Clerk Janly R.

Facunla

Title: People vs. Yarcia

Facts of the case:

On 22 January 1965, at about 5:00 pm, Leonardo Bercasio, the victim, was attacked by Ulpiano
Yarcia, Macario Olivio and Servillano Apolinada. Appelant Yarcia, standing at the back of Leonardo
Bercasio, strucked the latter with a piece of wood on the head. Bercasio thereupon fell down to the
ground. Appellant Olivio with a short firearm fired at Bercasio, the bullet hit him on the head. While
Servillano Apolinada held the legs of Leonardo Bercasio while he was lying on the ground.

Autopsy report stated that Leonardo Bercasio died of massive hemorhage, secondary gunshot,
wound temporal region, right and fracture of the skull, temporal bone right.

On the other hand, Jesus Bercasio ang Ernesto Bercasio, the sons of Leonardo Bercasio informed the
police that Ulpiano Yarcia and Macario Olivio had threatened their father and they also had quarelled
because of Olivio's carabao that destroy their plants.

The appelants alleged during their trial that they were not in Barrio Saguing in the afternoon of
January 22, 1965, butin the house of Captain Victor Bariaga of District 1.

The trial court rejected the alibi of the appellants because the distance between District 1and
Saguing was only four kilometer and no one would last long for three successive and continous days and
night of gambling.

September on the same year, Ernesto Tribago, the witness, reported what he saw to the police and
identified the assailant. It tooks long for him to testify because ot the threat that he received from the
appellant.

Issue:

1. Whether or not, there was conspiracy.

2. Whether or not Ernesto Tribago was credible as a witness.

3. Whether or not the victim was murdered by the accused appellants.

1. No. There was no evidence of conspirancy entered into by the three to do away with Leonardo
Bercasio. Therefore, each of the accused must be responsible for the particular acts done by each of
them.

2. Yes. Ernesto Tribago was credible as a witness because he saw the actual crime.

On the other hand, the findings and the conclusion of facts by the trial court were entitled to great
weighton appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reason, because trial court is
in better position to examine real evidence as well as to observethe demeanor of the witnesses while
testifying in the case.

3. Yes. The court renderedthe accused appelants Macario Olivio and Ulpiano Yarcia were found guilty of
the crime of murder, while Servillano Apolinada was found innocent.

WHEREFORE, finding no error to have been committed by the court a quo its judgment is affirmed with
the sole modification that the indemnity of P12,000.00 shall be paid in solidum by the appellants. Costs
against the appellants
Title: People vs. Tesorero

Fact of the case:

On November 12, 1969, Appellant Wilfredo Tesorero had a drinking spree in the house of
Eduviges Tapia with Sgt. Cabrera together with his men ,Board Member Teston, together with one
Salvador Beraquit, a Liberal Party leader in Baras, and his driver, Apolonio Torrente and Alfredo Tanael.

When the tension arrised, the appellant brought out his rifle and commenced to fire at Teston.
Teston ducked for cover but before he was able to do so, he sustained gunshot wounds on his buttocks.
Appellant continued firing at the people inside the house. Apolonio Torrente, who was then sitting on a
bench at the porch of the house, was shot mortally and fell to the floor. Sgt. Zosimo Tapanan, who was
then at that time seeking cover behind the door of the kitchen, was also shot on the upper left thigh and
fell as a result thereof to the floor. Eduviges Tapia, who was then standing beside Sgt. Tapanan, was
fatally shot.

According to the Patrolman Sancho Lizaso who conducted an ocular inspection of the, scene of the
crime , he concluded that there was no other person inside the house fired a gun, except appellant
Tesorero.

In addition, according to Dr. Augusto Sta. Ana, who performed the autopsy on the body of the
deceased Apolonio Torrente, testified that Torrente died of internal hemorrhage secondary to gunshot
wound.

Appellant Tesorero contends that the aforementioned victims could have been slain or injured by a
person or persons other than by him because the diameter of the wound of entrance on the cadaver of
the deceased Eduviges Tapia is 1 1/2 cms. or 0.59 inch, much bigger than the caliber of a Garand Cal. .30
rifle, which he used. He also admits that he heard those shots only after he had already jumped out of
the window and landed at the top of a jeep. At that time, he had already fired his Garand rifle about four
(4) times at Teston, then at Arcilla. He added that it would have been absurd for the bodyguards of
Teston, assuming that they were then on the ground, to have fired their guns indiscriminately at the
house of Tapia, for that would have placed the life of Teston himself in jeopardy.

Issue:

1. Whether or not, the appellant Tesorero was not the only one who is responsible for the crime?

2. Whether or not appellant can envoke self-defense in his criminal liabilities?

Held:

1. No. Appellant Tesorero was the only one who is responsible for the crime because according to Sgt.
Zosimo Tapanan, Teston and Reynaldo Villaroda it was appellant who shot Torrente and Tapia.. In
addition, two defense witnesses, Sgt. David Cabrera and Andres Tejada admitted that it was appellant
alone whom they saw firing his gun on that occasion.

2. No. The appellant cannot envoke self-defense because he failed to prove unlawful aggression on the
part of any of the victims

3. Yes. Because the decision to shoot or kill the victims was sudden, brought about apparently by the
insistence of Teston that appellant should clear himself first with the Provincial Commander which led to
a heated argument between the two. Absent the qualifying circumstance of treachery, appellant should
be held responsible only for the crimes of Homicide for the death of Tapia and Torrente and Attempted
homicide for the shooting of the other victims

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, The court affirm the judgment with the following modifications:

(a) In Criminal Case No. 46, from Murder to Homicide as defined under Article 249 of the Revised Penal
Code, with no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be likewise reduced to an
indeterminate sentence of imprisonment from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as
minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal as
maximum, to indemnify the heirs of Eduviges Tapia in the amount of P12,000.00 and to pay the costs;

(b) In Criminal Case No. 47, from Murder to Homicide as defined under Article 249 of the Revised Penal
Code, with no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be likewise reduced to an
indeterminate sentence of imprisonment from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as
minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal as
maximum, to indemnify the heirs of Apolonio Torrente in the amount of P12,000.00 and to pay the costs

(c) In Criminal Case No. 48, from Attempted Murder to Attempted Homicide as defined and punished
under Article 249, in relation to Article 51, of the Revised Penal Code, with no mitigating nor aggravating
circumstance, the penalty to be likewise reduced to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment from
THREE (3) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of arresto mayor as minimum, to TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4)
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional as maximum, and to pay the costs: and

(d) In Criminal Case No. 49, from Attempted Murder with Physical Injuries to Attempted Homicide as
defined and punished under Article 249, in relation to Articles 48 and 51 of the Revised Penal Code, the
penalty to be likewise reduced to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment from FIVE (5) MONTHS
and ONE (1) DAY of arresto mayor as minimum, to FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY
of prision correccional as maximum, and to pay the costs.chanrobles virtual law library

In all of the afore-mentioned cases, the appellant should be credited with the full term of his preventive
imprisonment.