496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Padrones

*
G.R. No. 85823. September 13, 1990.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ALEX PADRONES And JOSEPH BIARE @ “JOJO”
BIARE, accused-appellants.

Criminal Law; Murder; In a prosecution for murder,

conviction cannot be made to rest on mere conjectures and
speculations.—The Court also finds the trial judge’s conclusions,
especially as to the relationship between the two accused, the
factor of conspiracy, and the circumstances of treachery and
evident premeditation, to be plainly, conjectures and speculations,
and they can not satisfy the legal requisite of proof beyond
reasonable doubt to justify a conviction for an offense, in this case,
murder.
Same; Same; Conspiracy; Conspiracy transcends
companionship; The fact that the two (2) accused left together
cannot instantly support a finding of conspiracy.—Padrones’
parting statement: “Diputa kamo, lenti kamo, magkita-ay kita
buas,” and the fact that both accused left together can not be
accepted by the Court as a piece of evidence of conspiracy. It has
been held that conspiracy, like the offense itself, must be shown to
exist beyond reasonable doubt. So also has it been held that
conspiracy “transcends companionship”. Hence, the fact that the
two accused may have happened to leave together, and one of
them left a closing warning, can not instantly support a finding of
conspiracy. The prosecution is, in addition, hard put to adduce
evidence demonstrating facts that the parties had priorly come to
an agreement to commit the crime with which they are charged.
Although the act of

________________

* SECOND DIVISION.

497

VOL.189, SEPTEMBER13, 1990 497

 People vs. Padrones

agreeing need not be demonstrated, evidence of the fact of

agreement must nonetheless be convincingly shown. The
accused’s acts after the fact, by themselves, are inadequate to
show that previous agreement.
Same; Same; Evidence; The prosecution must rely on the
strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the
defense.—The Court notes with legitimate concern the conviction
in question that has indeed been made to stand on the infirmity of
the accused’s evidence. We have uniformly ruled, in this
connection, that the prosecution must win its case on the strength
of its evidence and not on the weakness of that of the defense.
Same; Same; Same; Dying Declaration; To be considered as a
dying declaration, it must have been made under the consciousness
of an impending death.—The victim’s alleged ante-mortem
statement is not in fact, an ante-mortem statement. It was
executed on August 13, 1986, when the deceased died on August
21, 1986. A dying declaration, to be one, must have been “under
the consciousness of an impending death.” At the time he
rendered it, he could not say that he was on the pangs of death,
based on his actual condition at that time, and that he believed
that death was soon at hand. It bears to stress that a mere
cursory examination of the three signatures appearing on the
three-page statement, in bold and clear strokes with two of them
occupying four inches of the page, and in grand flourishes,
pronounced and considered by the trial judge as a dying
declaration, precludes any indication that the signer thereof was
under an impending death. Further, if the deceased were truly on
the point of death, he could not have had the strength to affix
three signatures as above described. That being the case, Exhibit
“D” constitutes hearsay evidence and is accordingly, inadmissible.
Same; Same; Evident premeditation is not present when the
fracas was the result of rising tempers, not a deliberate plan.—The
Court finds, however, his liability to be one for mere homicide in
the absence of proof of treachery and evident premeditation. The
killing resulted from a free-for-all, and the victim can not
rightfully be said to have been deprived of all possible defenses
and that the accused took advantage of his vulnerability. Neither
is evident premeditation aggravating because the fracas was the
result of rising tempers, not a deliberate plan.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of

Surallah, South Cotabato, Br. 26. Dinopol, J.

498

498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Padrones
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Daisy P. Avance for Alex Padrones.
     Ernesto I. Catedral for Joseph Biare.

SARMIENTO, J.:

The two accused

1
appeal from the judgment of the Regional
Trial Court, finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for the murder of Lorenzo Sison. The dispositive portion of
the decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds both accused Alex Padrones and

Joseph “Jojo” Biare for the death of Lorenzo Sison, Jr., guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of Murder.
There being no modifying circumstance to consider, the Court
sentences Alex Padrones and Joseph “Jojo” Biare to suffer the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify jointly and
severally the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P30,000.00. Costs
against both accused.
2
SO ORDERED.

The above conviction was based principally on the

testimony of an alleged eyewitness, Antonio Llaneta, the
testimony of Dr. Jose Velasquez, and an alleged ante-
mortem statement of the late Lorenzo Sison.
The records of the case disclose that on August 3, 1986,
the victim was at the MGR Family Disco and Restaurant
(MGR, for brevity), at Surallah, South Cotabato,
celebrating his birthday over beer and3
refreshment with
about fourteen nephews and nieces, whereupon the two
accused-appellants arrived, one after the other. Joseph
Biare arrived at about 12:30 or one o’clock in the morning
of August 4, 1986,4 and about ten minutes later, Alex
Padrones appeared. It seems that the two had been old
acquaintances who, up to then, had not seen each other for

_______________

1 Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato; Hon.

Dinopol, Cristeto, presiding judge.
2 Original Records, 217.
3 Id., 210.
4 T.s.n., 210. Session of July 7, 1989, 24.

499

VOL. 189, SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 499

People vs. Padrones

5
six months. The two apparently exchanged pleasantries,
shook hands, but separated immediately. Padrones sat at a
table where he met certain women with one of whom he
danced. Biare meanwhile sat alone on another table.
Padrones also sat alone subsequently on a table away from
the women.
The victim then approached Padrones, squeezed his
mouth, and uttered6
challenging words: “Are you not afraid
of the Sisons?” (In apparent reference to the Sisons of
South Cotabato, a family with a long history of local and
national political authority and clout.) He parried the
victim’s hand and alleged that 7
he saw a knife shining
amidst blinking disco lights. He likewise alleged that the
victim began lunging away at him with his knife, which he
was able to parry with his left hand. Antonio Llaneta, who
was with the victim, struck him (Padrones) on the left
cheek. He8 (Padrones) said that he also suffered a cut at the
left wrist. The two later fought for possession of the knife
but the victim managed
9
to punch him and so did a certain
“Neckneck” Sison. He was later ganged upon, so he alleges,
for which he suffered bruises.
It was then a picture of pandemonium as men brawled
and bottles flew.
Biare, all the while, remained seated.
When the dust settled and the lights went on, Padrones
lay crawling on the disco floor, bloodied and his head
bowed.
According to Biare, Padrones had his hands raised 10
in
surrender. “Please help me, have mercy on me,” he
allegedly pleaded. He (Biare) allegedly offered to bring him
to a hospital, but the latter allegedly said: “No, because the
place 11is the area where the Sisons are,
12
we might be seen
there. Just bring me to our house.” He later helped him
on his (Biare’s) motorcycle and brought him home. He also
testified that he also went right on

________________

5 Original records, id., 210.

6 Id., 212.
7 T.s.n.,id., 41.
8 T.s.n., Session of November 17, 1989, 148.
9 Id., 149.
10 Original Records, id., 211.
11 T.s.n., Session of November 17, 1987, id., 154.
12 Id.

500

500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Padrones

home.
 What turned out, however, is that while Padrones
nursed his injuries, Lorenzo Sison had also in fact been
wounded, as a result also of a knifing, although both
Padrones and Biare denied harming him.
Biare claimed that at about three o’clock of August 4,
1986, a certain Pepe Sison, apparently Lorenzo’s relative,
along with eight armed men, saw him at his house and
asked who stabbed Lorenzo. It was the first time, he said,
that he learned that the latter had in fact been injured too.
At about six o’clock later, he saw him at the municipal hall,
according to him, to talk things over.
Padrones supposedly saw Dr. Rolando Arroyo that
morning, who found the following injuries on his body:

III—FINDINGS: Presence of injuries possibly due to physical

violence.

(1) Contusion, left forehead lower medial portion.

(2) Subconjunctival hemorrhage left eye.
(3) Incised wound, gaping, with both edges sharp, 2.5. cms. in
length, superficial,13 located and the left forearm, lower
third, back portion.

Meanwhile, Dr. Jose Velasquez, surgeon at the St. Joseph

Hospital, in Surallah, submitted his findings on Lorenzo
Sison’s wounds:

FINDINGS:

a) right chest presence of clean cut wound due to stab wound

about 2 1/2 cm. in length along the mid-axillary line
between the 6th & 7th ribs penetrating the abdominal
cavity perforating the right lobe of the liver with one edge
sharp and another rounded.
b) left chest presence of a cut wound due to stab wound with
3 cm. in length with the side sharp and the other side
rounded along the mid-axillary line between the 7th & 8th
ribs penetrating the plueral cavity perforating the lung
tissue and cutting the diaphragm intering the abdominal
cavity left.

_______________

13 Medico Legal Examination Report (undated), Office of the Rural

Health Physician, Surallah, South Cotabato. (Exhibit “1”.)

501

VOL. 189, SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 501

People vs. Padrones

c) intra abdominal plenty of clotted blood.

 d) Operation done exploratory laparatomy abdominal cavity
with repair of the diaphragm and liver.
e) thoracetomy left extracted 400 cc of homolyzed blood.

Bearing 14unforeseen complication said injury heals at least six (6)

months.

On August 6, 1986, the authorities commenced frustrated

homicide charges against Alex Padrones only.
Meanwhile, on August 13, 1986, Lorenzo Sison signed a
handwritten statement in his hospital bed to the Surallah
police accusing Padrones of having inflicted one stab wound
on him. He also implicated
15
Biare and charged him with
stabbing him once.
On August 21, 1986, he expired16 on account of
respiratory failure and internal bleeding.
On November 4, 1986, Fiscal Isaac Moran of the
Provincial Fiscal’s office filed an amended information
accusing both accused of murder, qualified by treachery
and evident premeditation.
The star witness for the prosecution, Antonio Llaneta,
testified that he was involved in that brawl early in the
morning of August 4, 1986 at the MGR in Surallah, and
that he was one of those who ganged up on Padrones. He
likewise testified that as he beat up Padrones, the latter
slipped out a knife and so did Biare. He allegedly retreated
whereupon, saw Padrones bury his knife on Sison.
Later, the two left together on a motorcycle, and Alex
was heard 17to shout: “Diputa kamo, lenti kamo; magkita-ay
kita buas.” [“(Expletives deleted), we will see each other
tomorrow.”]
Dr. Velasquez, testifying for the people, added that the
victim

_______________

14 Certification issued by Dr. Jose Velasquez, dated August 4, 1986.

(Exhibit “A”.)
15 Statement of Lorenzo Sison, August 13, 1986, St. Joseph Hospital,
Surallah, South Cotabato. (Exhibit “D”.)
16 CERTIFICATE OF DEATH, Lorenzo Sison, August 21, 1986, Local
Civil Registry, Surallah, South Cotabato. (Exhibit “H”.)
17 Original Records, id., 207.

502

502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Padrones

had been stabbed by two different instruments, belonging

to two different persons, “or one (1) person, if he changed
18
 18
his instrument.”
The prosecution having rested, the defense adduced its
evidence. The defense presented Miraluna Flores, a
waitress at MGR, who testified that the two accused did
not enter the premises together, Biare preceding Padrones
by ten minutes, and that they did not share the same table.
She declared that Padrones was accosted by one of the
Sisons and a commotion soon ensued. Biare allegedly
remained seated. When the lights
19
went on, Padrones lay on
the floor, “filled with blood.” Biare helped him up and the
two fled.
Gemma Labtic corroborated Flores, insofar as she saw
Padrones lying on the floor when the smoke cleared. She
said that she saw men arrived with knives, who, however,
scampered away when the lights went on.
As noted at the outset, the trial court convicted both
accused of murder. According to the court:

The findings of facts stated in the Order granting the cancellation

of bail bond of accused Joseph Biare afore-quoted stand. The
strength of the evidence of the prosecution remained
undiminished even with the testimonies of Miraluna Flores and of
accused Biare. It appears natural for accused Joseph Biare to
beckon his co-accused, Alex Padrones, upon the latter’s arrival for
they had not seen each other the past six months. But to merely
shake hands then part ways with Alex going to a vacant table
leaving his friend co-accused alone and refusing to drink beer
together is unnatural. It attempts to establish no conspiracy
between them took place. This is discredited for the only purpose
shown by the two accused was that they were not companions or
were not together that evening particularly during that
commotion. For friends to meet after six-months absence means a
lot for togetherness. That was why Biare beckoned Alex. And it
could not be true that Alex told Biare he was looking for somebody
as Alex did not go all over the place but stopped and danced with
a woman then seated alone.
That the accused Biare kept sitting on his chair while all
customers of MGR stood up during the commotion is also
unnatural. Self-preservation could have moved him to stand to be
ready to evade if the

_______________

18 T.s.n., Session of July 7, 1987, id., 11.

19 Original Records, id., 210.

503

VOL.189, SEPTEMBER13, 1990 503

People vs. Padrones
protagonist may reach his place, or to defend himself. Would one
permit his friend molested without raising a voice of protest? No.
That Biare only stood up when the lights were on and he saw his
friend Alex Padrones crawling is not believable. To rescue Alex at
the time that his alleged malefactors were still present and for
them to leave after Biare shouted that was enough and have
mercy on him is also doubtful. The malefactors could vent their
anger to (sic) him, otherwise the malefactors were afraid of Biare.
And for what? Biare was armed said Llaneta who backtracked
after boxing Alex. Thus, what made Tony Llaneta to leave the
place of Alex was Biare’s presence where he was holding a knife
just beside Alex.
The testimony of Llaneta that he boxed Alex is confirmed by
Biare. That Biare escorted Alex after the incident, then both
accused rode on a motorcycle is likewise confirmed by Biare. Not
rebutted is the testimony of Llaneta that Alex shouted: “Diputa
kamo, lenti kamo, magkita-ay kita buas.”
Biare’s presence with a knife was to ascertain that no one of
the several companions of the victim who celebrated his birthday
could render succor or save him. It was to make certain the
killing. Bringing Alex out to safety made certain Biare’s
conspirational acts with Alex. The act of one is the act of another.
Both are liable as principals.
It taxes one’s mind to understand why the victim would carry a
knife and threaten Alex by: 1) Squeezing Alex’s mouth; 2)
swinging his right hand towards Alex; 3) stabbing Alex who was
able to hold the hand of the victim holding the knife; 4) the
grappling and wrestling with Alex when it was the birthday of the
victim. During one’s birthday one is engrosed with his friends and
no doubt did never think or prepare for any trouble. The victim
was surprised with the sudden attack of Alex. The victim and his
friends were unnerved with the knife used by Alex and the
presence of Biare holding a knife nearby. The victim pointed to
both accused to have stabbed him.
Not credible is Alex (sic) self defense story. He had no arm (sic).
He was ganged up by the victim with a knife who stabbed him
and was hit. This is denied by his medical certificate and the
doctor’s testimony that he did not submit for treatment. With the
victim over him and the victim’s companions with knives, could
Alex escape with his life; would Alex be not seriously injured?
In addition, Alex said he had no quarrel with the victim; so
with Biare who said he had no quarrel with the victim before that
fatal night. Both said they had no quarrel with Antonio Llaneta.
The question is: Why would the victim in his statements given to
the police and Antonio Llaneta implicate both of them as the
authors of the offense? Since no motive is shown, the Court finds
Llaneta’s testimony credible.

504

504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 People vs. Padrones

At a distance of three meters, Antonio Llaneta saw the victim was

stabbed while the victim was passing by the accused Alex whom
Llaneta boxed. But he could do no more as Biare was raising his
knife. Biare was only 1-1/2 meters away from Llaneta who then
backtracked (pp. 26, 27, TSN, July 27, 1987). When one passes by
another in public places one is not aware to put up a defense as
one does not entertain any thought that he would be attacked by
those he passes by at places like MGR. This situation qualifies the
crime to murder. Treachery in the attack of the victim was
present.
The Court is not inclined to believe that Alex lost consciousness
then crawled, bathed with blood. Alex said his father washed his
face and eyes. He did not say he undressed his bloody pants or his
arms or his body waist up being bloodied. Alex was not really hurt
as is made to appear by Biare. Only an eyemo was used to treat
him. He submitted to the doctor only for examination. For
treatment, no. Alex refused to be brought to a hospital as his
injury was slight so he should be only brought home, said Biare.
Then why would Biare’s story be believed that he shouted to have
mercy on Alex? And why did he not see the victim with the stab
wounds or with blood?
Alex’ (sic) witness, a certain Labtic, said August 3, 1986 is a
school day where she attended classes but later invited from
Koronadal, South Cotabato to disco at MGR at Surallah. August
3, 1986 is a Sunday when referred to a calendar for that year. She
did not tell the truth as shown by the following circumstances: 1)
since August 4, 1986 she told no one of the incident she testified;
2) she does not know the mother of the person she saw crawling,
yet said mother saw her a month before she testified on February
17, 1988 requesting her to testify.
Alex made it appear that it was the victim who provoked him.
But the Court rejected such fact testified as it was the victim’s
birthday celebration. Alex made it appear that he defended
himself bare handed as against the victim with a knife and
victim’s companions with knives too. Yet he was unhurt so to
speak for he did not submit for treatment. This is not credible, to
repeat.
If it were true that he only defended himself, Alex should have
immediately reported to the authorities, filed a complaint against
Antonio Llaneta who boxed or kicked him or earlier before the
victim died filed a case against the victim. His co-accused could
have executed sworn statements to support Alex’s complaint. But
none was done by Alex or Biare.
Treachery and conspiracy
20
being present, both accused shall be
held equally liable.

_______________

20 Id., 213-217.
 505

VOL. 189, SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 505

People vs. Padrones

This Court finds, based on the evidence, that the trial judge
erred, and, therefore, his judgment must accordingly be
modified.
The Court also finds the trial judge’s conclusions,
especially as to the relationship between the two accused,
the factor of conspiracy, and the circumstances of treachery
and evident premeditation, to be plainly, conjectures and
speculations, and they can not satisfy the legal requisite of
proof beyond reasonable doubt to justify a conviction for an
offense, in this case, murder. This Court is indeed,
genuinely distressed, and has every reason to be so,
because His Honor could not have, by any stretch of logic
made out, by simply piecing the evidence together, his
findings that: (1) the two accused-appellants went to MGR
on August 3, 1986 in a well-planned conspiracy to
eliminate the deceased; (2) they pretended that they had
just met there by chance, but had all along plotted to kill
the victim; (3) the accused-appellant, Joseph Biare,
deliberately positioned himself so that “no one of the
several companions of the victim who celebrated 21
his
birthday could render succor or save him;” (4) the
deceased could not have threatened the accused, Alex
Padrones, or accost him challengingly, because “[d]uring
one’s birthday one is engrossed with his friends and 22
no
doubt did never (sic) think or prepare for any trouble; and
that (5) Padrones could not have been the victim of a
mauling because
23
“he did not submit [himself] for
treatment.” The Court is at a loss because none of these
inferences are apparent from the evidence, the
prosecution’s or the accused’s. What is apparent, on the
other hand, is that judging from His Honor’s self-righteous
outburst, as it were, His Honor had his own subplot on the
events, when as magistrate, his sole and paramount
concern was to try facts and apply the law.
The two accused’s story that they had actually met by
happenstance at the MGR on the night in question not only
stands uncontradicted in the records, this Court finds it,
contrary to the opinion of the trial judge, not to be perse an
implausible or

_______________

21 Id., 214.
22 Id.
23 Id., 216.
 506

506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Padrones

impeachable story. What is more, it can not be justifiably

and validly contended that because the two, after bumping
into each other did not act like long-lost friends, it means
that they had met previously, of all things, in order to plot
the killing of Lorenzo Sison. This is sheer inference that
itself rests on an inference. It is not fact.
The trial judge portrays the accused-appellants’ “chance
meeting” as an effort
24
“to establish no conspiracy between
them took place.” What he, the trial judge, loses sight of is
the fact that the accused were not called upon to discredit
the prosecution’s theory of conspiracy. It was the
prosecution’s duty to establish the existence of what the
prosecution alleged to be conspiracy.
The trial judge also expresses doubts whether or not the
accused, Joseph Biare, indeed just minded his own
business while the Sisons ganged up on his co-accused.
“Would one permit his friend molested,” 25
he inquired,
“without raising a voice of protest?” His rich imagination
is fascinating, but that hardly belongs to a judge. As Biare
averred, he did come to the aid of his co-accused, although
after the damage had been done and the latter lay battered
on the ground. What the judge would make out, however,
from the defense’s version is that either Padrones or Biare
merely contrived the whole yarn, and that the melee never
occurred at all (because as he states, if there indeed was
one, Biare would have allegedly stood up for a friend in
distress). But the very testimony of Antonio Llaneta,
witness for the prosecution, is arrayed against him, the
latter having 26
admitted “that he boxed [sic] Alex
[Padrones].”
Padrones’ parting statement:
27
“Diputa kamo, lenti kamo,
magkita-ay kita buas,” and the fact that both accused left
together can not be accepted by the Court as a piece of
evidence of conspiracy. It has been held that conspiracy,
like the offense 28itself, must be shown to exist beyond
reasonable doubt. So also has 29
it been held that conspiracy
“transcends companionship.”

_______________

24 Id., 213.
25 Id., 214.
26 Id.
27 Id., 207, 214.
28 People v. Saavedra, No. L-48738, May 11, 1987, 149 SCRA 610.
29 Supra, 627, citing People v. Custodio, No. L-30463, October 30,
 507

VOL. 189, SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 507

People vs. Padrones

Hence, the fact that the two accused may have happened to
leave together, and one of them left a closing warning, can
not instantly support a finding of conspiracy. The
prosecution is, in addition, hard put to adduce evidence
demonstrating facts that the parties had priorly come to an
agreement to commit the crime with which they are
charged. Although the act of agreeing need not be
demonstrated, evidence of the fact of agreement must
nonetheless be convincingly shown. The accused’s acts after
the fact, by themselves, are inadequate to show that
previous agreement.
The trial court is “taxed” how the victim, as the defense
alleged, could have squeezed Alex Padrones by the mouth,
taken a swing at him, and armed himself with a knife—
when it was supposedly his birthday. This Court is taxed
not only with the trial court’s improper and unjudicial
recourse to non sequiturs, but because it is in such
celebrations that trouble is in fact commonplace. Antonio
Llaneta, as we earlier indicated, admitted having thrown
punches at Padrones.
The fact that Padrones did not check into a hospital in
view of his injuries can not erase the other fact that he did
sustain injuries. Dr. Rolando Arrojo’s testimony, a
testimony that has not been to this day rebutted,
illustrated that, among other wounds, Padrones suffered
an “[i]ncised wound, gaping, with both edges sharp, 2.5
cms. in length, superficial, 30
located at the left forearm,
lower third, back portion.” It was a wound that did not
obviously require hospitalization, for which Padrones did
not precisely ask for one. But Padrones’ omission did not
eliminate all possibility that he (Padrones) too was a victim
of a mauling and had suffered injuries therefrom.
Certainly, the trial judge has shown no rational basis
why he should reject the defense’s story completely and
accept that of the prosecution unquestioningly. The tragedy
here is that two men, both in their early twenties, are
facing long jail terms because the trial judge had his own
theory about the case.
The Court notes with legitimate concern the conviction
in question that has indeed been made to stand on the
infirmity of

_______________

1972, 47 SCRA 289.

30 Exhibit “1”, id; see fn. 13.
 508

508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Padrones

the accused’s evidence. We have uniformly ruled, in this

connection, that the prosecution must win its case on the
strength of its
31
evidence and not on the weakness of that of
the defense.
The testimony of Antonio Llaneta suggests that both
accused lunged at the victim once each giving rise to two
injuries. On the stand he alleged:

Q Then who was the other one who stabbed Sison, do you
know him, which you do not know whether it hit him or
not?
A I am not sure of that one but what I am positive is the
stabbing blows of Alex Padrones was the one that hit
Lorenzo Sison.
Q Did anyone, other than Alex Padrones, stab Lorenzo
that evening?
A There was.
Q Who was the other person who stabbed Sison, other
than Alex. Don’t be afraid?
A I am not sure who stabbed but what I can positively
identify was Alex who stabbed Lorenzo.
Q So the Court understands that you are not sure who
was the other person who stabbed Sison?
A Yes sir.
Q In your doubt, who was that person?
ATTY. AVANCE:
  We object, he said he was not sure.
COURT:
  Let that be on record.
  Answer.
MR. ANTONIO LLANETA:
  I believe it was Jojo Biare.
COURT:
Q You must have basis of your belief, why do you think
that Jojo Biare also stabbed?
A Because he was near us.
Q Who were those “us”?
32
A Near us, I and Lorenzo Sison, Sir.
While he was categorical that Alex Padrones did inflict a
stab-

_______________

31 People v. Saavedra, supra.

32 T.s.n., Session of July 7, 1987, id., 28-29.

509

VOL. 189, SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 509

People vs. Padrones

bing wound on Lorenzo Sison, he could not say the same

thing as far as Joseph Biare was concerned. It was his
opinion or belief that Biare did make a thrust on the
victim, but evidently that was his opinion. Our law on
evidence, however, excludes
33
opinions, as a general rule,
and allows only facts. What is important is that he did not
see Biare in the act of thrusting his knife.
It is34 also noteworthy that in his sworn statement to the
police, executed the morning after the incident, Llaneta
did not implicate Biare, but confessed having seen
Padrones only, stabbing the victim twice. In addition, the
prosecution itself never pressed him, Llaneta, in naming
Biare; apparently the latter’s name cropped up upon the
very prodding of the trial judge. The record indeed shows
that upon His Honor’s35
questioning, “In your doubt, who
was that person?”36 the defense objected, “We object, he said
he was not sure,” although 37
His Honor overruled the latter:
“Let that be on record.”
We also note that in her sworn statement to the police,
Emily Bautista, niece of the deceased, who attended the
tragic birthday celebration, alleged:

12. Q How did you happen to know that Alex Padrones

— was the one who stab[bed] your uncle Lorenzo
Sison?
  A I actually [saw] him at the time he stabbed my
— uncle.
13. Q How many times did Alex Padrones stab Lorenzo
— Sison?
38
  A Two (2) times, Sir.
—

Bautista’s claim finds corroboration in the statement of

Federico Sison, a nephew of the victim, who was likewise
present when the fatal stabbing occurred, as follows:

08. Q— Who stabbed Lorenzo Sison?

   A— It was Alex Padrones.

_______________

33 RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, secs. 48-50.

34 Exhibit “1”.
35 T.s.n., Session of July 7, 1987, id., 29.
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Original Records, id., 15.

510

510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Padrones

09. Q How did you know that it was Alex Padrones who
— stabbed Lorenzo Sison?
  A I saw him doing the act of stabbing.
—
10. Q What happened to Lorenzo Sison when he was
— stabbed?
  A He was injured.
—
11. Q How many times did Alex Padrones stab Lorenzo
— Sison?
  A As what I ha[d] seen he had successfully stabbed
— Lorenzo Sison for two times and I saw him
attempted to strike Lorenzo Sison for the third time
but I parried his hand holding the knife and later
we grappled [for] possession of the
39
knife which he
used in stabbing Lorenzo Sison.

There is indeed nothing in these three statements, except

for Llaneta’s guesswork at the stand, that would insinuate
in the least Biare’s part in the killing.
The Court does not find Dr. Jose Velasquez’s testimony
conclusive either—as to Biare’s liability. The doctor’s
testimony is as follows:

Q So what is your conclusion with respect to the number

of instrument which caused these kind of wounds?
A In my personal observation backed up with my 20 years
experience in medico-legal cases, the wounds were
caused by two (2) sharp instruments.
Q Possibly wielded by two (2) persons on the same victim?
A Possibly two (2) persons striking on the victim at the
same time; or
40
one (1) person, if he changed his
instrument.
It does not unqualifiedly render Biare culpable, for the
plain reason that the good doctor did not see him do the
stabbing, or that he was the other assailant, assuming that
there were in fact two assailants. Moreover, both Emily
Bautista and Federico Sison himself positively claimed in
their statements that they saw Padrones stab the deceased
twice. Between positive eyewitness accounts and a
physician’s bare opinion, we have little difficulty in
accepting the former and rejecting the latter.
The victim’s alleged ante-mortem41
statement is not in
fact, an ante-mortem statement. It was executed on
August 13, 1986,

_______________

39 Id., 17.
40 T.s.n., Session of July 7, 1987, id., 11.
41 Exhibit “D”; see fn. 15.

511

VOL.189, SEPTEMBER13, 1990 511

People vs. Padrones

when the deceased died on August 21, 1986. A dying

declaration, to be one, must have 42been “under the
consciousness of an impending death.” At the time he
rendered it, he could not say that he was on the pangs of
death, based on his actual condition at that
43
time, and that
he believed that death was soon at hand.
It bears to stress that a mere cursory examination of the
three signatures appearing on the three-page statement, in
bold and clear strokes with two of them occupying four
inches of the page, and in grand flourishes, pronounced and
considered by the trial judge as a dying declaration,
precludes any indication that the signer thereof was under
an impending death. Further, if the deceased were truly on
the point of death, he could not have had the strength to
affix three signatures as above described.
That being the case, Exhibit “D” constitutes hearsay
evidence and is accordingly, inadmissible.
As the facts—and the bare facts—stand, it is only the
accused, Alex Padrones, who should be made to account for
the death of Lorenzo Sison. The Court finds, however, his
liability to be one for mere homicide in the absence of proof
of treachery and evident premeditation. The killing
resulted from a free-for-all, and the victim can not
rightfully be said to have been deprived of all possible
defenses and44 that the accused took advantage of his
vulnerability. Neither is evident premeditation
 aggravating because the fracas 45
was the result of rising
tempers, not a deliberate plan.
WHEREFORE, the accused, Joseph Biare, is
ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt. The accused, Alex
Padrones, is convicted of homicide, with no modifying
circumstances, and is sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor
to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal, and to pay indemnity in the amount of
P50,000.00. Costs against Padrones.

_______________

42 RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, supra, sec. 37.

43 See 5 MORAN, COMMENTS ON THE RULES OF COURT 296.
(1980 ed.)
44 People v. Gonzales, 76 Phil. 473 (1946).
45 Supra.

512

512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Dekingco

SO ORDERED.

          Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Paras, Padilla and

Regalado, JJ., concur.

Joseph Biare, acquitted. Alex Padrones, convicted of

homicide.

Note.—Presence of accused at the scene of the crime at

the time of its commission not by itself sufficient to
establish his criminal liability. Existence of conspiracy
must be clearly and convincingly proven. (People vs.
Sabilano, 132 SCRA 83.)

———o0o———

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.