Criminal Law: People v Sabalones

294 SCRA 751, August 31, 1998

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.ROLUSAPE SABALONES alias "Roling," ARTEMIO TIMOTEO BERONGA,
TEODULO ALEGARBES and EUFEMIO CABANERO, accused, ROLUSAPE
SABALONES alias "Roling" and ARTEMIO TIMOTEO BERONGA, accusedappellants.
Fact: Beronga, Sabalones, Alegarbes, and Cabanero were convicted
after a shooting incident in Cebu in 1985 which led to the death of
Glenn Tiempo and Alfredo Nardo, and fatal injuries of Nelson Tiempo,
Rey Bolo and Rogelio Presores. The victims were asked to bring the car
of a certain Stephen Lim who also attended a wedding party. Nelson
Tiempo drove the car with Rogelio Presores. Alfredo Nardo drove the
owner-type jeep along with Glenn Tiempo and Rey Bolo to aid the
group back to the party after parking the car at Lims house. When
they reached the gate, they were met with a sudden burst of gunfire.
The accused were identified as the gunmen. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision of the trial court. Sabalones and Beronga
appealed.

Crime Committed: Two counts of murder, and three counts of

frustrated murder
Contention of the People: Prosecution witnesses Edwin Santos and
Rogelio Presores testified about the shooting and identified the faces of
the accused. Presores was riding in the car that is behind the jeep. He
positively identified Sabalones as one of the gunmen. When the
gunmen fired at the car, driver Nelson Tiempo immediately
maneuvered and arrived at Major Juan Tiempos house from which they
have escaped death.
Contention of the Accused: Accused-appellants Sabalones and Beronga
denied their presence during the commission of the crime. Sabalones
presented numerous witnesses who stated that he was sound asleep
when the incident took place [since he got tired watching over his
brothers wake]. While Beronga testified that he attended a cock-derby
in Cebu, and was fetched by his wife at 7 pm, arrived home by 10:30
pm to sleep. Sabalones even escaped from place to place to flee from

the wrath of Maj. Juan Tiempo, the father of the two victims. The
defense even pointed out errors from the testimonies of the witnesses
arguing that the place where the incident happened is dim and not
lighted.
RULING: The appeal is DENIED. Costs against appellants.

Issue 1: Whether the prosecution witnesses and evidences are

credible?
Yes. RTC findings were binding to court with appreciated testimonies of
two witnesses. There was positive identification by survivors who saw
them when they peered during lulls in gunfire. The place was well-lit,
whether from post of cars headlights. The extrajudicial confession has
no bearing because the conviction was based on positive identification.
It is binding though to the co-accused because it is used as
cirmustancial evidence corroborated by one witness. The
inconcistencies are minor and inconsequential which strengthen
credibility of testimony. Furthermore, in aberratio ictus [mistake in
blow], mistake does not diminish culpability; same gravity applies,
more proper to use error in personae. Alibi cannot prevail over positive
identification by the prosecution witnesses.
Issue 2: Whether the alibis are acceptable?
No. It was still quite near the crime scene. It is overruled by positive
identification. Using the case of People v. Nescio, Alibi is not credible
when the accused-appellant is only a short distance from the scene of
the crime. Furthermore, flight indicates guilt.
Issue 3:Whether the correct penalty is imposed?
No. Under Article 248 of the RPC, the imposable penalty is reclusion
temporal in its maximum period, to death. There being no aggravating
or mitigating circumstance, aside from the qualifying circumstance of
treachery, the appellate court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua for
murder. The CA erred in computing the penalty for each of the three
counts of frustrated murder. Under Article 50 of the RPC, the penalty
for frustrated felony is next lower in degree than that prescribed by law
for the consummated felony. Because there are no mitigating or
aggravating conspiracy between the two accused. It does not matter
that the prosecution has failed to show who was between the two who
actually pulled the trigger that killed the child. They are liable as coconspirators since the act of a conspirator becomes the act of another

regardless of the precise degree of participation in the act.

Also there was a presence of treachery, because of the circumstances
that the crime was done at night time and that the accused hid
themselves among the bamboo. Evident premeditation is also an
aggravating circumstance [the accused had planned to kill the victim
some days before].