People v. Vasquez : 123939 : May 28, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second
Division : Decision
[G.R. NO. 123939. May 28, 2004]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. DOMINGO
VASQUEZ y PACHECO and RAMON VASQUEZ y PACHECO, Accused.
DOMINGO VASQUEZ y PACHECO, Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before us on appeal is the Decision1 of the Regional Trial
Court of Kalookan
City, Branch 121, convicting the
appellant Domingo Vasquez y Pacheco of murder for the death of Geronimo
Espinosa and sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua;and, of attempted
homicide for which the appellant was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
The appellant and his brother Ramon Vasquez were charged with
murder and attempted murder under two Informations.The accusatory portion of each Information
reads as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 48935(95)
That on or about the 18th day of June 1995, Kalookan
City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another,
without any justifiable cause, with deliberate intent to kill, treachery and
evident premeditation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously hack with a bolo one GERONIMO ESPINOSA, hitting him on the vital
parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical
injuries, which injuries caused his instantaneous death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.2 cralawred
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 48936(95)
That on or about the 18th day of June 1995 in Kalookan
City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another,
without any justifiable cause, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery
and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, hit and bump by (sic) a motor vehicle one LUIS LUABLE y DESCA,
thus, commencing directly by overt acts of the commission of the crime of
Murder, however, said accused was not able to perform all the acts of execution
which would produce said felony as a consequence, by reason of causes
independent of the will of the herein accused, that is, the said complainant
was able to evade the vehicle.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3 cralawred
When arraigned, assisted by counsel, both accused entered their
pleas of not guilty.
The Case for the Prosecution
Luis Luable, a twenty-seven-year-old employee of the Selecta
Farms, testified that at 6.00 p.m. on
June 18, 1995, he was
conversing with his brother-in-law, Antonio Cortez, in front of his house at
Ramvil 5, Robes Subdivision, Kalookan
City.Roel Pacheco, who lived only about seven
meters away from their house, arrived and told Maria Theresa (Luis wife) that
his father, Pedro Pacheco, was stoning him.Before long, Pedro and his other son, Marlon, arrived. Marlon was armed with
a two-foot long bolo.Luis intervened
and asked Pedro, Ano ba iyan? Pedro
resented this question and told him, Bakit
ka nakikialam sa away ng pamilya namin? Luis told Pedro that if he and his
son Roel were bent on stoning each other, they should do so in their house and
not in the streets because there were plenty of children playing. Roel then
grabbed the bolo from his brother Marlon and suddenly hacked Luis.Luis was able to parry the blow with his arm,
but his index finger was hit. Luis moved backwards, but Roel picked up a stone
about the size of a fist, and threw it at Luis, hitting the latter on the
forehead. Luis then fled towards the direction of the Selecta Farms where the
house of his half-brother, Geronimo Espinosa, was located, with Pedro and the
latters two sons in hot pursuit.The
house was more than a kilometer away.
Luis arrived at the house of his brother, Geronimo, and told the
latter that he was being chased and stoned by Pedro and his two sons. He asked
to be accompanied back to his house. Geronimo agreed. Luis got home with
Geronimo at about 7:00 p.m. After
about five minutes, policemen arrived at his house and brought him and Geronimo
to the Vicas police precinct. Pedro and Marlon were also brought to the police
station so that their differences could be settled. Roel, however, was nowhere
to be found.Policemen advised Luis to
have his wound treated first and to return to the station later. As he did not
bring any money for doctors fees and medicine, he decided to go back home with
Geronimo to get money.CRVLL
Luis and Geronimo walked side by side on the right side of Lapu-Lapu
Street at Urduja
Village. With them were their
cousins, Raymund Luable, Angelo Luable and Orlando Desca.As they were nearing a Meralco lamp post at
the corner of Lapu-Lapu and Magat Salamat Streets,4 he saw a blue-colored passenger jeep with a white-colored rear door and with
its front lights on, driven by Roels uncle, Domingo Vasquez, who was with
Roels brother, Ramon, and five others. The jeep, which was coming from the
opposite direction, going towards the Vicas supermarket, sped towards them.
They dived to the ground near a grassy area, to avoid being hit.The vehicle sped past Luis and Geronimo and
stopped in front of the lamp post on the left side of the street. Domingo and
Ramon Vasquez, each armed with a bolo, with five others, alighted from the
jeepney and proceeded to where Luis and Geronimo were.Afraid for their lives, the two fled towards
the direction of Mary Homes
at North Olympus Street. Luis
ran ahead, and when he looked back towards Geronimo, he saw the latter fleeing
towards the direction of Sumakwel Street5 with three persons, including Domingo and Ramon, in hot pursuit.By the time he reached Datu
Puti Street, only one man was pursuing him.Luis finally arrived at their house. He then
mounted his bicycle and pedaled to the police station to report the incident,
only to learn that his half-brother, Geronimo, was already dead. He and some
policemen proceeded to Bagong Silang Funeral Parlor where they saw Geronimos
Debbie Dorado, a twenty-seven-year-old housewife, testified that
between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on June 18, 1995, she and her cousins, Raymund, Orlando and
Angelo, were walking along Lapu-Lapu Street,
Kalookan City.They were on their way home. Angelo and his
cousins Luis and Geronimo were walking ahead of her, while Orlando and Raymund
strolled behind. Suddenly, a passenger jeepney sped towards where her cousins
Luis and Geronimo were walking.The two
dived into the grassy portion of the road to avoid being hit.6 They were near a Meralco lamp post at the corner of Lapu-Lapu and Sumakwel
Streets, about ten to fifteen meters away from her.Three male persons alighted from the
jeepney.One of them, who was armed with
a fan knife, placed his left hand on her right shoulder and was about to stab
her. Debbie shouted, I am a woman! Nonetheless, he held her by the neck and
pushed her.The man then went back to
the passenger jeepney.
Raymund and Orlando approached Debbie and inquired what the
commotion was all about, Manang, manang,
ano yon? Debbie replied, Tayo yata
ang hinahabol ng jeep, sige tumakbo na kayo. She hurriedly left the place,
but looked back towards the jeepney and saw that Luis and Geronimo were still
in the grassy area. Instead of walking towards Lapu-Lapu
Street, she walked towards Sumakwel
Street because she saw a male person armed with a
bolo who had alighted from the jeepney.She looked back at her cousins, Luis and Geronimo. She saw Luis fleeing
towards Mary Homes
at North Olympus Street.A man was chasing him.She also saw Geronimo walking slowly, going
towards the direction of Lakandula Street,7 and was being chased by three male persons, one of whom had a big stomach. The
other man chasing Geronimo was Domingo Vasquez, who was short, had a moustache
and short hair. The third man was Ramon Vasquez who had a jutting jaw (babalu) .Domingo and Ramon were armed with bolos. She
shouted to her cousins Orlando, Angelo and Raymund not to leave their cousin
Geronimo alone. When she reached the corner of Lakandula
Street, a tricycle arrived. She boarded the
tricycle and told the driver to bring her to the Vicas police station.
At the station, Debbie told the policemen that men armed with
bolos were chasing her cousins Luis and Geronimo. The policemen told her that
they were going to the Tala hospital. She insisted that they investigate the
matter, but the policemen ignored her. They even told her, Mrs., why are you
complaining, its just a simple matter, and youre not telling the truth.
Maria Luisa Abellanosa, a thirty-two-year-old housewife,
testified that between 9:30 and 10:30 p.m. on June 18, 1995, she was walking with Debbie Dorado at the
corner of Magat Salamat and Lapu-Lapu Streets, Kalookan
City, coming from the Vicas police
station. She saw Luis and Geronimo walking ahead of her. Suddenly, a
blue-colored jeepney driven by Domingo Vasquez arrived and bumped Geronimo. The
jeepney stopped at the corner of Magat Salamat Street,
even as Geronimo fell to the ground. Ramil Gonzales alighted from the jeepney,
poked his knife at Debbie and went towards Geronimo.Fearing for her life, she hid near the
concrete wall underneath a nearby bush. Meanwhile, Geronimo stood up and fled
towards the direction of Kalantiao Street,
through Sumakwel Street.Ramil ran after Geronimo and hacked him on
the back part of the head.Geronimo then
fled for dear life.She saw her
neighbors Marlon Pacheco, his brother Danny Pacheco, each armed with
bolos.The two of them, along with Roel
Pacheco Ramil Bartonico, Dodoy Bartonico and the appellant, were running to
where Geronimo was.The appellant
returned to the jeepney and drove it towards where his companions were.The men had ganged up on Geronimo and stabbed
the latter. She heard the appellant say to his companions, Sige patayin niyo na, patayin niyo na, at
huwag niyong iwanang buhay! The appellant forthwith drove the jeepney
away.When Maria Luisa Abellanosa
arrived home, she saw the Pacheco brothers and asked them how they were, and
they replied, Ayos na po. She saw
the front part of Dario Pachecos bloodied body.
Maria Teresa Luable, the wife of Luis, testified that between 6:00 and 7:00
p.m. on June 18, 1995,
she was in front of their house. Roel Pacheco arrived and asked for her
help.When she asked what had happened,
he replied that his father had stoned him and that he was wounded.Luis asked his wife what was going on, and
when apprised of Roels purpose, Luis told Roel that he and his father should
stone each other in their house and not in the street because children might be
hit. Roel got mad and hacked Luis, hitting the latters index finger. She
ordered Luis to flee, but Roel picked up a stone and hit Luis with it. Roel
even warned him, Baka ikaw pa ang ipasok
sa kabaong. Luis then left his house and later returned in the company of
Geronimo. At about 9:00 p.m.,
policemen arrived and brought Pedro Pacheco, Luis and Geronimo to the police
station. She followed but failed to find them there. When told that Luis had
himself treated for his wound, she proceeded to the San Lazaro Hospital but
failed to locate him there.She went to
the Vicas police precinct where she was told that a man had arrived and informed
the policemen that he saw a person lying prostrate on Sumakwel
Street. She then boarded a tricycle, returned to
that street and saw Geronimo sprawled on the ground.She looked for her husband at the Tala
Hospital, and went home when she
failed to find him there.
PO3 Celerino del Rosario testified that at 8:00 p.m. on June
18, 1995, SPO4 Marvin Lardizabal informed him of a stabbing
incident in Sumakwel Street,
He and three other policemen arrived at the scene to conduct an on-the-spot
investigation, and saw Geronimo along Sumakwel Street
sprawled on the ground near a Meralco lamp post with multiple stab wounds.8 The policemen brought the cadaver to the funeral parlor for autopsy. Per police
report, Domingo and Ramon Vasquez, and Pedro and Marlon Pacheco were identified
as Geronimos assailants.
Dr. Rosaline Cosidon, Medico-Legal Officer, performed an autopsy
on the cadaver of Geronimo and submitted her report thereon which contained her
1.A wound appearing and
starting at the right portion of the forehead extending just above the ear up
to the neck portion of the head. This type of wound could be caused by a heavy
instrument like a bolo,saver (sic) oran axe. This wound was fatal;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2.Injury located beside
the left eye caused by friction with a rough surface. This injury was not
3.The third injury was
a hacked wound found below the left eye extending across the left ear to the
back portion of the leftside (sic) of the head. This injury could be caused by
a heavy cutting instrument like that in number 1. Said injury was, likewise,
4.The fourth injury was
an incised wound located below the left cheek which could have been caused by
the sharp edge of a cutting instrument. This is not fatal.
located at the back portion of the left shoulder above the scapular caused by
friction with a hard, blunt object.
6.An incised wound at
the back of the body at the right side just above thewaistline probably caused by the sharp edge of
a cutting instrument.
7.A hacked wound
located at the right shoulder just above the right arm caused by a heavy
cuttinginstrument. The wound was not
8.An incised wound
measuring 11.5 by 0.4 cms. found below the right elbow caused by a sharp-edged
9.A hacked wound
measuring 11 by 2.5 cms. at the right arm at the back of the wrist probably
caused by a heavy sharp linear-edged instrument.9
The Case for the Appellant
Domingo Vasquez denied killing Geronimo and attempting to kill
Luis.He testified that Ramon Vasquez
was his brother, while Roel and Marlon were his first cousins.On June
18, 1995, a Sunday, he was in his house at Lot
8-E, Block 8, Frontville-V, Kalookan City,
repairing the windows.
At 11:00 p.m., his wife
awakened him as his brother Ramon had arrived in his house with a policeman.
The policeman and his companions brought Domingo to the Vicas police station
where he was detained.He saw Pedro and
Marlon Pacheco, who were also detained. When he asked why they were there,
Pedro and Marlon replied that they arrived in the police station to report the
incident and found themselves inside the detention cell. He saw two women
seated on a bench near the cell with Luis, who turned out to be Debbie Dorado
and Gemma Espinosa.A policeman asked
Debbie, Ito ba? But Debbie replied,
Hindi po. When asked again, Debbie
fell silent. When asked for the third time, Debbie replied, Hindi po. Debbie was also asked to
identify Ramon, Pedro and Marlon, but she refused to do so. Policemen also
asked Luis to identify the appellant, but Luis replied, No. A teenaged boy
also arrived and was asked to identify him along with Ramon, Pedro and Marlon, and the boy replied, No. The policemen brought the boy out of the police station, and when they returned, the boy pointed to him, Ramon, Pedro and Marlon, as the
culprits.The Vasquez brothers, Pedro
and his son Marlon were then brought to the office of the station commander
where Luis finally identified the four of them as the culprits.
The policemen told Ramon and the appellant that they would be
detained at the Hilcost police station to protect them from their enemies. The
appellants wife confirmed that many people were waiting outside the police
Meanwhile, a policeman brought him on board a police car to his
house, where he was asked to drive the blue-colored jeepney of his brother
Ramon.He drove the jeepney to the
police station.He had not driven any
jeepney for the last three months or so.
Ramon Vasquez also denied killing Geronimo and attempting to kill
Luis.He testified that his house was
only 800 meters away from Urduja Village.
He did not know Luis Luable and Geronimo Espinosa.On June 18, 1995, a Sunday, he was at home
fixing the jalousy window of a blue, seven-seater jeepney owned by Jessie
Gomez, which he used as a service jeep to bring children to and from
school.He later used the jeep until 6:00 p.m. At 7:00
p.m., he went to sleep. Josefina Pacheco, Pedros wife, and the
latters children, Roel and Dario, arrived to borrow the jeepney.Dario had apparently sustained a gunshot
wound on the face. He agreed, provided that someone would drive the
vehicle.Josefina replied that the
jeepney would be driven by Roel. He gave the keys of the vehicle to Josefina
and returned to bed.
At 11:00 p.m., Kagawad Ed Santos
arrived with a policeman and told him that he and the appellant would be
brought to the Vicas police station. He was told to sit on a bench while Ed,
the policeman and the appellant, went out of the station. He and the appellant
were then detained. A policeman asked a man and two women to identify him and
the appellant, Sila ba? But the
three replied, Hindi po. The two of
them were then brought to the police station at Hilcost, followed by the three witnesses.
A policeman then asked the witnesses if he and the appellant were the
assailants, and the witnesses replied that they were not the ones.
Vaselisa Vasquez, the appellants wife, corroborated his
After trial, the court rendered judgment acquitting Ramon, but
convicting the appellant of murder for the killing of Geronimo, and attempted
homicide for attempting to kill Luis.The decretal portion of the decision reads:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the accused RAMON VASQUEZ is hereby
ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt of the crimes of MURDER and ATTEMPTED MURDER.
Accused DOMINGO VASQUEZ is hereby found by this Court to be guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes of MURDER and ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE and is
accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA for Murder;
to suffer an imprisonment of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY TO SIX (6) YEARS OF
PRISION CORRECCIONAL for ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE; and to pay the heirs of the
deceased Geronimo Espinosa
P18,000.00 for funeral expenses; P1,500,000.00
by way of unrealized earnings; P50,000.00 by way of indemnity; P20,000.00
by way of moral damages; and to pay the costs of the suit.crvll
SO ORDERED.10 cralawred
The trial court gave credence to the testimony of Maria Luisa
Abellanosa and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of
Ramon Vasquez beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged, viz:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
On the other hand, another prosecution witness, Maria Luisa
Abellanosa, identified the pursuers as Roel and Dario Pacheco and Ramil and
Dodoy Bartonico. Due to the glaring flaws in Debbie Dorados testimony and
considering further that Luis Luables testimony is mainly self-serving, the
Court gives more faith to Abellanosas version of facts.This is especially so because there is
nothing to show that Abellanosas testimony was tainted with impure
motives.Indeed, it behooves the Court
to point out that the prosecutions witnesses gave conflicting testimonies on
points which are of utmost importance.
In the light of such conflicting testimonies, the Court firmly
believes that the accused Ramon Vasquez was nowhere near the scene of the
crimes on the night of June 18, 1995.
The prosecutions eyewitnesses do not concur with respect to the presence of
said accused on the scene of the crime.Evidently, the prosecution failed to establish with certainty the
accused Ramon Vasquezs involvement in the two crimes described in the
information.The only fact that was
clearly established is that Ramon Vasquez drives the jeepney involved in this
case when bringing children to and from school.The mere fact that he had the jeepney in his possession is not
sufficient to connect him with the unlawful acts.
Domingo Vasquez, now the appellant, appealed the Decision
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH
SUFFICIENT MOTIVE ON HIS PART TO COMMIT THE CRIMES CHARGED.
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT
TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS ONE OF THE PERPETRATORS OF THE CRIMES CHARGED.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING
THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI POSED BY THE HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANT CONSIDERING THE FACT
THAT THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION IS WEAK.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS INDEED POSITIVELY
IDENTIFIED TO BE THE DRIVER OF THE BLUE-COLORED JEEPNEY DURING THE INCIDENT IN
QUESTION, THE TRIAL COURT, NONETHELESS ERRED IN FINDING HIM TO BE A CONSPIRATOR
AND NOT A MERE ACCOMPLICE IN THE MURDER OF THE VICTIM GERONIMO ESPINOSA.11 cralawred
As the assigned errors are interrelated, the Court shall delve
into and resolve the same simultaneously.
The appellant avers that he and his brother Ramon were not
involved in the quarrel between Luis Luable and Geronimo Espinosa, on the one
hand, and Roel Pacheco, Marlon Pacheco and their father Pedro Pacheco, on the
other.He and his brother Ramon, thus,
had no motive to kill Geronimo.The
appellant contends that the witnesses for the prosecution were not in agreement
as to who killed Geronimo.While Luis
Luable and Debbie Dorado testified that they saw the appellant stab Geronimo,
Maria Luisa Abellanosa testified that Ramil Gonzales, Marlon Pacheco, Dario
Pacheco, Roel Pacheco, Ramil Bartonico and Dodoy Bartonico were the ones who
stabbed and killed the victim.The
appellant noted that according to the testimony of Abellanosa, the appellant
stayed in the jeepney and merely yelled to his companions who ganged up on
Geronimo, Sige patayin ninyo, patayin
ninyo na, at huwag ninyong iwanang buhay!
The appellant further posits that the prosecution witnesses were
not even in accord as to where Geronimo was stabbed to death.He pointed out that Luis Luable testified
that Geronimo was hacked to death at the corner of Lapu-Lapu and Sumakwel
Streets, while Maria Luisa Abellanosa testified that Geronimo was killed at the
corner of Lapu-Lapu and Magat Salamat Streets.Furthermore, Debbie Dorado was not certain where Geronimo was
killed.The appellant asserts that the
location of the killing is important because the Meralco lamp post which
illuminated the place of the incident is located at the corner of Lapu-Lapu and
Magat Salamat Streets, and not at the corner of Lapu-Lapu and Sumakwel
Streets.The appellant argues that
because of the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses of the
prosecution, it failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes
charged. Hence, he should be acquitted of the said charges.
The Office of the Solicitor General, for its part, argues that
there is no incongruence between the testimony of Abellanosa, on the one hand, and those of Domingo and Luable, on the other, as to the situs where Geronimo was killed.Moreover, whether the appellant is a principal by direct participation
or a principal by inducement is immaterial.In conspiracy, all the conspirators are criminally liable for the death
of the victim regardless of the degree of their participation in the
crime.The inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution are trivial. They do not affect
the credibility of the said witnesses and the veracity of the substance of
The appeal has no merit.
Prefatorily, we will no longer delve into and revisit the factual
and legal basis for the acquittal of Ramon Vasquez of the crimes charged.The decision of the trial court acquitting
the said accused and its basis for the said acquittal can no longer be altered
without placing the said accused in double jeopardy.Nonetheless, we are not precluded from
delving into and reviewing the findings of facts of the trial court in
resolving the issues involved in this case relating to the appellants appeal
from its decision.
The general rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court,
its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, and the
probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions based on the said
findings, are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive
effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court in observing at
close range the conduct and deportment of the said witnesses.However, the appellate court may set aside
the findings of the trial court and its conclusions based on the said findings
if it overlooked, ignored, misconstrued and misinterpreted cogent facts and
circumstances which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.
The trial court rejected the testimonies of Luis Luable, Debbie
Dorado and gave credence to the testimony of Maria Luisa Abellanosa, viz:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Luis Luable and Debbie Dorado testified that two of the three
pursuers of the deceased, Geronimo Espinosa, were herein accused Domingo and
Ramon Vasquez.Moreover, they have been
pinpointed as the ones who wielded bolos.However, Debbie Dorados credibility is seriously doubted by the Court
on account of her failure to give the identities of the pursuers in her sworn
statement and her failure to issue a supplemental statement later when she
finally made her identification upon seeing the two accused.Additionally, it must be observed that she
gave a detailed physical description of the deceaseds pursuers despite the
fact that during that time she was running away from the scene of ambush.
Hence, even if she looked back from time to time, it could have been impossible
for her to see the facial features of the pursuers because of two reasons, to
wit: (1) the pursuers were running towards the opposite direction and
necessarily only their backs could have been exposed to the witness, and (2)
the surrounding darkness of night and the increasing distance between the
witness and the deceaseds pursuers could have made it very difficult if not
impossible for the witness to pay attention to tiny details such as the
moustache the former sported as well as the bone structure of the chin of
accused Ramon Vasquez.
On the other hand, another prosecution witness, Maria Luisa Abellanosa,
identified the pursuers as Roel and Dario Pacheco and Ramil and Dodoy
Bartonico.Due to the glaring flaws in
Debbie Dorados testimony and considering further that Luis Luables testimony
is merely self-serving, the Courtgives
more faith to Abellanosas version of facts.This is especially so because there is nothing to show that Abellanosas
testimony was tainted with impure motives.Indeed, it behooves the Court to point out that the prosecutions
witnesses gave conflicting testimonies on points which are of utmost
We hold that the trial court erred in rejecting the testimonies
of Luable and Dorado. The credibility and probative weight of the testimony of
Dorado cannot be assailed by her failure to state the name of the appellant in
her sworn statement to the police investigator13 as among those who ran after Geronimo and Luis.The well-entrenched principle is that sworn statements being ex parte are almost always incomplete
and often inaccurate but do not really detract from the credibility of the
The failure of a witness to disclose the name of the culprit does
not necessarily impair the credibility of Dorado.15 Moreover, as contended by the Office of the Solicitor General:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Debbie Dorado was recalled as witness, on a separate date. During
the additional cross-examination, it was admitted by both parties that the
pictures presented by the defendants were taken during daytime.She reiterated that there were three (3)
persons chasing her cousin Geronimo.She
identified two (2) of the three (3) as the Vasqueses. When confronted as to her
failure to identify the accused when presented to her for identification as
proven by the sworn statement she gave to the police investigator, she averred
that her statement had already been taken, typewritten, and signed by her when
she saw the accused and that it was only Luis Luable who was brought to the
detention cell to identify the accused16 cralawred
The affiants may give the names of the culprits subsequent to the
submission of their affidavits and even during the trial.It bears stressing that even in her sworn
statement, Dorado declared that three persons pursued Luis and Geronimo when
they fled from the place, where they were almost sideswiped by the appellants
jeepney.Dorados declaration to the
police investigator jibes with her testimony before the trial court.
The culprit may be identified not only by his name or nickname
but also by his physical appearance, by his voice or by his gait.
The evidence on record shows that it was near Magat-Salamat
Street corner Lapu-Lapu
Street where Luis and Geronimo were sideswiped by
the jeepney driven by the appellant. The place was lighted by a Meralco lamp
post.17 The appellant alighted from the jeepney along with other men.Luable and Geronimo were near the jeepney.
Dorado was barely fifteen meters away from the place.Considering the lighting condition therein
and the proximity of Luable, Dorado and Abellanosa to the place where the
incident occurred, they saw and recognized the appellant and could, thus,
identify him.When she testified, Dorado
declared that the appellant was one of those who pursued Luis and Geronimo
after the appellant had alighted from the jeepney:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
QWould you again describe
the other man who was armed with a bolo and who was chasing the victim?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AThe other man is short
with a moustache and stout with short hair.
QWill you please look
around the courtroom and if this person you have just described is presently
inside the courtroom, will you please point him to the Honorable Court?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AYes, he is here, Sir.
(At this juncture, the
witness is pointing to a male person sitted (sic) inside the courtroom who gave
his name as Domingo Vasquez)
The man just pointed by
the witness is sporting a moustache and sporting a short hair.18 cralawred
For his part, Luis Luable testified that the appellant was among
those who pursued him and Geronimo, who, armed with a bolo, alighted from the
QNow, after you jumped to
the right side of the road, what did the jeep do, if any, Mr. Witness?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AThe jeep stopped in
front of the post.
QWhere was this post, Mr.
AIs (sic) located at the
left side of Lapu-Lapu St.
QAnd after the jeep
stopped near the post Mr. Witness, what happened next?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AThe driver alighted from
the jeep together with his companion.
QWere you able to
recognize this driver Mr. Witness and his companion who went down on the jeep?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
QAnd if you see them,
would you be able to identify them?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
QNow, are those people
inside the courtroom right now, Mr. Witness?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
QNow, can you point to
them, Mr. Witness?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
MS. DEL ROSARIO:At this
juncture, witness is pointing to a male person sitted (sic) inside the
courtroom who gave their names as Domingo Vasquez and Ramon Vasquez.
QNow, of the two (2)
people whom you are (sic) identified in court just right now, who was driving
MS. DEL ROSARIO:Witness
pointing to Domingo Vasquez.
QAnd what about Mr. Ramon
Vasquez, where was he sitted (sic) in the jeep, Mr. Witness?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ARamon Vasquez was sitted
(sic) beside the driver.
QNow, did you notice if
there were other people who were inside the jeep, if any, Mr. Witness?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
QWould you be able to say
to this court how many people were there inside the jeep including the driver
and the passenger who was sitted (sic) in front?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
QAnd how many people are
these, Mr. Witness?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AMore than seven (7)
QNow, you mentioned
earlier that when the jeep stopped did you notice if they were carrying
anything, if any, Mr. Witness?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ATTY. SAMPAGA: Leading, Your Honor.
QWhen Domingo and Ramon
Vasquez went down the jeep, what happened next?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ADomingo and Ramon chased
me and my brother while they were holding a bolo.
QNow, what were the other
people who were inside the jeep doing when Ramon and Domingo chased you?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AThey also alighted from
the jeep and they also chased us.
QWere these other people
also armed, Mr. Witness?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ATTY. SAMPAGA: Leading, Your Honor.
QNow, you mentioned
earlier that you saw bolos, who were holding the bolos, Mr. Witness?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ARamon Vasquez and
Domingo Vasquez were the ones holding bolos.
QWhat about the other people
who alighted from the jeep, Mr. Witness?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AI did not notice whether
they were armed because we already ran.
QTowards what direction
did you run,Mr. Witness?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AWe ran towards the
direction of North Olympus Street.19 cralawred
In his sworn statement to the police investigator, Luable
declared that the place where he and Geronimo were sideswiped was lighted:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
30. T:Dati mo na bang
kakilala itong si Domingo Vasquez at Ramon Vasquez?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
silang (sic) nakilala?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
S:Nakilala ko sila dahil sa maliwanag sa
lugar na iyon.
nanggagaling ang liwanag ng iyong sinasabi?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
S:Sa ilaw ng poste.20 cralawred
Luable and Dorado admitted that they did not see the appellant
hack the victim. Neither did Abellanosa.The latter testified that after failing to overtake Geronimo, the
appellant returned to the passenger jeepney and drove it to where Geronimo was
hacked. The appellant, while still in the jeepney ordered his cohorts, Sige patayin niyo na, patayin niyo na, huwag
niyong iwanang buhay.She
identified and pointed to the appellant in open court.
QWho was this person who
was bumped by this jeep on that date and time?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AGeronimo Espinosa, Sir.
QWhat happened after
Geronimo Espinosa was being (sic) bumped by the jeep?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AGeronimo Espinosa fell
QWhere did Geronimo
AAt the corner of Magat
QWhat happened after that?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AAnd then I saw a male
persons (sic) by the name of Ramil Gonzales alighted (sic) from the jeep, Sir.
QWhat happened next?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AThen Ramil Gonzales
poked 29 knife on the body of a female person, Sir.
QDo you know this female
AYes, Sir, I know.
QWhat is her name?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AHer name is Debbie, Sir.
QDo you know the family
name of Debbie?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AI dont know her family
QWhat happened after that?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AAnd then Ramil Gonzales
approached the person who fell down by the name of Geronimo and then when
Geronimo stood up Ramil (sic) chasedGeronimo, Sir.
QWhat happened when Ramil
ARamil hacked Geronimo,
QWhat part of the body of
Geronimo who (sic) was hacked?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AThe back part of the
head of Geronimo, Sir.
QWhat happened after that?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AGeronimo run(sic) and then Ramil chased Geronimo, Sir.
QWhere did Geronimo go
when he was (sic) chased?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AGeronimo was proceeding
to the direction of Kalantiao Street,
QIs this Kalantiao
Street near Sumakwel
Leading, Your Honor.
QWhat particular street
did Geronimo passed (sic) while he was [being] chased?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Objection, Your Honor,
already answered.He proceeded to Kalantiao
Yes, Your Honor,
proceeded to but this time the particular street he used when he was being
At the corner of Magat
QWhen he was running away,
what street did Geronimo use when he was running away when he was being chased?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Objection, Your Honor,
Geronimo proceeded to Kalantiao Street.
I think, Your Honor, it
is different, the incident happened at Magat Salamat and then when he was
chasedhe run (sic) towards the
direction of Kalantiao Street, now, we are asking the question on what
particular streetwhere he was
He was at Magat
Salamat, towards the direction of Kalantiao Street.
We submit, Your Honor.
QWhat happened after
Geronimo was chased?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AAnd the four (4) persons
followed Ramil, and the persons who followed Ramil are two Pachecos and two
QAre they brothers?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AYes, Your Honor.
QDo you know the names of
the Pachecos brothers (sic) ?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
QWhat are their names?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ALuis Pacheco, Danny
Pacheco and Dario Pacheco, Roel Pacheco, Sir.
QHow about the Bartonico
brothers, do you know their names?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
QWhat are their names?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Bartonico and Dodoy Bartonico, Sir.
QWhat happened after that?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AThey gunned (sic) up
Geronimo Espinosa, Sir.
QWho was the driver of the
jeep you saw?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AJun Vasquez, Sir.
QWhat is the real name of
ADomingo Vasquez, Sir.
QWhere was this Domingo
Vasquez when the person you mentioned was hacking Geronimo Espinosa?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AHe was inside the jeep,
QWhat was he doing?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AHe was driving the jeep,
QWhat did he say when he
was inside the jeep?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AI heard Domingo Vasquez
uttered the following words Sige patayin niyo na, patayin niyo na, huwag
niyong iwanang buhay.
QHow far where (sic) you
from Domingo Vasquez when you heard the words uttered by him sige patayin
niyo na, patayin niyo na, huwag niyong iwanang buhay.
AI am (sic) just near,
Your Honor, about five arms length.
QWhere were you when
Domingo Vasquez uttered those statements?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AI was at the concrete
wall underneath the plants, Sir.
QHow far was the jeep
driven by accused Domingo Vasquez from where the persons you mentioned, the
Bartonico brothers and Pacheco brothers who were hacking Geronimo Espinosa?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AJust near, Sir, just
less than 10 armslength.
QMs. Abellanosa, to whom
was the accused Domingo Vasquez saying those statement sige patayin niyo
na, patayin niyo na, huwag niyong iwanang buhay?
Objection, Your Honor,
she is incompetent to answer.
Overruled, witness may
AHe was not mentioning
any names, he was just shouting Maam, and uttering those words.
QWill you please repeat
[the name of] the person who hacked Geronimo Espinosa?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Objection, Your Honor,
QWhy do you know these
persons Roel Pacheco, Dario Pacheco, Ramil Bartonico, Dodoy Bartonico, Ramon
Vasquez, Ramil Gonzales and Domingo Vasquez?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ABecause they are my
QFor how long have you
AFor four (4) years, Sir.
QWhat happened Ms.
Abellanosa after the person you mentioned hacked Geronimo Espinosa and Domingo
Vasquez shouted sige patayin niyo na, patayin niyo na, huwag niyong iwanang
AThey already boarded the
jeep and they proceeded in (sic) their house, Sir.21 cralawred
The testimony of Abellanosa is corroborated by the autopsy report
of Dr. Rosalyn Cosidon showing that the victim sustained multiple incised
hacked wounds and abrasions.Even if
there is no evidence that the appellant stabbed or hacked the victim, he is,
nonetheless, criminally liable for the victims death because he conspired with
the principals by direct participation in the commission of the crime.As the trial court ruled:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Whether Domingo Vasquez chased the deceased with a bolo was averred
by Luis Luable or whether the accused merely incited his companions in the
jeepney to kill the deceased as averred by Luisa Abellanosa, is immaterial in
the determination of his liability because a conspiracy among the occupants of
the jeepney has been established.
In the case of People v. Cortez,
57 SCRA 308 cited in Luis B. Reyes Revised Penal Code with Annotations, Book I,
12th edition, 1981, p. 493, it was clarified, In order to hold an
accused guilty as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, it must be established
that he performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, either by
actively participating in [the] actual commission of the crime, or by
lending moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the scene
of the crime, or by exertingmoral
ascendancy over the rest of the conspirators asto move them to executing the conspiracy. (Underscoring supplied).
The Supreme Court, likewise, stressed in the case of People v. Bernardo, 222 SCRA 502, where there are several accused and conspiracy has
been established, the prosecution need not pinpoint who among the accused
inflicted the fatal wound.
And in the case of People v. Magalang, 217 SCRA 571, it was held,
where conspiracy has been established, evidence as to who among the accused
rendered the fatal blow is not necessary.All the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the
intent and character of their participation because the act of one is the act
Hence, accused Domingo Vasquez is foundby the Court to be a co-principal in the
attempted killing of Luis Luable as well as in the fatal hacking of Geronimo
In People v. Bisda,
23 we held that:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is
conspiracy when two or more person agree to commit a felony and decide to
commit it.In People v. Pagalasan, this Court held that conspiracy need not be
proven by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused
before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had
acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracymay be implied if it is proved that two or
more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though
apparently independent of each other were, in fact, connected and cooperative,
indicting a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of
sentiment.Conspiracy once found,
continues until the object of it has been accomplished and unless abandoned or
broken up.To hold an accused guilty as
a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an
overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.There must be intentional participation in
the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and
We further ruled in the said case that:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his
confederates which follows incidentally in the execution of a common design as
one of its probable and natural consequences even though it was not intended as
part of the original design.Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of
a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses
incident to and growing out of the purpose intended.Conspirators are held to have intended the
consequences of their acts and by purposely engaging in conspiracy which
necessarily and directly produces a prohibited result, they are, in
contemplation of law, chargeable with intending that result.Conspirators are necessarily liable for the
acts of another conspirator unless such act differs radically and substantively
from that which they intended to commit. As Judge Learned Hand put it in Unites States v. Andolscheck, when a
conspirator embarks upon a criminal venture of indefinite outline, he takes his
chances as to its content and membership, so be it that they fall within the
common purposes as he understands them.
In the case at bar, the appellant drove the passenger jeepney
with his cohorts on board looking for Luable and Geronimo.When the appellant saw the two going in the
opposite direction, the appellant drove the vehicle and sideswiped Geronimo.
And when Geronimo fled, the appellant, armed with a bolo, pursued him.When the appellant failed to overtake the
victim, he returned to the passenger jeepney and drove it to where his cohorts
ganged up on the victim.The appellant
urged them on to kill Geronimo.Thereafter, he left the scene along with his cohorts, leaving the
hapless Geronimo mortally wounded.All
the foregoing constitutes evidence beyond cavil of conspiracy between the
appellant and the principals by direct participation.The appellant is, thus, criminally liable for
the death of the victim, although there is no evidence that he did not actually
stab the latter.
There is no evidence on record that Luable, Dorado and Abellanosa
nurtured any ill motive to point to the appellant and falsely implicate him in
the killing of Geronimo.Luable, for one
thing, did not know the appellant before the killing.Case law has it that in the absence of any
improper motive, the testimonies of the witnesses are worthy of full faith and
The bare claim of the appellant that he has no motive to kill
Geronimo is not a valid defense to the crime charged. Motive to commit a felony
is not an element of the said crime; hence, the prosecution is not burdened to
prove the same.As we held in People v. Delim :25 cralawred
In murder, the specific intent is to kill the victim.In kidnapping, the specific intent is to
deprive the victim of his/her liberty.If there is no motive for the crime, the accused cannot be convicted for
kidnapping. In kidnapping for ransom, the motive is ransom. Where accused kills the victim to avenge the
death of a loved one, the motive is revenge.
In this case, it is evident on the fact of the Information that the
specific intent of the malefactors in barging into the house of Modesto
was to kill him and that he was seized precisely to kill him with the attendant
modifying circumstances.The act of the
malefactors of abducting Modesto
was merely incidental to their primary purpose of killing him.Moreover,
there is no specific allegation in the information that the primary intent of
the malefactors was to deprive Modesto of his freedom or liberty and that killing
him was merely incidental to kidnapping.Irrefragably then, the crime charged in the Information is Murder under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and not Kidnapping under Article 268
The threshold issue that now comes to fore is whether or not the
prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of evidence to prove that Marlon,
Ronald and Leon are guilty of murder.
In criminal prosecutions, the prosecution is burdened to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond cavil of doubt. The prosecution must rely on the
strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the
accused.The proof against the accused
must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted
to sway judgment.
In the case at bar, the prosecution was burdened to prove the corpus delicti which consists of two
things: first, the criminal act and second, the defendants agency in the
commission of the act. Wharton says that corpus
delicti includes two things: first, the objective; second, the subjective
element of crimes.In homicide (by dolo) and in murder cases, the prosecution
is burdened to prove: (a) the death of the party alleged to be dead; (b) that
the death was produced by the criminal act of some other than the deceased and
was not the result of accident, natural cause or suicide; and (c) that the
defendant committed the criminal act or was in some way criminally responsible
for the act which produced the death. To prove the felony of homicide or
murder, there must be incontrovertible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that
the victim was deliberately killed (with malice); in other words, that there
was intent to kill.Such evidence may
consist inter alia in the use of
weapons by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained
by the victim and the words uttered by the malefactors before, at the time or
immediately after the killing of the victim. If the victim dies because of a
deliberate act of the malefactor, intent to kill is conclusively presumed.
The prosecution is burdened to prove corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or
by circumstantial or presumptive evidence.
In the case at bar, the prosecution adduced the requisite quantum
of proof of corpus delicti. Modesto
sustained five (5) gunshot wounds.He
also sustained seven (7) stab wounds, defensive in nature.The use by the malefactors of deadly weapons,
more specifically handguns and knives, in the killing of the victim, as well as
the nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by said victim are
evidence of the intent by the malefactors to kill the victim with all the
consequences flowing therefrom.As the
State Supreme Court of Wisconsin held in Cupps v. State:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
This rule, that every person is presumed to contemplate the
ordinary and natural consequences of his own acts, is applied even in capital
cases. Because men generally act deliberately and by the determination of their
own will, and not from the impulse of blind passion, the law presumes that
every man always thus acts, until the contrary appears.Therefore, when one man is found to have
killed another, if the circumstances of the homicide do not themselves show
that it was not intended, but was accidental, it is presumed that the death of
the deceased was designed by the slayer; and the burden of proof is on him to
show that it was otherwise.
The prosecution did not present direct evidence to prove the
authors of the killing of Modesto.It relied on circumstantial evidence to
discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the accused-appellants of murder.26 cralawred
On the other hand, we are inclined to believe that the appellant
joined cause with his cousins, Roel Pacheco, Marlon Pacheco and Danny Pacheco
in venting their ire on Geronimo and Luis for the altercation which earlier transpired
between Roel and Marlon, on the one hand, and Luis Luable on the other.
Geronimo was not involved in the altercation, but he was killed simply because
he was with his half-brother, Luis Luable, when the appellant and his cohorts
caught up with them.
The bare denial and alibi of the appellant cannot prevail over
the collective testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution corroborated by
the physical evidence that the appellant conspired with the principals by
direct participation to kill the victim.Denial and alibi are weak defenses.To merit approbation of his defense of alibi, the appellant is burdened
to prove, with clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than
the situs of the crime, such that it
was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it was
committed.The appellant failed to do
so. He relied merely on his bare testimony which is dubious in the first place.
The trial court convicted the appellant of murder qualified by
treachery. However, the trial court failed to state in its decision the factual
basis for such a finding.From all
indications, the cohorts of the appellant managed to overtake Geronimo along Sumakwel
Street, as he ran for dear life after being hit
earlier by Ramil Gonzales on the head.Geronimo was, thus, aware of the peril to his life.27 The assailants of Geronimo took advantage of their superior strength when they
ganged up on him, armed with bolos and hacked him to death.However, the qualifying circumstance of abuse
of superior strength is not alleged in the Information; hence, cannot qualify
the crime to murder.The appellant is
guilty only of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, punishable
by reclusion temporal.
We, likewise, agree with the conviction of the appellant of
attempted homicide in Criminal Case No. 48936(95). But we do not agree with the
penalty meted on the appellant, six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years
of prision correccional. The
imposable penalty for attempted homicide is prision
correccional which is two degrees lower than reclusion temporal. The maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall
be taken from the imposable penalty of prision
correccional, taking into account the modifying circumstances, if any.To determine the minimum of the indeterminate
penalty, the penalty of prision
correccional has to be reduced by one degree, which is arresto mayor. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be
taken from the full range of arresto
mayor.Hence, the appellant may be
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty from four (4) months of arresto mayor in its medium period, as
minimum, to three (3) years of prision
correccional, in its medium period, as maximum.Although the appellant used a vehicle to
commit attempted homicide, the said circumstance was not alleged in the
Information, as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The said Rule should be applied retroactively although the
crime was committed before the effectivity of the same.
The trial court awarded
P18,000 as actual damages for
funeral expenses, P1,500 as unearned income of the victim and P20,000
as moral damages.The trial court did
not award exemplary damages to Luis Luable. The decision of the trial court
shall, thus, be modified.
In lieu of actual damages in the amount of
heirs of the victim are entitled to P25,000.00 by way of temperate
damages, conformably to current jurisprudence. The amount of P1,500,000.00
is deleted for failure of the prosecution to adduce any documentary and oral
evidence to prove the factual basis of such amount.28 The award of moral damages should be increased to P50,000.00 to conform
to current jurisprudence. Luis Luable is entitled to P25,000.00
exemplary damages.29 cralawred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING,
the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Kaloocan
City, Branch 121, is AFFIRMED with
1.In Criminal Case No.
appellant Domingo Vasquez y Pacheco is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and there being no modifying circumstance in the commission of the
crime, is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty from nine (9)
years and four (4) months of prision
mayor, in its medium period, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, in its medium period, as maximum.The said appellant is ORDERED to pay to the heirs of the victim Geronimo
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral
damages; P25,000.00 as temperate damages;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2.In Criminal Case No.
the appellant is found GUILTY of attempted homicide under Article
249 in relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code and there being no
modifying circumstances in the commission of the crime, is hereby sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty from four (4) months of arresto mayor, in its medium period, as minimum, to three (3) years
of prision correccional in its medium
period, as maximum. The said appellant is ORDERED to pay
Luis Luable by way of exemplary damages. No costs.
Quisumbing, (Acting Chairman),
Austria-Martinez, and TINGA, JJ., concur.
Puno, (Chairman), J., on
1 Penned by Judge Adoracion G. Angeles.
6 Exhibits D, D-6, & D-8.
8 Exhibits D-1, D-3, D-9 & D-10.
18 TSN, 1 August 1995, pp. 8-9.
19 TSN, 26 July 1995, pp.
21 TSN, 7 August 1995, pp.
23 G.R. No. 140895, July 17, 2003.
Back to Home | Back to Main