People V Lug-Aw

11/2/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME229
308
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Lugaw
G.R.No.85735.January18,1994.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. JULIO

LUGAW and ROGELIO BANNAY alias JUNIOR BANNAY,
defendantappellants.
Criminal Law Evidence Witnesses Findings of the trial court on
credibility of witnesses should not be disturbed on appeal.As in most
criminalcases,thelinchpinintheresolutionofthiscaseisthecredibilityof
the witnesses. Times without number, this Court has declared that the
findings of the trial court on this matter should not be disturbed on appeal
unless some facts or circumstances of substance and value have been
overlooked which, if considered, might well affect the result of the case.
Thisdoctrineispremisedontheundisputedfactthat,sincethetrialcourthas
thebestopportunityofobservingthedemeanorofthewitnesseswhileonthe
stand,itcandiscernwhetherthewitnessesaretellingthetruthornot.
Same Same Same Court has always discouraged reliance on
affidavits as a basis for resolving a criminal case.The Court has always
discouragedrelianceonaffidavitsasabasisforresolvingacriminalcase.In
People v. Caranzo the Court said that affidavits being taken ex parte
usuallyareincompleteandofteninaccurate,caused
_______________
*THIRDDIVISION.
309
VOL.229,JANUARY18,1994
309
Peoplevs.Lugaw
sometimesfrompartialsuggestions,sometimesforwantofsuggestionsand
inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015825456b43a930ea90003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/17
11/2/2016
connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of the first

suggestionofhismemoryandforhisaccuraterecollectionofallthatbelongs
tothesubject.
SameSameSameRunningtoonesfatherwhohasbeenshottogive
himsuccorisequallyanormalreactionofanydaughter.Intheirattemptto
discredit Sonia, the appellants pointed out that the normal reaction of a
persontosuchatraumatichappeningwouldbetoflee.However,nohardand
fastrulecanbelaiddownwithrespecttothereactionofpersonstothesame
situation. Running to ones father who has been shot to give him succor is
equallyanormalreactionofanydaughter.
SameSameSameFailureofthedefensetoattributeanyillmotiveon
thepartofSoniainordertopinresponsibilityontheappellantsaddsmore
credence to her testimony.The failure of the defense to attribute any ill
motive on the part of Sonia in order to pin responsibility on the appellants
addsmorecredencetohertestimony.Infact,bothappellantsadmittedbefore
thecourtthattherewasnoreasonforSoniatotestifyagainstthem.Indeed,it
isinconceivablefora13yearoldwhobarelyfinishedthirdgradetoimpute
a very serious offense on anyone unless it were true. If she were merely
fabricatinghertestimony,shewouldhavebrokendownduringtheintensive
crossexamination at the stand. Al contrario, as observed by the trial court,
Soniawasnaturalinhermannersandtestifiedstraightforwardly.
Same Same Same Positive identification of the accused as the
perpetrators of the crime demolished their alibi and denial.Her positive
identificationoftheaccusedastheperpetratorsofthecrimedemolishedtheir
alibianddenial.Evenstandingalone,suchpositivesoletestimonyisenough
basisforconviction.Thus,evenifwelendcredencetodefensesclaimthat
the victims widow, Carmen, prevaricated as shown by the fact that she
allegedly tried to recant after the termination of the trial, Sonias testimony
sufficesasabasisforafindingofguilt.Noteworthyisthefactthat,unlike
herdaughtersSoniaandCarina,Carmenwasnotaneyewitness.
Same Same Treachery Absent any particulars as to the manner in
whichtheaggressioncommencedorhowtheactwhichresultedinthedeath
ofthevictimunfolded,treacherycannotbeappreciatedtoqualifythekilling
tomurder.Hence,itisprincipallyfromSoniastestimonythatweconclude
thatthecrimecommittedwasnotmurderbut
310
310
Peoplevs.Lugaw
2/17
11/2/2016
homicide. The qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident pre

meditation had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court
drew the conclusion of the presence of treachery because the attack was
sudden as Palloy was simply going about his task of fencing his kaingin.
We find however, that no one witnessed the initial attack. As Sonia herself
testified, she heard the first shot, went up a hill, climbed a tree and from
there, saw Lugaw shooting her father with the shot reverberating as the
secondgunreport.Nowheredowefindintherecordsanyevidencethatshe
witnessed the first shot nor how her father reacted to it. What she did see
washerfathertryingtorepeltheassaultwithabolobuthefailedbecausea
secondshothithim.AsthisCourtheldinPeoplev.Castor,wherethelone
eyewitness was not able to observe the commencement of the assault, he
couldnot,therefore,testifyonhowitallbegananddeveloped.CitingUnited
Statesv.PerdonandUnitedStatesv.Pangilion,theCourtheldintheCastor
case that absent any particulars as to the manner in which the aggression
commenced or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim
unfolded,treacherycannotbeappreciatedtoqualifythekillingtomurder.
SameSameEvidentpremeditationRequisites.Similarly,therecords
are bereft of evidence that the crime was committed with evident
premeditation.Thethreerequisitesofthisaggravatingcircumstance,namely,
the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, an act
manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination and a
sufficientlapseoftimebetweenthedeterminationandexecutiontoallowthe
accusedopportunitytoreflectupontheconsequencesofhisact,arewanting
in the case at bar. Evident premeditation was, therefore, incorrectly
appreciatedbythetrialcourt.
SameSameConspiracyConspiracymustbeprovedasindubitablyas
the crime itself through clear and convincing evidence and not merely by
conjecture.Additionally,SoniastatedthatafterLugawhadshotherfather,
Bannayfollowedhiminrunningaway.Bannayspresenceatthesceneofthe
crime was also proven by the victims declaration that Bannay and Lugaw
were his assailants. While these circumstances and utterances may prove
Bannays presence at the scene of the crime, unless conspiracy is proven,
these do not, by themselves, indicate criminal culpability. The quantum of
evidencerequiredforafindingthatBannaywasinconspiracywithLugaw
has not been met. Conspiracy, as with any other ingredient of the offense,
must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself through clear and
convincing evidence and not merely by conjecture. As such, proof beyond
reasonabledoubtisrequired.
311
311
Peoplevs.Lugaw
3/17
11/2/2016
Same Same Same Same Direct proof not essential to prove

conspiracy.Thereisconspiracywhentwo(2)ormorepersonscometoan
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Directproof,however,isnotessentialtoproveconspiracy.Itmaybeshown
byactsorcircumstancesfromwhichmaybelogicallyinferredtheexistence
of a common design among the accused to commit the offense charged it
may likewise be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense
wasperpetrated.Toextricatehimselffromcriminalliability,theconspirator
must have performed an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the
unlawfulplantocommitthefelony.
APPEALfromadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
Cabarroguis,Quirino,Br.32.Aggabao,J.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellants.
ROMERO,J.:
Thiscasedemonstrateshowpassioncanswaypeoplewhoperceive
thattheirrighttotillthesoilisbeingviolatedCarlosPalloywas
shot to death as he was fencing the boundary limits of the land he
was farming by persons identified with the owner of the land
adjacenttohisownandwithwhomPalloyhadaboundarydispute.
Palloywasfarmingpartofthecommunalforestlandlocatedin
SitioKalipkip,StopNio,Maddela,Quirino.Despitetheboundary
dispute between him and his neighbor, Conchita Tipon (Nipol or
Ngipol), on December 12, 1985, Palloy straightened out the
boundarylinebyputtingupafenceallegedlyupontheinstructionof
1
thepublicforester.
AsPalloywentabouthistask,his13yearolddaughter,Sonia,
and another daughter named Carina, followed him around. Palloy
was proceeding towards the house when Sonia heard a gun report.
Immediately, she went uphill and just as a second gun report
resounded,shesawRogelioBannayandJulioLugaw
______________
1TSN,July23,1987,pp.1718.
312
312
Peoplevs.Lugaw
from a distance of around four meters. She saw, too, that as her
fatherwasabouttodrawhisbolo,Lugawshothim.
4/17
11/2/2016
Approaching her father, she found him wounded on the right

shoulder and the lower portion of the breast. Palloy asked her to
call her mother. Sonia obeyed and together with her mother, they
returned to him. He told them that his assailants were Lugaw and
Bannay. Her mother told her to seek help but no one responded. It
was only when her mother herself called for help that Boy Culap,
Gorio Gayyaman and Patumbay Immulyap came to their
assistance.TheybroughtPalloytotheirhouse.
According to Sonia, Lugaw was behind a tree stump when he
shot her father. Bannay,
who was with Lugaw, was hiding and he
2
did not do anything. She was around ten meters from the two but
she could not have seen them had she and her sister Carina not
climbedatreeafterthefirstshot.AftershootingPalloy,Lugawran
towards the left side of Palloy with Bannay following him. Sonia
3
sawthegunusedinshootingherfatherbutcouldnottellitscaliber.
Carmen, Palloys wife, was at home at around 5:00 oclock in
the afternoon of December 12, 1985 when she heard a gun report
whichwasfollowedbyanothershotthreeminuteslater.Sherushed
to where she thought she heard the shots and found her daughters
hiding behind the stump of a tree near their father. Her daughters
informed her that their fathers assailants were Julio Lugaw and
JuniorBannay,thenephewofConchitaTipon.Herhusbandhimself
corroborated this and told her, Awan sabali nga pimmaltog,
nangpatay kaniak no haan nga ni Julio Lugaw kenni Rogelio
4
Bannaymeaning,nobodykilledmeexceptLugawandBannay.
Instructing her daughters to look after their father, Carmen
forthwithproceededtothebarangaycaptainandcouncilmenofSto.
Niotoaskforhelp.Sincenoonecametohelpher,shesoughtthe
assistanceofherneighbors.Herhusbanddiedataround12oclock
midnightandtheyburiedhimwithinthe
______________
2TSN,August24,1987,pp.310.
3Ibid,pp.1215.
4TSN,July23,1987,pp.1222.
313
313
Peoplevs.Lugaw
5
premisesoftheirresidence.
Havingheardofthesuspiciouscircumstancessurroundingthe
deathofPalloy,thepolicestationcommanderinMaddelarequested
themunicipalhealthofficertoconductanautopsyafterthebodyof
6
Palloyshallhavebeenexhumed. Forhispart,themunicipalhealth
officer, Dr. Teodomiro R. Hufana, Jr., manifested before the
5/17
11/2/2016
municipaltrialjudgethataftertheburialofPalloyonDecember15,
1985, the police acted on the case only upon the order of the
commanding officer of the 166th PC company. Dr. Hufana also
requested that the police bring down the body of Palloy from the
mountain as he was incapable of negotiating
the sixkilometer
7
distancetotheplacewherePalloywasburied.
Upon exhuming the body on July 7, 1987, Dr. Hufana found it
dressedinawhiteTshirtandwrappedinablanket.Theboneswere
allinchronologicalorderandtherewerefourpelletsinthelower
quadrant of the abdomen and three pellets in the thoracic cage.
There were two holes on the right side of the back of the Tshirt
whichwereprobablytheexitofthetwopellets.AccordingtoDr.
Hufana,Palloycouldhavediedofseverehemorrhagesecondaryto
8
gunshotwound.
The police filed before the municipal trial court of Maddela a
complaint
for murder against Lugaw and Bannay on October 29,
9
1986. Bannay was arrested on November
18, 1986 while Lugaw
10
wasapprehendedthefollowingday.
Thecourtthereafterfixedtheir
11
bailbondatP20,000.00each
butitwaslaterreducedtoP12,000.00
12
each. LugawandBannaywerethenorderedreleasedfromcustody
13
inanOrderdatedJanuary26,1987uponpostingofthebailbond.
OnMay19,1987,thefollowinginformationwasfiledagainstthem:
______________
5Ibid,pp.1617&26.
6Record,p.5.
7Ibid,p.4.
8Exh.A.
9Record,p.1.
10Ibid,pp.21&23.
11Ibid,pp.3435.
12Ibid,p.37.
13Ibid,p.100.
314
314
Peoplevs.Lugaw
That on or about 5:00 oclock in the afternoon of December 12, 1985 in

barangay Sto. Nio, Municipality of Maddela, Province of Quirino,
Philippines, the abovenamed accused, armed with firearms, with intent to
kill, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, attended
with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfullyandfeloniously,shotCARLOSPALLOYwhichcausedthedeath
ofthelatter.
6/17
11/2/2016
Thatthecrimewasattendedbythequalifyingcircumstancesoftreachery
andevidentpremeditation.
CONTRARYTOLAW.
Testifying in his own defense, Julio Lugaw, the soninlaw of

ConchitaNipol,sworethathewasplowinghisfarminNalungtutan,
Nagtipunan, Quirino around 16 to 17 kilometers away from Sitio
Kalipkip,Sto.Nio,Maddela,Quirinowhentheshootingoccurred.
SitioKalipkipcanbereachedonfootfromNalungtutanforfive(5)
hours as the road between them can be negotiated only by a 6 x 6
truck when the river is shallow. He denied farming his motherin
laws agricultural land in Sitio Kalipkip as he had never set foot
therein except when he got married. He expressed amazement at
Sonia Palloys testimony that he was the gunwielder, 14repeatedly
denyinganygrudgesbetweenhimandthevictimsfamily.
Rogelio Bannay whose house in Nalungtutan was around fifty
meters away from that of Lugaw, testified that when the crime
occurred, he was at home peeling peanuts with his wife. He had
gone to Sto. Nio in January 1984 to attend a wedding but he had
notbeentoSitioKalipkip.HebelongedtothesameIfugaotribeas
Carlos and Carmen Palloy and the latter was his barriomate in
Banawe. Like Lugaw, he disclaimed bearing any grudge against
Palloy and his family. Bannay Buanan and Conchita Nipol, his
relativesinSitioKalipkip,indeedhadafarmadjacenttothekaingin
of Palloy but he learned from his relatives
that they and Palloy
15
enjoyedgoodcompany(timpuyog).
Both alibis of Lugaw and Bannay were supported by Jovito
Pascual, the barangay captain of San Dionisio II, Nagtipunan,
Quirino,whotestifiedthatwhenthecrimetranspired,hesaw
______________
14TSN,July12,1988,pp.28.
15TSN,July6,1988,pp.212.
315
315
Peoplevs.Lugaw
Lugaw plowing his farm with four

other persons. He also saw
16
Bannay peeling peanuts at home. In its effort to discredit the
testimonyofSoniaPalloy,thedefensepresentedMorenoLingay,a
farmer and storekeeper in Dapintin, Sangbay East, Nagtipunan,
Quirino,whotestifiedthatonDecember13,1985,twoofPalloys
childrencametohisstoretobuypetroleumgasandginandwhenhe
asked them who killed their father, both allegedly replied, I dont
know. Lingay asked the childrens names but in their rush, they
7/17
11/2/2016
failedtoanswerhim.Onlylaterdidhelearnthattheirnameswere
17
SoniaandCarmen.
18
InitsdecisionofSeptember8,1988,thelowercourt ruledthat
thealibianddenialinterposedbythedefensecannotovercomethe
positiveidentificationoftheaccusedbySoniaPalloy.Appreciating
both treachery and evident premeditation against the accused, the
lowercourtdisposedofthecase,asfollows:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the
prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused Julio Lugaw and Rogelio
Bannay beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused ROGELIO
BANNAYandJULIOLUGAWareherebysentencedtoreclusionperpetua
or life imprisonment plus the accessory penalties provided by law and they
arefurtherorderedtoindemnifytheheirsofthevictimCarlosPalloyinthe
amountofThirtythousand(P30,000.00)Pesos.Costagainsttheaccused.
SOORDERED.
Theaccusedthenfiledamotionfornewtrialand/orconsideration
based on the inefficient legal service rendered by the CLAO
(Citizens Legal Assistance Office) which allegedly denied the
accused due19 process and prevented them from properly ventilating
their cause. Attached to the motion were the affidavits of: (1)
Bannay attesting to the fact that before the promulgation of the
decision,CarmenPalloy,thevictimswidow,twiceapproachedhim
beggingforforgivenesstellinghimthatshewas
______________
16TSN,April7,1988,pp.26.
17TSN,May12,1988,pp.35.
18PresidedbyJudgeCarlosT.Aggabao,RTCBranchXXXII,Cabarroguis,Quirino.
19Record,p.301.
316
316
Peoplevs.Lugaw
justinducedtoframeuptheaccusedandexpressingherwillingness
to testify to prove that both accused were innocent (2) Fernando
Lablabong, stating that he was with Lugaw plowing the field on
December 12, 1985 that he was in the house of Bannay when
CarmenPalloyconfessedthatsheandherdaughterswereinduced
topointtotheaccusedasthekillers,andthatheconfirmedthefact
thatitwasphysicallyimpossiblefortheaccusedtohavebeenatthe
scene of the crime, and (3) Gregorio Gayyaman, swearing that he
wasoneofthosewhohelpedCarmenbringherdeadhusbandhome
that being a relative of Palloy, he asked Carmen the name of the
8/17
11/2/2016
killer of her husband but she replied that she did not know that
whileheandothersmadePalloyscoffin,nomentionwasmadeof
thenamesoftheaccusedasthekillersthatitwasonlyafterCarmen
had lived with one Carlos Capinpin that the accused became the
suspects in the killing and that he was surprised that after the
victims family had informed him that there was no evidence as to
whokilledPalloy,thenamesoftheaccusedsuddenlycroppedup.
After the prosecution had filed its comment on the motion, the
lower court denied the same in an Order dated September 8, 1988
explaining that the testimonies of Lablabong and Gayyaman could
not be considered newlydiscovered evidence because the defense
hadalltheopportunitytopresentthemaswitnessesatthetrial.The
court also turned down the claim of the defense regarding the
incompetence of counsel stating that, if upheld, there would be no
end to a20suit as long as a new counsel could be employed by the
accused.
ThedefensefiledamotionforthereconsiderationofsaidOrder
quoting the treatise of then Secretary of Justice Sedfrey A.
Ordoez on forgotten evidence
under Rule 37 of the Rules of
21
Court and ineffective counsel. Attached to the motion were the
affidavits of: (1) Rosalina Bookan stating that Carmen Palloy, her
townmate,admittedtoherthattheaccusedwerenottherealculprits
andthatCarmenwasadvisedagainstrecantinghertestimonywhich
might subject her to persecution, and (2) Carmen Palloy swearing
thatherhusbanddidnotstatecategorically
_______________
20Record,p.312.
21Ibid,p.314.
317
317
Peoplevs.Lugaw
and clearly that it was the accused Julio Lugaw and Rogelio
BannaywhoshothimandthatshedidtellBookanandthespouses
Rogelio and Julie Bannay that her husband did not say that the
accusedperpetratedthecrime.
In its Order of October 7, 1988, the lower court denied the
motion and held that it was Sonia Palloy and not her mother,
Carmen, who is the principal witness to the killing and that the22
alleged ineffective legal assistance is not a ground for new trial.
Hence,theinstantappeal.
Theappellantscontendthatthelowercourterredinfindingthat
they were positively identified as the culprits and that the victims
wife and daughter Sonia were present when the crime was
9/17
11/2/2016
perpetrated.Theyalsoassailthelowercourtsfindingthattherewas
conspiracybetweentheminkillingPalloy.
As in most criminal cases, the linchpin in the resolution of this
caseisthecredibility of the witnesses. Times without number, this
Courthasdeclaredthatthefindingsofthetrialcourtonthismatter
should not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or
circumstancesofsubstanceandvaluehavebeenoverlookedwhich,
ifconsidered,mightwellaffecttheresultofthecase.Thisdoctrine
ispremisedontheundisputedfactthat,sincethetrialcourthasthe
best opportunity of observing the demeanor of the witnesses while
onthestand,itcandiscernwhetherthewitnessesaretellingthetruth
23
ornot. Wefindnocogentreasontodepartfromthisdoctrine.
Asexpected,theappellantszeroedinonthetestimonyofSonia
Palloy, the only eyewitness presented by the prosecution. They
contendthatSoniadidnotactuallywitnesshowherfatherwasshot.
In support of this contention, appellants cite discrepancies between
her sworn statement and her testimony in open court. They assert
that her failure to specifically name the two persons running away
from the scene of the crime cast
a doubt on her testimony that she
24
sawLugawshootingherfather.
______________
22Ibid.,p.320.
23Peoplev.Galendez,G.R.Nos.5646566,June26,1992,210SCRA360.
24AppellantsBrief,pp.68Rollo,pp.8284.
318
318
Peoplevs.Lugaw
The Court has always discouraged reliance on affidavits

as a basis
25
forresolvingacriminalcase.InPeoplev.Caranzo the Court said
that affidavits being taken ex parte usually are incomplete and
often inaccurate, caused sometimes from partial suggestions,
sometimesforwantofsuggestionsandinquiries,withouttheaidof
which the witness may be unable to recall the connected collateral
circumstancesnecessaryforthecorrectionofthefirstsuggestionof
his memory and for his accurate recollection of all that belongs to
the subject. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General,
Soniasfailuretonametheappellantsinherswornstatementcould
beattributedtohertenderyearsandthetraumaandshockshehad
experienced after having witnessed the horrifying killing of her
father.
The gaps in Sonias sworn statement were, however more than
offset by her testimony during the preliminary investigation
10/17
11/2/2016
conducted by the municipal trial judge on November 12, 1986

whereinshetestified,thus:
Q Whoisyourfather?
A
CarlosPalloy,sir.
Whereisyourfathernow?
Hewaskilled,sir.
Whokilledhim?
JulioLugawandJuniorBannay,sir.
WhydidyouknowthatyourfatherwaskilledbyJulioLug
awandJuniorBannay?
Isawthemshootmyfather,sir.
Betweenthetwo,JulioLugawandJuniorBannay,whoshot
yourfather?
JulioLugaw,sir.
Whatkindofgundidyouseetheyusedtoshootyourfather?
Long,sir.
HowfarwereyouwhenyousawLugawshotyourfather?
Aboutfourmeters,sir,frommyfather,sir.
WherewereJulioLugawandJuniorBannayatthetimewhen
theyshotyourfather?
Theywerehidingbehindatrunkofatree,sir.
Didyoutelltoyourmotherthatyourfatherwasshot?
Yes,sir.
_____________
25G.R.No.76743,May22,1992,209SCRA232,243244.
319
319
Peoplevs.Lugaw
Q Whenyouheardthegunreportandyourfatherwasshotwhat
didyoudo?
A Icalledmymother,sir.
Q (Did)youhaveacompanionatthetimewhenyouheardagun
report?
A Yes,sirmysisterCarlina.
Q
11/17
11/2/2016
Howmanygunreport(s)didyouhear(from)thedirectionof
yourfather?
A Two,sir.
Q Andthegunreport(s)(were)allinthedirectionofyourfather?
A Yes,sir.
Q Whatwasyourfatherdoingwhenhewasshot?
A Hewasdrivingapegonthegroundwhenhewasshotand
whenhewasshothetriedtodrawhisbolobuthewasprevented
when(sic)drawinghisbolobecausetheyhithimonhisarm,sir.
Q Beforeyourfatherdieddidyoutalktohim?
A Yes,sir.
Q Whatdidhetellyouifany?
A HesaidthatIFIDIEMYASSAILANT(S)WHOKILL(ED)
BYSHOOTINGAREJULIOLUGAWANDJUNIOR
BANNAY.(Italicssupplied.)26
During the trial, Sonia clung tenaciously to her story and testified
thatitwasduringthesecondgunreportthatshesawLugawshoot
herfather.Soniatestifiedasfollows:
Q Yousaidwhileyouwereatthelowerplacewhereyourfather
wasyouheardagunreport,whatdidyoudowhenyouheard
thatgunreport?
A
Wewentuphill,sir.
Whenyouweregoinguphill,whattranspired?
Onthesecondtimethathewasshotwesawthem,sir.
Andwhowerethosewhomyousaw?
RogelioandJulio,sir.
xxxxxxxxx.
Yousaidyousawthesepersonswhoshotyourfather,who
actuallyshotyourfather?
JulioLugaw,sir.
WhatwasyourfatherdoingatthetimeJulioLugawshot
______________
26Exh.CRecord,pp.1415.
320
320
Peoplevs.Lugaw
12/17
11/2/2016
yourfather?
A Hewasabouttodrawhisboloinordertofighthimbutthebolo
wasthrownaway,sir.
Q AndhowfarwereyouatthattimewhenyousawJulioLugaw
shotyourfather?
27
A Four(4)meters,sir.(Italicssupplied.)
IntheirattempttodiscreditSonia,theappellantspointedoutthatthe
normalreactionofapersontosuchatraumatichappeningwouldbe
toflee.However,nohardandfastrulecanbelaiddownwithrespect
to the reaction of persons to the same situation. Running to ones
father who has been shot to give him succor is equally a normal
reactionofanydaughter.
Thefailureofthedefensetoattributeanyillmotiveonthepartof
Sonia in order to pin responsibility on the appellants adds more
credence to her testimony. In fact, both appellants admitted before
thecourtthattherewasnoreasonforSoniatotestifyagainstthem.
Indeed, it is inconceivable for a 13yearold who barely finished
thirdgradetoimputeaveryseriousoffenseonanyoneunlessitwere
true. If she were merely fabricating her testimony, she would have
brokendownduringtheintensivecrossexaminationatthestand.Al
contrario, as observed by the trial court, Sonia was natural in her
mannersandtestifiedstraightforwardly.
Her positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of
the crime demolished their alibi and denial. Even standing
alone,
28
suchpositivesoletestimonyisenoughbasisforconviction. Thus,
evenifwelendcredencetodefensesclaimthatthevictimswidow,
Carmen,prevaricatedasshownbythefactthatsheallegedlytriedto
recantaftertheterminationofthetrial,Soniastestimonysufficesas
abasisforafindingofguilt.Noteworthyisthefactthat,unlikeher
daughtersSoniaandCarina,Carmenwasnotaneyewitness.
Hence,itisprincipallyfromSoniastestimonythatweconclude
that the crime committed was not murder but homicide. The
qualifyingcircumstancesoftreacheryandevidentpremedi
________________
28Peoplev.Fagyan,G.R.No.90197,May22,1992,209SCRA275.
321
321
Peoplevs.Lugaw
13/17
11/2/2016
tationhadnotbeenprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt.Thetrialcourt
drewtheconclusionofthepresenceoftreacherybecausetheattack
was sudden as Palloy was simply going about his task of fencing
his kaingin. We find however, that no one witnessed the initial
attack.AsSoniaherselftestified,sheheardthefirstshot,wentupa
hill,climbedatreeandfromthere,sawLugawshootingherfather
withtheshotreverberatingasthesecondgunreport.Nowheredowe
findintherecordsanyevidencethatshewitnessedthefirstshotnor
howherfatherreactedtoit.Whatshedidseewasherfathertrying
torepeltheassaultwithabolobuthefailedbecauseasecondshot
29
hit him. As this Court held in People v. Castor, where the lone
eyewitness was not able to observe the commencement of the
assault, he could not, therefore, testify on30 how it all began and
developed.31 Citing United States v. Perdon and United States v.
Pangilion, the Court held in the Castor case that absent any
particularsastothemannerinwhichtheaggressioncommencedor
how the act which resulted in the death of the victim unfolded,
treacherycannotbeappreciatedtoqualifythekillingtomurder.
Similarly, the records are bereft of evidence that the crime was
committed with evident premeditation. The three requisites of this
aggravating circumstance, namely, the time when the offender
determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that
the culprit has clung to his determination and a sufficient lapse of
timebetweenthedeterminationandexecutiontoallowtheaccused
32
opportunitytoreflectupontheconsequencesofhisact, arewanting
inthecaseatbar.Evidentpremeditationwas,therefore,incorrectly
33
appreciatedbythetrialcourt.
WhiletheguiltofLugaw,thegunwielder,hasbeenestablished
beyondreasonabledoubt,thecomplicityofhiscompanion,
________________
29G.R.No.93664,December11,1992,216SCRA410,422.
304Phil.141(1905).
3134Phil.786(1916).
32Peoplev.Balatucan,G.R.Nos.9380506,February7,1992,206SCRA81.
33Peoplev.Competente,G.R.No.96697,March26,1992,207SCRA591.
322
322
Peoplevs.Lugaw
Bannay, is open to question. As regards his participation in the

crime,Soniatestifiedasfollows:
Q AtthetimeJulioLugawshotyourfather,whatwastheother
accusedRogelioBannayalsodoingatthattime?
14/17
11/2/2016
Hewashiding,sir.
Didyounoticeifhehasafirearm?
ATTY.FLORES
Objection.
FISCALFERNANDEZ
Q
Whatdidyounoticeto(sic)RogelioBannaywhenhewas
hiding?
None,sir.
AndwhatwastheparticipationofRogelioBannayifanyin
connectionwiththeshootingofyourfather?
None,sir.
COURT
Q
(Tothewitness)ButhewastherenearJulioLugaw?
Yes,YourHonor.
34
Additionally, Sonia stated that after Lugaw

had shot her father,
35
Bannay followed him in running away. Bannays presence at the
sceneofthecrimewasalsoprovenbythevictimsdeclarationthat
BannayandLugawwerehisassailants.Whilethesecircumstances
and utterances may prove Bannays presence at the scene of the
crime, unless conspiracy is proven, these do not, by themselves,
indicatecriminalculpability.Thequantumofevidencerequiredfora
finding that Bannay was in conspiracy with Lugaw has not been
met.Conspiracy,aswithanyotheringredientoftheoffense,mustbe
proved as indubitably as the crime itself through clear and
convincing evidence and not merely36 by conjecture. As such, proof
beyondreasonabledoubtisrequired.
There is conspiracy when two (2) or more persons come to an
agreement37 concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commitit. Directproof,however,isnotessentialtoprove
_______________
35Ibid,p.15.
36Peoplev.Donato,G.R.No.94530,March6,1992,207SCRA125.
37Art.8,RevisedPenalCode.
323
323
Peoplevs.Lugaw
15/17
11/2/2016
conspiracy. It may be shown by acts or circumstances from which

maybelogicallyinferredtheexistenceofacommondesignamong
the accused to commit the offense charged it may likewise be
deduced from
the mode and manner in which the offense was
38
perpetrated. To extricate himself from criminal liability, the
conspiratormusthaveperformedanovertacttodissociateordetach
39
himselffromtheunlawfulplantocommitthefelony.
There is no evidence that Bannay shared Lugaws criminal
intent.Thus,althoughhedidnotdoanythingincontraventionofthe
supposedconspiracy, his mere passive 40presence at the scene of the
crimedidnotmakehimliabletherefor. Moreover,theprosecution
failed to show other facts and circumstances, aside from Bannays
presencenearLugawasthelattercommittedthedastardlyactand
following Lugaw as he ran away, from which a community of
interest and design between the two may be construed. The
prosecutions weakness in this respect cannot be taken against
Bannay. We should take into account the doctrine that, in case of
doubt as to the culpability of an accused, it should be resolved in
accordancewiththepresumptionofinnocence.
Homicide under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code is
punishablebyreclusiontemporal.Intheabsenceofanyaggravating
or mitigating circumstances,41the penalty imposable is the medium
degreeofreclusiontemporal. ApplyingtheIndeterminateSentence
Law,thepenaltythatshouldbeimposedonLugawisten(10)years
andone(1)dayofprisionmayormaximumasminimumpenaltyto
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal
medium as maximum penalty. Pursuant to the latest jurisprudence,
LugawshallindemnifytheheirsofCarlosPalloyintheamountof
fiftythousandpesos(P50,000.00).
WHEREFORE, appellant Julio Lugaw is hereby found guilty
beyondreasonabledoubtofhomicideunderArt.249oftheRevised
PenalCodeforkillingCarlosPalloyandheshallserve
______________
38Peoplev.Pama,G.R.Nos.9029798,December11,1992,216SCRA385,401.
39Peoplev.DelosReyes,L44112,October22,1992,215SCRA63.
40Peoplev.Garcia,G.R.No.94187,November4,1992,215SCRA349.
41Art.64(1),RevisedPenalCode.
324
324
LuckyTextileMills,Inc.vs.NLRC
the indeterminate sentence of ten (10) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor maximum as minimum penalty to seventeen (17)
years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium as
16/17
11/2/2016
maximumpenalty,andindemnifytheheirsofCarlosPalloyinthe
amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). Appellant Rogelio
BannayisherebyACQUITTEDofthecrimechargedandheshallbe
releasedfromcustodyimmediately.Nocosts
SOORDERED.
Feliciano(Chairman),Bidin,MeloandVitug,JJ.,concur.
Appellant Julio Lugaw found guilty of homicide appellant
RogelioBannayacquitted.
Note.Whileconspiracyneednotbesupportedbydocumentary
evidenceitmaybededucedfromthemodeandmannerinwhichthe
offensewascommitted(Peoplevs.Tumale,189SCRA1).
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
17/17

People V Lug-Aw

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

People V Lug-Aw

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

11/2/2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. JULIO

connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of the first

homicide. The qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident pre

Same Same Same Same Direct proof not essential to prove

Approaching her father, she found him wounded on the right

That on or about 5:00 oclock in the afternoon of December 12, 1985 in

Testifying in his own defense, Julio Lugaw, the soninlaw of

Lugaw plowing his farm with four

The Court has always discouraged reliance on affidavits

conducted by the municipal trial judge on November 12, 1986

Bannay, is open to question. As regards his participation in the

Additionally, Sonia stated that after Lugaw

conspiracy. It may be shown by acts or circumstances from which

Anda mungkin juga menyukai