3L\epubltt of tbe ~biltppines

~upreme QCourt
:fflanila
THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 242474

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

LEONEN, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - GESMUNDO,
CARANDANG,
ZALAMEDA, and
GAERLAN, JJ.

Promulgated:
XXX:andYYY,
Accused-Appellants. September 16, 2020

""'' s.J<';)t.Aa,0,..lq-
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

CARANDANG, J.:

Accused-appellants XXX: 1 and YYY2 appealed the Decision3 dated

November 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08398
affirming v,ith modification the Decision4 dated November 16, 2015 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santa Cruz, Laguna, Branch 26 in Criminal
Case No. SC-8180 finding accused-appellants guilty of Murder.

Pursuant to Amended Adn~inistrative Circular No. 83-15 on the use of fictitious initials and A.1-1.
No. 02-1-18-SC, Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. The court shall employ measures to
protect the confiGentiali~y ofproce-edings against the minor accused and requiring the adoption of
tr·.'. ·
_.

a system of coding to conceal material information leading to the child's identity

Id.
Id. at 2-23.
4
CA rollo, pp. 12-22.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 242474

Facts of the Case

Accused-appellants were charged with Murder under paragraph 1 of

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in the following Information, to
wit:

That on or about December 24 1999, in the

municipality of Sta. Cruz, province of Laguna and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused while conveniently armed and provided with deadly
weapon, conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping
each other, with treachery and evident premeditation, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault, and stab one ROLANDO ABETRJA, thereby
inflicting upon the latter stab wounds on the different parts
of his body which directly caused his death, to the damage
and prejudice of his surviving heirs.

CONTRARYTOLAW. 5

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely: (1) Ambrocio Del

Mundo (Del Mundo); (2) Bayani Austria (Austria); (3) Wilson Amonelo
(Amonelo ); and (4) Roberto Abetria (Abetria). 6

Del Mundo narrated that on December 24, 1999 at around 9:00 p.m.,
while he was driving his tricycle, he saw XXX, YYY, Leonard Ferrer
(Leonard), and Jason Ferrer (Jason) angrily going towards the direction of
Rolando Abetria (Rolando). He heard one of the accused say "Papatayin
kita" 7 and saw XXX stab Rolando in the chest and right eye, while YYY held
Rolando's arms at the back. 8 He was one (1) arm's length away from the
incident; he stopped his tricycle but did not turn off the engine when he
witnessed the stabbing. 9 After the incident, he proceeded to the Aglipay
Church to drop off his passengers. He knew both accused-appellants because
he was a resident of Barangay Pagsawitan for 13 years. He did not help
Rolando because he feared for his life. He recounted that he saw barangay
officials arrived and helped Rolando. On his way to Aglipay Church, he met
Rolando's father and told him that his son was stabbed. In open court, he
identified X..XX and YYY and executed a sworn statement regarding the
incident. 10

Austria also positively identified XXX and YYY. He was inside his
house watching TV when he heard the commotion at around 10:30 p.m. of
December 24, 1999. 11 \Vhen he went outside his house to check, he saw XXX

Records, p. 2.
6 Rollo, p. 4.
7
TSN dated May 25, 2001, p. 26.
Rollo, p. 4
9
Id.
10
Id.
II
Id.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 242474

stab Rolando while YYY was holding Rolando's arms at the back. He was at
a distance of six meters from the stabbing incident. 12 When Austria shouted
"Hoy, tigilan nyo na yan," 13 accused-appelants ran away. He heard someone
shout "Bumagsak si Olan." 14 While rushing to Rolando, he saw other people
were helping him and loaded him to the tricycle. He recounted that the place
was lighted by an incandescent bulb and the light coming from Del Mundo's
tricycle. After the incident, Austria went home and told the incident to
Domeng who relayed the same to Rolando's father. He positively identified
accused-appellants in open court. 15

Amonelo testified that around 8:30 p.m., he was with his friends across
the store of Aling Choleng in Barangay Pagsawitan, Sta. Cruz Laguna. XXX,
YYY, Jason, and Leonard, who were all intoxicated, approached Amonelo's
group and challenged them to a fight. 16 Thereafter, Wilson and XXX were
then engaged in a fistfight while YYY rushed to aid his cousin, XXX. Leonard
also fought Amonelo's group. 17 Rolando, the son of Aling Choleng, went out
of their house to pacify them. After appeasing both parties, Rolando told them
to leave. 18 However, XXX threw a stone at Amonelo and Rolando which hit
the latter. XXX warned Rolando "You will see Olan, we will return and we
will kill you" 19 and then XXX's group ran away. 20

Amonelo recounted that an angry Rolando ran after XXX's group.

Amonelo followed Rolando and saw him engaged in a fist fight with XXX,
forcing him to help Rolando. However, Amonelo saw Leonardo running
towards him and shouted "he is my cousin," 21 hence, Amonelo ran away.
Leonardo caught up with Amonelo eventually. Meanwhile, Rolando could not
run any further as his slippers were broken. When Leonardo caught up with
Amonelo, Leonardo tried to strangle Amonelo but Amonelo's uncle and aunt
pacified them. Amonelo was brought by his aunt to his grandmother's store
where he relayed the incident to his parents. Thereafter, he went home with
his parents to their house in Bifian, Laguna. It was at that time when he learned
that Rolando was killed by accused-appellants. He positively identified XXX,
YYY, and Leonardo in open court. 22

Abetria, Rolando's father, narrated that his son was 19 years old and
was a second-year college student. On the day of the incident, he was sleeping
at their house when his friend arrived and informed him that his son was
stabbed. He went to Laguna Doctor's Hospital where he saw his son being
revived. 23 He then reported the incident to the police station and accused-

12
Id.
13 TSN dated August 8, 2002, p. 7.
14
Id. at 8.
15 Rollo, p. 4.
16
Id.
17
Id. at 4-5.
18
Id.
19 TSN dated July 13, 2001, p. !6.
20
Rollo, pp. 4-5.
21
TSN dated Februa,7 7, 2002, p. 6.
22
Rollo, p 5.
23
Id. at 6.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 242474

appellants were apprehended. He executed a sworn statement in relation to the

incident. 24

Version of the Defense

The defense only presented two witnesses -XXX and YYY. 25

YYY denied that he killed Rolando. He testified that around 9:00 p.m.
he was with his parents and siblings at their house when XXX invited him out
to eat dinner at Kapalaran Bus Line. 26 However, they were not able to eat
because Amonelo boxed XXX after he urinated. He was 30 meters away from
XXX during the incident. Thereafter, he rushed to XXX, who then fell to the
ground. He tried to pacify Amonelo as he continued punching XXX, who did
not fight back. When he was able to appease them, Amonelo's companions
started punching him, so he ran away and hid between the plants near Bifian
Rural Bank. He then saw his cousin Leonard with his friends and told him
XXX was being mauled. Leonard rushed to the place of incident and chased
Amonelo's companions away. He lifted XXX, who was bloodied and missing
two front teeth. As he could not find a ride to a nearby hospital, he brought
him to the house ofXXX's uncle. Afterwards, the barangay tanod arrived and
apprehended the two ofthem. 27

XXX testified that he went to YYY's house to invite him for dinner.
Along the way, he stopped to urinate while YYY kept walking. Afterwards,
he followed YYY only to be called by Amonelo to ask why he was walking
arrogantly, to which he replied that was the way he walked. Amonelo asked
what he wanted to happen, and he said he did not want any trouble. Thereafter,
Amonelo punched his face, but he could not retaliate as Amonelo's
companions mauled him. YYY tried to pacify them, but Amonelo also hit
him. 28 XXX and YYY ran towards the bus terminal but XXX could not run
farther as he was hit by a stone in the back which made him fall to the ground.
As he was on the ground, he felt someone hold his belt, raised him up and
punched him. XXX heard Amonelo said "get a stone and we will throne a
stone on his head." 29 He remembered he had a knife because he was slicing
vegetables earlier at home. He took out the knife and stabbed the person
holding him by making a downward thrust while lying on the ground facing
°
downwards. 3 Consequently, the person released him from his hold. Leonard
arrived and his assailants ran away. YYY assisted him in getting up and they
went to his uncle's house to spend the night. However, the barangay officials
arrived and apprehended them. 31

24 TSN dated July 19, 2002; roilo, pp. 5-6.

25 Rollo, pp. 6-7.
26 Id. at 6.
27
TSN dated October 17, 2002; rollo, pp. 6-7.
28
Rollo, p. 6.
29
TSN dated Juue 20, 2003, p. 10.
30
Rollo,p.6
31 Id.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 242474

On November 16, 2015, 32 theRTC convictedXXXand YYY of murder

and dismissed the case against Leonard and Jason for failure of the
prosecution to present evidence, thus:

WHEREFORE, after a careful scrutiny of the

records of this case, accused [XXX] and [YYY] are hereby
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder.

Accused [XXX] and [YYY] are hereby sentenced to

suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua.
However, Sec. 38 of RA No. 9344 provides for the automatic
suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law,
even if he/she is already 18 years if age or more at the time
of he/she is found guilty of the offense charged. Both
accused are to undergo rehabilitation programs/proceedings
prepared by the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD), Santa Cruz, Laguna, for a period of
two years, who shall submit quarterly progress report on
their conduct and activities. Thus, they should immediately
report to the Department of Social Welfare and Development
(DS'WD), Santa Cruz, Laguna, after promulgation of
judgment in the instant case, for the proper preparation of
their rehabilitation programs/proceedings. Both accused
must prove to the court that they have become fruitful
citizens of mainstream society.

The civil liability of the accused shall proceed

accordingly and both of them are ordered to pay the heirs of
Rolando Abetria jointly and severally, the amount of
P80,000 for funeral expenses; Php 75,000 as moral damages;
and, exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000. Costs
against both accused.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished for

immediate implementation to the Provincial Social Worker
of Santa, Cruz, Laguna, who shall submit to this court,
within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of the
decision, the action they have taken thereon.

SO ORDERED. 33

The RTC ruled that the prosecution witnesses' positive identification

that XXX, in conspiracy with YYY, stabbed Rolando with a knife is superior
than accused's claim of self-defense and denial. Although XXX claimed he
was mauled, his narration failed to convince the court that he did not kill the
victim as he admitted that he stabbed Rolando. The RTC gave credence to the
testimonies of Del Mundo and Austria that they saw XXX as the one who
fatally stabbed Rolando, who was held in the arms by YYY. The RTC held
that XXX's defense that he made a backward thrust of the knife has no merit

32
Supra note 4.
33
CA rollo, pp. 21-22.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 242474

considering the height of the victim, who was seven inches taller than XXX
and YYY, whose heights are 5'4" to 5'5." 34

However, the case against Jason was dismissed for failure of

prosecution to present evidence. Meanwhile, the case against Leonard Ferrer
was also dismissed for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused-
appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 35

On November 29, 2017, 36 the CA affirmed the conviction for murder

but with modification as to the penalty because of the minority of accused-
appellants when they committed the crime, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The

assailed Decision dated November 16, 2015 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26 of Sta. Cruz, Laguna in
Criminal Case No. SC-8180 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Each of the accused-appellants, [XXX]
and [YYY], are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as
minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal as
maxlIIlum.

On account of minority of accused-appellants when

they came in conflict with the law, they shall serve their
sentences in an agricultural camp or training facility, in
accordance with Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344. For
this purpose, the case is remanded to the Regional Trial
Court of Sta. Cruz Laguna, Branch 26 for appropriate
disposition.

Lastly, accused-appellants are directed to jointly and

severally pay the heirs of Rolando Abetria, the amounts Php
75,000 as civil indemnity, Php 60,000 as funeral expenses or
actual damages, Php 75,000 as moral damages, and Php
75,000 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards shall
earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the
finality of this decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED. 37 (Emphasis in the original)

The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC that the eyewitnesses

positively identified XXX and YYY as the assailants of Rolando. Although
their testimonies did not perfectly fit each other as to the weapon used or the
number of stabbing incident, it did not dilute their credibility, nor the verity
of their testimonies. It held that what is important is that their testimonies
corroborated each other on material points. It also found that conspiracy
existed because of the concerted acts of accused-appellants in the killing of
Rolando. The CA was not persuaded that XXX acted in self-defense because
there was no unlawful aggression on the part of Rolando, and the alleged

34 Id. at 20-21.
35
Rollo, p. 7.
36
Supra note 3.
37
Rollo, pp. 22-23.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 242474

injuries he sustained was not corroborated. Notably, the nature and location
of stab wound sustained by Rolando negates the claim of self-defense. 38

However, the CA found that the RTC erred in automatically suspending

the sentence of accused appellant because both accused-appellants were
beyond 21 years of age at the time of promulgation of the Decision on
November 16, 2015. 39 Pursuant to the case of People v. Jugueta, 40 the CA
awarded civil indemnity of P75,000.00 and increased the award of exemplary
damages to P75,000.00. In addition, it reduced the award of actual damages
to P60,000.00 based on the receipts presented by prosecution. It also imposed
an interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the
decision until full payment. 41

Accused-appellants moved for reconsideration42 which the CA denied

in its Resolution43 dated March 20, 2018. Accused-appellants then filed a
Notice of Appeal 44 dated May 3, 2018. Accused-appellants manifested that
they are adopting their Appellants' Brief before the CA as their supplemental
brief. 45 The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), manifested that it shall no longer file a supplemental brief
considering that it had exhaustively discussed the issues and legal principles
involved in the case in the Appellee's Brief dated May 30, 2017. 46

Arguments of Accused-Appellants

Accused-appellant argued that the testimonies of Del Mundo and

Austria were inconsistent with each other regarding the weapon used and the
frequency of stabbing incident. Notably, both witnesses did not mention the
presence of Amonelo nor the initial fight where Amonelo allegedly attacked
XXX. Likewise, they claimed there were inconsistencies in the participation
and presence of Leonard Ferrer and YYY during the incident. Del Mundo and
Austria's credibility are also questionable for their failure to immediately
report the incident to the police and inability to help Rolando during the
incident. They insisted that Austria's behavior was highly unusual considering
he knew Rolando since childhood. 47

In addition, accused-appellants claimed that Amonelo did not see the

actual stabbing incident and. his testimony that XXX and YYY supposedly
threatened and returned to kill Rolando was uncorroborated. 48 On the
contrary, they argue that Amonelo started the fight with XXX while YYY

,s
Id. at 16-20.
39
Id. at 21.
40
783 Phil. 806 (2016).
41
Roi/a, p. 22.
42
CA rollo, pp. 126-133.
43
Id. at 145-146.
44
Id. at 147-149.
45
Rollo, p. 38.
46
Id. at 33.
47
CA rollo, p. 57.
48
Id. at 59.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 242474

tried to pacify them. 49 Because YYY was also mauled by Amonelo, YYY ran
away and saw his cousin Leonard whom he told about the situation. Upon
learning what happened, Leonard rushed to XXX's aid and upon his arrival,
Amonelo's companions ran away. 50 Hence, they contended that due to what
appears to be a free for all fight, there is a possibility that Del Mundo and
Austria mistook Amonelo for Rolando being held by Leonard especially since
the incident happened at nighttime. They also insisted that XXX acted in self-
defense to escape. Lastly, they claim that the prosecution failed to prove
conspiracy existed, hence, YYY's participation in the incident is doubtful. 51

Arguments of Plaintiff-Appellee

The OSG alleged that the prosecution witnesses are credible and the
alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of Del Mundo and Austria pertain
only to minor matters. The inconsistencies alleged, such as the number of
stabbing thrust and the weapon used are insignificant details because their
testimonies corroborate on material points that XXX stabbed the victim while
YYY held him so he could not defend himself. It further argued that Austria's
failure to report the incident do not diminish his credibility because there is
no standard behavior when a person witnesses a crime. Thus, he cannot be
expected to react in a certain manner. As testified by Austria, he was not able
to report to the police because he was afraid and ashamed that he was not able
to do something to prevent the victim's death. 52

The OSG argued that accused-appellants were not acting in self-

defense because there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
The OSG further averred that although Amonelo's group may have been the
first to start the fight, unlawful aggression ceased the moment the victim, who
had no part in the brawl, pacified the group. In addition, the prosecution
proved that it was XXX who first attacked the victim when he threw a stone
at him and threatened him. 53

Issue

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether accused-appellants are

guilty of the crime of Murder.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is partly meritorious.

At the outset, appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for
review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite, and appreciate
errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. 54
49. Id.
50
Id.
51 Id. at 56, 59-60.
52
Id. at 87-88.
53
Id.
54
People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212,225 (2015).
Decision 9 G.R. No. 242474

After a careful review and scrutiny of the records, We hold that accused-
appellants can only be convicted of Homicide, instead of Murder, as the
qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven in the killing of the
victim.

Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling

within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall
be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with
any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength,

with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken
the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity.

x x x x (Emphasis supplied)

If these qualifying circumstances are not present or cannot be proven

beyond reasonable doubt, the accused may only be convicted with Homicide,
defined in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code:

Art. 249. Homicide. - Any person who, not falling

within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another
without the attendance of any of the circumstances
enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed
guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

In determining whether the killing was committed with treachery, two

conditions must be present, namely: (1) the employment of means of
execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or
to retaliate; and (2) the said means or method of execution was deliberately or
consciously adopted. 55

In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to prove that treachery was
present in the killing of the victim.

As testified by Amonelo, there was an altercation prior to the stabbing

incident, although it was only Austria and Del Mundo who saw the actual
stabbing. Amonelo recounted that at around 9:00 p.m., it was accused-
appellants' group who challenged them to a fight which led to a brawl. 56
Rolando pacified the group but XXX threw a stone which hit Rolando. 57
Thereafter, XXX threatened Rolando saying "You will see Olan, we will
return and we will kill you." 58 Rolando angrily pursued XXX and a fistfight
ensued, forcing Amonelo to aid Rolando. However, Leonard and his
companions arrived and Amonelo ran away. 59

55 People v. Tumaob, Jr., 353 Phil. 331,337 (1998).

56
TSN dated July 13, 2001, pp. 11-14.
57
TSN dated February 7, 2002, p. 11.
58
TSN dated July 13, 2001, p. 16.
59
TSN dated February 7, 2002, pp. 13-15.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 242474

Case law teaches us that there is no treachery when the assault is

preceded by a heated exchange of words between the accused and the victim;
or when the victim is aware of the hostility of the assailant towards the
former. 60 The existence of a struggle before the fatal blows were inflicted on
the victim clearly shows that he was forewarned of the impending attack, and
that he was afforded the opportunity to put up a defense. 61

To be sure, the attack made by accused-appellants was neither sudden

nor unexpected. Even assuming that the version of the defense is to be
considered, XXX and YYY narrated that there was a fistfight between them
and Rolando's group on December 24, 1999 at around 10:00 p.m. As such,
YYY's holding of Rolando's arms was just a part of the ongoing fight. 62
Hence, this should have made Rolando aware that there was an impending
attack on him. According to the prosecution witness Amonelo, after Rolando
boxed XXX, Rolando ran away but was not able to run any further because
his slippers were broken and XXX caught up with him. In another case, the
Court held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be appreciated
against accused-appellants because the victim was forewarned of the
impending attack and he could have in fact escaped had he not stumbled. 63

It is settled that the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and

their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique
opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor,
conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. As such, the findings of the
trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts
or circumstances of weight were overlooked, misapprehended, or
misinterpreted as to materially affect the disposition of the case.

After a thorough review of the records before Us, We disagree with the
trial court finding that the testimony of prosecution witness Del Mundo was
clear and consistent. We observed that Del Mundo's reaction during the
incident was contrary to human nature. He narrated that he was one arms-
length away when he saw the victim being stabbed in front of him. Although
he stopped his tricycle, he was not able to help the victim out of fear. To Our
mind, his reaction is not consistent with ordinary human behavior. Surely, he
was afraid that they might kill him because XXX was still holding a knife, but
ifhe were truly afraid, he would have sped away and not dare attempt to stop
his tricycle even with the engine running to just watch the incident. He also
testified that the victim was stabbed in the chest and right eye, however the
death certificate reveals that the victim sustained only one stab wound in the
chest. To Our mind, there is doubt as to whether Del Mundo was present

r
during the stabbing incident or that he actually saw Rolando being stabbed.

60
People v. Reyes, 420 Phil. 343,353 (2001).
61
People v. Pajotal, 420 Phil. 763, 778 (2001).
62
Rollo, 6-7.
63
People v. Dela Cruz, 461 Phil. 471,478 (2003).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 242474

In any event, another prosecution witness, Austria, identified XXX and

YYY as the assailants in the instant case, in a simple, spontaneous, and
straightforward manner, thus:

DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY ATTY.
MACALALAG:

Q: Would you still recall where were you last

December 24, 1999? About 9 in the evening?
A: I was inside my house, Sir.

Q: Where is your house located?

A: Brgy. Pagsawitan, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Sir.

xxxx

Q: On that particular date, December 24, 1999, do

you still recall any unusual occurrence that
transpired?
A: I heard somebody pursuing each other and
quarelling, sir.

Q: About what time is this?

A: About 10:30 in the evening, sir.

Q: What did you do upon hearing those commotion?

A: I went out of my house, sir.

Q: What did you say (sic) after you went out of your
house?
A: I saw somebody quarelling and someone was
holding the son of Abet Abetria, sir.

Q: If you will see those persons whom you saw that

evening, would you be able to recall their faces?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Look around in the court room, do you see their

faces?
A: Yes sir, those 3 persons.

xxxx

INTERPRETER: Witness pointing to one wearing

red and black t-shirt and khaki pants who identified himself
as YYY (sic); another one wearing moss green polo shirt and
maong pants who identified himself as Leonard Ferrer and
the one in blue striped-tshirt and khaki pants who identified
himself as XXX.

xxxx

Q: What were these 3 persons who were present

before the Court doing when you saw them?
A: Those 2 persons (vvitness pointing to YYY (sic)
and Leonard Ferrer) were the ones holding the
Decision 12 G.R. No. 242474

victim, sir.

Q: And who is the victim?

A: Olan Abetria, sir.

xxxx

Q: And what about the other person you have

identified earlier as one of the accused. What was
he doing at the time, this :XXX?
A: He was the one who stabbed the victim, sir.

Q: How far were you from XXX and the 2 others

when the stabbing took place?
A: The same distance, 6 meters, sir.

Q: After you saw XXX stab the victim, what did you
do, if any?
A: I shouted, "hoy tigilan nyo yan".

Q: What did they do after you after hearing your

shout?
A: Two of them ran in opposite direction while the
other one running in the right direction was
pursuing somebody but was not able to catch
him, sir.

Q: And who was that person running?

A: The person who stab (sic) the victim, Jeffrey, sir.

xxxx

Q: Was there illumination or light during that date

and time?
A: There was an incandescent bulb and the tricycle
of Boyong was in the middle, sir.

xxxx

Q: After you saw the incident, did you, in any way,

help the victim?
A: No sir, because I saw that the victim was able to
run.

xxxx

Q: What happened to him while he was running away

from the incident?
A: I heard somebody shouted "bumagsak si Olan".
Q: What then did you do?

A: I was about to approach the victim but he was

already loaded on a tricycle, sir. 64

64
TSN dated August 8, 2002, pp. 4-7.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 242474

Jurisprudence also tells us that when a testimony is given in a candid

and straightforward manner, there is no room for doubt that the witness is
telling the truth. 65 Here, Austria's testimony was clear and categorical that
XXX stabbed Rolando, while YYY held his hands at the back. He was six
meters from the stabbing incident and the place was well-lighted. In addition,
his testimony was corroborated by the Certificate of Death66 attesting that
Rolando died due to "Cardio-Respiratory Arrest due to Hypovolemic Shock
due to Stab Wound, Chest." 67

Contrary to accused-appellants' claim, the failure of Austria to help

and/or rescue Rolando from the hands of his assailants does not make his
testimony incredible and unworthy of belief. Jurisprudence holds that that the
eyewitnesses' inability to help the victim due to their fear of reprisal is
understandable and not at all contrary to common experience. 68 Different
people react differently to a given stimulus or situation and there is no
standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a startling
or frightful experience. 69 Here, Austria explained that he shouted "Hoy tigilan
niyo na yan" 70 after seeing the latter was stabbed. However, he was not able
to help during the fight because he was afraid for his life and was not able to
report the incident to the police because he was ashamed to tell Rolando's
father that he was unable to prevent Rolando's death. No law obligates a
person to risk his/her own life to save another, although it may be the moral
thing to do.

Conspiracy was also established by the evidence on record because of

the concerted efforts of both the accused. Conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. 71 It may be deduced from the manner in which the offense
is committed, as when the accused act in concert to achieve the same
objective. 72 In this case, Austria testified that YYY held Rolando from behind
while XXX stabbed him. Thus, YYY's participation in the commission of the
crime charged is clear. Certainly, XXX and YYY cooperated with one another
to achieve their purpose of killing the victim. It is sufficient that the accused
acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense, that they had the
same purpose or common design, and that they were united in its execution. 73

Accordingly, because conspiracy was established, there is no need to

determine who among the accused delivered the fatal blow. All of the accused
are liable as principals regardless of the extent and character of their
participation, for in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. 74

65
People v. Aquino, 724 Phil. 739, 749 (2014).
66
Records, p. 6.
67
ld.
68 People v. Camp it, 822 Phii. 448, 458 (2017).
69
Id.
70 TSN dated August 8, 2002, p. 7.
71
People v. Baccuy, 348 Phil. 322, 331-332 (1998).
72 People v. Bautista, 387 Phil. 183,203 (2000).
73 People v. Adoc, 386 Phil. 840, 857 (2000).
74
People v. Gungon, 351 Phil. 116, I42 (1998).
Decision 14 G.R. No. 242474

Anent XXX's contention that he was merely acting in self-defense, We

are not persuaded. Self-defense is an affirmative allegation and offers
exculpation from liability for crimes only if satisfactorily proved. 75 Indeed,
in invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused
claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not
on the weakness of the prosecution. 76 In this case, although XXX allegedly
suffered injuries due to the fistfight between him and the victim, XXX failed
to sufficiently establish that there was an imminent danger to his life as the
aggression no longer existed the moment Leonard and his companions arrived
prompting the victim to run away. In addition, XXX did not present any
evidence to prove that he sustained injuries. Considering the nature and
location of the stab wound sustained by the victim, the plea of self-defense is
untenable.

Therefore, without appreciatmg the qualifying circumstance of

treachery, the crime is Homicide and not Murder. Under Article 249 of the
RPC, any person found guilty of Homicide shall be meted the penalty
of reclusion temporal, a penalty which contains three (3) periods.

Considering that XXX committed the crime when he was just 17 years
and 7 months old, and YYY when he was just 15 years and 8 months old, they
are entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under
Article 68(2) 77 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, the penalty to be
imposed upon them shall be the penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed by law, but always in the proper period. 78 Thus, the imposable
penalty must be reduced by one degree from reclusion temporal, which is
prision mayor. Being a divisible penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is
applicable. 79 Given that there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance,
the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period.

Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty

shall be prision mayor in its medium period, while the minimum penalty shall
be prision correcional in any of its periods. Thus, accused-appellants are to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years ofprision correccional, as
minimum, to ten (10) years ofprision mayor, as maximum.

Nevertheless, We agree with the CA that the trial court erred when it
ordered the automatic suspension of sentence of the accused because the said
suspension of sentence lasts only until the child in conflict with the law
reaches the maximum age of 21 years. 80 In this case, XXX and YYY were

75
People v. Gutierrez, 625 Phil. 4 71, 480 (2010).
76
Id. at 481-482.
77 Article 68. Penalty to Be Imposed Upon a Person Under Eighteen Years of Age. - When the
offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the
paragraph next to the last of article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:
xxxx
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.
78
People v. Lababo, G.R. No. 234651, June 6, 2018.
79
Id.
80
People v. Jacinto, 661 Phil. 224,256 (201 l).
Decision 15 G.R. No. 242474

more than 21 years old when the RTC promulgated its Decision81 on 2015.
However, the accused are entitled to the benefit of Section 51 ofRepublic Act
No. 9344, 82 despite their ages at the time of conviction. Thus, they may serve
their sentence in an agricultural camp or other training facilities that may be
established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the Bureau of
Corrections, in coordination with the Department of Social Welfare and
Development.

Corollarily, the damages awarded by the CA need to be modified in

keeping with the recent jurisprudence. As provided for in People v. Jugueta, 83
in the crime of Homicide where the penalty consists of divisible penalty,
moral damages and civil indemnity is f'50,000.00. Thus, the award of moral
damages and civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 are reduced to
f'50,000.00. Meanwhile, the award of f'75,000.00 as exemplary damages
should be deleted. The award of f'60,000.00 as funeral expenses or actual
damages is affirmed based on the receipts presented by prosecution.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is

PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated November 29, 2017 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08398 is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION.

The Court declares XXX and YYY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Homicide, with the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority, for which they are sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision
mayor, as maximum.

On account of minority of accused-appellants when they came in

conflict with the law, they may serve their sentences in an agricultural camp
or training facility in accordance with Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344.
Thus, this case shall be REMANDED to the court of origin to effect the
imposition of the full service of their sentence in an agricultural camp or other
training facility.

Accused-appellants XXX and YYY are ORDERED to pay jointly and

severally the heirs of Rolando Abetria the amount of f'50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, f'50,000.00 as moral damages, f'60,000.00 as funeral expenses or
actual damages. They are likewise ORDERED to pay a legal interest of six
percent (6%) on the total amount of damages computed from the finality of
this judgment until full payment thereof.

SO ORDERED.

81
Supra note 4.
82
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, Republic Act No. 9344.
83
Supra note 40.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 242474

WE CONCUR:

Associate Justice

SAMuffl~
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
Decision 17 G.R. No. 242474

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

Chief(Justice