003 ABARQUEZ V. PEOPLE (LU) group ran away.
Almojuela then told Abarquez that Almojuela was
January 20, 2006 | Carpio J. | Equipoise Rule
PETITIONER: Coverdale Abarquez y Evangelista
RESPONDENTS: The People of the Philippines
SUMMARY: Coverdale Abarquez (Abarquez for brevity) was charged
before the RTC of Manila with Homicide for conspiring with Alberto
Almojuela in killing Ricardo Quejong and Attempted Homicide for
conspiring with Almojuela in killing Jose Paz but failing to execute all
acts of execution. The cases were consolidated (the case happened in Sta.
Mesa, Manila).
The prosecution alleged that Quejong and Paz were in a drinking spree at
the house of their friend Boyet where they were celebrating the birthday
of Boyet’s son. When Quejong and Paz decided to go home, they were
joined by Boyet Tong, Bardie Abarquez (son of the accused), and Sonito
Masula (referred to as the Paz Group) where they proceeded towards San
Jose exit.
6 to 7 meters away from Boyet’s house, the Paz Group was blocked by
the Almojuela group composed of: Alberto Almojuela, Ising, and Dale
Abarquez (the accused in this case), who were also having a drinking
spree in front of Almojuela’s house. An altercation happened where
Almojuela stabbed Paz on his left arm and was held on both shoulders by
Abarquez. Almojuela then grappled with Quejong where both of them
fell to the ground. When Paz was able to free himself for Abarquez, he
tried to lift Quejong from the ground but Quejong was already dead. Paz
ran and asked for help. Quejong died at the hospital while Paz’s wounds
were treated. Abarquez voluntarily appeared at the police station
while Almojuela voluntarily surrendered himself to SP04 Soriano at the
police station.
Abarquez on the other hand contends that around 7:30 PM, Almojuela’s
wife went to his house informing him that the Paz group was challenging
Almojuela to a fist fight. Being a barangay kagawad, Abarquez
immediately went to Almojuela’s house. Upon arrival, Abarquez saw
Quejong strangling Almojuela on the ground, Paz holding Almojuela’s
waist and punching his stomach, and Masula holding a piece of rock as if
waiting for a chance to strike Almojuela. To pacify the situation,
Abarquez fired two warning shots to pacify the situation. The Paz
merely trying to stop the Paz group from using marijuana. Almojuela and
Abarquez then went home. Almojuela reported what happened to the
chief tanod and 2 kagawads of the barangay. Upon arriving home, the
policemen, barangay chairman, and the media were there so Abarquez
went to the police station to shed light to the situation.
RTC: Convicted Abarquez as an accomplice for the crime of homicide
and acquitted Abarquez for the attempted homicide case.
CA: Affirmed the RTC. CA gave more credence to the testimony of Paz
and denied Abarquez's allegation that he merely went to the crime scene
to pacifiy the incident.
Before the SC, Abarquez argues 1) that the prosecution failed to satisfy
the test of moral certainty in his conviction as an accomplice, 2) that the
CA misappreciated the facts, and 3) that the witnesses who testified
against him are not credible.
Issue: Whether the CA erred in convicting Abarquez by misappreciating
the facts and basing its conclusion on speculation and conjectures – YES.
Ruling:
The SC acquitted Abarquez. The Court granted the petition by treating
the case as an exception. The rule is that the trial court is in the best
position to determine the value and weight of the testimony of a witness.
The exception is if the trial court failed to consider certain facts of
substance and value, which if considered, might affect the result of
the case.
With respect to the merits, the SC found that both the RTC and CA relied
on the testimony of Paz in convicting Abarquez that Abarquez holding
his shoulders preventing Paz in helping Quejong. However, upon
examination of the Paz’s testimony, the only words that the accused
Abarquez uttered were: matapang ka Joey, tumigil ka na. The SC finds
that this does not show concurrence in Almojuela’s criminal design
by applying the equipoise rule. The SC concluded that the utterance of
Abarquez is to be interpreted of stopping the fight instead of joining it.
DOCTRINES:
 1) When there is doubt on the guilt of an accused, the doubt should be group from using marijuana. Almojuela and Abarquez then went
resolved in his favor. home. Almojuela reported what happened to the chief tanod and 2
kagawads of the barangay. Upon arriving home, the policemen,
2) Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in issue or there is doubt on barangay chairman, and the media were there so Abarquez went to
which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of the police station to shed light to the situation.
proof loses. 5.!RTC: Convicted Abarquez as an accomplice for the crime of homicide
and acquitted Abarquez for the attempted homicide case.
6.!CA: Affirmed the RTC. CA gave more credence to the testimony of
FACTS:
Paz and denied Abarquez's allegation that he merely went to the
1.! Coverdale Abarquez (Abarquez for brevity) was charged before the
crime scene to pacifiy the incident.
RTC of Manila with Homicide for conspiring with Alberto
7.!Before the SC, Abarquez argues 1) that the prosecution failed to
Almojuela in killing Ricardo Quejong and Attempted Homicide for
satisfy the test of moral certainty in his conviction as an accomplice,
conspiring with Almojuela in killing Jose Paz but failing to execute
2) that the CA misappreciated the facts, and 3) that the witnesses
all acts of execution. The cases were consolidated (the case happened
who testified against him are not credible.
in Sta. Mesa, Manila).
2.!The prosecution alleged that Quejong and Paz were in a drinking spree
ISSUE/s: Whether the CA erred in convicting Abarquez by misappreciating
at the house of their friend Boyet where they were celebrating the
the facts and basing its conclusion on speculation and conjectures – YES.
birthday of Boyet’s son. When Quejong and Paz decided to go home,
they were joined by Boyet Tong, Bardie Abarquez (son of the
RULING: WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the 23
accused), and Sonito Masula (referred to as the Paz Group) where
June 2000 Decision and 7 November 2001 Resolution of the Court of
they proceeded towards San Jose exit.
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 21450, which affirmed the 30 September 1997
3.!6 to 7 meters away from Boyet’s house, the Paz Group was blocked by
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 50 in Criminal Cases
the Almojuela group composed of: Alberto Almojuela, Ising, and
Nos. 94-135055-56. We ACQUIT Coverdale Abarquez y Evangelista as an
Dale Abarquez (the accused in this case), who were also having a
accomplice in the crime of homicide in Criminal Case No. 94-135055. No
drinking spree in front of Almojuela’s house. An altercation
pronouncement as to costs.
happened where Almojuela stabbed Paz on his left arm and was held
on both shoulders by Abarquez. Almojuela then grappled with
RATIO:
Quejong where both of them fell to the ground. When Paz was able
1.! The SC acquitted Abarquez. The Court granted the petition by
to free himself for Abarquez, he tried to lift Quejong from the ground
treating the case as an exception. The rule is that the trial court is in
but Quejong was already dead. Paz ran and asked for help. Quejong
the best position to determine the value and weight of the testimony
died at the hospital while Paz’s wounds were treated. Abarquez
of a witness. The exception is if the trial court failed to consider
voluntarily appeared at the police station while Almojuela
certain facts of substance and value, which if considered, might
voluntarily surrendered himself to SP04 Soriano at the police station.
affect the result of the case.
4.!Abarquez on the other hand contends that around 7:30 PM,
2.! With respect to the merits, Paz’s testimony does not show that
Almojuela’s wife went to his house informing him that the Paz group
Abarquez concurred with Almojuela’s criminal design. “Tumigil”
was challenging Almojuela to a fist fight. Being a barangay
literally means “stop.” Clearly, Abarquez was trying to stop Paz
kagawad, Abarquez immediately went to Almojuela’s house. Upon
from joining the fray, not from helping Quejong. Paz claims that he
arrival, Abarquez saw Quejong strangling Almojuela on the ground,
was only trying to talk to Almojuela. However, Paz could not have
Paz holding Almojuela’s waist and punching his stomach, and
been merely talking to Almojuela, as he tried to portray, because
Masula holding a piece of rock as if waiting for a chance to strike
Almojuela was already grappling with Quejong at that time. Paz
Almojuela. To pacify the situation, Abarquez fired two warning
interpreted Abarquez’s action as an attempt to prevent him from
shots to pacify the situation. The Paz group ran away. Almojuela
then told Abarquez that Almojuela was merely trying to stop the Paz
 helping Quejong. His interpretation was adopted by the trial court
and sustained by the Court of Appeals.
3.! Yet, in his testimony, Paz admitted that while restrain ing him,
Abarquez was scolding or reprimanding him and telling him to
stop. It was not shown that Abarquez was stopping Paz from
helping Almojuela. It is more likely that Abarquez was trying to
stop Paz from joining the fight. Abarquez’s act of trying to stop
Paz does not translate to assistance to Almojuela.
4.! When there is doubt on the guilt of an accused, the doubt should be
resolved in his favor. We apply in this case the equipoise rule. Where
the evidence on an issue of fact is in issue or there is doubt on which
side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof
loses.
a.! “x x x The equipoise rule finds application if, as in this
case, the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable
of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent
with the innocence of the accused and the other
consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not
fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to
produce a conviction. Briefly stated, the needed quantum
of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is
found lacking.”