FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 112990. May 28, 2001]

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

COMPO @ DODONG and MAURICIO GONZAGA @
LONGLONG, accused.
LEMUEL COMPO @ DODONG, accused-appellant.
DECISION
PARDO, J.:

Accused Lemuel Compo appeals from the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Bohol, Branch 1, Tagbilaran City, finding him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the
heirs of Procopio Dales in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,00.00) and
twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) as moral and exemplary damages. [1]
On March 17, 1992, Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Bohol
Rodolfo R. Ligason filed with the Regional Trial Court, an information
charging Mauricio Gonzaga and Lemuel Compo with murder, committed as
follows:
Thatonoraboutthe1stdayofMarch,1992,inthemunicipalityofLoboc,
provinceofBohol,PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorable
Court,theabovenamedaccused,conspiring,confederatingandmutually
helpingwithoneanother,withintenttokillandwithoutjustifiablecause,with
evidentpremeditation,treacheryandabuseofsuperiorstrength,didthenand
therewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyattack,assaultandshootwiththe
useofasmallarrowlocallyknownasIndianPanaandstabwiththeuseofa
smallsharppointedbolooneProcopioDaleswhowasunarmedandunawareof
theattack,therebyinflictingmortalinjuriesonthevictimsbodywhichresulted
inthedeathofthesaidProcopioDales;tothedamageandprejudiceofthe
heirsofthedeceasedintheamounttobeprovedduringthetrial.
ActscommittedcontrarytotheprovisionsofArticle248oftheRevisedPenal
Code,asamended.[2]

[3]

Upon arraignment on July 9, 1992, the two accused pleaded not guilty.
Trial on the merits ensued.

In the evening of February 29, 1992, Gilberto Libardo[4], a conductor of a

passenger bus, went to a disco place located at sitio Tambis, barangay Oy,
Loboc, Bohol. On March 1, 1992, around 1:00 in the morning, Libardo with
three companions left the disco house and while they were walking toward his
house, Mauricio Gonzaga alias Lolong and Lemuel Compo alias Dodong
suddenly accosted him and asked whether he had seen Procopio
Dales alias Opiong. He answered that Opiong was still in the disco
house. Mauricio was carrying a small bolo in his right hand and a scabbard in
his left hand. Accused Compo was holding an Indian Pana and a flashlight. On
their way home to Calunasan, Norte, Loboc, Bohol, they saw Procopio Dales
standing in the middle of the road holding a piece of wood. Lemuel lighted his
flashlight toward the direction where Procopio was standing. When Procopio
Dales tried to attack Mauricio with a piece of wood, he picked up a piece of
stone and hit Dales in the right shoulder causing the latter to stagger and rush
toward him with small bolo in his hand. He took another piece of stone and hit
Dales again causing the small bolo to drop to the ground. Mauricio picked up
the small bolo and stabbed Procopio Dales several times until he fell to the
ground. Finding several Indian Pana in the possession of Procopio Dales, he
took one of them and hit Dales with the Indian Pana, which imbedded in his
neck. At the time of the stabbing incident, Lemuel Compo was not lighting his
flashlight toward the body of Procopio Dales. Lemuel Compo only used the
flashlight when Mauricio Gonzaga threw a stone at Procopio Dales. [5]
PO3 Pedro Wate of Lila Police Station testified that at around 2:30 in the
morning of March 1, 1992, Antonina Gonzaga, the mother of Mauricio
Gonzaga, went to the house of PO3 Wate at Barangay Calunasan, Loboc,
Bohol, asking his help in surrendering her son who had stabbed
someone. While on their way to the Gonzagas residence, they met Mauricio
and Lemuel. Mauricio immediately confessed that he killed Procopio
Dales. After Mauricio handed the bolo to PO3 Wate, the latter brought
Mauricio and Lemuel to Loboc Police Station and turned them over to station
guard PO3 Aliceto Torreon.[6]
Dr. Evangeline B. Delfin who examined the victim testified that he
sustained 13 wounds five (5) were classified as fatal wounds while seven (7)
were non-fatal wounds.[7] The autopsy report[8] states:
xxx xxx xxx
II.PostMortemFindings:

Amale,fairlynourished,fairlydeveloped,about5ft.orlessinheight,lyingin
supinepositionwithmultiplestabwoundsonhisface,neck,chest,abdomen
andback.
III.RegionalFindings:
Face: a) At the left side a stab wound, entrance 1.5 cm. in dia. at mandibular area.
b) Stab wound 2.5 cm. in dia. at the left side of the face near auricle.
Neck: a) Stab wound 2 cm. in dia. at anterior triangle of the neck left side hitting the
common caroted artery, jugular vein, vagus nerve.
b) Punctured wound .5 cm. in dia. at left supraclavicular fossa hitting the left
subclavian artery, common caroted artery.
Chest: a) Stab wound 2.5 cm. in dia. left, chest, anterior axillary hitting the lateral side
of the heart.
Abdomen: a) Stab wound 2.5 cm. in dia. Left hypochondrium.
b) Stab wound 2 cm. in dia. at left lumbar hitting the descending colon.
c) Stab wound 1 cm. in dia. at right subcostal area through and through to
the back, exit, hitting the transverse colon, partly the right, lobe of the
liver.
Back: a) Stab wound 1 cm. in diameter at posterior axillary area.
b) Left Scapular Area
a) 2cm. in dia. superior angle
b) 3cm. in dia. body of the scapula
c) 2.5 cm. in dia. inferior angle

Conclusion:
Causeofdeath:Hypovolemicshocksecondarytoseverehemorrhagedueto
lacerationofthebloodvesselsthatsupplythebrain,heart,&destructionofthe
liver(partly),transversecolon,Descendingcolon.
Accused Lemuel Compo interposed the defense of alibi and denial. He
claimed that on March 1, 1992, at around 7:00 p. m., he was in the store of
Pedro Wate to watch a betamax show. Mauricio Gonzaga invited him to go to
the disco house. They arrived at the disco house at around 12:00 midnight,
shortly afterwhich, they decided to go home. On their way home, they saw a
person standing in the middle of the road whom Mauricio identified as
Opiong. Lemuel focused his flashlight on the person and he recognized
Procopio Dales before the latter got lost on the road.When they reached the

corner of the road, they met Gilberto Libardo together with

three companions. Mauricio asked Libardo whether he saw Procopio Dales and
the former answered no. Lemuel and Mauricio walked toward a lower portion
of the road where Lemuel focussed his flashlight and they saw Procopio Dales
carrying a piece of wood. They moved backward while Lemuel focused his
flashlight toward Procopio Dales whom he saw. Suddenly Lemuel
stumbled. He ran away and went home. He took his supper and went to
sleep. In the meantime, Mauricio Gonzaga arrived at his house and woke him
up telling him that he stabbed to death Procopio Dales. Mauricio Gonzaga
asked him to accompany him to surrender to the authorities when Pedro Wate
and Mauricios mother arrived.[9]
On May 11, 1993, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion
of which reads as follows:
PREMISESCONSIDERED,theCourtfindstheaccusedMauricioGonzaga
andLemuelCompoguiltyofthecrimeofmurderpunishedunderArticle248
oftheRevisedPenalCodeandherebysentenceseachoneofthemtosufferan
imprisonmentofReclusionPerpetua,withtheaccessoriesofthelawandtopay
thecost.
TheaccusedMauricioGonzagaandLemuelCompoarefurtherorderedeachto
indemnifytheheirsofthelateProcopioDalesintheamountofFiftyThousand
Pesos(P50,000.00)each,andTwentyThousandPesos(P20,000.00)each
representingmoralandexemplarydamagesandinbothinstancewithout
subsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvency,withtheaccessoriesofthelaw
andtopaycost.
Thebolousedinthecommissionofthecrimeisherebyorderedforfeitedin
favorofthegovernment.
SOORDERED.
(Sgd.)
AntonioH.Bautista
Judge.[10]
On May 26, 1993, accused Lemuel Compo filed with the trial court a notice
of appeal.[11]

In this appeal, accused-appellant imputes a single assignment of error to the

trial court,[12] thus: "The trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder." [13]
Lemuel, as related by witness Mauricio Gonzaga, was merely present
before the stabbing incident, holding a flashlight. No other overt act was
established to prove that Lemuel shared and concurred with the criminal design
of Mauricio. The mere presence of Lemuel, who was not shown to be armed, at
the scene of the crime does not connote conspiracy. Singularity of purpose and
unity in the execution of the unlawful objective are essential to establish
conspiracy.[14]
Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to
constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the
commission of the crime, with a view to the furtherance of the common design
and purpose.[15] Conspiracy transcends companionship.[16] The presence and
company of Lemuel were not necessary or essential to the perpetration of the
murder.
Neither can Lemuel be considered an accomplice. Article 18 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that an accomplice is one who, not being a principal,
cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. To
be convicted as such, it is necessary that he be aware of the criminal intent of
the principal and then cooperate knowingly or intentionally by supplying
material or moral aid for the efficacious execution of the crime.[17] The
prosecution, however, failed to present convincing evidence establishing that
accused-appellant Lemuel knew of the other accused's intent to kill
Dales. Again, his mere presence at the scene of the crime and his flight
therefrom with the other accused are not proof of his participation in the crime.
The quantum of proof required in criminal prosecution to support a conviction
has not been reached with regard to accused-appellant Lemuel. The oftrepeated truism that the conviction of an accused must rest not on the weakness
of the defense but on the strength of the prosecutions evidence applies. [18] He
must, therefore, be acquitted on reasonable doubt.
We are convinced that the prosecution failed to overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence. Basically, accused-appellant Lemuel was convicted
based on the testimony of the conductor of passenger bus Gilberto Libardo who
saw Lemuel carrying an Indian Pana and a flashlight. Without any testimony
positively identifying accused-appellant as the assailant nor any evidence
directly linking him as the author of the crime, Lemuel Compo can not be
convicted of the murder of Dales. The accused-appellant deserves an acquittal
and must forthwith be given back his liberty.

WHEREFORE, on reasonable doubt, the appealed decision is

REVERSED and accused-appellant Lemuel Compo @ Dodong is hereby
ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED immediately, unless he is detained for
some other legal cause.
The Director, Bureau of Corrections is ordered to show to this Court proof
of compliance herewith within ten (10) days.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 132330. November 28, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SPO1
BANGCADO and PO3 CESAR BANISA, accused-appellants.

JOSE

[1]

DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:

SPO1 JOSE BANGCADO and PO3 CESAR BANISA appeal from the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City convicting them of two (2)
counts of murder and two (2) counts of frustrated murder, imposing upon them
the corresponding prison terms, and to pay damages plus costs.
[2]

The facts: On 27 June 1993, at around 8:30 in the evening, Pacson Cogasi,
Julio Clemente, Leandro Adawan and Richard Lino were at the Skyview
Restaurant, Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City, drinking and listening to
folksongs. Moments later, a group of five (5) arrived and sat one table away from

Pacson Cogasi and his friends. Among the newcomers was a thin person
wearing a blue long-sleeved jacket, later identified as SPO1 Jose Bangcado, and
a heavier one wearing a t-shirt and maong pants, later identified as PO3 Cesar
Banisa. The rest of their group were not identified.
At that time, members of the police force of Baguio City were
conducting Operation Kapkap at the Skyview Restaurant. They however
exempted the table of PO3 Cesar Banisa as they knew him to be a fellow
policeman.
At around 9:00 o'clock that evening, Cogasi and his friends left the restaurant
to go home. They were residents of La Trinidad, Benguet. As they went behind
the restaurant where their Ford Fierra was parked, they noticed SPO1 Jose
Bangcado and PO3 Cesar Banisa following them. Cogasi and his group
recognized Bangcado and Banisa to be customers at Skyview
Restaurant. Bangcado and Banisa approached them. First, Banisa asked
Richard Lino for a light. Then Bangcado and Banisa asked the group if they were
willing to be frisked. Since the two (2) police officers were armed with handguns
and smelled of liquor, the group agreed to be frisked. As Leandro Adawan
stepped aside to urinate, Bangcado slapped him and then asked the group
where they came from. Their answer was, from Besao, Mt. Province, except
Clemente who said that he came from Balili, La Trinidad. Bangcado, with Banisa
standing guard behind him with a drawn gun, ordered Cogasi, Clemente, Adawan
and Lino to form a line against the Ford Fierra facing him in that order. Adawan
was only one meter away from Bangcado. Lino and Cogasi were about 1- 1/2
meters away, while Clemente, four (4) meters away. Without any warning,
Bangcado suddenly fired his gun in quick succession at the four (4) persons lined
up against the Ford Fierra. Cogasi saw Adawan and Lino fall down. Cogasi then
felt he was hit on the left side of his neck and he also fell down. He managed
however to crawl away and run to the Hilltop where he was able to ask for help
before falling unconscious.
Cogasi woke up to find himself confined at the Baguio General Hospital
together with Clemente. There Cogasi learned that Lino and Adawan died from
gunshot wounds in their heads. Cogasi himself suffered a gunshot wound at the
neck, at the junction of his left jaw near the ear, while Clemente received two (2)
gunshot wounds on his right shoulder with one (1) of the bullets being lodged just
below his right eye.
After their release from the hospital, Cogasi and Clemente filed a complaint
with the NBI in Baguio City. On 8 July 1993, four (4) civilian males were
presented to Cogasi for identification by the NBI, but he told them that the
suspects were not among those present. Clemente did not participate in the
identification process because of his eye injury.

In the morning of 10 July 1993 Bangcado and Banisa reported for their
regular rank inspection at the La Trinidad Police Station. The policemen were told
to remain in formation after the inspection. Cogasi went around the formation four
(4) or five (5) times before pointing to Bangcado and then to Banisa. Clemente
also went around the formation but despite going around longer than Cogasi,
Clemente was unable to identify anybody. Clemente started to point to James
Tagle but withdrew his identification of him when some people then present
laughed and shouted "Hoy!" and "Sabali!" meaning "Wrong!" or "Different!"
Accused-appellants insist that Clemente could not have made a reliable
identification of them at the NBI and La Trinidad line ups, nor even in open court,
because his eye injury blurred his vision.
The rule is that positive identification of witnesses prevails over the simple
denial of the accused. It cannot be doubted that Clemente and Cogasi had a
good view of the faces of the accused. From the testimonies of various
witnesses, including PO3 Jimmy Baybay, one of the policemen who
conducted Operation Kapkap, the Skyview Restaurant was well-lighted. Banisa
himself testified that although the lighting may be "somewhat dim," he could still
recognize a person from a distance of four (4) meters. This is relevant
considering that the two (2) groups were seated only one (1) table apart. Thus,
Cogasi and his friends were able to recognize their assailants as the persons
who came out from the Skyview Restaurant.
[3]

The crime scene was illuminated by two (2) streetlights and the lights coming
from the nearby Garden Inn and various sari-sari stores. The fact that the
policemen who responded to the report of the incident had to use a flashlight in
their investigation did not prove that the area was so dark as to preclude the
identification of the persons involved.For one thing, the policemen had to be
careful not to overlook any piece of evidence, such as a spent bullet. For another,
SPO4 Antonio Naungayan of PNP Baguio City, who was part of the investigating
team, testified on cross-examination that even if the area was not brightly lighted,
one could still recognize people. According to Clemente, he was only four (4)
meters away from his attackers when they fired upon him and his friends. Cogasi
was only 1-1/2 meters away while Adawan and Lino, who died on the spot, were
each only about a meter away.
[4]

It cannot be doubted that Cogasi and Clemente had enough time to take a
good look at their assailants faces who conversed with their victims, ordered
them to fall in line, frisked them one by one, and asked them questions before
shooting them. When Bangcado and Banisa leaned over to frisk Cogasi and his
friends, their faces must have only been inches away from their victims; and
when they ordered their victims to line up against the vehicle, they stood only a
few meters away.
Although Clemente admitted to be suffering from blurred vision, Cogasis
positive identification of appellants could be sufficient to establish their

identities. Indeed, there is no law that requires that the testimony of a single
witness must be corroborated except, of course, when expressly
mandated. Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered, in determining the
credibility of witnesses and the value of each piece of evidence. In fact, the
testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict, and
must be given full faith and credence when no reason to falsely testify is shown.
[5]

[6]

Assuming arguendo that Clemente was unable to identify accused-appellants

during the line-up in La Trinidad as his right eye was still bandaged from his
injuries, he was able to make a positive identification in open court. Neither is it
material now that Clemente made some attempts to point to policeman James
Tagle for it seems clear that he withdrew his identification. Besides, Clemente
admitted candidly that he could not identify anyone in the line-up since his right
eye was still covered with a bandage and was still suffering from blurred vision.
Further, the defense failed to shake Cogasis certainty, either when he
declared that he recognized accused-appellants as being those who were earlier
in the Skyview Restaurant, or when he pointed to them in the line-up at La
Trinidad. The fact that he took some five (5) minutes and had to go around the
line-up four (4) or five (5) times did not detract from his credibility. Rather, it is to
his credit that he took time to look closely into the faces of more than twenty-four
(24) or so similarly garbed men to make sure that he did not make a mistake in
identifying his assailants.
Neither should the defense attempt to mislead the Court by pointing out that
Cogasi was not able to identify Bangcado during the NBI line-up since it is clear
that that line-up did not include accused-appellants. Instead, it was composed of
four (4) civilians, none of whom he had ever seen before. Since these four (4)
had no connection with the crime, there was no reason for Cogasi to implicate
any of them in the murder.
The defense also points out that the policemen who conducted Operation
Kapkap indicated in their joint affidavit that they only saw Banisa present inside
the Skyview Restaurant, along with three (3) unidentified companions. According
to the defense, this only proves that Bangcado was not there since the policemen
personally knew Bangcado and thus should have included him in their joint
affidavit.
However, the theory of the trial court that the reason why they did not see
Bangcado with Banisa was because he went to the washroom or elsewhere
deserves credence.Considering that the Skyview Restaurant had some thirty (30)
to fifty (50) customers that night; that the four (4) policemen were busy going
around the tables conductingOperation KapKap; that they did not approach the
table of Banisa to frisk him and his companions because they recognized him as
a policeman, then it is evident that their attention was elsewhere, and that they
did not bother to inquire whether Banisa had other fellow officers with

him. Further, the policemen testified that they were in the restaurant for only a
few minutes.
Further, PO Delfin Balan-eg, one of the policemen who conducted Operation
Kapkap, testified that he saw Bangcado and Banisa drinking beer inside the
restaurant. The defense tried to destroy his credibility by establishing that he and
the two (2) victims as well as the two (2) complaining witnesses were
related. However, it must be stressed, that relationship, much less bias, cannot
be established by the fact that two (2) persons live in different barangays that
form part of the same town.
The defense insist that neither could Cogasis testimony be given any weight
since his testimony in open court contradicted his sworn affidavit executed
immediately after the incident before the investigating officer. While he testified
that he saw the accused emerge from the Skyview Restaurant, in his affidavit, he
swore that their attackers actually alighted from a red -colored car. The theory of
the defense is that if the gunmen alighted from a red or maroon colored car
immediately before the shooting, then they could not have come from the
Skyview Restaurant, and vice versa.
An affidavit taken ex parte is judicially considered to be almost incomplete
and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions and sometimes from
want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be
unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for his accurate
recollection of the incident. Further, an examination of Cogasis sworn statement
shows, however, that there was actually no contradiction. His testimony was as
follows: "x x x I noticed a maroon car x x x I noticed also two persons who were
immediately following us went (sic) near the parked maroon car and one of them
opened the door at the drivers side but immediately closed it." Quite obviously,
the two (2) persons who emerged from the Skyview Restaurant intended to
board the parked car but changed their minds and, instead, followed Cogasi and
his friends to the Ford Fierra that was parked.
[7]

[8]

The accused-appellants raise the defense of alibi which is inherently

weak. To prosper, alibi must be so convincing as to preclude any doubt that the
accused could not have been physically present at the crime scene at the time of
the incident. The alibis of the accused clearly show upon examination that this
could not have been so.
[9]

Bangcado testified that he stayed at home because he served his tour of

duty from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 a.m. the previous day. Thus, on the day of the
incident, he was at home where he slept, read the newspapers, watched
television and played with his one-year-and-seven-month old daughter. After
dinner, he took a nap until his mother-in-law woke him up before 11:00 p.m. so
he could report to the police station before 12:00 midnight. As police officer
assigned to patrol his area of responsibility, his job was to ride in the police

vehicle going around La Trinidad. This was confirmed by Bangcado's mother-inlaw Angela Gondales when she testified for the accused.
[10]

Yet, Bangcado himself told the court that Central Pico, La Trinidad, Benguet,
where his mother-in-laws house stood, was only five (5) kilometers away from
Skyview Restaurant and could be negotiated in thirty (30) minutes using a motor
vehicle. The fact that La Trinidad was only thirty (30) minutes away from Baguio
City was corroborated by Banisa himself. And Bangcados house is near a
national highway where jeepneys pass by on their way to Baguio City, which
means, it was not impossible for Bangcado to have left the house earlier than
11:00 p.m. and be in Baguio City at the time of the incident.
[11]

[12]

The defense failed to establish with credible evidence that SPO1 Jose
Bangcado was on duty from 11:00 o'clock in the evening to 8:30 the following
morning. SPO4 Lilia Pascual, Records Custodian of the PNP at La Trinidad,
Benguet, testified that there was no record of the attendance of PNP officers from
June to December 1993. SPO4 Carlos Layagan, Bangcados Patrol Section
Supervisor, testified that on that day, Bangcado was present for his regular tour
of duty from 12:00 o'clock midnight to 8:00 o'clock the following morning and
conducted routine patrol by mobile, but the incident occurred at around 9:00
o'clock in the evening according to the police who responded when the crime
was reported to them. Thus, Bangcado had plenty of time to do what he did and
still go on his tour of duty. More damaging was the admission of Layagan in his
cross-examination that before 12:00 o'clock midnight of 27 June 1993 he was not
in the company of SPO1 Jose Bangcado.
[13]

[14]

The alibi of PO3 Cesar Banisa was even more incredible. He admitted being
at the Skyview Restaurant when Cogasi and his friends were there, but claimed
that he left with his brother to eat mami and siopao at the Baguio First Hotel,
which is only about a hundred (100) to a hundred and fifty (150) meters away
from Skyview Restaurant and could be reached in five (5) minutes of walking.
He explained however that "this bold admission x x x placing him within the
vicinity of the crime scene shows his clear conscience. For, if he was involved in
the crime, he would naturally put himself in other places." His testimony was
corroborated by Abelardo Lucas who testified that he, along with Arsenio Palileng
and Raymund Banisa, accused-appellants brother, was with Banisa that night.
[15]

[16]

While flight of an accused is competent evidence to establish prima facie his

guilt, there is no law or principle that non-flight per se is proof, let alone
conclusive proof, of innocence. Much like the defense of alibi, non-flight cannot
prevail against the weight of positive identification of the accused. It is more
credible to believe that Banisa had no choice but to tell the truth regarding his
presence at the Skyview Restaurant because four (4) policemen who knew him
well saw him there while they were conducting Operation Kapkap.
[17]

PO3 Banisa further claims that his group stayed at the Baguio First Hotel
Restaurant for only ten (10) minutes and then went down the road to the jeepney
station where they boarded a jeepney at 9:00 o'clock in the evening bound for La
Trinidad and got home after twenty-five (25) to thirty-five (35) minutes. Yet he
also testified that the boarding station for jeepneys bound for La Trinidad was
only across the road from Skyview Restaurant.
SPO1 Jose Bangcado and PO3 Cesar Banisa could have accosted their
victims, gone back to Skyview Restaurant and joined their companions who may
have thought that they (Bangcado and Banisa) just went to the comfort room or
stepped out for some fresh air. Abelardo Lucas himself testified that while they
were at the Skyview Restaurant his companions would frequently stand up and
leave, purportedly to go to the restroom.
The defense bewails the fact that nothing seemed to have been done to the
deformed slug found near the body of the deceased Richard Lino, nor to the
other slug extracted from Clemente, and that no ballistics examination was
conducted to determine from what caliber they were fired and if the gun used
was the same. Investigators did not even cause the surrender of accusedappellants firearms for examination and comparison. Neither were accusedappellants required to undergo a paraffin test.
Nonetheless, a ballistics examination is not indispensable, and even if
another weapon was in fact actually used in killing the victim, still the accused
cannot excape criminal liability therefor as he was already positively identified.
Because credible witnesses had already demonstrated accused-appellants'
culpability, there was no need to present further evidence linking them to the
crime. There is no requirement of a certain quantum of evidence before one may
be justly convicted of an offense except when specifically required by law. The
only requisite then is that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable
doubt.
[18]

[19]

Accused-appellants insist that they had no motive to shoot the victims and/or
the complaining witnesses. However, even the absence of a known motive, the
time-honored rule is that motive is not essential to convict when there is no doubt
as to the identity of the culprit. Lack of motive does not preclude conviction
when the crime and the participation of the accused therein are definitely shown,
particularly when we consider how nowadays, it is a matter of judicial
knowledge that persons have killed or committed serious offense for no reason at
all.
[20]

[21]

[22]

The defense also tried, but failed, to establish that Cogasi and Clemente
knew beforehand that Bangcado and Banisa were policemen as they all lived
and worked together in the same neighborhood. This allegation is not sufficient to
prove that the witnesses for the prosecution had any ill motive to testify against
accused-appellants. When there is no evidence to show any improper motive on

the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely against an accused or to

falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that
no such improper motive exists and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and
credit.
[23]

The defense also assails the conclusion reached by the trial court that the
accused were guilty because they remained silent when they were pinpointed by
Cogasi during the police line-up. The trial court asked, "Is it not that 'Qui tacen
concentire videtur,' meaning, 'Silence means consent'?"
[24]

Although the Rules of Court provides that an act or declaration made in the
presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says
nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or
comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be
given in evidence against him, courts should be cautious in interpreting silence
against the accused. Further, the facts do not support the conclusion that the
accused remained silent. Both Bangcado and Banisa gave their individual
reactions during the line-up but police discipline kept them from breaking rank.
As police officers, they are bound by the strict discipline of their profession, as
well as an awareness of their rights to remain silent and to avail of the services of
counsel. These rights are not diminished by the fact that they are policemen.
[25]

[26]

However, the trial court ruled, and correctly so, that at the time of the police
line-up, accused-appellants were not yet under the custody of the police
agencies. Their rights had not yet been restricted or curtailed. The right to
counsel attaches from the moment the investigation starts, i.e., when the
investigating officer begins to ask questions to elicit information and confessions
or admissions from the accused.
From the testimony of the victims as well as from the physical evidence, it
seems that SPO1 Bangcado was the lone gunman, while PO3 Banisa merely
stood behind him with his gun drawn. In his testimony, Cogasi narrated how the
shooting occured Q: You testified that the thin one who called himself Jose Bangcado pointed a gun at
Leandro Adawan, what type of gun is (sic) that x x x x
A: It was black and short.
Q: What about the fat man at that time, was identified as Cesar Banisa, what was he
doing at that time?
A: He was also standing beside him and was holding his gun.
Q: Would you illustrate to this Court how Jose Bangcado pointed a gun at Leandro
Adawan?

A: Witness stretch[ed] both his arms and clasped his hands together with the
forefinger extended in front of him.
Q: After you saw Jose Bangcado point a gun at Leandro Adawan, what else
transpired, Mr. Witness?
A: He suddenly fired his gun.
Q: To whom Mr. Witness did he fire his gun?
A: He fired his gun to the four of us.
Q: After firing his gun what else transpired, Mr. Witness?
A: I just felt that I fell down.
Q: Why did you fall down?
A: Because I was shot.[27]

On cross-examination, Cogasi affirmed his sworn statement taken by the

investigating officer immediately after the incident wherein he referred to only one
(1) gunman who did the shooting. He further testified that he heard four (4)
successive shots when the gunman started shooting, then heard more shots only
after he had succeeded in running away.
On his part, Clemente attested in his sworn statement that "the man in jacket
then ordered us to line up. After we have formed a line, he started shooting at us
starting from the left. He shot first Leandro, then Richard and followed by
Pacson. After hearing the shots and seeing my companions fall, I turned my back
and held my nape with my two (2) hands and started to run but I got hit and fell. I
got up and tried to run but I fell down again."
[28]

On the other hand, during his direct examination Clemente testified Q: Now, Mr. Witness, when these two (2) persons followed you and your companions,
what did you observe from them that time?
A: They have (sic) guns, sir.
Q: What kind of guns do (sic) they have?
A: Short and black, sir.
Q: And were they holding their guns?
A: They were holding their guns, sir x x x x

Q: After you were made to fall in line, what happened next?

A: He pointed a gun, sir.
Q: Who pointed the gun to whom?
A: The thin man pointed his gun at Leandro Adawan, sir.
Q: What else transpired after that?
A: They fired their guns at us, sir.
Q: Who shot at who (sic)?
A: The two (2) of them, sir, because there were two of them.[29]

On cross examination, Clemente testified Q: So, you said on that date you were frisked and then later on lined-up and when
you heard successive shots, you fell down?
A: When I heard the three (3) successive shots, I saw one pointing the gun again at
me, so, I turned around and prepared to run, but I was hit, sir. When I turned my
back and started to run, I was hit, sir.
Q: So, because you turned your back, you did not really see who actually shot you?
A: I saw the thin one point the gun at me and both were armed with guns, sir x x x x
Q: So, you want to tell the court that it was the thin one who shot you because he was
holding the gun that way, is that correct?
A: I do not know because both of them have (sic) guns, sir. But I saw the thin one
pointing a gun at me, sir.[30]

Thus, as to the identity of the gunman, it is apparent that both witnesses

were positive only as far as Bangcado was concerned. However, it seems that
they only concluded that Banisa participated in the shooting because he was also
holding a gun. The failure of the surviving victims to assert with confidence that
Banisa also fired his gun raises reasonable doubt as to whether he participated
in the shooting.
Accused-appellants deny the existence of treachery, nighttime and abuse of
public position to aggravate the commission of the crimes. It is settled that
qualifying circumstances cannot be presumed but must be established by clear
and convincing evidence, as conclusively as the killing itself. The defense
alleges that there is no evidence that accused-appellants made some
preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to insure the execution of the
[31]

crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend

himself. For treachery to be considered, two (2) elements must concur: (a) the
employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity
to defend himself or retaliate; and, (b) the means of execution were deliberately
or consciously adopted. In this case, treachery was not present. In a long line of
cases, the Court held that "the essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected
attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part."
[32]

[33]

To ensure that he was not in any risk, accused-appellant Bangcado frisked

and searched Cogasi, Clemente, Adawan and Lino to see if they were concealing
any weapons.After making sure that the victims were unarmed, Bangcado
directed the victims to form a line against the Ford Fierra to separate the victims
from each other and so that the latter could not rush to their friends
defense. Because Bangcado and Banisa were holding handguns, Cogasi and his
friends did as they were told and were caught unaware when they were shot. In
fact, Adawan and Lino died of gunshot wounds in the head, while Cogasi and
Clemente only sustained head wounds that did not prove fatal.
In the absence of any previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the
criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the
same person is individual and not collective, and that each of the participants is
liable only for his own acts. Consequently, Banisa must be absolved from
criminal responsibility for the assault on the victims. It is clear that neither the
victims nor Banisa could have anticipated Bangcados act of shooting the victims
since the attack was sudden and without any reason or purpose. Thus, the
criminal design of Bangcado had not yet been revealed prior to the killings.
[34]

For public position to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, the

public official must use his influence, prestige and ascendancy which his office
gives him in realizing his purpose. If the accused could have perpetrated the
crime without occupying his position, then there is no abuse of public position.
Hence, that aggravating circumstance cannot be appreciated here. While it
may seem that accused-appellants intended to assert their authority as
policemen and encourage in the victims minds the belief that they were part
of Operation KapKap when they frisked the victims, both Cogasi and Clemente
testified that they never told the investigating officers that their assailants might
be policemen. In fact, because the assailants were not in uniform, they believed
the latter to be civilians.
[35]

The defense claims that the injuries of the surviving victims were not serious
enough to classify the attack under the frustrated stage, therefore, they
committed only attempted homicide. However, the doctors who attended to the
surviving victims testified that had they not treated Cogasi and Clemente's
injuries the latter would have suffered from infection which could result in their
death. It is clear that only timely medical attention saved both victims from
imminent death.

Accused-appellants deny that there was an offer to compromise when their

relatives visited Miguel Adawan, the 81-year old father of Leandro Adawan. The
old Adawan in tears testified that he came to know of the accused Bangcado and
Banisa through their relatives when the latter came to his house in Besao, Mt.
Province. Although the incident occurred on 27 June 1993, the first visit was
sometime in April 1995 when Magdalena Mabiasan, the mother of Jose Banisa
came "for a possible settlement of the case." Again, sometime in August or
September 1996, Bangcados wife and parents, along with Banisas mother
Magdalena, visited him at Pico, La Trinidad.
[36]

[37]

The defense claims that the only reason the relatives of accused-appellant
went to visit and talk to Miguel Adawan was to prevent him from avenging his
sons death on the families of accused-appellant, in keeping with the tradition of
the Igorot indigenous people. Therefore, this cannot be interpreted as an implied
admission of guilt. Moreover, Sec. 27 of Rule 130 contemplates an offer of
compromise from the accused himself. There is no showing that the visits were
made with the knowledge or upon the instructions of accused-appellants. Thus,
even if the purpose of the visit was to negotiate a settlement, accused-appellants
had nothing to do with it, since they were neither participants nor initiators.
[38]

[39]

The trial court believed in the testimony of Adawan, compared to that of the
relatives of accused-appellants who could be biased, partial and, of course,
hoping to save the two (2) accused from the serious predicament they were in.
It posited this question:
[40]

But why is it that during the first time that they approached the 77-year old
man Adawan in Besao, Mountain Province, they were already assured that the
family of the deceased Adawan would not take revenge and for the last three
years, nothing happened to the families of the accused, still they again went to
the residence of Miguel Adawan at Pico, La Trinidad, Benguet. This would only
show that they tried to amicably settle the cases, but they were rebuffed.
[41]

But an offer of compromise from an unauthorized person cannot amount to

an admission of the party himself. Although the Court has held in some cases
that an attempt of the parents of the accused to settle the case is an implied
admission of guilt, we believe that the better rule is that for a compromise to
amount to an implied admission of guilt, the accused should be present or at
least had authorized the compromise.
[42]

[43]

In People v. Macatana it was held: "No implied admission can be drawn

from the efforts to arrive at a settlement outside the courts, primarily because
appellant did not take part in any of the negotiations. The efforts to settle the
case x x x in accordance with the established Muslim practices, customs and
traditions were initiated by acknowledged leaders x x x in an effort to prevent
further deterioration of the relations between the tribes."
[44]

[45]

The general rule is that claims for actual damages should be supported by
actual receipts. However, it is undisputed that the victims are members of the
indigenous community and were buried according to their customs and
traditions. The relatives of the victims attested that they incurred expenses for the
caao, the traditional gathering of Igorots. The Court is not unaware that the
informal market system still governs the economic transactions of indigenous
communities. Thus, receipts and other documents do not play a large role in their
daily commercial transactions. In this case, wherein it is clearly established that
the claimants were indeed members of indigenous communities, then the court
should allow reasonable claims for expenses incurred in relation to traditional
burial practices.
The heirs are also entitled to damages for the loss of earning capacity of the
deceased Leandro Adawan. The fact that the prosecution did not present
documentary evidence to support its claim for damages for loss of earning
capacity of the deceased does not preclude recovery of the damages.
Testimonial evidence is sufficient to establish a basis for which the court can
make a fair and reasonable estimate of the damages for the loss of earning
capacity. Moreover, in fixing the damages for loss of earning capacity of a
deceased victim, the Court can consider the nature of its occupation, his
educational attainment and the state of his health at the time of his death. The
testimony of Adawans father sufficiently established the basis for making such an
award. It was shown that Adawan was thirty-seven (37) years old at the time of
his death in 1993 and earnedP4,000.00 a month as a mechanic.
[46]

[47]

[48]

Hence, in accordance with the American Expectancy Table of

Mortality adopted by this Court in several cases, the loss of his earning capacity
is to be calculated as follows:
[49]

Net Earning Capacity (x) = Life Expectancy x Gross annual

income living expenses (50% of gross annual income)
where life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - age of deceased [37 years])
x = 2/3 x (80 - 37) x [(P4000.00 x 12) - (P4000.00 x 12)50%]
x = 2/3 x 43 x [P48,000.00 - P24,000.00]
x = [2/3 x 43] x P24,000.00
x = 28.67 x P24,000.00
x = P688,080.00

Since Leandro Adawan was thirty-seven (37) years old at the time of his
death, his life expectancy was 28.67 years. Considering that his average monthly
income wasP4,000.00, his gross annual income would be P48,000.00. Using the
above formula, the victims unearned income would thus be P688,080.00.
On the other hand, the Court has no basis to award damages for Richard
Lino loss of earning capacity because the prosecution failed to introduce any
evidence on this matter.
Civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 (consistent with prevailing
jurisprudence) is automatically granted to the offended party, or his/her heirs in
case of the formers death, without need of further evidence other than the fact of
the commission of any of the aforementioned crimes (murder, homicide, parricide
and rape). Moral and exemplary damages may be separately granted in addition
to indemnity. Moral damages can be awarded only upon sufficient proof that the
complainant is entitled thereto in accordance with Art. 2217 of the Civil Code,
while exemplary damages can be awarded if the crime is committed with one or
more aggravating circumstances duly proved. The amounts thereof shall be at
the discretion of the courts.
[50]

Under present case law, the award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is
mandatory upon the finding of the fact of murder. Moral damages, vis-avis compensatory damages or civil indemnity, are different from each other and
should thus be awarded separately. Thus, as explained in People v. Victor, the
indemnity authorized by our criminal law as civil liability ex delicto for the
offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and
aside from other established actual damages, is itself equivalent to actual or
compensatory damages in civil law. It is not to be considered as moral damages
thereunder, the latter being based on different jural foundations and assessed by
the court in the exercise of sound discretion.
[51]

[52]

[53]

In People v. Victor the Court increased the civil indemnity for rape committed
or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty
is authorized by the present amended law, from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. The
Court held that "This is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of
the penal law and the financial fluctations over time, but also an expression of the
displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes against
chastity." It is submitted that the heirs of victims of murder, which is also a
heinous crime, should not receive less than what victims of rape receive as civil
indemnity. If the civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused
without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of the offense, all the
more reason should the same minimum amount be imposed on those convicted
of murder, as more often than not the victims who are killed leave behind grieving
families who are depended upon them for support. Thus, indemnity
of P75,000.00 should therefore be reckoned for each count of murder committed
by accused-appellant SPO1 Jose Bangcado.
[54]

Since the crime was committed on 27 June 1993, the penalty for murder
prescribed by Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, prior to its amendment by RA
7659, which took effect only on 31 December 1993, should be applied in
imposing the penalty for frustrated murder, i.e., reclusion temporal maximum to
death.
The penalty for frustrated murder is one (1) degree lower than that
prescribed by the Penal Code for the consummated offense, hence, the
imposable penalty for frustrated murder should be prision mayor maximum
to reclusion temporal medium. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and
there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance present in the
commission of the offense, the penalty to be imposed for the frustrated murder
shall be taken from the range of prision correccional maximum to prision
mayormedium or four (4) years two (2) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years
as minimum, to the medium period of prision mayor maximum to reclusion
temporal or twelve (12) years five (5) months and eleven (11) days to fourteen
(14) years ten (10) months and twenty (20) days as maximum. Hence, an
indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years two (2) months and ten (10) days
of prision mayor medium as minimum to fourteen (14) years four (4) months and
ten (10) days of reclusion temporal medium as maximum may be considered
reasonable for the frustrated murder under the facts of this case.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo in Crim. Cases Nos. 11619-R
to 11622-R imposing reclusion perpetua for the two (2) counts of murder and the
indeterminate prison term of prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion
temporal in its medium period for two (2) counts of frustrated murder on both
accused-appellants SPO1 Jose Bangcado and PO3 Cesar Banisa is MODIFIED
as follows:
1. In Crim. Case No. 11619-R, accused-appellant SPO1 Jose Bangcado is
found GUILTY of murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code qualified by
treachery, and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the
victim Richard Lino P75,000.00 as indemnity for his death, P59,300.00 as actual
damages, P200,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs;
2. In Crim. Case No. 11620-R, accused-appellant SPO1 Jose Bangcado is
found GUILTY of murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by
treachery, and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the
victim Leandro Adawan P75,000.00 as indemnity for his death, P93,100.00 as
actual damages, P200,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs;
3. In Crim. Case No. 11621-R, accused-appellant SPO1 Jose Bangcado is
found GUILTY of frustrated murder under Art. 248 in relation to Art. 6 of the
Revised Penal Code.Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the
absence of modifying circumstances, he is sentenced to an indeterminate prison
term of eight (8) years two (2) months and ten (10) days of prision

mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years four (4) months and ten (10)
days reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, for the frustrated murder of the
victim Julio Clemente, and pay him P100,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay
the costs; and,
4. In Crim. Case No. 11622-R, accused-appellant SPO1 Jose Bangcado is
found GUILTY of frustrated murder under Art. 248 in relation to Art. 6 of the
Revised Penal Code.Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the
absence of modifying circumstances, he is sentenced to an indeterminate prison
term of of eight (8) years two (2) months and ten (10) days of prision
mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years four (4) months and ten (10)
days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, for the frustrated murder of
Pacson Cogasi, and pay him P100,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the
costs.
There being no finding of conspiracy with accused-appellant SPO1 Jose
Bangcado, PO3 Cesar Banisa is ACQUITTED of all the charges against him and,
consequently, is ordered released from custody in connection with herein cases,
unless he is held for other lawful causes.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

PEOPLE vs. BANGCADO, GR 132330, Nov. 28, 2000, 346 SCRA 189
At around 8:30 in the evening, Cogasi, Clemente, Adawan and Lino were at the Skyview
Restaurant, Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City, drinking and listening to folksongs.
Moments later, a group of five (5) arrived and sat one table away from Cogasi and his
friends. Among the newcomers was SPO1 Bangcado, and $PO3 Banisa. The rest of their
group were not identified.
At that time, members of the police force of Baguio City were conducting Operation
Kapkap at the Skyview Restaurant. They however exempted the table of PO3 Cesar
Banisa as they knew him to be a fellow policeman.
At around 9:00 o'clock that evening, Cogasi and his friends left the restaurant to go
home. They were residents of La Trinidad, Benguet. As they went behind the restaurant
where their Ford Fierra was parked, they noticed SPO1 Bangcado and PO3 Banisa
following them. Banisa asked Richard Lino for a light. Then Bangcado and Banisa asked
the group if they were willing to be frisked. Since the two (2) police officers were armed
with handguns and smelled of liquor, the group agreed to be frisked. Bangcado, with
Banisa standing guard behind him with a drawn gun, ordered Adawan, Lino, Cogasi, and
Clemente to form a line against the Ford Fierra facing him in that order. Without any
warning, Bangcado suddenly fired his gun in quick succession at the four (4) persons
lined up against the Ford Fierra. Cogasi saw Adawan and Lino fall down. Cogasi then felt
he was hit on the left side of his neck and he also fell down. He managed however to

crawl away and run. He woke up to find himself confined in a hospital together with
Clemente. There Cogasi learned that Lino and Adawan died from gunshot wounds in
their heads. Cogasi himself suffered a gunshot wound at the neck, at the junction of his
left jaw near the ear, while Clemente received two (2) gunshot wounds on his right
shoulder with one (1) of the bullets being lodged just below his right eye.
ISSUE: Whether there conspiracy in the commission of the crime
RULING: Thus, as to the identity of the gunman, it is apparent that both witnesses were
positive only as far as Bangcado was concerned. However, it seems that they only
concluded that Banisa participated in the shooting because he was also holding a gun.
The failure of the surviving victims to assert with confidence that Banisa also fired his
gun raises reasonable doubt as to whether he participated in the shooting.
In the absence of any previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal
responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same person is
individual and not collective, and that each of the participants is liable only for his own
acts. Consequently, Banisa must be absolved from criminal responsibility for the assault
on the victims. It is clear that neither the victims nor Banisa could have anticipated
Bangcados act of shooting the victims since the attack was sudden and without any
reason or purpose. Thus, the criminal design of Bangcado had not yet been revealed
prior to the killings.
There being no finding of conspiracy with accused-appellant SPO1 Jose Bangcado, PO3
Cesar Banisa is ACQUITTED of all the charges against him and, consequently, is ordered
released from custody in connection with herein cases, unless he is held for other lawful
causes.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 134730. September 18, 2000]

FELIPE GARCIA, JR., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT

OF
APPEALS
AND
THE
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
DECISION
KAPUNAN, J.:

In two separate Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
petitioner Felipe Garcia, Jr. was charged with frustrated murder in Criminal Case
No. 91-93374 and with murder in Criminal Case 91-93375 committed as follows:
Criminal Case No. 91-93374:

ThatonoraboutNovember3,1990,intheCityofManila,Philippines,thesaid
accusedconspiringandconfederatingwithtwootherswho[se]truenames,
identitiesandpresentwhereaboutsarestillunknownandhelpingoneanother,
didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniously,withintenttokilland
treachery,attack,assaultandusepersonalviolenceupononeREYNALDO

BERNARDOYDELROSARIO@BOYPANCHANG,bythenandthere
shootingthelatterwitharevolver,hittinghimontheneck,therebyinflicting
uponthesaidREYNALDOD.BERNARDO@BOYPANCHANGphysical
injurieswhichwasnecessarilyfatalandmortal,thusperformingalltheactsof
executionwhichwouldhaveproducedthecrimeofmurder,asaconsequence
butneverthelessdidnotproduceitbyreasonofcausesindependentofhiswill,
thatisbythetimelyandablemedicalassistancerenderedtothesaid
REYNALDOD.BERNARDO@BOYPANCHANGwhichpreventedhis
death.
ContrarytoLaw.[1]
xxx
Criminal Case No. 91-93375

ThatonoraboutNovember3,1990,intheCityofManila,Philippines,thesaid
accused,conspiringandconfederatingtogetherwithtwootherswhosetrue
names,identitiesandpresentwhereaboutsarestillunknownandhelpingone
another,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniously,withintentto
killandwithtreacheryattack,assaultandusepersonalforceuponone
FERNANDOB.LEAOYBERNARDO@BAGGING,bythenandthere
shootingthelatterwitharevolver,hittinghimonthehead,therebyinflicting
uponthesaidFERNANDOB.LEAO@BAGGINGgunshotwoundswhich
wasthedirectandimmediatecauseofhisdeaththereafter.
ContrarytoLaw.
x x x[2]
The two cases were consolidated and tried jointly before Branch 49 of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila.
Upon arraignment on 24 May 1991, the petitioner, assisted by counsel de
parte, entered a plea of Not Guilty to both charges.[3]
Trial on the merits then ensued. Based on the evidence presented, the trial
court summarized the events that led to the killing of Fernando Leao and the
near fatal injuries sustained by Reynaldo Bernardo as follows:

OnNovember3,1990,atabout11:30o'clockintheevening,ArnoldCorpuz
andFernandoLeao,a15yearoldstudent,andtheirfriends,wereconversing
alongMataasnaLupaStreet,Paco,Manila.FernandoLeaowasonthesideof
thestreet.Momentarily,apedicab,withRenatoGarcia(RenengPalayok),on

board,passedbyand,intheprocess,therightwheelofthepedicabranoverthe
rightfootofFernandoLeao.Thepedicabfailedtostopandcontinuedonits
way.Incensed,FernandoLeaoranafterthepedicab.ArnoldCorpuzfollowed
suit,atadistanceofaboutthree(3)metersawayfromthepedicab.When
FernandoLeaowasaboutabreastwiththepedicab,heutteredinvectives
butRenatoGarciaretaliatedandhurledinvectives,too,atFernandoLeao,
saying'Putanginaninyo.'FernandoLeaowasthenaheadofthepedicabwhen
helookedbackandsaw,tohisconsternation,RenatoGarciaplacinghisright
handontherightsideofhiswaistlineandabouttopullouthisgun.Afraidfor
hislife,FernandoLeaospedawayfromthepedicab,turnedtoanalleyandran
toMataasnaLupaStreet,Paco,Manila,directtothehouseofhisuncle,
ReynaldoBernardo,atNo.1281MataasnaLupa,Paco,Manila(Exhibit'E
1').ThepedicabsloweddownabitandthenturnedtowardsF.MuozStreet,
Paco,Manila.ArnoldCorpuzfollowedFernandoLeaotothealleyand,when
hesawhimagain,FernandoLeaowasconversingwithhisuncle,Reynaldo
Bernardo,bythegateofthelatter'shouse(Exhibit'E1').FernandoLeao
reportedtohisunclethatRenatoGarciaearlierutteredinvectivesathimand
eventriedtopullouthisgunfromthebackportionofhiswaistline.Reynaldo
BernardodecidedtohavetheincidentreportedtoPoliceStationNo.5ofthe
WesternPoliceDistrict.ReynaldoBernardochangedclothes,putonhisshoes
and,withFernandoLeaoandArnoldCorpuz,proceededtothehouseofhis
mother,EsperanzadelRosarioBernardo(Exhibits'E2'and'O2')toborrow
thelatter'sjeep,parkednearthebasketballcourt,alongMataasnaLupaStreet,
Paco,Manila,whichtheywilluseingoingtothepolicestation.Thehouseof
ReynaldoBernardowasabouttwenty(20)metersawayfromthehouseofhis
mother.
Thethree(3)thenturnedleftalongMataasnaLupaStreet,towardsthe
directionofthehouseofEsperanzadelRosarioBernardo.However,before
theycouldreachherhouse,theyhadtopassbytheintersectionofF.Muoz
StreetandMataasnaLupaStreet,Paco,Manila.Theintersectionwasabout
twentyfive(25)metersawayfromthehouseoftheAccusedandRenatoGarcia
andaboutfifty(50)metersawayfromthehouseofGerardoLugos,whichwas
neartheSouthSuperhighwayalready.
WhenReynaldoBernardo,FernandoLeaoandArnoldCorpuzwerenearthe
cornerofF.MuozandMataasnaLupaStreet,Paco,Manila,Reynaldo
BernardosawtheheadofGerardoLugoswhowaspeepingonthesidecorner
ofthevacantstore,atthesaidcornerofthestreet.However,Reynaldo
Bernardogavenosignificancetotheincident,therebeingnofeudor

misunderstandingbetweenhimandGerardoLugos.WhenReynaldoBernardo,
FernandoLeaoandArnoldCorpuzcontinuedontheirwalk,FernandoLeaoand
ReynaldoBernardowerewalkingsidebyside,FernandoLeaoontherightside
ofhisuncle,whileArnoldCorpuzwasthree(3)metersbehindthetwo(2)but
triedtoovertakethem.Whenthethree(3)passedbythefirstcornerofF.Muoz
Street,Paco,ManilaandMataasnaLupaStreet,Paco,Manila,ArnoldCorpuz
sawthree(3)malepersons,aboutseven(7)toten(10)metersawayontheirleft
side,walkingalongF.MuozStreet,Paco,Manila,goingtowardstheir
direction,butdidnotasyetrecognizethematthetime.However,whenthe
three(3)malepersonswereneartheportionofthestreetnearthestore,which
waslightedbythelightsemanatingfromtheMeralcopost(Exhibit'E'),Arnold
Corpuzrecognizedthethree(3)malepersons.ThefirstwasRenato(Reneng
Palayok)Garcia,whowasthenholdinga.38caliberrevolver,withhistwo(2)
handsraisedonthelevelofhisabreast,aimedatthem.BehindRenatoGarcia,
towardshisrightside,washisyoungerbrother,theAccusedandbehindthe
Accused,tohisrightside,wasJerryLugos.TheAccusedandJerryLugoswere
armedwithhandguns,alsoaimedatReynaldoBernardo.WhenReynaldo
Bernardo,FernandoLeaoandArnoldCorpuzwereabouttwo(2)tothree(3)
metersfromtheintersectionofF.MuozandMataasnaLupaStreets,Paco,
Manila,ReynaldoBernardoturned,lookedtowardshisleft,andsawRenato
Garcia,theAccusedandJerryLugos,allarmedandtheirgunsaimedat
him.ReynaldoBernardothenstartedtosprinttowardwhereRenatoGarcia,the
AccusedandJerryLugoswerebutbarelyhadReynaldoBernardotakenoff
whenRenatoGarciafiredhisgun,once,atReynaldoBernardoandhitthelatter
ontheleftsideofhisneck(Exhibit'B').RenatoGarciawasthenonlyabouttwo
(2)meterswayfromReynaldoBernardo.WhenRenatoGarciafiredat
ReynaldoBernardo,theAccusedandJerryLugoslookedaroundasifactingas
lookouts.ReynaldoBernardoplacedhisleftpalmontheleftsideofhisneck
whichwashit,fell,atfirst,onakneelingpositionandthen,ontheground,face
down(Exhibits'E3'and'O').Instinctively,afterReynaldoBernardowashit,he
flungandswunghishandinward,outwardandsidewardand,intheprocess,hit
ArnoldCorpuzwhowasthenabouttogivesuccortoReynaldo
Bernardo.ArnoldCorpuzthenfellontheground,onasittingposition.Arnold
Corpuzthenstoodupandthenfellagainonakneelingposition(Exhibit'E
4').Inthemeantime,too,FernandoLeaorushedtohisuncleandtriedtolift
him(Exhibit'E5').FernandoLeaowasthenonakneelingposition.Inthe
meantime,too,RenatoGarcia,theAccusedandJerryLugoscontinuedwalking
towardswhereReynaldoBernardowassprawledandFernandoLeaobeside
himandArnoldCorpusinfrontofFernandoLeao.ThebodyofReynaldo

Bernardowasbetweenthem.Three(3)successiveshotsthenensued.Arnold
Corpuzthendecidedtoliedownontheground,facedown,hisfaceonthefeet
ofReynaldoBernardo,toavoidbeinghitwithhistwo(2)handsunderhis
breast.ArnoldCorpuzthenraisedhisheadalittleandnoticedthatthefront
portionoftheheadofFernandoLeaowasbulgingandFernandoLeaofalling
down.ItturnedoutthatFernandoLeaowasfelled(sic)byagunshotwoundat
thebackofhishead.Intheprocess,ArnoldCorpuzsawRenatoGarcia,the
AccusedandJerryLugosbehindFernandoLeao,stillholdingtheir
guns.RenatoGarcia,theAccusedandJerryLugosthenfledfromthescene
together.ArnoldCorpuzalsofledfromthescenetowardsthehouseof
EsperanzadelRosarioBernardotopleadforhelp.Ontheway,ArnoldCorpuz
metDominadorBernardo,Jr.,thebrotherofReynaldoBernardowhocame
fromthebasketballcourt.DominadorBernardo,Jr.inquiredwhyArnold
CorpuzwasrunningandArnoldCorpuzz(sic)replied,thus:TinamaansiKuya
BoyatFerdie.'(pp.214216,id.)[4]
The victims were taken to the Medical Center Manila at about 12:00
midnight. Subsequently, Leao was transferred to the Orthopedic Hospital, where
he died in the morning of November 4, 1990. [5]
Dr. Marcial Cenido performed an autopsy on the cadaver of Leao and
prepared a report with the following Post Mortem Findings:

EXTERNALINJURIESANDEXTENSIONSINTERNALLY:
1.Gunshotwound,thruandthruwiththefollowingpointsofentryand
exit:
PointofEntryrightoccipitalregion,head,58.5inchesfromtheheel,3
cm.fromtheposteriormidline,measuring0.5cm.x0.3cm.andwiththe
contusioncollarmeasures1cm.x0.7cm.and
PointofExitrightforehead,5cm.fromtheanteriormidline,58inches
fromtheheel,andmeasures1.3cm.x0.5cm.
Course:Forwards,veryslightlyupwardsandveryslightlytowardsthe
lateralpenetratingthecranialcavityandlaceratingtherightoccipital,
parietalandfrontallobesofthebrain.
2.Hematoma,belowtherighteyebrow.
INTERNALFINDINGS:

1. Laceration of the right occipital, parietal and frontal lobes of the brains and
subrachnoid hemorrhage, and generalized pallor of the internal organs and
tissues; and
2. Recovered from the stomach about a glassful of dark liquid with some rice
and vegetables and without alcoholic odor.

CAUSEOFDEATH
Gunshotwound,rightoccipitalregion,head.[6]
On the other hand, Dr. Pedro P. Solis, Medico-Legal Officer of the Medical
Center Manila, performed an operation on and gave medical treatment to
Reynaldo Bernardo. The report he prepared showed the following findings:

Abrasion,3cm.x2cm.scalp,frontalregion,leftside;3cm.3.5cmx1cm.
lateralaspect,frontalregion,leftside.Wound,gunshot,circularinshape,0.9
cm.indiameter,lateralaspect,neckleftside,indiseanteriortriangle,directed
medially,downwardsandslightlybackwards,penetratingsofttissuesofthe
neck,involvingexternaljugularvein,thenmakingwoundexistatright
paravertebralareathatthelevelofT3T4and3cm.belowthehighestpointof
theshoulder.[7]
Based on the above established facts, the trial court rendered judgment, the
dispositive portion reading as follows:

Inviewofalltheforegoing,judgmentisherebyrenderedinthefollowingcases
towit:
1.InPeopleversusFelipeGarcia,Jr.,CriminalCaseNo.9193374,
judgmentisherebyrenderedfindingtheAccusedguiltybeyondreasonable
doubtofthecrimeofFrustratedHomicideandherebysentencessaid
AccusedtoanindeterminatepenaltyoffromFour(4)YearsandTwo(2)
monthsofPrisionCorreccional,asMinimum,toEight(8)YearsandOne
(1)DayofPrisionMayor,asMaximum,andtopaytoReynaldoBernardo
theamountofP115,631.00asactualdamagesandP25,000.00asmoral
damages;
2.InPeopleversusFelipeGarcia,Jr.CriminalCaseNo.9193375,
judgmentisherebyrenderedfindingtheAccusedguiltybeyondreasonable
doubtofthecrimeof"Homicide"andherebymetesonhiman
indeterminatepenaltyoffromEight(8)YearsandOne(1)DayofPrision
Mayor,asMinimumtoFourteen(14)Years,Eight(8)MonthsandOne(1)

DayofReclusionTemporalasmaximum,andtopaytotheheirsof
FernandoLeaotheamountofP10,040.00asactualdamagesand
P50,000.00bywayofindemnity.[8]
Petitioner elevated his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which on 21 May
1998, affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. [9] Hence, the present case,
petitioner raising the following assignment of errors:
I

THELOWERCOURTGRAVELYERREDINEVALUATING
EVIDENCEDIRECTEDAGAINSTSUSPECTSGERRYLUGOSAND
RENATOGARCIAINFERENTIALLYAGAINSTACCUSED
APPELLANTFELIPEGARCIA,JR.,UNDERTHEPRINCIPLEOF
CONSPIRACYSOCALLED.
II

THELOWERCOURTERREDSERIOUSLYERREDIN
APPRECIATINGTHEFACTSANDCIRCUMSTANCES
ESTABLISHEDINTHETRIALAGAINSTACCUSEDAPPELLANT
ASCOCONSPIRATORTHEREOF,AND,
III

THELOWERCOURTERREDSERIOUSLYINFINDINGACCUSED
APPELLANTGUILTYASCOPRINCIPALINHOMICIDEAND
FRUSTRATEDHOMICIDEGROUNDEDONCONSPIRACYWITH
THIRDPERSONS(GERRYLUGOSANDRENATOGARCIA)WHO
AREMERESUSPECTSANDSTRANGERSINTHETWOCASESAS
THEYWERENOTIMPLEADEDTHEREINNORCHARGEDAS
JOHNANDRICARDODOESINEITHERORBOTH
INFORMATIONS."[10]
Petitioner asserts that since he alone was named in the information, "it would
seem by implication from the narration in the information that it was being made
to appear that the accused was in fact the gunman who acted in conspiracy with
unknown persons. The evidence later presented proved otherwise and it turned
out that it was Renato Garcia alone who shot and wounded Reynaldo Bernardo
and shot and killed Fernando Leao. It was not, therefore, in keeping with the
evidence on record proper to convict the accused based merely on the theory
that there was conspiracy when no sufficient evidence to support such fact
exist."[11]

Contrary to petitioners argument, there is no irregularity in the information to

warrant a reversal of the conviction. All material facts and essential elements of
the crimes, for which petitioner is charged, were alleged therein. Conspiracy was
alleged in the information. Thus, it is not necessary to allege with exactitude the
specific act of the accused, as it is a well-settled doctrine that in conspiracy the
act of one is the act of all.[12]
Neither is the fact that the two others allegedly in conspiracy with the
petitioner were not named with particularity, nor tried and convicted, of any
moment. An information alleging conspiracy can stand even if only one person is
charged except that the court cannot pass verdict on the co-conspirators who
were not charged in the information.[13]
This Court does not doubt the guilt of the petitioner. The findings of a trial
court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, given the clear
advantage of a trial judge over an appellate magistrate in the appreciation of
testimonial evidence. Absent any showing that trial courts calibration of the
credibility was flawed, we are bound by its assessment. [14]
An examination of the records will reveal that the prosecution witnesses
positively identified the accused. Reynaldo Bernardo, who sustained injuries from
a gunshot wound, narrated the incident as follows:
FISCAL PERALTA:
Where were you when this Fernando Leao told you that a gun was poked on (sic)
him?
WITNESS:
I was in our house, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
Can you still recall that (sic) time it was when this Fernando Leao told you that a gun
was poked on (sic) him?
WITNESS:
I think about 11:30 oclock, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
And did you come to know as to what time or that date was that poking incident took
place.
WITNESS:
On November 3, 1990, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
At what time was it, if you know?
WITNESS:
I was told at about 11:30 o'clock, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:
You said that at around 11:40 o'clock in the evening at the corner of Mataas na Lupa
and F. Muoz street, you were with two (2) men, can you recall of any unusual
incident that happened at that corner?
WITNESS:
We were shot sir. "Pinagbabaril kami."
FISCAL PERALTA:
Who shot you if you can still recall?
WITNESS:
Reneng Palayok and his two (2) other companions by the name of Peping Palayok
and Jerry Lugos, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
How far were you in relation to the place where these men shot you?
WITNESS:
About seven (7) meters away, sir, it is very near.
FISCAL PERALTA:
Can you still recall the relative positions of these men whom you said shot you and
your position at the time that (sic) shots were fired?
ATTY. UY:
I object to the question, Your Honor, on the ground that the same is very leading.
FISCAL PERALTA:
I will reform, Your Honor. You said that you were about more or less seven (7) meters
away from the men. Now, my question to you is, were you hit?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
And where were you hit?
WITNESS:
At my (sic) left side of my neck, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
And at the time that you were hit on the neck, where were these three (3) men at that
time?
WITNESS:
They were on my left side, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:

And what were these three (3) men actually doing at the time that they shot you?
WITNESS:
They were armed with guns, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
Have you known this Rene Palayok even before November 3, 1990?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir, since we were young.
FISCAL PERALTA:
What about this Peping Palayok, have you known also this Peping Palayok?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir, I have known him also since we were young.
FISCAL PERALTA:
How about this Jerry Lugos?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir, he is my childhood mate.

xxx
COURT:
Granted.
FISCAL PERALTA:
Now, Mr. Witness, after you were hit on the left side of your neck, what happened
next?
WITNESS:
I fell down, sir, face down.
FISCAL PERALTA:
And when you fell down, face down, can you still recall what happened next?
WITNESS:
After that, sir, I heard shots.
FISCAL PERALTA:
Now, if you see again that Peping Palayok whom you said was one of those who shot
you, will you still be able to recognize him?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:

Will you please look inside the Court and point to him?
WITNESS:
That person, sir.
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointing to a person who, when asked, stated his name as Felipe Garcia, Jr.
[15]

One of Bernardos companion, prosecution witness Arnold Corpuz, testified in

this wise:
FISCAL PERALTA:
Could you please tell to this Honorable Court why you were not able to reach the
house of Reynaldo Bernardo?
WITNESS:
Because there were three (3) male persons who were waiting nakaabang for us, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
Why did you say that these three (3) men were waiting or nakaabang for you?
WITNESS:
Because while we were walking, they were already there holding guns, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
Do you know these persons who were holding guns?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
And who were these persons whom you said were waiting for you and holding guns?
WITNESS:
Reneng Palayok, Peping and Jerry Lugos, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
What is again the full name of this Rene(ng) Palayok, if you know?
WITNESS:
Renato Garcia, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
What about this Peping?
WITNESS:
Felipe Garcia, sir.[16]

In the face of petitioner's positive identification, petitioners defense of alibi

cannot hold water. No jurisprudence in criminal cases is more settled than the
rule that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, and the same should be rejected
when the identity of the accused has been sufficiently and positively established
by eyewitnesses to the crime.[17]
The factual findings of the trial court that petitioner participated in the
perpetration of the crime, such being supported by evidence on record, will not
be disturbed by this Court. However, we are of the persuasion that the
prosecution failed to prove with positive and competent evidence the fact that the
act of the petitioner was direct or actually necessary to the commission of the
crime.
The existence of conspiracy cannot be presumed. Similar to the physical act
constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt.[18] The mere fact that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the
criminal design of the principal perpetrator and aided the latter in consummating
the crime does not automatically make him a co-conspirator. Both knowledge of
and participation in the criminal act are also inherent elements of an accomplice.
[19]
In his commentaries on the Revised Penal Code, Chief Justice Ramon Aquino
explains:

Theguiltofanaccompliceshouldbepredicatedonanactthatwasdonein
furtheranceofthecommissionofthecrimebytheprincipal.Theaccomplice
musthaveknownthattheprincipalintendedtocommitaparticularcrime.In
otherwords,heshouldhavecommunitypurposewiththeprincipal.xxx[20]
In the case of People vs. Tamayo,[21] citing the Supreme Court of Spain, this Court
made the following exposition on the characteristics of an accomplice:

xxxItisanessentialconditiontotheexistenceofcomplicity,notonlythat
thereshouldbearelationbetweentheactsdonebytheprincipalandthose
attributedtothepersonchargedasaccomplice,butitisfurthermorenecessary
thatthelatter,withknowledgeofthecriminalintent,shouldcooperatewiththe
intentionofsupplyingmaterialormoralaidintheexecutionofthecrimeinan
efficaciousway.
In cases of doubt as to whether persons acted as principals or accomplices,
the doubt must be resolved in their favor and they should be held guilty as
accomplices.[22] Such principle was applied by this Court in the case of People v.
Clemente:

Inthecaseofappellants,CarlosandPascualClemente,whiletheyjoinedtheir
brotherinthepursuitofthefleeingMatnog,andintheattackonhimashefell,
yettheprosecutioneyewitnesswasunabletoassertpositivelythatthetwo

managedtohitthefallenman.Therebeingnoshowingofconspiracy,andthe
extentoftheirparticipationinthehomicidebeinguncertain,theyshouldbe
giventhebenefitofthedoubt,andconsequentlytheyaredeclaredtobemere
accomplicesinthecrime.[23]
After a circumspect examination of the evidence, we find that other than a
showing that petitioner assisted Renato Garcia in the slaying of Fernando Leao
and the infliction of injuries upon Reynaldo Bernardo, the prosecution failed to
present other evidence which would positively establish the existence of
conspiracy. Thus, this Court is of the belief that petitioner-accused should only be
held liable as an accomplice. This seems to be the more reasonable and safer
course.
Even if we were to agree with the trial court that conspiracy existed between
accused-petitioner and two other malefactors, in particular Renato Garcia, who
was positively identified as the gunman, still this Court is of the conviction that
the petitioner should only be held liable as an accomplice. petitioners
participation was hardly indispensable. As the trial court pointed out, the
petitioner merely acted as a lookout. The testimony of Arnold Corpuz is telling:
FISCAL PERALTA:
And what happened after you saw these three (3) men waiting for you armed with
guns?
WITNESS:
They fired a gun once and Kuya Boy was hit, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
What part of the body of Boy was hit?
WITNESS:
Here, sir.
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointing to the left portion of his neck.
COURT:
I cannot understand that. You said that they fired once. How many fired?
WITNESS:
Only one, Your Honor.
FISCAL PERALTA:
Who was that person who fired the gun?
WITNESS:
Mang Rey or Rey Palayok, sir.

FISCAL PERALTA:
And you said that there were three (3) of them. What did these Peping and Jerry
Lugos do when Rene Palayok fired a gun that hit your Kuya Boy?
WITNESS:
They were behind Mang Rene, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
You said that they were behind Rene Palayok. What did they do afterwards after
Rene fired a gun that hit your Kuya Boy?
ATTY. UY:
Very leading, Your Honor.
COURT:
May answer.
WITNESS:
They were looking around holding their guns as if they were acting as look outs, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
After your Kuya Boy was hit on the neck, what happened next?
WITNESS:
I saw Fernando went (sic) near his uncle so that he could lift his uncle, sir.
FISCAL PERALTA:
Was he able to lift his uncle Reynaldo Bernardo?
WITNESS:
Not anymore, sir, because there were continuous firing of guns about three (3) times.
FISCAL PERALTA:
What happened to Fernando Leao when there was a continuous firing for at least
three (3) times?
ATTY. UY:
Leading, Your Honor.
COURT:
May answer.
WITNESS:
He was hit on the back of his head, sir.
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointing to the right back portion of his head just behind his right ear.
FISCAL PERALTA:

And do you know who shot this Fernando Leao?

WITNESS:
Yes, sir. It was Mang Rene.
FISCAL PERALTA:
What did the companions of Rene Palayok do when Rene Palayok shot Fernando
Leao?
ATTY. UY:
Very leading, Your Honor.
COURT:
May answer.
WITNESS:
They were acting as aide and they were following Rene Palayok, sir.[24]

As can be seen from the above testimony, petitioner's participation was

hardly indispensable. In the case of People v. Nierra,[25] this Court made the following
ruling:

AfteraconscientiousreflectiononthecomplicityofDoblenandRojas,we
havereachedtheconclusionthattheyshouldbeheldguiltyasaccomplices.Itis
true,strictlyspeaking,thatascoconspiratorstheyshouldbepunishedasco
principals.However,sincetheirparticipationwasnotabsolutelyindispensable
totheconsummationofthemurder,therulethatthecourtshouldfavorthe
milderformofliabilitymaybeappliedtothem.
Insomeexceptionalsituations,havingcommunityofdesignwiththeprincipal
doesnotpreventamalefactorfrombeingregardedasanaccompliceifhisrole
intheperpetrationofthehomicideormurderwas,relativelyspeaking,ofa
minorcharacter.
WHEREFORE, the herein questioned decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby MODIFIED to wit:
1. In People versus Felipe Garcia, Jr., Criminal Case No. 91-93374, judgment is
hereby rendered finding the Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an
ACCOMPLICE in the crime of Frustrated Homicide and hereby sentences
said Accused to an indeterminate penalty of Four (4) months of Arresto
Mayor, as Minimum, to Four (4) years and One (1) Day ofPrision
Correcional, as Maximum;
2. In People versus Felipe Garcia, Jr. Criminal Case No. 91-93375, judgment is
hereby rendered finding the Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an
ACCOMPLICE in the crime of "Homicide and hereby metes on him an

indeterminate penalty of Two (2) Years of Prision Correccional, as Minimum,

to Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor, as Maximum.

No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, and Pardo, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), I vote to convict him as principal.
Ynares-Santiago, J., on leave.