THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 197807, April 16, 2012]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CECILIA LAGMAN Y PIRING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

VELASCO JR., J.:

This is an appeal from the May 14, 2010 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03289, which affirmed the January 18, 2008 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18 in Manila, in Criminal Case No. 02-200106 for Murder and Criminal Case No. 02-200107 for Frustrated Murder.The Facts

Two Informations[3] charged accused Cecilia Lagman as follows:Criminal Case No. 02-200106

That on or about February 24, 2002, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of Jondel Mari Davantes Santiago, by then and there stabbing him with a knife with an approximate length of 6 inches (blade and handle) hitting his neck and trunk, thereby inflicting upon said Jondel Mari Davantes Santiago stab wounds which are necessarily fatal and mortal, which were the direct cause of his death immediately thereafter.Criminal Case No. 02-200107

That on or about February 24, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of Violeta Sicor y Sapitula, by then and there stabbing her hitting her buttocks, thereby inflicting upon the said Violeta Sicor y Sapitula mortal wounds which were necessarily fatal, thus, performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of Homicide as a consequence, but nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of her will, that is, by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Violeta Sicor y Sapitula which prevented her death.

During her arraignment, the accused gave a negative plea to both charges.

At the trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: Donna Maniego (Maniego), Violeta Sicor (Sicor), Police Officer 3 Ricardo M. Alateit (PO3 Alateit), and PO3 Ronaldo Samson (PO3 Samson).

On February 24, 2002, at about 1:30 p.m, Maniego was in front of her banana cue store on Lakandula Street, Tondo, Manila. She was seated alongside her mother, Sicor, inside the sidecar of a motorcycle. Without warning, the accused approached her and punched her face several times. The accused turned on Sicor, grabbed her and stabbed her in the middle of her buttocks with a small knife. Maniego got out of the sidecar and ran to the barangay hall for help. Upon finding that the barangay chairman was not around, Maniego went to check on her common-law spouse, Jondel Santiago (Santiago), at the house of Santiagos mother.[4] On her way there, she saw the accused stab Santiago four (4) times from a distance of five (5) to six (6) meters. The distance between where Maniego was punched and where Santiago was stabbed was about nine (9) meters.[5] Maniego then saw the accused flee the scene of the crime carrying a knife and heading towards Juan Luna Street. Seeing that Santiago was mortally hurt, Maniego rushed Santiago to Gat Andres Bonifacio Hospital but he later expired. While Maniego was at the hospital, she saw the accused, who was being treated after an angry crowd mauled her. Maniego informed the policeman who was escorting the accused that it was the latter who had stabbed and killed Santiago.[6]

After receiving the information from Maniego, the accused was arrested and brought to police headquarters.[7]

On cross-examination, Maniego testified that she had known the accused for almost ten years and had a close relationship with her. She stated that the accused got angry with her when she eloped with Santiago.[8]

Sicor, Maniegos mother, corroborated Maniegos testimony. She saw the accused punch Maniego several times while they were inside the sidecar on February 24, 2002. The accused then grabbed her and stabbed her in her buttocks with a small knife. She said that after she was stabbed, two sidecar boys came to her aid and brought her to the hospital. She added that she was released from the hospital two hours after receiving treatment.[9]

PO3 Alateit testified that on the day of the incident, he was riding his motorcycle on his way home. While he was on the corner of Juan Luna and Moriones Streets, it was reported to him that a stabbing incident had taken place. He headed towards an area where a crowd was causing a commotion. He then saw a woman who looked like a lesbian running towards him. Her head was bloodied. He handcuffed the injured woman after he was informed that she had stabbed someone. At the time of her arrest, a sharp object fell from the womans waist. He confiscated the item and brought the woman to the police station and to Gat Andres Bonifacio Hospital. He identified the woman as the accused.[10]

Both the prosecution and the defense stipulated that Senior Police Officer 2 Edison Bertoldo was the police investigator in the case against the accused and that he prepared the following:(1) Sworn Statement of Maniego, Exhibit A;(2) Affidavit of Apprehension of PO3 Alateit, Exhibit C;(3) Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, Exhibit E;(4) Crime Report dated February 25, 2002, Exhibits F, F-1 and F-2; and(5) Request for Laboratory Examination dated February 27, 2002, Exhibit F-3.[11]

The last witness for the prosecution, PO3 Samson, testified that on the date of the incident, he was assigned at the Western Police District Crime Laboratory Division. He presented before the court the sharp object used in stabbing the victim (Exhibit M) and the Request for Laboratory Examination (Exhibit M-1).[12]

For their part, the defense offered the testimonies of the accused and Dr. Mario Lato.

Chiefly relying on denial as her defense, the accused claimed that on the date of the stabbing incident, she confronted Maniego and asked her if it was true that she had been spreading the rumor that the accused was insane. Maniego answered in the affirmative. Angered, the accused slapped Maniego and left, leaving Santiago, Sicor, and Maniego in pursuit. Santiago then hit her with a lead pipe. Since she needed medical treatment after the attack, she was brought to Gat Andres Bonifacio Medical Hospital by her mother and a barangay kagawad.[13]

At the police station, the accused denied killing Santiago. She averred that nothing was found on her body when she was frisked. She said that the knife recovered by PO3 Alateit was not hers and that there were other people in the area where it was found. She added that she had an argument only with Maniego, not with Sicor or Santiago.[14]

Dr. Mario Lato testified that on February 24, 2002, he treated the accused, who had a laceration on the head which was possibly caused by a hard object such as a pipe. He said that the accused sustained a two-centimeter laceration in her mid-pectoral area.[15]Ruling of the Trial Court

On January 18, 2008, the RTC convicted the accused of Murder in Crim. Case No. 02-200106 and Less Serious Physical Injuries in Crim. Case No. 02-200107. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:WHEREFORE, this court finds accused Cecilia Lagman y Pring guilty of Murder in Crim. Case No. 02-200106. She is sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim Jondel Lari Santiago, the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity. In Crim. Case No. 02-200107, this court finds same accused guilty of Less Serious Physical Injuries. She is sentenced to suffer six (6) months of arresto mayor and to pay Violeta Sicor the amount of P25,000 as temperate damages.

SO ORDERED.[16]

Ruling of the Appellate Court

On appeal, accused-appellant faulted the trial court for not considering the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witness Maniego. She also averred that the same witness credibility was improperly appreciated, as the judge who heard the case was different from the one who rendered the decision.

The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. The appellate court ruled that the totality of the prosecutions evidence showed that accused-appellants guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. It added that accused-appellant failed to show any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to falsely testify against her. The dispositive portion of the May 14, 2010 CA Decision reads:WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated January 18, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 18 in Criminal Case Nos. 02-200106 and 02200107 is AFFIRMED.[17]

Hence, We have this appeal.The Issues

I

Whether the CA erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubtII

Whether the CA erred in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecutions witness despite patent inconsistenciesIII

Whether the CA erred in finding that the killing of the victim was attended by treachery

The defense reiterates previous arguments calling for an acquittal of accused-appellant. It casts doubt on Maniegos testimony, claiming that it has irreconcilable inconsistencies which affected her credibility.

The defense also calls attention to the fact that Maniego testified before Judge Romulo A. Lopez, while the Decision was penned by Judge Myra Garcia-Fernandez.[18] It is further contended that Maniego did not actually witness Santiago being stabbed, because she admitted in court that she found out that Santiago had been stabbed when she was already at the hospital attending to her injured mother.

Moreover, it is pointed out by the defense that the victim was 58 in height and of average built while accused-appellant is only 411. It is, thus, incredible that she could have inflicted fatal wounds on the victim.

Lastly, the defense argues that the prosecution was unable to prove that the killing of Santiago was accompanied by treachery. Assuming that accused-appellant did stab the victim, the defense claims that it was not proved that she deliberately and consciously adopted her mode of attack. The encounter was even preceded by a confrontation between accused-appellant and Maniego, and it was Sicor and Santiago who followed accused-appellant after the confrontation. The stabbing incident should have been considered as having occurred in the spur of the moment.Our Ruling

We deny the appeal, but modify the CA Decision.

Elements of Murder Established

The elements of murder that the prosecution must establish are (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.[19]

The prosecution was able to clearly establish that Santiago was killed and that it was accused-appellant who killed him as there was an eyewitness to the crime. Santiagos killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery as testified to by the prosecution eyewitness, Maniego. Paragraph 16, Art. 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

Maniegos testimony proved the presence of treachery in this case, as follows:QWhat did you do after Cecilia Lagman punched you in your face?

AI went outside of the side car x x x, and I went to the barangay hall to ask help x x x.

QAnd what happened after that?

x x x x

APapauwi na po ako sa bahay ng biyenan ko sakto po ng pagpunta ko ho doon nasalubong po ni Cecilia Lagman si Jondel Mari wala hong sabi sabi inundayan po niya ng saksak si Jondel Mari. (When I went home to the house of my mother-in-law because the barangay chairman was not in the barangay hall Jondel Mari meet [sic] Cecilia Lagman and without any word Cecilia Lagman stabbed Jondel Mari.)

QAnd in what place was that where Cecilia Lagman suddenly stabbed Jondel Mari Santiago?

AAt Asuncion, Lakandula [in Tondo Manila] x x x.

QWhen you saw Cecilia Lagman stabbed Jondel Santiago how far were you?

A(Witness demonstrating 5 to 6 meters away).

x x x x

QWhat was Jondel Santiago doing when he was stabbed by Cecilia Lagman?

AHe was lighting a cigarette x x x.

QAnd what was the reaction of Jondel Santiago when he was stabbed by Cecilia Lagman?

ANabigla po kasi hindi naman niya alam na sasaksakin siya eh. [He was shocked because he did not know he was going to be stabbed.]

QWhat part of the body of Jondel Santiago was hit when he was stabbed?

AOne at the chest and two at the back and one at the neck. x x x

Qx x x [I]f the person who boxed you on the face is in court, will you be able to identify her?

AYes x x x.

x x x x

x x x [Witness pointing to a woman, Cecilia Lagman]

Qx x x [I]f the person whom you saw stabbed Jondel Santiago four times is in court will you be able to identify him or her?

ASiya rin po. [She is the same person.][20]

In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.[21] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[22] These elements were present when accused-appellant stabbed Santiago. We quote with approval the appellate courts finding on the presence of treachery:In the case at bar, the victim was caught off guard when appellant, without warning, stabbed him four times successively leaving the latter no chance at all to evade the knife thrusts and defend himself from appellants onslaught. Thus, there is no denying that appellants act of suddenly stabbing the victim leaving the latter no room for defense is a clear case of treachery.[23] x x x

Regardless of the alleged disparity in height between accused-appellant and the victim, We affirm the finding of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, that accused-appellants method of inflicting harm ensured that she would fatally wound Santiago without risk to herself. The perceived advantage of the victim in terms of height was of no use to him as accused-appellant employed treachery in attacking him. He was not afforded a means to defend himself as accused-appellant suddenly started stabbing him repeatedly with an improvised knife.

Finally, the killing of Santiago was neither parricide nor homicide.

Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses

We see no reason to overturn the findings on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It has been long settled that when the issues raised concern the credibility of a witness, the trial courts findings of fact, its calibration of testimonies, and its assessment of the testimonies probative weight, including its conclusions based on said findings, are generally given conclusive effect. It is acknowledged that the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth.[24] Furthermore, accused-appellant failed to show why Maniego and her mother would falsely accuse her of committing a terrible crime. Maniego was the common-law spouse of the victim and she would naturally want to seek justice for his death as well as the injury sustained by her mother.

An examination of the records shows that there is no truth to the allegation of accused-appellant that Maniego did not witness the stabbing of Santiago. She clearly testified that accused-appellant first stabbed Santiago on the chest, then on the side of his neck, then twice on his back.[25]

On the other allegation of accused-appellant, We have earlier held that the fact that the judge who rendered judgment was not the one who heard the witnesses does not adversely affect the validity of conviction.[26] That the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had the occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial but merely relied on the records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its conclusion.[27]

Alibi as a Defense

The defense of alibi is likewise unconvincing. Accused-appellant was positively identified by eyewitnesses. She herself admitted that she confronted one of the eyewitnesses, Maniego, moments before she was seen attacking Maniego, Santiago and Sicor. It is well-settled that alibi cannot be sustained where it is not only without credible corroboration but also does not, on its face, demonstrate the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the place of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[28] In accused-appellants case, there is no corroborative evidence of her alibi or proof of physical impossibility of her being at the scene of the incident to shore up her defense.

Elements of Less Serious Physical Injuries Not Established

We modify the conviction of accused-appellant with regard to Criminal Case No. 02-200107. Originally charged with frustrated murder, accused-appellant was convicted of less serious physical injuries in Criminal Case No. 02-200107. The RTC reasoned that the stabbing injury sustained by Sicor was not on a vital part of the body and she was able to leave the hospital two hours after receiving medical treatment. The RTC properly ruled that the crime committed was not frustrated murder as it was not shown that there was intent to kill.[29] However, while the RTC correctly ruled that the accused-appellant is not guilty of frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 02-200107, the records do not support a conviction for less serious physical injuries.

Art. 265 of the RPC provides, Any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not described [as serious physical injuries] but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten (10) days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor. Nothing in the records, however, supports the finding that Sicor was incapacitated for labor for ten (10) days or more or that she required medical attention for the same period. After the wound on her buttocks was treated, Sicor was released two hours after she was admitted to the hospital.[30] She later returned to the hospital for the removal of the suture on her wound, according to the RTC, after a certain period of time.[31] The Medico-Legal Report on Sicor (Exhibit H) does not indicate how many days of medical treatment her injury would need.[32] Sicor, however, testified that she lost two (2) days of work on account of the injury she sustained.[33] The testimony of her attending physician, Dr. Christian Dennis Cendeno, on the other hand, was dispensed with following a stipulation by the parties on his testimony.[34] The prosecution was, therefore, unable to establish that the injury sustained by Sicor falls under less serious physical injuries absent the requirement that her injury required medical attention for 10 days or incapacitated her for the same period.

The Court can, thus, only convict accused-appellant of slight physical injuries. Under par. 1, Art. 266 of the RPC, the penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period. There being no modifying circumstances to be appreciated, and in accordance with par. 1 of Art. 64,[35] accused-appellant should be meted a penalty of imprisonment of arresto menor in its medium period, which has a duration of eleven (11) to twenty (20) days under Art. 76 of the RPC.

Pecuniary Liability

The CA affirmed the award of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity in Criminal Case No. 02-200106 and PhP 25,000 as temperate damages in Criminal Case No. 02-200106.

People v. Combate[36] reiterated the rule on civil indemnity and damages:When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorneys fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases. In People v. Tubongbanua, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the Court in several cases such as Mendoza v. People, People v. Buban, People v. Guevarra, and People v. Regalario. Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the instant case. Interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all damages, i.e., actual or compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary damages, from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.

In accordance with the rules cited above, We modify the award of damages. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,[37] the award of civil indemnity ex delicto of PhP 50,000 in favor of the heirs of Santiago is in order. Moral damages of PhP 50,000 and PhP 30,000 in exemplary damages, with an interest of six percent (6%) per annum, are also proper.[38]

We delete the award of PhP 25,000 in temperate damages to Sicor, since only slight physical injuries were committed and no proof of medical expenses was presented during trial.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03289 finding accused-appellant guilty of Murder in Criminal Case No. 02-200106 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the late Jondel Mari Davantes Santiago the sum of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral damages, PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages, and interest on all damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid. With respect to Criminal Case No. 02-200107, accused-appellant is convicted of SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES and is sentenced to twenty (20) days of arresto menor. The award of temperate damages is DELETED.

SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 182522, March 07, 2012]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NOEL T. ADALLOM, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

This is a review on appeal of the Decision[1] dated July 31, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00365, which affirmed in toto the Decision[2] dated December 15, 2003 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76, Quezon City, in Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-105875 and Q-01-105877, finding accused-appellant Noel T. Adallom guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder and attempted murder.

Accused-appellant was originally charged with two (2) counts of murder and one (1) count of attempted murder under the following Informations:Criminal Case No. Q-01-105875

That on or about the 28th day of October 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with two other persons whose true names and other personal circumstances have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, qualified with evident premeditation and treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, assault, attack and employ personal violence upon the person of DANILO VILLAREAL y ESPIRAS by then and there shooting him with the use of a firearm hitting him on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal gunshot wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Danilo Villareal y Espiras.[3]

Criminal Case No. Q-01-105876

That on or about the 28th day of October 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with two other persons whose true names and other personal circumstances have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, qualified with evident premeditation and treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, assault, attack and employ personal violence upon the person of ROMMEL HINA by then and there shooting him with the use of a firearm hitting the latter on the head, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal gunshot wound which was the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Rommel Hina.[4]

Criminal Case No. Q-01-105877

That on or about the 28th day of October [2001], in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with two other persons whose true names and identities have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, qualified with evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commence the commission of the crime of murder directly by overt acts, by then and there shooting one BABELITO E. VILLAREAL with the use of a firearm but said accused were not able to perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of murder by reason of some cause or accident other than their own spontaneous desistance, that is complainant was able to ran away, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.[5]

When arraigned on January 15, 2002, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.[6]

At the pre-trial conference on January 29, 2002, the parties stipulated only as to the deaths of Danilo Villareal (Danilo) and Rommel Hina (Rommel).[7]

Thereafter, trial ensued.

The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely: Babelito Villareal (Babelito),[8] Danilos brother who survived the shooting; Janita Villareal (Janita),[9] Danilos wife; Dr. Joselito Rodrigo (Joselito),[10] the Chief Medico Legal of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory who examined Danilos cadaver; and Diorito Coronas, Jr. (Diorito),[11] who was present at the time and place of the shooting.

Below are the testimonies of Babelito and Diorito as summarized by the RTC:Prosecution witness Babelito Villareal, a construction worker and residing at 120 Senatorial Road, Barangay Batasan Hills, Quezon City, testified that he was with his brother, Danilo, and Rommel Hina, a neighbor, towards midnight of October 27, 2001 in front of the store of his sister, Nanieta. His house was just across the street. They were drinking beer but ran out of it. Danilo asked Rommel Hina to buy cigarettes from a nearby store because their sisters store was already closed. When Hina returned, they stayed in the same place. Babelito had his back against the wall fronting the road while he was facing his brothers back. Hina was on his right side. Soon a tricycle with its lights out and its engine turned off, arrived. It was still moving because the road was on a downward slope. He saw Noel Adallom alight from the sidecar. Adallom was with Johnwayne Lindawan and a tricycle driver. After Adallom alighted, he fired his carbine. There was a successive burst of gunfire and Adallom was saying, Ano? Ano? His brother went down and Rommel Hina was moaning. The tricycle came from his left side. When Adallom fired his gun, Danilo turned his head and tried to run but he was hit at the back. He himself, when he saw the gunfire just closed his eyes and leaned against the wall and turned his head to the right and moved his leg downward just waiting for what would happen next. When his brother and Rommel fell, the firing stopped and when he turned his head, he noticed that Adallom upon seeing him alive, again fired successive shots and then he heard, tak-tak. The gun must have jammed then he heard another burst of gunfire, rat-tat-tat. He sought cover beside a vehicle and ran. He showed some pictures and pointed to the place he testified on (see Exhibit A). There were bullet marks shown in the pictures (Exhibit B). He ran to an alley and then he went back to Senatorial Road where the incident happened and saw people milling around. His brother was already dead while Rommel Hina was rushed to the hospital. Noel Adallom, a long time resident of their place is the cousin of the husband of his sister while Johnwayne Lindawan is the son of his brother-in-law. During the wake of his brother, he saw Johnwayne with a new haircut. Adallom also had a new haircut. They used to have long hair prior to the incident. Both of them were sporting army cut. He tried to watch Adalloms movements. He saw him fixing the gate of his house and when he could not take it anymore he told Jeanette, the wife of his brother Danilo Villareal, that what Adallom was doing was very insulting. He did not give any statement to the police because there was still the wake and he wanted to consult Jeanette who was very confused. He knows that it is hard to fight an Ifugao. After the funeral, he told his siblings about the incident. They decided to have Adallom arrested. His Ate Jeanette went to Station 6 but the police were not cooperative and he was losing heart. On November 19, 2001, he saw Adallom alight in front of his house. He asked his siblings to go to the barangay hall while he waited for Adallom because he might leave. When the barangay people came, they picked him up and informed him about the complaint against him. Adallom was detained at the barangay hall and taken at Station 6. Babelito executed a sinumpaang salaysay marked Exhibit C.

On cross examination, among others, he said that Adalloms house is just near the eskinita. The following day when he saw Adallom sporting a new haircut, he tried to keep track of his movements. He did that for several days. He was shown a sketch marked as Exhibit D for the prosecution and said, the house of his sister was along Senatorial Road at the corner of an alley in Avocado Street. After Adallom alighted from the tricycle, he positioned himself before he fired the shots. When Babelito returned to the scene of the incident, he instructed some people to bring Rommel Hina to the hospital. He saw Agustin Adallom and Anderson Tuguinay that night. He saw Adalloms wife by the gate of their house. He did not see Noel Adallom after the incident. The police investigators came to the scene and he went with them to the Criminal Investigation Unit. The investigator was Lawa-Lawa. When he was about to give a statement at the Criminal Investigation Unit, Nathaniel Hina, the father of Rommel appeared and he was telling a different story. Nathaniel was a usual drinking companion of Noel Adallom. Immediately prior to the incident, Rommels father was coming down from the tricycle with some companions, the barkada of Noel Adallom, he passed by the eskinita and took a look at them. That was before the tricycle with Adallom as passenger passed by. At the police precinct Rommels father was saying that it was another Ifugao, a certain Hubert who was responsible for the shooting. Because of this incident with the father of Rommel, he did not give a statement. He reiterated that he saw his brother hit as he was slowly moving his head and then he closed his eyes. After the first burst of gunfire it stopped for a while. When the gunman saw him, he raised his gun again and pointed it at him then he heard, pak. It did not fire then he heard successive shots. He saw Adallom with the carbine only that night but he knew that his family has a carbine. He was shown a photograph marked Exhibit 2 depicting the wall of his sister Nanettes store marked as Exhibits A and B. There were no chairs in front of the store even when they were drinking. He was there first before Danilo and Rommel arrived. There were also two women who came thirty (30) minutes prior to the incident Danilo and Rommel had been drinking in front of his house. When they arrived, they gave him a bottle of beer to drink. And then, Danilo asked Rommel to buy cigarettes at Andersons store. The father of Rommel arrived and stared at them, just as Rommel arrived. He knows that Nathaniel gave a statement at the police station. Although in his affidavit he also mentioned Johnwayne Lindawan, the police have not arrested him. Lindawan also alighted from the back of the tricycle driver and he stood by the side of the road. He could not identify the tricycle driver.

Diorito Coronas, Jr., a billiard player by profession, usually played at the billiard hall near the house of Noel Adallom in Sarep Street on the right side going up the road. On October 28, 2001, about midnight, he was at the videoke bar, his usual hang out in Sitio 6 going towards Talanay. While there, he heard gunfire so he immediately went near a parked vehicle in front of the videoke bar. When he tried to investigate, he saw three persons fall to the ground (Bumulagta noong pinagbabaril). Two of them were already down and the third one stood up and ran even as the gunman continued firing. He identified the man who ran away as Babelito Villareal (Samboy). It was Noel Adallom whom he saw carrying the firearm which he described as a little less than 2 feet, shooting the three men. He saw Adalloms companion and a third one who was manning the tricycle. The place of the incident was well lighted but from where he was standing, the light came only from the videoke bar. Then he noticed a yellow tricycle without any plate number moving toward his direction while the two other guys went to the opposite direction going upward. When he saw that they left, he immediately approached the two men lying down. He identified one of them as Rommel who was still moaning. He became apprehensive that someone might see him and his family might be involved. He ran toward his house. He identified three sets of pictures marked Exhibits A and B. He pointed to the place where the three guys who were shot at were positioned.

On cross examination, Coronas identified the owner of the videoke bar as Anderson Tuguinay.[12]

Janita, when she took the witness stand, detailed the expenses incurred for the funeral and burial of her husband, Danilo.

Dr. Joselito reported that as a result of his autopsy examination of Danilos body, he had determined that Danilo died from hemorrhagic shock due to multiple gunshot wounds. There were six gunshot wounds in Danilos trunk and lower extremities. All points of entry were at Danilos back. There were five exit wounds at the front portion of Danilos body while one slug was recovered in Danilos liver. Dr. Joselito submitted the recovered slug for ballistic examination. Dr. Joselito further elaborated on his findings during his cross-examination:On cross examination, among others, he stated that the autopsy was conducted on October 28, 2001 at around 11:30 a.m. The abrasion on the victims right acromial region was caused by friction of the skin on a rough hard surface. Gunshot wound no. 1 was directed anteriorwards, upwards and lateralwards meaning it came from the back, traveled upwards from the center towards the sides. Its point of entry was 10 cm. from the posterior midline while the point of exit was 20 cm. from the posterior midline. The point of entry of gunshot wound No. 2 (depicted as POE No. 1 in Exhibit J) is 4 cm. from the posterior midline and exited 6 cm. from the anterior midline. The bullet traversed from the rear to the front going to the right side of the cadaver. The third gunshot wounds point of entry is at the right infrascapular region end exited also on the right side of the chest but more towards the outer portion. The fourth gunshot wounds point of entry is on the left side, back to front, lateralwards meaning from center or near the center towards the most outer part of the left side of the body. The entrance and exit wound were on the same level. It is superficial wound meaning it did not enter the peritonial cavity. The fifth gunshot wound was directed anteriorwards, downwards and medialwards. Anteriorward means from the back, it is noted downwards towards the foot while medialwards is towards the center. The sixth and final gunshot wound was sustained at the right buttocks directed anteriorwards, upwards and lateralwards, meaning from the back upwards going to the head and lateralwards, meaning from the center to the outer side of the cadaver. Since the entrance wounds were at the back of the cadaver, assuming the victim was not moving, the assailant or muzzle of the gun was at the back of the victim. Except for the fourth gunshot wound which entered and exited at the same level and the fifth gunshot wound which was downwards, all the other gunshot wounds were directed upwards. If the victim was in a sitting position at the time he sustained the wounds with an upward trajectory, he would probably be in a ducking position, hence the upward trajectory. If the victim was stationary at the time he was shot, it is possible the assailant was moving but the most probable explanation for the differences in the level of the points of entry in relation to the points of exit of the wounds is that the victim moved as a result of the force of the bullet that entered his body. The slug that he extracted from the cadaver of the victim was from a .30 caliber firearm based on the report of the ballistician.[13]

The defense presented the testimonies of accused-appellant[14] himself; Mila Adallom (Mila),[15] accused-appellants wife; Aida Marquez (Aida);[16] Sgt. Anderson Tuguinay (Anderson);[17] Sgt. Agustin Adallom (Agustin);[18] Editha Gutierrez (Editha);[19] and Elizabeth Buyayo (Elizabeth).[20]

Accused-appellant interposed the defenses of denial and alibi, to wit:Noel Adallom, a machine operator, testified that on October 27, 2001, he arrived home from work at about 11:00 oclock in the evening and he saw his wife working on the screen. He had coffee because he was not yet sleepy. He told his wife that he was going to the billiard hall at Retota. On his way, he saw the group of Boying Hina having a drinking spree. They gave him a shot of liquor but he refused because in that place, riots were rampant. He has known Boying Hina since he started residing in Batasan Hills in 1988. He went to the billiard hall owned by Ilustre. He is a new player and he played in with one Zaldy. After that, he transferred to the Retota billiard hall. He arrived there at about midnight. He played billiard with Danilo and Dominador Baldaba. They were playing when they heard gunshots. The sound of the gun fire was rat-tat-tat. They continued playing billiard until his wife arrived to fetch him. They stopped playing and he went with her. His wife asked him to pass by Senatorial Road where the sounds of gunshots came from. He saw Nanette Villareal Lindawan and asked her what was happening. Nanette was crying and she said, Patay na si kuya, referring to Danilo Villareal. He has known Nanette from the time she got married. He talked to her in front of her house in the middle portion of Senatorial Road. He identified a picture marked Exhibit 3 showing the place where he talked to Nanette. When he was about to leave the place, he saw Sgt. Tuguinay holding a flashlight. When he asked Sgt. Tuguinay what happened, Tuguinay looked at him and did not say anything. He proceeded to talk with Sgt. Agustin when a police patrol arrived. The police were asking for someone who witnessed the incident. Babelito Villareal came out shirtless and boarded a mobile. He and his wife proceeded home. The place as shown in Exhibit 3 was not lighted. It was illuminated by some lights from other houses about ten meters away and you would not be able to recognize faces. When shown a sketch, Exhibit 1, he pointed the billiard place of Retota (Exhibit 1-I). The Avocado Road alley was marked Exhibit 3-A. He was passing by that alley everyday in front of the house of Nanette. For the month of October 1 to 15, he was assigned to the first shift and went to work in the morning from 6:00 to 3:00 oclock. From October 16 to the end of that month, he was on the second shift arriving home at 11:00 oclock in the evening. There was no electric bulb in front of the house of Nanette. Across the house of Nanette is the house of Sgt. Agustin Adallom. There was no bulb in front of his house. In the morning of October 28, 2001, he was planting pechay at the house of Agustin Adallom at about 9:00 oclock in the morning. On succeeding days after the incident, he usually left the house at noontime because his work started at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon. He identified his time record from October 1 to 15 marked Exhibit 4; the time card for October 16-31 marked Exhibit 4-A; the time card for November 1-15 marked Exhibit 4-B; and the time card for November 16-30 marked as Exhibit 4-C. Exhibit number 7 has no signature because that was the time he was arrested on November 19. When he is not working he stayed at home. At the time he was arrested he was preparing coffee when he heard someone calling from outside and found out that they were barangay officials looking for him. He saw one BSDO jump over the fence with a gun so he became afraid. They told him that he was the one who killed Danilo Villareal. They were not accompanied by policemen. He was asking them why he was being apprehended without a warrant of arrest. They told him to give his explanation at the barangay office. He was handcuffed. They just placed him inside the cell for an hour. Policemen came and brought him to Station 6. On the 20th of November, he was brought to Camp Karingal and they asked for his name and occupation. They brought him to a vacant room and asked him, bakit mo pinatay si Villareal. He said he did not commit the crime and they brought him back to the cell. On the 21st of November, he was brought to Quezon City Hall for inquest. He saw the name of Wilfredo Maynigo on top of his table. Upon investigation the prosecutor placed on top of the paper, for further, (see Exhibit 8). He knows Danilo Villareal and his wife Janita because their wives were doing business of paluwagan. He met his wife in the house of Agustin Adallom and he did not know that she and Danilo had an affair.

On cross examination, Noel Adallom said that he works as a machine operator since 1988. He recalled that October 28, 2001 was a Sunday and it was his day-off. He was alone when he went to Retota billiard hall near Senatorial Road after telling his wife that he would go there. Riots frequently happen on the upper portion of Senatorial Road. When they heard gunshots they were playing billiard, and they stopped momentarily. He was married to Mila Adallom in the year 2000 at a mass wedding but he knew her since 1992. He did not have any knowledge that Danilo and his wife were having an affair. He does not know of any such relationship nor did he hear any gossip about that. He knew Babelito Villareal since 1988. There had been no quarrel between them and does not know why he would point to him as the assassin. Mila fetched him that early morning of October 28, 2001 at Retota. He would have still played billiard with Danilo and Dominador but Mila came and asked him to go home because there was a shooting at the upper portion of Senatorial Road. After the incident he talked with Nanette, sister of Danilo Villareal and Babelito Villareal, and asked her what happened. She told him that [her] kuya was dead. He has known Danilo since 1998 because Danilos wife and his wife were engaged in a paluwagan business. He seldom talked with Danilo Villareal because both of them were working and they seldom saw each other. He does not know of any reason to be jealous of Danilo because he does not know anything about the alleged relationship between him and his wife.[21]

Mila confirmed on the witness stand that her husband, accused-appellant, went out to play billiards at around 11:30 p.m. on October 27, 2001. After midnight, she heard a burst of gunfire. Fearing that accused-appellant might get into trouble, Mila decided to fetch accused-appellant at Retotas billiard hall. When she reached the billiard hall, Mila asked accused-appellant, who was then still playing billiards, to go home with her. To get home, Mila and accused-appellant took the route from Avocado Street to Senatorial Road. There, at Senatorial Road, Mila saw Danilo and Rommel already sprawled on the ground. On cross-examination, Mila denied having an affair with the deceased Danilo.

Aida, an ambulant vendor, testified that in the early morning of October 28, 2001, she was at a billiard hall watching accused-appellant, together with a certain Paeng and Zaldy, play a game, when she heard gunshots.

Sgt. Anderson, who resided within the vicinity of the shooting incident, recollected that at around past midnight of October 28, 2001, he was in a videoke bar with a certain Boying, when he heard two successive automatic gunshots. He went out of the bar and saw Nanette, Danilos sister, who he asked about what happened. Nanette responded binaril si manong. Sgt. Anderson went home and called the authorities. He went back to the scene of the shooting with a flashlight to look for empty shells. Sgt. Anderson also remembered that accused-appellant approached him and asked him about what happened.

Sgt. Agustin, who likewise resided within the vicinity of the shooting incident, narrated that he was awakened by a burst of gunfire in the early morning of October 28, 2001, at around 12:45 a.m. He then heard someone shouting wag sarge, wag sarge! Then he heard another burst of gunfire. He went out of his house and proceeded to Senatorial Road. There he saw blood in front of the window of the house of Nanette, Danilos sister, and a lot of people already milling around. Among the people he saw were Nanette, accused-appellant, and Sgt. Anderson. Sgt. Agustin acknowledged that accused-appellant is his first-degree cousin and that he did not personally witness the shooting incident.

Editha is another ambulant vendor who recalled that at around 2:00 a.m. on October 28, 2001, she met a certain Boying (purportedly Rommels father) on the road, who told her that his son was shot. Editha admitted, however, that she had no personal knowledge of the shooting incident.

The last witness for the defense was Elizabeth, accused-appellants distant relative, and the neighbor and close friend of Janita, Danilos wife. Elizabeth stated under oath before the RTC that on October 28, 2001, she opened her gate and saw people gathering at Senatorial Road. From listening to the stories of the bystanders, she learned that someone was shot at around 1:00 a.m. on October 28, 2001 by two persons wearing bonnets and riding a motorcycle. According to Elizabeth, Janita had never confided to her any marital problem with Danilo.

The prosecution presented on rebuttal Nanieta Lindawan (Nanieta), who gave the following account of the events that transpired in the early morning of October 28, 2001:Testifying on rebuttal, Nanieta Lindawan denied having met, seen or talk[ed] with Adallom, a townmate of her husband, in the early morning of October 28, 2001. There was never a time after the killing of [her] brother Danilo that she saw the accused on Senatorial Road. She belied the testimony of Agustin Adallom that he talked to her in the morning of October 28, 2001. She knows that he is a soldier stationed in Camp Capinpin and that he comes home only once a month for a day, either Saturday or Sunday. She is also sure that witness Sgt. Anderson Tuguinay was not able to talk to her that morning because after the incident, she was alone in the middle of the road crying.

On cross-examination, among others, she stated that the incident happened right in front of her house. She was at home with her sisters and they were sleeping when she heard successive gunfire. She peeped out of the window and she saw two persons lying face down, Danilo and [Rommel]. She was able to recognize her brother because he was facing the window. She went out of the house minutes after the last gunshot. She called for her siblings. Except for the neighbor of her Ate [Janita], none of their neighbors came out because they were afraid. Her brother Babelito was also there and he told her that he was almost hit. Danilo was already brought to the hospital before the police arrived in unmarked vehicles. Although Sgt. Tuguinay owns a delivery van, they did not try to borrow it to bring Danilo to the hospital because Tuguinay does not lend his vehicle to anyone. She denied having borrowed facilities, like chairs and tables, from her best friend Elizabeth, who owns a school. Elizabeth told Nanietas husband that she was afraid to go to the wake because it was her gun which was used in the shooting. She admitted she saw Elizabeth at the wake once. She does not remember the last time when Sgt. Agustin Adallom came home from Camp Capinpin. Her husband is also stationed in Camp Capinpin and if Sgt. Agustin was really there at the time of the incident, he would have offered to inform her husband about the incident.[22]

The documentary exhibits for the prosecution consisting of Babelitos sworn statement, in a question and answer form, executed before PO3 Leo Tabuena on November 21, 2001; sketch and photographs of the location of the shooting incident; Danilos death certificate; the autopsy report on Danilos body; receipts and list of funeral and burial expenses incurred by Danilos heirs; and the ballistics report which stated that the bullet recovered at the scene came from a .30 caliber firearm were all admitted by the RTC in its Order[23] dated September 2, 2002.

The defense submitted its own documentary exhibits, specifically, photographs of several bullet holes at the store where Danilo, Rommel, and Babelito were shot to show the trajectory of the bullets; sketch of the location of the shooting incident; accused-appellants daily time records from his work for the months of October and November 2001; and Janitas letter-complaint dated November 19, 2001 against accused-appellant. All these exhibits were admitted by the RTC in its Order[24] dated June 23, 2003.

On December 15, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision giving more credence to the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses Babelito and Diorito and finding implausible accused-appellants defenses of denial and alibi. The RTC pronounced accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder of Danilo in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105875 and attempted murder of Babelito in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105877; but dismissed the charge against accused-appellant for the murder of Rommel in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105876 because of insufficiency of evidence. The dispositive portion of the RTC judgment reads:WHEREFORE, finding the accused NOEL ADALLOM guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder described and penalized under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 63 thereof, and there being no other aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Danilo Villareal, as follows:1. P50,000.00 as civil indemnity;2. P50,000.00 as moral damages;3. P57,084.80 as actual damages; and4. To pay the costs.With respect to Crim. Case No. Q-01-105817 for the attempted murder of Babelito Villareal after applying the indeterminate sentence law, the court hereby sentences accused to suffer imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years of prision mayor.

For insufficiency of evidence, Criminal Case No. Q-01-105876 is hereby dismissed.[25]

Accused-appellant appealed the foregoing RTC judgment before the Court of Appeals. Accused-appellant filed his Brief[26] on January 13, 2006 while plaintiff-appellee, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Brief[27] on May 29, 2006.

In its Decision dated July 31, 2007, the Court of Appeals agreed with the factual findings of the RTC and ruled thus:Verily, we reiterate the jurisprudential doctrine that great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses; this can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the record that the trial court overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would have altered the result. In the course of our review, the records disclose, that the trial court has considered all the evidences of both parties and, thus, has ruled correctly. Trial courts have the opportunity to see witnesses as they testify in court, an opportunity not readily available to appellate courts.

Thus, we find no reason to depart from the above ruling. We have examined the records and we confirm the trial courts findings that the testimonies of the witnesses are more trustworthy than the testimonies of the defense witnesses, particularly the appellants.

With the application of prevailing laws and jurisprudence to the evidence presented, We cannot conclude otherwise but rule for the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED in toto.[28]

Hence, accused-appellant comes before us on appeal.

In our Resolution[29] dated July 23, 2008, we required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. Both plaintiff-appellee and accused-appellant manifested, however, that they had already exhausted their arguments before the Court of Appeals and would no longer file any supplemental brief.[30]

Accused-appellant assails his conviction for murder and attempted murder on these grounds:A. The trial court erred in finding the testimony of Babelito Villareal and Diorito Coronas, Jr. credible.[31]1.) The trial court misapplied the doctrine that the relationship of the witness to the victim does not make the former a biased witness, but rather makes his testimony more credible.[32]

2.) The trial courts findings that Babelito and [Diorito] narrated as they saw the incident in a clear, simple and direct manner; and, that their testimonies jive on material points are seriously belied by the evidence extant on the record.[33]

3.) The trial courts finding that Babelito and [Diorito] could not have been mistaken with the identity of Noel Adallom because he had been a long time resident of the place is highly speculative.[34]

4.) The trial courts finding that the place where the incident occurred was lighted.[35]

5.) The trial courts finding that no motive was shown for the two witnesses to prevaricate and concoct the story to implicate Adallom with the killing is uncalled for.[36]

B. The trial court erred in relying on the weakness of the defense rather on the strength of the prosecutions evidence.[37]C. The trial court erred in not finding that the evidence on record raise a reasonable doubt that the accused was the assailant.[38]

Plaintiff-appellee counter-argues that:I

The testimony of Babelito Villareal, an eye witness and survivor of the assault, established with utmost certainty the identity of appellant as the assailant and gunman.II

The prosecution established the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.III

Appellants defense of denial is weak and without factual basis.[39]

We sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for both crimes.

Jurisprudence dictates that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court, since it is settled that when the trial courts findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[40]

We find no cogent reason to deviate from the cited case doctrine.

As aptly appreciated by the RTC, prosecution witnesses Babelito and Diorito both positively identified accused-appellant as the person who treacherously shot Danilo and Babelito, and ultimately succeeded in killing Danilo. Said witnesses gave a forthright and consistent narration of what they had actually witnessed the early morning of October 28, 2001 at Senatorial Road.

Babelito had to relive before the RTC the traumatic experience of seeing his brother Danilo killed and barely escaping with his own life:Q And can you tell us where were the three of you during that time?

A I was in front of my house which is also in front of the store of my sister Nanieta.

x x x x

Q And what were the three of you doing at that time?

AWe were seated in front of the store of my sister drinking beer, sir.

x x x x

QAnd you said that you ran out of beer, what happened after you ran out of beer?

A We stopped drinking and then a tricycle arrived with its lights out and its engine turned off. It was still moving because the road was on a downward slope, sir.

x x x x

QAt the time that you noticed the said tricycle, can you tell us what time was that?

A 12:45 in the morning of October 28, 2001, sir.

QWhen you noticed the said tricycle moving downwards because of the sloping road, what happened next?

A Noel Adallom alighted from the tricycle. He got out of the sidecar.

Q By the way, were you able to count how many persons were inside the tricycle?

A There were three of them: the tricycle driver, Noel Adallom and John Win Lindawan.

QYou said Noel Adallom was inside the tricycle, at the time, where was he seated in the tricycle?

A Inside the tricycle, sir.

Q Now, what happened next when Noel Adallom alighted?

A He fired his gun, sir.

QFrom the place wherein Noel Adallom alighted immediately thereafter fired his gun, how far was your group from him?

A About 4 meters, sir.

QNow, you said Mr. Adallom alighted and fired his gun, can you remember what kind of firearm he used at the time?

A Carbine.

QWas it a long or short firearm?

A Long firearm, sir.

QAnd when he alighted and fired his gun, what happened to your group, if any?

A There were successive shots and I just saw gunbursts and he was saying, Ano? Ano? while he was firing successively at my brother and Rommel Hina who was already moaning.

QCan you tell us your relative positions at the time Mr. Adallom fired his gun?

AI was at the back by the wall fronting the road and my brothers back was fronting the street facing me.

Q How about Mr. Hina, where was he positioned?

A On my right side, sir.

Q Can you tell us from what direction the said tricycle came from?

A From my left side, sir.

Q So, you are telling us that the tricycle which had no lights and with engines not running just came by the road and 4 meters from you, Mr. Adallom alighted and fired his gun?

AYes, sir.

Q And what was the relative position of your brother when Noel Adallom fired his gun?

A While the tricycle was coming down the road, my brother turned his head and tried to run but he was already hit all at the back by the volley of fire.

Q What about Rommel Hina, what happened to him?

AHe was also hit.

Q How about you?

A When I saw gunfire, I just closed my eyes and leaned against the wall and turned my head to the right and slowly, I moved my leg downwards and just waited for what would happen next.

Q And can you tell us what happened to you after you just left your fate to God?

A When my brother and Rommel fell, the firing stopped. I turned my head and I noticed that Noel Adallom looked surprised.

Q When Noel Adallom looked surprised upon seeing you still alive, what happened next?

AHe again fired a succession of shots and then I heard tak-tak.

Q And would you know what that sound was that you heard?

AI surmised that the gun must have jammed, sir.

QWhat did you do, if any, when you realized that the gun must have jammed?

AI thought of standing up and running and I again heard a burst of gunfire, rat-tat-tat.

Q What happened when you heard another round of gunfire?

A I sought cover behind a vehicle and I ran towards the corner to escape.[41] (Emphases supplied.)

Diorito corroborated Babelitos testimony when he recounted before the RTC the following:Q Now, you said that you were at the said videoke bar at around 11:30 to 12:00 oclock; while you were there at the said videoke, what happened if any?

A When I heard a gunfire, I immediately proceeded near the vehicle to look on what is happening.

Q Now, you said that you heard a gunfire; when you heard that gunfire, who were with you during that time?

AI was alone.

Q And you said that after hearing a gunfire you went out near a vehicle that was parked; can you tell us where is that vehicle that was parked where you went for cover?

A The vehicle is right in front of the videoke bar where we usually hang out and it so happened that the vehicle is also owned by the owner of that videoke bar.

x x x x

Q You said you went to that vehicle which was parked, what else did you do after going near the vehicle?

A I was looking who shot who.

Q And what did you see if any?

A I saw three persons who fell (bumulagta noong pinagbabaril).

Q Now, you said that you saw three men who just fell when shots were fired upon, [is] any of those three men present in todays courtroom whom you said that fell down, can you identify them?

A The two persons are already dead but the other, I got surprised when he immediately ran.

QThat person that stood up, can you identify him?

A Yes, sir.

Q Can you kindly tell us his name if you know it?

A Samboy, sir.

Q Is he present in todays courtroom? Can you kindly stand up and point to us that person? Kindly tap the shoulder of that person.

A(Witness tapping the shoulder of a man who when asked answered that his name is Babelito Villareal.)

Q Aside from seeing those three men whom you said fell down, what else did you see if any?

AI saw one person firing shots and the other one is facing in front of the house of Samboy and the other person was manning the tricycle.

Q So, all in all, there were three persons that you saw other than those three other persons whom you said fell down, is that correct?

A Yes, sir.

QYou said that you saw one of those three persons firing a gun, can you kindly describe to us that gun that was used by the said person?

AThe size of the gun that he was using was like this (witness demonstrating), less than two feet. But I dont know what kind.

Q That person whom you saw carrying a firearm and was shooting that men, if that person is present in todays courtroom, can you identify him?

A Yes, sir.

Q Can you kindly step down again and tap the shoulder of that person whom you saw?

A (Witness tapping the shoulder of a person who gave his name as Noel Adallom)

Q Now, when this shooting incident took place, can you kindly tell us how far were this group of men whom you said were shot from the place where you were hiding or covering near the vehicle?

A Same distance more or less eight meters.

Q How about the gunman who was shooting these three men, how far were you from him?

AIt is farther by half meter.

Q You said that you saw this incident that took place, can you kindly tell us what was the lighting condition during that time that this incident happened?

A The place where the incident happened, it was well-lighted, however, from where I stand, the place was not lighted. The light came only from the videoke bar.

x x x x

Q You said that after you saw Mr. Adallom shot these three men, what else did you see if any?

A When he started firing at these three men, right after, I saw one person immediately stood up and ran away and right after that, Noel Adallom kept on firing at the guy who was running.

Q When you said that guy stood up you were referring to Babelito Villareal, that one that you just pointed prior to the accused?

A Yes, sir.

QAnd what happened next after Mr. Adallom was not able to hit Mr. Babelito Villareal?

AI noticed a yellow tricycle without plate number which immediately started its engine and moved downward towards my direction and the other two guys went on the other direction going upward.

Q How about you, what did you do next after seeing that incident?

A I immediately approached the two guys who were lying down.

Q And what did you see if any after that?

A I still heard one guy in the person of Rommel who was still moaning.

Q After hearing Rommel still moaning, what did you do, if any?

A I was a bit apprehensive because maybe somebody will see me and my family will be involved so I immediately ran away from the scene.

Q Where did you go after running away?

A I immediately went to my house.[42] (Emphases supplied.)

Accused-appellants attacks on the credibility of Babelito and Diorito are unconvincing, each having already been soundly rejected by the Court of Appeals, thus:The accused-appellant is not successful in proving the incredibility and improbability of the testimonies of the [prosecutions] two eye witnesses, hence, his arguments on the slight difference in the location and nature of gunshot wounds as opposed to the position of the assailant as testified by the witness are not sufficient to overturn the eyewitness accounts of Diorito and Babelito. The positive identification of the witnesses is more than enough to prove the accused-appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Accused-appellant argues that the delay in charging him raises serious doubts on Babelitos testimony. Well settled is the rule that Delay in making criminal accusations will not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. It has been established that the delay in filing a criminal complaint is attributed to his confusion and desire to consult his sister-in-law who is the wife of deceased Danilo. He also testified that he did not file a complaint immediately, because he did not want to disturb the wake of his brother. Such explanation is acceptable. True enough, he filed a complaint with the barangay officials and asked for their assistance in bringing accused-appellant to Station 6 after the funeral of his brother.

Accused-appellant tried to attack the reliability of Babelitos testimony by insisting that the story told by Babelito does not jive with the story told by the physical evidence consisting of the wounds sustained by the body of Danilo. We are not convinced. Accused-appellant is capitalizing on the fact that the location and nature of the gunshot wounds sustained by deceased Danilo is anteriorwards, lateralwards and going to the right. Simply stated, the direction of the wounds are slightly going upwards to the right, which according to the accused-appellant is impossible to be sustained by the deceased, because (as told by Babelito) he is standing up when he shot deceased Danilo, who is seated on the street. Such argument lacks merit. As explained by Dr. Rodrigo in his testimony, the body of Danilo could have moved and slumped forward when he was being hit by bullets in rapid succession and the position of his body has changed. When the bullets hit the body of the deceased, the body was already on the ground face down and the natural trajectory of bullets is upward, toward the head of the deceased. It is established that accused-appellant Noel was shooting while he was standing and the deceased was already on the ground. So when you try to examine the body and let it stand up, it would naturally create an impression that the bullets direction is upward. The explanation is so simple, the body received the bullets while it is slumped, with face forward on the ground, and accused-appellant Noel was shooting while he was standing up. Such explanation is corroborated by Babelitos account that Danilo tried to turn his shoulders to face his left side, before he fell furthermore, such testimony is also corroborated by the testimony of Nanette which claimed that Danilo fell at the spot marked as Exhibit 2-C as told by Babelito.[43] (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)

In contrast, accused-appellant proffered the defenses of denial and alibi, which are the weakest of defenses in criminal cases. The well-established rule is that denial and alibi are self-serving negative evidence; they cannot prevail over the spontaneous, positive, and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who pointed to and identified the accused-appellant as the malefactor. Indeed, alibi is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.[44]

Although accused-appellant presented other witnesses to supposedly corroborate his alibi, we could not ascribe much probative weight to said witnesses testimonies. None of said witnesses actually saw the shooting, most only heard the gunshots and arrived at the scene after the shooting took place and, thus, had no personal knowledge of the said incident. Except for Aida, no other witness for the defense was physically with accused-appellant at the exact time of the shooting. And even Aidas testimony is unreliable given the observation of the RTC that it is in conflict with that of accused-appellant. Accused-appellant claimed that he first went to the billiard hall owned by Ilustre where he played with a certain Zaldy and then he transferred to Retotas billiard hall where he was playing with Danilo and Dominador Baldaba when he heard the gunshots. Yet, Aida attested that she was watching accused-appellant playing billiards with a certain Zaldy when she heard the gunshots.

In sum, the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant for the murder of Danilo in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105875 and attempted murder of Babelito in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105877.

The penalty prescribed by law for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death.[45] With the repeal of the death penalty law, the only penalty prescribed by law for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua. The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply, inter alia, to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment, including reclusion perpetua. Hence, accused-appellant has been properly sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the murder of Danilo in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105875.

However, we find it necessary to modify the award of damages to Danilos heirs in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105875. Consistent with prevailing case law,[46] accused-appellant must pay Danilos heirs the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, in addition to the sum of P57,084.80 as actual damages.

For the crime of attempted murder, the penalty shall be prision mayor, since Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code states that a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the sentence shall be that which could be properly imposed in view of the attending circumstances, and the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance in this case, the maximum of the sentence should be within the range of prision mayor in its medium term, which has a duration of eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years; and that the minimum should be within the range of prision correccional, which has a duration of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Hence, we sentence accused-appellant to suffer imprisonment from six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, for the attempted murder of Babelito in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105877.

We further order accused-appellant to pay Babelito the amounts of P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P10,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105877.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal of accused-appellant Noel T. Adallom is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated July 31, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00365, which affirmed the Decision dated December 15, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 76, Quezon City, in Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-105875 and Q-01-105877, finding Noel T. Adallom guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder and attempted murder, respectively, is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS as to the penalties and awards imposed:

1) For the murder of Danilo Villareal in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105875, Noel T. Adallom is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ORDERED to pay the heirs of Danilo Villareal the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P57,084.80 as actual damages; and

2) For the attempted murder of Babelito Villareal in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105877, Noel T. Adallom is SENTENCED to suffer imprisonment from six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and ORDERED to pay Babelito Villareal the amounts of P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P10,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaTHIRD DIVISIONSPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC, Petitioner, - versus -PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.G.R. No. 191913Present:VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,PERALTA,ABAD, MENDOZA, andPERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.Promulgated: March 21, 2012

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xDECISIONVELASCO, JR., J.:Every circumstance favoring the accuseds innocence must be duly taken into account. The proof against the accused must survive the test of reason. Strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the accused could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged. If the prosecution fails to discharge the burden, then it is not only the accuseds right to be freed; it is, even more, the courts constitutional duty to acquit him. This treats of the Motion for Reconsideration of Our Resolution dated August 25, 2010, affirming the July 20, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 30907 entitled People of the Philippines v. SPO2 Lolito T. Nacnac. The CA affirmed the May 23, 2007 Judgment in Criminal Case No. 10750-14 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14 in Laoag City, which convicted petitioner of homicide.The FactsAn Information charged the accused as follows: That on or about February 20, 2003, in Dingras, Ilocos Norte, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused SPO2 Lolito I. Nacnac, a public officer, being then a member of the Philippine National Police, assigned with the Dingras Police Station, Dingras, Ilocos Norte, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, shoot one SPO1 Doddie Espejo with a gun resulting into the latters death.A reverse trial ensued upon the claim of self-defense by the accused. As summarized by CA, the shooting incident happened as follows: The victim, SPO1 Doddie Espejo[,] had a history of violent aggression and drunkenness. He once attacked a former superior, P/Insp. Laurel Gayya, for no apparent reason. On the day of his death, he visited a cock house for merriment. He was shot by accused-appellant [petitioner] on February 20, 2003 at around 10:00 p.m. at the Dingras Police Station, Dingras, Ilocos Norte. On that fateful night of February 20, 2003, accused-appellant, the victim and a number of other police officers were on duty. Their shift started at 8:00 in the morning of the same day, to end at 8:00 the next morning. Accused-appellant, being the highest ranking officer during the shift, was designated the officer-of-the-day. Shortly before 10:00 in the evening, the victim, together with then SPO1 Eduardo Basilio, took the patrol tricycle from the station grounds. When accused-appellant saw this, he stopped the victim and his colleague from using the tricycle. The victim told accused-appellant that he (the victim) needed it to go to Laoag City to settle a previous disagreement with a security of a local bar. Accused-appellant still refused. He told the victim that he is needed at the station and, at any rate, he should stay at the station because he was drunk. This was not received well by the victim. He told accused-appellant in Ilocano: Iyot ni inam kapi (Coitus of your mother, cousin!). The victim alighted from the tricycle. SPO1 Eduardo Basilio did the same, went inside the office, and left the accused-appellant and the victim alone. The victim took a few steps and drew his .45 caliber gun which was tucked in a holster on the right side of his chest. Accused-appellant then fired his M-16 armalite upward as a warning shot. Undaunted, the victim still drew his gun. Accused-appellant then shot the victim on the head, which caused the latters instantaneous death. Accused-appellant later surrendered to the stations Chief of Police.The RTC Ruling The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged. The RTC held that the claim of self-defense by the accused was unavailing due to the absence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The dispositive portion of the RTC Judgment reads:WHEREFORE, the accused SPO2 Lolito Nacnac is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. Taking into account the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the Court hereby sentences him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from EIGHT YEARS of prision mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum. He is also ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased (1) P50,000.00 as indemnity for his death, (2) P100,000.00 as actual damages, (3) P50,000.00 as moral damages, and (4) P20,000.00 as attorneys fees. Costs against the accused.The CA Ruling On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. It held that the essential and primary element of unlawful aggression was lacking. It gave credence to the finding of the trial court that no one else saw the victim drawing his weapon and pointing it at accused Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Lolito T. Nacnac. The fallo of the CA Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the challenged Judgment dated May 23, 2007 in Criminal Case No. 10750-14 is AFFIRMED IN TOTO. On August 25, 2010, this Court issued a Resolution, denying Nacnacs petition for review for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Courts appellate jurisdiction. On October 11, 2010, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Courts Resolution dated August 25, 2010. On March 21, 2012, this Court granted the Motion and reinstated the petition. Petitioner raises the following issues:1. [Whether the CA erroneously held that] the victims drawing of his handgun or pointing it at the petitioner is not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression based on existing jurisprudence.2. [Whether the CA incorrectly appreciated the photo] showing the victim holding his handgun in a peculiar manner despite the fact that no expert witness was presented to testify thereto x x x.3. [Whether petitioner] has met the second and third requisites of self-defense x x x. Petitioner argues that he did not receive a just and fair judgment based on the following: (1) the trial court did not resort to expert testimony and wrongly interpreted a photograph; (2) the trial court ignored the evidence proving unlawful aggression by the victim; (3) the trial court ignored the two gun reports and two empty shells found at the crime scene which support the claim that petitioner fired a warning shot; and (4) the trial court failed to appreciate petitioners act of self-defense. Petitioner also claims that the CA gravely erred in not giving proper weight and due consideration to the Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). In its Comment dated April 27, 2011, the OSG avers that petitioner is entitled to an acquittal, or at the very least, not one but two mitigating circumstances.Our Ruling We revisit Our ruling in the instant case. The Revised Penal Code provides the requisites for a valid self-defense claim:ART. 11. Justifying circumstances.The following do not incur any criminal liability:1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:First. Unlawful aggression;Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.Unlawful Aggression Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element of self-defense. We explained, Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if the other elements are present. It would presuppose an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a personnot a mere threatening or intimidating attitudebut most importantly, at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor. x x x There is aggression in contemplation of the law only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to ones life. The peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not just speculative. As We held:Even the cocking of a rifle without aiming the firearm at any particular target is not sufficient to conclude that ones life was in imminent danger. Hence, a threat, even if made with a weapon, or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not sufficient. It is necessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of aggression or by some external acts showing the commencement of actual and material unlawful aggression. The following exchange showing actual and material unlawful aggression transpired during the examination of petitioner:Atty. Lazo: At any rate, when you again prevented them from getting the tricycle telling them again that they should not get the tricycle, what happened next?Accused: When police officer Basilio alighted from the tricycle SPO1 Espejo also alighted sir.Q What did Doddie Espejo do when he alighted from the tricycle?A I saw him hold his firearm tucked on his right waist. (witness demonstrating by placing his right hand at his right sideways). And he was left handed, sir.Q And what happened next?A When I saw him holding his firearm that was the time I fired a warning shot, sir.Q And when you fired [a] warning shot, what happened next?A He drew his firearm, sir.Q When he drew his firearm, what did you do?A When he drew his firearm I shot him [on] his head once, sir.x x x x Atty. Cajigal:Q By the way, what kind of firearm did the victim draw from his waist? A Cal. 45, sir. Q What firearm did you use in defending yourself?A M-16 armalite, sir.x x x xQ Alright, you mean to tell the Honorable Court then that at the time that you pointed or squeezed the trigger of your gun the cal. 45 was already pointed at you?A Yes, sir.Q Did you ever observe if he squeezed the trigger but the gun [was] already pointed at you?A He just pointed his firearm at me, sir.Q Who first pointed his firearm, the victim pointed his firearm at you before you pointed your firearm at him?A The victim, sir.Q In short, it was the victim whose gun was first pointed at you?A Yes, sir.Q And that was the time when you raised your armalite and also pointed the same at him is that right?A Yes, that was the time that I shot him, sir. (Emphasis supplied.) According to the trial court, petitioners claim that the victim pointed his gun at petitioner was a mere afterthought. It ruled that petitioners sworn statement and direct testimony as well as the testimonies of SPO1 Eduardo Basilio and SPO2 Roosevelt Ballesteros only established that the victim drew his gun. The trial court went on to differentiate the act of drawing a gun and pointing it at a target. It held that the mere act of drawing a gun cannot be considered unlawful aggression. In denying petitioners motion for reconsideration, the CA affirmed the trial courts findings and further held that petitioner had fuller control of his physical and mental faculties in view of the victims drunken state. It concluded that the likelihood of the victim committing unlawful aggression in his inebriated state was very slim. We disagree. The characterization as a mere afterthought of petitioners testimony on the presence of unlawful aggression is not supported by the records. The following circumstances negate a conviction for the killing of the victim:(1) The drunken state of the victim;(2) The victim was also a police officer who was professionally trained at shooting;(3) The warning shot fired by petitioner was ignored by the victim;(4) A lawful order by petitioner was ignored by the victim; and(5) The victim was known for his combative and drunken behavior. As testified by the victims companion, SPO1 Basilio, petitioner ordered him and the victim not to leave because they were on duty. SPO1 Basilio also confirmed that the victim was inebriated and had uttered invectives in response to petitioners lawful order. Ordinarily, as pointed out by the lower court, there is a difference between the act of drawing ones gun and the act of pointing ones gun at a target. The former cannot be said to be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. In People v. Borreros, We ruled that for unlawful aggression to be attendant, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. Unlawful aggression requires an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude x x x. Here, the act of the [deceased] of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression. Such act did not put in real peril the life or personal safety of appellant. The facts surrounding the instant case must, however, be differentiated from current jurisprudence on unlawful aggression. The victim here was a trained police officer. He was inebriated and had disobeyed a lawful order in order to settle a score with someone using a police vehicle. A warning shot fired by a fellow police officer, his superior, was left unheeded as he reached for his own firearm and pointed it at petitioner. Petitioner was, therefore, justified in defending himself from an inebriated and disobedient colleague. Even if We were to disbelieve the claim that the victim pointed his firearm at petitioner, there would still be a finding of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. We quote with approval the OSGs argument on this point: A police officer is trained to shoot quickly and accurately. A police officer cannot earn his badge unless he can prove to his trainors that he can shoot out of the holster quickly and accurately x x x. Given this factual backdrop, there is reasonable basis to presume that the appellant indeed felt his life was actually threatened. Facing an armed police officer like himself, who at that time, was standing a mere five meters from the appellant, the [latter] knew that he has to be quick on the draw. It is worth emphasizing that the victim, being a policeman himself, is presumed to be quick in firing. Hence, it now becomes reasonably certain that in this specific case, it would have been fatal for the appellant to have waited for SPO1 Espejo to point his gun before the appellant fires back.Reasonable Means Employed To successfully invoke self-defense, another requisite is that the means employed by the accused must be reasonably commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted. Supporting petitioners claim of self-defense is the lone gunshot wound suffered by the victim. The nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as important indicia. In People v. Catbagan, We aptly held