PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
WALPAN LADJAALAM y MIHAJIL alias
WARPAN, appellant.
Ponente: PANGANIBAN
FACTS:
The trial court found the appelant guilty of
maintaining a drug den, an offense for which
was sentenced to reclusion
perpetua. Appelants guilt was established by
the testimony of Prosecution Witness , who
himself had used the extension house of
appellant as a drug den on several occasions,
including the time of the raid. The formers
testimony was corroborated by all the raiding
police officers who testified before the
court. That appelant did not deny ownership of
the house and its extension lent credence to
the prosecutions story.
The trial court also convicted appellant of direct
assault with multiple counts of attempted
homicide. It found that !t"he act of the accused
!of" firing an #$% rifle !at" the policemen!," who
were about to enter his house to serve a
search warrant x x x& constituted such complex
crime. Aside from finding appellant guilty of
direct assault with multiple attempted homicide,
the trial court convicted him also of the
separate offense of illegal possession of
firearms under P' $()), as amended by *A
(+,%, and sentenced him to ) years of prision
correccional to ( years of prision mayor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not appellant can be convicted
separately of illegal possession of firearms
after using said firearm in the commission of
another crime.
HELD:
-.. The appealed 'ecision was affirmed with
modifications. Appellant is found guilty only of
two offenses/ 0$1 direct assault and multiple
attempted homicide with the use of a weapon
and 0+1 maintaining a drug den.
RATIO:
The law is clear/ the accused can be convicted
of simple illegal possession of firearms,
provided that no other crime was committed
by the person arrested.& If the intention of the
law in the second paragraph were to refer only
to homicide and murder, it should have
expressly said so, as it did in the third
paragraph. 2erily, where the law does not
distinguish, neither should !the courts".
The 3ourt is aware that this ruling effectively
exonerates appellant of illegal possession of
an #4$% rifle, an offense which normally carries
a penalty heavier than that for direct
assault. While the penalty for the first is prision
mayor, for the second it is only prision
correccional. Indeed, the accused may evade
conviction for illegal possession of firearms by
using such weapons in committing an even
lighter offense, li5e alarm and scandal or slight
physical in6uries, both of which are punishable
by arresto menor. This conse7uence, however,
necessarily arises from the language of *A
(+,%, whose wisdom is not sub6ect to the
3ourts review. Any perception that the result
reached here appears unwise should be
addressed to 3ongress. Indeed, the 3ourt has
no discretion to give statutes a new meaning
detached from the manifest intendment and
language of the legislature. !The 3ourt8s" tas5
is constitutionally confined only to applying the
law and 6urisprudence to the proven facts, and
!this 3ourt" have done so in this case.
People vs. LadjaalamG.R. Nos. 136149-51.
September 19, 2000
Appellee: People of the Philippines
Appellant: Walpan Ladjaalam alias
WarpanPonente: J. Panganiban
FACT:
Four Informations ere fi!e" a#ainst appe!!ant
$a!pan %a"&aa!am in t'e Re#iona! (ria! )ourt
*R()+ of ,amboan#a )it- *.ran/' 16+, t'ree of
'i/' 'e as foun" #ui!t-, to it0 1+
maintainin# a "ru# "en in 1io!ation of Se/tion
15-2, 2rti/!e III, of Repub!i/ 2/t No. 6425
*3an#erous 3ru#s 2/t of 1942+5 2+ i!!e#a!
possession of firearm an" ammunition in
1io!ation of 6resi"entia! 3e/ree No. 1766 as
amen"e" b- Repub!i/ 2/t. No. 72945 an" 3+
"ire/t assau!t it' mu!tip!e attempte"
'omi/i"e. ('e fo!!oin# information as
pro1i"e" b- t'e prose/ution0
1+ In t'e afternoon of September 24, 1994,
more t'an t'irt- *30+ po!i/emen pro/ee"e" to
t'e 'ouse of appe!!ant an" 'is ife to ser1e t'e
sear/' arrant 'en t'e- ere met b- a 1o!!e-
of #unfire /omin# from t'e se/on" f!oor of t'e
sai" 'ouse. ('e- sa t'at it as t'e appe!!ant
'o fire" t'e 814 rif!e toar"s t'em.2+ 2fter
#ainin# entran/e, to of t'e po!i/e offi/ers
pro/ee"e" to t'e se/on" f!oor 'ere t'e-
ear!ier sa appe!!ant firin# t'e rif!e. 2s 'e
noti/e" t'eir presen/e, t'e appe!!ant &umpe"
from t'e in"o to t'e roof of a nei#'borin#
'ouse. 9e as subse:uent!- arreste" at t'e
ba/; of 'is 'ouse after a brief /'ase.3+ Se1era!
firearms an" ammunitions ere re/o1ere"
from appe!!ant<s 'ouse. 2!so foun" as a pen/i!
/ase it' fift- *50+ fo!"e" a!uminum foi!s
insi"e, ea/' /ontainin# met'amp'etamine
'-"ro/'!ori"e.4+ 2 paraffin test as /on"u/te"
an" t'e /asts ta;en bot' 'an"s of t'e appe!!ant
-ie!"e" positi1e for #unpo"er nitrates.5+
Re/or"s s'o t'at appe!!ant 'a" not fi!e" an-
app!i/ation for !i/ense to possess firearm an"
ammunition, nor 'as 'e been #i1en aut'orit-
to /arr- firearms.
!"#:$'et'er or not su/' use of an
un!i/ense" firearm s'a!! be /onsi"ere" as an
a##ra1atin# /ir/umstan/e.
$#L%:No. Se/tion 1 of R2 7294 substantia!!-
pro1i"es t'at an- person 'o s'a!! un!afu!!-
possess an- firearm or ammunition s'a!! be
pena!i=e", >un!ess no ot'er /rime as
/ommitte"?. Furt'ermore, if 'omi/i"e or
mur"er is /ommitte" it' t'e use of an
un!i/ense" firearm, su/' use of an un!i/ense"
firearm s'a!! be /onsi"ere" as an a##ra1atin#
/ir/umstan/e. Sin/e t'e /rime /ommitte" as
"ire/t assau!t an" not 'omi/i"e or mur"er,
i!!e#a! possession of firearms /annot be "eeme"
an a##ra1atin# /ir/umstan/e.
Criminal Law S!"#ial P"nal Laws: CELINO
$% CA, &%R% N'% ()*+,- J.n" -/, -**)
Brief Facts:
(o separate Information ere fi!e"
a#ainst t'e petitioner, 2n#e! )e!ino0 one for
1io!ation of t'e )ome!e/ #un ban5 t'e ot'er, for
I!!e#a! 6ossession of Firearm un"er R.2. 7294.
2fter p!ea"in# not #ui!t- to t'e former, 'e fi!e"
a 8otion to @uas' on t'e !atter /onten"in#
t'at 'e >/annot be prose/ute" for i!!e#a!
possession of firearms A A A if 'e as a!so
/'ar#e" of 'a1in# /ommitte" anot'er /rime of
BsicC 1io!atin# t'e )ome!e/ #un ban un"er t'e
same set of fa/ts A A A.?
Issue:
$'et'er t'e mere fi!in# of an information
for #un ban 1io!ation a#ainst 'im ne/essari!-
bars 'is prose/ution for i!!e#a! possession of
firearm be/ause of t'e pro1ision of t'e !a t'at
"Provided, however, ('at no ot'er /rime as
/ommitte" b- t'e person arreste".D
Ruling0
Ru!in# a#ainst t'e petitioner, t'e 9i#'
)ourt eAp!aine" t'at 'e /an be /on1i/te" of
i!!e#a! possession of firearms, pro1i"e" no
ot'er /rime as /ommitte" b- t'e person
arreste". ('e or" >/ommitte"? ta;en in its
or"inar- sense, an" in !i#'t of t'e
)onstitutiona! presumption of inno/en/e,
ne/essari!- imp!ies a prior "etermination of
#ui!t b- fina! /on1i/tion resu!tin# from
su//essfu! prose/ution or 1o!untar- a"mission.
)itin# t'e /ase of People v. Valdez (!!!",
t'e Supreme )ourt ru!e" t'at >a!! pen"in#
/ases in1o!1in# i!!e#a! possession of firearm
s'ou!" /ontinue to be prose/ute" an" trie" if
no ot'er /rimes eApress!- in"i/ate" in Repub!i/
2/t No. 7294 are in1o!1e" A A A.?
In sum, 'en t'e ot'er offense in1o!1e" is
one of t'ose enumerate" un"er R.2. 7294, an-
information for i!!e#a! possession of firearm
s'ou!" be :uas'e" be/ause t'e i!!e#a!
possession of firearm ou!" 'a1e to be trie"
to#et'er it' su/' ot'er offense, eit'er
/onsi"ere" as an a##ra1atin# /ir/umstan/e in
mur"er or 'omi/i"e, or absorbe" as an e!ement
of rebe!!ion, insurre/tion, se"ition or attempte"
coup d#etat. )on1erse!-, 'en t'e ot'er offense
in1o!1e" is not one of t'ose enumerate" un"er
R.2. 7294, t'en t'e separate /ase for i!!e#a!
possession of firearm s'ou!" /ontinue to be
prose/ute".
PEOPLE 0S RODIL
Fa#1s: Accused 9loro *odil was charged under
an Information that states that on April +%,
$,:$, with the use of a bladed dagger,
attac5ed and stabbed to death Philippine
3onstabulary ;ieutenant <uillermo #asana in
Indang, 3avite. The Information also alleges
that #asana was in the performance of his
official duties when the accused attac5ed him.
April +%, $,:$/ #asana, the deceased,
together with P3 soldier 2irgilio 9idel,
Philippine 3oast <uard serviceman *icardo
;igsa and Patrolman 9elix #o6ica of Indang,
3avite, was having lunch inside a restaurant in
front of the Indang mar5et.
While inside, they saw accused outside
through the glass window of the restaurant.
*odil was blowing his whistle.
=is attention drawn by what *odil was doing,
#asana, dressed in civilian clothes,
accompanied by 9idel, went out of the
restaurant. =e introduced himself as a P3
officer, and as5ed *odil whether the gun
tuc5ed on his waist had a license. Instead of
answering the 7uestion, *odil moved a step
bac5ward and tried to draw his gun. 9idel
immediately grabbed *odils gun and gave it to
#asana.
The three went inside the restaurant. #asana
and *odil occupied a separate table. #asana
placed the gun on the table, pulled out a piece
of paper and wrote a receipt for the gun and
signed it. =e as5ed *odil to countersign it, but
he refused. *odil even as5ed #asana to return
the gun to him, and of course #asana did not
grant his plea. As #asana was about to stand
up, *odil pulled out a double4bladed dagger
and stabbed #asana several times, on the
chest and the stomach which led to his death.
Indang 3hief of Police Primo Panaligan was
also inside the restaurant ta5ing his lunch and
helped in wresting the dagger from *odil.
Iss."s:
0$1 Whether or not the specific circumstance of
contempt of, or insult to public authority can be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
0+1 Whether or not the specific circumstance of
insult or disregard of ran5 can be appreciated
as an aggravating circumstance
H"l2:
0$1 >?@. In the case at bar, the aggravating
circumstance of, or insult to, public authority
under paragraph +, Article $% of the *P3 can
be appreciated. ?vidence of prosecution
clearly established that Indang 3hief of Police
Primo Panaligan was present in the restaurant
as he was having lunch there too when the
incident happened, which belies *odils
allegations that he went to the municipal police
station and reported the incident as self4
defense to the 3hief. As a matter of fact, the
chief of police was the one who embraced or
grabbed *odil from behind, wrested the dagger
from him and subse7uently brought him to the
Indang municipal building. The chief of police
should be considered a public authority or a
person in authority for he is vested with
6urisdiction and authority to maintain peace and
order and is specifically duty bound to
prosecute and to apprehend violators of the
law and municipal ordinances.
0+1 >?@. The aggravating circumstance of
disregard of ran5 should be appreciated
because the victim identified himself as a P3
officer to *odil who was merely a member of
the Anti4@muggling Anit and was therefore
inferior both in ran5 and social status to the
victim. The difference in official and social
status between a P3 lieutenant and a mere
member of an anti4smuggling unit is patent. If
*odil was charged with the complex crime of
murder with assault against an agent of a
person in authority and not merely murder,
then the aggravating circumstance of disregard
of ran5 may not be appreciated because that
circumstance will be absorbed into the charge
of assault against an agent of a person in
authority. But in the case at bar, the Information
charges *odil with murder only. Therefore, the
aggravating circumstance of disregard of ran5
may be appreciated in the imposition of
penalties.
?99?3T T. P?-A;T> I#P.@AB;?/ With two
aggravating circumstances and no mitigating
circumstance, the appellant is condemned to
suffer the maximum period of reclusiCn
temporal, the penalty prescribed for homicide.
&%R% N'% L34*55/ O#1'6"r 4(, (/)/
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff4
appellee, vs.ANTONIO &ARCIA 7 CA8ARSE
alias 9TON7 MANO:9 an2 RE7NALDO
AR0ISO 0 RE8ELLE;A alias 9RENE
8ISU&O,9 defendants4appellants.
Wenceslao B. Trinidad for appellants.
Solicitor General Feli !. Antonio, Assistant
Solicitor General "rispin #. Bautista and
Solicitor Adolfo $. %ia& for appellee.

A8AD SANTOS, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of April $:,
$,), by the 3ircuit 3riminal 3ourt at Pasig,
*iDal, which found the accused guilty of murder
and sentenced them to the death penalty.
The legal verdict hinges on the testimony of the
lone eyewitness for the prosecution, #rs.
3oraDon 'io7uino Paterno, sister of the
deceased, Apolonio 'io7uino, Er. @he testified
that at the time of the incident, she resided at
2entanilla @treet, Pasay 3ity. @he lived at
Pasay 3ity for about five months before
moving to another dwelling at Timog Avenue,
FueDon 3ity. While residing at Pasay 3ity, she
conceived a child and during this period, it was
not unusual for her, accompanied by her
husband, to step out of the house in the wee
hours of the morning. They set out on these
irregular wal5s about five times.
'uring her residence at Pasay 3ity, her brother
Apolonio visited her family for about twenty
times. @ometimes her brother would stay
instead at their parents8 house at #untinlupa,
*iDal. =e usually spent his wee5ends in his
residence at Bo. Balubad, Porac, Pampanga.
Apolonio and her husband were very close to
each otherG whenever Apolonio paid them a
visit, he usually slept in the house and sought
their help on various problems.
Before the incident which gave rise to this
case, 3oraDon8s husband informed her that he
saw Apolonio engaged in a drin5ing spree with
his gang in front of an establishment 5nown as
Bill8s Place at #. de la 3ruD @treet. Pasay 3ity.
In her sworn statement before the Pasay 3ity
Police executed on -ovember H, $,)(,
3oraDon surmised that her husband must have
been painting the town red 0Inag good timeI1 in
that same place. Apon learning this information
from her husband, 3oraDon obtained
permission to leave the house at H/JJ a.m. so
she could fetch her brother. At that time, she
had not been aware that Apolonio was in
Pasay 3ityG she had been of the belief that he
was with his family in Pampanga. @he went to
fetch him because she wanted him to escape
the untoward influence of his gang. In
explaining the rationale for her noctural
mission, she employed in her sworn statement
the following language/ I'ahil itong si Eunior ay
meron na 5aming nabalitaan na naaa5ay ng
bar5ada niya sa paggawa ng hindi mabuti.I
.n her way, as she rounded the corner of P.3.
@antos @treet, 3oraDon saw her brother fleeing
a group of about seven persons, including the
two accused, Antonio <arcia and *eynaldo
Arviso. @he recogniDed the two accused
because they were former gangmates of her
brotherG in fact, she 5new them before the
incident by their aliases of ITony #ano5I and
I*ene Bisugo, I respectively.
3oraDon saw that the chase was led by the two
accused, with Antonio carrying a long sharp
instrument. ;ater, in the course of giving her
sworn statement before the Pasay 3ity Police
on , -ovember H, $,)(, 3oraDon positively
Identified Antonio and *eynaldo, who were
then at the office of the <eneral Investigation
@ection, @ecret @ervice 'ivision, Pasay 3ity
Police 'epartment. @he also stated that if she
saw the other members of the group again,
perhaps she could li5ewise Identify them. At
the trial, 3oraDon li5ewise pointed out the two
accused. 'uring the incident, she exerted
efforts to Identify the other group members,
ta5ing care to conceal herself as she did so.
@he heard a gunshot which caused her to see5
cover.
When she ventured to loo5 from where she
was hiding, about +J meters away, she saw the
group catch up with her brother and maltreat
him. @ome beat him with pieces of wood,
others boxed him. Immediately afterwards, the
group scampered away in different directions.
Antonio was left behind. =e was sitting astride
the prostrate figure of Apolonio, stabbing the
latter in the bac5 with his long 5nife. 3oraDon
was not able to observe where Antonio later
fled, for she could hardly bear to witness the
scene.
When 3oraDon mustered the courage to
approach her brother, she saw that he was
bathed in a pool of his own blood. The incident
threw her in a state of nervous confusion, and
she resolved to report the incident to her
younger sister, who lived at ;a5andula @treet,
Pasay 3ity. =er sister in turn decided to brea5
the news to their father at #untinlupa.
@ubse7uently, 3oraDon learned that the police
authorities were searching for her brother8s
gangmates for having 5illed him. @he also
learned that the suspects were in hiding. .n
the same day K .ctober $,, $,)( K
accompanied by her family, she went at +/JJ
p.m. to the Police 'epartment to in7uire about
her brother8s corpse. They were directed to the
9uneraria Popular, where an autopsy was held.
@ometime later, on -ovember $, $,)(, she
transferred residence to FueDon 3ity.
'r. #ariano 3ueva, Er. testified that he
conducted a post'mortem examination on the
cadaver of the decedent Apolonio, and that he
prepared the corresponding -ecropsy *eport.
'r. 3ueva found that the deceased suffered ++
stab wounds in the different portions of his
hipsG in the front portion of the chest and nec5G
in the bac5 portion of the torsoG and in the right
hand. =e testified that the wounds sustained
by the deceased brought about a massive
hemorrhage which caused death. =e also
testified that it is possible that the instrument
mar5ed as ?xhibit IBI could have been used in
inflicting the multiple stab wounds sustained by
the deceased, except the stab wounds on the
nec5.
Both the accused too5 refuge in the defense of
alibi. Antonio <arcia claimed that at that time of
the incident K starting with the chase and
ending with the victim8s death K in the morning
of .ctober $,, $,)(, he was at a place called
Pacita8s 3anteen which ad6oins Bill8s Place at
#, de la 3ruD @treet. *eynaldo Arviso claimed
that in the evening of the preceding night
0.ctober $(, $,)(1 he went on a drin5ing spree
with his friends at Pacita8s 3anteen. =e went
home at $J/HJ p.m. and slept up to :/JJ a.m.
of .ctober $,, $,)(. 9rom :/JJ a.m. of that
day, he performed his duties as a bus
conductor by calling for passengers near
Pacita8s 3anteen.
The trial court pinpointed the issue as revolving
around the Identity of the persons who
participated in the 5illing of the deceased. it
ban5ed on the testimony of the witness,
3oraDon 'io7uino, who positively Identified the
accused as participants in the attac5. -oting
that Ithe defense did not even attempt to
present any evil motive on the part of the
witness,I the court concluded that Ithe two
accused too5 part in the perpetuation of the
crime charged.I It gave short shrift to the
defense of alibi presented by the two accused,
noting that, by their own admission, the two
accused were residents of the vicinity of the
crime.
In respect of the circumstances attending the
crime it said/
But considering the aggravating circumstances
of nighttimeG superior strengthG and treachery,
which three aggravating circumstances had
been sufficiently established by the
prosecution, the same cannot be offset by said
voluntary surrender to a person in authority of
his agent, plus the uncontested fact that
deceased, Apolonio 'io7uino, Er. suffered no
less than ++ stab wounds, convincing evidence
of the apparent criminal perversity of the
accused, the court, therefore, has no
alternative but to impose the supreme penalty.
And rendered 6udgment as follows/
I- 2I?W .9 T=? 9.*?<.I-<, the 3ourt
finds the accused, Antonio <arcia v 3abarse
and *eynaldo Arviso y *ebelleDa, <AI;T>,
beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of
#urder under Article +%(, of the *evised Penal
3ode, as charged under Article +%(, of the
*evised Penal 3ode, as charged in the
information, and considering the aggravating
circumstances surrounding the commission of
the crime, each one of them is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of '?AT=.
The two accused are further ordered to
indemnify, the heirs of the deceased, Apolonio
'io7uino, Er. in the amount of TW?;2?
8T=.A@A-' 0P$+,JJJ,JJ1 P?@.@, 6ointly and
severally and to pay their proportionate share
of the costs.
In their Brief, the accused contended that the
lower court erred/ in not considering nighttime
and superior strength as absorbed in
treachery/ in finding nighttime as an
aggravating circumstance despite absolute
absence of evidence that nighttime was
purposely sought to insure the execution of the
crimeG in finding superior strength as an
aggravating circumstance despite absence of
evidence to sustain such a findingG in finding
treachery as an aggravating circumstance
despite absence of evidence to that effectG in
not stating the 7ualifying circumstance of the
alleged crimeG in holding that the accused
*eynaldo Arviso stabbed and hit the victim
when there is no evidence as to the
participation of the said accused Arviso in the
execution of the alleged crimeG and in failing to
consider the material inconsistencies, pre6udice
and other circumstances in the uncorroborated
testimony of the only eyewitness, rendering
said testimony not worthy of belief.
The assignment of errors by the accused is
anchored on their attempt to discredit the lone
eyewitness for the prosecution, a function
which, if successfully underta5en, would totally
obliterate the nexus between the accused and
the crime. The defense vigorously maintained
that the testimony of the only eyewitness is a
fabrication, and that she was in fact absent
from the scene which she described in both her
sworn statement and in her testimony at the
trial.
The defense asserted that 3oraDon 'io7uino8s
testimony was riddled by material
inconsistencies. The defense sought to
capitaliDe on the discrepancy of a s5etch made
by 3oraDon and the s5etch made by Pasay
3ity ?lectrical ?ngineer Eaime Arriola.
3oraDon8s s5etch shows Euan @umulong
?lementary @chool to be right in front of P.3.
@antos @treetG while Arriola8s s5etch shows that
the school is about $HL meters from the corner
of the street. The defense contended that the
discrepancy was a deliberate falsehood on the
part of the witness,
3oraDon testified that she was near the corner
of P.3. @antos @treet when she saw her
brother under chase in front of the school, and
that she met the group in front of the school in
a matter of five seconds, more or less. The
defense assailed her testimony on this point as
incredible on the ground that the distance
between the point where she saw her brother
being chased, up to the point where she met
them, is $HL meters, and no human being can
cover that distance in five seconds. #oreover,
3oraDon testified that she was +J meters away
from the place where the accused caught up
with her brother. Again, the defense criticiDed
her testimony in this respect by pointing out
that the true distance is $:L meters.
The defense insisted that 3oraDon8s s5etch of
the locale of the crime 0?xhibit I$I1 constitutes
Ithe high point of falsity of her testimony.I The
defense sought to substantiate this claim by
arguing that from her s5etch, it appears that
she never crossed paths with her brother or his
pursuers. The witness testified that she saw
her brother at the point which is four to five
meters from the corner of P.3. @antos @treet.
>et she also testified that she saw the incident
from +J meters. The witness claimed she hid
after hearing the shot at a point which is $:J
meters from the scene of the crime. The
defense argued that she could not have
covered the distance in such a short time, and
that this belies her claim that she was only +J
meters from the scene of the crime. The
defense pointed out that Arriola8s s5etch
0?xhibit I+I1 shows that the school is $HL
meters from the scene of the crime, and the
point where the witness claimed she viewed
the crime is $:J meters from the scene of the
crime thus giving the lie to her claim that she
was +J meters away.
The alleged inconsistencies in 3oraDon8s
testimony K which the defense ma5es much of
K are not irreconcilable with the physical facts,
At the outset, it should not be overloo5ed that
3oraDon was testifying as an eyewitness to the
traumatic incident by which her brother met a
violent death at the hands of a mob. -aturally,
3oraDon can not be expected to deliver a
testimony which passes microscopic scrutiny
and scrupulous armchair analysis of the facts,
conducted under circumstances far removed
from the turbulence and emotional color of the
event as it actually transpired. Al contrario, if
3oraDon8s testimony were meticulously
accurate with respect to distance covered and
the time ta5en to negotiate it, an impartial
observer would wonder whether such
exactitude were not the product of previous
rehearsal, if not of fabrication. In times of
stress, the human mind is fre7uently
overpowered by the ebb and flow of emotions
in turmoilG and it is only 6udicious to ta5e into
consideration the natural manifestations of
human conduct, when the physical senses are
subdued by the psychological state of the
individual.
3oraDon was a resident of Pasay 3ity for only
about five months. @he testified that she is not
familiar with the streets along #. de la 3ruD
@treet. #oreover, 3oraDon did not categorically
testify that she covered the distance of $HL
meters in five seconds. #ole accurately, she
testified that she wal5ed for a period of from
five to ten seconds, more or less. Put in this
way, the period was sufficient to allow her to
negotiate the distance. #oreover, 3oraDon did
not stay rooted to one spot while the incident
was ta5ing place, but surreptitiously edged her
way up to #agtibay @treet, which is closer to
the place of the 5illing.
The defense also claims that the delay which
3oraDon allowed to transpire, before reporting
the crime to the authorities and giving her
sworn statement 0on -ovember H, $,)(1, is
indicative of fabrication. The 5illing too5 place
before dawn of .ctober $,, $,)(, In the
afternoon of the same day, 3oraDon and her
family went to the Police 'epartment to in7uire
about the remains of her brother. 3oraDon
already 5new that the police were ta5ing steps
to round up the 5illers. @he incurred no fault in
waiting until the culprits were arrested before
confronting them and giving her statement. It
would have been the better part of legal
procedure if she had given her statement
earlierG but since she was only a ++4year old
house5eeper at that tune, she can not be held
to a higher standard of discretion.
The defense further contends that the failure to
present 3oraDon8s husband in court indicates
that 3oraDon was not actually at the scene of
the crime at H/JJ o8cloc5 in the morning. It the
defense felt that the husband had a
contribution to ma5e in the cause of truth, there
was nothing which prevented them from
compelling his process by summons. This they
failed to doG and their omission should not be
ta5en to reflect adversely on the prosecution,
who evidently believed that the husband8s
testimony was unnecessary,
9inally, the defense claims that it was unnatural
for 3oraDon, after viewing her brother8s body,
to proceed to her sister8s house one 5ilometer
away, instead of returning to her own house,
which was 6ust a bloc5 or so away. It is not
unnatural for a witness to a gruesome event, to
choose to confer with a person bound to her by
ties of consanguinity, even if such a conference
necessitates that she traverse a longer
distance. The exercise of 6udgment, on the
spot, should not be gauged by reason applied
in hindsight with a metrical yard stic5.
The next ma6or burden which the defense
undertoo5 to assume was to contend that the
accused *eynaldo Arviso is innocent because
there is no evidence as to his participation in
the execution of the crime. It is claimed that
there is absolute absence of evidence to show
that *eynaldo was a direct participant and that
the only evidence against him is that he was
seen pursuing the victim. =owever, the finding
of *eynaldo8s guilt stems, not from his direct
participation in the criminal execution, but from
his participation in the conspiracy to 5ill the
deceased. =is participation in the conspiracy is
supported by 3oraDon8s testimony that he and
Antonio were the leaders of the pac5 following
closely at the heels of the victim.
It is well established that conspiracy may be
inferred from the acts of the accused
themselves, when such acts point to a 6oint
purpose and design. A concerted assault upon
the victim by the defendants may indicate
conspiracy. 0PP v. #onroy M Idica, ;4$$$::,
.ct. HJ, $,L(, $J% Phil. :L,1. 3onspiracy
exists if, at the time of the commission of the
offense, the defendants had the same criminal
purpose and were united in its execution. 0PP
v. 'atu 'ima Binahasing, ;4%(H:, April +(,
$,L), ,( Phil. ,J+1. Those who are members
of the band of malefactors by which a murder
is committed and are present at the time and
place of the commission of the crime, thus
contributing by their presence to augment the
power of the band and to aid in the successful
realiDation of the crime, are guilty as principals
even if they too5 no part in the material act of
5illing the deceased. 0A@ v. Abelinde, -o. ,%L,
'ec. $J, $,J+, $ Phil. L)(G People v.
3arunungan, ;4$H+(H, @ept. HJ, $,)J, $J,
Phil. LH%1. To establish conspiracy, it is not
essential that there be proof as to previous
agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient
that the malefactors have acted in concert,
pursuant to the same ob6ective. 0PP vs. @an
;uis, ;4+H)L, #ay +,, $,LJ, () Phil. %(L1.
3onspiracy need not be established by direct
evidence of acts charged, but may and
generally must be proven by a number of
indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances
which vary according to the purpose to be
accomplished. If it be proved that two or more
persons aimed by their acts towards
accomplishment of the same unlawful ob6ect,
each doing a part. so that their acts, though
apparently independent, were in fact
connected and cooperative, indicating a
closeness of personal association and
concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy maybe
inferred though no actual meeting among them
to concert is proven 0PP v. 3olman ;4))L+4L%,
9eb. +(, $,L(, $JH Phil. )1. A conspiracy may
be entered into after the commencement of
overt acts leading to the consummation of the
crime. 0PP v. Barredo, ;4+:+(, 'ec. +,, $,LJ,
(: Phil. (JJ1. 3onspiracy implies concert of
design and not participation in every detail of
execution 0PP v. 3arbonel, ;4+%$::, #arch $L,
$,+), %( Phil. ()(G PP v. 'anan, ;4$:)),
#arch H$, $,%,, (H Phil. +L+1.
When a group of seven men, more or less,
give chase to a single unarmed individual
running for his life, and they overta5e him and
inflict wounds on his body by means of
shooting, stabbing, and hitting with pieces of
wood, there is conspiracy to 5illG and it does not
detract from their status as conspirators that
there is no evidence of previous agreement, it
being sufficient that their wills have concurred
and they labored to achieve the same end.
The defense submits that the failure of the
lower court to specify the 7ualifying
circumstance in the crime of murder is violative
of the 3onstitution and the *ules of 3ourt. We
find no such infirmity. @ince the principle
concerned is Ireadily understood from the
facts, the conclusion and the penalty posed.,
an express specification of the statute or
exposition of the law is not necessary.I 0People
vs. @ilo, ;4:,$), #ay +L, $,L), ,, Phil. +$)1.
In the absence of a specification by the trial
court, the defense surmised that the 7ualifying
circumstance in this case is evident
premeditation/ but the defense argued that
evident premeditation was not shown. We
agree. Ander normal conditions, conspiracy
generally presupposes premeditation. But in
the case of implied conspiracy, evident
premeditation may not be appreciated, in the
absence of proof as to how and when the plan
to 5ill the victim was hatched or what time
elapsed before it was carried out, so that it can
not be determined if the accused had
Isufficient time between its inception and its
fulfillment dispassionately to consider and
accept the conse7uences.I There should be a
showing that the accused had the opportunity
for reflection and persisted in executing his
criminal design. 0PP v. 3ustodia, ;4:%%+,
.ctober +%,$,LL, ,: Phil. ),(G PP v. #endoDa
and @inu4ag, ;4%$%) and ;4%$%:, #arch +(,
$,L+, ,$ Phil. L(G PP v. >turiaga, ;4+($), #ay
H$, $,LJ, () Phil. LH%G PP v. ;oDada, -o.
%),,(, -ov. $), $,%J, :J Phil. L+LG PP v. Apao
#oro, ;4)::$, #ay +(, $,L:, Phil. $J$ Phil.
$++)G PP v. @a5am, -o. %$L)), 'ec. :, $,H%,
)$ Phil. +:/ PP v. Peralta, ;4$,J),, .ct. +,,
$,)(, +L @3*A :L,G PP v. Pare6a, ;4+$,H:,
-ov. +,, $,),, HJ @3*A ),H1.
?ven in the absence of evident premeditation,
the crime of murder in this case might still be
7ualified by treachery, which is alleged in the
information. But the defense argued that
treachery was not present. We are so
convinced. It is an elementary axiom that
treachery can in no way be presumed but must
be fully proven. 0A@ v. Asilo, -o. $,L:, Ean. HJ,
$,JL, % Phil, $:LG A@ v. Arciga, -o. $$+,, April
), $,JH, + Phil. $$JG PP v. 'urante, -o. H$$J$,
Aug. +H, $,+,, LH Phil. H)HG PP v. Pelago, ;4
+%((%, Aug. H$, $,)(, +% @3*A $J+:1, Where
the manner of the attac5 was not proven, the
defendant should be given the benefit of the
doubt, and the crime should be considered
homicide only. 03arpio, (H Phil. LJ,G Amansec,
@o Phil, %+%1.
In People vs. (etran 0;4%+JL, Euly +:, $,L$,
(, Phil. L%H1. the aggravating circumstances of
aid of armed men, abuse of superiority, and
nocturnity, were considered as constituting
treachery, which 7ualified the crime as murder,
since there was no direct evidence as to the
manner of the attac5. =owever, in this case we
believe that the correct 7ualifying circumstance
is not treachery, but abuse of superiority. =ere
we are confronted with a helpless victim 5illed
by assailants superior to him in arms and in
numbers. But the attac5 was not sudden nor
unexpected, and the element of surprise was
lac5ing. The victim could have made a
defenseG hence, the assault involved some ris5
to the assailants. There being no showing
when the intent to 5ill was formed, it can not be
said that treachery has been proven. We
believe the correct rule is found in People vs.
Proceso Bustos 0-o. $::)H, Euly +H, $,+H, %L
Phil. ,1, where alevosia was not appreciated
because it was deemed included in abuse of
superiority.
We find that abuse of superiority attended the
offense, following a long line of cases which
made this finding on parallel facts .ur
6urisprudence is exemplified by the holding that
where four persons attac5ed an unarmed
victim but there was no proof as to how the
attac5 commenced and treachery was not
proven, the fact that there were four assailants
would constitute abuse of superiority. 0People
vs. ;asada, -o. ):%+, Ean. +), $,$+, +$ Phil.
+(:G A@ v. Banagale, -o. :(:J, Ean. $J, $,$H,
+% Phil. ),1. =owever, the information does not
allege the 7ualifying circumstance of abuse of
superiorityG hence, this circumstance can only
be 3reated as generic aggravating. 0People v.
Acusar, ;4$:,(, 'ee. +,, $,%(, (+ Phil. %,JG
People v. Be6e, ;4(+%L, Euly $,, $,L), ,, Phil.
$JL+G People v. Bautista, ;4+HHJH, #ay +J,
$,),, +( @3*A $(%1.
The offense too5 place at H/JJ o8cloc5 in the
morning. It may therefore be said that it was
committed at night, which covers the period
from sunset to sunrise, according to the -ew
3ivil 3ode, Article $H. Is this basis for finding
that nocturnity is aggravatingN The *evised
Penal 3ode, Article $%, provides that it is an
aggravating circumstance when the crime is
committed in the nighttime, whenever
nocturnity may facilitate the commission of the
offense. There are two tests for nocturnity as
an aggravating circumstance/ the o)*ective
test, under which nocturnity is aggravating
because it facilitates the commission of the
offenseG and the su)*ective test, under which
nocturnity is aggravating because it was
purposely sought by the offender. These two
tests should be applied in the alternative.
In this case, the sub6ective test is not passed
because there is no showing that the accused
purposely sought the cover of night time. -ext,
we proceed and apply the ob6ective test, to
determine whether nocturnity facilitated the
5illing of the victim. A group of men were
engaged in a drin5ing spree, in the course of
which one of them fled, chased by seven
others. The criminal assault on the victim at
H/JJ a.m. was invited by nocturnal cover, which
handicapped the view of eyewitnesses and
encouraged impunity by persuading the
malefactors that it would be difficult to
determine their Identity because of the
dar5ness and the relative scarcity of people in
the streets. There circumstances combine to
pass the ob6ective test, and e find that
nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitated
the commission of the offense. -octurnity
enticed those with the lust to 5ill to follow their
impulses with the false courage born out of the
belief that they could not be readily Identified.
The information alleges that the crime of
murder was attended by the two 7ualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident
premeditation. -either of these 7ualifying
circumstances was provedG hence, the 5illing
can not be 7ualified into murder, and
constitutes instead the crime of homicide,
which is punished by reclusion temporal. It is
not controverted that the accused voluntarily
surrendered to the authoritiesG they are
therefore entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. This lone
mitigating circumstance offset by the two
generic aggravating circumstances of abuse of
superiority and nocturnity, produces the result
that in the crime of homicide, one aggravating
circumstance remains.
W=?*?9.*?, the 6udgment of the court a +uo
is hereby modified in that the two accused,
Antonio <arcia y 3abarse and *eynaldo Arviso
y *ebelleDa, are sentenced to undergo an
indeterminate imprisonment of $J years as
minimum to $( years as maximum, but in all
other respects affirmed.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.
SUEENE DISCALSOTA y JUGAR,
appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Without any proven qualifying circumstance,
a killing constitutes homicide which is punishable
by reclusion temporal, not death. Where the attack
was made openly and the victim had ample
opportunity to escape, treachery cannot be
appreciated.
The Case
For automatic review by this Court is the
Decision[! dated "eptember #$, %%$, issued by
the &egional 'rial Court (&'C) of *acolod City
(*ranch +,), finding "ueene Discalsota y -ugar
guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. 'he
decretal portion of the Decision reads as follows.
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused Sueene
Discalsota, alias Ronnie de la Pea, GUILTY of the
crime of Murder, punished under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659, of
Herbert Suarnaba. Applying Art. 63, of the Revised
Penal Code, paragraph 2, No. 1, on the application
of indivisible penalties, which provides that
whenever there is present only one aggravating
penalty, the greater penalty shall applied, and there
is no mitigating circumstance. The Court hereby
imposes upon the accused Sueene Discalsota the
penalty of DEATH.
The accused is further ordered to pay the heirs of
the deceased the sum of P50,000.00, as civil
indemnity; P30,000.00 as moral damages, and
P25,000.00 as actual expenses for the wake and
funeral, and costs.[2]
'he /nformation[,! against appellant reads as
follows.
That on or about the 24th day of January, 1996, in
the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein
accused, without any justifiable cause or motive,
being then armed with a bladed weapon, with intent
to kill and by means of treachery and evident
premeditation, did, then and there wilfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously assault, attack and stab
with said weapon one HERBERT SUARNABA Y
CATALAN, thereby inflicting upon the person of
the latter the following wounds:
I.W. 4 cm, left posterior lumbar area, level of L2
L4 penetrating Retroperiton[e]al Cavity completely
transacting left kidney, inferior pole, penetrating
abdominal cavity completely transacting pancreas,
body, perforating posterior surface of Stomach,
pundus with massive gastric spillage.
Cause of Death: Hypovolemic Shock 2
which were the direct and immediate cause of his
death.
When arraigned on -uly %, %%0, appellant,
with the assistance of counsel,[1! pleaded 2not
guilty.3[+! /n due course, the former was tried by
the &'C which found him guilty of murder.
The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
'he 4ffice of the "olicitor 5eneral (4"5)
summari6ed the evidence for the prosecution in this
wise.[7!
At about 1:00 P.M. of January 24, 1996, the
victim, Herbert Suarnaba, 16 years old, along with
his neighborhood friends, Jenny Aplaza (17 years
old), Pedro Ramos (17 years old) and Rowell
Lavega (17 years old) left 6th Street, Bacolod City
and went to Plaza Mart, a shopping mall, where
they loitered for about an hour or two. They
decided to visit their friend, Novieboy del
Rosario, who used to be their neighbor at Purok
Pag-asa but who ha[d] since transferred to Libertad
Baybay. They took [a] jeepney and arrived there at
around 3:00 P.M. They proceeded to the inner
portion of the barangay, passing by several houses
[o]n a footwalk to the house of Novieboy del
Rosario. They were welcomed by the latter and
[they] then listened to music on the tape recorder.
When Novieboys mother arrived, she offered
them chorizo (sausage) which she brought with
her from Kalibo.
While peacefully enjoying themselves, they were
suddenly startled by shouts coming from a group of
men outside the house. Looking out, they saw
about nine (9) men with their leader shouting: Gua
kamo dira, kay pamatyon ta kamo! Nga-a nagsulod-
sulod kamo diri sa amon teritoryo? Gua kamo dira
kay pamatyon ta kamo! (You there, get out and we
will kill you!) The four (4) teen-agers were terrified
since they did not know the men who were
threatening them. Nor did they know of any grudge
or misunderstanding between their group and the
men outside. They then called Mrs. Del Rosario
(Novieboys mother) who advised them not to go
out of the house and called for the police. However,
after waiting for some time, no police assistance
came. Mrs. Del Rosario then went out and returned
with four (4) barangay tanods. The tanods entered
the house and talked to the teen-agers and assured
them that no harm would come to them and that
there would be a police Bac[k]-up waiting for
them at the road. The group was then escorted out
of the house by the tanods and were accompanied
by two (2) of them and Mrs. Del Rosario towards
the footpath leading to the main road. It was
already dusk by that time. The men threatening
them were still outside when they went out of the
house and they followed the group. When the
group reached the main road, no police Bac[k]-up
was in sight but Mrs. Del Rosario remained with
them.
There was a single trisikad (pedicab) outside and
the four (4) boarded it. Since the pedicab could
only accommodate two (2) persons inside, Rowell
Lavega stood on the rail at the back of the pedicab
while the victim sat in front.
The pedicab had not left when Rowell saw a man
running towards them from the footwalk. He was
about 50 meters away when Rowell first saw him.
The four jumped out of the pedicab when Mrs. Del
Rosario and the people there shouted at them to
run. Despite efforts by the barangay tanods to stop
him, the man rushed headlong towards Rowell and
the victim. He was about to strike at Rowell when
Mrs. Del Rosario pushed Rowell to run. When Mrs.
Del Rosario fell down as if to faint, the victim
helped her stand up. Mrs. Del Rosario then told the
victim to run and he ran around the pedicab more
than a foot long. While the victim was running
away trying to escape, the man holding the knife
caught up with him and thrust his knife at the
fleeing victim who was hit at the back. The victim
fell and crawled, while gasping for breath, and he
managed to enter a house pleading for help.
Rowell saw what happened to his friend and
wanted to help him but could not because the
attacker was still there. After seeing the victim fall
down, bloodied, his attacker ran towards the interior
of the barangay. Meanwhile, Pedro, Jenny and
Rowell ran as fast [as] they could because the
companions of the attacker also came rushing out of
the footwalk and were charging at them with drawn
knives. They escaped being hurt when they sought
refuge in the house of a friend at the opposite side
of the basketball court. Mrs. Del Rosario fainted
upon seeing the attack on the victim.
Pedro and Rowell recognized the attacker as the
one who earlier shouted at them while they were
still inside the house of Mrs. Del Rosario. They
stayed for about an hour inside the house of their
friend where they sought refuge and there they
learned that the man who chased them and struck
the victim was known by the nickname, Yawa and
is also known as Ronnie de la Pea although his real
name is Sueene Discalsota. Much later, when the
police finally came and investigated them, Pedro
was shown pictures of the suspects and he picked
out the picture of accused-appellant.
Louie Gregorio, a reluctant witness who testified
only on pain of arrest for contempt of court,
declared that he was a live-in partner of Nieves
del Rosario; that while resting at the house of
Nieves del Rosario around 4:00 P.M. of January 24,
1996, he confirmed that the victim and three (3)
others were at the house and that no untoward
incident happened while they were inside the
house. Several minutes after the boys were escorted
out of the house by four (4) barangay tanods, he
learned that a stabbing incident happened outside
and when he went out to investigate, he saw
accused-appellant running towards the house of his
girlfriend. He was only about five (5) armslength
from accused-appellant who was carrying a
bloodied long knife which he did not even bother to
conceal. He heard accused-appellant shouting,
Naigo ko gid! (I got him). He also confirmed that
Ronnie de la Pea is the same accused-appellant
Sueene Discalsota.
The victim was rushed to the Corazon Locsin
Montelibano Memorial Hospital. He was still alive
when the police and his mother arrived. However,
he was already breathing heavily, in a critical
condition, and could no longer respond. A few
minutes later, he was pronounced dead by the
doctor.
Dr. Hildegard B. Madalag conducted the autopsy
on the body of the victim and submitted a Report of
his findings (Exhibit D). He confirmed his findings
in open court and further testified that upon
examination, he found the kidney of the victim
completely transacted or totally cut. The knifes
entry point was at the back, a direct and straight
thrust which went through three (3) vital organs
pancreas, stomach and the kidney, causing massive
gastric spillage. He gave the cause of death in the
Certificate of Death (Exhibit E) as Hypo-volemic
shock.
Despite lack of cooperation from the residents of
the area where the incident happened, the police
authorities were able to arrest accused-appellant on
the identification of Pedro Ramos and Rowell
Lavega.[7]
Version of the Defense
4n the other hand, the 8ublic 9ttorney:s
4ffice narrated appellants: version of the incident as
follows.[$!
SUEENE DISCALSOTA, denied that he was [the]
one who stabbed and killed Herbert Suarnaba. He
testified that in the afternoon of January 24, 1996,
he was in their house at Purok Kingfisher, Libertad
Baybay, Bacolod City, from 3:00 to 5:00 P.M. He
was tending their store where he acted as cashier.
His companion thereat were older sister Aileen and
younger sister Yvette. He never left their store even
after 5:00 P.M. When his mother Lilia Discalsota
arrived from the Central Market she took over the
chores in the store. He only learned that there was a
stabbing incident on the following day (January 25,
1996).
He learned that he was charged [with] Murder on
April 7, 1997, when he was arrested by policemen
in the house of his wife, Christina at Purok Tulihaw,
Brgy. 16, Bacolod City. He was surprised when the
policemen presented a warrant for his arrest. The
policemen told him that he was involved in a
murder case in Libertad, Baybay, Bacolod City in
January 1996. He did not want to go with the
policemen, but it was a certain Tiyo Erwin who
prevailed upon him to go with the arresting
officers. He was then brought to Bac[k]-up I and
later to headquarters. He was subsequently detained
at the Lock-up.
He further testified that he [did] not know Louie
Gregorio, one of the witnesses for the prosecution.
He [did] not know whether Louie Gregorio [was]
the common law husband of Nieves del Rosario but
he met her only at the City jail, when she visited her
common-law husband Marcial Flores, in January
1998. Marcial Flores [was] his neighbor at
Libertad, Baybay.
Discalsota also denied leaving Libertad, Baybay,
Bacolod City after the incident. He was there on
January 25, 1996, and he was even able to leave
their house that day. He continued staying in their
house x x x until April 1996. Eventually their
house was demolished in 1997 and his family
transferred to Tangub. He nevertheless, remained
in the area and stayed with his wife at her house in
Purok Tulinaw, which was just about 30 meters
away from the house of Nieves del Rosario.
He denied membership [in] any fraternity, much
less U-2. He declared that Yawa, x x x Ming,
Michael Bartolo, Da-dan, were not his neighbors,
but admitted they were residents of the place.
These persons are members of Red-O fraternity.
He denied knowing Ulysses Tonggoy. He admitted
knowing x x x Alfonso one of the CVOs
mentioned by prosecutions [witness] Alfonso de la
Cruz. He mentioned that he [was] not Yawa but
one Stephen.
EVETTE DISCALSOTA corroborated the
testimony of Suenne Discalsota. She testified that
she was tending their store the whole day of January
24, 1996. Her companions thereat were her brother,
Sueene[;] and sister, Aileen. Their store opened at
7:00 A.M. and closed on that particular day, at 9:00
P.M. her brother Sueene never left the store from
7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Sueene was then acting as
the cashier of their store.
She also testified that she did not know that her
brother Sueene was charged in court. When her
brother was arrested she went to the police station
and inquired why Sueene was detained and she was
told he had a case. She then told the police that on
the day the alleged stabbing was committed Sueene
was not able to leave the house the whole day.[9]
Rulin !" the T#ial C!u#t
'he &'C ruled that appellant had positively
been identified by the prosecution witnesses as the
culprit responsible for the death of ;erbert
"uarnaba. /t gave no credence to the denial and
alibi proffered by appellant. /t also appreciated
evident premeditation and treachery as qualifying
and aggravating circumstances, respectively, and
thus sentenced him to death.
;ence, this automatic review before us.[<!
Assin$ent !" E##!#s
/n his *rief, appellant faults the trial court
with the following alleged errors.
%I
The trial court gravely erred in finding accused-
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder as charged in the information
despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the
qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation
and treachery.
%II
The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty
upon the accused-appellant.[11]
The C!u#t&s Rulin
The appeal is partly meritorious.
P#eli$ina#' (atte#
9ppellant no longer questions the finding of
the &'C that he stabbed and killed ;erbert
"uarnaba. ;owever, an appeal in a criminal case
opens the whole case to review. 'hus, we shall still
pass upon the matter.
'he prosecution witnesses were one in
identifying appellant as the person who had wielded
a knife and stabbed the victim. 9ppellant had
nothing to offer in his defense but an alibi
corroborated by his two sisters. 9 careful scrutiny
of the records shows no reason to disbelieve the
prosecution witnesses and to overturn the court a
quos finding that they were credible.
*asic is the rule that the findings of the trial
court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to
the highest respect and will not be disturbed on
appeal in the absence of any showing that it
overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some
facts or circumstances of weight and substance.[#!
9lso, the &'C was correct in disregarding the
alibi of appellant. 9s it aptly ruled, his 2defense of
alibi crumbles in the face of the positive
identification of the accused by prosecution
witnesses as being present in the scene of the
crime.3[,!
Fi#st Issue)
Evident Premeditation and Treachery
9ppellant contends that evident premeditation
should not have been appreciated by the trial court
as a qualifying circumstance.
/t is settled that qualifying circumstances
cannot be presumed, but must be established by
clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as
the killing itself.[1!
[F]or evident premeditation to be appreciated,
there must be proof, as clear as the evidence of the
crime itself of the following elements thereof, viz:
(a) the time when the accused determined to commit
the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the
accused has clung to his determination, and (c)
sufficient lapse of time between the determination
and execution to allow himself to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.[15]
/n this case, the first two elements of evident
premeditation are present. 9s found by the &'C,
the time appellant determined to commit the crime
was when he started shouting at the victim and the
latter:s companions. 2=ou, there, get out and we
will kill you>3 *y staying outside the house and
following the victim:s companions when they came
out, he manifestly indicated that he clung to his
determination.
9s for the third element, the prosecution
evidence shows that appellant started shouting
outside ?rs. del &osario:s house at ,.,< p.m.[7!
When the victim:s group left the house, it was not
yet dark@[0! it was only past four o:clock in the
afternoon.[$! 'he police received information on
the stabbing incident at 1.,<[%! p.m. on the same
day. /t took less than an hour from the time
appellant evinced a desire to commit the crime, as
manifested by his shouts outside the house, up to
the time he stabbed the victim. 'he span of less
than one hour could not have afforded the former
full opportunity for meditation and reflection on the
consequences of the crime he committed.
'he essence of premeditation is that the
eAecution of the criminal act must be preceded by
cool thought and reflection on the resolution to
carry out the criminal intent during a space of time
sufficient to arrive at a calm Budgment.[#<!
To justify the inference of deliberate
premeditation, there must be a period sufficient in a
judicial sense to afford full opportunity for
meditation and reflection and to allow the
conscience of the actor to overcome the resolution
of his will if he desires to hearken to its
warning.[21]
Where no sufficient lapse of time is
appreciable from the determination to commit the
crime until its eAecution, evident premeditation
cannot be appreciated.[##! ;ence, the lower court
erred in holding that evident premeditation qualified
the killing to murder.
No Treachery
9ppellant also argues that treachery did not
attend the commission of the crime.
'here is treachery when the offender commits
any of the crimes against persons employing means,
methods, or forms of attack that tend directly and
specially to insure the eAecution of the crime
without risk arising from the defense that the
offended party might make.[#,!
2For treachery to eAist, two essential elements
must concur. (a) the employment of means of
eAecution that gives the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (b)
the said means of eAecution was deliberately or
consciously adopted.3[#1! 'reachery cannot be
presumed@ it must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence or as conclusively as the
killing itself.[#+!
/n the present case, the victim had the
opportunity to escape or to defend himself. *efore
he and his group left the house of ?rs. del &osario,
they had already been forewarned of violent
aggression from appellant, whose words and stance
while outside the house made its imminence clear.
'he mode of attack adopted by appellant was not
without risk to himself@ neither was it sudden.
When he began his menacing approach, he was
visible to the victim and the latter:s companions.
9ppellant was out in the open and thus at risk from
any defense which the group might make. 'he
presence of such risk and the eAistence of ample
opportunity for the victim to escape or defend
himself negated treachery.
Sec!n* Issue)
Proper Penalty
/n his *rief, appellant further claims to have
been a minor at the time of the commission of the
crime. 'his matter was, however, not raised during
the trial. Furthermore, in his direct eAamination
held on -une , %%$, he stated for the record that
he was a #<CyearCold married man. ;ence, we
cannot agree to appreciate minority as a privileged
mitigating circumstance.
9bsent any qualifying circumstance, appellant
may be convicted of homicide only. Considering
further the absence of any aggravating or mitigating
circumstance, the imposable penalty of reclusion
temporal should be in the medium period[#7! and
encompassed by the /ndeterminate "entence Daw.
Da$aes
We affirm the &'C:s award of 8+<,<<< as
civil indemnity and 8,<,<<<.<< as moral damages.
;owever, the grant of actual damages should be
reduced to 8<,$%<, since this is the only amount
duly supported by a statement of account and
receipts. 2'o Bustify an award of actual damages, it
is necessary to prove with a reasonable degree of
certainty, premised upon competent proof and on
the best evidence obtainable by the inBured party,
the actual amount of loss.3[#0!
+HEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY
GRANTED. 9ppellant is CONVICTED of homicide
and is ENTENCED to an indeterminate penalty of
< years of prision mayor medium as minimum to
0 years and 1 months of reclusion temporal
medium as maAimum. 'he grant of civil indemnity
and moral damages is A!!IR"ED# but that of
actual damages is reduced to 8<,$%<. Eo
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
,G.R. N!s. -./.01203. Dece$4e# 5-, 500-6
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. SPO- EDUARDO
ANCHETA 7 RODIGOL, accused-
appellant.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.)
'his is an appeal from the Decision of the
&egional 'rial Court Caloocan City finding "84
accusedCappellant "84 Fduardo 9ncheta y
&odigol guilty of "ur$er in Crim% Case No% C&
''()( and of !rustrate$ "ur$er in Crim% Case No%
''('*.[!
"84 Fduardo 9ncheta y &odigol[#! was
originally charged with +omici$e in Crim% Case
No% C&''()( and !rustrate$ +omici$e in Crim%
Case No% C&''('*. ;owever, upon motion of
private complainant, a reinvestigation was
conducted and the /nformations were amended to
charge the accused with "ur$er in Crim% Case No%
C&''()( and !rustrate$ "ur$er in Crim Case No%
C&''('*.
/n the amended In,ormation for "ur$er, it
was alleged that the accused Gwith deliberate intent
to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously shoot one -ulian 9ncheta y &odigol on
the left temple, thereby inflicting upon the latter
serious physical inBuries, which inBuries caused the
victim:s death.G[,! 4n the other hand, in the
amended In,ormation for !rustrate$ "ur$er it was
alleged that the accused Gwith deliberate intent to
kill and with treachery and evident premeditation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously shoot with a gun one -onathan 9romin y
Cardine6 on the right cheek, thus performing all the
acts of eAecution which would constitute the crime
of "ur$er as a consequence but which nevertheless
did not produce it by reason of causes independent
of the will of the herein accused, that is, due to
timely, able and efficient medical attendance
rendered to the victim.G[1!
During trial, the main witness for the
prosecution, -onathan 9romin, testified that on the
night of # "eptember %%, he and his neighbor
-ulian 9ncheta went to the house of the accused
who lived Bust across them.[+! -ulian told -onathan
to knock on the door first but when no one
answered -ulian did the knocking himself.[7! When
the accused opened the door, -onathan immediately
noticed that "84 9ncheta was armed with a gun.
/ntimidated, -onathan began to move away.[0! 9s
he left the house of the accused, -onathan suddenly
heard two (#) shots which prompted him to hide
behind the nearest wall. *ut when he looked back
the accused "84 9ncheta was already aiming his
revolver directly at his face and without hesitation
shot him at close range.[$! "tunned by the gunshot
wound, -onathan momentarily blacked out but soon
regained consciousness when his neighbor, Deonila
Dope6, came to his aid and rushed him to the -ose
&eyes ?emorial ?edical Center.[%! 9t the hospital,
the slug that pierced his right cheek was removed
from his left shoulder and was subsequently
released on 0 "eptember %%,.[<!
Deonila Dope6 narrated that her house was
right across the house of the accused, separated only
by a narrow alley.[! 9t around $.<< oHclock in the
evening of # "eptember %%, while she was
preparing dinner, she was startled by the sound of
two (#) gunshots coming from the house of the
accused. "he immediately told her children to go
inside and as she was about to close her windows
she saw -onathan 9romin running towards her
house, followed by the accused. "he then saw the
accused shoot -onathan 9romin on the right cheek.
9fter the accused left, she helped the hapless victim
and brought him to the hospital.[#! "he was
approAimately a meter away when she witnessed
the shooting.[,!
Iirginia 9ncheta, wife of -ulian 9ncheta,
testified that she and her deceased husband had two
(#) children and that she incurred 8+1,#<<.<< as
funeral eApenses for his burial.[1!
Dr. &oberto 5arcia, a ?edicoCDegal 4fficer
of the E*/, testified that he autopsied the body of
-ulian 9ncheta on , "eptember %%,. -ulian
sustained three (,) gunshot wounds. 4ne ()
bullet pierced the the back of his left forearm and
eAited in front thereof, another entered the rear left
portion of the neck and eAited through the right rear
portion thereof, while the fatal bullet pierced the
front portion of the left ear without an eAit wound.
[+! ;owever, although Dr. 5arcia concluded that
three (,) bullets hit the deceased, he did not
discount the possibility that the three (,) wounds
could have been caused by only two (#) bullets as
the left arm, being a movable part of the body,
might have been in the way when the bullet eAited
through the neck of the victim.[7!
8olice 4fficer , Feliciano 9lmoBuela of the
/ntelligence and /nvestigation Division, 8E8
"tation, Caloocan City, claimed that in the early
morning of , "eptember %%, he received a report
of a shooting incident at *lock ,7, 8hase ,CFC
DagatCdagatan, Caloocan City.[0! Jpon reaching
the crime scene he was informed that the slain
victim was "K"gt. -ulian 9ncheta of the 8hilippine
9ir Force and the suspect was the deceased:s
brother "84 Fduardo 9ncheta. When he learned
that another victim was confined at the -ose &eyes
?emorial ?edical Center he went there and found
-onathan 9romin in critical condition. 'hinking
that the victim might not survive he immediately
interviewed him and took an GanteCmortemG
statement.[$! /n the afternoon of the same day, the
accused voluntarily surrendered himself as well as
his service firearm at the 8E8 "tation in Caloocan
City.[%! 9t around .<< p.m., 84, 9lmoBuela
brought the accused to the hospital where the latter
was positively identified by -onathan 9romin as the
assailant.[#<!
Dr. 9braham 5on6ales, the resident physician
at the -ose &eyes ?emorial ?edical Center,
testified that he was on duty on # "eptember %%,
when -onathan 9romin was admitted. Jpon
eAamination he observed that the victim sustained a
gunshot wound on the right portion of his Baw and
no eAit wound was visible.[#! During treatment,
the lead slug was recovered from the left side of the
neck or from the Gtrapicious muscle.G[##! ;e added
that were it not for the timely medical intervention
-onathan 9romin would have died.[#,!
/n his defense, the accused claimed that on the
night of # "eptember %%, he was sleeping at home
with his wife and son when he was awakened by the
sound of someone banging on his door.[#1! 9fter a
brief silence he heard him say. GPare -u.san mo
ito%/ "ensing danger, the accused took his gun
from under his pillow and ordered the person to
identify himself. *ut the stranger Bust kept on
banging the door and insisted that it be opened.[#+!
When he finally opened the door, he saw his brother
-ulian 9ncheta and his neighbor -onathan 9romin.
Jpon seeing them, he inquired as to why his brother
addressed him as GpareG but instead of answering,
-ulian 9ncheta angrily asked him why he was
holding a gun.[#7! 'o appease his brother, the
accused lowered his pistol and eAplained that the
gun was only for protection as he had no idea who
was banging his door in the middle of the night. ;e
then invited them into the house, but when he
turned around his brother suddenly grabbed his
hand from behind to disarm him.[#0! 9s they
grappled, the gun accidentally fired twice and
the neAt thing he saw was his brother sprawled on
the ground and -onathan 9romin was nowhere to be
found. ;e never knew what actually happened to
-onathan 9romin as his back was turned against him
when the gun went off.[#$!
Confused by the startling events, the accused
Bust took his family to the house of his wife:s
cousin. ;is wife then convinced him to spend the
night with them and postpone his surrender until the
neAt day.[#%! 9t around 7.<< oHclock p.m.[,<! of ,
"eptember %%, he surrendered at the 8E8 "tation
in Caloocan City. 9fter being taken into custody,
84, 9lmoBuela brought him to the -ose &eyes
?emorial ;ospital where -onathan 9romin
identified him as the perpetrator.[,!
4n #7 ?arch %%% the trial court, giving
credence to the prosecution witnesses, found the
accused guilty of both charges.[,#! /n Crim% Case
No% C& ''()(, the accused was found guilty of
"ur$er and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. ;e
was also ordered to pay the heirs of the victim
8+<,<<<.<< as death indemnity, 8+1,#<<.<< as
actual and compensatory damages and the costs. /n
Crim% Case No% C&''('* the accused was found
guilty of !rustrate$ "ur$er and was sentenced to
ten (<) years of prision mayor as minimum to
fourteen (1) years and eight ($) months of
reclusion temporal as maAimum. ;e was also
ordered to pay -onathan 9romin 8,<,<<<.<< as
moral damages and the costs.[,,!
9ccusedCappellant, in his brief, raises two (#)
points. !irst, his guilt was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt as the circumstantial evidence
presented by the prosecution failed to establish that
he intended to kill -ulian 9ncheta and -onathan
9romin. econ$, the court a quo gravely erred in
convicting him of murder and frustrated murder
since there was no proof that the killing was
attended by evident premeditation or treachery.[,1!
'he defense of accusedCappellant is that the
death of -ulian 9ncheta and the inBury of -onathan
9romin were caused by the accidental gunshots
which occurred when he and the deceased grappled
for the gun. 'hus, absent any intent to kill the
victims, he could not be convicted of homicide or
murder.
;owever, the evidence presented proves
otherwise.
'he autopsy of -ulian 9ncheta reveals that he
sustained three (,) bullet wounds. one () in the
rear of the left forearm, another on the left rear
portion of his neck and the most fatal one, on the
front portion of his left temple.
4n the other hand, -onathan 9romin sustained
a gunshot wound on his right cheek which would
have caused his death had it not been for the timely
medical attention. *ased on the number of bullet
wounds and the location of the inBuries sustained by
the victims it is quite impossible to believe that such
wounds were caused by two (#) accidental gunshots
which ensued while the accused and the deceased
wrestled for the gun. 4n the contrary, the
location of the inBuries proves that accusedC
appellant intentionally shot his own brother to death
and thereafter shot the eyewitness at point blank to
permanently silence him.
Further, -onathan 9romin categorically and
positively identified accusedCappellant as the person
who pursued and shot him at close range. 'his
Court has no reason to doubt his testimony for even
accusedCappellant admitted that he and the witness
were in good terms prior to the incident.[,+!
Eeither does this Court have any ground to question
the veracity of Deonila Dope6:s testimony that she
saw accusedCappellant shoot -onathan 9romin as
there was no proved ill motive on her part. 'hus,
where there is no evidence to show any dubious
reason or improper motive why prosecution
witnesses should testify falsely against the accused
or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, such
testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[,7!
*esides, it has been an established rule that unless
the trial Budge overlooked certain facts of substance
and value, which if considered might affect the
result of the case, appellate courts will not disturb
the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial
court to the testimonies of witnesses.[,0! We find
no reason to deviate from this wellCentrenched
principle.
*ut although we affirm the factual findings of
the trial court on the presence of Gintent to kill,G
we believe that the killing of -ulian 9ncheta and the
shooting of -onathan 9romin were not qualified by
treachery.
While it was established that accusedC
appellant intentionally shot his brother -ulian, the
witnesses never saw how the killing started.
'reachery cannot be considered where the witnesses
did not see the commencement of the assault and
the importance of such testimonies cannot be
overemphasi6ed considering that treachery cannot
be presumed nor established from mere
suppositions.[,$! 9nd where no particulars are
shown as to the manner by which the aggression
was commenced or how the act which resulted in
the death of the victim began and developed,
treachery can in no way be established.[,%! ;ence,
without the eAistence of treachery accusedCappellant
can only be convicted of homicide in Crim% Case
No% C&''()(.
Eeither was treachery established in the
shooting of -onathan 9romin. 'wo (#) conditions
must concur for treachery to eAist, namely. (a) the
employment of means of eAecution that gave the
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or
to retaliate@ and, (b) the means or method of
eAecution was deliberately or consciously adopted.
[1<! *oth these circumstances must be proved as
indubitably as the crime itself.[1!
/n the case at bar, however, there is no
sufficient proof to establish with certainty that
accusedCappellant deliberately and consciously
adopted the means of eAecuting the crime against
-onathan 9romin. Furthermore, the victim was
already aware of the danger as he saw accusedC
appellant carrying a gun and heard two (#)
gunshots prompting him to run and hide behind a
wall.[1#! 'hus, there could be no treachery since
prior to the attack the victim was forewarned of the
danger to his life and even managed to flee, albeit
unsuccessfully.[1,! Consequently, accusedC
appellant can only be convicted of frustrated
homicide in Crim% Case No%C&''('*%
/t must be noted that the testimonies of the
witnesses show that accusedCappellant surrendered
himself on , "eptember %%, at the 8E8 "tation in
Caloocan City. For voluntary surrender to be
appreciated as a mitigating circumstance the
following requisites must concur. (a) the offender
had not been actually arrested@ (b) the offender
surrendered himself to a person in authority@ and,
(c) the surrender was voluntary.[11! 9ll these
requisites were present in this case as 84, Feliciano
9lmoBuela confirmed that on , "eptember %%,, the
day after the incident, accusedCappellant voluntarily
gave himself up and his service firearm at the 8E8
"tation in Caloocan City.[1+! 'hus, the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender should be
appreciated in his favor.
9rticle #1% of T0e Re1ise$ Penal Co$e
provides that the penalty for homicide is reclusion
temporal. 'here being one mitigating circumstance,
namely, voluntary surrender, the imposable penalty
is reclusion temporal in its minimum period the
range of which is twelve (#) years and one () day
to fourteen (1) years and eight ($) months.
9pplying the /ndeterminate "entence Daw, the
maAimum shall be taken from the minimum of the
imposable penalty while the minimum shall be
taken from the penalty neAt lower in degree,
which is prision mayor the range of which is siA (7)
years and one () day to twelve (#) years.
9rticle +< of T0e Re1ise$ Penal Co$e
provides that the penalty neAt lower in degree than
that prescribed by law for the consummated felony
shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated
felony. 'hus, in Crim% Case No% C&''('*, there
also being one () mitigating circumstance, the
maAimum term of the indeterminate sentence shall
be taken from prision mayor in its minimum period,
the range of which is from siA (7) years and one ()
day to eight ($) years, while the minimum term
shall be taken from the penalty neAt lower in degree
which is prision correccional, in any of its periods,
the range of which is siA (7) months and one () day
to siA (7) years.
+HEREFORE, the Decision of the trial
court appealed from convicting accusedCappellant
"84 Fduardo 9ncheta y &odigol of "ur$er in
Crim% Case No% C&''()( and !rustrate$ "ur$er in
Crim% Case No% C&''('*# is ?4D/F/FD.
In G%R% No% 2)3)*4 5Crim% Case No C&
''()(6, accusedCappellant "84 Fduardo 9ncheta y
&odigol is found guilty of ;4?/C/DF and is
sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of siA (7)
years eight ($) months and ten (<) days of prision
mayor minimum as minimum to twelve (#) years
siA (7) months and twenty (#<) days of reclusion
temporal minimum as maAimum. ;e is also
ordered to pay the heirs of -ulian 9ncheta
8+<,<<<.<< as death indemnity, 8+1,#<<.<< as
actual and compensatory damages, plus the costs.
/n G%R% No% 2)3)*7 5Crim% Case No% C&
''('*6, accusedCappellant "84 Fduardo 9ncheta y
&odigol is found guilty of F&J"'&9'FD
;4?/C/DF and is sentenced to an indeterminate
prison term of two (#) years two (#) months and
twenty (#<) days of prision correccional minimum
as minimum to siA (7) years four (1) months and ten
(<) days of prision mayor minimum as maAimum.
;e is also ordered to pay -onathan 9romin
8,<,<<<.<< as moral damages plus the costs.
SO ORDERED.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
APOLONIO APDUHAN, JR. alias JUNIOR, ET
AL.
G.R. No. L-19491 August 30, 1968
CASTRO,
J.:
Facts:
The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses
Apolonio Apduhan, Jr., alias Junior, Rodulfo
Huiso and Felipe Quimson of the crime of Robbery
with Homicide, committed as follows:
That on or about the 23rd day of May, 1961, at
about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, in the
Municipality of Mabini, Province of Bohol,
Philippines, the above-named accused and five (5)
other persons, all of them armed with different
unlicensed firearms, daggers, and other
deadly weapons, conspiring, confederating and
helping one another, with intent of gain, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
enter, by means of violence, the dwelling
house of the spouses Honorato Miano and Antonia
Miano, which was also the dwelling house
of their children, the spouses Geronimo Miano and
Herminigilda de Miano; and, once inside
the said dwelling house, the above-named accused
with their five (5) other companions, did
attack, hack and shoot Geronimo Miano and another
person by the name of Norberto Aton,
who happened to be also in the said dwelling house,
thereby inflicting upon the said two (2)
persons physical injuries which caused their death;
and thereafter the same accused and
their five (5) other companions, did take and carry
way from said dwelling house cash
money amounting to Three Hundred Twenty-two
Pesos (P322.00), Philippine Currency,
belonging to Honorato Miano and Geronimo
Miano,
Act committed contrary to the provisions of Art.
294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code with
the special aggravating circumstance that the crime
was committed by a band with the use
of unlicensed firearms (Art. 296, Rev. Penal Code),
and other aggravating circumstances, as
follows:
1. That the crime was committed in the dwelling of
the offended parties without any
provocation from the latter;
2. That nighttime was purposely sought to facilitate
the commission of the crime; and.
3. That advantage was taken of superior strength,
accused and their companions, who were
fully armed, being numerically superior to the offended parties
who were unarmed and
defenceless.
Issue:
Whether or not dwelling was considered an aggravating
circumstance.
Held: YES.
The settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in
robbery with violence or
intimidation of persons, like the offense at bar. The
rationale behind this pronouncement is
that this class of robbery could be committed
without the necessity of transgressing the
sanctity of the home. Morada is inherent only in
crimes which could be committed in no
other place than in the house of another, such as
trespass and robbery in an inhabited
house. This Court in People vs. Pinca, citing People
vs. Valdez, ruled that the "circumstances
(of dwelling and scaling) were certainly not
inherent in the crime committed, because, the
PEOPLE VS ALFANTA 320 SCRA 357
Thursday, January 29, 2009 Postd !y
Co"ho#$% &r$ts
La!#s' Cas ($)sts, Cr$*$na# La+
Fa%ts' Th ,$%t$*, N$ta Frnand-, +as
as#. $n th rs$dn% o/ a /r$nd +hn
at around 02 *$dn$)ht, a *an sh had
not sn !/or suddn#y ntrd th
hous, !o1d hr 2a+ and %o,rd hr
*outh +$th h$s had3 4 +as .o$nt$n) a
!o#o at hr and thratnd to 5$## hr $/
sh +$## rs$st3 Thra/tr, sh +as ta5n
and !rou)ht to a ,a%ant hous +hr th
stran)r su%%dd $n ha,$n) %arna#
5no+#d) o/ hr3 A/tr th 6rst
$ntr%ours, sh +as ordrd to #$ /a%
do+n +h$# th *an sodo*$-d hr3 Not
sat$s6d, th a%%usd thn $nsrtd h$s
6n)r $ns$d hr3 Thra/tr, th *an #ay
do+n !s$d hr and a)a$n thratnd to
5$## hr3 A/tr a +h$#, N$ta not$%d that
th *an +as as#., sh thn sta!!d
th *an +$th th 5n$/ and ha%5d h$*
+$th th !o#o +hn th /or*r !ro53 Sh
+as a!# to s%a. and )o to th
author$t$s, +ho a..rhndd th *an
#atr on $dnt$6d as th a%%usd3
7ssu' &hthr th %r$* o/ ra. shou#d
! a))ra,atd !y n$)htt$*3 &hthr
thr +as $)no*$ny +hn th a%%usd
/or%d th ,$%t$* to n)a) $n ana# s13
4#d' Th #a+ d6ns n$)ht as !$n) /ro*
sunst to sunr$s3 8y and $ts#/, n$)htt$*
+ou#d not ! an a))ra,at$n)
%$r%u*stan% un#ss $t $s s.%$a##y sou)ht
!y th o"ndr or ta5n ad,anta) o/ !y
h$*, or $t /a%$#$tatd th %o**$ss$on o/
th %r$* !y $nsur$n) th o"ndr9s
$**un$ty /ro* %a.tur3 7n th .rsnt
%as, th a%%usd a!du%td th ,$%t$*,
!rou)ht hr to an a!andond, un#$t hous
and thn un#ashd h$s %arna# ds$r on
hr, assurd o/ th st$##nss o/ a s#.$n)
+or#d3
&$th rs.%t to $)no*$ny, Art 0: .ar 07
o/ th RPC %ons$drs to ! a))ra,at$n)
any *ans *.#oyd or %$r%u*stan%
that adds d$s)ra% and o!#o;uy to th
*atr$a# $n2ury %ausd !y th %r$*3 Th
%as o/ Po.# ,s Say#an $s a..#$%a!#3 7n
th$s %as +hr$n th a%%usd ntrd
th ,$%t$* /ro* !h$nd, th o"ndr
%#a$*d that thr +as no $)no*$ny
!%aus th stud$s o/ 1.rts ha,
sho+n that th .os$t$on $s not no,# and
has !n rsortd to !y %ou.#s $n th
a%t o/ %o.u#at$on3 Th$s *ay +## ! tru $/
th s1ua# a%t $s .r/or*d !y
%onsnt$n) .artnrs !ut not othr+$s3
7)no*$ny< a %$r%u*stan% .rta$n$n) to
th
*ora# ordr
, +h$%h adds d$s)ra% and o!#o;uy to
th*atr$a# $n2ury %ausd !y th %r$*3
Th$s a))ra,at$n) %$r%u*stan% $s
a..#$%a!# +hn th %r$*%o**$ttd $s
a)a$nst
%hast$ty
3
=Rys, Th R,$sd Pna# Cod, 8oo5
On>
Po.# ,s3 Torr6#
Fa%ts'(%*!r 07, 09:2, 5'00 .3*3
Torr6# and Or*o +r on th$r +ay to
th ?SSAFE had;uartrs $nth
*ounta$ns3 Thy .assd !y Eady9s
rs$dn% and ta#5d to h$* at th
!a#%ony to as5 /or 5ha5$s3Eady had non
1%.t +hat h had on3C/r$na Cordro
a#so %a* to th !a#%ony and $n;u$rd
a!out th$r *$ss$on3 Sh s%o#dd Torr6#
andOr*o !%aus a## th$r !#on)$n)s
ha, !n #ootd !y ?SSAFE so#d$rs3
Torr6# thratnd hr +$th s#a..$n)@
!rou)ht out r,o#,r3 Eady and Cordro
+r %har)d +$th !$n) 6/th %o#u*n$sts
as thyr/usd to )$, a$d to th*3
Su!s;unt#y thy +r ta5n to th
?SSAFE had;uartrs3Torr6# too5
%har) o/ Eady and Or*o too5 %har) o/
Cordro3 Th$r hands +r /r !ut
+r!#$nd/o#dd3 Cordro %a##d to Eady
,ry no+ and thn to 5no+ $/ h +as
/o##o+$n)3 A/tr a +h$# Eadyd$d not
rs.ond any*or so thy sto..d to +a$t
/or th*3 Torr6# had ta5n th +ron)
+ay so h +nt !a%5 to a )uardhous
and #/t Eady thr3 4 tr$d to 6nd a
+ay to o,rta5 Or*o and Cordro!ut
+as unsu%%ss/u#3 At th )uardhous, h
d$s%o,rs Eady had s%a.d3 Torr6#
/o##o+d a d$"rntrout na!#$n) h$* to
6nd Or*o and Cordro3 Or*o rushd
!a%5 to th )uardhous u.on
d$s%o,r$n)that Eady had s%a.d@
Cordro +as #/t +$th Torr6#3As Cordro
+as a!out to ur$nat, Torr6# .ushd hr
and %arr$d hr to a #o) and #a$d hr on $t
andra.d hr3 Torr6# !)an to un!utton
h$s .ants and +ound %o)on #a,s
around h$s )n$ta#s3 7t +as,$s$!# to
Cordro as hr !#$nd/o#d had /a##n do+n
a #$tt#3 Prss$n) hr n%5 so sh +ou#d
r*a$n s$#nt,Torr6# .ro%dd to ha,
$ntr%ours +$th hr3 Or*o, ta5$n)
ad,anta), a#so had s1 +$th hr3
Thso#d$rs ds$std /ro* !r$n)$n)
Cordro to th$r had;uartrs and
rturnd hr to th$r hous3 A
sr,ant$n/or*d Cordro that Eady had
)on a+ay3 ?.on EadyAs rturn, Cordro
$n/or*d h$* that sh +asa!usd !y
Torr6#37ssus'0> &ON +$tnss $s
%rd$!#, and &ON ra. +as
%o**$ttd32> &ON thr ar any
a))ra,at$n) %$r%u*stan%s34#dBRat$o'0>
CES to !oth3a3 Th %ourt ss no
$n%on)ru$ty !t+n th aDda,$t and
tst$*ony o/ %o*.#a$nants3 Th
tst$*onysuD%$nt#y .ro,s Torr6#As
)u$#t3$3 Cordro r%o)n$-d Torr6# !y h$s
,o$% ,n thou)h sh +as !#$nd/o#dd
!%aus $t +as/a##$n)3$$3 8a%5 at EadyAs
hous, th so#d$rsA roa*$n) $ns$d th
hous $s .ro,n !y th sound o/th$r
/ootst.s3!3 E1rt$on o/ /or% or ,$o#n%
$s $*.#$d $n th tr* Era.F3 Push$n)
do+n th ,$%t$* .ro,s /or%3A#thou)h
/or Or*o, us o/ /or% *ay st$## !
dou!td3 Cordro +as not host$# to+ards
h$* a/tr %r$*32> CES3a3 Tr$a# Court rrd
$n a%%.t$n) th a))ra,at$n)
%$r%u*stan% o/ NOCT?RN7TC Gth$s +as
nt$r#yun1.%td as th orda# startd
ar#y $n th a/trnoon3!3 7HNOI7NC $s
.rsnt3Th no,#ty o/ th a%t o/ +$nd$n)
%o)on )rass on h$s )n$ta#s !/or ra.$n)
th ,$%t$*