1.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff,

vs.
MANOLO VILLANUEVA alias "BOY" VILLANUEVA, accused.
G.R. No. 95851 March 1, 1995
1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WITNESSES; TESTIMONIES; CREDIBILITY; UPHELD IN CASE AT BAR
WHERE INCONSISTENCIES ARE MINOR AND IMPROPER MOTIVES ARE ABSENT. A careful review of
the transcript of stenographic notes shows that save for minor inconsistencies in the statements of
prosecution witnesses which even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of being
rehearsed, their testimonies were consistent, in accord with one another, and were given in simple,
straightforward manner, mentioning details of the incident that could not have been merely
concocted. Thus, their averments among others included the fact that accused was slapped by the
victim in front of his friends which caused him extreme embarrassment, leading to a heated
argument and escalating into the mauling of the victim. Matter-of-factly, the manner in which the
witnesses for the state testified and their narration of events bear the hallmarks of candidness and
sincerity. The absence of evidence as to improper motives actuating the principal witnesses for the
prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motives existed, and that
their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit. There was no reason at all for Abigail and Dr.
Glorioso to lie and incriminate the accused. More so with Abigail who was then only fifteen (15) years
old when she took the witness stand. It has been held that the testimony of a minor of sound mind is
likely to be more correct and truthful than that of an older person, so that once established that the
former has fully understood the character and nature of an oath, his testimony should be accorded
full credence. What is more, the eyewitness account of Abigail conforms with the autopsy findings,
making her testimony even more reliable and faithworthy.
2. ID.; ID.; ALIBI AND DENIAL; CANNOT PREVAIL OVER POSITIVE TESTIMONY AND IDENTIFICATION.
In brief, as this Court has repeatedly ruled the alibi and denial of the accused cannot prevail over the
positive testimony of prosecution witnesses and their clear Identification of him as the perpetrator of
the crime. Thus against the strength of the evidence of the prosecution, the arguments of the
defense have proved to be unavailing.
3. ID.; ID.; RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WITNESS AND VICTIM, EFFECT THEREOF. It has long been
settled that relationship of the prosecution witness to the victim does not necessarily categorize the
former as biased and interested and thus tarnish his testimony. In fact, it is highly doubtful that the
father of the victim would aid in the prosecution of the accused simply because he disliked the latter.
For sure, he would like to send the real killer of his daughter to Jail, and not just anyone whom he
despised. Hence, there is no reason why Isidros testimony should not be believed.
4. ID.; ID.; ABSENCE OF EXTERNAL INJURIES IN CASE AT BAR, EFFECT THEREOF. The contention of
the accused that the deceased should have suffered more contusions, and not merely on the "left
cheek including the lateral aspect of the eye," considering the numerous blows she supposedly
received from him as narrated by witness Abigail, is ungrounded. We have repeatedly said that
absence of external injuries does not rule out the possibility that a blow had in fact been
administered by the offender.
5. ID.; ID.; WITNESSES; CREDIBILITY; NOT IMPAIRED BY DELAY IN DIVULGING THE NAME OF ACCUSED.
It has been repeatedly held that delay in divulging the name of the perpetrator of a crime, if
sufficiently explained, does not impair the credibility of the witness and his testimony nor destroy its
probative value. And, the failure of a witness to report at once to the police authorities the crime he
had witnessed cannot be taken against him for it is not uncommon for a witness to a crime to show
some reluctance about getting involved in a criminal case. It has become judicial knowledge that
prosecution witnesses are, more often than not, afraid to testify. This was manifested by the
prosecutor in the instant case. Hence, in one case, we said that fear of reprisal is a valid excuse for
the momentary silence of prosecution witnesses.
6. CRIMINAL LAW; PARRICIDE WITH UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION; CRIME COMMITTED IN CASE AT BAR.
We affirm the conclusion of the trial court that accused Manolo Villanueva is guilty of parricide with
unintentional abortion, for a husband who with violence kills his pregnant wife, occasioning the death
of the fetus, is guilty of parricide with unintentional abortion.
7. ID.; ID.; ART. 48 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE APPLIED; PROPER PENALTY THEREOF. Applying
Art. 48 of The Revised Penal Code which in part provides that" [w]hen a single act constitutes two or
more grave or less grave felonies. . . the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period," accused should be sentenced to death, the maximum
period of the penalty for parricide which is the more serious crime. However, in view of Sec. 19, par.
(1), Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution, which proscribes the imposition of the death penalty, and the
inapplicability of R.A. 7659 which restores the death penalty, considering that the act charged was
committed prior to the effectivity of said statute, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, which
is the proper penalty as prescribed by The Revised Penal Code and not life imprisonment as
erroneously imposed by the trial court. Time and again this Court has said that reclusion perpetua is
not the same as life imprisonment. The former entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years

after which the convict becomes eligible for parole, and carries with it accessory penalties. The latter
does not appear to have any definite extent or duration, and does not carry with it any accessory
penalties.
It was the town fiesta of San Pablo, Laguna. But what could have augured an otherwise festive
atmosphere was preempted by the discovery of the lifeless body of a barrio lass sprawled on the cold
cement floor of their conjugal home. Blood was oozing out of her mouth. She was six months
pregnant. The suspected assailant was her husband who allegedly beat her to death after she
slapped him earlier in front of his friends.
Charged with and convicted of parricide with unintentional abortion MANOLO VILLANUEVA also known
as "Boy" Villanueva is now before us still professing innocence. He claims that he was watching a live
concert when his wife, Nora Magpantay, 19, committed suicide by taking sodium cyanide. She was
supposedly burdened with family problems and wanted to follow the footsteps of her sister who had
earlier taken her life.
But the evidence shows otherwise. Isidro Magpantay, father of Nora, testified that on 14 January
1989, at around five or six o'clock in the afternoon, he went to the house of his daughter where she
and Manolo were engaged in a heated argument. Manolo was drunk. After seeing his son-in-law slap
his daughter, Isidro felt bad and left. 1
The following morning, at around five o'clock, Isidro was informed by Manolo's parents that Nora had
poisoned herself. 2 Forthwith, Isidro went to the hospital to look into the-medical records of his
daughter. But failing to find any, he proceeded to the funeral parlor where he saw his lifeless
daughter with contusions on the right cheek, breast, abdomen and at the back of her left ear. Her
mouth was swollen. Her forearms were raised; he straightened them. 3
To augment the testimony of Isidro and to refute altogether the alibi of the accused, 15-year old
Abigail Bandoy narrated that on 14 January 1989, at around seven-thirty in the evening, while in the
house of Manolo and Nora, she witnessed the accused mauling Nora for about fifteen (15) minutes,
striking Nora several times in the stomach below her left breast and in different parts of her body
over Nora's incessant pleas "[t]ama na Boy." But Manolo would not stop until Nora fell unconscious
on the cement floor. Then Manolo left. After making sure he had already gone Abigail went home
leaving Nora behind. 4
Dr. Nida Glorioso, City Medical Officer, recounted that on 15 January 1989, at around nine-fifteen in
the morning, she examined the cadaver of Nora and found a "contusion on the left cheek including
the lateral aspect of the eye" 5 which could have been caused by a clenched fist, a kick, a piece of
wood, a broken bottle or any hard object. 6 She also noticed a "bloody mucoid discharge com(ing)
out from her mouth." 7 She then proceeded to open her abdomen to determine the presence of
poison as it was alleged by the victim's husband that his wife had poisoned herself. The abdomen of
the victim however failed to emit the characteristic odor of a chemical poison, negating the
allegation that the victim had poisoned herself.
Nevertheless, to completely rule out poisoning as the cause of death the victim's stomach and
intestines were sent to the PC Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City, for a "chemical
analysis." 8 Capt. Luena E. Layador of he PC Crime Laboratory disclosed that "[t]oxicological
examination conducted on the above-mentioned specimen gave NEGATIVE result to the tests for
common metallic, non-metallic, volatile and non-volatile poisons, cyanides, organic phosphates,
organic chlorides." 9 Thus, Dr. Glorioso concluded that "[i]n view of the negative result of the
toxicological examination from the P.C. Crime Lab., Camp Crame, Q.C., . . . and considering the
contusio-ecchymosis, cheek, lateral aspect of eye, left, the CAUSE OF DEATH is SHOCK DUE TO
CEREBRAL CONCUSSION secondary to a severe blow on the head. 10
Manolo Villanueva however has a different tale. He averred that on 14 January 1989, at around sixthirty in the evening, he went home to change his clothes since he was going to watch the concert of
singer Randy Santiago at Canossa College in San Pablo City later that evening. As he was about to
leave their house, his wife tried to stop him. His mother who saw them even reprimanded him. 11
Nevertheless, at around seven-thirty, he left the house. 12 He returned at around two-thirty the
following morning. After knocking at the door, calling out to his wife but failing to get a response for
about thirty minutes, he forcibly opened the door only to find his wife lying prostrate on the floor of
their living room. He then noticed the bottle of sodium cyanide, which he was using for poisoning
rats, already empty. 13
On cross-examination, Manolo admitted that on 14 January 1989 he was slapped by his wife in front
of his friends which resulted in a little misunderstanding ("tampuhan"). Although embarrassed,
according to him, he nonetheless did not get angry. He merely ushered his wife back to their house
and then left again. 14
Sherwin Isleta, 17, took the witness stand for the defense. His house is adjacent to the conjugal
home of Manolo and Nora with only a party wall separating the two houses. He said that on 14
January 1989 at around eight o'clock in the evening, he saw Nora sitting near the gate in front of
their house, apparently waiting for someone. 15 That was the last time he saw her. At around three

o'clock the following morning he was awakened by the loud knock on the neighbor's door and
repeated calls for Nora. A little later he heard Manolo screaming, "Nora, Nora, why did you do this?
16
In its Decision of 27 April 1990 the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Br. 31, 17 ruled
A close scrutiny of the evidence discloses that: on January 14, 1989, between 5:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M.
at their house, accused and his wife, Nora, quarreled with the former slapping the latter in the
presence of Isidro Magpantay who, after half an hour stay thereat, left them; accused also left and
went to his hangout; at 6:30 P.M.; accused returned and in the presence of his friends, was slapped
by his wife; between 7:30 P.M. and 8:00 P.M., accused mauled his wife by giving her several fist
blows, thereby causing her to fall and hit her head on the cemented floor; also between the same
period of time, accused left their house and attended a concert with his friend, Nick Dalisay, from
9:00 P.M. up to 2:00 A.M. of the following day; at 3:00 A.M. of January 15, 1989, accused found the
lifeless body of his wife on the cemented floor in the bedroom of their house; at 9:15 A.M., Dr.
Glorioso conducted an autopsy on the cadaver and found contusions on the different parts of the
body notably, on the left cheek and eye; and, deceased could have died between 9:00 P.M. of January
14, 1989 and 12:00 A.M. of January 15, 1989 (citations omitted). 18
and held that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused is guilty
of parricide with unintentional abortion. The accused was initially sentenced to suffer the death
penalty which is the penalty for parricide, the more serious crime, applied in its maximum period. But
since the death penalty could not at that time be imposed under the 1987 Constitution, the penalty
for parricide under Art. 246, The Revised Penal Code, was reclusion perpetua, the penalty next lower
to death. However, instead of imposing reclusion perpetua the trial court sentenced the accused to
suffer life imprisonment. 19
A careful review of the transcript of stenographic notes shows that save for minor inconsistencies in
the statements of prosecution witnesses which even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any
suspicion of being rehearsed, their testimonies were consistent, in accord with one another, and were
given in simple, straightforward manner, mentioning details of the incident that could not have been
merely concocted. Thus, their averments among others included the fact that accused was slapped
by the victim in front of his friends which caused him extreme embarrassment, leading to a heated
argument and escalating into the mauling of the victim. Matter-of-factly, the manner in which the
witnesses for the state testified and their narration of events bear the hallmarks of candidness and
sincerity.
And neither do we find material discrepancies or substantial inconsistencies in their testimonies
which may engender serious doubt on their reliability and veracity. Except for witness Isidro
Magpantay to whom bias is imputed by reason of his being the father of the victim who allegedly
despised accused as his son-in-law, there appears to be no motive on the part of Abigail and Dr.
Glorioso to testify falsely. The absence of evidence as to improper motives actuating the principal
witnesses for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motives
existed, and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit. 20 There was no reason at all
for Abigail and Dr. Glorioso to lie and incriminate the accused. More so with Abigail who was then
only fifteen (15) years old when she took the witness stand. It has been held that the testimony of a
minor of sound mind is likely to be more correct and truthful than that of an older person, so that
once established that the former has fully understood the character and nature of an oath, his
testimony should be accorded full credence. 21 What is more, the eyewitness account of Abigail
conforms with the autopsy findings, making her testimony even more reliable and faithworthy.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to which the lower court has given full faith lead to a
fair and reasonable inference that the accused was indeed responsible for the death of the victim.
Isidro Magpantay narrated that he witnessed the misunderstanding between his daughter and her
husband who was then reeking with liquor, which the latter even admitted on cross-examination.
Abigail Bandoy was an eyewitness to the altercation between the spouses which led to the fatal
mauling of the victim. And Dr. Nida Glorioso, after examining the deceased and taking into
consideration the result of the tests, concluded that the cause of death was "shock due to cerebral
concussion secondary to a severe blow on the head," contrary to the submission of the accused that
his wife had poisoned herself. Certainly, the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain
leading to a logical conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of others, perpetrated the crime.
In brief, as this Court has repeatedly ruled, the alibi and denial of the accused cannot prevail over the
positive testimony of prosecution witnesses and their clear identification of him as the perpetrator of
the crime. 22 Thus, against the strength of the evidence of the prosecution, the arguments of the
defense have proved to be unavailing.
The submission of the accused that the trial court erred in lending credence to the testimony of the
father of the deceased who has shown his dislike and bias against the former even before the death
of Nora is unsustainable. Isidro Magpantay merely narrated that, the last time he saw his daughter
alive was in the afternoon before she died when she and her husband were quarreling. While he may
have previously manifested his enmity towards the accused, Isidro only testified that he saw his

daughter and the accused in a heated altercation, which per se is not incriminatory, and which the
accused himself even admitted, downplaying it as a mere "tampuhan." It has long been settled that
relationship of the prosecution witness to the victim does not necessarily categorize him as biased
and interested and thus tarnish his testimony. 23 In fact, it is highly doubtful that Isidro would aid in
the prosecution of the accused simply because he disliked the latter. For sure, he would like to send
the real killer of his daughter to jail, and not just anyone whom he despised. Hence, there is no
reason why Isidro's testimony should not be believed.
The contention of the accused that the deceased should have suffered more contusions, and not
merely on the "left cheek including the lateral aspect of the eye," considering the numerous blows
she supposedly received from him as narrated by witness Abigail, is ungrounded. We have repeatedly
said that absence of external injuries does not rule out the possibility that a blow had in fact been
administered by the offender. 24
The proposition of counsel of the accused that the toxicological examination performed by Dr.
Glorioso was very limited," 25 and that her conclusions were merely based on her opinion and not on
medical findings is likewise untenable. 26 In fact, we find this amusing coming as it does from
counsel who has neither presented his qualifications nor cited any medical authority in forming such
self-serving conclusions. We thus sustain the opinion of Dr. Glorioso who certainly appears to be more
competent in the field of medicine than counsel who simply proffered speculations that have
remained unsubstantiated.
Thus, even the assertion of the accused that his wife took sodium cyanide is very doubtful, not only
because her toxicological examination yielded negative result for the presence of poison, but also
because the pieces of broken bottle which supposedly contained the poison were also found negative
for "volatile, non-volatile and metallic poisons." 27
The defense, contending that "the prosecution should not have been allowed to spring a surprise,"
then seeks to nullify the account of rebuttal witness Abigail Bandoy that the accused mauled the
victim, and binds the prosecution to its earlier statements that the rebuttal witness will testify only
for the purpose of rebutting the alibi of the accused that he attended the concert of Randy Santiago.
We are not persuaded. The Court finds it difficult to believe that the defense was surprised by the
testimony of witness Abigail considering that it was able to subject her to a grueling and rigorous
cross-examination, ceaselessly trying to elicit contradictory statements from her. If indeed the
defense was caught flat-footed, as it now makes it appear, then it could not have extensively crossexamined the 15-year old witness. Suffice it to state that what Abigail said she saw and where she
was at the time of the incident are the natural and logical allegations to show that "the accused was
not in the Randy Santiago show," 28 which is the essence of the testimony of the rebuttal witness, as
stated by the prosecutor, to refute the denial of the accused.
The accused also takes to task the testimony of Abigail because of her delay in reporting the
incident. She witnessed the mauling of the victim on 14 January 1989. Yet, she executed an affidavit
only on 23 January 1990, or after more than one year. Abigail however explains that she was not
aware that the victim had died as a result of the mauling and that a case was filed against the
accused since after the mauling she left for Manila to continue her schooling. Hence, it was only
sometime in November 1989 when she learned that Nora was dead, and only on 23 January 1990
that a case was filed against the accused. We thus accept the elucidation of Abigail. She has
satisfactorily shown that she was indeed in Manila to continue her studies, and was not well-posted
on developments in the province. It was only some ten (10) months later when she returned to San
Pablo that she learned of Nora's death.
It has been repeatedly held that delay in divulging the name of the perpetrator of a crime, if
sufficiently explained, does not impair the credibility of the witness and his testimony nor destroy its
probative value. 29 And, the failure of a witness to report at once to the police authorities the crime
he had witnessed cannot be taken against him for it is not uncommon for a witness to a crime to
show some reluctance about getting involved in a criminal case. 30 It has become judicial knowledge
that prosecution witnesses are, more often than not, afraid to testify. This was manifested by the
prosecutor in the instant case. Hence, in one case, 31 we said that fear of reprisal is a valid excuse
for the momentary silence of prosecution witnesses.
Thus the testimony of defense witness Sherwin Isleta that he saw Nora at around eight o'clock in the
evening before she was found dead has lost its relevance as it has not shown that the accused was
precluded from having mauled the victim and causing her eventual death. In fine, we uphold the
pronouncement of the trial court that "[t]he defense of alibi raised by the accused showing that he
was at the Canossa College in San Pablo City (watching the concert of singer Randy Santiago) with a
friend, Nick Dalisay, who was not even presented in Court, at the time when his wife could have
allegedly died even if true is still of no moment as his act (mauling) committed prior thereto is the
one in issue." 32

Consequently, we affirm the conclusion of the trial court that accused Manolo Villanueva is guilty of
parricide with unintentional abortion, for a husband who with violence kills his pregnant wife,
occasioning the death of the fetus, is guilty of parricide with unintentional abortion. 33
Applying Art. 48 of The Revised Penal Code which in part provides that "[w]hen a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies . . . the penalty for the most serious crime shall
be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period," accused should be sentenced to death,
the maximum period of the penalty for parricide which is the more serious crime. 34 However, in
view of Sec. 19, par. (1), Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution, which proscribes the imposition of the
death penalty, and the inapplicability of R.A. 7659 which restores the death penalty, considering that
the act charged was committed prior to the effectivity of said statute, the imposable penalty is
reclusion perpetua, which is the proper penalty as prescribed by The Revised Penal Code, and not life
imprisonment as erroneously imposed by the trial court. Time and again this Court has said that
reclusion perpetua is not the same as life imprisonment. The former entails imprisonment for at least
thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for parole, and carries with it accessory
penalties. 35
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from finding accused MANOLO VILLANUEVA also known as "BOY"
VILLANUEVA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the penalty of life imprisonment should instead be
reclusion perpetua, and consistent with existing jurisprudence, the civil indemnity for the death of
the victim and the award for moral damages should be as they are increased to P50,000.00 and
P30,000.00, respectively, while the actual damages and costs of P3,000.00 remain.
2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
VIVENCIO SABELLANO and WESLY SAPELLANO
1991-06-05 | G.R. Nos. 93932-33
FACTS:
In Criminal Case No. 65155, On February 6, 1985, Walderita Abrogar was in her house at 536
Calbayog Street, Mandaluyong watching a wake across the street. A game had then been in progress
for about two (2) hours between one Julio Catayong and Wesly. Julio cursed 'putang inamo' and
delivered a fist blow to Wesly. Seeing the trouble erupt, Salvador pulled out a knife and advanced
towards Wesly. Vivencio Sabellano, at the same time, had also approached and held up Salvador
preventing the latter from attacking Wesly. As this occurred, Wesly went home and after getting hold
of a knife, rushed back and stabbed Salvador twice. Almar, who was then a mere three (3) armlengths (sic) away watching. Salvador asked Almar to fetch a taxi to which the latter obliged. Wesly
confronted Almar and told him not to be involved. Almar ran to the house and hid. The deceased,
Benito Abrogar, was at that time fixing the toilet. Hearing the commotion, he went out holding a bolo.
He was met by Vivencio, Mayoling, Wesly and Jaime who struck him with a bareta. Mayoling and
Wesly mauled Benito while Vivencio delivered a stab to the back with a 29" knife. He was then
picked-up by his wife who, along with other relatives, took him to Rizal Provincial Hospital and
confined for ten (10) days.
In Criminal Case No. 67688, On March 9, 1986 at 3:45 a.m. met the group of Vivencio, Wesly,
Jimmy and John Doe at a grocery store. Further down the street, Gertrudes noticed that two (2)
joggers. One of the joggers, Wesly, grabbed Walderita with his left arm around her neck. On the other
hand, Vivencio, embraced Benito and stabbed the latter on the right breast. Jaime and John Doe
stabbed Benito in the abdomen. Wesly released Walderita and stabbed Benito in the back. Walderita
tried to help Benito for home but he died shortly. Gertrudes was only an arm-length away and was
able to recognize the assailants.
RTC decide in Case No. 6515 and Case No. 67688 against Vivencio Sabellano as Guilty
Beyond Reasonable Doubt for Homicide and Wesly Sabellano for Murder respectively. This was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING MUCH CREDENCE TO THE CLEARLY BIASED,
HIGHLY IMPROBABLE, CONTRADICTORY AND CONFLICTING TESTIMONIES OF WALDERITA
ABROGAR.
RULING:
The SC ruled that although the records do not show any direct proof showing that the
accused-appellant Wesly Sabellano together with his three other companions agreed to inflict fatal
wounds on the person of the deceased, there is overwhelming evidence from the elaborate
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that Benito's attackers were at the time and place of the
stabbing incident that led to the death of the said victim, Benito Abrogar, and that all of them acted
in consonance with a common design so that the guilt of one becomes the guilt of all.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the trial court's decision dated June 6, 1990 is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION of increasing the amount of indemnity.

3. G.R. No. 100513 June 13, 1997

SEVERINO ANTONIO, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
G.R. No. 111559 June 13, 1997
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CARLITO ANTONIO, accused-appellant.

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

These cases have been consolidated in a Resolution 1 by this Court dated September 19, 1994 to
avoid possible conflicting decisions that may arise as they involve the same facts and incidents.
G.R. No. 100513 is a petition for review of the decision 2 of the Court of Appeals 3 promulgated on
April 30, 1991 in CA-G.R. CR No. 07956, affirming with slight modifications the decision 4 of the
Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 72, finding the petitioner Severino Antonio guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
On the other hand, G.R. No. 111559 is an appeal from the decision 5 dated December 11, 1992, of the
Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 74, in Criminal Case No. 6741-MN, finding also the accusedappellant Carlito Antonio y Linao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder by direct
participation. 6
Antecedent facts follow:
On July 25, 1988, an Information 7 was filed against both Severino Antonio and Carlito Antonio, blood
brothers, charging them with the crime of murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, 8 before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 72, in Criminal Case No.
6741-MN, committed as follows:
That on or about January 20, 1988, in the Municipality of Navotas, Metro Manila, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring,
and confederating together with one (1) alias Oryo and one (1) John Doe, whose true
named (sic) and whereabouts are still unknown and who are still at large, mutually
helping one another, with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, armed
with gun, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and
shoot with the said firearm one GONZALO GUTIERREZ, thereby inflicting upon the
victim gunshot wounds at the back and head, which directly caused his death.
Subsequently, a warrant of arrest was issued against both accused, but only Severino Antonio was
arrested on August 18, 1988 and subsequently tried. At that time, his co-accused Carlito Antonio, an
overseas contract worker, was abroad. Hence, the arrest warrant could not be served against him
and trial had to proceed without his participation.
Petitioner Severino Antonio pleaded not guilty and thereafter trial proceeded as to him.
On September 18, 1989, the trial court rendered judgment finding Severino Antonio guilty of murder,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused
Severino Antonio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, defined and
penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. There being neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstance, and applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, said accused is hereby sentenced to a prison term ranging from TWELVE (12)
YEARS of prison mayor, as minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS,
and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as maximum, together with all the accessory
penalties thereof. He is also ordered to pay the heirs of GONZALO GUTIERREZ the sum
of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00) PESOS as indemnification for the latter's death.
Costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED. 9

From this Decision, 10 petitioner Severino Antonio appealed to the Court of Appeals. 11 On April 30,
1991, the appellate court affirmed the aforesaid decision 12 of the court a quo with slight
modifications, appreciating the presence of conspiracy and treachery, but not the circumstance of
evident premeditation. The decretal portion of said decision states:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding appellant Severino Antonio guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery. The imposable
penalty is from reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua,
(People vs. Melgar, 137 SCRA 718), since death penalty, which was prescribed in
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, has already been abolished by the 1987
Constitution (People vs. Guevarra, 155 SCRA 327, 335). There being no other
modifying circumstances attending the commission of the crime, and applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended, appellant Severino Antonio is sentenced to
the penalty of, from fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to twenty
(20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased Gonzalo Gutierrez the sum of P50,000.00 (People vs. Sison, G.R. No. 86453,
September 14, 1990) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
With this modification, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other
respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Petitioner Severino Antonio moved to have the decision reconsidered, but the same was denied in a
Resolution 14 dated June 20, 1991; hence, he filed the instant petition for review on certiorari 15 with
this Court.
Before us, petitioner pleads for his acquittal by raising the following errors:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN IGNORING THE VERY CONVINCING REAL EVIDENCE
OF THE GUNSHOT WOUNDS BELYING THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION'S
"EYEWITNESSES."
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE STORIES OF
THESE "EYEWITNESSES" IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS
CASE.
III
IT WAS ALSO AN ERROR FOR THE RESPONDENT COURT TO SACRIFICE TRUTH FOR A
DUBIOUS TECHNICALITY AND IGNORING THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE IN THE
ONGOING TRIAL OF CO-ACCUSED CARLITO ANTONIO.
IV
THE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE ERRED IN STATING "FINDINGS OF FACTS" WITHOUT
STATING FROM WHICH THEY ARE BASED; AS INDEED IT MADE "FINDINGS OF FACTS"
NOT SUPPORTED BY ANYTHING ON RECORD. 16
Carlito Antonio was in turn arrested on June 23, 1990 pursuant to an alias warrant of arrest dated
June 18, 1990. He was tried under the same Information, 17 by the lower court.
When arraigned, accused-appellant Carlito Antonio, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.
After the prosecution rested its case, the appellant filed a Demurrer to Evidence dated April 16, 1991,
but the same was denied by the trial court in its Order 18 dated July 16, 1991.
After trial, the court a quo rendered its decision dated December 11, 1992, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, and finding the accused, CARLITO ANTONIO
y LINAO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder by direct participation,
he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify
the heirs of the deceased the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos Philippine
Currency. With costs of suit against the accused.

SO ORDERED.

19

Aggrieved by the trial court's decision,

20

accused-appellant Carlito Antonio appealed his case to us.

In his appellant's brief, the herein appellant raises the following assignment of errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO GIVE IMPORTANCE TO THE GUNSHOT WOUNDS.
II
IT LIKEWISE ERRED IN EXCUSING THE ADMITTED CONTRADICTIONS AND
INCONSISTENCIES OF THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES AS "TRIVIAL, INSIGNIFICANT
AND UNIMPORTANT.
III
THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE.
IV
NO SUFFICIENT MOTIVE FOR THE KILLING WAS SHOWN.

21

On the other hand, the Solicitor General maintains that the trial court's decision 22 convicting
accused-appellant Carlito Antonio should be affirmed and further prays that the civil indemnity
awarded by the court a quo should be increased to P50,000.00 from the award of P30,000.00. 23
The undisputed facts involving the charge of murder against both accused, as culled from the records
24
of
both
the
trial
court
and
appellate
25
court follows:
The accused CARLITO ANTONIO and SEVERINO ANTONIO are the brothers-in-law of the
victim, Gonzalo Gutierrez, the latter being the husband of accused' elder sister, Mrs.
Priscilla Antonio-Gutierrez . . . The victim and his family together with Carlito and his
family, Severino, Areng, Betty and Erly lived in separate houses situated in the Antonio
compound which is owned by the mother of the Antonios.
At about 7:00 o'clock in the evening of July 20, 1988, Jaime Robles, a candidate for
councilor but lost, was in Barangay Wawa, Tangos, Navotas, Metro Manila, on a house
to house visit to thank people or voters who supported him in the local election. He
was then conversing with Luis Pantaleon and Jonathan Narciso. On the other hand,
Reynaldo Gutierrez was also there on Santos Street, and was talking to one Sony
Sengco, when his father Gonzalo Gutierrez arrived in the place on his way to their
residence nearby. Reynaldo followed his father. Suddenly Carlito Antonio, . . . appeared
from behind of the latter, and at close range fired at him in the back. When Gonzalo
stumbled after walking a few steps, he was picked up by appellant Severino Antonio,
brother of Carlito Antonio, and one Oryo, held him by the two arms and dragged him
across the street near the gate of the Abalos compound. Oryo held a knife. Both
Severino Antonio and Oryo forced Gonzalo to kneel down, and while the latter was in
that position, Carlito Antonio, grabbing Gonzalo's head by the hair, poked a pistol on
his left temple, Gonzalo pleaded for forgiveness and that he be brought to the hospital.
It appears that Gonzalo Gutierrez was claiming ownership of the compound which
belonged to the mother of Gonzalo's wife and the Antonio brothers; Gonzalo was
saying that he was the master or boss "naghari-harian" of the place, which the Antonio
brothers strongly resented. To the plea of Gonzalo, Carlito replied that he must die
now, and fired his gun at the head of Gonzalo. Reynaldo could not do anything to
protect his father because he was afraid, and another one, a companion, was holding a
gun warning him not to move or else he would also be killed. All that he could say was
a plea to stop the shooting; "tama na, tama na". Still not satisfied, Carlito fired his gun,
hitting Gonzalo on the neck. All the four (4) assailants filed from the scene. Gonzalo
was brought by Reynaldo to the house, together with his brother Camilo Gutierrez, who
arrived, while Robles went to the Office of the Barangay to seek the assistance of the
police, but there was no officer around, so he went home. Robles' auntie Sonia arrived,
and informed Robles that Gonzalo (Along) was killed. Robles told her that he already
knew about it and suggested that he already be brought to the funeral parlor.

The case was investigated by the police of Navotas. One of the investigators was Cpl.
Wilfredo Mendoza. The latter was informed by Reynaldo Gutierrez that one of the
killers of his father was appellant Severino Antonio. Not knowing how to file the case,
Reynaldo did not go to the police headquarters not until April 22, 1988, when he gave
his written statement to PFC. Manolo Rodriguez narrating how his father, Gonzalo, was
shot and killed by Carlito Antonio, appellant Severino Antonio, one Oryo and still
another person, and how the four hatched the plan at about noontime at the seashore
which he (Reynaldo) overheard when he passed by.
An autopsy was performed by Dr. Benjamin Dizon, Municipal Health Officer of Navotas.
His examination showed that the cause of death of Gonzalo Gutierrez was multiple
gunshot wounds on the head, neck and back. In the course of his post-mortem
examination, he prepared a human sketch, where he depicted and indicated that he
found bullet wounds on the head, the point of entry on the left temple and the point of
exit was on the forehead or "tuktok"; bullet wounds on the back of the neck below the
right ear as the point of entry and wound on the back below the left armpit as point of
exit; and bullet wound on the back, on the left side near the waistline as the point of
entry, and wound on the front left side below the ribs as the point of exit . . .
For the defense, Carlito Antonio averred that on the day the incident happened, he left
his house at around 10:00 a.m. to go to the Magsaysay Lines at T.M. Kalaw St., Manila,
in connection with his job application as a seaman. He stayed in that office until 4:00
p.m. of that day. After that, he proceeded to his aunt Clarita Guevarra and arrived
there at 5:30 p.m. There he saw a child of her cousin named Vener. He stayed there up
to 10:00 p.m. as he was exchanging stories with her aunt. The accused-appellant
also presented two (2) witnesses in the person of Mrs. Filomena Antonio Besido and
Mrs. Clarita Guevarra which substantially corroborated his testimony. 26
The Court, after a thorough evaluation and painstaking review of the records of these cases,
conformably with the existing laws and jurisprudence on the matter, is of the firm position that the
herein petition lacks merit.
As the first and second assigned errors of the brothers Antonio in these consolidated eases are
identical, we shall discuss them jointly.
Both the herein petitioner Severino Antonio and accused-appellant Carlito Antonio contend that the
testimonies of the prosecution's two principal witnesses, Reynaldo Gutierrez and Jaime Robles, on the
nature and position of the gunshot wounds sustained by the victim, Gonzalo Gutierrez, and how
these were inflicted, do not correspond with, and are belied by, the physical evidence as depicted in
the testimony of Navotas Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Benjamin Dizon, the Government doctor who
conducted the post-mortem examination of the victim. They both assail the trial court for giving
more weight to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses despite certain errors, inconsistencies and
contradictions in their declarations. In particular, they assert the following:
Gunshot wounds "B-1" and "B-2" do not tally with the "eyewitness" account. The slug
in "B-1" went inside the back portion of the head and exited at the front while the
assailant was at the left side of the victim who were both standing. But the
eyewitnesses testified that Gonzalo who was kneeling then was pleading to Carlito,
Carlito was holding his hair, answered cruelly "kailangang mamatay ka", then pulled
the trigger as the gun was pointed at his temple.
Gunshot "B-2" had its slug entering at the lower behind at the right ear and exiting at
the right area with the assailant in a much higher level. The "eyewitnesses" account
had the shot fired immediately after the shot at the temple as the victim's head hang
down. They evidently again mistook the point of entry and exit from one another. Note
that the doctor denied the possibility that Gonzalo was in a kneeling position even as
the Fiscal led him to answer in such a manner. 27
After carefully examining the records of these cases, we find the above-quoted allegations to
be untenable. The court sees no reason to set aside the findings of fact of the trial court,
which are supported by the testimony of witnesses who have no reason whatsoever to testify
falsely against the accused-brothers. A witness' testimony ought to be entitled to great weight
when his accusing words are directed against a close relative. 28 It goes beyond logic and
normal human experience for a kinsman to prosecute a blood relative. He risks the ire and
reprisal of other relatives, if he were not guided by truth and motivated by a quest for justice.
Time and again, we have ruled in a catena of authorities that the findings of the trial court on
the credibility of witnesses should not be disturbed because the trial judge is in a better
position to rule on questions of fact, he having observed the deportment of the witnesses and
their manner of testifying during the trial, 29 except when it appears in the record that the trial
court
had
overlooked,
ignored,
or
disregarded
some
fact

or circumstance of weight or significance that, if considered, would alter the result. 30 The
petitioner and accused-appellant failed to demonstrate that their case falls under such an
exception. Thus, as elucidated by the court a quo:
The medico-legal findings on the cause of death of the victim, Gonzalo Gutierrez
confirms the eye witnesses accounts of the incident. Dr. Benjamin Dizon who autopsied
the remains of the deceased confirmed that three (3) shots were fired at the victim,
with his medical finding that, the victim sustained three (3) bullet wounds, to wit: a)
bullet wounds on the head, the point of entry on the left temple and the point of exit
on the forehead "Tuktok"; b) bullet wounds on the back of the neck below the right ear
as the point of entry, and wound on the back below the armpit as the point of exit; c)
bullet wound on the back, on the left side near the waistline as the point of entry, and
the wound on the front side below the ribs as point of exit.
The finding of the doctor as to the location of the points of entry and exit of the bullet
wounds sustained by the victim, is consistent and conformable with the eye witnesses
testimony. To the mind of the Court, any variance thereof as to the exact location and
nature of the wounds would be inconsequential and trivial matters and would not
affect the credibility of the witnesses. It is common experience that the human eye
and mind could not perceive with mechanical precision and with exactitude all the
details of on incident. Especially in this case when a murder was committed and the
eyewitnesses to the gruesome killing are the close relatives of the victim and the
assailants. . . .
In no occasion or instance that this Court entertains doubt as to the credibility of the
prosecution's witnesses. It always adheres to the legal principle or doctrine that, the
testimony itself must not only be credible but also the source thereof. . . . 31
As to the other alleged contradictions and inconsistencies regarding the testimony of the
prosecution's witnesses, we find that they relate only to trivial, insignificant and unimportant matters
and consequently do not materially impair or impugn the very testimony of said witnesses.
Accordingly, it has been held by this Court in the case of People vs. Daen, Jr. 32 that, "a witness is not
expected to remember an occurrence with perfect recollection down to insignificant and minute
details." Errorless testimonies cannot be expected especially when a witness is recounting details of
a harrowing experience 33 and as long as the mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slight
clashing statements dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the veracity of their testimony. Such
inconsistencies on minor details would even enhance credibility as these discrepancies indicate that
the responses are honest and unrehearsed. 34
We find that the positive testimony of eyewitnesses, like Gutierrez and Robles, has a greater
probative value than the hypothetical statements made by a witness who was not even present at
the locus criminis, like Dr. Dizon.
The petitioner and accused-appellant further contend that the delay in reporting the crime to the
police was inexcusable and unreasonable and that the reasons given therefor are mere conjectures
and suppositions not supported by evidence on record. Therefore, they allege that the delay in
reporting the crime to the police authorities casts doubt on the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses.
To this contention, we find no merit.
The delay on the part of eyewitnesses Reynaldo Gutierrez and Jaime Robles, assuming there was any,
was not unreasonable. It is a well-established rule needing minimal discussion that delay or
vacillation in reporting a crime, if sufficiently explained, does not impair the credibility of witnesses
and their testimony nor destroy its probative value. 35 Delay of a witness in revealing to the
authorities what he knows about a crime does not render his testimony false, for the delay may be
explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal
case. 36 And, the natural reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information to the police authorities in
criminal cases is consistent with normal behavior and is a matter of judicial notice. 37
In the case at bench, Reynaldo Gutierrez sufficiently accounted for the delay in reporting the crime to
the police, while Jaime Robles explained the reason for his reluctance to be involved in the case. The
Court of Appeals ruled on the matter in this manner:
It would appear that, out of sheer ignorance or lack of sufficient education, and his
being in a state of helplessness, witness Reynaldo Gutierrez was not able to go to the
police headquarters and give his statement not until much later.

However, when Cpl. Wilfredo Mendoza was investigating the case, he was already
informed by Reynaldo that one of the killers of his father was appellant Severino. . . .
There can be no doubt as to the presence of Reynaldo Gutierrez at the scene of the
killing to enable him to witness the shooting of his father, as the same is confirmed by
the other present witness Jaime Robles who was also present at the scene of the
incident. As a matter of fact, witness Reynaldo was prevented from extending any help
to his beleaguered father, as one of the companions of appellant held him at bay by
poking a gun at him. And as soon as the killers left, Reynaldo went to approach his
father and brought him to their home. If Reynaldo was not there to witness the
incident, appellant could have easily checked with Sony Sengco, with whom witness
was talking immediately before his father was shot, and appellant could have made
him as his witness to dispute the witness' claim that he was there after the scene of
the shooting.
As to the witness Jaime Robles, it would appear that he did not want to be involved as
he simply went to the barangay office to look for a policeman, and having failed to find
one he simply went home. It appears that Robles is related to both the family of
appellant and the deceased. He is the cousin of the Antonios by his father side; he is
also the cousin of the deceased by his mother side. He was terribly depressed and
saddened about the whole affair, since the parties involved are his relatives. Be that as
it may, we do not find said witness to be a false one. As we examined the records, he
testified in a clear and straight forward manner, responsive and positive, indicating
that he is a truthful witness. We find no motive why he should testify falsely against
appellant if the truth was that he was not there at the scene and witnessed the
commission of the crime. Hence, notwithstanding the fact that he did not come
forward and report the incident to the police authorities, like other persons or
bystanders who were present and saw the incident and did not also take the trouble to
go to the police station, witness Jaime Robles' credibility was not affected thereby. It is
well-known that eyewitnesses to killings usually do not want to undergo the trouble
and inconvenience of an investigation and of appearing in court, being grilled by
lawyers and being exposed to reprisal from the accused (People vs. Medrana, 110
SCRA 130, 141). Initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information about a
criminal case and their unwillingness to be involved in criminal investigations are
common and do not affect their credibility (People vs. Untalasco, 125 SCRA 159, 170).
38
(Emphasis supplied).
As to the assigned error, to wit:
The trial court, of course, denied the demurrer. But it did not say there was proof
beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt. Neither did it consider the various
points raised by the accused against the testimonies of the alleged two
"eyewitnesses". The trial court merely stated that there is a prima facie proof the
accused, and that the two eyewitnesses "pinpointed to the accused Carlito Antonio as
the triggerman." 39
we find the contention to be not well-taken. Judicial action on a motion to dismiss or demurrer
to the evidence is left to the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Unless there is a grave
abuse
thereof,
amounting
to
lack
of jurisdiction, the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss may not be disturbed. 40 In the
case at bench, the trial court, after hearing the evidence presented by the prosecution, was
convinced that said evidence was sufficient to warrant a finding of guilt. In its Order dated July
16, 1991 denying appellant's Demurrer to Evidence filed on April 12, 1991, the trial court
stated that:
In clear contrast with the case at bar, the prosecution has at least shown prima facie
the guilt of the accused, or as frequently stated, the essential element of the crime
charged. The uncontroverted facts remain that the deceased Gonzalo Gutierrez was
shot three (3) times on the different parts of his body at Navotas, Metro Manila in the
20th day of January 1988 at around 7:00 P.M. The doctor who conducted the autopsy
and post mortem examination on the body of the deceased testified that the cause of
death was gunshot wounds. That the two (2) witnesses, namely: Reynaldo Gutierrez
and Jaime Robles testified that they saw the actual killing and pinpointed to the
accused Carlito Antonio as the triggerman. As to the motive of the killing, the Court
took note that even the accused admitted that there was existing family feud between
the deceased and the accused-brothers, Carlito and Severino Antonio. 41 (Emphasis
supplied).
Hence, although the trial court did not expressly state in its Order 42 denying appellant's demurrer to
evidence that there was "proof beyond reasonable doubt, "such degree of proof was actually existing

and present in the aforesaid Order. The prosecution was successful in proving every fact and
circumstance essential to show the guilt of the accused. The court a quo found: (a) the
uncontroverted facts remain that the deceased Gonzalo Gutierrez was shot three (3) times on the
different parts of the body at Navotas, Metro Manila in the 20th day of January 1988 at around 7:00
P.M.; (b) two (2) witnesses, namely: Reynaldo Gutierrez and Jaime Robles testified that they saw the
actual killing and pinpointed the accused Carlito Antonio as the triggerman; and (3) the accused
admitted that there was an existing family feud between the deceased and the accused-brothers,
Carlito and Severino Antonio. 43
Furthermore, in denying a demurrer to evidence, the court need not state that the prosecution has
established "proof beyond reasonable doubt." It is sufficient that words of similar import, such as
those stated in this case "the essential elements of the crime charged," 44 be present to indicate
that there was a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Therefore, the trial
court did not commit any error in its Order dated July 16, 1991 denying the appellant's demurrer to
evidence for there was sufficient compliance.
Going now to the alibi interposed by the accused-appellant, we find the same to be bereft of merit.
It is undisputed jurisprudential rule that, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove
not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed but that it was
physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime. 45 This the
appellant failed to prove. Moreover, alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is mainly
established by the accused himself and his immediate relatives and not by credible persons. 46
Besides, positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill
motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which if
not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving evidence
undeserving of weight in law. 47
In the instant case, the herein accused-appellant and petitioner was definitely identified and
established as having been in the Antonio compound at about 6:00 P.M. of January 20, 1988 by no
less than their elder sister, Priscilla A. Gutierrez. 48 Moreover, Carlito Antonio was positively identified
by prosecution witnesses Reynaldo Gutierrez and Jaime Robles as the one who shot and killed,
together with co-accused Severino Antonio and a certain Oryo, the victim Gonzalo Gutierrez on
January 20, 1988 at Wawa, Navotas, Metro Manila. 49 Thus, the trial court stated:
On the other hand, witnesses, Reynaldo Gutierrez and Jaime Robles had positively
identified the assailants and their testimonies corroborate each other on material
points. Both of them testified that they personally witnessed the killing of Gonzalo
Gutierrez by accused, Carlito Antonio and his co-conspirators on the fateful evening of
January 20, 1988 in Wawa, Tangos, Navotas, Metro Manila. They positively identified
Carlito Antonio as the gunwilder (sic) and narrated in a detailed and straight-forward
manner how the latter fired his gun at the back of the victim while he was walking
towards his house. Thereafter, Severino and Oryo grasped the hands of the victim, and
dragged the latter about four (4) meters away towards the gate of the Ablola family,
where they forced the victim to kneel down. Carlito Antonio then grabbed the victim's
head by hair and pointed a gun on his left temple and after a few exchange of words
squeezed the trigger. After the shot, the victim's head hanged forward
"lumungayngay" and at this precise moment Carlito shot again the victim on his neck.
50

Finally, while in his fourth assigned error, accused-appellant Carlito Antonio contends that:
Aside from a vague reference to a family dispute (which was uncorroborated and the
specifics of which are not stated), there is no clear motive for the killing. With such a
brutal, merciless assault, the rage of the assailants must have been great. What
brought such anger? What impelled such demonic act? There's no answer from the
prosecution's evidence. 51
it is our holding that this argument is without merit, because motive is not essential to convict
when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit. 52 The fact that the witnesses had
positively and categorically identified the accused as the malefactors, negatives the need for
establishing the motive for the killing of the victim. 53
But, the motive behind the killing of Gonzalo Gutierrez was in fact satisfactorily established by the
testimony of prosecution witness Reynaldo Gutierrez when the latter testified that:
Q. By the way, do you know any personal misunderstanding exist
between your father and your uncles before January 20, 1988?

A. Yes, sir. There was.

Q. What was that?
A. About our land, sir.
Q. You said there was a misunderstanding between your father and the
two (2) accused about your land will you please tell this honorable court
what is that misunderstanding about the land?
A. Because they say that my father wants to act as King in our
compound.
Q. They complain that your father was acting as a king in your
compound, what compound are you referring to?
A. The land of my grandmother, sir.
Q. You said it was the land of your grandmother, in that compound, who
was residing?
A. Our house is near the house of my uncles, sir.
Q. You said your house is near the house of your uncles, who are these
uncles?
A. They are Tiyo Caring, Sebing, Areng, Betty and Erly.
Q. These Caring and Sebing, are they the same accused Carlito Antonio
and Severino Antonio in this case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You stated that it was complained or rather they complained that your
father was acting as a King in this compound, who made that complaint
that your father is "naghahari-harian."
A. My uncle, sir.
Q. Who in this particular, among your uncles?
A. Carlito Antonio, Sir.
Q. You said that the compound where your house and the houses of your
uncles situated is owned by your grandmother, whose grandmother you
are referring to?
A. My grandmother in my mother side, sir.

54

(Emphasis supplied)

Priscilla Gutierrez, another prosecution witness likewise corroborated the above-quoted testimony.
We quote relevant portions of her testimony:
Q. It is admitted by the defense that you are a sister of the accused,
Carlito Antonio and Severino Antonio, now will you please tell the
Honorable Court who among the three (3) of you is the eldest?
A. I am the one, sir.
Q. It is also admitted by the defense that you Carlito Antonio and
Severino Antonio live in the same compound?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In whose compound do you and accused, Severino and Carlito
Antonio live?

A. To our mother, sir.

Q. Do you want to tell this Honorable Court that the land on which your
houses are erected are owned by your mother?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you and your brothers Severino and Carlito been
neighbors in the compound owned by your mother before January 20,
1988?
A. It has been a long time, about 20 years now, sir.
Q. As neighbors, did your husband get along with your brothers Carlito
and Severino?
A. Before we were in good terms
misunderstanding between them, sir.

but

later

on

we

have

Q. What was that misunderstanding between your husband and your

brother, Carlito?
A. They are claiming that we are occupying a bigger portion of the lot
and saying that my husband was and I quote, "NAGHAHARIAN-HARIAN."
55
(Emphasis supplied)
As to civil indemnity, we hold that the amount of P30,000.00 awarded by the trial court in Criminal
Case No. 6741-MN dated December 11, 1992, 56 to the heirs of the victims should be increased to
P50,000.00, in line with present jurisprudence. 57
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review in G.R. No. 100513 is DISMISSED for lack of
merit, while the judgment appealed from in G.R. No. 111559, except for the above mentioned
modification, is AFFIRMED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.
4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANSELMO BERONDO JR. G.R. No. 177827, March 30,
2009
Criminal Case Digest / Digested Case
Murder to Homicide
Facts:
At around 11:30 p.m. of February 13, 1999, after joining the Miss Gay competition at New Danao,
Sinaysayan, Kitaotao, Bukidnon, Herbert Nietes, Jr. walked home to Puntian, Quezon, Bukidnon. While
on the way, he suddenly heard a gunshot from nearby. Feeling afraid, he ran towards the grassy area
by the roadside to hide. After about five minutes, he saw BERONDO, Julie Tubigon, and Jesus Sudario,
each holding a knife, walk towards the road and take turns in stabbing a person who was already
slumped on the ground. He recognized the three as they are his townmates. Thereafter, he ran away
from the area and went to Bato-Bato, Sinaysayan, Kitaotao, Bukidnon, where he spent the night. The
next day, he learned that the person stabbed was GENARO LAGUNA. He later testified that he did not
reveal what he had witnessed to anyone because he was afraid of getting involved.
Two years after the incident, Nietes and Tero (another witness) admitted to Dolores, Lagunas widow,
that they had witnessed the crime.
Trial proceeded only against accused-appellant BERONDO for murder, because the two other accused
remained at-large, where he was convicted. The CA affirmed conviction, but ruled that BERONDO was
liable only for homicide.
ISSUES:
1.
Does the belated reporting of Nietes of what he witnessed defeat his credibility as a witness?
2.
Was the CA correct in holding that BERONDO was liable only for homicide?
HELD:
1.
No. Delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair
the credibility of a witness, especially where sufficient explanation is given.No standard form of
behavior can be expected from people who had witnessed a strange or frightful experience.
Jurisprudence recognizes that witnesses are naturally reluctant to volunteer information about a
criminal case or are unwilling to be involved in criminal investigations because of varied reasons.

Some fear for their lives and that of their family; while others shy away when those involved in the
crime are their relatives or townmates. And where there is delay, it is more important to consider the
reason for the delay, which must be sufficient or well-grounded, and not the length of delay.
Despite the delay in reporting the identities of the malefactors, Nietes testified in a categorical,
straightforward, and spontaneous manner, and remained consistent even under grueling crossexamination. Such bears the marks of a credible witness.
2.
Yes. The Court finds error in the Trial Courts finding that the killing of the deceased was
committed with abuse of superior strength, because no evidence was presented to prove that the
accused purposely took advantage of their numerical superiority. Absent clear and convincing
evidence of any qualifying circumstance, conviction should only be for homicide.