ground that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I


    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REJECTING THE PLEA OF SELF-DEFENSE PUT UP BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    II


    THE TRIAL COURT MANIFESTLY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 13

    The main issue to be resolved by this Court is whether or not the lower court erred in rejecting appellant’s plea of self-defense while giving full faith and credence to the prosecution evidence.

    At the outset, we must emphasize that in criminal cases, the burden of proof belongs to the prosecution who must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the offense charged in the information. However, when the accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to the accused, such that, all elements of that justifying circumstance must be clearly and convincingly proved by him. Failing that, the accused cannot escape criminal liability; conviction will necessarily follow since he admitted that he killed or injured the victim. 14

    For appellant’s plea of self-defense to be accepted by the Court, he must prove the following requisites: 1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; 2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and 3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Without unlawful aggression on the victim’s part, there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. 15 Hence, proof of the first element is paramount.cralaw : red

    To prove the existence of unlawful aggression, appellant submits that the trial court should have believed his testimony, as corroborated by defense witness Benito Morala, that it was the victim, Crisanto Ababao, who attacked him first. Because of that attack, appellant avers that he was forced to stab Ababao in self-defense. Appellant insists that Morala’s own testimony pointing to Ababao as the aggressor should not have been ignored by the lower court since Morala’s testimony was clear, spontaneous and straightforward and, therefore, worthy of credit. In brief, appellant essentially assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses as well as the relative weight given by the trial court to their testimonies. At the same time, appellant would like this Court to give full credence to his and Morala’s version of the mortal conflict.

    With respect to the matter of credibility of witnesses, the well established rule is that in the absence of a clear showing that some fact or circumstance of weight or substance had been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied, 16 the trial judge’s assessment of the witnesses’ testimonies would not be disturbed on appeal. We have long recognized that the matter of assigning value to a declaration on the witness stand is more competently performed by a trial judge. After all, he had the front-line opportunity to personally evaluate the witnesses’ demeanor, conduct, and behavior while testifying and is in a vantage position to determine the issue of credibility. 17 Thus, if there is no significant reason to warrant reversal of the trial court’s findings, its judgment must be sustained by the reviewing or appellate court. In this case, we have carefully examined the evidence adduced by the parties but we find no compelling or convincing reason to alter the trial court’s decision.

    Firstly, we note the trial court’s observation that the location and severity of the victim’s wounds indicate that they could not have been inflicted in the manner narrated by the accused. 18 The fact that both wounds were mortal and directed at vital parts of the body indicate appellant’s determination to kill the deceased and not merely to defend himself. 19 On this matter, we find that while the deceased sustained only two wounds, each was indubitably fatal. As held by the trial court, the first thrust of the knife coupled with the victim’s intoxication would have caused the latter to loosen his grip on appellant’s shoulder. The infliction of a second but equally fatal injury was unnecessary for appellant’s self-defense, according to the trial court.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Additionally, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were found to be straightforward, credible, and believable by the trial court. Leo Gaid, a first cousin of appellant and appellant’s twelve-year-old nephew, Mark Anester Matanog, testified for the prosecution. They provided corroborating and critical eyewitness accounts of the incident. They had no reason to testify falsely against appellant, their close relative. There was no showing by the defense that they were moved by any ill motive when they testified. Consequently, the trial court did not err in giving full faith and credence to their positive declarations concerning appellant’s guilt.

    As to defense witness Benito Morala, suffice it to say his testimony is highly suspect. Morala and appellant were together at the provincial jail. Between the two of them, it was not unlikely for one to concoct a story which would absolve the other from guilt. Morala’s claimed presence at the scene of the crime was too convenient to be believed. His version of the story, jibing with that of appellant, gives rise to doubts about its spontaneity as it appeared to be rehearsed. Moreover, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, Morala merely testified on the victim’s alleged beating appellant with a bamboo stick and the latter’s stabbing the former. 20 But, he did not reveal any material information which would conclusively point to the deceased as the source of the aggression.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Under these circumstances, Morala’s statements cannot possibly defeat the declaration of the two eyewitnesses — Gaid and Matanog — who testified candidly and spontaneously that appellant killed the deceased without provocation whatsoever. On this score, the defense failed to rebut their testimony. We are convinced that there was no provocation, much less on the victim’s part that would justify appellant’s claims of self-defense.

    The trial court appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the commission of the offense. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 21 The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the part of the person being attacked. 22 In this case, evidence shows that the deceased was in fact lying down and sleeping on his side when attacked and slain by appellant. No altercation preceded the stabbing incident and, it appears the victim was not in a position to put up any defense. Thus, as alleged in the information and borne by the records, treachery qualified the killing of the deceased to murder.chanrob1es virtua1 law library

    Finally, to appellant’s credit, the trial court considered the mitigating circumstance of his voluntary surrender to the police. Although appellant was stopped by a civilian volunteer on his way to Naawan and the police picked him up at Barangay Tuburan, it is clear that appellant intentionally ventured out of hiding to give himself up to the authorities. Appellant spontaneously and unconditionally placed himself at their disposal, and saved them the time and effort attendant to a search. 23 The testimonies of Vicky Madula and the arresting officers on this point were not contradicted by the prosecution. Thus, we find that the trial court correctly imposed the minimum of the penalty prescribed by law for the crime of murder which is reclusion perpetua. We also find the damages awarded by the trial court to be warranted and fully consistent with existing jurisprudence.

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 40 in Criminal Case No. 95-442, finding appellant Nole Zate y Matanog guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua as well as to pay the victim’s widow P27,000 as actual damages, P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages, is AFFIRMED.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, p. 7.

    2. Original Records, p. 23.

    3. Supra, note 1 at 25.

    4. TSN, October 23, 1995, pp. 3-13.

    5. TSN, January 22, 1996, pp. 3-4.

    6. Supra. note 1 at 21.

    7. TSN, November 6, 1995, pp. 4-11.

    8. TSN, July 24, 1996, pp. 5-13.

    9. TSN, February 12, 1996, pp. 4-8.

    10. Supra, note 8 at 13-15.

    11. TSN, June 10, 1996, pp. 10-13.

    12. TSN, May 15, 1996, pp. 5-10.

    13. Rollo, p. 42.

    14. See People v. Patalinghug 318 SCRA 116, 133 (1999).

    15. People v. More, 321 SCRA 538, 543-544 (1999).

    16. People v. Barellano, 319 SCRA 567, 592 (1999).

    17. See People v. Alib, 322 SCRA 93, 98 (2000).

    18. Supra, note 1 at 24.

    19. See People v. Nagum, 322 SCRA 474, 479 (2000).

    20. Supra, note 1 at 93.

    21. People v. Biñas, 320 SCRA 22, 57 (1999).

    22. People v. De Guia, 280 SCRA 141, 159 (1997) citing: People v. Abapo, 239 SCRA 469, 479(1994).

    23. See People v. Baniel, 275 SCRA 472, 487 (1997) citing: People v. Galaver, 223 SCRA 310, 315 (1993) and related cases.

    G.R. No. 129926   October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLE M. ZATE


    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