CABANLIG VS SANDIGAN BAYAN

Version of the Prosecution

On 24 September 1992 a robbery occurred in the Municipality of Penaranda, Nueva Ecija. Four days
later or on 28 September 1992, the investigating authorities apprehended three suspects: Jordan Magat
(Magat), Randy Reyes (Reyes) and Valino. The police recovered most of the stolen items. However, a
flower vase and a small radio were still missing. Cabanlig asked the three suspects where these two
items were. Reyes replied that the items were at his house.

Cabanlig asked his colleagues, Padilla, Mercado, Abesamis and Esteban, to accompany him in
retrieving the flower vase and radio. Cabanlig then brought out Reyes and Magat from their cell,
intending to bring the two during the retrieval operation. It was at this point that Valino informed
Cabanlig that he had moved the vase and radio to another location without the knowledge of his two
cohorts. Cabanlig decided instead to bring along Valino, leaving behind Magat and Reyes.

Around 6:30 p.m., five fully armed policemen in uniform Cabanlig, Padilla, Mercado, Abesamis and
Esteban escorted Valino to Barangay Sinasahan, Nueva Ecija to recover the missing flower vase and
radio. The policemen and Valino were aboard a police vehicle, an Isuzu pick-up jeep. The jeep was
built like an ordinary jeepney. The rear end of the jeep had no enclosure. A metal covering separated
the drivers compartment and main body of the jeep. There was no opening or door between the two
compartments of the jeep. Inside the main body of the jeep, were two long benches, each of which was
located at the left and right side of the jeep.

Cabanlig, Mercado and Esteban were seated with Valino inside the main body of the jeep. Esteban was
right behind Abesamis at the left bench. Valino, who was not handcuffed, was between Cabanlig and
Mercado at the right bench. Valino was seated at Cabanligs left and at Mercados right. Mercado was
seated nearest to the opening of the rear of the jeep.

Just after the jeep had crossed the Philippine National Railway bridge and while the jeep was slowly
negotiating a bumpy and potholed road, Valino suddenly grabbed Mercados M16 Armalite and jumped
out of the jeep. Valino was able to grab Mercados M16 Armalite when Mercado scratched his head and
tried to reach his back because some flying insects were pestering Mercado. Mercado shouted hoy!
when Valino suddenly took the M16 Armalite. Cabanlig, who was then facing the rear of the vehicle,
saw Valinos act of taking away the M16 Armalite. Cabanlig acted immediately. Without issuing any
warning of any sort, and with still one foot on the running board, Cabanlig fired one shot at Valino, and
after two to three seconds, Cabanlig fired four more successive shots. Valino did not fire any shot.

The shooting happened around 7:00 p.m., at dusk or nag-aagaw ang dilim at liwanag.

Cabanlig approached Valinos body to check its pulse. Finding none, Cabanlig declared

Valino dead. Valino sustained three mortal wounds one at the back of the head, one at

the left side of the chest, and one at the left lower back. Padilla and Esteban remained

with the body. The other three policemen, including Cabanlig, went to a funeral parlor.

The following morning, 29 September 1992, a certain SPO4 Segismundo Lacanilao

(Lacanilao) of the Cabanatuan Police went to Barangay Sinasahan, Nueva Ecija to

investigate a case. Lacanilao met Mercado who gave him instructions on how to settle

the case that he was handling. During their conversation, Mercado related that he and his

fellow policemen salvaged (summarily executed) a person the night before. Lacanilao

asked who was salvaged. Mercado answered that it was Jimmy Valino. Mercado then

asked Lacanilao why he was interested in the identity of the person who was salvaged.

Lacanilao then answered that Jimmy Valino was his cousin. Mercado immediately

turned around and left.

QUINTOS VS PEIPLE

The prosecution established that at about 3:30 p.m. of 15 January 2008, Freddie dela Cruz, Robert dela Cruz, Felomina dela Cruz, and Eduardo Oyando
were walking along the barangay road of Laois, Labrador, Pangasinan. They were on their way to the town proper when they were accosted by Pedro
Quintos, Rolly Quintos, Lando Quintos, Narciso Buni and petitioner. Pedro was wielding a samurai, Lando, Narciso and petitioner were carrying bolos,
and Rolly was holding a big stone. Robert, Freddie, Felomina, all surnamed dela Cruz, and Eduardo Oyando ran back towards their house, but the five
attackers caught up with them.
Pedro struck Robert dela Cruz with the samurai, but the latter parried the attack with his left hand. Robert dela Cruz attempted to gain control of the
samurai, but Rolly hit him in the face, near the jaw, with the stone Rolly was carrying. Robert dela Cruz lost his hold of the samurai and fell to the
ground.

Lando struck Freddie dela Cruz at the back of his head, which caused the latter to fall face up. Petitioner joined Lando in hacking Freddie dela Cruz,
who, while defending himself with his hands, sustained injuries on his right hand and lost a few fingers on his left. Rolly then crushed Freddie dela
Cruz’s chest with the same stone he used to hit Robert dela Cruz in the face.

Pedro advanced towards Felomina dela Cruz as the latter moved towards Robert dela Cruz. Pedro pulled Felomina dela Cruz’s hair, slashed her nape
with the samurai, and then kicked her to the ground.

Eduardo Oyando was forced to stand aside and was prevented from helping the dela Cruzes because Narciso Buni was aiming a bolo at him. The
attackers left when they were done, and only then was Eduardo Oyando able to approach the victims and call for help.

Robert, Freddie and Felomina, all surnamed dela Cruz, were brought to the hospital. They were treated for the injuries sustained from the attack. After a
few days, Freddie dela Cruz died from his injuries. Before he died, Freddie dela Cruz identified Pedro and Lando Quintos as his attackers.

PEOPLE VS ALCONGa
On the night of May 27, 1943, in the house of one Mauricio Jepes in the Municipality of San Dionisio, Province of Iloilo several persons were playing
prohibited games (t.s.n., pp. 95, 125). The deceased Silverio Barion was the banker in the game of black jack, and Maria de Raposo, a witness for the
prosecution, was one of those playing the game (t.s.n., p. 95). Upon invitation of the said Maria de Raposo, the accused Dioscoro Alconga joined her as
a partner, each of them contributing the sum of P5 to a common fund (t.s.n., pp. 95, 125). Maria de Raposo played the game while the said accused
posted himself behind the deceased, acting as a spotter of the cards of the latter and communicating by signs to his partner (t.s.n., pp. 95-96, 126). The
deceased appears to have suffered losses in the game because of the team work between Maria de Raposo and the accused Alconga (t.s.n., pp. 96, 126).
Upon discovering what the said accused had been doing, the deceased became indignant and expressed his anger at the former (t.s.n., pp. 96, 126). An
exchange of words followed, and the two would have come to blows but for the intervention of the maintainer of the games (t.s.n., p. 96). In a fit of
anger, the deceased left the house but not before telling the accused Alconga, "tomorrow morning I will give you a breakfast" (t.s.n., p. 96), which
expression would seem to signify an intent to inflict bodily harm when uttered under such circumstances.

The deceased and the accused Alconga did not meet thereafter until the morning of May 29, 1943,
when the latter was in the guardhouse located in the barrio of Santol, performing his duties as "home
guard" (t.s.n., pp. 98-100). While the said accused was seated on a bench in the guardhouse, the
deceased came along and, addressing the former, said, "Coroy, this is your breakfast," followed
forthwith by a swing of his "pingahan" (t.s.n., p. 100). The accused avoided the blow by falling to the
ground under the bench with the intention to crawl out of the guardhouse (t.s.n., pp. 100-101). A
second blow was given but failed to hit the accused, hitting the bench instead (t.s.n., p. 101). The
accused manage to go out of the guardhouse by crawling on his abdomen (t.s.n., p. 101). While the
deceased was in the act of delivering the third blow, the accused, while still in a crawling position
(t.s.n., p. 119), fired at him with his revolver, causing him to stagger and to fall to the ground (t.s.n., p.
101). Rising to his feet, the deceased drew forth his dagger and directed a blow at the accused who,
however, was able to parry the same with his bolo (t.s.n., pp. 101-102). A hand-to-hand fight ensued
(t.s.n., p. 102). Having sustained several wounds, the deceased ran away but was followed by the
accused (t.s.n., p. 6). After running a distance of about 200 meters (t.s.n., pp. 21, 108), the deceased
was overtaken, and another fight took place, during which the mortal bolo blow — the one which
slashed the cranium — was delivered, causing the deceased to fall to the ground, face downward,
besides many other blows deliver right and left (t.s.n., pp. 6, 28). At this instant, the other accused,
Adolfo Bracamonte, arrived and, being the leader of the "home guards" of San Dionisio, placed under
his custody the accused Alconga with a view to turning him over to the proper authorities (t.s.n., pp.
102-105).
On their way to San Dionisio, the two accused were stopped by Juan Collado, a guerrilla soldier (t.s.n.,
pp. 80, 104). Adolfo Bracamonte turned over Alconga to Collado who in turn took him to the
headquarters (t.s.n., pp. 81, 104). In the afternoon of the same day, Collado delivered Alconga to
Gregorio Barredo, a municipal policeman of San Dionisio, together with the weapons used in the fight:
a revolver, a bolo, and a dagger (t.s.n., pp. 81, 104).
It will be observed that there were two stages in the fight between appellant and the deceased. The
initial stage commenced when the deceased assaulted appellant without sufficient provocation on the
part of the latter. Resisting the aggression, appellant managed to have the upper hand in the fight,
inflicting several wounds upon the deceased, on account of which the latter fled in retreat. From that
moment there was no longer any danger to the life of appellant who, being virtually unscathed, could
have chosen to remain where he was. Resolving all doubts in his flavor, and considering that in the first
stage the deceased was the unlawful aggressor and defendant had not given sufficient provocation, and
considering further that when the deceased was about to deliver the third blow, appellant was still in a
crawling position and, on that account, could not have effectively wielded his bolo and therefore had to
use his "paltik" revolver — his only remaining weapon — ; we hold that said appellant was then acting
in self-defense.
But when he pursued the deceased, he was no longer acting in self-defense, there being then no more
aggression to defend against, the same having ceased from the moment the deceased took to his heels.
During the second stage of the fight appellant inflicted many additional wounds upon the deceased.
That the deceased was not fatally wounded in the first encounter is amply shown by the fact that he was
still able to run a distance of some 200 meters before being overtaken by appellant. Under such
circumstances, appellant's plea of self-defense in the second stage of the fight cannot be sustained.
There can be no defense where there is no aggression.
Although the defendant was not the aggressor, he is not exempt from criminal liability for the
reason that it is shown that he struck several blows, among them the fatal one, after the
necessity for defending himself had ceased, his assailant being then in retreat. Therefore one of
the essential ingredients of self-defense specified in No. 4, article 8 of the Penal Code is
wanting (now article 11, case No. 1, Revised Penal Code). (United States vs. Dimitillo, 7 Phil.,
475, 476; words in parenthesis supplied.)
. . . Even if it be conceded for the moment that the defendants were assaulted by the four
(offended parties), the right to kill in self-defense ceased when the aggression ceased; and when
Toledo and his brothers turned and ran, without having inflicted so much as a scratch upon a
single one of the defendants, the right of the defendants to inflict injury upon them ceased
absolutely. They had no right to pursue, no right to kill or injure. A fleeing man is not
dangerous to the one from whom he flees. When danger ceases, the right to injure ceases. When
the aggressor turns and flees, the one assaulted must stay his hand. (United States vs. Vitug, 17
Phil., 1, 19; emphasis supplied.)
VINO VS PEOPLE

At about 7:00 o'clock in the evening of March 21, 1985, Roberto Tejada left their house at Burgos Street, Poblacion, Balungao, Pangasinan to go to the
house of Isidro Salazar to watch television. At around 11:00 P.M., while Ernesto, the father of Roberto, was resting, he heard two gunshots. Thereafter,
he heard Roberto cry out in a loud voice saying that he had been shot. He saw Roberto ten (10) meters away so he switched on the lights of their house.
Aside from Ernesto and his wife, his children Ermalyn and Julius were also in the house. They went down to meet Roberto who was crying and they
called for help from the neighbors. The neighbor responded by turning on their lights and the street lights and coming down from their houses. After
meeting Roberto, Ernesto and Julius saw Lito Vino and Jessie Salazar riding a bicycle coming from the south. Vino was the one driving the bicycle
while Salazar was carrying an armalite. Upon reaching Ernesto's house, they stopped to watch Roberto. Salazar pointed his armalite at Ernesto and his
companions. Thereafter, the two left.

Roberto was brought to the Sacred Heart Hospital of Urdaneta. PC/Col. Bernardo Cacananta took his
ante-mortem statement. In the said statement which the victim signed with his own blood, Jessie
Salazar was Identified as his assailant.

PEOPLE VS COLLADO

4. CRIMINAL LAW; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE OR SEX NOT APPRECIATED IN CRIMES
AGAINST PROPERTY. — Disregard of the respect due the offended party by reason of his rank, age or sex may be taken into account in crimes
against persons or honor, when in the commission of the crime there is some insult or disrespect shown to rank, age or sex. It is not proper to consider
this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against persons.
Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal (People v. Pagal, Et Al., G.R. No. L-32040,
October 25, 1977, 79 SCRA 570; People v. Capillas, Et Al., G.R. No. L-27177, October 23, 1981, 108 SCRA 173 People v. Pecato, Et Al., G.R. No. L-
41008, June 18, 1987, 151 SCRA 14).

5. ID.; ID.; EVIDENT PREMEDITATION; REQUISITES. — Neither should evident premeditation be considered against the Accused-Appellant.
The requisites necessary to appreciate evident premeditation have not been met in this case. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove all of the following: (a)
the time when the four accused determined to commit the crimes; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the four accused had clung to their determination
to commit the crime; and (c) the lapse of sufficient length of time between the determination and execution to allow them to reflect upon the
consequences of their act (People v. Batas, G.R. Nos. 84277-78, August 2, 1989, 176 SCRA 46; People v. Iligan, Et Al., G.R. No. 75369, November
26, 1990).

"On January 18, 1985, appellant Crisanto Lara went to the house of Honorio delos Santos in Pila, Laguna and proposed to the latter that they hold-up
Maria Regay. The following day, January 19th, at around 6:00 o’clock P.M., appellant returned to his (delos Santos) house to follow up the proposal. On
both occasions, however, delos Santos told appellant that he did not want to go as he did not like that kind of work (pp. 10-11, 16, TSN, April 21, 1987).

"On January 20, 1985 at around 7:00 o’clock A.M., Josefina Buenaflor, a resident of Mojon, Pila, Laguna, and a daughter of the victim Maria Regay
saw Crisanto Lara on the road walking to and fro between his house and her house while conversing with the neighbors. Afterwards, Nanding Collado
came out from his house and went over to Crisanto (p. 6, TSN, October 14, 1986).

"At about 9:30 to 10:00 A.M. of the same day, January 21, (sic) 1985, Mario Marasigan, son-in-law of the victim, was at the coconut plantation he was
tending which was about 100 meters from the barrio road. He was cutting trees which he would use as posts for his house. He climbed up a tall madre
de cacao tree and after he had cut a branch, he saw Felix Collado and Fernando Collado standing on either end of the pathway leading to Barangay
Pansol and Concepcion as if waiting for somebody. He also saw Crisanto Lara and Romeo Gloriani at the middle of this pathway about 40 meters away
from him. Crisanto Lara was holding a piece of wood and Romeo Gloriani was hiding behind a coconut tree (TSN, September 15, 1986, pp. 5-6, 8;
TSN, September 30, 1988, p. 11).

"After a few minutes (sic), he saw the victim Maria Regal (sic) walking along the pathway at a distance of more or less 40 meters from him on the way
back to Mojon from the direction of Barangay Concepcion. Felix Collado who was on that end of the pathway hid himself and she continued walking
to where Crisanto Lara was now positioned hiding behind a coconut tree (TSN, Sept. 30, 1986, p. 15). Then Crisanto Lara struck her on the face with a
piece of wood, a guava branch with a diameter of around 21/2 inches, with such strong force that the old woman fell on the ground. Crisanto Lara then
hid himself and Romeo Gloriani dragged the stricken victim for about 5 (sic) meters to a coconut tree where Gloriani pulled out his knife and after
stabbing her once she appeared to regain consciousness and began struggling on her back and rolling on the ground as Gloriani continued stabbing her.
The weapon used by Gloriani for stabbing was a double bladed dagger around 6 to 7 inches long excluding the handle (TSN, Sept. 15, 1985, pp. 7-9;
TSN, Sept. 30, 1985, p. 16).

"Marasigan was taken by surprise seeing his uncle hit his mother-in-law that he was not able to shout (p. 15, ibid).

"When the old woman stopped struggling, Romeo Gloriani pulled up her skirt and cut a cord tied around her waist where she kept her money (p. 17,
ibid) and at that time Crisanto Lara reappeared and came near and both Crisanto Lara and Romeo Gloriani left followed by Fernando Collado and Elex
Collado who took the same route through the fence and towards the house of Fernando Collado (pp. 8-9, ibid).

"Marasigan then went down the tree but did not go near the victim. Neither did he tell his relatives about the incident in consideration of appellant
Crisanto Lara who is his uncle. He left the place at around 10:30 A.M. and returned to his house and did his normal work there (pp. 19-20, 26, ibid).

"In the same morning at around 10:00 A.M. Josefina Buenaflor was told by her sister that their mother who attended a wedding feast at Mojon had not
yet returned home. So they started to look for her at the coconut plantation as this was the route she usually took in going to Mojon. They failed to find
her. They inquired from their neighbors who also did not know the whereabouts of their mother (pp. 9-10, TSN, October 14, 1986). :d
iy
lesw
b
ro
an
ch

"At around 3:00 o’clock P.M., a certain Ugid Balatibat told Josefina Buenaflor that he saw the latter’s mother sprawled on a coconut plantation. She and
her sister ran to the place, crying. But before they reached the place, about three coconut plantations away from the place where they eventually (sic)
found their mother, Crisanto Lara stopped them telling them, not to touch the body of their mother as there were no policemen yet at that time (pp. 9, 10,
14, ibid).

"Finally, on January 21, 1985, Josefina Buenaflor was able to see the body of her mother at the plantation. She was then with policemen and with her
barrio mates (p. 10, ibid).

"Her mother had a ‘kacha’ tied on her waistline where she kept the money she earned from the sale of the pigs and chickens that she raised. When her
mother was found dead; there was no more `katsa’ wrapped around the latter’s waist (pp. 12-13, ibid).

"Maria Regay also had a Seiko watch valued at P500.00 which she placed in her pocket. The watch, however, was not anymore in her pocket when she
was found dead (pp. 13-14, bid.)

"The wake of Maria Regay lasted for 5 days. Crisanto Lara attended the wake and even often looked at the cadaver of Maria Regay. He even solicited
contributions from tricycle drivers (pp. 10-11, 15, ibid).

"Dr. Rosauro Framil, a Municipal Health Officer of Pila, Laguna and a resident of Pila, Laguna conducted an autopsy on a certain Maria Regay on
January 21, 1985, at the Laguna Provincial Hospital Morgue, Sta. Cruz from 9:00 P.M. to 12:00 midnight of January 21, 1985 (pp. 4-5, TSN,
September 9, 1986).

"The victim had already shown sign of putrefactive changes as shown by the appearance of small worms on the eyes, nose and ear openings. The body
was already emitting unfavorable odor which suggest (sic) death for more than 24 hours. In his opinion the incident took place at more or less 10:00
A.M. of January 20, 1985 (pp. 5-6, 19, ibid).

"There was a depressed fracture on the head region and on the left temporal with contusions. There was also a periorbital contusion on the side of the
head (p. 6, ibid).

"He further testified that on the chest and back, there were multiple stab wounds, about 9:2 stab wounds on the left and right area below the clavicle, one
on the right breast, a stab wound on the left breast, a stab wound on the right side of the chest just above and medial to right arch, a stab wound on the
mid portion, on the left side of the chest just above the left subcostal arch, and another stab wound on the left side of the chest along mid auxilary line
about the level of the 7th intercostal space. Length of the stab wound on both sides of the scapular area on the back and abdominal region, there was no
external injury seen on the area. On the extremities, the right forearm had a fracture closed and complete at its 3rd radio/ulna bones. The left upper arm
was almost macerated which could be the result of some animal bites probably a stray dog. These were the external findings (p. 6, ibid).

"As to internal findings, there was extradural hemorrhage on the left temporal area; on the chest intrapleural hemorrhage bilateral due to the wound
inflicted on both lungs, right middle lobe has been hit. Left lung — middle and lower lobe have both stab wounds which produced more hemorrhage
than that of the left. The heart was not hit (p. 7, ibid).
nd
cralw

"The affected internal organs of the body of the victim were: fracture on the head region, so there was involvement of the brain, the extradenal
hemorrhage of the left temporal area is the result of the depressed fracture on the head. On the body, the internal organs severed were the lungs, right and
left and in the abdominal region, there were none and also the bones which were evidenced by the fracture on the right forearm and the right upper arm
(p. 8, ibid).

"On opening the skull, there was extradenal hemorrhage on the left temporal area. It is located on the side. Extradenal means that the brain is covered by
denal matter and outside of that is the place where the hemorrhage sets in (p. 11, ibid).

"By the nature of the total injuries, the instruments used by the assailant could be that considering the fracture on the head, it could be due to some hard
object like a piece of wood or metal which most probably could give rise to the depressed fracture. With respect to the stab wounds, probably a double
bladed knife could have been used because (sic) of the nature of the stab wounds itself (p. 8, ibid).

"The cause of death was pulmonary failure secondary to lung damage. Severe hemorrhage intrapleural secondary to lung damage brought about by the
penetrating stab wounds on the chest, most probably, the weapon used was a knife. Since the hemorrhage on the brain is not as much as that to the
hemorrhage on the lungs, he presumed that the cause of death was more due to the damage on the lungs. Assuming, however, that there were no other
wounds and that the only wound was on the skull which caused hemorrhage, the hemorrhage on the skull would be sufficient to cause death (p. 11,
ibid).

"He could not tell the relative position of the victim and the assailant but as to the wound on the head, however, his honest guess was that when the
victim was hit, the latter was not facing the assailant (p. 13, ibid).

"On February 5, 1985, Mario Marasigan finally reported to Pfc. Villanueva that he witnessed the killing and robbery committed against Maria Regay.
He said that he reported the matter which he kept to himself for 15 days because he was bothered by his conscience behind the death of his mother-in-
law (pp. 22-23, 24-25, TSN, September 30, 1986).

"In April of 1985, Fernando Collado was apprehended at the Pacita Complex, San Pedro, Laguna. Raymundo T. Matiola, a policeman and a resident of
Pila, Laguna took the sworn statement (Exhibit C) of Fernando Collado on April 8, 1985 that there were four who were responsible for the slaying and
robbing of Maria Regay, namely: one alias Elee, Fernando Collado, Crisanto Lara and Loriana, whose first name he did not remember (pp. 3-4, TSN,
December 12, 1986).

PEOPLE VS MAGLIAN

On January 4, 2000, the accused and Mary Jay were having dinner at their home in Dasmariñas, Cavite when they got into an argument. The
accused did not want Mary Jay to attend a party, causing them to fight. Incensed, the accused collected the clothes that MAry Joy had given him for
Chirstmas and told her he would burn them all and started pouring kerosene on the clothes. Mary tried to wrestle the can of kerosene from him and, at
the same time, warned him not to pour it on her. Despite his wife's plea, the accused still poured gas on her, thus setting both the clothes and his wife on
fire.[4]

The accused brought Ma Jay to the De la Salle University Medical Center Das Mariñas. After four days, she was transferred by her aunt to the burn
unit of the East Avenue Medical Center in Quezon City, were her condition improved. Subsequently, however, the accused transferred her to St. Claire
Hospital, which did not have a burn unit. Since her condition deteriorated, Lourdes Rios, Mary Jay's mother, had her transferred to the Philippine
General Hospital (PGH) in Manila but she was no longer able to recover. Before she expired, she told her mother what had happened to her, declaring,
"Si Jay Mandy ang nagsunog sa akin. (Jay Mandy burned me.)" She passed away on February 24, 2000.[5]

The accused, in his defense, said the burning incident was completely accidental. He said it was Mary Jay who was being difficult while they were
arguing. She threatened to throw away the clothes he had given her. To spite her, he also took the clothes that she had given him and told her he would
burn them all. He then got a match and a gallon of kerosene. Mary Jay caught up with him at the dirty kitchen and took the match and kerosene from
him. In the process, they both got wet from the spilled kerosene. She got angry at how he was looking at her and screamed, "Mandy, Mandy, wag yan,
wag yan, ako na lang ang sunugin mo. (Mandy, don't burn that, burn me instead.)"

Accused, trying to avoid further provoking his wife, left his wife and went upstairs to his son. While climbing the stairs, he heard Mary Jay shouting,
"Mandy, Mandy, nasusunog ako. (Mandy, I'm burning.)" He ran down the steps and saw the blaze had reached the ceiling of the kitchen. He embraced
his wife and called out to his mother to help them. He poured water on her when the fire could not be put out and brought her to the living room. He
then carried Mary Jay to the car while shouting for help from the neighbors. In the process, he sustained burns on his legs and arms.[6]

While Mary Jay was still confined at the East Avenue Medical Center, the accused learned from a certain Judge Tanguanco that using "red medicine"
would help heal his wife's burn wounds. The hospital, however, did not allow him to use the "red. medicine" on Mary Jay. He thus had his wife
transferred to PGH. When there was no space at the hospital, she was transferred to St. Claire Hospital with the help of a certain Judge Espanol. The
doctors at St, Claire advised him to stop using the "red medicine" on his wife when her wounds started to get worse and began emitting a foul odor.[7]

The accused asserted that his mother-in-law, Lourdes Rios, and their laundrywoman, Norma Saballero, accused him of burning his wife since his wife's
family had been angry with him ever since they got married. His mother-in-law and Mary Jay's siblings used to ask money from them and would get
angry with him if they did not receive any help.[8]

TALAMPAS VS PEOPLE

Prosecution witness Jose Sevillo (Jose) who allegedly witnessed the incident in question, testified that on July 5, 1995 at about 7:00 oclock in the
evening, he together with Eduardo Matic (Eduardo) and Ernesto Matic (Ernesto) were infront of his house, along the road in Zona Siete (7), Wawa,
Malaban, Bian, Laguna, repairing his tricycle when he noticed the appellant who was riding on a bicycle passed by and stopped. The latter alighted at
about three (3) meters away from him, walked a few steps and brought out a short gun, a revolver, and poked the same to Eduardo and fired it hitting
Eduardo who took refuge behind Ernesto. The appellant again fired his gun three (3) times, one shot hitting Ernesto at the right portion of his back
causing him (Ernesto) to fall on the ground with his face down. Another shot hit Eduardo on his nape and fell down on his back (patihaya). Thereafter,
the appellant ran away, while he (Jose) and his neighbors brought the victims to the hospital. On June 6, 1995, Jose executed a Sworn Statement at the
Bian Police Station.

Another witness, Francisco Matic, testified that prior to the death of his brother Ernesto who was then
44 years old, he (Ernesto) was driving a tricycle on a boundary system and earned P100.00 daily,
although not on a regular basis because sometimes Ernesto played in a band for P100.00 per night.
Jerico Matic, eldest son of Ernesto, alleged that he loves his father and his death was so painful to him
that he could not quantify his feelings in terms of money. The death of his father was a great loss to
them as they would not be able to pursue their studies and that nobody would support them financially
considering that the money being sent by their mother in the amount of P2,000.00 to P2,500.00 every
three (3) months, would not be enough.
Dr. Valentin Bernales likewise, testified that he was the one who conducted the autopsy on the body of
Ernesto and found one gunshot in the body located at the back of the costal area, right side, sixteen (16)
centimeters from the spinal column. This shot was fatal as it involved the major organs such as the
lungs, liver and the spinal column which caused Ernestos death.
The last witness, Josephine Matic, wife of Ernesto, testified that her husband was laid to rest on July
18, 1995 and that his untimely death was so painful and that she could not provide her children with
sustenance. She asked for the amount of P200,000.00 for her to be able to send her children to school.

On his part, Talampas interposed self-defense and accident. He insisted that his enemy
had been Eduardo Matic (Eduardo), not victim Ernesto Matic (Ernesto); that Eduardo,
who was then with Ernesto at the time of the incident, had had hit him with a monkey
wrench, but he had parried the blow; that he and Eduardo had then grappled for the
monkey wrench; that while they had grappled, he had notice that Eduardo had held a
revolver; that he had thus struggled with Eduardo for control of the revolver, which had
accidentally fired and hit Ernesto during their struggling with each other; that the
revolver had again fired, hitting Eduardo in the thigh; that he had then seized the
revolver and shot Eduardo in the head; and that he had then fled the scene when people
had started swarming around.

PEOPLE VS DE LEON

According to the prosecution, in the early morning, around 2 o'clock of January 7, 2000, Eduardo
Zulueta and Fortunato Lacambra III, both gasoline boys; Julieta Amistoso, cashier; and Edralin
Macahis, security guard; all employees of Energex Gasoline Station, located at Barangay Guinayan,
San Mateo, Rizal, were on duty when a mint green-colored Tamaraw FX arrived for service at the
said gasoline station.[3]
Eduardo Zulueta was the one who attended to the said vehicle. He went to the drivers
side in order to take the key of the vehicle from the driver so that he could open the gas
tank. He saw through the lowered window shield that there were about six to seven
persons aboard the vehicle. He proceeded to fill up P50.00 worth of diesel in the gas
tank. After doing this, he returned the key to the driver. While returning the key, the
driver told him that the engine of the vehicle would not start.[4] Eduardo Zulueta offered
to give the vehicle a push. While Eduardo Zulueta and fellow gasoline boy Fortunato
Lacambra III were positioned at the back of the vehicle, ready to push the same, the six
male passengers of the same vehicle, except the driver, alighted and announced a hold-
up. They were armed with a shotgun and .38 caliber pistol.[5]

Fortunato Lacambra III was ordered to lie down,[6] while Eduardo Zulueta was directed
to go near the Car Wash Section.[7] At that instance, guns were poked at them.[8]

Appellant, who guarded Eduardo Zulueta, poked a gun at the latter and took the latter's
wallet containing a pawnshop ticket and P50.00, while the companion of the former, hit
the latter on his nape with a gun.[9]
Meanwhile, four members of the group went to the cashier's office and took the money
worth P3,000.00.[10] Those four robbers were also the ones who shot Edralin Macahis
in the stomach.[11] Thereafter, the same robbers took Edralin Macahis' service
firearm.[12]

After he heard successive gunshots, Eduardo Zulueta saw appellant and his companions
immediately leave the place.[13] The robbers boarded the same vehicle and proceeded
toward , Rizal.[14] When the robbers left, Eduardo Zulueta stood up and found Julieta
Amistoso, who told him that the robbers took her bag and jewelry. He also saw that
Edralin Macahis had a gunshot wound in the stomach. He immediately hailed a vehicle
which transported the injured Edralin Macahis to the hospital.[15] Later on, Edralin
Macahis died at the hospital due to the gunshot wound.[16]

The following day, Eduardo Zulueta identified appellant as one of the robbers who
poked a gun at him.[17]

However, according to appellant, from , he stayed at the house of his Tita Emma at
Pantok, Binangonan, Rizal, helping the latter in her canteen. On the evening of January
6, at approximately , appellant asked permission from his Tita Emma to go to Antipolo.
Catherine Homo, appellant's cousin and the latter's younger brother, accompanied
appellant to the terminal. While waiting for a ride, the vehicle, a Tamaraw FX, of a
certain Christian Gersalia, a relative of appellant and Catherine Homo, passed by.
Catherine Homo asked Christian Gersalia if he would allow appellant to hitch a ride on
his vehicle. Christian Gersalia agreed. Aside from Christian Gersalia, there were other
passengers in the said vehicle.[18]

When the vehicle reached Masinag, where appellant was supposed to alight, he was not
allowed to do so; instead, he was asked by the other passengers to join them in their
destination. While on the road, appellant fell asleep. When he woke up, they were in a
gasoline station. He then saw Christian Gersalia and the other passengers conducting a
hold-up. He never left the vehicle and was not able to do anything because he was
overwhelmed with fear. After he heard the gunshots, Christian Gersalia and the other
passengers went to the vehicle and proceeded towards . On their way, they were
followed by policemen who fired at them. The other passengers fired back at the
policemen. It was then that the vehicle hit a wall prompting the other passengers to
scamper in different directions leaving him behind. When the policemen arrived, he was
immediately arrested.[19]

PEOPLE VS LACAO

he facts found by the trial court, as established by unassailable evidence adduced at the trial, are as follows: At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of
September 28, 1985, prosecution witness Mila Parto was at her house in Barangay Manibad attending to persons who came to the wake of her aunt,
Nemesia Lacao. Mila Parto is the sister-in-law of the deceased police Cpl. Jose G. Inocencio, Jr. While she was so engaged, she heard and witnessed a
commotion at the first floor of the two-storey house and the events that took place thereafter. The commotion arose from a card game where one
Mansueto Rivera was losing and accused Baltazar Lacao II, who was playing with him, was furiously arguing with the former. Baltazar Lacao II then
unsheathed his knife and threatened Mansueto Rivera by pointing the knife at the latter's neck. Wilma Rivera, the sister-in-law of Mansueto, intervened
and Baltazar Lacao II released the latter. Baltazar Lacao II then went inside the house wielding his knife and causing the other guests to panic.

It was then that Cpl. Jose G. Inocencio, Jr. went down to inquire into the matter and to pacify the
people. When he saw Baltazar Lacao II with a knife, he held the latter's hand holding that knife.
Baltazar Lacao II then said: "Nyor, release me." As Cpl. Inocencio did not release him, the latter's
mother, Patria Lacao, then said: "Nyor, release my son." When Cpl. Inocencio released Baltazar Lacao
II, the latter suddenly stabbed Inocencio on his right side. Baltazar Lacao, Sr. and his other son,
Baltazar Lacao III, together with his wife, Patria Lacao, and his sister, Trinidad Lacao Mansilla, rushed
inside the house and surrounded the victim.
The men then stabbed Cpl. Inocencio several times while the women hit him with stools. As the attack
continued, the victim was pushed toward the door of the kitchen and he later slumped on the floor
facing downward. Baltazar Lacao, Sr. then sat astride him and continued stabbing the latter as he was
thus lying prostrate. Thereafter, this appellant asked: "Nyor, Nyor, are you still alive?" Appellant Patria
Lacao interjected: "What are you waiting for, it is already finished, we have to go." Baltazar Lacao III
then got the gun of Cpl. Inocencio and all the accused went away.2
All the foregoing facts were clearly and categorically established by said prosecution witness, unshaken
and unaffected by the gruelling cross-examination to which she was subjected. In the process she
categorically identified the three appellants then present in the courtroom, as well as the knives and the
stools used against the victim in the commission of the crime. Ample and credible corroboration was
afforded by the straightforward testimonies of two other eyewitnesses, Isabel Llorente3 and the victim's
widow, Nelfa Inocencio,4 who were admittedly present at the scene and the time of the bloody
incident.
DUNLAO VS CA

Petitioner is a duly licensed retailer and wholesaler of scrap iron in Davao City using the business name Dunlao Enterprise.

On October 25, 1986 at about 2:30 p.m. Fortunato Mariquit and Carlito Catog, both employees of
Lourdes Farms, were instructed by its proprietor, Mrs. Lourdes Du, to go to petitioners premises
together with police officers Pfc. Epifanio Sesaldo and Pat. Alfredo Ancajas to verify information
received that some farrowing crates and G.I. pipes stolen from Lourdes Farms were to be found thereat.
Upon arrival at petitioners compound, the group saw the farrowing crates and pipes inside the
compound. They also found assorted lengths of G.I. pipes inside a cabinet in petitioners shop and
another pile outside the shop but within the compound.
After he was informed by the police operatives that said pipes were owned by Lourdes Farms and had
been stolen from it, petitioner voluntarily surrendered the items. These were then taken to the police
station.
On February 16, 1987, Criminal Case No. 14655 was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Davao city,
Branch 9, accusing petitioner of violation of the Anti-Fencing Law.
On March 13, 1987, petitioner was arraigned and pleaded NOT GUILTY. Trial ensued and on May 30,
1989, the trial court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:

DE GUZMAN VS PEOPLE

x x x [O]n December 24, 1997, at about ten o’clock in the evening, Alexander Flojo (hereafter “Alexander”) was fetching water below his rented house
at 443 Aglipay Street, Old Zaniga St., Mandaluyong City when suddenly Alfredo De Guzman (hereafter “Alfredo”), the brother of his land lady, Lucila
Bautista (hereafter “Lucila”), hit him on the nape. Alexander informed Lucila about what Alfredo did to him. Lucila apologized to Alexander by saying,
“Pasensya ka na Mang Alex” and told the latter to just go up. Alexander obliged and went upstairs. He took a rest for about two hours. Thereafter, at
around 12:00 to 12:15 A.M., Alexander went down and continued to fetch water. While pouring water into a container, Alfredo suddenly appeared in
front of Alexander and stabbed him on his left face and chest.

Cirilino Bantaya, a son-in-law of Alexander, saw the latter bleeding on the left portion of his body and begging for help. Alexander then told Cirilino that
Alfredo stabbed him. Cirilino immediately loaded Alexander into his motorcycle (backride) and brought him to the Mandaluyong City Medical Center.
Upon arrival at the hospital, the doctors immediately rendered medical assistance to Alexander. Alexander stayed in the emergency room of said
hospital for about 30 to 40 minutes. Then, he was brought to the second floor of the said hospital where he was confined for two days. Thereafter,
Alexander was transferred to the Polymedic General Hospital where he was subjected for (sic) further medical examination.

Alexander sustained two stabbed (sic) wounds. (sic) One of which was on the zygoma, left side, and about one (1) cm. long. The other is on his upper
left chest which penetrated the fourth intercostal space at the proximal clavicular line measuring about two (2) cm. The second stabbed (sic) wound
penetrated the thoracic wall and left lung of the victim which resulted to blood air (sic) in the thoracic cavity thus necessitating the insertion of a
thoracostomy tube to remove the blood. According to Dr. Francisco Obmerga, the physician who treated the victim at the Mandaluyong City Medical
Center, the second wound was fatal and could have caused Alexander’s death without timely medical intervention. (Tsn, July 8, 1998, p.8).

On the other hand, Alfredo denied having stabbed Alexander. According to him, on December 25, 1997 at around midnight, he passed by Alexander
who was, then, fixing a motorcycle. At that point, he accidentally hit Alexander’s back, causing the latter to throw invective words against him. He felt
insulted, thus, a fistfight ensued between them. They even rolled on the ground. Alfredo hit Alexander on the cheek causing blood to ooze from the
latter’s face.3

BALEROS VS PEOPLE

ike most of the tenants of the Celestial Marie Building (hereafter "Building", …) along A.H. Lacson Street, Sampaloc, Manila, MALOU, occupying
Room 307 with her maid, Marvilou Bebania (Marvilou), was a medical student of the University of Sto. Tomas [UST] in 1991.

In the evening of December 12, inside Unit 307, MALOU retired at around 10:30. Outside, right in
front of her bedroom door, her maid, Marvilou, slept on a folding bed.
Early morning of the following day, MALOU was awakened by the smell of chemical on a piece of
cloth pressed on her face. She struggled but could not move. Somebody was pinning her down on the
bed, holding her tightly. She wanted to scream for help but the hands covering her mouth with cloth
wet with chemicals were very tight (TSN, July 5, 1993, p. 33). Still, MALOU continued fighting off
her attacker by kicking him until at last her right hand got free. With this …the opportunity presented
itself when she was able to grab hold of his sex organ which she then squeezed.
The man let her go and MALOU went straight to the bedroom door and roused Marvilou. xxx. Over the
intercom, MALOU told S/G Ferolin that: "may pumasok sa kuarto ko pinagtangkaan ako" (Ibid., p. 8).
Who it was she did not, however, know. The only thing she had made out during their struggle was the
feel of her attacker’s clothes and weight. His upper garment was of cotton material while that at the
lower portion felt smooth and satin-like (Ibid, p. 17). He … was wearing a t-shirt and shorts …
Original Records, p. 355).
To Room 310 of the Building where her classmates Christian Alcala, Bernard Baptista, Lutgardo
Acosta and Rommel Montes were staying, MALOU then proceeded to seek help. xxx.
It was then when MALOU saw her bed … topsy-turvy. Her nightdress was stained with blue … (TSN,
July 5, 1993, pp. 13-14). Aside from the window with grills which she had originally left opened,
another window inside her bedroom was now open. Her attacker had fled from her room going through
the left bedroom window (Ibid, Answers to Question number 5; Id), the one without iron grills which
leads to Room 306 of the Building (TSN, July 5, 1993, p.6).
xxx xxx xxx
Further, MALOU testified that her relation with CHITO, who was her classmate …, was friendly until
a week prior to the attack. CHITO confided his feelings for her, telling her: "Gusto kita, mahal kita"
(TSN, July 5, 1993, p. 22) and she rejected him. …. (TSN, July 5, 1993, p. 22).
Meanwhile, according to S/G Ferolin, while he was on duty, CHITO arrived at the Building at 1:30 in
the early morning of December 13, 1991, wearing a white t-shirt with “‘…a marking on the front of the
T-shirt T M and a Greek letter (sic) ΣΦ’ and below the quoted letters the word ‘1946’ ‘UST Medicine
and Surgery’” (TSN, October 9, 1992, p. 9) and black shorts with the brand name “Adidas” (TSN,
October 16, 1992, p.7) and requested permission to go up to Room 306. This Unit was being leased by
Ansbert Co and at that time when CHITO was asking permission to enter, only Joseph Bernard Africa
was in the room.
He asked CHITO to produce the required written authorization and when CHITO could not, S/G
Ferolin initially refused [but later, relented] …. S/G Ferolin made the following entry in the security
guard’s logbook …:
"0130H Baleros Renato Jr. is a visitor of Ansbert Co who has not have (sic) a Request letter from our
tenant of Unit #-306 Ansbert, but still I let him inter (sic) for the reason that he will be our tenant this
coming summer break as he said so I let him sign it here
(Sgd.) Baleros Renato Jr."
(Exhibit "A-2")
That CHITO arrived at Room 306 at 1:30 A.M. of December 13, 1991 was corroborated by Joseph
Bernard Africa (Joseph), ….
xxx xxx xxx
Joseph was already inside Room 306 at 9 o’clock in the evening of December 12, 1991. xxx by the
time CHITO’s knocking on the door woke him up, …. He was able to fix the time of CHITO’s arrival
at 1:30 A.M. because he glanced at the alarm clock beside the bed when he was awakened by the knock
at the door ….
Joseph noticed that CHITO was wearing dark-colored shorts and white T-shirt (Ibid., p. 23) when he let
the latter in. …. It was at around 3 o’clock in the morning of December 13, 1991 when he woke up
again later to the sound of knocking at the door, this time, by Bernard Baptista (Bernard), ….
xxx. With Bernard, Joseph then went to MALOU’s room and thereat was shown by Bernard the open
window through which the intruder supposedly passed.
xxx xxx xxx
Later, at about 6 to 6:30 in the morning of December 13, 1991, Joseph was finally able to talk to
CHITO …. He mentioned to the latter that something had happened and that they were not being
allowed to get out of the building. Joseph also told CHITO to follow him to Room 310.
CHITO did just that. He followed after Joseph to Unit 310, carrying his gray bag. xxx. None was in
Room 310 so Joseph went to their yet another classmate, Renato Alagadan at Room 401 to see if the
others were there. xxx.
People from the CIS came by before 8 o’clock that same morning …. They likewise invited CHITO
and Joseph to go with them to Camp Crame where the two (2) were questioned ….
An occupant of Room 310 … Christian Alcala (Christian) recalled in Court that in the afternoon of
December 13, 1991, after their 3:30 class, he and his roommates, Bernard Baptista and Lutgardo
Acosta (Gary) were called to the Building and were asked by the CIS people to look for anything not
belonging to them in their Unit. While they were outside Room 310 talking with the authorities,
Rommel Montes (Loyloy), another roommate of his, went inside to search the Unit. Loyloy found
(TSN, January 12, 1993, p. 6) a gray "Khumbella" bag cloth type (Ibid, pp. 44-45) from inside their
unit which they did not know was there and surrender the same to the investigators. When he saw the
gray bag, Christian knew right away that it belonged to CHITO (Ibid, p. 55) as he had seen the latter
usually bringing it to school inside the classroom (Ibid, p. 45).
In their presence, the CIS opened the bag and pulled out its contents, among others, a white t-shirt with
a Taunu (sic) Sigma Phi sign (Ibid, p. 7), a Black Adidas short pants, a handkerchief , three (3) white
T-shirts, an underwear, and socks (Ibid).
Christian recognized the t-shirt (Exhibit "D-4"), the Adidas short pants (Exhibit "D-5"), and the
handkerchief (Exhibit "D-3) to be CHITO’s because CHITO had lent the very same one to him …. The
t-shirt with CHITO’s fraternity symbol, CHITO used to wear on weekends, and the handkerchief he
saw CHITO used at least once in December.
That CHITO left his bag inside Room 310 in the morning of December 13, 1991, was what consisted
mainly of Renato R. Alagadan’s testimony.
xxx xxx xxx.
The colored gray bag had a handle and a strap, was elongated to about 11/4 feet and appeared to be full
but was closed with a zipper when Renato saw it then (Ibid, pp. 19-20). At that time Christian, Gary,
Bernard, and Renato went back to Room 310 at around 3 to 4 o’clock that afternoon along with some
CIS agents, they saw the bag at the same place inside the bedroom where Renato had seen CHITO
leave it. Not until later that night at past 9 o’clock in Camp Crame, however, did Renato know what the
contents of the bag were.

PEOPLE VS TIU

he prosecution presented three eyewitnesses, viz., Otillo Jumangpang, his wife Vivencia, and their daughter Lourdes. They testified that on April 30,
1981, at about 2:00 a.m., Otillo, who was sleeping with his wife Vivencia and their seven children, was awakened by a noise outside their house in Sitio
Pigan, Larangay Disakan of the Municipality of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte. With a flashlight, he saw that it was a carabao that was causing the
noise. He told Warlito to tie the animal. Warlito had difficulty in doing so and asked his father to help him. Otillo went down. While he and Warlito were
pulling the carabao, shots were fired from the direction of the road. Otillo was hit on the right ankle joint and fell down. He crawled towards the back of
the house near the kitchen. While lying flat on the ground, he saw Embas Tiu, Santos Arocha, Rodolfo Leal, and Luis Licaros coming from the road. 2

When the four men reached the front ladder of their house, they trained a flashlight on the body of Warlito, who was sprawled motionless on the ground.
3

Santos Arocha and Rodolfo Leal proceeded to the back of the house and went upstairs. Otillo heard them ask his wife where he was. Silently, he
crawled toward the bushes about 20 meters from their house. Santos and Rodolfo ordered Vivencia and the children to go down, past Embas Tiu and
Luis Licaros who were standing near the rear ladder, carrying long firearms. Embas fired a warning shot and ordered them to lie flat on the ground. He
asked them where Otillo was but everyone kept silent. They remained lying on the ground until 6:00 a.m. when they sensed that the men had left. 4

Vivencia now called for Otillo who had lain hidden all the while. Seeing him wounded, she immediately took him to the hospital, together with Warlito,
with the aid of neighbors. Warlito was already beyond help. The autopsy of his body revealed the cause of his death as "severed spinal cord secondary to
fractured vertebral column second ary to gun shot wound." 5

The defense presented three of the surviving accused who all pleaded alibi. They all testified that on the night of April 29, 1981. they were in the camp at
Datagan, Disakan, Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte, together with several other persons (who were not presented in court). 6 Their testimonies were
corroborated by their friend, Baro Magawa. 7

Emiliano de los Reyes, who was the detachment commander-in-charge of the Civil Home Defense Force, testified that on April 30, 1981, up to the time
he left, he received no report of abuses committed by the herein accused. He learned for the first time later that year that the accused had been charged
with murder and frustrated murder. He conducted an investigation but found that there was no evidence to support the charges. He admitted, however,
that the investigation was limited to interrogation of the accused. The family of the victim was not questioned. He also failed to present a copy of the
investigation report, claiming it had been misplaced. 8iy
chanroblesw

Jose Andata, another defense witness, testified that while a member of the NPA, he attended a meeting held on April 30, 1981, in the house of a certain
Ogis, where it was decided to liquidate Otillo for having cut down a narra tree in Commander Porsin’s land without permission. That same afternoon,
Jose, together with the groups of Commanders Porsin and Tirong, started for Otillo’s place, which was about 7 hours walk from the house of Ogis.
About 100 meters before they reached Otillo’s house, Jose and the group of Tirong stopped and were ordered by Porsin to stand guard. Porsin’s group
then proceeded to Otillo’s house and after a few minutes Jose heard many gunshots. Porsin later reported to Tirong that Otillo was able to escape. 9

The attack which Jose claimed to have been made by the rebel group was, if it really happened, one day late. Jose said the rebels reached Otillo’s place in
the early morning of May 1, 1981, by which time, Warlito was already dead and Otillo severely wounded. They had been attacked hours before in the
morning of April 30, 1981.

The four accused were no strangers to the three eyewitnesses, who knew them as CHDF members who used to pass by their house and ask for water.
10

Lourdes and Vivencia identified Arocha and Leal as the persons who came up their house, which was lighted by a lamp or "tingkarol" on top of the
sewing machine that night of April 29, 1981. The moon and the stars were also shining bright then.

Otillo recognized the four accused by the light from their flashlights and also of the moon and the stars.

The denials of the accused-appellants, corroborated only by their friend Magawa, cannot overthrow the positive and categorical testimony of the
prosecution eyewitnesses, who have not been shown to have any malicious motive in testifying against them. Mere denial cannot prevail against the
unequivocal declaration of credible witnesses testifying on affirmative matters as in the case at bar.

PEOPLE VS INTOD

n the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya's house in
Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental and asked him to go with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter, Mandaya and
Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan. He told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a
land dispute between them and that Mandaya should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be killed.

At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, Petitioner, Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and
Daligdig, all armed with firearms, arrived at Palangpangan's house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena,
Misamis Occidental. At the instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the location of
Palangpangan's bedroom. Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It
turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in another City and her home was then occupied by her
son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by
the gun fire.
Petitioner and his companions were positively identified by witnesses. One witness testified that before
the five men left the premises, they shouted: "We will kill you (the witness) and especially Bernardina
Palangpangan and we will come back if (sic) you were not injured". 2

PEOPLE VS LAYSON

On January 17, 1964 when these four accused stabbed Regino Gasang to death, they were inmates of the Davao Penal Colony serving sentences of
conviction for the following crimes:

Nicolas Layson — kidnapping with robbery, homicide, homicide

and theft;

Cezar Ragub — frustrated murder and homicide;

Cezar Fugoso — robbery in an inhabited house and theft;

Joventino — robbery hold-up and robbery in an uninhabited

Garces house.

In the early morning of that hapless day, at about 4:45 o'clock, the four accused, armed with bladed
weapons, entered the cell where the unsuspecting victim, prisoner Regino Gasang, was. Layson locked
the door of the room. Without warning and acting in concert they then swiftly took turns in stabbing
Gasang. They thereafter barricaded themselves, refusing to surrender to the trustees who had come to
the scene of the crime, agreeing to surrender only to Vicente Afurong, the supervising prison guard.
Afurong arrived, identified himself, and assured them of their safety, whereupon they handed their
weapons through the hole of the barricaded door and surrendered themselves.
Gasang died shortly after being brought to the prison hospital. Death was caused by severe internal and
external hemorrhage and shock, all secondary to multiple stab wounds.
Layson, Ragub and Fugoso admitted that they killed Gasang because the latter urinated on their coffee
cups a number of times. Garces stated that he killed Gasang because the latter spat on him a week
before. The four plotted to kill Gasang a few days prior to the actual slaying.
On March 25, 1964 all the accused were indicted for the crime of murder. The information recites:
The undersigned accuses Nicolas Layson, Cezar Ragub, Cezar Fugoso and Joventino Garces of
the crime of Murder, under Art. 248, in relation to Art. 160, of the Revised Penal Code,
committed as follows:
 That on or about January 17, 1964, in the Davao Penal Colony, Municipality of Panabo,
Province of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-mentioned
accused, while then being convicts serving in the said Davao Penal Colony their corresponding
sentences of conviction by reason of final judgment imposed upon them, conspiring and
confederating together and helping one another, armed with sharp-pointed instruments, with
treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, and with intent to kill, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with said weapons Regino
Gasang, their co-inmate in the said Colony, thereby inflicting upon him serious injuries which
caused his death; with the aggravating circumstances of (1) recidivism with respect to the
accused Nicolas Layson and Cezar Ragub, and (2) all of them with two or more prior
convictions.

RAZON VS PEOPLE

The facts as found by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) are summarized as follows:
PO1 Francisco Chopchopen (Chopchopen) was walking towards Upper Pinget Baguio
City, at around midnight of August 1, 1993, when a taxicab driven by Edwin Razon y
Lucea (Razon) stopped beside him. Razon told Chopchopen that he was held up by three
men at Dreamland Subdivision. Chopchopen then asked Razon to go with him to the
place of the incident to check if the persons who held him up were still there. Razon was
hesitant at first but eventually went with Chopchopen to said area about 100 meters up
the road. While walking about eight meters off the road, Chopchopen noticed a person
lying on the ground and partially hidden by a big stone. Upon closer look, Chopchopen
saw that the person's shirt was soaked in blood and that he was hardly breathing. Lying
beside the man was a wooden cane. Chopchopen asked Razon to help him bring the
person to the hospital. On the way, Chopchopen asked Razon if he was the one who
stabbed the victim. Razon answered no. Soon they met a police mobile patrol driven by
SPO2 Samuel Bumangil (Bumangil) who followed them to Baguio General Hospital.
The victim, who was later identified as Benedict Kent Gonzalo (Gonzalo), was
pronounced dead on arrival.[3] He was 23 years old and a polio victim.[4]

Upon questioning, Razon told Bumangil that he was held up by three men, which
included Gonzalo whom he stabbed in self-defense. Razon brought out a fan knife and
told Bumangil that it was the knife he used to stab Gonzalo. A later search of the cab
however yielded another weapon, a colonial knife with bloodstains which was found
under a newspaper near the steering wheel. At the police station, Razon admitted having
stabbed Gonzalo but insisted that he did so in self-defense.[5]

PEOPLE VS ABDUL

The following are the facts as summarized by the lower court:

1. That about 5:00 oclock in the afternoon of August 19, 1988, Minya Abdul, Isa Abdul, Maldis Abdul,
Inggat Doe and Jowen Appang, went to Sibago Island, Tuburan, and invited Sahdiya Tanjing, Jubaira
Tanjing, Ani Tanjing, Abraham Annudin, Suri Jannuh, Abdulbaser Tanjiri and Idil Sahirul to go with
them to Langil also at Tuburan Municipality, Province of Basilan for a luncheon (salo-salo); that these
aforenamed persons went with these group of persons because they were friends. And they do not have
any inkling in their minds that these five (5) persons have sinister plan against their lives and
properties.
2. That while they were at Langil at the store of Hadji Salidon, Minya Abdul and Isa Abdul offered to
Ani Tanjing and Abraham Anuddin soft drinks (coke) and biscuits.
3. That while these Ani Tanjing and Abraham Anuddin were drinking the soft drinks, Minya Abdul got
the M16 armalite of Ani Tanjing which the latter was carrying, at that time and with the said rifle fired
at Ani Tanjing resulting in the latters instant death; and at the same time Isa Abdul also grabbed the
M16 rifle of Abraham Anuddin which the latter was also carrying at that time and with that same
armalite, isa Abdul fired at Abraham Anuddin which also resulted in the latter instant death. And
Jowen Appang also grabbed the M79 rifle of Idil Sahirul which he also used in firing toward Idil
Sahirul and Abdulbaser Tanjiri.
4. That these accused having already armed themselves fired their guns which they took from Ani
Tanjing, Abraham Anuddin and from Idil Sahirul, toward Abdulbaser Tanjiri, Suri Jannuh and Idil
Sahirul who were already running away when they saw Minya Abdul and Isa Abdul shoot and killed
Ani Tanjing and Abraham Anuddin.
5. That after killing Ani Tanjing and Abraham Anuddin, Minya Abdul and Isa Abdul took the necklace
of Abraham Anuddin and the wrist watch of Ani Tanjing. And with the three (3) firearms, that of Ani
Tanjing, Abraham Anuddin and Idil Sahirul, which these accused got from these victims, the accused
left the scene of the shooting.[4]

PEOPLE VS GAFFUD
The facts of this case were aptly summarized by the CA as follows:
Records show that accused-appellant Bernardino Gaffud, Jr., along with two John Does were indicted
for Double Murder for the killing of Manuel Salvador and Analyn Salvador, under the following
Information:

The undersigned 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses Bernardino Gaffud,

Jr. and two (2) JOHN DOES of the crime of DOUBLE MURDER defined and
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
That on or about 8:00 oclock in the evening of May 10, 1994 at Sitio Biton,
Barangay Wasid, Municipality of Nagtipunan, Province of Quirino, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with
intent to kill and motivated by long standing grudge, after conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, by means of fire, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, shot and burn Manuel Salvador and
Analyn Salvador which caused their instantaneous death.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (p. 15, Records)
It appears that Manuel Salvador and his daughter Analyn Salvador were killed when the
house they were staying in located at Sitio Biton, Barangay Wasid, Nagtipunan, Quirino
was burned down while they were inside. An eyewitness pointed to accused-appellant
Bernardino Gaffud, Jr. as one of the arsonists.
Upon preliminary investigation, where appellant Gaffud, Jr. failed to appear despite being subpoenaed
to submit his counter-affidavit, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Ferdinand Orias resolved that charges
for double murder by means of fire be filed against herein appellant and two John Does, (p.14,
Records).
When arraigned on , accused-appellant Gaffud, Jr. entered a plea of Not Guilty, (p. 48, Records),
paving the way for his trial.
The prosecution presented six (6) witnesses against appellant Gaffud, Jr., namely Dominga Salvador,
common-law wife of Manuel Salvador and mother of Analyn Salvador, Orly Salvador, nephew of
Manuel Salvador, Potado Ballang, Barangay Captain of Wasid, Nagtipunan, Quirino, Dan Dangpal, a
neighbor of the deceased, SPO2 Dominador Tabal, the investigating police, and Dr. Teodomiro Hufana
who conducted the autopsy on the deceased Manuel Salvador.
Evidence for the prosecution tended to prove that on the night of , Orly Salvador was on his way to the
house of his uncle Manuel Salvador to fetch the latter as they were going to attend a wedding at the
nearby barangay hall. He suddenly heard two gunshots. Thereafter, he saw the house of his uncle
burning. Because of the glow emanating therefrom, he saw three persons within the vicinity of the
burning house. He saw them hurriedly leaving the place towards the direction of the Cagayan river.
One of the three was holding a flashlight, whom he identified as appellant Gaffud, Jr. He could not
identify the two other persons. After the house was burned, went towards the barangay hall to see if his
uncle Manuel Salvador was there, but he met Brangay Captain Potado Ballang who informed him that
his uncle was not at the barangay hall. They then proceeded to the burned house, and found the charred
remains of Manuel Salvador and Analyn Salvador. (TSN, October 10, 1995, pp. 3-8)
Barangay Captain Potado Ballang testified that he saw appellant Gaffud, Jr. on the fateful day at around
, along the riverbank, a few meters away from the house of Manuel Salvador. When Potado asked what
he was doing there, Gaffud, Jr. said he was looking for his boat. However, Potado knew that the
appellant did not own a boat. After a few minutes, Potado left to attend the wedding party being held at
the barangay hall. (TSN, November 4, 1996, pp. 2-5)
Dan Dangpals testimony was dispensed with, but the defense agreed to the nature of the testimony he
would have given, which tended to show that sometime at about 8:00 PM on the fateful evening, while
inside his house, he heard successive gunshots, and when he went out of his house, he saw the
deceaseds house burning about 200 meters away. He heard persons laughing and saw the light of a
flashlight and persons moving away from the burning house. He could not recognize any of them.
(TSN, February 24, 1997; Exhibit D, p. 8, Records)
Dominga Salvadors testimony tended to show that the appellant Gaffud, Jr. was their neighbor. In the
morning of , she went to the house of the appellant to see him about her husbands share in the
construction of the barangay hall, which was contracted to the appellant. Gaffud, Jr. told her that he
would go to her house that afternoon to introduce his in-law Balbino Bravo to her husband. Thereafter,
she went home, and left again at around , leaving behind her husband Manuel Salvador and their
daughter Analyn. Later that night, she was at Natipunan, Quirino attending a seminar for hilot, (TSN,
July 4, 1995, pp. 3-15). In her sinumpaang salaysay, offered in evidence as Exhibit A, Dominga also
related that she had earlier filed a complaint in the barangay against the appellant and his brother for
slaughtering her pig.
SPO2 Dominador Tabal was a police investigator who investigated the killing of Manuel and Analyn
Salvador. Thereat, he saw two dead bodies hanging from a Melina tree. They were put there so that
they would not be reached by the dogs. He saw that one of the victims had a fractured head, while the
other had a wound on the side. Pictures of the victims including the scene of the incident were taken by
them. Among those interviewed the appellant Gaffud, Jr. and his brother, (TSN, June 5, 1997, pp. 2-7).