Eufemio Cabanero, with two counts of murder and three counts of

FIRST DIVISION frustrated murder. The Informations are quoted hereunder.

1) Crim Case No. CBU-9257 for murder:

[G.R. No. 123485. August 31, 1998]
That on the 1st day of June, 1985, at 11:45 oclock in the evening,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLUSAPE more or less, at Mansueto Village, Bulacao, Municipality of Talisay,
SABALONES alias Roling, ARTEMIO TIMOTEO Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
BERONGA, TEODULO ALEGARBES and EUFEMIO Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
CABANERO, accused, ROLUSAPE confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with high-
SABALONES alias Roling and ARTEMIO TIMOTEO powered firearms, with intent to kill and treachery, did then and there
BERONGA, accused-appellants. wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot GLENN
TIEMPO, who was riding [i]n a jeep and who gave no provocation,
DECISION thereby inflicting upon the latter several gunshot wounds, thereby
causing his instantaneous death.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Factual findings of trial courts which are affirmed by the Court of CONTRARY TO Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Appeals are, as a general rule, binding and conclusive upon the
Supreme Court. Alibi, on the other hand, cannot prevail over positive 2) Criminal Case No. 9258 for murder:
identification by credible witnesses. Furthermore, alleged violations of
constitutional rights during custodial investigation are relevant only That on the 1st day of June, 1985 at 11:45 oclock in the evening,
when the conviction of the accused by the trial court is based on the more or less at Mansueto Village, Barangay Bulacao, Municipality of
evidence obtained during such investigation. Talisay, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with high-
The Case powered firearms, with intent to kill and treachery, did [then] and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot
These are the principles relied upon by the Court in resolving this ALFREDO NARDO, who was riding on a jeep and who gave no
appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA)[1] Decision[2] dated September provocation, thereby inflicting upon the latter several gunshot
28, 1995, convicting Rolusape Sabalones and Timoteo Beronga of wounds, thereby causing his instantaneous death.
murder and frustrated murder. The convictions arose from a shooting
incident on June 1, 1985 in Talisay, Cebu, which resulted in the killing CONTRARY TO Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
of two persons and the wounding of three others, who were all riding
in two vehicles which were allegedly ambushed by appellants.
3) Crim Case No. CBU-9259 for frustrated murder:
After conducting a preliminary investigation, Second Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor Juanito M. Gabiana Sr. filed before the Regional That on the 1st day of June, 1985 at 11:45 oclock in the evening,
Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 7,[3] five amended Informations more or less, at Mansueto Village, Barangay Bulacao, Municipality of
charging four John Does, who were later identified as Rolusape Talisay, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
Sabalones, Artemio Timoteo Beronga, Teodulo Alegarbes and
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, IN VIOLATION of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with high-
powered firearms, with intent to kill and treachery, did and there 5) Criminal Case No. 9261 for frustrated murder:
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot REY
BOLO who was riding in a car and who gave no provocation, thereby
That on the 1st day of June, 1985 at 11:45 oclock in the evening,
inflicting upon the latter the following injuries to wit:
more or less, at Mansueto Village, Barangay Bulacao, Municipality of
Talisay, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
laceration, mouth due to gunshot wound, gunshot wound (L) this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring,
shoulder penetrating (L) chest; gunshot wound (R) hand confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with high-
(palm); open fracture (L) clavicle (L) scapula; contusion (L) lung; powered firearms, with intent to kill and treachery, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot NELSON
thereby performing all the acts of execution which would produce the TIEMPO, who was riding in a car and who gave no provocation,
crime of [m]urder as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not thereby inflicting upon the latter the following injuries, to wit:
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator, i.e. the timely medical attendance. Gunshot wound neck penetrating wound perforating trachea (cricoid)
thereby performing all the acts of execution which would produce the
IN VIOLATION of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. crime of [m]urder as a consequence but which nevertheless, did not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
4) Criminal Case No. 9260 for frustrated murder: perpetrator, i.e. the timely medical attendance.

That on the 1st day of June, 1985 at 11:45 oclock in the evening, IN VIOLATION of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
more or less, at Mansueto Village, Barangay Bulacao, Municipality of Of the four indictees in the five Informations, Teodulo Alegarbes
Talisay, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of and Artemio Timoteo Beronga were the first to be arraigned. Upon the
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, arrest of the two, the Informations were amended by the public
confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with high- prosecutor, with the conformity of the defense counsel, by substituting
powered firearms, with intent to kill and treachery, did then and there the names of the two accused for the John Does appearing in the
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot original Informations. When arraigned, said accused, assisted by their
ROGELIO PRESORES, who was riding in a car and who gave no respective lawyers, pleaded not guilty to the five Informations.
provocation, thereby inflicting upon the latter the following injuries, to
wit: Alegarbes died in the course of trial; thus, the cases against him
were dismissed. Accused Cabanero remained at large. Sabalones, on
gunshot wound, thru and thru right chest the other hand, was eventually arrested.Subsequently, he jumped bail
but was recaptured in 1988 and thereafter pleaded not guilty during
thereby performing all the acts of execution which would produce the his arraignment.
crime of [m]urder as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not The cases against Sabalones and Beronga were jointly
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the tried. Thereafter, the lower court found them guilty beyond reasonable
perpetrator, i.e. the timely medical attendance. doubt of the crimes charged. The RTC disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises above-set forth, the Court finds accused years and [e]ight (8) months of [r]eclusion [t]emporal, as maximum,
ROLUSAPE SABALONES and (ARTEMIO) TIMOTEO BERONGA, to indemnify the victim, Nelson Tiempo, the sum of P20,000.00; and
[g]uilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principals:
To pay the costs in all instances. The period of their preventive
In Crim. Case No. CBU-9257, for MURDER, defined and penalized imprisonment shall be credited to each accused in full.
in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, hereby sentences each said
accused to suffer the penalty of [f]ourteen (14) years, [e]ight (8) SO ORDERED.[4]
months and [o]ne (1) day, as minimum, to [s]eventeen (17) years,
[f]our (4) months and [o]ne (1) day, of [r]eclusion [t]emporal, as Appellants filed a notice of appeal to the Court of
maximum, to indemnify the heirs of deceased, Glenn Tiempo, the Appeals. Thereafter, the CA affirmed their conviction but sentenced
sum of P50,000.00; them to reclusion perpetua for the murders they were found guilty
of. Accordingly, the appellate court, without entering judgment,
In Crim. Case No. CBU-9258, for MURDER, defined and penalized certified the case to the Supreme Court in accordance with Section
in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, hereby sentences each said 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. The dispositive portion of the CA
accused to suffer the penalty of [f]ourteen (14) years, [e]ight (8) Decision reads:
months and [o]ne (1) day, as minimum, to [s]eventeen (17) years,
[f]our (4) months and [o]ne (1) day, of [r]eclusion [t]emporal, as WHEREFORE, the Decision of the trial court convicting accused-
maximum, to indemnify the heirs of deceased, Alfredo Nardo, the appellants Rolusa[p]e Sabalones and Artemio Timoteo Beronga for
sum of P50,000.00; murder in Crim. Cases Nos. CBU-9257 and CBU-9258, and
[f]rustrated [m]urder in Crim. Cases Nos. CBU-9259, CBU-9260, and
In Crim. Case No. CBU-9259, for FRUSTRATED MURDER, defined CBU-9261 is hereby AFFIRMED; however, the penalties in the
and penalized in Art. 248 in relation to Art. 50 of the Revised Penal [f]rustrated [m]urder and [m]urder cases are hereby MODIFIED, such
Code, hereby sentences each said accused to suffer the penalty of that both accused-appellants are each sentenced to imprisonment of
[e]ight (8) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to [f]ourteen (14) TEN (10) YEARS of [p]rision [m]ayor medium as minimum to
years and [e]ight (8) months of [re]clusion [t]emporal, as maximum, SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of
to indemnify the victim, Rey Bolo, the sum of P20,000.00; [r]eclusion [t]emporal medium as maximum in each of the three
[f]rustrated [m]urder cases (Crim. Cases Nos. CBU-9259, CBU-9260
and CBU-9261); and are each sentenced to [r]eclusion [p]erpetua in
In Crim. Case No. CBU-9260, for FRUSTRATED MURDER, defined each of the two [m]urder cases (Crim. Cases Nos. CBU-9257 and
and penalized in Art. 248 in relation to Art. 50 of the Revised Penal CBU-9258). The indemnity to the victim in each [f]rustrated [m]urder
Code, hereby sentences each said accused to suffer the penalty of case shall remain. In conformity with Rule 124, Section 13 of the
[e]ight (8) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to [f]ourteen (14) Rules of Court, however, this Court refrains from entering judgment,
years and [e]ight months of [r]eclusion [t]emporal, as maximum, to and hereby certifies the case and orders that the entire record hereof
indemnify the victim, Rogelio Presores, the sum of P20,000.00; be elevated to the Supreme Court for review.[5]

In Crim. Case no. CBU-9261, for FRUSTRATED MURDER, defined After the Court of Appeals certified the case to this Court, we
and penalized in Art. 248 in relation to Art. 50 of the Revised Penal required appellants to file supplemental briefs. Appellants failed to
Code, hereby sentences each said accused to suffer the penalty of comply within the prescribed period and were deemed to have waived
[e]ight (8) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to [f]ourteen (14) their right to do so.[6] Thus, in resolving this case, this Court will
address primarily the arguments raised by the appellants in their Brief The two vehicles traveled in convoy with the jeep 3 to 4 meters
before the Court of Appeals, which assailed the RTC Decision. ahead of the car. When they arrived at the gate of the house of
Stephen Lim, they were met with a sudden burst of gunfire.He
looked at the direction where the gunfire came, and saw [the]
persons [who] fired at the jeep. He identified accused, Teodulo
The Facts
Alegarbes, Rolusape Sabalones and Timoteo Beronga as the
persons who fired at the vehicle. Except for Teodulo Alegarbes, who
was naked from [the] waist up, the gunmen wore clothes. (pp. 21-23;
Version of the Prosecution 13-16; 33, ibid.)
The solicitor general[7] quoted the following factual findings of the
trial court: After firing at the jeep, the assailants shot the car they were riding[,]
hitting Nelson Tiempo on the throat and Rogelio Presores on the
breast. Despite the injury he sustained, Nelson Tiempo was able to
Edwin Santos, a resident of Mambaling, Cebu City stated that on maneuver the car back to their residence. (pp. 17-19, ibid.)
June 1, 1985 at 6:00 oclock in the evening, he was at the residence
of Inday Presores, sister of Rogelio Presores, located at Rizal Ave.,
Cebu City to attend a wedding. He stayed until 9:00 oclock in the He immediately informed Maj. Tiempo about the incident and the
evening and proceeded to the house of Maj. Tiempo at Basak, lat[t]er brought the victims to the Cebu Doctors Hospital. (p. 20, ibid.)
Mambaling, Cebu City where a small gathering was also taking
place. (pp. 3-6, tsn, April 7, 1987) Rogelio Presores corroborated in substance the testimony of Edwin
Santos, being one of those who were in the car driven by Nelson
Arriving thereat, he saw Nelson and Glenn Tiempo as well as Tiempo to the residence of Stephen Lim. (pp. 4-6, tsn, Aug. 14,
Rogelio Presores, Rogelio Oliveros, Junior Villoria, Rey Bolo and 1987)
Alfredo Nardo. (p. 7, ibid.)
He further testified that when the jeep driven by Alfredo Nardo with
At about 11:00 oclock in the evening, Stephen Lim, who was also at Rey Bolo and Glenn Tiempo as passengers arrived at the front gate
the party, called their group and requested them to push his of Lims residence and while their car was 3 meters from the rear end
car. When the engine started, the former asked them to drive his car of the jeep, there was a volley of gunfire. He glanced at the direction
home. (pp. 7-11, ibid.) of the gunfire and saw the jeep being fired at by four persons, who
were standing behind a concrete wall, 42 inches in height, and
armed with long firearms. Thenceforth, he saw Alfredo Nardo, Glenn
Together with Nelson Tiempo, who was at the wheel, Rogelio Tiempo and Rey Bolo f[a]ll to the ground. (pp. 6-7, ibid.)
Presores, Rogelio Oliveros and Junior Villoria, they drove to the
residence of Stephen Lim at Mansueto Compound, Bulacao, Talisay,
Cebu. (p. 12, ibid.) He recognized accused, Rolusape Sabalones, as one of those who
fired at the jeep. He also identified in Court accused, Teodulo
Alegarbes, Timoteo Beronga and another person, whom he
Glenn Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Alfredo Nardo also went with them recognized only through his facial appearance. (pp. 7-8, ibid.)
riding in an owner-type jeep, driven by the latter, in order to bring
back the group [as] soon as the car of Mr. Lim was parked in his
home. (p. 21, ibid.) When the shots were directed [at] their car[,] they were able to bend
their heads low. When the firing stopped, he directed Nelson Tiempo
to back out from the place. As the latter was maneuvering the car, In both gunshot wounds, he did not find any powder burns which
the shooting continued and he was hit in the breast while Nelson would indicate that the muzzle of the gun was beyond a distance of
Tiempo, in the neck, and the windshield of the vehicle was shattered. 12 inches from the target. (p. 15, ibid.)
(p. 10, ibid.)
At the time he conducted the autopsy, he noted that rigor mortis in its
Arriving at the house of Maj. Tiempo, they were brought to Cebu early stage had already set in which denote[s] that death had
Doctors Hospital. He and Nelson Tiempo were operated on. He had occurred 5 to 6 hours earlier. (pp. 34-5, ibid.)
incurred hospital expenses in the sum of P5,412.69, (Exh. I, K). (pp.
11-12, ibid.) Maj. Juan Tiempo, father of the victims, Glenn and Nelson Tiempo,
testified that when he learned about the incident in question, he
Ladislao Diola, Jr., [m]edico-[l]egal [o]fficer of the PC Crime immediately summoned military soldiers and together they
Laboratory, Regional Unit 7 stationed at Camp Sotero Cabahug, proceeded to the scene. (pp. 4-6, tsn, Nov. 12, 1988)
Cebu City remembered having performed a post-mortem
examination on the dead body of Glenn Tiempo on June 2, 1985 at Arriving thereat, he saw the lifeless body of his son, Glenn. He
the Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Cebu City. (p. 7, tsn, Nov. 11, immediately carried him in his arms and rushed him to the hospital
1987) but the victim was pronounced Dead on Arrival. (pp. 6-7, ibid.)

He issued the necessary Death Certificate, (Exh. D) and Necropsy They buried his son, who was then barely 14 years old, at Cebu
Report, (Exh. F) and indicated therein that the victims cause of death Memorial Park and had incurred funeral expenses (Exhs. K, L,
was [c]ardio respiratory arrest due to [s]hock and [h]emorrhage O). (pp. 7-8, ibid.)
[s]econdary to [g]unshot wounds to the trunk. (p. 8, ibid.)
His other son, Nelson, then 21 years old and a graduate of [m]edical
The victim sustained gunshot wounds in the right chest and left [t]echology, was admitted at the Cebu Doctors Hospital for gunshot
lumbar area. (pp. 10-11, ibid.) wound in the neck. The latter survived but could hardly talk as a
result of the injuries he sustained. He had incurred medical and
He explained that in gunshot wound no. 1, the wound entrance[,] hospitalization expenses in the sum of P21,594.22, (Exh. H), (pp. 8-
which [was] characterized by invaginated edges and contusion 10, ibid.)
collar[,] was located in the right chest and the bullet went up to the
left clavicle hitting a bone which incompletely fractured it causing the He had also incurred expenses in connection with the hospitalization
navigation of the bullet to the left and to the anterior side of the of the injured victims, Rogelio Presores and Rey Bolo in the
body. He recovered a slug, (Exh. G) below the muscles of the left amount[s] of P5,412.69, (exh. I) and P9,431.10, (Exh. J),
clavicle. (p. 21, ibid.) respectively. (p. 11, ibid.)

Based on the trajectory of the bullet, the assailant could have been He further stated that he [was] familiar with the accused, Roling
[o]n the right side of the victim or in front of the victim but [o]n a lower Sabalones, because the latter had a criminal record in their office in
level than the latter. connection with the kidnapping of a certain Zabate and
Macaraya. (p. 16, ibid.)
xxxxxxxxx
Dr. Jesus P. Cerna, [m]edico-[l]egal [o]fficer of the PC/INP, Cebu help him, [they] simply disappeared from the scene, instead. (pp. 8-
Metrodiscom, had conducted an autopsy on the dead body of Alfredo 9, ibid.)
Nardo, who sustained two (2) gunshot wounds in the lower lip and
left intraclavicular region, upon the request of the [c]hief of the He took a passenger jeepney to the city and had himself treated at
Homicide Section of Cebu Metrodiscom. He issued the victims the Cebu Doctors Hospital, and incurred medical expenses in the
Necropsy Report, (Exh. F) and Death Certificate, (Exh. G). (pp. 5-8, sum of P9,000.00. (p. 9, ibid.)
tsn, Dec. 4, 1987; pp. 4-6, tsn, Nov. 29, 1988)
He was issued a Medical Certificate, (Exh. N) by his attending
He stated that the wound of entrance in gunshot wound no. 1 was physician.
located in the lower lip, more or less[,] on the left side making an exit
in the left mandibular region. (pp. 9-11, tsn, Dec. 4, 1987; pp. 6-8,
Dr. Miguel Mancao, a [p]hysician-[s]urgeon, recalled having attended
tsn, Nov. 29, 1988)
[to] the victims, Nelson Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Rogelio Presores at
the Cebu Doctors Hospital on June 2, 1985. (pp. 7-8, 11, 14, tsn,
In gunshot wound no. 2, the wound of entrance was in the left May 30, 1989)
intraclavicular region exiting at the back as reflected in the sketch,
(Exh. F-2). This wound was fatal and [could] almost cause an
Nelson Tiempo sustained gunshot wound[s] in the neck and in the
instantaneous death considering that the bullet penetrated the
right chest but the bullet did not penetrate the chest cavity but only
thoracic cavity, lacerating the lungs and perforating the heart before the left axilla. He was not able to recover any slugs because the
making an exit. (pp. 11-13, tsn, Dec. 4, 1987; pp. 13-15, tsn, Nov. same disintegrated while the other was thru and thru. The wound
29, 1988)
could have proved fatal but the victim miraculously survived. As a
consequence of the injury he sustained, Nelson Tiempo permanently
He found no tattooing around the wound of entrance in both gunshot lost his voice because his trachea was shattered. His only chance of
wounds. (pp. 8-9, tsn, Nov. 29, 1988) recovery is by coaching and speech therapy. He issued his Medical
Certificate. (Exh. O).(pp. 8-11, ibid.)
He prepared and issued th[e] Necropsy Report, (Exh. F) and Death
Certificate, (Exh. G) of Alfredo Nardo who was identified to him by With regard to the patient, Rey Bolo, the latter suffered multiple
the latters daughter, Anita Nardo. (pp. 26-27, ibid.) gunshot wounds in the left shoulder penetrating the chest and
fracturing the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th ribs in the process, in the right hand
Rey Bolo, one of the victims, testified that when the jeep he was fracturing the proximal right thumb and in the mouth lacerating its
riding [in] together with Glenn Tiempo and Alfredo Nardo, reached soft tissues, per Medical Certificate, (Exh. N) which he issued. (pp.
the gate of the residence of Stephen Lim, they were suddenly fired 11-16, ibid.)
upon. (pp. 5-8, tsn, March 6, 1989)
Based on the trajectory of the bullet, the gunman could have been in
He was hit in the right palm and left cheek. He jumped out of the front of the victim, when gunshot would no. 1 was inflicted. (p.
vehicle and ran towards the car which was behind them but he was 30, ibid.)
again shot at [,] [and hit] in the left scapular region. He was still able
to reach the road despite the injuries he sustained and tried to ask With respect to the patient, Rogelio Presores, the latter suffered [a]
help from the people who were in the vicinity but nobody dared to gunshot wound in the chest with the wound of entrance in the right
anterior chest exiting at the back which was slightly lower than the
wound of entrance. He issued the victims Medical Certificate, (Exh. latter brought him to the Provincial Command Headquarters in
M). (pp. 34-35, ibid.) Lahug, Cebu City to confront Maj. Juan Tiempo.

Based on the location of the wound, the gunman could have been in After several days, he was brought by Maj. Tiempo to the PC
front of the victim but [o]n a slightly higher elevation than the Headquarter[s] in Jones Ave., Cebu City where he was provided with
latter. (pp. 35-36, ibid.)[8] a lawyer to defend him but he was instructed that he should assent
to whatever his lawyer would ask of him.

Version of the Defense He was introduced to Atty. Marcelo Guinto, his lawyer, who made
him sign an Affidavit, (Exh. U) the contents of which, co[u]ched in the
Appellants interposed denial and alibi. Their version of the facts dialect, were read to him.
is summarized by the trial court[9] thus:
He also testified that before he was detained at the CPDRC,
xxx Timoteo Beronga, a cristo or bet caller in the cockpit, testified complainant brought him inside the shop of a certain Den Ong,
that in the afternoon of June 1, 1985, he was in the Talisay Sports where he was again mauled after he denied having any knowledge
Complex located at Tabunok, Talisay, Cebu to attend a cock-derby. of the whereabouts of Roling Sabalones and the carbine.

At about 7:00 oclock in the evening, he was fetched by his wife and At the instance of Col. Medija, he was physically examined at the
they left taking a taxicab going to their residence in Lapulapu Southern Islands Hospital, Cebu City and was issued a [M]edical
City. After passing by the market place, they took a tricycle and Certificate. (Tsn-Formentera, pp. 3-36, Jan. 18, 1990).
arrived home at 8:00 oclock in the evening.
Justiniano Cuizon, [a]ccount [o]fficer of the Visayan Electric
After taking his supper with his family, he went home to sleep at Company (VECO) South Extension Office, who is in charge of the
10:30 in the evening. The following morning, after preparing billing, disconnection and reconnection of electric current, testified
breakfast, he went back to sleep until 11:00 in the morning. that based on the entries in their logbook, (Exh. 3) made by their
checker, Remigio Villaver, the electrical supply at the Mansueto
On February 24, 1987, while he was playing mahjong at the corner Compound, Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu, particularly the Mansueto
of R.R. Landon and D. Jakosalem Sts., Cebu City, complainant, Maj. Homeowners covered by Account No. 465-293000-0, (Exh. 4-B) was
Juan Tiempo with some companions, arrived and after knowing that disconnected on January 10, 1985, (Exh. 3-A) for non-payment of
he [was] Timmy, [which was] his nickname, the former immediately electric bills from March 1984 to January 1985 and was reconnected
held him by the neck. only on June 17, 1985 (Exh. 4, 4-A). (Tsn-Abangan, pp. 22-27, Jan.
31, 1990).
He ran away but the latter chased him and kicked the door of the
house where he hid. He was able to escape through the back door Remigio Villaver, a checker of VECO, whose area of responsibility
and took refuge in Mandaue at the residence of Nito Seno, a driver cover[ed] the towns of Talisay and San Fernando, Cebu had kept the
of Gen. Emilio Narcissi.(Tsn-Abangan, pp. 4-17, October 19, 1989) record of disconnection of electrical supply of Mansueto Subdivision
in Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu and the same showed that on January 10,
On February 27, 1987, upon the advi[c]e of his friend, they 1985, (Exh. 3-A), a service order was issued by their office to the
approached Gen. Narcissi and informed him of the incident. The Mansueto Homeowners for the permanent disconnection of their
electric lights due to non-payment of their electric bills from March Upon examination, he found out that the patient sustained linear
1984 until January 1985. The actual disconnection took place on abrasion, linear laceration and hematoma in the different parts of the
December 29, 1984. body. Except for the linear laceration which he believed to have been
inflicted two or three days prior to [the] date of examination, all the
Witness Fredo Canete made efforts to corroborate their testimony. other injuries were already healed indicating that the same were
(Tsn-Formentera, pp.3-5, Apr. 20, 1990). inflicted 10 to 12 days earlier.

Vicente Cabanero, a resident of Mansueto Compound in Talisay, He issued the corresponding Medical Certificate (Exh. 2) to the
Cebu since 1957 until the present, remembered that on June 1, patient. (Tsn-Abangan, pp. 9-13, May 21, 1990).
1985, between 10:00 oclock and 11:00 oclock in the evening, he
heard a burst of gunfire about 15 to 20 armslength [sic] from his Atty. Jesus Pono, counsel for accused Beronga, mounted the
residence. witness stand and averred that he [was] a resident of Mansueto
Compound, Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu. As shown in the pictures, (Exhs.
He did not bother to verify because he was scared since the whole 3, 4 & 5 with submarkings) his house is enclosed by a concrete
place was in total darkness. (Tsn-Abangan, pp. 18-23, Feb. 22, fence about 5 feet 6 inches tall. It is situated 6 meters from the
1990). residence of accused, Roling Sabalones, which was then being
rented by Stephen Lim. Outside the fence [are] shrubs and at the left
side is a lamp post provided with 200 watts fluorescent bulb.
Marilyn Boc, another witness for the accused, stated that on the date
and time of the incident in question, while she was at the wake of
Junior Sabalones, younger brother of Roling Sabalones, who died on On June 1, 1985 at about 7:00 oclock in the evening, he saw Roling
May 26, 1985, a sudden burst of gunfire occurred more or less 60 Sabalones, whom he personally [knew] because they used to be
meters away. neighbors in Talisay, Cebu, at the wake of his brother, Federico
Sabalones, Jr. or Junior Sabalones, as mentioned repeatedly
hereabout. They even had a talk and he noticed accused to be
Frightened, she went inside a room to hide and saw accused, Roling
physically indisposed being gravely affected by the loss of his only
Sabalones, sound asleep.
brother, who met a violent death in the hands of an unknown hitman
on May 26, 1985.
She came to know accused, Timoteo Beronga, only during one of
the hearings of this case and during the entire period that the body of
the late Junior Sabalones [lay] in state at his residence, she never He went home after he saw accused [lie] down on a bamboo bench
to rest.
saw said accused.

At about 12:00 oclock midnight, he was awakened by a rapid burst of

She was requested to testify in this case by Thelma Beronga, wife of
Timoteo Beronga. (Tsn-Abangan, pp. 9-13, February 28, 1990). gunfire which emanated near his house. He did not attempt to go
down or look outside. He [was] in no position to tell whether or not
the street light was lighted.
Dr. Daniel Medina, while then the [r]esident [p]hysician of Southern
Islands Hospital, Cebu City had treated the patient, Timoteo Beronga
on March 18, 1987. When he verified the following morning, he noticed bloodstains on
the ground as well as inside the jeep which was parked 2 to 3 meters
from his fence and 50 to 70 meters from the house where Junior
Sabalones [lay] in state. He observed that the jeep was riddled with Russo Sabalones, uncle of accused, Sabalones, averred that the
bullets and its windshield shattered. (Tsn-Abangan, pp. 3-16, June 6, latter was once, one of his undercover agents while he was then the
1990). [c]hief of the Intelligence Service of the PC from 1966 until 1968.

He admitted that he used to be a counsel of accused, Roling As part of their intelligence tradition, an undercover agent is not
Sabalones, in several cases, among which involved the death of a allowed to carry his real name. In the case of his nephew and
certain Garces and Macaraya, which cases were however, accused, Rolusape Sabalones, the latter chose the name Paciano
dismissed by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Cebu. (Tsn- Laput which name was recorded in their code of names.
Tumarao, pp. 2-3, June 13, 1990).
When he retired in 1968, the accused ceased to be an agent and xxx
Doroteo Ejares, a relative of accused, testified that when he attended likewise ceased to have the authority to use the name Paciano
the wake of Junior Sabalones on June 1, 1985 at 8:00 oclock in the Laput. (Tsn-Abangan, p. 12, July 23, 1990).
evening, he saw accused lying on a bamboo bench in the yard of the
house of the deceased. Alfonso Allere, a distant relative of the accused, remembered having
received a call from Roling Sabalones, one morning after the burial
At past 10:00 oclock in the evening, accused excused himself as he of the latters brother, asking for his advise because of the threats [to]
was not feeling well and entered a room to rest while he remained by his life which he received thru telephone from the group of Nabing
the door and slept. Velez and the group of the military.

At almost 12:00 oclock midnight, he was awakened by a burst of After he had advised accused to lie low, he had not heard of him,
gunfire which took place more or less 20 meters away and saw the since then.
people scamper[ing] for safety. He hid inside the room where
accused was sleeping and peeped thru the door. Not long after, Godofredo Mainegro of the Public Assistance and Complaint Action
Marilyn Boc entered and in a low voice talked about the incident. Office of the Regional Unified Command 7, received a complaint
from one Inocencia Sabalones on March 13, 1986.
They decided to wake up the accused to inform him of what was
happening, but the latter merely opened his eyes and realizing that He recorded the complaint in their Complaint Sheet, (Exh. 6) and let
accused was too weak, they allowed him to go back to sleep. complainant affix her signature.

When he went home at past 5:00 oclock in the morning of June 2, After the document was subscribed and sworn to before him, (Exh.
1985, he saw a jeep outside of the compound. He did not bother to 6-C), he indorsed it to their [c]ommanding [o]fficer, Apolinario
investigate or inquire about the incident as he was in a hurry to go Castano. (Tsn-Formentera, pp. 3-10, July 24, 1990).
home and prepare for the burial of Junior Sabalones.
Ret. Col. Apolinario Castano, recalled that while he was then with the
He was requested to testify in this case by his aunt and mother of Regional Unified Command 7, his niece, Racquel Sabalones
accused Rolusape Sabalones. (Tsn-Tumarao, pp. 10-15, June 13, together with her husband Roling Sabalones, came to him for
1990). advi[c]e because the latter was afraid of his life brought about by the
rampant killings of which his brother and the son of Maj. Tiempo brother-in-law, Junior, was lying in state, as shown in the Sketch,
were victims. (Exh. 7 and submarkings) prepared by her. They brought with them a
flashlight because the whole place was in total darkness.
Considering that accuseds problem was a police matter, they
approached Gen. Ecarma, the then [c]ommander of the PC/INP, As they were about to enter the gate leading to her apartment she
Recom 7, and the latter referred them to his [c]hief of [s]taff, Col. noticed a sedan car coming towards them. She waited for the car to
Roger Denia, who informed them that there was no case filed come nearer as she thought that the same belong[ed] to her friend,
against the accused. Nevertheless, the latter was advised to be but the vehicle instead stopped at the corner of the road, (Exh. 7-F)
careful and consult a lawyer. and then proceeded to the end portion of Mansueto Compound,
(Exh. 7-G). As it moved slowly towards the highway, she rushed
Inocencia Sabalones, mother of accused, Roling Sabalones, inside the apartment.
narrated that on March 12, 1986 at past 10:00 oclock in the evening,
she was roused from sleep by a shout of a man demanding for Few minutes later, she heard a burst of gunfire outside their
Roling Sabalones. gate. She immediately gathered her children and instructed Marlyn
Sabarita to use the phone situated at the third door apartment and
Upon hearing the name of her son, she immediately stood up and call the police.
peeped through the door of her store and saw men in fatigue
uniforms carrying long firearms. Thenceforth, these men boarded a After the lull of gunfire, she went to the terrace and saw people in
vehicle and left. civilian and in fatigue uniforms with firearms, gathered around the
place. One of these men even asked her about the whereabouts of
On the following morning, she was again awakened by the persistent her husband, whom she left sleeping in the house of the deceased.
shouts and pushing of the gate. When she verified, the man who
introduced himself to her as Maj. Tiempo, ordered her to open the At 8:30 in the morning of June 2, 1985, during the burial of Junior
gate. Once opened, the men of Maj. Tiempo entered the house and Sabalones, they were informed by Pedro Cabanero that Roling
proceeded to search for Roling Sabalones, whom Maj. Tiempo Sabalones was a suspect for the death of Nabing Velez and the son
suspected to have killed his son and shot another to near of Maj. Tiempo.
death. When she demanded for a search warrant, she was only
shown a piece of paper but was not given the chance to read its She believed that the reason why her husband was implicated in the
contents. killing of Nabing Velez was because of the slapping incident
involving her father-in-law, Federico Sabalones, Sr. and Nabing
Racquel Sabalones, wife of accused, Rolusape Sabalones, Velez which took place prior to the death of Junior Sabalones.
maintained that on June 1, 1985 at 1:00 oclock in the afternoon, she
was at the wake of her brother-in-law, Junior Sabalones, at his After the funeral, she began to receive mysterious calls at their
residence in Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu. residence in Sikatuna St., Cebu City where they began staying since
1978. She also noticed cars with tinted windows strangely parked in
At 11:00 oclock in the evening of the same day, together with her 3 front of their residence.
daughters as well as Marlyn Sabarita, Rose Lapasaran and Gloria
Mondejar, left the place in order to sleep in an unoccupied apartment
situated 30 meters away from the house where her deceased,
Frightened and cowed, they decided to seek the advice of Col. fact that the latter was being unreasonably hunted by several
Apolinario Castano, who after relating to him their fears, advised her groups. He even advised the accused to appear in [c]ourt to clarify
husband to lie low and to consult a lawyer. the nature of the case filed against him.

To allay their apprehension, accused, Roling Sabalones, left Cebu Virgincita Pajigal, a resident of Butuan City, met accused, Rolusape
City for Iligan, Manila and other cities to avoid those who were after Sabalones, who introduced himself to her as Paciano Laput
him. When she learned about the threat made by Maj. Tiempo on her nicknamed, Ondo, in a massage clinic where she was working.
husband, she forewarned the latter not to return to Cebu.
For less than a year, they lived together as husband and wife without
Marlyn Sabarita, an illegitimate daughter of Rolusape Sabalones, the benefit of marriage because according to her the accused was
stated that in the night in question, she was at the wake of Junior married but separated from his wife, whose name was never
Sabalones and saw her Papa Roling, the herein accused, lying on mentioned to her. For such a short span of time being together, her
the lawn of the house of the deceased. love for the accused developed to the extent that whatever
happen[ed] to him, she [would] always be there to defend him.
She was already in the apartment with her Mama Racquel when she
heard a burst of gunfire. Upon instructions of the latter, she went out With the help of Maj. delos Santos, who advised her to always stay
to call the police thru the phone located [in] the third apartment close [to] the accused, she was able to board the same vessel. She
occupied by a certain Jet. (Tsn-Tumarao, pp. 3-15, Oct. 15, 1990). saw the latter clad in green T-shirt, (Exh. 14) and pants, handcuffed
and guarded.
Edward Gutang, [a]sst. lay-out [e]ditor and [a]sst. [s]ports [e]ditor of
Sun-Star Daily, while then a military and police reporter had covered Reaching Cebu City, they took a taxicab and as the vehicle went
the shooting incident which took place on June 1, 1985 at the around the city, she was instructed by Maj. Tiempo to place the
Mansueto Compound, Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu. towel, (Exh. 15) which she found inside her bag, on the head of the
accused. They stopped at the Reclamation Area and Maj. Tiempo
At past 1:00 oclock dawn, together with their newspaper pulled them out of the vehicle but she held on tightly to Ondo, ripping
photographer, Almario Bitang, they went to the crime scene boarding his shirt. This pulling incident happened for several times but
the vehicle of the Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes. Arriving thereat, complainant failed to let them out of the vehicle.
they decided not to proceed inside the compound because of
fear. The place was then in complete darkness. The accused was finally brought to the Provincial Jail while she
stayed in the residence of the accused. She returned to Butuan after
Upon being informed that the victims were brought to Cebu City a week. (Tsn-Formentera, pp. 5-33, Jan. 22, 1991).
Medical Center, they rushed to the place and met Maj. Tiempo
hugging the dead body of his 14-year old son. His photographer took Accused, Rolusape Sabalones, alias Roling, in his defense, with
a picture of that pathetic scene. (Exh. 8-B). ancillary incidental narrations, testified , that on June 1, 1985 at 6:00
oclock in the evening, he was at the wake of his only brother, Junior
Samson Sabalones, a retired [a]mbassador and uncle of Rolusape Sabalones, who was killed on May 26, 1985.
Sabalones, posted a bail bond for his nephew with Eastern
Insurance Company, when a warrant for his arrest was issued by the He had no idea as to who was responsible for the killing of his
Municipal Court, on March 12, 1986 because he was bothered by the brother inasmuch as the latter had plenty of enemies. He also did not
exert effort to look into the case and to place it under police authority He did not deny the fact that he was hurt by the actuation of the
since he had lost faith in the capabilities of the police. The matter deceased for humiliating his father but it did not occur to him to file a
was however reported by his uncle, Ambassador Sabalones, to the case or take any action against the deceased because he was too
authorities. busy with his business and with his work as a bet caller in the
cockpit.
He stayed at the wake until 10:00 oclock in the evening because he
was not feeling well. He retired in a small room adjacent to the sala He advised his father to stay in Bohol to avoid further trouble
of the house of the deceased. Not long after, he felt somebody because he knew that the latter would frequent the cockpit[,] being a
waking him up but he merely opened his eyes and went back to cockfight aficionado.
sleep as he was really exhausted.
Likewise, during the burial, he was informed by a PC soldier, Roger
At 6:30 the following morning, he was roused by his wife so he could Capuyan, that he was also a suspect in the killing of the son of Maj.
prepare for the burial. He came to know about the burst of gunfire Tiempo and even advised him to leave the place.
which took place the previous night upon the information of his
wife. He did not take the news seriously as he was busy preparing On the following days after the burial, his wife started to notice cars
for the burial of his deceased brother, Jun. suspiciously parked in front of their house and [she] also received
mysterious calls.
The funeral started at past 8:00 oclock in the morning and he noticed
the presence of Maj. Eddie Ricardo and his men, who were sent by Together with his wife, they decided to see Col. Apolinario Castao to
Col. Castano purposely to provide the burial with military security, seek his advise. The latter verified from the Cebu Metrodiscom and
upon the request of his wife. learned that there was no case filed against him.

He had a conversation with Maj. Ricardo who inquired about the In the evening of June 6, 1985, he left for Iligan and after a month,
shooting incident which resulted in the death of the son of Maj. he transferred to Ozamis and then to Pagadian. He likewise went to
Tiempo and others in his company. Also in the course of their Manila especially when he learned that his uncle, Samson
conversation, he came to know that Nabing Velez was killed earlier Sabalones, had arrived from abroad. The latter posted a bond for his
on that same night in Labangon, Cebu [C]ity. temporary liberty immediately after being informed that a case was
filed against him, before the Municipal Court of Talisay.
On the same occasion, Pedro Cabanero also notified him that he
was a suspect in the killing of Nabing Velez, a radio commentator of Despite xxx the bond put up by his uncle, he did not return to Cebu
ferocious character, who was engaged in a protection racket with City because it came to his knowledge that Maj. Tiempo inquired
several under his control. from the bonding company as to his address.

He remembered that a month prior to the death of Nabing Velez, his He also stayed in Marikina in the house of his friend and during his
father, Federico Sabalones, Sr. and the deceased while matching stay in the said place, he registered as a voter and was issued a
their fighting cocks at the Talisay Sports Complex, had an altercation Voters Affidavit, (Exh. 19; Exh. R for the prosecution) which bore the
and the latter slapped his paralytic father and challenged him to ask name Paciano Mendoza Laput which [was] his baptismal name. He
one of his sons to avenge what he had done to him. He came to explained that the name[s] Mendoza and Laput [were] the middle
know about the incident only after a week. name and surname, respectively of his mother. The name Rolusape
was given to him by his father and the same [was] not his registered handcuffed him. He cried in pain because of his sprained shoulder. A
name because during the old days, priests would not allow parents certain soldier also took his watch and ring.
to name their children with names not found in the Almanac; thus,
Paciano [was] his chosen name and the same appeared in his Arriving in Cebu at 7:00 oclock in the morning, he and Virgie Pajigal,
Baptismal Certificate, (Exh. 20) issued by the Parish of the Blessed who followed him in the boat, were made to board a taxicab. Maj.
Trinity of Talibon, Bohol. In his Birth Certificate, it [was] the name Tiempo alighted in certain place and talked to a certain
Rolusape which appeared based upon the data supplied by his guy. Thereafter, they were brought to the Reclamation Area and
father. were forced to go down from the vehicle but Virgie Pajigal held him
tightly. They were again pulled out of the taxi but they resisted.
He had used the name Paciano during the time when he [was] still a
secret agent under his uncle, Gen. Russo Sabalones, when the latter From the Capitol Building, they proceeded to CPDRC and on their
was still the [c]hief of the C-2 in 1966 until 1967 and as such, he was way thereto, Maj. Tiempo sat beside him inside the taxi and boxed
issued a firearm. He likewise used said name at the time he was him on the right cheek below the ear and pulled his cuffed hands
employed at the Governors Office in Agusan and when he registered apart.
in the Civil Service Commission to conceal his identity to protect
himself from those who were after him.
At the Provincial Jail, he was physically examined by its resident
physician, Dr. Dionisio Sadaya, and was also fingerprinted and
From Marikina he proceeded to Davao and then to Butuan City photographed, (Exh. 21). He was issued a Medical Certificate, (Exh.
where he was made to campaign for the candidacy of Gov. Eddie 22).
Rama. When the latter won in the election, he was given a job at the
Provincial Capitol and later became an agent of the PC in Butuan
He further stated that he [was] acquainted with his co-accused
using the name, Paciano Laput.
Timoteo Beronga, known to him as Timmy being also a bet caller in
the cockpit. (Tsn-Formentera, pp. 5-23, Feb. 26, 1991; Tsn-
During his stay in Butuan, he met Virgie Pajigal, a manicurist who Abangan, pp. 3-33, Feb. 27, 1991; Tsn-Abangan, pp. 4-18, Apr. 10,
became his live-in partner. 1991).

On October 23, 1988 while he was at the Octagon Cockpit in Butuan As surrebuttal witness, accused Rolusape Sabalones denied that he
with Sgt. Tambok, he was arrested by Capt. Ochate and was brought bribed a certain soldier because at the time he was arrested, his
to the PC Headquarter[s] in Libertad, Butuan City and was wallet as well as his wristwatch and ring worth P2,000.00 each were
detained. Among the papers confiscated from him was his confiscated and his hands tied behind his back.
Identification Card No. 028-88, (Exh. 21) issued by the PC
Command bearing the name Paciano Laput.
He also denied the allegation of Maj. Tiempo that he offered the
latter the amount of P1,000.000.00 to drop the case against him, the
On October 26, 1988 he was taken from the City Jail by Capt. truth being that while they were on board a vessel bound for Cebu
Ochate and some soldiers, one of whom was Maj. Tiempo whom he City, Maj. Tiempo compelled him to tell [who] the real killers of his
met for the first time. son [were] because he knew that he (Rolusape Sabalones) was not
responsible. The former also inquired from him as to the
On their way to Nasipit to board a vessel bound for Cebu City, Maj. whereabouts of the carbine.
Tiempo made him lie flat on his belly and stepped on his back and
He also rebutted complainants testimony that upon their arrival here The court a quo erred in finding that accused Sabalones and his
in Cebu City and while on board a taxicab, he directed the former [to] friends left the house where his brother Sabalones Junior was lying
first go around the city to locate a certain Romeo Cabaero, whom he in state and went to their grisly destination amidst the dark and
did not know personally.[10] positioned themselves in defense of his turf against the invasion of a
revengeful gang of the supporters of Nabing Velez.
II
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Giving full credence to the evidence of the prosecution, the Court The court a quo erred in finding that accused Sabalones and his two
of Appeals affirmed the trial courts Decision convicting appellants of co-accused were identified as among the four gunmen who fired at
two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated murder. Like the the victims.
trial court, it appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery and III
rejected appellants defense of alibi.
The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that the penalties imposed The court a quo erred in overlooking or disregarding physical
by the trial court were erroneous. Hence, for each count of murder, it evidence that would have contradicted the testimony of prosecution
sentenced appellants to reclusion perpetua. For each count of witnesses Edwin Santos and Rogelio Presores that the gunmen
frustrated murder, it imposed the following penalty: ten years (10) were shooting at them from a standing position.
of prision mayor (medium), as minimum, to seventeen years (17)
IV
years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal (medium), as
maximum. Sustaining the trial court, the Court of Appeals
awarded indemnity of P20,000 to each of the victims of frustrated The court a quo erred in holding that the instant case is one
murder. However, it was silent on the indemnity of P50,000 awarded of aberratio ictus, which is not a defense, and that the defense of
by the trial court to the heirs of each of the two deceased. alibi interposed by the accused may not be considered.

Having imposed reclusion perpetua on the appellants, the Court V

of Appeals, as earlier noted, refrained from entering judgment and
certified the case to the Supreme Court for review, in conformity with The court a quo erred in not finding that the evidence of the
Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. prosecution has not overcome the constitutional presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused.
Hence, this appeal before this Court.[11]
VI

The Issues The court a quo erred in not acquitting the accused on ground of
reasonable doubt.
In his Brief,[12] Appellant Sabalones raised the following errors
allegedly committed by the trial court: In a Manifestation dated December 20, 1995, Appellant Beronga,
I through counsel, adopted as his own the Brief of Sabalones.[13]

The foregoing assignment of errors shall be reformulated by the

Court into these three issues or topics: (1) credibility of the witnesses
and sufficiency of the prosecution evidence, (2) defense of denial case to justify a reversal or modification of the findings of the trial court
and alibi, and (3) characterization of the crimes committed and the and the Court of Appeals that appellants committed two counts of
penalty therefor. murder and three counts of frustrated murder.
Edwin Santos, a survivor of the assault, positively pointed to and
identified the appellants as the authors of the crime. His categorical
The Courts Ruling and straightforward testimony is quoted hereunder:[18]
The appeal is devoid of merit. COURT:
Q You stated there was a gun fired. What happened next?

First Issue: WITNESS:

A There was a rapid fire in succession.

Credibility of Witnesses and Sufficiency of Evidence Q When you heard this rapid firing, what did you do?

Well-entrenched is the tenet that this Court will not interfere with A I tried to look from where the firing came from.
the trial courts assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, absent Q After that, what did you find?
any indication or showing that the trial court has overlooked some
material facts or gravely abused its discretion,[14] especially where, as A I saw persons firing towards us.
in this case, such assessment is affirmed by the Court of Appeals. As
Q Where were these persons situated when they were firing
this Court has reiterated often enough, the matter of assigning values
towards you?
to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently
performed or carried out by a trial judge who, unlike appellate A Near the foot of the electric post and close to the cemented wall.
magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the accuseds
behavior, demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial.[15] Giving Q This electric post, was that lighted at that moment?
credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the trial A Yes, sir, it was lighted.
court concluded:
Q How far were these persons firing, to the place where you were?
Stripped of unnecessary verbiage, this Court, given the evidence, A From here to there (The witness indicating the distance by
finds that there is more realism in the conclusion based on a keener pointing to a place inside the courtroom, indicating a distance
and realistic appraisal of events, circumstances and evidentiary facts of about 6 to 7 meters, making the witness stand as the point
on record, that the gun slaying and violent deaths of Glenn Tiempo of reference).
and Alfredo Nardo, and the near fatal injuries of Nelson Tiempo, Rey
Bolo and Rogelio Presores, resulted from the felonious and wanton Q Were you able to know how many persons fired towards you?
acts of the herein accused for mistaking said victims for the persons
[who were] objects of their wrath.[16] A I only saw 3 to 4 persons.

We stress that factual findings of the lower courts, the trial court Q How long did these persons fire the guns at you?
and the Court of Appeals are, as a general rule, binding and
conclusive upon the Supreme Court.[17] We find nothing in the instant
 A Until we went home. The persons were still firing, until we went A Yes, sir.
home.
Q What was that?
Q You stated that you saw these persons who were firing at
you. Do you know these persons? A When the jeep arrived, the car was following.

A I can identify [them] when I [see] them. Q What happened next?

Q Try to look around this courtroom, if these persons you saw who A When the jeep was near the gate, the car was following.
were firing at you are present in the courtroom[.] Q The car was following the jeep, at what distance?
A Yes, sir. A 3 to 4 meters.
Q Can you point to these persons? Q While the car was following the jeep at that distance of 3 to 4
A Yes, sir. meters, what happened?

Q Point at them. A All of a sudden, we heard the burst of gunfire.

COURT INTERPRETER: Q From what direction was the gunfire?

The Court directed the witness to go down from the witness stand A Through the direction of the jeep.
and [point] at them, Beronga and Alegarbes. Q After hearing the gunfire, what happened?
FISCAL GABIANA: A We looked at the jeep.
I would like to make it of record that on the bench of prisoner, only Q What did you see?
the two accused were seated.
A We saw Alfredo Nardo and Glenn Tiempo and Rey Bolo f[a]ll to
COURT: the ground. There were only 3.
Make it of record that only two prisoners were present. Q Who was driving the jeep at that time?
Q Now, Mr. Santos, aside from these two accused you identified A Alfredo Nardo.
as among those who fired [at] you on that evening, were there
other persons that you saw on that particular occasion who Q What happened after that?
fired at you?
A So, I looked, whence the burst of gunfire came from.
A Yes, sir, there were[;] if I can see them, I can identify them.
Q What did you see from that gunfire?
Corroborating the foregoing, Rogelio Presores, another survivor,
A I saw 4 persons standing at the back of the fence.
also pointed to Timoteo Beronga, Teodulo Alegarbes and Roling
Sabalones as the perpetrators of the crime. His testimony proceeded Q What were those 4 persons doing when they were standing at
in this manner:[19] the back of the fence?
Q When you arrived at the residence of Stephen Lim, can you A They were bringing long firearms.
remember of any unusual incident that took place?
 Q Did you recognize these persons? Positive Identification
A I can clearly recognize one and the 3 persons[.] I can identify Appellants allege that the two witnesses could not have properly
them, if I can see them again. identified the appellants because, after the first burst of shooting, they
both crouched down, such that they could not have seen the faces of
Q If you are shown these persons, can you recognize them? Can their assailants. This contention does not persuade. Both
you name these persons? eyewitnesses testified that the firing was not continuous; thus, during
A No, sir. Only their facial appearance. a lull in the firing, they raised their heads and managed a peek at the
perpetrators. Edwin Santos testified as follows:
Q What about the 3 persons?
Atty. Albino, counsel for accused Beronga:
A Thats why the 3 persons, I do not know them. I can recognize
only their facial appearance. Q You mean to say that when you bent you heard the successive
shots, [and] you again raised your head. Is that correct?
Q What about one person?
A There were times that the shots were not in succession and
A Yes, sir. continuous and that was the time I raised my head again.[20]
Q What is the name of the person? Like Santos, Rogelio Presores also stooped down when the firing
started, but he raised his head during a break in the gunfire:
A Roling Sabalones.
Atty. Albino:
Q If Roling Sabalones is inside the courtroom, can you recognize
Roling Sabalones? Q So, what did you do when you first heard that one shot?
A Yes, sir, he is around. A So, after the first shot, we looked towards the direction we were
facing and when we heard the second shot, that was the time
Q Can you point to Roling Sabalones?
we stooped down.[21]
A Yes, he is there (The witness pointing to the person who
He further testified:
answered the name of Roling Sabalones).
Atty. Acido: [Counsel for Appellant Sabalones]
Q I would like [you] again to please look around and see, if those
persons whom you know through their faces, if they are here Q And you said you stooped down inside the car when you heard
around? the first firing to the jeep. Is that what you want the Court to
understand[?]
A The two of them (The witness pointing to the 2 persons, who,
when asked, answered that his name [was] Teofilo Beronga Presores:
and the other [was] Alegarbes).
A Yes, sir.
Indeed, we have carefully waded through the voluminous records
of this case and the testimonies of all the fifty-nine witnesses, and we Q So, you never saw who fired the successive shots to the car as
find that the prosecution has presented the required quantum of proof you said you stooped down inside the car?
to establish that appellants are indeed guilty as charged. Appellants A The bursts of gunfire stopped for a while and that was the time I
arguments, as we shall now discuss, fail to rebut this conclusion. reared of [sic] my head.
 Q And that was the first time you saw them? Q Now, as a cutter, what instruments do you usually use in cutting
the electrical connection of a certain place?
A Yes, sir.[22]
Canete:
The records clearly show that two vehicles proceeded to the
house of Stephen Lim on that fateful day. The first was the jeep where A Pliers and screw driver.
Alfredo Nardo, Glenn Tiempo and Rey Bolo were riding. About three
to four meters behind was the second car carrying Nelson Tiempo, Q Does it need xxx very sophisticated instruments to disconnect
Guillermo Viloria, Rogelio Oliveros and the two prosecution witnesses the lights?
-- Edwin Santos and Rogelio Presores.[23] As stated earlier, said A No, these are the only instruments we use.
witnesses attested to the fact that after the first volley of shots directed
at the jeep, they both looked at the direction where the shots were Q Ordinary pliers and ordinary screw driver?
coming from, and they saw their friends in the jeep falling to the
A Yes, sir.
ground, as well as the faces of the perpetrators.[24] It was only then
that a rapid succession of gunshots were directed at them, upon which Q And does [one] need to be an expert in electronic [sic] in order
they started crouching to avoid being hit. to conduct the disconnection?
Hence, they were able to see and identify the appellants, having A No, sir.
had a good look at them after the initial burst of shots. We stress that
the normal reaction of a person is to direct his sights towards the Q In other words, Mr. Canete, any ordinary electrician can cut it?
source of a startling shout or occurrence. As held in People v. A That is if they are connected with the Visayan Electric Company.
Dolar,[25] the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence is to
strive to see the looks and faces of their assailants and to observe the Q What I mean is that, can the cutting be done by any ordinary
manner in which the crime is committed. electrician?
In bolstering their claim that it was impossible for the witnesses A Yes, sir.[30]
to have identified them, appellants further aver that the crime scene
was dark, there being no light in the lampposts at the time. To prove Said witness even admitted that he could not recall if he did in
that the service wire to the street lamps at the Mansueto Compound fact cut the electrical connection of the Mansueto Compound.[31] The
was disconnected as early as December 1984 and reconnected only Court of Appeals further noted that none of the above witnesses were
on June 27, 1985, they presented the testimonies of Vicente at the crime scene at or about the exact time that the ambush
Cabanero,[26] Remigio Villaver,[27] Fredo Canete[28]and Edward occurred. Thus, none was in a position to state with absolute certainty
Gutang.[29] The trial court, however, did not lend weight to said that there was allegedly no light to illuminate the gunmen when they
testimonies, preferring to believe the statement of other prosecution rained bullets on the victims.[32]
witnesses that the place was lighted during that time. Even assuming arguendo that the lampposts were not
The Court of Appeals sustained said findings by citing the functioning at the time, the headlights of the jeep and the car were
testimonies of defense witnesses. Fredo Canete of the Visayan more than sufficient to illuminate the crime scene.[33] The Court has
Electric Company (VECO), for instance, admitted that it was so easy previously held that the light from the stars or the moon, an oven, or a
to connect and disconnect the lights. He testified thus: wick lamp or gasera can give ample illumination to enable a person to
identify or recognize another.[34] In the same vein, the headlights of a
Atty. Kintanar:
car or a jeep are sufficient to enable eyewitnesses to identify no relevance to this case. As the Court held in People vs.
appellants at the distance of 4 to 10 meters. Tidula:[35] Any allegation of violation of rights during custodial
investigation is relevant and material only to cases in which an
extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from the accused
becomes the basis of their conviction.
Extrajudicial Statement of Beronga
In any case, we sustain the trial courts holding, as affirmed by the
Appellants insist that Berongas extrajudicial statement was
Court of Appeals, that the extrajudicial statement of Beronga was
obtained through violence and intimidation. Citing the res inter alios
executed in compliance with the constitutional
acta rule, they also argue that the said statement is inadmissible
requirements.[36] Extrajudicial confessions, especially those which are
against Sabalones. Specifically, they challenge the trial courts
adverse to the declarants interests are presumed voluntary, and in the
reliance on the following portions of Berongas statement:
absence of conclusive evidence showing that the declarants consent
Q After Roling knew that Na[b]ing Velez was killed, have you in executing the same has been vitiated, such confession shall be
observed [if] Roling and his companions prepared themselves upheld.[37]
for any eventuality?
The exhaustive testimony of Sgt. Miasco, who undertook the
A It did not take long after we knew that Na[b]ing was killed, investigation, shows that the appellant was apprised of his
somebody called up by telephone looking for Roling, and this constitutional rights to remain silent and to have competent and
was answered by Roling but we did not know what they were independent counsel of his own choice.[38] Said witness also stated
conversing about and then Roling went back to the house of that Beronga was assisted by Atty. Marcelo Guinto during the
Junior after answering the phone. And after more than two custodial investigation.[39] In fact, Atty. Guinto also took the witness
hours, we heard the sound of engines of vehicles arriving, and stand and confirmed that Appellant Beronga was informed of his
then Meo, the man who was told by Roling to guard, shouted rights, and that the investigation was proper, legal and not
saying: They are already here[;] after that, Roling came out objectionable. Indeed, other than appellants bare allegations, there
carrying a carbine accompanied by Tsupe, and not long after was no showing that Berongas statement was obtained by force or
we heard gunshots and because of that we ran towards the duress.[40]
house where the wake was. But before the gun-shots, I heard
Equally unavailing is appellants reliance on the res inter alios
Pedring Sabalones father of Roling saying: You clarify, [t]hat
acta rule under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which
you watch out for mistake[n] in identity, and after that shout,
provides:
gunshots followed. [sic] Then after the gun-shots Roling went
back inside still carrying the carbine and shouted: GATHER
THE EMPTY SHELLS AND MEO[,] YOU BRING A The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and
FLASHLIGHT, and then I was called by Meo to help him during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-
gather the empty shells of the carbine and also our third conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than
companion to gather the empty shells. such act or declaration.

These arguments have no merit. In the first place, it is well to Appellants assert that the admission referred to in the above
stress that appellants were convicted based primarily on the positive provision is considered to be against a co-conspirator only when it is
identification of the two survivors, Edwin Santos and Rogelio given during the existence of the conspiracy. They argue that
Presores, and not only on the extrajudicial statement, which merely Berongas statement was made after the termination of the conspiracy;
corroborates the eyewitness testimonies. Thus, said arguments have thus, it should not be admitted and used against Sabalones.
 The well-settled rule is that the extrajudicial confession of an Q How many armalites or guns [did you see] that evening in that
accused is binding only upon himself and is not admissible as place?
evidence against his co-accused, it being mere hearsay evidence as
far as the other accused are concerned.[41] But this rule admits of A Two (2).
exception. It does not apply when the confession, as in this case, is xxxxxxxxx
used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation
of the co-accused in the killing of the victims[42] or when the confession Q This armalite that you saw, - how far was this in relation to the
of the co-accused is corroborated by other evidence.[43] groups of Sabalones?

Berongas extrajudicial statement is, in fact, corroborated by the A There (The witness indicating a distance of about 4 to 5 meters).
testimony of Prosecution Witness Jennifer Binghoy. Pertinent portions
ATTY. KINTANAR:
of said testimony are reproduced hereunder:
Q When you looked xxx through the window and saw there were
Q While you were at the wake of Jun Sabalones and the group
two vehicles and there were bursts of gunfire, what happened
were sitting with Roling Sabalones, what were they doing?
after that?
A They were gathered in one table and they were conversing with
A I did not proceed to look xxx through the window because I
each other.
stooped down.
xxxxxxxxx
Q When you stooped down, what happened?
Q On that same date, time and place, at about 10:00 [i]n the
A After the burst of gunfire, I again opened the window.
evening, can you remember if there was unusual incident that
took place? Q And when again you opened the window, what happened?
A I heard over the radio at the Sabalones Family that a certain A I saw two persons going towards the jeep.
Nabing Velez was shot.
Q What transpired next after [you saw] those 2 persons?
Q That [a] certain Nabing Velez was shot? What else xxx
transpired? A When they arrived there, they nodded their head[s].

A I observed that their reactions were so queer, - as if they were Q After that, what happened?
running. A So, they went back to the direction where they came from, going
xxxxxxxxx to the house of Sabalones.

Q In that evening of June 1, 1985, when you went there at the Q While they were going to the direction of the house of Sabalones,
house of Jun Sabalones, have you seen an armalite? what transpired?

A Yes, sir. A I saw 5 to 6 persons coming from the highway and looking to the
jeep, and before they reached the jeep, somebody shouted
Q Where did you see this armalite? that its ours.
A At the table where they were conversing. Q Who shouted?
 A The voice was very familiar to me. must have been on a level higher than that of the occupants of the
vehicles; if beside each other, they could not have inflicted wounds
Q Whose voice? which were supposed to have come from opposite angles.
A The voice of Roling Sabalones. We are not persuaded. The defense presumes that the victims
Q What else have you noticed during the commotion [when] wives were sitting still when they were fired upon, and that they froze in the
were advising their husbands to go home? same position during and after the shooting. This has no testimonial
foundation. On the contrary, it was shown that the victims ducked and
A They were really in chaos.[44] hid themselves, albeit in vain, when the firing began. After the first
volley, they crouched and tried to take cover from the hail of bullets. It
A careful reading of her testimony buttresses the finding of the
would have been unnatural for them to remain upright and still in their
trial court that Rolusape Sabalones and his friends were gathered at
seats. Hence, it is not difficult to imagine that the trajectories of the
one table, conversing in whispers with each other, that there were two
bullet wounds varied as the victims shifted their positions. We agree
rifles on top of the table, and that they became panicky after hearing
with the following explanation of the Court of Appeals:
of the death of Nabing Velez on the radio. Hence, the observation of
the trial court that they went to their grisly destination amidst the dark The locations of the entry wounds can readily be
and positioned themselves in defense of his turf against the invasion explained. xxx Glenn Tiempo, after looking in the direction of
of a revengeful gang of supporters of the recently slain Nabing the explosion, turned his body around; and since the
Velez.[45] ambushers were between the jeep and the car, he received a
bullet in his right chest (wound no. 1) which traveled to the
left. As to wound No. 2, it can be explained by the spot where
Alleged Inconsistencies Major Tiempo found his fallen son.

Appellants also allege that the prosecution account had Atty. Kintanar:
inconsistencies relating to the number of shots heard, the interval Q: Upon being informed by these occupants who were ambushed
between gunshots and the victims positions when they were and [you] were able to return the car, what did you do?
killed. These, however, are minor and inconsequential flaws which
strengthen, rather than impair, the credibility of said Major Tiempo:
eyewitnesses. Such harmless errors are indicative of truth, not
A: I immediately got soldiers and we immediately proceeded to the
falsehood, and do not cast serious doubt on the veracity and reliability
area or to the place where my fallen son was located and
of complainants testimony.[46]
when we reached x x x the place, I saw my fallen son [in] a
Appellants further claim that the relative positions of the gunmen, kneeling position where both knees [were] touching the
as testified to by the eyewitnesses, were incompatible with the wounds ground and the toes also and the forehead was touching
sustained by the victims. They cite the testimony of Dr. Ladislao Diola, towards the ground. (TSN, Feb. 12, 1988, p. 6)
who conducted the autopsy on Glenn Tiempo. He declared that the
In such position, the second bullet necessarily traveled upwards in
victim must necessarily be on a higher level than the assailant, in the
relation to the body, and thus the entry wound should be lower than
light of the path of the bullet from the entrance wound to where the
the exit wound. There is no showing that both wounds were inflicted
slug was extracted. This finding, according to appellant, negates the
at the same time.[47]
prosecutions account that the appellants were standing side by side
behind a wall when they fired at the victims. If standing, appellants
 In any event, the witnesses saw that the appellants were the Second Issue:
gunmen who were standing side by side firing at them. They could
have been in a different position and in another hiding place when they
first fired, but this is not important. They were present at the crime
Denial and Alibi
scene, and they were shooting their rifles at the victims.
Appellants decry the lower courts disregard of their defense of
alibi. We disagree. As constantly enunciated by this Court, the
Aberratio Ictus established doctrine requires the accused to prove not only that he
was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime,
Appellants likewise accuse the trial court of engaging in but that it was physically impossible for him at the time to have been
conjecture in ruling that there was aberratio ictus in this case. This present at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity.[49] This the
allegation does not advance the cause of the appellants. It must be appellants miserably failed to do.
stressed that the trial court relied on the concept of aberratio
ictus to explain why the appellants staged the ambush, not Appellant Beronga testified that, at the time of the incident, he
to prove that appellants did in fact commit the crimes. Even assuming was in his residence in Lapulapu City, which was not shown to be so
that the trial court did err in explaining the motive of the appellants, remote and inaccessible that it precluded his presence in Mansueto
this does not detract from its findings, as affirmed by the Court of Subdivision. The alibi of Sabalones is even more unworthy of belief;
Appeals and sustained by this Court in the discussion above, that the he sought to establish that he was a mere 20-25 meters away from
guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt. the scene of the crime. He was allegedly in the house of his brother
who was lying in state, which was so near the ambush site that some
In any event, the trial court was not engaging in conjecture in so of the defense witnesses even testified that they were terrified by the
ruling. The conclusion of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that gunfire.Clearly, appellants failed to establish the requisites of alibi.
the appellants killed the wrong persons was based on the extrajudicial
statement of Appellant Beronga and the testimony of Jennifer Furthermore, the defense of alibi cannot overcome the positive
Binghoy. These pieces of evidence sufficiently show that appellants identification of the appellants.[50] As aptly held by this Court in People
believed that they were suspected of having killed the recently slain v. Nescio:[51]
Nabing Velez, and that they expected his group to retaliate against
them. Hence, upon the arrival of the victims vehicles which they Alibi is not credible when the accused-appellant is only a short
mistook to be carrying the avenging men of Nabing Velez, appellants distance from the scene of the crime. The defense of alibi is further
opened fire. Nonetheless, the fact that they were mistaken does not offset by the positive identification made by the prosecution
diminish their culpability. The Court has held that mistake in the witnesses. Alibi, to reiterate a well-settled doctrine, is accepted only
identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused upon the clearest proof that the accused-appellant was not or could
zeroes in on his intended victim.[48] not have been at the crime scene when it was committed.

Be that as it may, the observation of the solicitor general on this

point is well-taken. The case is better characterized as error in
personae or mistake in the identity of the victims, rather than aberratio Flight
ictus which means mistake in the blow, characterized by aiming at one Appellants further object to the finding that Sabalones, after the
but hitting the other due to imprecision in the blow. incident, made himself scarce from the place of commission. He left
for Manila, thence Mindanao on the supposition that he want[ed] to
escape from the wrath of Maj. Tiempo and his men for the death of Tiempo sustained a neck wound which completely shattered his
Glenn Tiempo and the near fatal shooting of the other son or from the trachea and rendered him voiceless, as well as a wound on the right
supporters of Nabing Velez. x x xOn his supposedly borrowed chest which penetrated his axilla but not his chest cavity. [55] Rey Bolo
freedom, he jumped bail and hid himself deeper into Mindanao, under sustained three injuries which affected his clavicle, ribs and
a cloak of an assumed name. Why, did his conscience bother him for lungs.[56]Rogelio Presores, on the other hand, sustained an injury to
comfort?[52] his lungs from a bullet wound which entered his right chest and exited
through his back.[57]
Appellants rationalized that Sabalones was forced to jump bail in
order to escape two groups, who were allegedly out to get him, one of The wounds sustained by these survivors would have caused
Nabing Velez and the other of Major Tiempo.Their ratiocination is their death had it not been for the timely medical intervention. Hence,
futile. It is well-established that the flight of an accused is competent we sustain the ruling of the Court of Appeals that appellants are guilty
evidence to indicate his guilt, and flight, when unexplained, is a of three counts of frustrated murder.
circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn.[53] It must
be stressed, nonetheless, that appellants were not convicted based We also uphold the Court of Appeals modification of the penalty
on legal inference alone but on the overwhelming evidence presented for murder, but not its computation of the sentence for frustrated
against them. murder.
For each of the two counts of murder, the trial court imposed the
penalty of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day
Third Issue: of reclusion temporal (medium), as minimum, to seventeen (17) years,
four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal (maximum), as
maximum. This is incorrect. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal, in its maximum
Crime and Punishment period, to death. There being no aggravating or mitigating
We agree with the appellate court that accused-appellants are circumstance, aside from the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the
guilty of murder for the deaths of Glenn Tiempo and Alfredo appellate court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua for murder.
Nardo. The allegation of treachery as charged in the Information was The Court of Appeals, however, erred in computing the penalty
duly proven by the prosecution. Treachery is committed when two for each of the three counts of frustrated murder. It sentenced
conditions concur, namely, that the means, methods, and forms of appellants to imprisonment of ten years of prision mayor(medium) as
execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion
defend himself or to retaliate; and that such means, methods and temporal (medium) as maximum. It modified the trial courts
forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the computation of eight (8) years of prision mayor (minimum), as
accused without danger to his person.[54] These requisites were minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion
evidently present when the accused, swiftly and unexpectedly, fired at temporal (minimum) as maximum.
the victims who were inside their vehicles and were in no position and
without any means to defend themselves. Under Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a
frustrated felony is the next lower in degree than that prescribed by
The appellate court also correctly convicted them of frustrated law for the consummated felony x x x. The imposable penalty for
murder for the injuries sustained by Nelson Tiempo, Rey Bolo and frustrated murder, therefore, is prision mayor in its maximum period
Rogelio Presores. As evidenced by the medical certificates and the to reclusion temporal in its medium period.[58] Because there are no
testimony of Dr. Miguel Mancao who attended to the victims, Nelson aggravating or mitigating circumstance as the Court of Appeals itself
held,[59] the penalty prescribed by law should be imposed in its 2) In Crim. Case No. CBU-9258, for MURDER, the accused-
medium period. With the application of the Indeterminate Sentence appellants are each hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to
Law, the penalty for frustrated murder should be 8 years of prision indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased, Alfredo
mayor (minimum), as minimum, to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion Nardo, in the sum of P50,000;
temporal (minimum) as maximum.
Although the Court of Appeals was silent on this point, the trial 3) In Crim. Case No. CBU-9259, for FRUSTRATED MURDER, the
court correctly ordered the payment of P50,000 as indemnity to the accused-appellants are each hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
heirs of each of the two murdered victims. In light of current of 8 years of prision mayor (minimum), as minimum, to 14 years and
jurisprudence, this amount is awarded without need of proof other than 8 months of reclusion temporal (minimum) as maximum; and to
the fact of the victims death.[60] The trial court and the CA, however, jointly and severally pay the victim, Rey Bolo, in the sum
erred in awarding indemnity of P20,000 each to Nelson Tiempo, of P9,431.10 as actual damages;
Rogelio Presores and Rey Bolo. There is no basis, statutory or
jurisprudential, for the award of a fixed amount to victims of frustrated 4) In Crim Case No. CBU-9260, for FRUSTRATED MURDER, the
murder. Hence, they are entitled only to the amounts of actual accused-appellants are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 8
expenses duly proven during the trial. years of prision mayor (minimum), as minimum, to 14 years and 8
months of reclusion temporal (minimum) as maximum; and to jointly
Thus, Nelson Tiempo, who was treated for a gunshot wound on and severally indemnify the victim, Rogelio Presores, in the sum
the neck which shattered his trachea, should be awarded indemnity of of P5,412.69 for actual damages;
P21,594.22 for his medical expenses. This is evidenced by a
statement of account from Cebu Doctors Hospital.[61] 5) In Crim. Case No. CBU-9261 for FRUSTRATED MURDER, the
Rogelio Presores, who was likewise treated for gunshot wound accused-appellants are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 8
in the same hospital, presented a statement of account amounting years of prision mayor (minimum), as minimum, to 14 years and 8
to P5,412.69 for his hospitalization.[62] Hence, he is likewise entitled to months of reclusion temporal (minimum) as maximum; and to jointly
indemnity in the said amount. and severally indemnify the victim, Nelson Tiempo, in the sum of
P21,594.22 as actual damages.
Rey Bolo, on the other hand, incurred an expense of P9,431.10
for the treatment of his gunshot wounds, as evidenced by a statement Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Secretary of Interior
of account from the same hospital.[63] This amount should be awarded and Local Government and the Secretary of Justice so that Accused
to him as indemnity. Eufemio Cabanero may be brought to justice.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision Costs against appellants.
is AFFIRMED. However, the penalties are hereby MODIFIED as SO ORDERED.
follows: Davide, Jr., (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug and Quisumbing,
JJ., concur.
1) In Crim. Case No. CBU-9257, for MURDER, the accused-
appellants are each hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased, Glenn
Tiempo, in the sum of P50,000;
[1]
Penned by J. Jesus M. Elbinias and concurred in by JJ.
Buenaventura J. Guerrero and B.A. Adefuin-Dela Cruz.
[2] CA Rollo, pp. 205-236. [25] 231 SCRA 414, March 24, 1994, per Puno, J.; People v.
[3] Presided by Judge Generoso A. Juaban. Satagoda, 221 SCRA 251, April 7, 1993.
[4] RTC Decision, pp. 31-32; CA Rollo, pp. 58-59. [26] TSN, February 22, 1990, pp. 22-23.
[5] CA Decision, pp. 31-32; CA Rollo, pp. 235-236. [27] Ibid., pp. 8-9.
[6] SC Resolution of September 9, 1996; Rollo, p. 11. [28] TSN, April 20, 1990, pp. 3 and 5.
[29] TSN, December 11, 1990, pp. 1-4.
[7] The Appellees Brief was signed by Assistant Solicitor General
Cecilio O. Estoesta and Solicitor Ma. Cielo Se-Rondain; CA Rollo, pp. [30] TSN, April 20, 1990, p. 6. This was quoted in the CA Decision, pp.
171-178. 20-21; CA Rollo, pp. 224-225.
[8] Appellees Brief, pp. 7-14; CA Rollo, pp. 171-178. [31] TSN, April 20, 1990, p. 4.
[9] The Appellants Brief contained no statement of facts. [32] CA Decision, p. 18; CA Rollo, p. 222.
[10] RTC Decision, pp. 14-26; CA Rollo, pp. 41-53. [33] TSN, April 7, 1987, p. 23.

[11]
The case was deemed submitted for resolution on August 29, [34] People v. Briones, 202 SCRA 708, October 15, 1991, per Paras J.;
1997, upon receipt by the Court of the confirmation of the detention of citing People v. Vacal, 27 SCRA 24; People v. Pueblas, 127 SCRA
Appellant Beronga at the National Bilibid Prisons. 746; People v. dela Cruz, 147 SCRA 359; People v. Aboga, 147 SCRA
[12]
404.
Brief of Accused-Appellant Sabalones before the CA, pp. 3, 8, 21, [35] GR No. 123273, July 16, 1998, per Panganiban, J.
29 and 39, signed by Atty. Pedro L. Albino. [36] RTC Decision, p. 27; CA Rollo, p. 54.
[13] CA Rollo, p. 78.
[37] People v. Nimo, 227 SCRA 69, October 5, 1993, per Romero, J.;
[14]
People v. Turingan, GR No. 121628, December 4, 1997; People v. People v. Luvendino, 211 SCRA 36, July 3, 1992; People v. Quijano,
Sumbillo, 271 SCRA 428, April 18, 1997; People v. Ombrog, 268 197 SCRA 761, May 31, 1991.
SCRA 93, February 12, 1997; People v. Arce, 227 SCRA 406, October [38] TSN, May 31, 1989, pp. 4-23.
26, 1993. [39] TSN, June 2, 1989, pp. 4-10.

[15] People [40] Ibid., pp. 18-19 and 24-25.

v. Aranjuez, GR No. 121898, January 29, 1998, per
Romero, J.; People v. Castillo, 273 SCRA 22, June 12, 1997. [41]
People v. Liwag, 225 SCRA 46, August 3, 1993; People v. Alegre,
[16] RTC Decision, p. 26; CA Rollo, p. 53.
94 SCRA 109, November 7, 1979.
[17] Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 432, January 29, 1996, [42] People
v. Alvarez, 201 SCRA 364, September 5, 1991; People v.
per Romero, J.; Aspi v. CA, 236 SCRA 94, September 1, 1994; Coca- Vasquez, 113 SCRA 772, April 27, 1982.
Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. CA, 229 SCRA 151, January 27,
1994. [43] People v. Victor, 181 SCRA 818, February 6, 1990; People v. Paz,
[18] TSN, April 7, 1987, pp. 13-17. 11 SCRA 667, August 31, 1964; People v. Agdeppa, 30 SCRA 782,
[19] TSN, December 19, 1988, pp. 27-29. December 24, 1969.
[20] TSN, August 7, 1987, p. 10. [44] TSN, November 28, 1988, pp. 5-20.
[21] TSN, October 15, 1987, p. 6. [45] RTC Decision, p. 27; CA Rollo, p. 54.
[22] TSN, January 26, 1989, p. 14. [46] People v. Gaorana, GR Nos. 109138-39, April 27, 1998.
[23] TSN, December 19, 1988, p. 26. [47] CA Decision, p. 29; CA rollo, p. 233. Underscoring supplied.
[24] Ibid., pp. 28-29; TSN, April 7, 1987, pp. 14 and 23.
[48]
People v. Pinto, Jr., 204 SCRA 9, 31, November 21, 1991, per
Fernan, CJ; Calderon v.. People, 96 Phil. 216 (1954); People v.
Esteban, 103 SCRA 520, March 30, 1981.
[49]
People v. Tulop, GR No. 124829, April 21, 1998; People v.
Ballesteros, GR No. 120921, January 29, 1998; People v. Sumbillo,
supra.
[50] People v. Arellano, GR Nos. 119078-79, December 5, 1997;
People v. Apongan, 270 SCRA 713, April 4, 1997; People v. Castillo,
supra.
[51] 239 SCRA, December 28, 1994, per Romero, J.
[52] RTC Decision, p. 29; CA Rollo, p. 56.

[53] People v. Gomez, 251 SCRA 455, December 19, 1995, per Davide,
Jr. J.
[54] People v. Castillo, GR No. 120282, April 20, 1998, per

Panganiban, J.; People v. Maalat,, GR No. 109814, July 8, 1997;

People v. Tuson, 261 SCRA 711, September 16, 1996.
[55] TSN, May 30, 1989, pp. 10, 22 and 23.
[56] Ibid., pp. 13 and 23.
[57] TSN, May 30, 1989, pp. 15 and 24.
[58] As earlier noted, the penalty for consummated murder is reclusion

temporal, in its maximum period, to death.

[59] CA Decision, p. 31; CA Rollo, p. 235.

[60] People v. Cayabyab, 274 SCRA 387, June 19, 1997; People v.
Dones, 254 SCRA 696, 710, March 13, 1996.
[61] TSN, February 12, 1988, p. 9
[62] Ibid., p. 11.
[63] Id., p. 12.