Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2003 > February 2003 Decisions > G.R. No. 119477 February 27, 2003 - EDDIE TALAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 119477. February 27, 2003.]

EDDIE TALAY, BAYANI TALAY and EDGARDO MAIGUE, JR., Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


CARPIO, J.:


The Case


An Information for homicide was filed on March 1, 1985 against Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay, Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr., a certain Toti Amiscosa and one John Doe before the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Branch XVIII. The Information reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about December 26, 1981, in the Municipality of Silang, Province of Cavite, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused together with "Alias" TOTI AMISCOSA 1 and one John Doe, the latter two accused’s real identities are still unknown and who are still at-large, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping and assisting one another, with intent to kill being then armed with a firearm, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault, attack and shoot with the said firearm the person of one RONALDO MONTOYA y RAMOS, thereby hitting the latter in the body which caused his subsequent death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Ronaldo R. Montoya.

CONTRARY TO LAW." 2

On July 30, 1985, Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr., assisted by their counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty to the charge. 3 Cesar "Toti" Amiscosa and John Doe remained at large.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

After trial, Judge Julieto P. Tabiolo rendered a decision on February 7, 1990, finding Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr. guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, based on the evidence as adduced, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused

EDGARDO MAIGUE,

EDDIE TALAY

and BAYANI TALAY

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of HOMICIDE, as provided for and penalized under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code and as charged against them in the Information and taking into account the benign provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, of which accused are deserving, the Court hereby sentences them to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

EIGHT (8) years, SIX (6) months & ONE (1) day of prision mayor, as MINIMUM

- to -

SIXTEEN (16) years, SIX (6) months & ONE (1) day of reclusion temporal, as MAXIMUM.

Further, they are hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of the late RONALDO MONTOYA, the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) P50,000.00 — for moral damages to compensate the heirs for the excruciating moral pain and anguish that they suffered as a result of the death of their son;

(2) P50,000.00 — for exemplary damages;

(3) P40,000.00 — as reimbursement for expenses incurred as a result of the death of Ronaldo Montoya;

and to pay the costs of this proceedings (sic)." 4

Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr. appealed to the Court of Appeals 5 which affirmed with modification the trial court’s decision. In its decision dated May 31, 1994, the Court of Appeals ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the appealed decision, the same is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that in lieu of the exemplary damages awarded therein which is hereby deleted, the three (3) accused-appellants are hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of the late Rolando 6 Montoya the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence. Costs against the appellants." 7

Hence, this petition for review filed by Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr. (collectively "petitioners," for brevity).

The Facts


There is no dispute that Ronaldo Montoya was shot twice with a handgun on December 26, 1981 at around 6:30 o’clock in the evening near the store of one Marina Castillo. Ronaldo Montoya died because of two gunshot wounds. The prosecution pointed to Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr., Cesar "Toti" Amiscosa and an unidentified companion of their group as co-principals in a conspiracy to kill the victim. On the other hand, the defense pointed to an unknown and unidentified man as the one who pulled the trigger twice on Ronaldo Montoya.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented seven witnesses. Marina Castillo, a storeowner, Ramoncito Ramos, the victim’s companion during the shooting, Nieto Toledo, son of the barangay captain, and Oscar Montoya, father of the victim, who were all at the scene of the crime when the shooting occurred, gave their eyewitness accounts. Dr. Engracia dela Cruz testified on the results of the autopsy, policeman Rodelo Sumadsad testified that he investigated the incident and took down the statements of several witnesses, while barangay captain Rodrigo Toledo testified that he saw Ronaldo Montoya wounded.

As culled from the testimonies of its witnesses, the prosecution established that at about 6:30 o’clock in the evening of December 26, 1981, the victim Ronaldo Montoya and Ramoncito Ramos were at the store of Marina Castillo drinking soft drinks. Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr. and their two other companions arrived at the store. Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr. suddenly boxed Ronaldo Montoya and Ramoncito Ramos. Bayani Talay and Cesar "Toti" Amiscosa joined in mauling Ronaldo Montoya and Ramoncito Ramos, forcing the two to run away. Ronaldo Montoya ran towards the house of barangay captain Rodrigo Toledo. Upon reaching the barangay captain’s house, Ronaldo Montoya reported to him that he was "kinukursunadahan at pinagsusuntok." Ronaldo Montoya, barangay captain Toledo and his son, Nieto Toledo, proceeded to the scene of the incident. Ronaldo Montoya pointed to the group of Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr. as the ones who earlier boxed him and Ramoncito Ramos. Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr. then shouted to Eddie Talay, "Barilin na iyan!" Eddie Talay shot the victim with a .45 caliber pistol. Thereafter, the group of Eddie Talay fled and disappeared. Ronaldo Montoya was rushed to the Velasco Hospital in Silang, Cavite, where he was declared dead on arrival.

Initially, a complaint for murder was filed on December 29, 1981 against petitioners. On December 13, 1984, a complaint for homicide was filed in lieu of murder. Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr. resurfaced three years after the incident, or in December of 1984, to post bail before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Silang-Amadeo, Cavite.

Version of the Defense

The defense presented four witnesses. Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr. narrated that they were on their way to the house of one Nelson Belardo when they stopped by the store of Marina Castillo. Eddie Maigue, Jr. bought cigarettes at the store. They suddenly saw a man approach and box Ronaldo Montoya. There was a commotion and a rumble ensued. Eddie Talay tried to pacify the group. Ronaldo Montoya ran away and returned with barangay captain Rodrigo Toledo and the latter’s son, Nieto Toledo. Ronaldo Montoya pointed to the man who boxed him, at which point, the man shot Ronaldo Montoya with a gun. Their version that an unknown assailant shot Ronaldo Montoya was corroborated by Benjamin Arcilla.

The Court of Appeals’ Ruling


The Court of Appeals found that the trial court correctly gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The Court of Appeals noted that the inconsistencies pointed out by the defense in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses referred to trivial matters that did not affect their credibility. It also noted that slight differences in the recollection of the prosecution witnesses of the details relating to the incident may be expected since some of them testified more than six years after the shooting occurred. The Court of Appeals ruled that the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses of Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr. as the assailants of Ronaldo Montoya rests on solid foundation as their eyewitness accounts were consistent.

The Court of Appeals also agreed with the trial court that the conduct of Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr., before, during and after the commission of the crime, established a series of acts done in conspiracy to pursue a common unlawful purpose.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The Assigned Errors

Petitioners fault the Court of Appeals for (1) taking into account the testimony of prosecution witness Marina Castillo which was stricken off the record; (2) giving credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Ramoncito Ramos despite the finding of the trial court that he was a liar; and (3) not taking into account through oversight the testimony of defense witness Benjamin Arcilla.

The Court’s Ruling


The petition is bereft of merit.

The merits of the defense’s petition hinge on the credibility of witnesses. The Court, however, has invariably relied upon, and accorded the highest respect for, the findings of fact of trial courts. This is particularly true when what is at issue is the credibility of witnesses. No departure from this principle and practice is warranted by petitioners’ arguments in this case.

Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses

First, petitioners argue that since Marina Castillo’s testimony as the principal witness for the prosecution was stricken off the record by the trial court’s order of May 5, 1988, 8 the other prosecution witnesses’ testimonies which merely corroborate Marina’s testimony no longer have any leg to stand on. Second, petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals should not have given credence to the testimony of Ramoncito Ramos after the trial court found him to be a liar. Third, they also fault the Court of Appeals for not considering the testimony of defense witness Benjamin Arcilla to exculpate them.

While it is true that Marina Castillo’s testimony was stricken off the record, she is not, as the defense argues, the prosecution’s principal witness. Her testimony is not indispensable to secure the conviction of petitioners.

The consistent and unequivocal eyewitness accounts of the other prosecution witnesses, namely Ramoncito Ramos, Nieto Toledo, and Oscar Montoya, suffice to meet the degree of proof required by the Constitution and the law to validate a conviction. The testimony of Ramoncito Ramos showed this, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Now, you said you were in front of the store of Marina Castillo. What were you doing there?

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I was drinking soft drinks with Ronaldo Montoya.

ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

While you were drinking soft drinks, what was that soft drinks, by the way?

A: Seven-Up, sir.

Q: While you were drinking Seven-Up, what happened?

A: Eddie Talay and the companions of Eddie Talay arrived.

Q: When you were referring to the companions of Eddie Talay, are these the companions you just registered on record?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And when the companions of Eddie Talay came, what happened?

A: They boxed us.

Q: Who boxed, "pinagsusuntok?"

A: They boxed us.

Q: Who boxed Ronaldo Montoya?

A: Eddie Maigue.

Q: How about you, who boxed you?

A: Eddie Maigue.

Q: Who else were boxed by Eddie Maigue?

A: We were only two (2) there.

Q: How about the others, they did not box?

A: There was a rumble, a fray.

ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

And then, after you and Ronaldo Montoya were boxed and a fray took place, what happened?

A: We ran away.

Q: Now, will you tell this Court where you and Ronaldo Montoya ran?

A: In the house of the Barangay Chairman, sir.

Q: And was he able to return to the place where the boxing incident happened?

ATTY. NOLASCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The question is very leading. It assumes that he returned, your Honor.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Was he able to return? Did you see him after that?

A: Yes, your Honor.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Where did you see him again?

A: Approaching, pointing to the accused.

ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Where did he come from?

A: He came from the house of the Barangay Chairman.

Q: Now, when Ronaldo Montoya was approaching the group, what happened?

A: When Ronaldo Montoya was approaching the group, he pointed, sir.

Q: To whom was he pointing?

A: To Eddie Maigue.

ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Who else?

A: Eddie Talay.

Q: Who else?

A: Amiscosa, sir.

Q: Who else?

A: Bayani Talay.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Amiscosa is not present?

FISCAL VILLANUEVA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

At large, your Honor.

ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

And when Ronaldo Montoya was pointing to the four (4) accused, to whom was he pointing?

A: To the Barangay Chairman.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

You know his name?

A: Yes, sir.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

What is his name?

A: Rodrigo Toledo, sir.

ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

When the four (4) accused were pointed to by Ronaldo Montoya to the Barangay Chairman as the members of the group who boxed you, what happened after that?

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

He was shot, "basta binaril siya."cralaw virtua1aw library

ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Who shot him?

A: Eddie Talay.

Q: And who was shot?

A: Ronaldo Montoya.

Q: Now, immediately before the shooting incident, was there any discussion or argument or did you hear any statement from anybody?

A: I heard "barilin na iyan."cralaw virtua1aw library

Q: Who said that "barilin na iyan?"

A: The companions, sir.

Q: Companions of whom?

A: Companions of Eddie Talay.

Q: And when Ronaldo Montoya was shot after the statement "barilin na iyan" was said, what happened?

A: They ran away.

Q: Who ran away?

A: Eddie Maigue, Eddie Talay, the four accused.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The four accused you mentioned a while ago?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: To what direction?

ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Did they run away in one direction?

A: Yes, sir." 9

This was corroborated by Nieto Toledo who testified as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Did you see anybody in the premises of that store?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Who are these people that you saw there?

A: Eddie Talay, Eddie Maigue, Bayani Talay, Toti Amiscosa.

Q: Who else? How about Ronaldo Montoya? Where was he?

A: He was also there.

Q: You said you caught up with that accused you just pointed to this Court, the question is, when you caught up with them, what happened?

A: I heard the words uttered "Barilin na iyan."cralaw virtua1aw library

Q: Will you please tell the Court if you know, who said "Barilin na iyan?"

A: Eddie Maigue, sir.

Q: Who was he talking when he said "Barilin na iyan?"

A: Eddie Talay, sir.

Q: Only?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: All the rest, he did not talk when he said "Barilin na iyan?"

A: No, sir.

Q: Why? Was this Eddie Talay the only party he was talking?

A: No, sir.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

But at the time this was uttered, all these persons that you have named were also present there?

A: Yes, sir.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

And they were within hearing distance?

A: Yes, sir.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Whether they have heard?

A: Yes, sir.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Proceed.

ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Now, how was that "Barilin na iyan" uttered? Was it in a low voice or in a shouting manner?

A: Yes, sir, malakas.

Q: Now, after this phrase was uttered in a shouting manner "Barilin na iyan" by Eddie Maigue, what happened?

A: He shot, sir.

Q: Who shot who?

A: Ronaldo Montoya was shot by Eddie Talay." 10

This was further corroborated by Oscar Montoya:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Alright. While the group of Eddie Talay was near the post and Ronaldo Montoya returned, what did Ronaldo Montoya do?

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Ronaldo Montoya was pointing to Nieto Toledo the group. He said, "They were the ones who boxed me."cralaw virtua1aw library

ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Now, who is this Nieto Toledo?

A: The son of the barangay captain, sir.

Q: Why? Where was he at the time when only Ronaldo Montoya you said returned?

A: He came from his house following Ronaldo Montoya, sir.

Q: Now, after Ronaldo Montoya pointed the members of the group to be Eddie Maigue, Eddie Talay, Toti Amiscosa and Bayani Talay to Nieto Toledo, what happened after that?

A: After pointing to Eddie Talay . . .

ATTY. NOLASCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

He did not say after pointing to Eddie Talay. After pointing. He did not specify in particular Eddie Talay.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Who is pointing whom?

A: Ronaldo Montoya was pointing to Eddie Talay, and that time, he was shot." 11

Evidently, the testimonies of Ramoncito Ramos, Nieto Toledo and Oscar Montoya, were consistent, in accord with one another, and were given in a simple and straightforward manner. Their testimonies concur on material points with very slight variations in their recollection of details.

We reject petitioners’ contention that the entire testimony of Ramoncito Ramos does not deserve credence because he was branded a liar by the trial court. That portion of Ramoncito Ramos’ testimony during cross-examination where he allegedly lied is quoted as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ATTY. NOLASCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

For the information and guidance of counsel, appearing on page 14 of the transcript and I quote, "Q: Who boxed Ronaldo Montoya? A: Eddie Maigue. Q: Who (sic) Q: How about you, who boxed you? A: Eddie Maigue. Q: Who else were boxed by Eddie Maigue? A: We were the only two (2), sir."cralaw virtua1aw library

Q: So, it is clear from the testimony that the person who boxed him was Eddie Maigue. Which is now true, all of them boxed you and Ronaldo Montoya. Or it was only Eddie Maigue who boxed you and Ronaldo Montoya?

A: Both of us were boxed, sir.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Will you please repeat the question.

(At this juncture, the question was read to the witness.)

A: The one who boxed is Eddie Maigue.

ATTY. NOLASCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

So, it is not true they (sic) all of them boxed you and Ronaldo Montoya.

A: All of them boxed because they chased us at first, Eddie Maigue was the one who boxed, sir.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

At first, then later, all of them boxed you?

A: All of them, sir. They were holding bush navel.

ATTY. NOLASCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Do we gather from your testimony that all the four (4) accused were able to box you personally while you were running?

A: No, sir.

Q: So, it is not all the accused boxed you, as you say now?

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Only one boxed me.

Q: Precisely, I am asking you, not all the four (4) boxed you personally?

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

He already said all of them boxed me. If he is now telling you or the Court that only one (1) boxed him, he is lying.

ATTY. NOLASCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Well, your Honor, to magnify.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Put it on record that this witness is lying. If: it is the theory of the cross-examiner.

ATTY. NOLASCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Yes, your Honor.

ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

No, your Honor, because he is explaining.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Let him repeat the answer before I will make my ruling or I will send this witness to jail, if he will continue to lie.

(The question is repeated to the witness.)

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Eddie Maigue boxed us.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The point is, who boxed you?

A: Eddie Maigue, sir.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Not all of them boxed you?

A: Yes, sir, not all.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Continue.

ATTY. NOLASCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

So, it is not true, as you stated a while ago that all the accused boxed you?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So, when you said that all the four (4) accused boxed you, you lied before this Honorable Court.

A: Yes, sir.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

He is accepting that he is lying.

ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

No, your Honor. He is trying to explain.

ATTY. NOLASCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

It is already there, your Honor. He said Yes, sir.

ATTY. GENEROSO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

He is trying to explain, your Honor.

ATTY. NOLASCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

No more, your Honor.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

No, no. If he wants to explain, I will allow him to explain. Do you want to explain after telling the Court that you are lying?

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The only one who boxed me is Eddie Maigue. What I meant is that all the accused boxed Ronaldo Montoya.

COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Not you?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. NOLASCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

So, also, for the last time, I will ask you if it is true, so your statement a while ago that all the accused were able to box you or Ronaldo Montoya is not true?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. NOLASCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

With the admission, your Honor, of the witness having lied before this Court, I am through with my cross-examination, your Honor.

COURT

Okay." 12

Ramoncito Ramos’ confusion during a lengthy cross-examination on who or how many boxed him is understandable and does not undermine the integrity of his entire testimony. On the whole, his testimony as to who mauled and eventually killed Ronaldo Montoya was consistent and believable. Perfect recall and a flawless testimony cannot be expected from a witness who is testifying almost six years after the event. 13 During his cross-examination, he clarified this matter by categorically confirming that only Eddie Maigue boxed him. If at all, this portion of his testimony was a minor lapse that does not necessarily make him a liar. Moreover, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part, as the corroborative evidence or improbability of the case may require. 14

It would have been highly unnatural for the third eyewitness, Oscar Montoya, as the father of Ronaldo Montoya, to accuse persons other than the real culprits since the father’s interest is to punish only the guilty and not innocent persons. A father’s quest for justice for his son’s death would deter him from implicating innocent persons, as his natural interest would be to secure the conviction of the real culprits. 15

Also futile is petitioners’ claim that the courts a quo grievously erred in failing to consider, through oversight, the testimony of defense witness Benjamin Arcilla. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not overlook Benjamin Arcilla’s testimony. On the contrary, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court’s assessment that Benjamin Arcilla’s testimony is unworthy of belief. Indeed, Benjamin Arcilla’s testimony corroborating petitioners’ denial and supporting petitioners’ claim that a stranger shot Ronaldo Montoya flies in the face of the positive identification by not one but three prosecution witnesses.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness, prevails over denial which if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence is self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. 16 The defense of denial is unavailing when placed astride the undisputed fact that there is positive identification of the felon. 17 Like alibi, denial is an inherently weak defense and crumbles before positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified that the culprits were at the scene of the incident and were the assailants of the victim. 18

In sum, the Court sees no reason to disturb the courts a quo’s evaluation and assessment of the credibility of witnesses. We reiterate the familiar and well-entrenched rule that in assessing the credibility of witnesses, the factual findings of the trial court should be respected. The judge a quo was in a better position to pass judgment on the credibility of witnesses, having personally heard them when they testified and observed their deportment and manner of testifying.

Conspiracy was Sufficiently Proved

We also agree with the courts a quo that the evidence on record shows the existence of conspiracy in the killing of Ronaldo Montoya. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 19 Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. 20 In a conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. What is important is that all the participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose or design to bring about the death of the victim. 21

From the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution, it is clear that Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo Maigue, Jr. acted in concert in the pursuit of their unlawful design. They were together from the time they arrived at the store of Marina Castillo up to the time of the actual shooting. The mauling incident involved all of them. After the shooting, they all fled together and resurfaced only after three years to post bail. There being a conspiracy in the killing of Ronaldo Montoya, each one of them is guilty as principal perpetrator of the crime. 22

Penalty and Civil Liability

Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Considering that there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty is to be imposed in its medium period. Applying the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo Maigue, Jr. may thus be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

Consistent with current jurisprudence, we maintain the award by the Court of Appeals of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Ronaldo Montoya. 23

We also maintain the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages. Oscar Montoya, father of Ronaldo Montoya, testified on the pain and anguish suffered on losing a son. 24 Likewise, the award of P40,000.00 for actual damages is warranted in view of Oscar Montoya’s testimony that this was the amount spent for his son’s wake and burial. 25 Ordinarily, receipts should support claims of actual damages, but where the defense did not contest the claim, it should be granted. 26

The Court of Appeals correctly deleted the award of exemplary damages considering that such damages can only be recovered in criminal cases when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals finding petitioners Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, defined under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that Eddie Talay, Bayani Talay and Edgardo "Eddie" Maigue, Jr. are each sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. They are also ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the victim Ronaldo Montoya the sums of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P40,000.00 as actual damages.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Ynares-Santiago, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. In the course of the trial, Toti Amiscosa was identified as Cesar Amiscosa.

2. Original Records (OR), p. 92.

3. OR, p. 126.

4. OR, pp. 309–310.

5. Fifth Division, composed of J. Arturo B. Buena, chairman and ponente, with J. Jainal D. Rasul and J. Ramon U. Mabutas, Jr., as members.

6. Should be Ronaldo.

7. Rollo, p. 30.

8. OR, p. 213.

9. TSN dated May 28, 1987, pp. 13–17.

10. TSN dated July 9, 1987, pp. 9–10.

11. TSN dated September 23, 1987, pp. 12–13.

12. TSN dated June 9, 1987, pp. 14–18.

13. The shooting occurred in 1981, Ramoncito Ramos testified in 1987.

14. People v. Somooc, 244 SCRA 731 (1995).

15. People v. Oposculo, Jr., 345 SCRA 167 (2000).

16. People v. Catuiran, 343 SCRA 293 (2000).

17. People v. Amania, 248 SCRA 486 (1995).

18. People v. Ricafranca, 323 SCRA 652 (2000).

19. People v. Abarri, 242 SCRA 39 (1995).

20. Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan, 240 SCRA 13 (1995).

21. People v. Alib, 322 SCRA 93 (2000).

22. People v. Cedon, 233 SCRA 187 (1994).

23. People v. Mangahas, 311 SCRA 384 (1999).

24. TSN dated September 23, 1987, p. 36.

25. Ibid., p. 39.

26. People v. Arellano, 334 SCRA 775 (2000).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 02-10-05-SC February 3, 2003 - RE: REPORT ON THE SERIES OF THEFT AND ROBBERY IN THE PREMISES OF THE SUPREME COURT

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1403 February 3, 2003 - BOBBY CARRIAGA v. ROMEO L. ANASARIO

  • G.R. No. 133003 February 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAWRENCE MACAPANPAN , ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140727-28 February 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAQUIM PINUELA

  • G.R. Nos. 141438-40 February 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LITO LIMPANGOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150799 February 3, 2003 - AMELITA S. NAVARRO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5957 February 4, 2003 - WINNIE C. LUCENTE, ET AL. v. CLETO L. EVANGELISTA, JR.

  • A.M. Nos. MTJ-03-1475, RTJ-03-1752 & RTJ-03-1754 February 4, 2003 - EARLA SY v. VERONICA DONDIEGO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1476 February 4, 2003 - BENITO ANG v. REINATO G. QUILALA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1618 February 4, 2003 - ERLINDA Y. LICUDINE v. WILFREDO P. SAQUILAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136066-67 February 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BINAD SY CHUA

  • G.R. Nos. 140736-39 February 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS LILO

  • G.R. Nos. 142919 & 143876 February 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO P. NAPALIT

  • G.R. No. 153945 February 4, 2003 - REYNATO BAYTAN, ET AL. v. COMELEC

  • A.M. No. 2002-6-SC February 5, 2003 - ALEJANDREA GURO, ET AL. v. SUSAN M. DORONIO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1449 February 5, 2003 - FUNDADOR AMBALONG v. ANTONIO C. LUBGUBAN

  • G.R. No. 142556 February 5, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS S. PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 143784 February 5, 2003 - PHILIPPINE RETIREMENT AUTHORITY v. JESUSITO L. BUÑAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148944 February 5, 2003 - ALVIN B. GARCIA v. PRIMO C. MIRO

  • A.C. No. 5085 February 6, 2003 - PABLITO SANTOS v. ALVARO BERNABE LAZARO

  • G.R. No. 142283 February 6, 2003 - ROSA LIGAYA C. DOMINGO, ET AL. v. RONALDO D. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 144305-07 February 6, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TACIO EMILIO

  • G.R. No. 145804 February 6, 2003 - LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN v. MARJORIE NAVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 151925 February 6, 2003 - CHAS REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. TOMAS B. TALAVERA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1366 February 7, 2003 - MARIA ELISSA F. VELEZ v. RODRIGO R. FLORES

  • A.M. No. P-01-1488 February 7, 2003 - ILUMINADA CABATO-CORTES v. VICTORIA M. AGTARAP

  • A.M. No. P-01-1508 February 7, 2003 - EVELYN GAMOTIN NERY v. MELLARDO C. GAMOLO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1517 February 7, 2003 - FE ALBANO-MADRID v. MARIPI A. APOLONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121069 February 7, 2003 - BENJAMIN CORONEL, ET AL.vs. FLORENTINO CONSTANTINO

  • G.R. No. 124392 February 7, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO ABRAZALDO

  • G.R. No. 144590 February 7, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO F. PARADEZA

  • G.R. No. 152158 February 7, 2003 - WALLEM PHILIPPINES SHIPPING INC., ET AL. v. PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE & ASSURANCE INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132120 February 10, 2003 - PCGG v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • A.M. No. 02-10-598-RTC February 11, 2003 - IN RE: DELAYED REMITTANCE OF COLLECTIONS OF TERESITA LYDIA R. ODTUHAN

  • G.R. No. 131377 February 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAZAR U. CHAVES

  • G.R. No. 136911 February 11, 2003 - SPS. LEON CASIMIRO and PILAR PASCUAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142396 February 11, 2003 - KHOSROW MINUCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142416 February 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO SORONGON

  • G.R. No. 143297 February 11, 2003 - SPS. VIRGILIO and MICHELLE CASTRO v. ROMEO V. MIAT

  • G.R. No. 143440 February 11, 2003 - SERENA T. BACELONIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146034 February 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LASTIDE A. SUBE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127152 February 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO AVERGONZADO

  • G.R. No. 139211 February 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO VILLARAMA

  • G.R. Nos. 140724-26 February 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALLEN BUSTAMANTE

  • G.R. No. 118249 February 14, 2003 - MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130912 February 14, 2003 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERTRUDES V. SUSI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133831 February 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO CULTURA

  • G.R. No. 137404 February 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE CASITAS JR.

  • G.R. No. 143092 February 14, 2003 - TERESITA G. FABIAN v. NESTOR V. AGUSTIN

  • G.R. No. 143671 February 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGNES C. PADASIN

  • G.R. No. 143933 February 14, 2003 - PHILIPPINE NAILS AND WIRES CORPORATION v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 150453 February 14, 2003 - RAFAEL AMATORIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 151447 February 14, 2003 - NEW SAMPAGUITA BUILDERS CONSTRUCTIONS, INC., ET AL. v. FERMINA CANOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153483 February 14, 2003 - FLORDELIZA F. QUERIJERO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155172 February 14, 2003 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PATERNO V. TAC-AN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1287 February 17, 2003 - ROGELIO G. CAPULONG v. VINCI G. GOZUM

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1479 February 17, 2003 - MELENCIO A. CEA v. ORLANDO C. PAGUIO

  • A.M. No. P-02-1597 February 17, 2003 - MARY GRACE G. FRIAS v. PALERMO AGUILAR

  • G.R. No. 126833 February 17, 2003 - MELODY B. BATOY v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137278-79 February 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRIVALDO L. BESMONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137283 February 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODERICK LEGASPI

  • G.R. No. 141116 February 17, 2003 - DAMASO SEBASTIAN, ET AL. v. HORACIO R. MORALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142440 February 17, 2003 - EL REYNO HOMES v. ERNESTO ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144109 February 17, 2003 - ASSOCIATED COMMUNICATIONS & WIRELESS SERVICES — UNITED BROADCASTING NETWORKS v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 146267 February 17, 2003 - NYK INTERNATIONAL KNITWEAR CORP. PHILS., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 148948 & 148951-60 February 17, 2003 - COMELEC v. LUCENITO N. TAGLE

  • G.R. Nos. 147589 & 147613 February 18, 2003 - ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY v. COMELEC, AT AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1232 February 19, 2003 - ROSARIO D. ADRIANO v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P-02-1594 February 19, 2003 - IGNACIO R. CONCEPCION v. RONALDO HUBILLA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1757 February 19, 2003 - ALBERT T. UY v. ADRIANO R. OSORIO

  • G.R. No. 115324 February 19, 2003 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122791 February 19, 2003 - PLACIDO O. URBANES, JR. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132042 February 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD B. LAPITAJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136796 February 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO DATU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136804 February 19, 2003 - MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO., ET AL. v. RAFAEL MA. GUERRERO

  • G.R. No. 138093 February 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. EDWIN D. VELEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140897 February 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZ M. JARLOS

  • G.R. No. 143676 February 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELY MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 147572 February 19, 2003 - TEODORICO ROSARIO v. VICTORY RICEMILL

  • A.C. No. 5024 February 20, 2003 - ARSENIA T. BERGONIA v. ARSENIO A. MERRERA

  • G.R. No. 132256 February 20, 2003 - SPS. EUFRONIO and VIDA DELFIN v. MUNICIPAL RURAL BANK OF LIBMANAN

  • G.R. No. 150530 February 20, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX BAYTIC

  • G.R. No. 150913 February 20, 2003 - SPS. TEOFILO and SIMEONA RAYOS, ET AL. v. DONATO REYES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1433 February 21, 2003 - TOMAS R. LEONIDAS v. FRANCISCO G. SUPNET

  • A.M. No. P-01-1449 February 21, 2003 - CLEMENTINO IMPERIAL v. MARIANO F. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 120650 February 21, 2003 - RENE BOTONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140217 February 21, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO PATOC

  • G.R. No. 118830 February 24, 2003 - SPS. ALFREDO AND ENCARNACION CHING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125755 February 24, 2003 - PEDRO MOLINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143708 February 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO T. SAMBRANO

  • G.R. No. 146189 February 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO GARILLO

  • G.R. No. 131804 February 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO OSTIA

  • A.C. No. 4801 February 27, 2003 - MENA U. GERONA v. ALFREDO DATINGALING

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1427 February 27, 2003 - MODESTO MAGSUCANG v. ROLANDO V. BALGOS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1759 February 27, 2003 - JIMMY T. GO, ET AL. v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. No. 118900 February 27, 2003 - JARDINE DAVIES INSURANCE BROKERS, INC. v. ERNA ALIPOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119477 February 27, 2003 - EDDIE TALAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123552 February 27, 2003 - TWIN TOWERS CONDOMINIUM CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129428 February 27, 2003 - BENJAMIN NAVARRO, ET AL. v. SECOND LAGUNA DEVELOPMENT BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133445 February 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONESIO SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 140404 February 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ALIBEN

  • G.R. No. 140853 February 27, 2003 - ARIEL A. TRES REYES v. MAXIM’S TEA HOUSE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142293 February 27, 2003 - VICENTE SY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 142648 February 27, 2003 - OFELIA J. VILLAVICENCIO v. ALEJANDRO A. MOJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143089 February 27, 2003 - MERCEDES R. GOCHAN, ET AL. v. VIRGINIA GOCHAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143216 February 27, 2003 - CLEOFE NORRIS v. JOSE J. PARENTELA

  • G.R. No. 144117 February 27, 2003 - MILAGROS B. NAYVE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146770 February 27, 2003 - ORLANDO P. NAYA v. SPS. ABRAHAM and GUILLERMA ABING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148000 February 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATERNO V. TAC-AN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1451 February 28, 2003 - LINA M. PANER v. SHERIFF IV EDGARDO M. TORRES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1681 February 28, 2003 - VERONICA A. DONDIEGO v. PETRONIO D. CUEVAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118133 February 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO Q. BALACANAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131035 February 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 134525 February 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 137411-13 February 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL LORETO

  • G.R. No. 139833 February 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL B. GABAWA

  • G.R. No. 141646 February 28, 2003 - PABLO CONDRADA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143929 February 28, 2003 - GUILLERMO AND LOURDES BERNALDEZ v. CONCHITA FRANCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 145172-74 February 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO CORRAL

  • G.R. No. 150673 February 28, 2003 - SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION CO. v. ICC LEASING and FINANCING CORP.