SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 132028. April 19, 2002.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . EUSEBIO

ENFECTANA, alias "Toytoy", and ERWIN ENFECTANA , accused-
appellants.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Celestino Sabate for accused-appellants.

SYNOPSIS

Appellant appealed their conviction for the murder of Leo, based on the following
grounds: appellant Eusebio admitted he killed Leo but insisted that he acted in self-
defense; even if self-defense could not be appreciated, the crime committed was homicide
and only Eusebio should be held liable therefor.
The Supreme Court a rmed the conviction of appellants on appeal, ruling: that
testimonies of prosecution witnesses who saw appellants kill the victim were positive and
categorical as when and how appellants committed the crime, hence, deserving of full faith
and credence; the version of appellant that it was victim Leo who initiated the attacks and
that notwithstanding the fact that appellants were both caught unaware, they managed to
escape unscathed is quite incredible; that if it were true that they were innocent, there was
no reason for co-accused Efren to ee and hide; that the burden of evidence imposed by
law is on the party invoking self-defense, but appellants failed to prove unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; and that treachery is present in this case because the
victim and his wife were suddenly attacked as they were coming down from a jeepney.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; FINDINGS OF THE

TRIAL COURT THEREON WILL GENERALLY NOT BE DISTURBED ON APPEAL;
EXCEPTIONS; CASE AT BAR. — The conviction of the Enfectanas was primarily based on
the testimonial accounts of Adelaida Boco and Dominador Dialino which was found by the
trial court to be more credible than the version of the appellants. It is doctrinally settled
that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not
disturb the ndings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to
decide the issue, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment
and manner of testifying during trial. This rule admits of exceptions, such as when the
evaluation was reached arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could affect the
result of the case. Unfortunately for appellants, none of these exceptions is present in this
case.
2. ID.; ID.; PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; POSITIVE AND CATEGORICAL
TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISH GUILT OF
ACCUSED IN CASE AT BAR. — The testimonies of prosecution witnesses Adelaida Boco
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 and Dominador Dialino were both positive and categorical. The assertion of appellants that
they contradicted each other has no support in the records. Moreover, even if we were to
agree with appellants that there were inconsistencies in their testimonies, they refer only
to trivial and immaterial details. Thus, assuming these inconsistencies to be present, they
tend to show that the witnesses were being spontaneous and were not coached or
rehearsed. Settled is the rule that minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of a
witness. On the contrary, they may be considered badges of veracity or manifestations of
truthfulness on material points and they may even heighten the credibility of the witness.
The records of this case show that the prosecution witnesses were consistent in their
narration as to WHO committed the crime, WHEN and HOW it was committed. These are
the material facts in this case which had been su ciently and convincingly established by
the prosecution. Compared with the allegation of the appellants, the prosecution's version
is more believable and in accord with reality, hence deserving full faith and credence. cDECIA

3. ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; EVIDENCE TO BE BELIEVED MUST BE

CREDIBLE IN ITSELF; CASE AT BAR. — Appellants would want us to believe that it was the
victim, Leo Boco, who initiated the attacks, rst against Erwin Enfectana and then against
Eusebio Enfectana, and that notwithstanding the fact that said Erwin and Eusebio were
both caught unaware and unarmed by the sudden attacks of Leo Boco, they managed to
evade him and escape unscathed. This is highly suspect and in our view, quite incredible.
Evidence to be believed must not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but
must itself be credible. It is very unlikely that Leo Boco, if the version of the appellants
were true, would fail to land even a single hit upon the body of either appellants. Yet neither
Erwin nor Eusebio Enfectana showed such injury.
4. ID.; ID.; FLIGHT IS INDICATIVE OF GUILT; CASE AT BAR. — The version of the
appellants would not explain why co-accused Efren Enfectana suddenly disappeared after
the incident. If it was true that they were innocent, then there is no reason for Efren-
Enfectana to ee and hide. Flight is an indication of guilt and lends credence to the version
of the prosecution in this case. acCITS

5. CRIMINAL LAW; JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; SELF-DEFENSE; ELEMENTS

THEREOF; UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM AGAINST THE
PERSON DEFENDING HIMSELF IS A SINE QUA NON CONDITION; CASE AT BAR. — As for
the issue of self-defense, it is an established principle that once this justifying
circumstance is raised, the burden of proving the elements of the claim shifts to him who
invokes it. The elements of self-defense are: (1) that the victim has committed unlawful
aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person
claiming self-defense; (2) that there be reasonable necessity in the means employed to
prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) that there be lack of su cient
provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense or, at least, that any
provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense be not the proximate and
immediate cause of the victim's aggression. The condition of unlawful aggression is a sine
qua non; otherwise stated, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless
the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. Given
the fact that the relationship between the parties had been marred by ill will and
animosities, and pursuant to the rule on the burden of evidence imposed by law on the
party invoking self-defense, the admission of appellant Eusebio Enfectana that he killed
Leo Boco made it incumbent upon appellant to convincingly prove that there was unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim which necessitated the use of deadly force by
appellant. Unfortunately, appellant miserably failed to prove the existence of unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 6. ID.; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR.
— Anent the third issue, we also agree with the trial court that treachery is present in this
case. The victim and his wife were suddenly attacked as they were coming down from a
jeepney. They had no idea that they were going to be assaulted. The manner by which the
appellants commenced and perpetrated their assault, (1) by trying to bump Leo and
Adelaida Boco, making the former lose his balance and more susceptible to an attack, and
(2) by simultaneously attacking Leo Boco, hence preventing him from putting up any
semblance of defense, shows beyond any doubt that there was alevosia in this case.
Settled is the rule that an unexpected and sudden attack under circumstances that render
the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself constitutes alevosia.

DECISION

QUISUMBING , J : p

Before us on appeal is the decision 1 dated June 24, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court,
Borongan, Eastern Samar, Branch 1, in Criminal Case No. 10582, nding appellants guilty
of murder and sentencing them to suffer the imprisonment of reclusion perpetua.
Appellants herein were indicted in an Information 2 as follows:
That on November 2, 1994, at about 11:00 o'clock in the morning, at the
National Highway, Barangay Cabay, Balangkayan, Eastern Samar, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with intent to kill and with
evident premeditation and treachery and without justi able cause, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously bumped Leo Boco and the complainant
Adelaida Boco with the trycicle (sic) of the accused, when the victim has just
alighted from a passenger jeepney, then attacked, assaulted, hacked, stabbed and
wounded Leo Boco with the use of sharp bladed weapons, which the accused
provided themselves for the purpose, thereby in icting injuries upon Leo Boco,
which injuries caused the instantaneous death of Leo Boco, to the damage and
prejudice of the heirs of the victim, in such amount as may be awarded to them
under the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines and other related laws
and caused injuries on the complainant, Adelaida Boco, when she was bumped
by the trycicle (sic) named "Pepit" owned and operated by the herein accused and
driven by co-accused Erwin Enfectana.
CONTRARY TO LAW, with the attendance of the aggravating
circumstances of: Evident premeditation, Conspiracy, Treachery and advantage
taken due to superior strength or means employed to weaken the defense of the
victim.

Upon arraignment, appellants pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. Thereafter trial
ensued.
The rst witness for the prosecution was ADELAIDA BOCO, widow of the victim, Leo
Boco. She testi ed that on November 2, 1994, at around 11:00 A.M., while she and her
husband were on their way home, they were sideswiped by a tricycle driven by appellant
Erwin Enfectana with Efren Enfectana as passenger. As a result, her husband fell in a
crouching position. When he was about to get up, appellant Eusebio Enfectana came from
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 behind to stab him. Then appellant Erwin Enfectana and accused Efren Enfectana took
turns stabbing Leo Boco, causing his death. 3
DOMINADOR DIALINO, a 52-year-old farmer, testi ed that he saw appellants and co-
accused kill the victim. According to the witness, he was at the store of one Olivo Contado,
at around 11:00 A.M. of November 2, 1994. From there, he saw Leo and Adelaida Boco
alight from a jeepney. He also saw a fast running tricycle which bumped the vehicle of the
Boco spouses. The tricycle was being driven by Erwin Enfectana who was with Efren
Enfectana. They missed the Boco spouses who jumped away. Erwin and Efren Enfectana
alighted from the tricycle and walked towards Leo Boco, who had fallen down. They were
carrying short bladed weapons known as "depang ". 4 Dominador Dialino tried to stop them
by going between them and the Boco spouses, to no avail. He heard Efren Enfectana shout,
"bon-a na Tatay " (Father, stab him). He then saw Eusebio Enfectana stab Leo Boco. After
Leo Boco fell, Erwin and Efren also stabbed him. 5
BARTOLOME BAHASAN, a 54-year-old resident of Bgy. Cabay, Balangkayan, Eastern
Samar, testi ed that sometime in 1985, the family of Eusebio Enfectana tried to move into
the residence of Leo and Adelaida Boco but they were prevented by Leo. He also alleged
that sometime in 1985, Leo Boco was waylaid by the Enfectanas (Eusebio, Erwin and
Efren) but he was able to escape by swimming across the river. From then on, Leo Boco
always tried to evade the Enfectanas. 6
Dr. MICHAEL TAN, the Municipal Health O cer of Balangkayan, Eastern Samar,
testi ed that he was the one who conducted the post-mortem examination on the cadaver
of Leo Boco. According to him, the deceased suffered six stab wounds, and that the
probable cause of death was the stab wound at the back that caused hemorrhage. He
opined that in all probability, based on the sizes and nature of the wounds, not less than
two weapons were used against the victim. 7
On June 15, 1995, ADELAIDA BOCO was recalled to the witness stand to testify on
the damages she and her family suffered and the expenses they incurred as a result of Leo
Boco's death. According to her, Leo Boco was a businessman who earns at least P20,000
a month by selling automotive parts in Cebu. She said that she incurred P50,000 in funeral
expenses. She also spent for legal fees because she engaged a lawyer for the fee of P500
per appearance in court. Aside from these, she also alleged that since her husband's death,
she became the sole breadwinner of her family and the main source of livelihood for her
five children. 8
For its part, the defense presented DARIO D. ALDE, municipal treasurer of
Balangkayan, Eastern Samar, as its rst witness. He testi ed that there is no record of Leo
Boco as businessman in the Municipality of Balangkayan. 9
Next witness for the defense was Mrs. MANUELA CONTADO DIALINO. She testi ed
that on November 2, 1994, she went to the cemetery of Balangkayan where she stayed
from 8:30-9:30 A.M. She then proceeded to the waiting shed where she waited for a ride
home. She was able to ride a tricycle at around 11:00 A.M. She alleged that Dominador
Dialino was with her in the tricycle and that they arrived in Cabay at around 12:00 noon.
Upon arriving home, they were informed that Leo Boco had been killed. 1 0
Appellant EUSEBIO ENFECTANA testi ed that on November 2, 1994, at around
11:00 A.M., while he was at home, someone arrived and informed him that his tricycle was
involved in an accident. He went to the place and saw his tricycle turned upside down with
its windshield broken. Suddenly, he saw Leo Boco running towards him with a " dipang " (a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 small bolo). He evaded the attacks of Leo Boco and managed to get hold of a piece of
wood which he used to defend himself. Still, Leo Boco persisted in attacking him until he
was able to get hold of a bolo which he used in stabbing Leo. According to him, he was
able to stab Leo in the right hand and chest. Aside from this he was also able to hack him
in the neck. As Leo fell down from these counter-attacks, according to appellant, he took
Leo's bolo and used this to stab him. He was then chased by the sons and the cousin of
Leo Boco up to his house which they pelted with stones. After they stopped, Eusebio
decided to call the authorities to surrender himself. 1 1
Appellant ERWIN ENFECTANA testi ed that he is 24 years old, married, and a
resident of Cabay, Balangkayan, Eastern Samar. According to him, at around 11:00 A.M. of
November 2, 1994, while he was waiting for passengers in Bgy. Cabay, Balangkayan, he
saw Leo Boco running toward him with a small bolo. In his effort to escape, he accidentally
bumped his tricycle on a fence. He fell down because of the impact but he immediately
stood up and ran away because Leo Boco was still chasing him with a bolo. In order to
escape, he hid in the house of Osias Montes where he learned that his father, Eusebio
Enfectana, and Leo Boco had a quarrel. 1 2
FE ANDALIZA GLINO testi ed that on the morning of November 2, 1994, while she
was ironing clothes in the house of Nestor Borja, she heard a tricycle crashing into a
wooden fence. When she looked out the window, she saw appellant Erwin Enfectana
sprawled on the ground trying to get up. She also saw Leo Boco with a "dipang "
approaching Erwin and trying to stab him. Erwin got up and ran away. She returned to her
chores but after a while, she heard a woman shout, "Leo, ayaw kamo pag-igi, ayaw hito"
(Leo, do not quarrel, not here.) She looked out the window and saw Leo Boco advancing,
this time towards appellant Eusebio Enfectana. Leo was trying to stab Eusebio Enfectana
while the latter parried the blows with a piece of wood. When Eusebio Enfectana was
cornered against a banana store, witness Fe Glino said, she looked away until she heard
somebody shouting, "Patay na si Leo Boco" (Leo Boco is already dead). 1 3
Defense witness NENITA ALDE testi ed that she was the one who took the pictures
of the appellants' house, which show shattered windows and the stones allegedly used in
breaking these windows. 1 4
Another defense witness, EDDIE AMBAL, testi ed that on November 2, 1994, while
he was on his way home from his aunt's house, he saw a tilted tricycle. He also saw
appellant Eusebio Enfectana being attacked by Leo Boco with a "dipang ". According to
him, Eusebio Enfectana managed to parry these blows with a piece of wood until he
reached a banana store where he was able to get hold of a bolo. This he used to stab and
hack the victim, Leo Boco. 1 5
Witness MARCOS LADIAO testi ed that on November 2, 1994, at around 11:00 A.M.,
while he was on his way to the house of a certain Romulo Elpedes, he noticed a tilted
tricycle by the side of the road. He saw appellant Eusebio Enfectana standing near the said
tricycle. He also saw Leo Boco with a small bolo approaching Eusebio Enfectana from the
direction of the seashore. He heard Leo Boco shout, "kay waray ko man kamatay an anak, it
amay it ak papatayon" (Because I failed to kill the son, I will kill the father). With these
words, Leo Boco bumped Eusebio Enfectana and tried to stab him with the "dipang ". But
Eusebio Enfectana managed to evade the thrust of Leo Boco's weapon. Eusebio Enfectana
was able to pick a piece of wood which he used to parry the blows of Leo Boco, at the
same time backpedalling across the street where he (Eusebio Enfectana) was eventually
cornered against the banana store of Contado. At said store, Eusebio Enfectana managed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 to get hold of a long bolo which he used to stab Leo Boco. When the victim fell down,
appellant Eusebio Enfectana ran and jumped over the fence. 1 6
Later, the prosecution recalled ADELAIDA BOCO as its rebuttal witness to disprove
the allegations of Eddie Ambal that he (Ambal) actually saw the killing of Leo Boco. 1 7
On June 24, 1997, the trial court rendered its decision as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, EUSEBIO
ENFECTANA and ERWIN ENFECTANA are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
as co-principals of the crime of MURDER, de ned and penalized under Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and further amended by R.A. 7659,
section 6, which provide the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to Death. Accordingly,
Eusebio Enfectana and Erwin Enfectana are hereby sentenced to serve the
indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay the cost and to indemnify the
heirs of Leo Boco in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) pursuant
to a recent ruling of the Supreme Court (citing People vs. Chica, G.R. No. 117732,
1995. PP. vs. Sison, 159 SCRA 645). Records show, Eusebio Enfectana and Erwin
Enfectana are out on bail, the same is hereby ordered cancelled pursuant to
Supreme Court Circular No. 2-92. As far as accused Efren Enfectana is concerned,
he is still at large to date.

SO ORDERED. 1 8

Aggrieved, appellants filed this appeal alleging that the trial court erred:
I
. . . IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT APPELLANT EUSEBIO ENFECTANA ACTED IN
SELF-DEFENSE.
II

. . . [IN] FINDING BOTH APPELLANTS GUILTY OF MURDER.

III
. . . IN CONVICTING APPELLANTS.

In essence, the issues here are (1) whether the trial court properly gave credence to
the version of the prosecution while disbelieving that of the defense; (2) whether there is
self defense on the part of Eusebio Enfectana; and, (3) whether the circumstance of
treachery should be appreciated to qualify the offense to murder. Likewise, we must
further inquire into the propriety of the civil indemnity and damages awarded by the trial
court.
Appellant Eusebio Enfectana admits that he killed Leo Boco. He, however, alleges
that he acted in self-defense. According to him, he was attacked rst and he had no option
but to kill the aggressor. On the other hand, appellant Erwin denies any participation in the
killing and alleges that he was nowhere near the place where the incident transpired. Both
appellants assail the nding of the trial court that they are liable for the death of Leo Boco.
According to them, it was the victim, Leo Boco, who had the motive to commence the
assault upon Eusebio Enfectana because of Boco's conviction resulting from a complaint
lodged against him by the Enfectanas. They add that Boco also lost in a civil case involving
his house.
Appellants also assail the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 witnesses, particularly those of Adelaida Boco and Dominador Dialino. Lastly, appellants
contend that even if self-defense could not be appreciated, the crime committed was
merely homicide and that only Eusebio should be held liable therefor. 1 9
The O ce of the Solicitor General (OSG), for the appellee, avers that the trial court
committed no error in convicting appellants Eusebio and Erwin Enfectana for murder. The
OSG contends that the failure of appellants to submit any counter-a davit immediately
after the complaint was led against them is an indication that their version was no longer
spontaneous nor truthful. According to the OSG, the claim that it was the victim who had
the motive to commence the assault against the Enfectanas is unrealistic, since it is also
true that the Enfectanas harbored ill feelings towards Leo Boco. The OSG stresses that the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as a whole, show no real discrepancy and that
the inconsistencies pointed out by appellants refer only to minor and trivial matters.
Considering the evidence presented and the arguments adduced by appellants and
appellee, we are unable to find merit in the present appeal.
The conviction of the Enfectanas was primarily based on the testimonial accounts
of Adelaida Boco and Dominador Dialino which was found by the trial court to be more
credible than the version of the appellants. It is doctrinally settled that when the issue is
one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the ndings of
the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the issue, having
heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during trial. This rule admits of exceptions, such as when the evaluation was reached
arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case. 2 0
Unfortunately for appellants, none of these exceptions is present in this case.
The testimonies of prosecution witnesses Adelaida Boco and Dominador Dialino
were both positive and categorical. The assertion of appellants that they contradicted
each other has no support in the records. Moreover, even if we were to agree with
appellants that there were inconsistencies in their testimonies, they refer only to trivial and
immaterial details. Thus, assuming these inconsistencies to be present, they tend to show
that the witnesses were being spontaneous and were not coached or rehearsed. Settled is
the rule that minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of a witness. On the
contrary, they may be considered badges of veracity or manifestations of truthfulness on
material points and they may even heighten the credibility of the witness. 2 1
The records of this case show that the prosecution witnesses were consistent in
their narration as to WHO committed the crime, WHEN and HOW it was committed. These
are the material facts in this case which had been su ciently and convincingly established
by the prosecution. Compared with the allegation of the appellants, the prosecution's
version is more believable and in accord with reality, hence deserving full faith and
credence.
Appellants would want us to believe that it was the victim, Leo Boco, who initiated
the attacks, rst against Erwin Enfectana and then against Eusebio Enfectana, and that
notwithstanding the fact that said Erwin and Eusebio were both caught unaware and
unarmed by the sudden attacks of Leo Boco, they managed to evade him and escape
unscathed. This is highly suspect and in our view, quite incredible. Evidence to be believed
must not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but must itself be credible. 2 2 It
is very unlikely that Leo Boco, if the version of the appellants were true, would fail to land
even a single hit upon the body of either appellants. Yet neither Erwin nor Eusebio
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Enfectana showed such injury. The version of the appellants would not explain why co-
accused Efren Enfectana suddenly disappeared after the incident. If it was true that they
were innocent, then there is no reason for Efren Enfectana to ee and hide. Flight is an
indication of guilt 2 3 and lends credence to the version of the prosecution in this case.
As for the issue of self-defense, it is an established principle that once this justifying
circumstance is raised, the burden of proving the elements of the claim shifts to him who
invokes it. 2 4 The elements of self-defense are: (1) that the victim has committed unlawful
aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person
claiming self-defense; (2) that there be reasonable necessity in the means employed to
prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) that there be lack of su cient
provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense or, at least, that any
provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense be not the proximate and
immediate cause of the victim's aggression. 2 5 The condition of unlawful aggression is a
sine qua non; otherwise stated, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete,
unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person defending
himself. 2 6
Given the fact that the relationship between the parties had been marred by ill will
and animosities, and pursuant to the rule on the burden of evidence imposed by law on the
party invoking self-defense, the admission of appellant Eusebio Enfectana that he killed
Leo Boco made it incumbent upon appellant to convincingly prove that there was unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim which necessitated the use of deadly force by
appellant. Unfortunately, appellant miserably failed to prove the existence of unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim. As found by the trial court:
. . . The version of the accused [appellant] that it was Leo Boco who was
the unlawful aggressor and that Leo Boco attacked and stabbed him while he
was inspecting his tilted tricycle on the highway cannot be given faith and credit it
being an afterthought, self-serving and expert invention and/or imagination sans
truth. 2 7

Weighing the con icting versions of the prosecution and the defense, we agree with
the trial court's conclusion that the prosecution's version is more in accord with the natural
course of things, hence more credible. ITAaHc

Anent the third issue, we also agree with the trial court that treachery is present in
this case. The victim and his wife were suddenly attacked as they were coming down from
a jeepney. They had no idea that they were going to be assaulted. The manner by which the
appellants commenced and perpetrated their assault, (1) by trying to bump Leo and
Adelaida Boco, making the former lose his balance and more susceptible to an attack, and
(2) by simultaneously attacking Leo Boco, hence preventing him from putting up any
semblance of defense, shows beyond any doubt that there was alevosia in this case.
Settled is the rule that an unexpected and sudden attack under circumstances that render
the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself constitutes alevosia. 2 8
As to damages, there is no dispute as to the propriety of P50,000 as civil indemnity
for the death of Leo Boco. There being uncontradicted testimony regarding the funeral
expenses and legal fees paid by the widow, Adelaida Boco, at least P50,500 should be
awarded to her as actual damages.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of Branch 1 of the Regional Trial Court of
Borongan, Eastern Samar, in Criminal Case No. 10582, nding the appellants Eusebio
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Enfectana and Erwin Enfectana guilty of murder, is AFFIRMED. Each of them is sentenced
to the penalty of reclusion perpetua as well as to pay the heirs of the victim Leo Boco
P50,000 as civil indemnity. In addition, appellants are hereby ordered jointly and severally
to pay P50,500 as actual damages to the widow, Adelaida Boco. Lastly, let a copy of this
decision be furnished to the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National
Police so that co-accused Efren Enfectana be apprehended promptly and brought to the
bar of justice.
Costs against appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo (Acting C.J.), Mendoza and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Corona, J., took no part in the deliberations.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 29-50.
2. Id. at 11-A to 11-B.
3. TSN, January 24, 1995, pp. 6-17.

4. Also spelled as "dipang" in the records.

5. TSN, January 25, 1995, pp. 34-39.
6. TSN, February 7, 1995, pp. 3-10.
7. TSN, February 20, 1995, pp. 53-60; August 10, 1995, pp. 65-66.

8. TSN, June 15, 1995, pp. 5-14.

9. TSN, November 13, 1995, pp. 2-6.
10. Id. at 10-14.
11. TSN, December 11, 1995, pp. 2-11.
12. TSN, January 24, 1996, pp. 2-4.

13. TSN, March 7, 1996, pp. 2-10.

14. Id. at 34-40.
15. TSN, July 3, 1996, pp. 3-11.
16. TSN, October 3, 1996, pp. 2-7.
17. TSN, April 10, 1997, pp. 3-9.

18. Rollo, pp. 49-50.

19. Id. at 307-312.
20. People vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 138264, April 20, 2001, p. 14, citing People vs. Albarico,
G.R. Nos. 108596-97, 238 SCRA 203, 212-213 (1994); People vs. Delovino, G.R. Nos.
116132-33, 247 SCRA 637, 646-647 (1995); People vs. Bayani, G.R. No. 120984, 262
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 SCRA 660, 678-679 (1996).
21. Id. at 15, citing People vs. Padilla, G.R. Nos. 111956 & 111958-61, 242 SCRA 629, 642
(1995); People vs. Villegas, G.R. No. 118653, 262 SCRA 314, 321 (1996).
22. People vs. Giganto, Sr., G.R. No. 123077, 336 SCRA 294, 307 (2000).
23. People vs. Samolde, G.R. No. 128551, 336 SCRA 632, 652 (2000), citing People vs.
Padlan, G.R. No. 111263, 290 SCRA 388, 401 (1998).
24. People vs. Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001, pp. 15-16, citing People vs. Nuestro,
G.R. No. 111288, 240 SCRA 221, 227 (1995).
25. People vs. Flores, id. at 7-8.
26. People vs. Flores, id. at 16, citing People vs. Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, 189 SCRA 700, 704
(1990); People vs. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, 174 SCRA 285, 291 (1989).
27. Rollo, p. 43.
28. People vs. Alvarez, G.R. No. 117689, 267 SCRA 266, 277 (1997).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com