THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 125994
January 18, 2000
-versus-
BENJAMIN ANDALES,
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
GONZAGA-REYES,
J.:chanrobles virtual law library
On July 9, 1995, the following
information was filed in court against the brothers Mauro Andales and
Benjamin
Andales for the death of Edgar Ibarondo, who was shot with two others
on
May 16, 1985 at barangay Bagong Sirang, Municipality of Pili, Camarines
Sur:
"That on or about the
16th day of May, 1985 at barangay Bagong Sirang, municipality of Pili,
province of Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this
Honorable Court the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating
together
and mutually helping one another and with intent to kill did then and
there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot one EDGAR IBARONDO with an
armalite rifle, thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds on
the
different parts of his body which caused his death.cralaw:red
That the crime charged
herein was committed with the attendant circumstances of treachery and
use of motor vehicle. And that with respect to the accused MAURO
ANDALES,
the crime committed by him is further aggravated by his taking
advantage
of his official position in committing the crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW."[1]
The cases for multiple
murder were ordered archived when the warrants of arrest could not be
served.
Benjamin Andales, herein accused-appellant, was finally arrested in
1993.
His brother, Mauro Andales, still remains at large.cralaw:red
Benjamin Andales entered
a plea of not guilty when arraigned.cralaw:red
The prosecution presented
witnesses Ricky Canonico, who was riding with the victim Edgar Ibarondo
when their truck was ambushed, Vicente Monte, who witnessed the
shooting
from the rooftop of his uncle's house, Magno Lecreo, Sr., who saw the
two
accused firing at the truck and witnessed the shooting of Edgar by
Benjamin
Andales as the former was alighting from the truck and Martin Bueson,
who
met the two accused in the house of their father shortly after the
shooting.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The combined testimonies
of the said witnesses were summarized by the trial court as follows:
"In brief, the combined
testimonies of said witnesses established that on May 16, 1985 at about
3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, at a barangay called Bagong Sirang,
Municipality
of Pili, Province of Camarines Sur, a certain Edgar Ibarondo was
supervising
the loading of harvested palay into a truck and among those doing the
loading
were prosecution witness Ricky Canonico and several others and after
about
one hundred (100) sacks of palay were already loaded in the truck,
Edgar
Ibarondo, the owner of the palay who was intending to bring said sacks
of palay to the Pili Center or poblacion for weighing, boarded the
truck
together with the driver thereof and also a certain Dante Blasa, and
the
others who helped in the loading of the palay, with Edgar Ibarondo and
Dante Blasa riding on the front seat of the truck with the driver
thereof
and the others at the back; that as the truck was proceeding on its
way,
a motorcycle with two men aboard was seen following the truck and after
a while, as the truck neared the spill way on the road going to Pili,
the
two (2) persons aboard the motorcycle following the truck aforesaid
were
trying to cause it to stop and when it did not stop, they shot the tire
of the truck until it stopped at the spillway and without further
ceremony
the two motorcycle riders fired upon those sitting on the front seat as
the latter alighted, one by one from the truck until they were found
lying
down on the ground, already dead. The three (3) dead persons were
identified
to be the driver of the truck, Edgar Ibarondo, Dante Blasa and another
identified only as Bobet who were hit by the successive burst of
gunfire;
later, the motorcycle with the two persons responsible for the shooting
and already identified as the two (2) accused herein returned to the
place
of Bagong Sirang where they were seen by some persons; that also
earlier
in the afternoon of that day at around 1:00 o'clock p.m., the deceased
Edgar Ibarondo and one of the accused or Mauro Andales were heard by
Vicente
Monte, another prosecution witness arguing with each other where the
latter
who is a military personnel was heard threatening the deceased Edgar
Ibarondo
that if he would not give what was being asked of him, he or Mauro
Andales
would harm him; this threat led to the deceased Edgar Ibarondo into
giving
six (6) sacks of palay at first to the Andaleses and when the latter
protested
that the same were not enough, caused Edgar Ibarondo to add another
fourteen
(14) sacks of palay which he left by the side of the road and where he
instructed his father-in-law, prosecution witness, Martin Buison to
inform
the Andaleses at their house through their father Camilo Andales of
this
additional fourteen (14) sacks of palay; that however Martin Buison
(sic)
went a little later to the house of Camilo Andales and while he was
there
at about 3:30 already in that afternoon of May 16, 1985, the two (2)
accused
arrived above their motorcycle and Buison (sic) saw them both armed
with
guns or a long firearm and short firearm for Benjamin and Mauro
respectively
and after Buison (sic)
was seen by the two (2) accused, Mauro even got the long firearm from
his
brother Benjamin and cocked it while looking at Buison (sic) directly
such
that the latter out of fear embraced Camilo Andales, the father of the
two (2) accused and who pacified his son Mauro and then advised Bueson
(sic) to go home already and which caused him to run to his home at
Bagong
Sirang where he eventually learned of the shooting of his son-in-law
Edgar
Ibarondo; another prosecution witness, namely: Magno Lecreo testified
that
he was then going to the vicinity of the spillway to see his carabao
which
he had tied earlier near the creek thereat and at a distance of around
thirty (30) meters from the truck, he saw the deceased shot by the
accused
Benjamin Andales with a long gun or long firearm and he also declared
that
the motorcycle which was then following the truck was being rode by
Benjamin
Andales and his brother Mauro Andales with the latter operating or
driving
said motorcycle while Benjamin Andales was riding behind at the back
and
when the truck stopped, Lecreo categorically stated that he saw the two
(2) accused brothers both firing at the truck while they were at the
front
thereof; xxx"[2]
The accused Benjamin
Andales claimed he was innocent of the charge. He put up the defense of
denial and alibi, claiming he was in Manila at the time of the shooting
incident. He declared that he had been staying in Manila since March
1977,
working at various jobs and was employed as vulcanizer at the shop of
Domingo
Salcedo from 1983 up to 1986. Benjamin Andales testified that he has no
contact with his brother Mauro since 1979, and came to know that he was
charged with the killing of Edgar Ibarondo only in June, 1993 when he
went
home to Sto. Niño, Iriga City to attend the wake of his father.
He denied knowing Edgar Ibarondo.[3]
Benjamin's defense was
corroborated by Domingo Salcedo who testified that Benjamin was in his
vulcanizing and welding shop on May 15, 16 and 17, 1993 and had no
opportunity
to leave the shop.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The defense presented
rebuttal witnesses Troadio Madara, Oscar Villanueva, and Ricky Canonico
(who earlier testified for the prosecution) who testified on
circumstantial
matters that were intended to impeach the testimonies of the
prosecution
witnesses.cralaw:red
The prosecution thereafter
presented its own set of rebuttal witnesses, namely Justiniano
Repuesto,
Felisa Doroin and Norma Matubis, to contradict the testimonies of the
defense
witnesses tending to establish the absence of Magno Lecreo and Vicente
Monte at the scene of the shooting incident.cralaw:red
The defense again presented
sur-rebuttal witnesses Marcelino Aladano, Jose Felices and Atty. Henry
Briguera, essentially focusing on the presence or absence of
prosecution
witness Vicente Monte at Bagong Sirang, Pili, Camarines Sur on May 16,
1985.cralaw:red
The trial court rendered
judgment on May 29, 1996 convicting Benjamin Andales on the basis of
the
testimonies of Vicente Monte, Martin Bueson and Magno Lecreo. The
dispositive
portion of the judgment read:
"WHEREFORE, in view
of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused
BENJAMIN
ANDALES, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER and
sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA together with all the
accessory
penalties provided therefor and to pay one-half of the costs hereof.cralaw:red
Said accused is further
ordered by way of civil liability to pay the legal heirs of the late
Edgar
Ibarondo represented by his widow Amerinia Ibarondo, the sum of FIFTY
THOUSAND
PESOS (P50,000.00) as death indemnity.cralaw:red
The case as to the other
accused MAURO ANDALES will remain archived but to be revived upon his
apprehension.
Let the necessary alias warrant of arrest be issued against said
accused
to be served by the Office of the Director General of the Philippine
National
Police, Recaredo Sarmiento II.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED."[5]
Benjamin Andales is
now before this Court on appeal, claiming that the trial court erred as
follows:
"A. The lower court
erred in not having given due consideration to the testimonies of Ricky
Canonico as both prosecution and defense witness, in relation to the
testimonies
of supposed eye witnesses at the crime scene immediately before and
after
the incident.cralaw:red
B. The lower court erred
in not having considered at all the major inconsistencies in
testimonies
of Vicente Monte, Amerinia Ibarondo, Magno Lecreo and Martin Bueson
before
the Municipal Trial Court of Pili and the Regional Trial Court.cralaw:red
C. The lower court erred
in not having given due consideration to appellant's defense of denial
and alibi, notwithstanding the fact that he was able to show that he
was
at some other place for such period of time that it was impossible for
him to have been at the place where the crime was committed at the time
of the commission.cralaw:red
D. The lower court erred
in concluding that appellant is guilty, because of his having "fled",
notwithstanding
the fact that there is no categorical showing that appellant indeed
went
on flight.cralaw:red
E. The lower court erred
in taking hook line and sinker the prosecution's claim that Vicente
Monte
was at Bagong Sirang, Pili, Camarines Sur, before, during and after the
commission of the crime."[6]
Accused-Appellant prays
for an acquittal.cralaw:red
Accused-appellant alleges
that the trial court should have given credence to the testimony of
Ricky
Canonico, who testified both for the prosecution and for the defense,
and
who was the most credible witness, as he was not related to the
accused-appellant
nor to the victim. Accused-appellant points out that Canonico never
identified
the two persons riding in the motorcycle that followed the cargo truck
which he was riding. Canonico also testified that he did not see any
other
person aside from his group, nor a carabao, within the immediate
surrounding
of the place where the shooting incident took place.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The accused-appellant
also contends that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Monte,
Lecreo
and Bueson deserve scant consideration as none of them immediately
informed
the authorities about what they purportedly witnessed. Lecreo, in
particular,
simply continued attending to his farm in the afternoon, as if nothing
happened. As regards the testimony of Monte that he saw the incident
from
the rooftop of his uncle's house, rebuttal witnesses Madara and
Villanueva
categorically declared that the mango tree which he climbed to reach
the
roof was then "still too small in 1981", (as big as his [Madara's] leg).[7]
Accused-appellant also
assails the court's rejection of the defense of denial and alibi in
light
of his positive testimony that he was working in Manila on May 16, 1985
in the shop of Domingo Salcedo, who corroborated his testimony. It is
pointed
out that Salcedo is a duly commissioned officer of the military, and
that
the travel by land or sea from Metro Manila to Bicol takes at least
nine
hours; thus the impossibility of the presence of accused-appellant at
the
scene of the crime.cralaw:red
Vicente Monte's presence
at Bagong Sirang on the date in question which prosecution rebutted
witness
Norma Matubis[8]
sought to establish by evidence of his enrollment in the school at
Bagong
Sirang, was controverted by Henry Briguera who secured a certification
as to the proper official authorized to issue certification of school
records
of the students.[9]
Finally, the trial court's
conclusion that the accused-appellant "fled", is assailed in
appellant's
brief. Accused-appellant was in Manila and only came to know of the
fact
that there was a warrant for his arrest when he went home to attend the
interment of his father in 1993.cralaw:red
The appeal must fail.cralaw:red
We have examined with
great care the evidence adduced by the prosecution and by the defense,
and we are unable to find any cogent justification to overturn or set
aside
the conclusion of the trial court that based on "the entirety and
totality
of the evidence of the parties", the evidence of the prosecution has
definitely
established the guilt and culpability of the herein accused-appellant
Benjamin
Andales of the crime of murder beyond any reasonable doubt. The trial
court
gave full faith and credit to the declarations of the three prosecution
witnesses, Vicente Monte, Martin Bueson and Magno Lecreo, whose
testimonies
"were given in a straightforward and credible manner" all positively
identifying
the accused-appellant and his brother Mauro as the persons on board a
motorcycle
which gave chase to the truck which Edgar Ibarondo and his laborers
were
riding in, and then firing at the occupants of the truck as they
alighted
therefrom.cralaw:red
Ricky Canonico declared
in court that he was on top of the truck with one hundred cavans of
palay,
and that a few minutes after the truck left the house of Edgar
Ibarondo,
he saw a motorcycle with two persons riding on it; one of the person
shot
the tire causing the truck to stop. He went down the truck to hide and
could not see outside the truck, which was "enclosed with walls", and
was
not able to recognize the two persons riding the motorcycle.[10]
Vicente Monte supplied the deficiency when he declared in court that he
recognized Mauro Andales and Benjamin Andales (whose brother is his
close
friend) as the two persons who were riding the motorcycle which
followed
the truck; he was then standing at the roadside after the truck passed
by about three meters away, and he went up the roof of the house and
saw
the motorcycle following the truck, heard the gun shots, and saw the
motorcycle
return to the house. He went to the place where the truck stopped, saw
Edgar and two others dead, and returned to tell Edgar's wife and
relatives.[11]
He saw the person riding behind who carried a gun on the left shoulder
alight from the motorcycle, and drew a sketch of the position where the
truck originated and the place where it was riddled with bullets.[12]
Earlier, he had heard Mauro Andales arguing with the deceased in the
Iriga
dialect and threatening the latter with harm, and he went to his
uncle's
house after the motorcycle passed by "because (he) wanted to find out
what
will happen because of the utterances which (he) heard from Mauro".[13]
The identities of Mauro
and Benjamin were established further by the testimony of Magno Lecreo
who knew the two brothers because they are from the same barangay.[14]
Magno testified that he was 30 meters away from the truck, which was
ascending
from the spillway and he saw Benjamin Andales, who was in front of the
truck shoot Edgar as the latter was alighting from the truck, using a
long
gun. Mauro was also in front of the truck firing shots.[15]
The wife of the deceased
Amerinia Ibarondo, also testified that she saw her husband board the
truck
for Pili which was followed by Mauro and Benjamin; the latter armed a
long
gun on his shoulder. After she heard the gunshots , she saw the
motorcycle
return with the two accused.[16]
We agree with the trial
court that the participation of Benjamin Andales was convincingly
established
by the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses; the court
stated:
"In the first place,
the testimonies and declarations of the three (3) prosecution
witnesses,
Vicente Monte, Martin Bueson and Magno Lecreo were given in a straight
forward and credible manner all positively identifying the accused
Benjamin
Andales and his brother as the persons first on board a motorcycle
following
and giving chase to the truck where the deceased Edgar Ibarondo and his
laborers were riding, and then shooting their guns or firearms at the
occupants
of said truck as they alighted therefrom, causing the latter to fall to
the ground where they were found immediately thereafter three (3) dead
and one injured, but later was also to die and thereafter, when the
deed
was done, the two returned to their house where one of them even cocked
his gun and looked threateningly at Martin Bueson such that it caused
him
to seek refuge in the embrace of Camilo Andales who had to pacify his
son
Mauro and who apparently was disposed and ready to also shot him. No
less
than Monte, Bueson and Lecreo directly pointed to Benjamin Andales as
one
of those whom they saw shooting the deceased Edgar Ibarondo and they
were
quite positive and categorical in their assertions to this effect, that
Benjamin Andales was one of the two (2) gun men directly responsible in
firing and hitting said deceased Ibarondo. Such testimonies and
declarations
of the three (3) prosecution witnesses being quite credible the same
are
entitled to full faith and credit. Moreover, no contrary evidence other
than the supposed non-presence or absence of prosecution witness
Vicente
Monte from the scene of the crime when it happened, was ever adduced by
the defense. "No proof was adduced to show that the prosecution
witnesses
were moved by some evil motive to testify falsely against the accused".
(People vs. Amaro, 235 SCRA 8) and "in the absence of any evidence that
a witness was actuated by improper motive, his testimony must be
accorded
full evidence". (People vs. Capquian, 236 SCRA 655). The fact that
Vicente
Monte was the first cousin of the deceased and Martin Bueson, the
father-in-law
does not detract from the truthfulness of their respective testimonies
as they would not just indiscriminately point to the two (2) accused as
the perpetrators of this heinous crime, thus: "Witnesses who are blood
relatives of the deceased would not just indiscriminately impute the
crime
to anybody but would necessarily identify and seek the conviction of
the
real culprit himself to obtain justice for the death of their
relative."
(People vs. Leonito Macagaling y Atillano, G. R. No. 109131-33, Oct. 3,
1994, 237 SCRA 300.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The rebuttal evidence
of the defense is far from conclusive. We find no basis for ruling that
the court a quo erred in not relying on the witnesses presented by the
defense to discredit the testimonies of Magno Lecreo and Vicente Monte,
particularly on their presence or absence at the scene of the shooting
incident that transpired on May 16, 1985. The defense attempted to show
through witnesses Oscar Villamer and barangay captain Troadio Madara
that
Vicente Monte does not stay permanently in Bagong Sirang and was not
there
immediately before or after May 16, 1985[18]
and that it would be difficult to climb the mango tree near the house
of
Elias Monte as it was still small and low in 1985[19]
and that Magno Lecreo has a creek beside his house which never dried up.[20]
Oscar Villamer however admitted in court that "until now, Benjamin
Andales
is a very close friend."[21]
For his part, Troadio Madara admitted that he had never gone to the
roof
of the house of Elias Monte, and that his nephew has a case against
Magno
Lecreo[22]
and that he was never in the vicinity of the place of the ambush at the
spillway.[23]
Notably, the prosecution presented its own rebuttal witnesses,
Justiniano
Repuesto, Felisa Doroin and Norma Matubis, to establish that Vicente
Monte
was staying with his uncle Elias Monte at the time of the incident,[24]
and was studying at the Calancaan Community School at Bagong Sirang
from
Grade I-VI,[25]
and that the creek beside the farm of Magno Lecreo had no water in
April
and May because it is summer.[26]
On the other hand, the
court notes that the testimonies of the surrebuttal witnesses for the
defense
Marcelino Aladano[27]
and Jose Felices[28]
consisted merely of negative testimony, i.e. Marcelino Aladano
testified
that he did not notice Vicente Monte when Vicente purportedly went to
the
store of the son of Felisa Doroin to buy cigarettes.[29]
Jose Felices stated in court that Vicente Monte was not staying in the
house of Elias Monte on May 16, 1985, and that he never saw Vicente in
Bagong Sirang in 1985.[30]
We agree with the trial
court's finding on the contradictory testimonies regarding the supposed
absence of Vicente Monte from the scene at Bagong Sirang at the time of
the incident:
"xxx the attempt of
accused to discredit the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
particularly
Vicente Monte by alleging that he left the scene of the crime long
before
the occurrence thereof cannot persuade this Court in the face of
Monte's
own declarations in open court in the course of his testimony, as well
as the documents attesting to his enrollment at the elementary school
of
Calangcaan at Bagong Sirang, Pili, Camarines Sur from 1981 up to 1984
(Exhibit
N) and the Record of Promotions (Exhibit S) showing his name listed
thereon
(Exhibit S-1). Instead of impugning the authority of Jesusa Imperial
the
class adviser for school year 1983-1984 to issue said documents as
certified
true copies, the accused should have presented evidence totally and
absolutely
discrediting and demolishing the authenticity or even existence of said
documents (Exhibits N & S)."[31]
We also affirm the trial
court's rejection of the defense of alibi in this wise:
"xxx the defense put
by the accused which is that of denial and alibi and which is
concededly
the weakest of all possible defenses an accused may avail of cannot
prevail
in the face of the direct and positive identification made of him by
the
three (3) prosecution witnesses as one of the perpetrators of the
crime.
Although, the accused has tried to demonstrate that he was far away in
Metro Manila when the shooting incident happened on May 16, 1985, and
this
was corroborated by a witness Domingo Salcedo, yet this Court is not
disposed
to give such alibi much credence since aforesaid, there was positive
identification
of the accused as of the authors of the killing of Edgar Ibarondo by
the
prosecution witnesses and also because of certain inconsistencies and
lapses
in the corroborating testimony of defense witness Domingo Salcedo,
supposedly
a military or police officer. Although he was then assigned allegedly
with
the PNP Mobile Force Unit at Iriga City, he appeared in the court even
without the benefit of a subpoena and was not even in the proper
military
uniform when he testified. Then, although accused Benjamin Andales
declared
that he worked with Salcedo at his vulcanizing shop at Western Bicutan,
Taguig,Metro Manila on May 16, 1985, yet Domingo Salcedo declared that
in 1985, his vulcanizing and welding shop was located at Barangay
Mayamot,
Sumulong Highway, Antipolo, Rizal and which is quite different and
distinct
from Western Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila. Also, although accused
claimed
to be an employee of Domingo Salcedo in his shop, since 1983 up to
1986,
he was never duly registered as such employee with the Social Security
System, since supposedly, he did not want to be so covered according to
his alleged employer Domingo Salcedo thus raising doubt as to whether
he
was really such an employee of the latter. Accused should know that he
is bound to prove with at least a degree of certainty the basis of his
alibi if the same is to be given any consideration by this Court. If
really
he was such an employee, not only would the registration with the
Social
Security System serve as valid basis for such a claim, but other
credible
evidence to establish such fact could have been produced by accused
such
as payrolls, vales receipts of salary or other memoranda indicative
thereof
but sad to state, he never did so, relying merely on the testimony of
Domingo
Salcedo which is quite doubtful and unsatisfactory."[32]
Although the trial court's
observation that Domingo Salcedo was not even in uniform when he
testified
may be misplaced, the irreconcilable discrepancy between the testimony
of Benjamin Andales that the vulcanizing shop of Salcedo was in Western
Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila on May 16, 1985[33]
and that of Salcedo himself that his welding shop was located at
Barangay
Mayamot, Sumulong Highway, Mandaluyong, Rizal[34]
is a serious inconsistency that cannot be ignored and which discredits
the defense of alibi.cralaw:red
The testimony of Ricky
Canonico did not contradict the testimony of other prosecution
witnesses.
While he declared that he did not see any other person at the scene of
the crime, he testified that he and his companions immediately ran away
and fled from the place of the incident upon seeing the dead bodies of
the victims, and he stated that he was scared and shocked and did not
know
what to do.[35]
The Solicitor General correctly noted in the appellee's brief:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"This testimony of Ricky
Canonico is in harmony with that of other prosecution witnesses. All of
them testified that only the dead bodies of the victims were left when
they approached the ill-fated truck (TSN January 20,1994, p. 19;
February
8, 1994, p. 14).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Note must be made that
successive bursts of gunfire were heard immediately before the culprits
left the place (TSN, February 8, 1994, pp. 12-14; January 20,1994, p.
18).
Equally scared as Ricky Canonico, the other prosecution witnesses
approached
the victims only upon being sure that the culprits who were armed with
guns had already left the place (TSN, January 20, 1994, p. 17; February
8, 1994, pp. 15-16).cralaw:red
The same can be said
of the prosecution witnesses' failure to immediately report the
incident
to the authorities. The culprits were their barriomates. Moreover,
Mauro
Andales (the co-accused who is still at large) was known by them to be
a military man. Fear of reprisal was the underlying reason for their
silence.[36]
The contention of appellant
that he did not flee from the crime is belied by the record. Appellant
evaded the law for eight years despite numerous warrants issued for his
arrest. His claim that he was not aware of the charge against him
because
he had no communication with his family is not believable, because he
testified
that he donated one of his kidneys to his brother Jose in 1986, and
even
stayed with him after the operation. We agree with the trial court that
the flight of accused-appellant is indicative of guilt.[37]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In fine, we must stress
that the core issue and peripheral matters raised by the
accused-appellant
in his brief involve the question of credibility of witnesses. The
doctrinal
rule is that findings of facts made by the trial court, which had the
opportunity
to directly observe the witnesses, and to determine the probative value
of other testimonies, are entitled to great weight and respect because
the trial court is in a better position to assess the same, an
opportunity
not equally open to an appellate court.[38]
We are satisfied from our own examination of the evidence that the
trial
court did not err in finding the accused guilty as charged.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The penalty for murder
is reclusion perpetua to death.[39]
Contrary to the finding of the trial court that evident premeditation
was
proven no such aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the
crime.[40]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accordingly, the imposable
penalty is reclusion perpetua.[41]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the judgment
convicting Benjamin Andales of murder and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay P50,000.00 by way of civil
indemnity,
is AFFIRMED in toto.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Melo, J., (Chairman), Vitug,
Panganiban and Purisima, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 25.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 51-53.
[3]
Tsn., February 9, 1995.
[4]
Tsn., December 12, 1994.
[5]
Rollo, p. 65.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Rollo, pp. 96-97.
[7]
Tsn., September 28, 1994, p. 12, testimony of Troadio Madara; Tsn.,
December
2, 1994, p. 16, testimony of Oscar Villanueva.
[8]
Tsn., July 10, 1995.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Exh. "7"; Tsn., December 13, 1995.
[10]
Tsn., January 17, 1994, at pp. 9; 25.
[11]
Tsn., January 20, 1994.
[12]
Exh. "1"; Tsn., January 24, 1994.
[13]
Tsn., January 20, 1994, p. 13.
[14]
Tsn., February 8, 1994, p. 9.
[15]
At pp. 7-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Tsn., February 22, 1994, p. 22.
[17]
Rollo, 62-63.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Tsn., September 28, 1994, p. 8.
[19]
At p. 13; Tsn., December 2, 1994, p. 16.
[20]
Tsn., December 8, 1994, p. 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Tsn., December 2, 1994, at p. 22.
[22]
Tsn., September 28, 1994 at pp. 33-34.
[23]
At p. 35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Tsn., May 18, 1995 at pp. 8-9; testimony of Felisa Doroin.
[25]
Tsn., July 10, 1995, pp. 30-31; testimony of Norma Matubis.
[26]
Tsn., May 16, 1995, p. 8; pp. 23-24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Tsn., October 16, 1995.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Tsn., November 27, 1995.
[29]
At p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Tsn., November 27, 1998, at p. 10.
[31]
Rollo, p. 64.
[32]
Rollo, pp. 63-64.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Tsn., February 9, 1995, at p. 23.
[34]
Tsn., December 12, 1994, p. 30.
[35]
Tsn., February 17, 1994, p. 12.
[36]
Appellee's Brief, pp. 9-10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
People vs. Reunir, 157 SCRA 686.
[38]
People vs. Escandor, 265 SCRA 444.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
Art. 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R. A. 7659.
[40]
The requisites for evident premeditation are: (1) the time when the
offender
determined to commit the crime, (2) an act manifestly indicating that
he
clung to his determination, and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between
determination and execution to allow himself to reflect upon the
consequences
of his act.
[41]
Article 63, Revised Penal Code. |