[G.R. No. 105002.

July 17, 1997]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIARANGAN DANSAL accusedappellant.

DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Appellant claims that he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force. Because he
admits in effect the commission of a punishable act, he must prove the exempting
circumstance by clear and convincing evidence.

Statement of the Case

This appeal seeks the reversal of the December 4, 1990 Decision [1] of the Regional Trial
Court of Iligan City, Branch 2 [2] in Criminal Case No. 3141 convicting Appellant Diarangan
Dansal of the crime of murder.
A complaint against appellant was filed on March 28, 1990 by INP [3] Station Commander
Cabsaran C. Azis of Matungao, Lanao del Norte. After preliminary investigation, Provincial
Prosecutor IV Felix Fajardo charged appellant with murder on September 7, 1990 in an
Information which reads:[4]
That on or about the 2nd day of March, 1990, at Matungao, Lanao del Norte, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another with 4 John Does, who are still at large and
whose case is still pending in the lower court, with treachery, evident premeditation, taking
advantage of superior strength, and with intent to kill, did then & there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Abubacar Pagalamatan with a Garand rifle
thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple gunshot wounds which were the direct and
immediate cause of his death thereafter.
Upon arraignment, appellant with the assistance of counsel de oficio pleaded not
guilty. In due course, the trial court rendered its assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of
which reads:[5]
WHEREFORE, finding accused DIARANGAN DANSAL guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and
he is hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of Abubakar Alamat, also known as Abubakar
Pagalamatan the amount of P30,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay costs.
Accused is entitled in full for the period of his detention.
Hence, this appeal.

The Facts

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution sought to establish that on March 2, 1990 in Pasayanon, Matungao,
Lanao del Norte, appellant, armed with a Garand rifle like his four (4) other companions,
fired the fatal shots which caused the death of Abubakar Alamat, also known as Abubakar
Pangalamatan.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Cosain Dowa, Dr. Marilyn Rico,
Amina Oticol, Panda Antalo and Timal Mosa. Their testimonies may be synthesized as
follows:
Panda Antalo testified that at three oclock in the afternoon of March 2, 1990 in
Matungao, Lanao del Norte, he and Timal Mosa were walking through a barrio road on their
way to see Mayor Asis.[6] They saw Abubakar Alamat, the victim, conversing with five (5)
persons, one of whom was appellant. However, Antalo did not recognize appellants
companions. When he and Mosa were five (5) meters away from the group, he heard
gunshots. He turned his head and noticed that smoke was coming out of appellants rifle and
empty shells were falling therefrom. The Garand rifles of appellant and his companions were
pointed at the victim who was lying on the ground face upwards. Seven (7) shots were
fired. At that time Antalo was immobile as he was frightened. Thus, he was unable to run
and take cover. After appellant and his companions ran towards the coffee plantation, Antalo
approached the victim and discovered that the latter had sustained seven (7) wounds. [7]
Timal Mosa corroborated Antalos account. He testified that at 3:00 p.m. of March 2,
1990, he and Antalo were on their way to Mayor Asis house in Pasaupnon, Matungao. He saw
the victim, the appellant and four (4) other persons talking to one another. Then he heard a
gunshot from behind. When he turned to look, he noticed that smoke was coming out of
appellants gun and that empty shells were dropping from it as appellant continued to fire at
the victim. Appellants rifle was pointed at the victim who had fallen on the ground. He heard
seven (7) gunshots. Appellants companions also carried Garand rifles, but Mosa concluded
that these were not fired because he did not notice any smoke from their barrels. He was not
frightened. Neither did he take cover, as he knew both the victim and the appellant.After
firing at the victim, appellant together with his four companions fled towards Mayor Asis
coffee plantation. He and Antalo approached the victim, whom they found already
dead. Thereafter, they reported the shooting to the victims wife.[8]
Cosain Dowa, a Rural Sanitarium Inspector of the Health Office of Matungao, Lanao del
Norte, testified that on March 5, 1990 he prepared the victims Certificate of Death (Exh.
A). Although his main duty was to inspect food establishments, construct barangay toilets,
and assist in watershed constructions in the municipality, he also helped the health officer in
the preparation of death certificates. [9] When the body of the victim was brought in, he
observed gunshot wounds on his right foot, right thigh and right breast. The right knee was
distorted. There was a bullet hole at the victims back which he believed was the entry point
leading to the gaping wound on the breast.[10]
Dr. Marilyn Rico testified that she was the Rural Health Officer of Matungao, Lanao del
Norte. She signed Abubakar Alamats Certificate of Death (Exh. A-2) [11] which was prepared
by Dowa.
Amina Oticol, the widow of the victim, testified that, around 3:00 p.m. of March 2, 1990,
she was at their house in Panta-on, Matungao, Lanao del Norte. Antalo and Mosa came and
informed her that appellant killed her husband. She had her husbands corpse brought to
their house. Her husband was buried in Panta-on, Matungao, Lanao del Norte. She incurred

expenses for the burial in the amount ofP15,000.00, but she asked for P100,000.00 as
compensation therefor.[12]

Version of the Defense

Appellant was the lone witness for the defense. He testified that on March 1, 1990, he
went to Tagolo-an, Lanao del Norte to visit his elder sister Saramina Dansal. At his sisters
house, Mimbalawang Dorado, together with his sons Macod, Talente and Talentes son Usop,
all surnamed Dorado, seized appellant and brought him to their house at Tongkol, Tagolo-an,
Lanao del Norte for reasons undisclosed to him. [13]
The next day, March 2, 1990 at 7:00 a.m., they all left Tagolo-an for Matungao and
arrived there at 11:00 a.m. He was given a Garand rifle that was not serviceable. They
proceeded to the victims house at Panta-on, Matungao, Lanao del Norte. They asked the
victim to come out and then they fired their guns at him as soon as he appeared. Appellant
said that the Dorados killed the victim to avenge the killing of one of Mimbalawags sons
named Ali by a certain Salonga, the victims paternal cousin.
After shooting the victim, the Dorados allegedly aimed their guns at appellant and told
him to run away. As he was also related to the victim, the latters mother being his paternal
aunt, appellant wanted to shoot the Dorados. Finding that his rifle was not operational, he
fled with the Dorados. Thereafter, they rode a truck to Karomatan. They left their guns at the
house of Mimbalawags sister in Bangko, near Matungao. [14] He went home and afterwards
told the mayor of Tagolo-an that the Dorados killed his cousin. He was subsequently
summoned and detained by the mayor of Panta-on.[15]

Ruling of the Trial Court

As stated earlier, the court a quo convicted appellant of murder. It gave credence to the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It disbelieved appellant in view of the absence of
any improper motive on the witnesses part to testify wrongly against him.
The trial court noted that appellant and the four (4) Dorados were all armed with Garand
rifles; that they immediately fired their guns at the victim as he came out of his house; and
that the victim was not in a position to defend himself. From these facts, it concluded that
the offenders consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, method or form of
attack employed by them to ensure the accomplishment of their purpose with
impunity. Thus, treachery, abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation were
appreciated in the conviction of the appellant.
Hence, this appeal.

Assignment of Errors
Appellant through the Public Attorneys Office ascribes the following errors to the trial
court:
I

The lower court erred in not finding that accused-appellants presence in the crime scene
was under a compulsion of an irresistable (sic) force.
II
The lower court erred in considering the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of
superior strength.[16]
In a nutshell, appellant invokes the exempting circumstance of compulsion under an
irresistible force under paragraph 5, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. Further, he argues
that, if at all, he should be convicted only of homicide because the prosecution failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the qualifying circumstances of treachery and/or abuse of
superior strength.

The Courts Ruling

The appeal is bereft of merit.

Preliminary Issue: Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses

Without specifically raising it as an error, appellant nonetheless laced his brief with
attacks on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, we shall dispose of this
matter.
Well-settled is the rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the
trial court on the credibility of witnesses.[17] Such findings are conclusive upon the Supreme
Court in the absence of any showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the
result of the case.[18] We have carefully scrutinized the records of this case and the
arguments of appellant, and we have found no reason to reverse the findings of the trial
court.
The two prosecution eyewitnesses positively and clearly identified appellant as the
assailant who alone fired his rifle at the victim. Their testimonies corroborated each
other. Antalo testified thus:[19]
PROSECUTOR BADELLES:
q Now, in the afternoon of March 2, 1990, around 3:00 oclock more or less, did (sic)
you remember where were you?
a I can remember, sir.
q Where were you?
a I was on my way to see Mayor Asis that day, sir.
q While on your way to Mayor Asis, were you walking, riding or what?
a I am walking with Timal, sir.
xxx xxx xxx

q While on your way to the house of Mayor Asis in that afternoon of March 2, 1990,
with Timal, did you notice anything along the road?
a Yes, there was.
PROSECUTOR BADELLES:
q What was that you noticed?
a While we are on our way to the Mayors house, we saw Abubacar Alamat that he
had 5 companions and I recognized one of them. (Witness pointing to the
accused Abubacar Pagalamatan [sic])
q Now what were they doing when you saw them?
a They were having conversation, sir.
q Now, you said you saw them, now how far were you [from] the groups?
a About 5 meters far, sir.
q Were they in front of you or at the back of you when you saw them first?
a At my back, sir.
q And then after that was there any unusual [event] that happened?
a There was, sir.
q What was that unusual thing that happened?
a I heard a shound (sic) of gun burst sir.
q What did you do when you heard that gun burst?
a I glanced at them and I noticed that the gun of Diarangan Dansal the tip of his
gun has smoke and I also noticed empty shells falling down.
q Now how far were you when you saw Diarangan Dansal with the tip of his gun
having smoke and the empty shells falling down from his gun?
a About 5 meters, sir.
q Now, how many burst all in all that you heard?
a Seven burst, sir.
q Now you said that you saw empty shells falling down from the gun of Diarangan
Dansal, how many empty shells that you saw that fell down from the gund (sic)
of Diarangan Dansal?
a I have not seen the others sir.
q By the way what was gun of Diarangan Dansal hold that time? (sic)
a Garand, sir.
q When you saw Dirangan (sic) Dansal holding a Garand and when you saw that tip
of his gun smoking, to was direct (sic) that his gun pointing?
a Pointing to Abubacar Pagalamatan, sir.
q Now how about Abubacar Pagalamatan at the time when you saw him holding a
gun which was pointed to Abubacar Pagalamatan with smoke coming out from

the tip of the gun and the empty shells falling down, what was the relative
position of Abubacar Pangalamatan to Diarangan Dansal?
a Abubacar Pangalamat was lying down, his face upward, sir.
q Now, after you heard those 7 burst of a gun, what did you do next?
a I was immovilized (sic) sir.
q How about Diarangan Dansal and his companions, what did he do after the 7
burst you heard?
a They were running toward the coffee trees, sir.
Mosa corroborated Antalos account in this wise:[20]
PROS. BADELLES:
Q On or about March 2, 1990 at 3:00 in the afternoon, can you remember where
were you?
xxx xxx xxx
A We were then going to the house of Asis at Pasayano, Matungao.
Q You used the word ()we() who was your companion at that time?
A Panda Andalo.
Q While on your way to the house of Asis at Pasayano Matungao, along the way did
you see any person?
xxx xxx xxx
A I saw Diarangan Dansal and Abubakar Pangalamatan.
Q They have compnaion (sic) if any at that time?
A Yes, sir, I did not recognize him.
Q How many of them?
A Four (4).
xxx xxx xxx
Q Now waht (sic) was the position of these persons in relation to your position at the
time you saw them?
A I was ten (10) meters from them and they are talking to each other.
Q Were they in front of you or back of you?
A They are at my back.
Q Now, when you were about ten (10) meters from them, this ten (10) meter at
your back were there anything happened unusual (sic)?
xxx xxx xxx
A I heard gun shot and then I looked back.
Q Towards what direction after hearing the shot?
A I looked back at them.

Q Who was ()them() that you are referring to?

A Abubakar Pangalamatan and Diarangan Dansal.
Q And when you look back at them what did you see?
A I saw firearm of iarangan (sic) Dansal and the firearm was smoking and the empty
shells were coming out from the rifle.
Q Towards what direction was the fireamr (sic) of Diarangan Dansal pointed to when
see him at that time?
A The firearm was pointed to at Abubakar Pangalamatan.
Q When you look back at them and saw Diarangan Dansal pointed his firearm to
Abubakar Pangalamatan what was then the position of Abubakar
Pangalamatan?
A when the firearm exploded, Abubakar Pangalamatan fell down.
xxx xxx xxx
Q By the way how many shots that you hear (sic)?
A Seven shots.
Q The first shots that you hear was immediately, was prior to the looking back
where Abubakar Pangalamatan and Diarangan Dansal were located (sic)?
A Yes, sir.
Q How about the second shots, when did you hear it?
A As I look back.
Q Did you see who fire (sic) the shot?
A Diarangan Dansal.
Q How did you know that it was Diarangan Dansal who firedthe (sic) second shot?
A Because there was a smoke coming from his gun and the empty shells coming
from his rifle.
Q In the second shot, was shotting (sic) by Diarangan Dansal to what direction was
the firearm of Diarangan Dansal point to? (sic)
A It was he who was still pointing his gun to Pangalamatan.
Q How about the third shot, when did you hear it?
A Well, I suspect that it was still at the gun of Diarangan Dansal and I heard that the
same gunshot coming from the guaran (sic) of Diarangan Dansal.
Q How did you know that the same shot was coming from the same barrel of
Diarangan Dansal?
A Because smoke was coming out from the barrel of his gun.
Q And the 4th the 5th, the 6th and the seven (7) shots you hear it when?
A Still from the firearm of Diarangan Dansal.
Q How do you know that it was coming from the firearm of Diarangan Dansal?

A Because the smoke was still coming out from his gun and the empty shell coming
from his gun.
Q How about the companion of Diarangan Dansal was they arm (sic) at that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q What firearm?
A Garand.
Q All the while when you hear the gunshots and all these six (6) successive gun
shots and saw Diarangan Dansal shot what did the companion of Diarangan
Dansal do?
A They were around Diarangan Daniel holding their gun.
Q Did you notice if they fired their gun?
A No, sir.
Q How did you know that they did not shot their firearm?
A Because there was no smoke coming from their firearm.
Q After the 7th shot, do you know what the group of Drainage Daniel (sic) did?
A They Fled (sic).
Q Towards what direction?
A Towards the coffee plantation.
Both testimonies are straightforward, clear and consistent and they point categorically
to appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.
Furthermore, appellant has not alleged, much less proven, ill motive on the part of said
witnesses to accuse appellant of such a grave offense. In his brief, appellant admits that he
cannot discern any reason for Antalo and Mosa to testify falsely against him. [21] In this light,
we cannot fault the court a quo for holding that:[22]
The court is constrained to believe that the testimonies of witnesses Panda Antalo and Timal
Mosa are credible for failure by the defense to show that said witnesses were prejudiced
against the accused or that said witnesses had an existing improper motive in imputing to
the accused the crime for which he is charged. When there is no evidence showing that the
witnesses are prejudiced against the accused, the witnesses would not have imputed to the
accused the commission of such a grave offense as that of murder if it was not true that he
was really guilty thereof (People vs. Ali, 29 SCRA 756). The absence of evidence as to an
improper motive actuating the principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly tends to
sustain the conclusion that such improper motive did not exist, and that their testimonies
are worthy of full faith and credit (People vs. Saroah, 5 SCRA 385; People vs. Valera, 5 SCRA
910).
The defense assails the testimonies of Prosecution Witnesses Antalo and Mosa because
their conduct during the commission of the crime was allegedly contrary to common
experience. Appellant finds it unlikely for said eyewitnesses to keep on standing despite the
burst of gunfire as if x x x watching a movie in the making and to remain unmoved by the
violent shooting incident. Ordinarily, a man in a similar situation would either take cover or
run for safety. Because the eyewitnesses did not so conduct themselves, appellant
concludes that their testimonies were preposterous and untrue.

We disagree. Antalo said that he was so scared of what was happening that he could not
move, while Mosa admitted that he was afraid but he did not take cover, as he knew both
the appellant and the victim. Their reactions, although the exact opposite of each other, are
valid and probable. Taking cover or running away is not the only natural reaction possible
under the circumstances. There is no standard form of human behavioral response to a
strange, startling and frightful event, and there is no standard rule by which witnesses to a
crime must react.[23]

First Issue: Exempting Circumstance Insufficiently Proved

Appellant claims exemption from criminal liability under Article 12, paragraph 5 of the
Revised Penal Code, because he allegedly acted under the compulsion of an irresistible
force. He allegedly joined the armed Dorados against his will because of fear for his own
safety. He claims in his brief that the Dorados were guarding him so closely that escape was
risky and protection by lawfully constituted authorities was, at the moment, out of reach. [24]
We cannot sustain such defense. A person who invokes the exempting circumstance of
compulsion due to irresistible force must prove his defense by clear and convincing
evidence.[25] He must show that the irresistible force reduced him to a mere instrument that
acted not only without will but also against his will. [26] The compulsion must be of such
character as to leave the accused no opportunity to defend himself or to escape.
The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending; and it
must be of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious
bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough.[27] A speculative,
fanciful or remote fear,[28] even fear of future injury,[29] is insufficient.
In this case, appellant failed to show such compulsion. In his testimony, he did not
mention that the Dorados physically or morally threatened to kill or hurt him. He did not
even make any attempt to resist. He simply took for granted that they would kill or hurt him
if he did not follow them. No evidence was presented to establish how, if at all, he was
compelled to join the Dorados in killing the victim. In other words, appellant failed to prove
that the Dorados made a real and imminent threat on his life or limb sufficient to overcome
his free will.
Indeed, the Court finds no acceptable basis for appellants assertion that he was
compelled and intimidated by the Dorados. Even without him, the Dorados could have easily
carried out the crime, if such was their intention. If we believe appellants story, there was no
need for the Dorados to mortally threaten appellant to join them. Besides, forcing appellant,
a relative of the victim, to join them complicated rather than facilitated their criminal
endeavor. With the appellant present among them, they would have had to guard
themselves from possible resistance and double cross in case he did not consent to their
plan. Furthermore, it would have been highly illogical for the Dorados to force appellant to
take part in their crime, only to give him an unserviceable rifle. [30]
Moreover, his story does not inspire belief for reasons other than the obvious one that it
is uncorroborated. According to appellant, he was taken against his will from his sisters
house in Tagolo-an the day before the commission of the crime. It is strange why his sister
was not presented as witness to corroborate his account. Even the mayor of Tagolo-an, to
whom he reported that he had been forced to participate in a killing, could have testified in
his favor. But said official, who could have injected credence to his defense, was not
presented to corroborate his testimony. The non-presentation of these witnesses tends to
show that they would not have corroborated appellants allegations had they testified.

Second Issue: Qualifying Circumstances

The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident
premeditation and superior strength.
The evidence of the prosecution, however, adequately established only
treachery. Treachery is appreciated when a frontal attack is directed at an unarmed victim
who is totally unaware of and unprepared for said assault. [31] There is treachery where the
attack on an unarmed victim, who has not given the slightest provocation, is sudden,
unexpected and without warning.[32] According to Prosecution Witness Mosa, the victim, the
appellant and his companions were talking to one another prior to the shooting. It would
have been impossible to hide Garand rifles from someone who was so close. Thus, it is safe
to assume that the victim knew that appellant and his companions were carrying them. If
the victim suspected that they would use those rifles to commit the crime, then he would
have avoided them. But instead, the victim stayed and spoke with them. The victim,
therefore, had no idea that he was going to be shot by appellant who, after all, was his
relative. Even if he eventually did come to know that appellant intended to shoot him, he -being alone and unarmed -- could not have defended himself against all five of them.
Abuse of superior strength, on the other hand, was not established, as there was no
testimony to the effect that appellant and his companions took advantage of their collective
strength in order to kill the victim. [33] Witness Mosa even said that only appellant fired at the
victim. Mere superiority in number after all is not necessarily indicative of this aggravating
circumstance.
The prosecution also failed to establish evident premeditation. For this qualifying
circumstance to be appreciated, there must be a lapse of sufficient time to afford full
opportunity for meditation and reflection that would allow the conscience of the actor to
attempt to overcome the resolution of his will. [34] But the prosecution was unable to establish
this time element as its evidence dealt merely with the circumstances of the actual shooting
itself.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with
modification as regards the civil indemnity which is hereby INCREASED to fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) in line with current jurisprudence.[35]
SO ORDERED.