G.R. No.

L-68940 May 9, 1988

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
MATEO ABAGON and ABNER ONGONION, accused-appellants.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Citizens Legal Assistance Office for accused appellants.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

Accused-appellants Mateo Abagon and Abner Ongonion were charged with the crime
of murder in an Information filed with the then Court of First Instance of Masbate, which
reads:

That on or about April 17,1981, in the evening thereof, at Barangay

Pinamarubuhan, Municipality of Mobo, Province of Masbate, Philippines,
within the jurisdiction of this court, the said accused conspiring and helping
each other, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery and
superiority of strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and stab with a knife 'machete' one Celis Lupango, hitting
the latter on the different parts of the body, thereby inflicting wounds which
directly caused his instantaneous death.

Contrary to law. (p. 55, Orig. Records)

Upon arraignment on March 5, 1982, each entered a plea of not guilty. The trial court,
however, after evaluating the evidence presented, found the accused guilty as charged
and accordingly issued a decision the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the guilt of both accused having been

proven beyond reasonable doubt, accused MATEO ABAGON and ABNER
ONGONION are hereby both found guilty of the crime of murder, and
accused MATEO ABAGON, in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating
circumstance, is hereby sentenced to the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA, together with all the accessory penalties provided for by law,
while accused ABNER ONGONION, in view of the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender and in the absence of any aggravating circumstance,
is hereby sentenced to an imprisonment ranging from ELEVEN (11)
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor, as miximum, to NINETEEN
(19) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal, as minimum. Both accused shall
indemnify the heirs of the victim, jointly and severally, in the amount of
TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00) PESOS and shall pay their
proportionate share of the costs. (p. 194, Orig. Records)

The case is now before us on appeal.

The evidence on record shows the following facts to have attended the commission of
the crime:
... that at about 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon of April 17, 1981, at Barangay
Pinamarubuhan, Mobo, Masbate, while the herein victim Celis Lupango
and companions Isabelo Radaza, Jr., Benjamin Bergado and Nilo Lalaguna
were inside the store of Corazon Cana to celebrate the birthday of Isabelo
Radaza, Jr., two persons, later Identified as Mateo Abagon and Abner
Ongonion, entered and stabbed Celis Lupango. First to enter was Abner
Ongonion, followed closely behind by Mateo Abagon, and with a six-inch
double-bladed knife stabbed Celis Lupango three (3) or four (4) times.
Mateo Abagon, in turn, with a seven-inch knife also stabbed Celis Lupango
'several times. 'After Celis Lupango fell to the ground the two accused left.
At this point Teresito Lupango, brother of Celis Lupango, arrived and he
carried Celis Lupango, with the help of Benjamin Bergado and Nilo
Lalaguna whom he found inside the store, outside the store intending to
bring him to the hospital. Outside the store, the waiting Abner Ongonion,
who was with Mateo Abagon, Julio Ongonion, Alejandro Ongonion, Romulo
Barruga, Antonio Danao and Arnel Onarosa, drew his firearm and fired two
(2) shots at them. Upon being fired at, Benjamin Bergado and Nilo
Lalaguna ran away while Teresito Lupango sought cover. Abner Ongonion
and his companions approached and they took turns in stabbing the
prostrate body of Celis Lupango with bolos and knives. Teresito Lupango
was eventually able to report the incident.

Assistant Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Emilio C. Quemi, conducted the

post-mortem examination on the cadaver of victim Celis Lupango and
found the following wounds in the body, to wit:
1. Incised wound, measuring about one inch located at the
forehead;
2. Incised wound, located at the upper left lip measuring about
3/4 of an inch;
3. Stab wound, measuring about 1/2 inch at left apple with a
depth of about 2 inches;
4. Stab wound, located just below the left subcostal area, with
an opening of about 1/2 inch and depth of about 3 inches;
5. Multiple stab wounds (3) located at the anterior right shoulder
measuring about 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch;
6. Stab wound, located just below the right nipple, with an
opening of about 3/4 of an inch, and depth of about two inches;
7. Stab wound, located at the right scapular region with an
opening of about 1/2 inch;
8. Incised wound, located at the occipital region, measuring
about 2 inches long;
9. Stab wound, about 1-1/2 inches wide located at the left axilla,
with depth of about 2-1/2 inches.
 The cause of death was established to be shock, secondary to massive
external hemorrhage caused by multiple stab and incised wounds.

Testifying Dr. Quemi admitted the possibility that the wounds were inflicted
by one or two assailants.

The defense presented both accused to deny the charges.

For his defense, accused Mateo Abagon claims that at the time of the
incident he was in his house at the seashore of Pinamarubuhan about 100
meters away from the scene of the incident. He went out of the house only
when he learned of the stabbing incident when he saw many persons
running towards the scene. After seeing the lifeless body of the victim, he
returned home immediately. He did not see his co-accused Abner
Ongonion at the scene. In fact he did not see any other person there.

On the other hand, accused Abner Ongonion, claims that at that particular
time he left his house to fetch his mother at the Tugbo River where she
washed clothes. On his way he passed by the store of Corazon Cana to
buy cigarettes. At the store he was pulled inside by Celis Lupango, where
the latter was drinking with others, among whom was June Radaza. He
was asked to drink but he refused because of a headache. Celis then
asked him why are you brave' and then he pulled out his knife, but as he
did so the knife bumped the edge of the table and fell to the ground. As
Celis recovered the knife from the ground, Ongonion was able to get hold
of Celis' hand and they grappled for the knife. While grappling he
succeeded in thrusting the knife to the left breast of Celis and again he
thrust it to the stomach. After he was able to get possession of the knife he
kept on stabbing Celis, being by then angry. In the meantime, as they
grappled, the companions of Celis Lupango jumped out of the window,
while Jun Radaza who was there watching ran away when he saw Celis
was stabbed. He then went out and proceeded to the PC Headquarters at
Masbate and surrendered. Benjamin Bergado and Teresito Lupango were
not seen by him in the store. He also stated that his co-accused Mateo
Abagon was not in the store. When cross-examined he admitted that in
1981 his elder brother (Julio) had a quarrel with Celis and his brother was
stabbed on the right thigh by a cousin of Celis named Gualberto Roga. He
admitted also that he holds a grudge against Celis because about four
months before April 17, 1981, while his brother Julio was still in the
hospital, he was chased by Celis in the street near the store of Corazon
Cana and only escaped being stabbed because he ran away.' (pp. 7-9,
Rollo)

Accused-appellants, thru their counsel, raise the follow assignments of errors:

I. THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE CONSISTING OF THE TESTIMONY OF ITS
WITNESSES SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED THE GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE KILLING OF ONE CELIS LUPANGO, WHICH
KILLING WAS QUALIFIED TO MURDER BY TREACHERY.

II. THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
DEFENSE OF ALIBI ON 'THE PART OF THE ACCUSED MATEO ABAGON AND OF
SELF-DEFENSE ON THE PART OF ACCUSED ABNER ONGONION WILL NOT LIE.

III. THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT

CONSPIRACY HAD BEEN SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED.

IV. THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING BOTH

ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER CONSIDERING THAT THEIR
GUILT WERE NOT ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (p. 1,
Appellants' Brief)

Inasmuch as the first, second, third, and fourth assigment of errors are closely
interrelated, we shall discuss them jointly.

Appellant Ongonion's theory of self-defense is untenable. According to the testimonies

of Bergado, Radaza, and Lupango, the attack by the assailants was unprovoked.

The sudden attack on the victim with knives drawn indicates that the stabbing was
intentional. No other conclusion can likewise be surmised from the gunshots fired by
the assailants at those who tried to bring Celis to the hospital. While the victim's body
lay helpless on the street, the appellants kept on stabbing the victim, thereby ensuring
his death.

The appellants assail the credibility of the prosecution witnesses alleging contradictions
in their testimony. This Court has ruled that minor inconsistencies in the testimony of
prosecution witnesses do not affect their credibility, as what is important is that they
had positively Identified the accused as the assailants. (People v. Dava. 149 SCRA
582).

Having admitted the killing, Ongonion must clearly establish that he acted in self-
defense. The burden of proof is now shifted to him. He must, therefore, rely on the
strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution (People v.
Sadie, 149 SCRA 240; and People v. Regulacion, 121 SCRA 40) for even if the latter's
evidence is weak, it could not be disbelieved after the appellant admitted the killing
(People v. Llamera, 51 SCRA 48; People v. Bauden, 77 Phil. 105; and People v.
Ansoyon, 75 Phil. 772). The number and nature of the stab wounds inflicted by more
than one person belie Ongonion's theory of self-defense.
These and the testimonies of two (2) eyewitnesses and one peace officer further serve
to destroy Ongonion's statement. Moreover, it is a well-settled rule that the findings of
fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded the highest
respect by the appellate court (People v. Traya, 147 SCRA 381) for these courts have
the privilege of examining the deportment and demeanor of witnesses, and therefore,
can discern if such witnesses are telling the truth or not (People v. Ramilo, 147 SCRA
102).

Ongonion's claim of self-defense is likewise negated by the physical evidence and

other circumstances, such as his failure to present the knife upon surrender (p. 15,
TSN, Sept. 9,1983), his failure to tell the police authorities that he killed the deceased
in self-defense, and the absence of any injury on the body of Ongonion while the
deceased suffered eleven wounds when, according to the appellant, there was
supposedly a struggle that took place. For self-defense to prosper, the following
elements should have been proved by appellant: (a) unlawful aggression; (b)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself (People v.
Balmaceda, 148 SCRA 194). On the contrary, all the evidence on record shows that
not one of the elements of self-defense is present.

Appellant Abagon's defense, on the other hand, is alibi, an inherently weak defense
(People v. Anguillano, 149 SCRA 442; and People v. Acelajado, 148 SCRA 142)
especially when it can be proved that it was not physically impossible for him to be at
the scene of the crime. In order to be given full faith and credit, alibi must be clearly
established and must not leave any room for doubt as to its plausibility and veracity
(People v. Tuando, 150 SCRA 8). The appellant, at the time of the crime was allegedly
in a place which was approximately only 100 meters away from the scene of the crime.
The possibility of the accused being at the same scene of the crime, renders his
defense of alibi not credible (People v. Petil, 149 SCRA 92).

Although witness Radaza declared he saw only Ongonion attack the deceased, yet he
testified also that he ran away immediately after Ongonion lunged at the deceased.
Consequently, he could not have seen the blows of Abagon.

More important, Abagon and his companion were positively identified by eyewitnesses
Bergado and Lalaguna. The records show that the appellants took turns at stabbing
the victim inside and outside the store. The presence and location of the eleven stab
wounds, as testified by Dr. Quemi also indicate that the same were inflicted by more
than one person.

That the assailants acted in concerted efforts with community of criminal purpose to
ensure the death of the victim is indicative of conspiracy between them. Conspiracy is
established by concerted action. (People v. Rosas, 149 SCRA 464). It may be noted
that even if conspiracy had not been established, the liability of the two appellants
would not change for each inflicted on his own, multiple stabbing blows on the victim
resulting in mortal injuries. They acted as principals by direct participation. In the case
at bar, the appellants fully concurred in their actions. They came to the victim one after
the other and attacked him with undiverted purpose. They also left together. As held
in People v. Bravante (150 SCRA 569), conspiracy is established by evidence of unity
of purpose at the time of the commission of the offense and unity in its execution.

Treachery was likewise proven by the evidence presented. The attack was immediate,
sudden and unexpected. Treachery exists when the offender commits any crime
against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from
any defense which the offended party might make (People v. Rojas, 147 SCRA 169).
In the case of People v. Intermediate Appellate Court (147 SCRA 219), the court ruled
that there is treachery where the victims had no inkling that the accused would shoot
them.

All things considered, we agree with the Solicitor General that the crime was proved
beyond reasonable doubt.

In view of the abolition of the death penalty under Sec. 19, Art. 4 of the 1987
Constitution, the penalty imposed for murder is modified. The penalty imposable for
murder following recent jurisprudence is reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to reclusion perpetua (People v. Masangkay, G.R. No. 73461, Jan. 25,1988; People v.
Lopez, G.R. No. 71875-76, Jan. 25,1988; and People v. Gavarra, G.R. No. L-37673,
Oct. 30,1987).

"In the absence of any modifying circumstances, the penalty is imposable in

its medium period or from eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years" (People v. Masangkay, supra.).<äre||anº•1àw> This is the penalty
appropriate for Mateo Abagon.

In the case of Abner Ongonion, however, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary

surrender entitles him to the imposition of the penalty in its minimum period which is
seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to eighteen (18) years and eight
(8) months of reclusion temporal.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED except that the penalties
are modified. Appellant Mateo Abagon is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty
of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum
to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as
maximum. Appellant Abner Ongonion is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty
of imprisonment from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to
seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as
maximum. The two accused-appellants shall pay jointly and severally the amount of
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) to the heirs of Celis Lupango as indemnity.
SO ORDERED.

Fernan (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

FACTS:

The victim, Celis Lupango, celebrated the birthday of a friend at Barangay

Pinamarubuhan, Mobo, Masbate. During the celebration, the accused, Mateo Abagon
and Abner Ongonion, entered the store where the celebration happened and stabbed
the victim.

Abagon claimed that he was not at the scene when the crime happened but two
eyewitnesses positively identified his participation.

In the testimony of Ogonion, he narrated that when he passed by, he was asked to
drink but refused. The drunk victim later started to attacked him and pulled out a knife
but such fell to the ground. They both grappled for possession. Ogonion, during the
grappling, succeeded in thrusting the knife to Celis’ left breast, then, at the stomach.
When he got full possession of the knife, he continued stabbing Celis due to rage.
During the cross examination, Ogonian stated that his older brother (Julio) and Celis
had a quarrel. His brother was stabbed in the thigh by Celis cousin. He also admitted
that he held a grudge against Celis when he was chased by the later and merely
escaped being stabbed when he ran away.

ISSUE:

(i)Whether or not Ogonian can claim for self-defense.

(ii)Whether or not both the accused are criminally liable for the committed crime.

RULING:

(i)No. Ogonian cannot claim for self-defense on the said matter. The nature and
number of stab wounds inflicted upon the victim opposes his claim. The absence of
wounds on the body of the accused and the victim eleven wounds, while there was a
supposed struggle that took place belies his claim. The law requires rational
equivalence, when a person is attacked and one moves in obedience to self-
preservation; the defense must be proportionate with the imminent danger present to
avoid injury. All evidences presented showed no element of self-defense.
(ii)Yes. Both the accused are criminally liable for the crime. The assailants were both
positively identified by eyewitnesses and their actions indicate concerted efforts of
ensuring the death of the victim and that conspiracy happened between them.