3/2/2015

PeoplevsPuedan:139576:September2,2002:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.139576.September2,2002]

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,appellee,vs.ROGERorROGELIOPUEDAN,
appellant.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:

Byinvokingthedefenseofsurprisinghisspouseintheveryactofsexualintercoursewith
thevictim,theaccusedadmitsauthorshipofthekilling.Havingwaivedhisconstitutionalrightto
be presumed faultless, he now bears the burden of proving his innocence.Furthermore, his
flight negates his selfrighteous proclamation of being the victim of in flagrante adultery.
Indeed, if what he claims is true, he should have reported the incident to the authorities
immediately,insteadofhidingfromthemforoverthreeyears.
TheCase
RogelioPuedanappealstheJune16,1999Decision[1]oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)of
the City of Malaybalay (Branch 8) in Criminal Case No. 748295, finding him guilty of murder
andsentencinghimtoreclusionperpetua,asfollows:
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedfindingaccusedRogelioPuedanguiltybeyondreasonable
doubtofmurderqualifiedbytreachery.Intheabsenceofanyotheraggravatingand/oramitigating
circumstance,accusedisherebysentencedtosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua,andtoindemnify
theheirsofhisvictimFlorencioIlarthesumofP50,000.00.[2]
TheInformation[3]datedJune20,1995,chargedappellantinthesewords:
Thatonoraboutthe21stdayofFebruary,1995,inthemorning,atPurok2,[B]arangayPaitan,
MunicipalityofQuezon,[P]rovinceofBukidnon,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthis
HonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,withintenttokill[and]bymeansoftreacheryandevident
premeditation,armedwithasharpbladedinstrument(flamingo),didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfully
andcriminallyattack,assaultandstabFLORENCIOILAR,hittingandinflictinguponthelatterthe
following,towit:
Multiplestabwounds
whichcausedtheinstant[an]eousdeathofFLORENCIOILAR,tothedamageandprejudiceofthelegal
heirsofFLORENCIOILARinsuchamountasmaybeallowedbylaw.[4]
UponhisarraignmentonJune9,1998,[5]appellant,assistedbyhiscounsel,[6]pleadednot
guilty.Aftertrialinduecourse,thecourtaquorenderedtheassailedDecision.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/139576.htm

1/9

3/2/2015

PeoplevsPuedan:139576:September2,2002:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

TheFacts
VersionoftheProsecution
InitsBrief,[7]theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)presentstheprosecutionsversionof
thefactsasfollows:
InthemorningofFebruary21,1995,FlorencioIlar,accompaniedbyhissixyearoldgrandson,
ReymarkAnthonyIlar,wenttothehouseofLucenoTulotobuyapiglet.
LucenoTulowasfashioningoutamortar(forpoundingpalay)nearhishousewhenFlorencioandhis
grandsonarrived.
FlorenciotoldLucenothathewantedtobuyapigletfromhim.
AppellantRogerPuedansuddenlyarrivedandstabbedFlorenciofive(5)times,firstintheabdomen,
withasharp,pointedknifelocallyknownasplamingco.Terrifiedofwhathewitnessed,Lucenofled
towardsthehouseofhisneighbor.YoungReymarkranbacktohisparentshouseandtoldhismother,
ErlindaIlar,whattranspired.
ErlindaIlarranswiftlytoLucenosplacebutFlorenciowasalreadydeadwhenshearrived.Florencio
wasbathedinhisownbloodandlyingbythesideofthericepaddy.
ThebodyofFlorencioIlarremainedwhereithadfallenuntilthearrivalofthepolicelaterthatday.[8]
(Citationsomitted)
VersionoftheDefense
Appellant contends that he deserves acquittal, because the killing falls under the
exceptional circumstance referred to in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.He claims to
havesurprisedhisspousewhomhehadcaughtintheactofcommittingsexualintercoursewith
anotherperson.Appellantnarrateshisversionofthefactsinthefollowingmanner:
ThedefensehadadifferentversionoftheincidentthatledtothedeathofFlorencioIlar.Tolaythe
basisofthequestionablecharacterofthedeceased[,][t]hedefensepresentedthetestimonyof
JENNEFERNADELA,whoclaimedthatshewasonceahousehelpintheresidenceoftheIlars.
Duringherstay,whichlastedonlyfromJuly1toJuly30,1992,thedeceasedusedtofondleherprivate
partsagainstherwill.Thedeceasedlikewiseproposedanamorousrelationshipwithher,inexchangefor
somemoney,whichshedeclined.
CorroborativeofthetestimonyofNadela,anentthecharacterofthedeceased,wasthetestimonyof
witnessVINESAQUINTERO.Quinterosfatherandthedeceasedweredrinkingbuddies.Sometime
inDecember1982,whenshetookhervacationatherparentshouse,herfatherandFlorencioIlarhada
drinkingsession.Whentheduowerethroughdrinking,shewashedthedrinkingglassesoftheirkitchen.
FlorencioIlar,however,followedherinsidethekitchenandwithoutwarningembracedandkissedher.
Ilarthenproposedthattheygooutsideinexchangeforsomeamountofmoney.Shedeclinedthe
proposition.TheincidentwasrepeatedduringthenextweekendwhenherfatherandIlarhadanother
drinkingsession.ThewitnesslikewiseaverredthatsheheardoneofFlorencioIlarsdaughterinlaw,
Erlinda,confidingtohermotherthatFlorencioIlarwasasexmaniac,whowasbentonmolestingher.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/139576.htm

2/9

3/2/2015

PeoplevsPuedan:139576:September2,2002:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

LEAHPUEDAN,thewifeoftheaccused,admittedhavinganillicitrelationshipwiththedeceased,
FlorencioIlar.Theillicitrelationshiphadbeengoingonfortwoyearsandwasknownintheirbarangay,
exceptherhusband.OnFebruary21,1995,atabout8:00oclockinthemorning,FlorencioIlarcameto
theirhouse,whileshewasbreastfeedingherchild,andwaslookingforherhusband,RogerPuedan.
WhensheretortedthatRogerwasoutputtingthecarabaoinashade,Florenciothensuggestedthatthey
haveaquicksexualintercourse,andorderedhertoremoveherskirtandpanty,whilealsoundressing
himself.Whiletheywerehavingsex,Rogersuddenlyappearedandwasstunnedbywhathesaw.Roger
thenstruckFlorenciowithhisboloandthetwomengrappledwitheachother.Shethengatheredher
youngchildandranawayfromthehouse.
AccusedROGERPUEDAN,testifyingonhisbehalf,averredthatFlorencioIlarwasoneofthepatrons
inthericefields[where]heworks.Assuchpatron,Florenciousually[brought]himwineandpulutan
whichtheypartookathishouse.OnFebruary21,1995,ataround8:00oclockinthemorning,he
broughthiscarabaotoashade.Uponhisreturn,heheardsomenoisesemanatingfromtheirbedroom.
Hiscuriosityaroused,hewentinsidetheroomandfoundthealreadyundressedFlorenciohavingsexual
intercoursewithhiswife.Shakenanddumbfoundedbytherevelation,heshoutedinvectivesuponthe
copulatingpairandfoundabolotostabthem.ThefirstthrustwasparriedbyFlorencio,whograppled
fortheboloandwrestledwithhim.Astheywrestledwitheachother,theyfelltotheground,andhis
handwasfreedfromthegripofFlorencio.HethenstabbedFlorencioandhithimonthestomach.He
thenproceededupstairsinsearchofhiswife,whohadalreadyfled.[9](Citationsomitted)
RulingoftheTrialCourt
The RTC opined that the prosecution witnesses were straightforward and candid in
relatingtheincident.[10]Moreover,[n]omotivehasbeenshown,andthecourtdidnotfindany,
why they would fabricate a story.[11] They were able to establish the fact that appellant
suddenlystabbedFlorencioIlar,whowasthenbuyingapigletoutsideLucenoTuloshouse.
One of the investigating policemen, SPO4 Antonio B. Inihao, testified that they found
FlorenciosbodyslumpedlifelessonaricepaddynearTuloshouse.Thisfact,accordingtothe
trial court, belied the claim of appellant that it was outside his house where he had killed
Florencio.Thebodyremainedwhereithadfallen,unmovedanduntouched,untilthepolicemen
arrived a few hours later. It was properly clad in a shirt and a pair of buttoned pants. Had
appellantreallysurprisedhiswifehavingsexualintercoursewithhim,Florenciowouldnothave
had the opportunity to put on and button up his pants, parry the immediate bolo thrust of
appellantthengrapplewithhim.
AppellantthereafterfledandwasfinallyarrestedonMarch16,1998,oraboutthreeyears
afterthekilling.Thetrialcourtobservedthathisflightwasastrongindicationofhisguilt.
Conformably, the RTC overruled the contention of appellant that the killing should be
treatedunderArticle247oftheRevisedPenalCode.Itfurthersaidthattreacheryqualifiedthe
killingtomurder.
Hence,thisappeal.[12]
Issues
InhisBrief,appellantraisesthefollowingallegederrorsforourconsideration:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/139576.htm

3/9

3/2/2015

PeoplevsPuedan:139576:September2,2002:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

Thecourtaquogravelyerredinfindingaccusedappellant,RogerorRogelioPuedan,guiltybeyond
reasonabledoubtoftheoffensecharged.
II

Thecourtaquogravelyerredinfindingtheaccusedguiltyofthecrimeofmurderdespitetheclear
failureoftheprosecutiontoestablishtheparticularsleadingtothestabbingincident.[13]
Inshort,appellantarguesthat(1)Article247oftheRevisedPenalCodeshouldbeapplied
inhisfavor,and(2)treacheryshouldnotbeappreciatedasaqualifyingcircumstance.
TheCourtsRuling
Theappealhasnomerit.
FirstIssue
ExceptionalCircumstance
ByraisingArticle247oftheRevisedPenalCodeashisdefense,appellantadmitsthathe
killedthevictim.Thisprovisionreadsasfollows:
ART.247.Deathorphysicalinjuriesinflictedunderexceptionalcircumstances.Anylegallymarried
personwho,havingsurprisedhisspouseintheactofcommittingsexualintercoursewithanotherperson,
shallkillanyofthemorbothofthemintheactorimmediatelythereafter,orshallinflictuponthemany
seriousphysicalinjury,shallsufferthepenaltyofdestierro.xxx
By invoking this defense, appellant waives his right to the constitutional presumption of
innocenceandbearstheburdenofprovingthefollowing:
1.Thatalegallymarriedperson(oraparent)surpriseshisspouse(orhisdaughter,under18yearsof
ageandlivingwithhim),intheactofcommittingsexualintercoursewithanotherperson.
2.Thatheorshekillsanyorbothofthemorinflictsuponanyorbothofthemanyseriousphysical
injuryintheactorimmediatelythereafter.
3.Thathehasnotpromotedorfacilitatedtheprostitutionofhiswife(ordaughter)orthatheorshe
hasnotconsentedtotheinfidelityoftheotherspouse.[14]
To satisfy this burden, appellant must prove that he actually surprised his wife and
Florencio in flagrante delicto, and that he killed the man during or immediately thereafter.
However,allthatappellantestablishedwasFlorenciospromiscuity,whichwasinconsequential
to the killing. What is important is that his version of the stabbing incident is diametrically
opposedtotheconvincingaccountsofProsecutionWitnessesLucenoTulo,ReymarkAnthony
Ilar,ErlindaIlarandPolicemanInihao.
AppellantassailsthecredibilityoftheprosecutionwitnessesbyallegingthatTulowasnot
atthecrimescenewhenthestabbingoccurred.Withoutelaboratingontheparticularsthatled
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/139576.htm

4/9

3/2/2015

PeoplevsPuedan:139576:September2,2002:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

to the incident, appellant claims that Reymark and Erlinda merely underscored the fact that
Florencio had been stabbed. Thus, appellant argues that these witnesses were not able to
contradicthisdefense.
Wellsettled is the rule that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their
testimoniesisbestundertakenbythetrialcourt,becauseithadtheopportunitytoobservethem
firsthand and to note their demeanor and conduct on the witness stand. For this reason, its
findings on such matters, absent any arbitrariness or oversight of facts or circumstances of
weightandsubstance,arefinalandconclusiveuponthisCourtandwillnottobedisturbedon
appeal.[15]
In this case, the RTC found the prosecution witnesses to be credible and convincing. It
observed that Tulo, Reymark and Erlinda were candid and straightforward in relating their
versions of the stabbing incident. Tulo narrated that he was outside his house fashioning a
mortarwhenFlorencioaccompaniedbyhisthenfiveyearoldgrandson,Reymarkarrived
inordertobuyapiglet.Standingaboutameteraway,Tulorecountedthatappellantsuddenly
appearedandstabbedFlorencioontheabdomenwithaknife.Tulotestifiedthus:
QYes,yousaidthatRogerPuedanstabbedFlorencioIlar,didyouseehim[stab]FlorencioIlar?
AThatwasthetimewhenIturnedmyheadasIwasmakingamortar.
QYoumean,thatwasthetimeyousawPuedan[stab]Ilar?
AYes.
QNow,atthetimeyouweremakingamortar,wherewasthisincident[happening],atyourfront,at
yourbackoratyourside?
AOnmyside.(Witnessreferringtohisrightside).
QHowfarwereyou[from]themwhenthisincidenthappened?
AJustmorethanameter.
COURT:(towitness)
QYoumean,whileFlorencioIlarwastheretobuy[a]pigletyoucontinuedtoworkonyourmortar?
AYes,YourHonor.
QBeforeRogerPuedanactuallystabbedFlorencioIlar,didyouseehimcoming?
AHecamesuddenly,hepassedthisway.
(Witnesspointingtohisfrontside).
QHepassedbyinfrontofyouorbyyourside?
AOnmyfront,asIwasmakingamortar.
QWasherunning,walkingfastorwaswalkingnaturally?
AHewaswalkingfast.
QDidyouhearPuedansayanythingwhenhestabbedFlorencioIlar?
ANo,Yourhonor.
QWhatdidheuseinstabbingFlorencioIlar?
AAknife.(plamingco).
QWherewasFlorencioIlarhit?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/139576.htm

5/9

3/2/2015

PeoplevsPuedan:139576:September2,2002:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

AOnhisabdomen.
QWhatwasthepositionofFlorencioIlarwhenhewasstabbed?
AHewasstandingonmyside.[16]

Afterwitnessingtheknifethrust,Tulooutoffearimmediatelyrantohisneighborshouse.
Heexplained:
QNow,afteryousawthisPuedan[stab]Ilar,whatdidyoudo?
AIranaway.
QHowmanytimesdidyouseePuedanstabIlar?
AOnlyonce.
QAndyousaidyouranaway,towardswhere?
ATomyneighbor.[17]

Minutes later, Tulo with some other people went back to the crime scene and found
Florencioalreadydead,lyingseveralmetersawayfromtheformershouse.[18]
Similarly,youngReymarktestifiedthatappellanthadstabbedhisgrandfatherFlorenciofive
times.Hetestifiedthus:
QHowmanytimes[washe]stabbedbyRoger?
AFive(5)times.
QWhatinstrumentdidRogeruseinstabbingyourLolo?
AAknife.
QWheredidRogerPuedanstabyourLolo,inwhatplace?
AInthericepaddies.
COURT:(towitness)
QWereyouabletoseealltheincident?
AYes,YourHonor.
QYouwereatthericepaddiesalso?
AYes,YourHonor.
QWhywereyouthere?
ABecauseheaskedmetoaccompanyhim.
QWhoaskedyou?
ALolo.[19]

TherehadbeennountowardincidentbetweenappellantandFlorencioimmediatelybefore
thestabbing,asshownbyReymarkstestimony:
COURT:(towitness)
QWereyouandyourLoloabletoreachthehouseofCenobeforehewasstabbed?
AYes,YourHonor.
QSoyourLolowasabletotalkwithCeno?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/139576.htm

6/9

3/2/2015

PeoplevsPuedan:139576:September2,2002:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

ANo.
QWhy?
ABecause[he]wasstabbed.
QSohewasstillwalkingtowardsCenobeforehewasstabbed?
ANotyet.

xxxxxxxxx
QDidRogerPuedanandyourLolohaveafightbeforeyourLolowasstabbed?
ANo.
QDidtheyhave[an]argument?
ANo,YourHonor.
QWhoarrivedatCenosplacefirst,yourLoloorRoger?
ALolo.
QWherewasyourLolohitthefirsttimehewasstabbed?
AOnhisabdomen.[20]

Reymarkatfirststatedinhistestimonythat,beforebeingstabbed,hisgrandfatherhadnot
beenabletotalktoTulo.Fromtheboysstatement,appellantconcludesthatTulowasnotat
or even near the crime scene.[21] This inconsistency was clarified when the trial court again
questioned Reymark, who this time stated that his grandfather had indeed been able to see
Tulo on that fateful morning.[22] As posited by the prosecution, such inconsistency in the
testimonyofReymarkmaybeexplainedbythefactthathewasveryyoungwhentheincident
happenedonlyfiveyearsofageandwasstillveryyoungwhenhetestifiedonthewitness
stand three years later.Nonetheless, it was established that he and his grandfather were at
Tulos place to buy a piglet, that the boy himself saw his Lolo stabbed by appellant, and that
Tulowastherebutdisappearedimmediatelyafterthefirstknifethrust.
Even assuming arguendo that Tulo was not at the crime scene, Reymarks testimony is
sufficienttoprovethatappellantactuallystabbedFlorencio.
Appellant further alleges that Erlinda, who was the first to arrive at the locuscriminis, did
notseeTuloanywhere.Thisallegation,however,isconsistentwiththetestimonyofTulothat
herantohisneighborshouserightafterthefirstknifethrust.
Furthermore, the physical evidence shows that Florencio lay dead near Tulos not
appellantshouse.Erlindatestifiedthathisbodyremainedunmovedanduntouchedwhereit
had fallen until the policemen came.[23] In addition, SPO4 Antonio Inihaos testimony on the
attendant circumstances inspires belief. He testified that the body lay 80 meters away from
appellantshouseandonlyabout15metersawayfromTulos.[24]Thisstatementcontradictsthe
claimofappellantthatheandFlorenciograppledoutsidetheformershouse,wherethelatter
fellandwassubsequentlykilled.
When found, the body of Florencio was fully clothed in a shirt and a pair of pants, all its
buttons intact.[25] We agree with the RTC that had the victim been caught by surprise while
engagedinthesexact,hewouldnothavehadtheopportunitytoputonhispants,parrythe
forthcomingbolothrusts,andthengrapplewithappellant.
AppellantsFlight
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/139576.htm

7/9

3/2/2015

PeoplevsPuedan:139576:September2,2002:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

Furthererodingthedefenseofappellantisthefactthatheimmediatelyfledfromthecrime
scenerightafterthestabbingincident.Hehidforaboutthreeyears[26]untilhewasarrestedby
the authorities on March 16, 1998.[27] His flight betrays his defense, because he could have
easilyrelayedhisstorytotheproperauthorities,ifhehadindeedcaughthiswifeandFlorencio
inflagrantedelicto.
Through flight, one impedes the course of justice by avoiding arrest, detention, or the
continuance of criminal proceedings.[28] As with selfdefense, the exceptional circumstance
providedunderArticle247oftheRevisedPenalCodemaynotprevailinthefaceoftheflightof
appellantfromthecrimesceneandhisfailuretoinformtheauthoritiesoftheincident.[29]Flight
bespeaksguiltandgivescredencetotheversionoftheprosecutioninthiscase.[30]
SecondIssue
Treachery
Similarlywithoutmeritisappellantscontentionthattreacherydidnotattendthekilling.For
treachery to be present, the means, methods or forms of execution should give the person
attackednoopportunityforselfdefenseorretaliation.Anditmustbeproventhatsuchmeans,
methods or forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted without danger to
appellant.[31]
Inthepresentcase,theRTCcorrectlyruledthattreacheryattendedthekilling.Appellant
came from nowhere and suddenly stabbed the unsuspecting Florencio five (5) times. He
deliberatelyandconsciouslyadoptedhismodeofattackbylungingatthevictimwithhisknife
withoutanywarningwhatsoever,givingthelatternoopportunitytodefendhimself.
WHEREFORE,theappealisherebyDENIEDandtheassailedDecisionAFFIRMED.Costs
againstappellant.
SOORDERED.
Puno,(Chairman),andCorona,JJ.,concur.
SandovalGutierrez,J.,onleave.
[1]WrittenbyJudgeVivencioP.Estrada.
[2]RTCDecision,pp.34rollo,pp.1516records,pp.128129.
[3]SignedbyAsst.Prov.ProsecutorJoselitoM.Silvosa.
[4]Rollo,p.5records,p.19.
[5]OrderdatedJune9,1998records,p.44.
[6]Atty.HollisC.Monsanto.
[7] Appellees Brief was signed by Asst. Solicitors General Carlos N. Ortega and Maria Aurora P. Cortes, and

SolicitorGabrielFranciscoA.RamirezJr.
[8]Appellees Brief, pp. 23 rollo, pp. 6970 signed by Asst. Sol. Gen. Carlos N. Ortega, Asst. Sol. Gen. Maria

AuroraP.CortesandSolicitorGabrielFranciscoA.RamirezJr.
[9]

Appellants Brief, pp. 57 rollo, pp. 4749. The Brief was signed by Attys. Arceli A. Rubin, Amelia C.
Garchitorenaand(for)NestorP.delosReyesofthePublicAttorneysOffice.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/139576.htm

8/9

3/2/2015

PeoplevsPuedan:139576:September2,2002:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

[10]RTCDecision,pp.23rollo,pp.1415.
[11]Id.,p.15.
[12] This case was deemed submitted for decision on May 31, 2002, upon receipt by this Court of appellants

Manifestation(inlieuofReply[Brief]).
[13]AppellantsBrief,p.1rollo,p.43.Originalinuppercase.
[14]Peoplev.Talisic,278SCRA517,September5,1997,perPanganiban,J.citingPeoplev.Gelaver,223SCRA

310,June9,1993,perQuiason,J.
[15]People v. Magnabe Jr., GR No. 143071, August 6, 2002 People v. Obordo, GR No. 139528, May 9, 2002

Peoplev.Bertulfo,GRNo.143790,May7,2002Peoplev.Pacantara,GRNo.140896,May7,2002.
[16]TSN,July16,1998,pp.810.
[17]Id.,p.11.
[18]Id.,p.14.
[19]TSN,August6,1998,p.7.
[20]Id.,pp.1819.
[21]Id.,pp.1214.
[22]Id.,p.14.
[23]TSN,July30,1998,p.17.
[24]TSN,February19,1999,pp.56.
[25]Id.,p.5.
[26]TSN,January27,1999,p.12.
[27]CommitmentOrderdatedMarch16,1998,records,p.29OrderdatedApril16,1998,records,p.36.
[28]U.S.v.Alegado,25Phil.510,October10,1913.
[29]Peoplev.Caguing,347SCRA374,December6,2000.
[30]Peoplev.Silvano,GRNo.144886,April29,2002Peoplev.Enfectana,GRNo.132028,April19,2002.
[31]Peoplev.Bayotas, 348 SCRA 627, December 19, 2000 People v. Baltar Jr., 347 SCRA 579, December 11,

2000Peoplev.CaberSr.,346SCRA166,November28,2000.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/139576.htm

9/9