G.R. No. 196735. May 5, 2014.: - Third Division

G.R. No. 196735. May 5, 2014.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA,
CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, and
ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN ALVIR, accused-
appellants.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Prosecution of Offenses;

Probable Cause; Due Process; Upon a finding of probable cause, an
information is filed by the prosecutor against the accused, in
compliance with the due process of the law.—It is enshrined in our
Bill of Rights that “[n]o person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law.” This includes the
right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
and “to be informed of the nature and accusation against him.”
Upon a finding of
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
149
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 149
People vs. Feliciano, Jr.
probable cause, an information is filed by the prosecutor against

the accused, in compliance with the due process of the law. Rule
110, Section 1, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides that: A complaint or information is sufficient if it states
the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by
the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting
the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date
of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense
was committed.
Criminal Law; Aggravating Circumstances; Failure to state
an aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not
be appreciated as such.—It should be remembered that every
aggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated in the
information. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance, even if
duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such. It was,
therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the aggravating
circumstance of “wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise” in
the information in order for all the evidence, introduced to that
effect, to be admissible by the trial court.
Same; Same; Disguise; In criminal cases, disguise is an
aggravating circumstance because, like nighttime, it allows the
accused to remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out
his crimes.—In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating
circumstance because, like nighttime, it allows the accused to
remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out his
crimes. The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial
evidence that tends to prove that the accused were masked but
the masks fell off does not prevent them from including disguise
as an aggravating circumstance. What is important in alleging
disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was a
concealment of identity by the accused. The inclusion of disguise
in the information was, therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise
the accused that in the commission of the offense they were being
charged with, they tried to conceal their identity.
Same; Conspiracy; Conspiracy presupposes that “the act of one
is the act of all.”—The information charges conspiracy among the
accused. Conspiracy presupposes that “the act of one is the act of
all.” This would mean all the accused had been one in their plan
to conceal their identity even if there was evidence later on to
prove that some of them might not have done so. In any case, the
accused
150
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
were being charged with the crime of murder, frustrated murder,

and attempted murder. All that is needed for the information to
be sufficient is that the elements of the crime have been alleged
and that there are sufficient details as to the time, place, and
persons involved in the offense.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; As a general
rule, the findings of fact by the trial court, when affirmed by the
appellate court, are given great weight and credence on review.—
As a general rule, the findings of fact by the trial court, when
affirmed by the appellate court, are given great weight and
credence on review. The rationale for this was explained in People
v. Daniel Quijada, 259 SCRA 191 (1996), as follows: Settled is the
rule that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the
credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect.
For, the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses
through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such
as the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of
a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or
the forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive glance, the
blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the
flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the
sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the
solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien. There are, of course,
recognized exceptions to this rule. In People v. Leticia Labarias,
217 SCRA 483 (1993), this court stated that: It is the policy of this
Court to sustain the factual findings of the trial court on the
reasonable assumption that it is in a better position to assess the
evidence before it, particularly the testimonies of the witnesses,
who reveal much of themselves by their deportment on the stand.
The exception that makes the rule is where such findings
are clearly arbitrary or erroneous as when they are tainted
with bias or hostility or are so lacking in basis as to
suggest that they were reached without the careful study
and perceptiveness that should characterize a judicial
decision.
Same; Evidence; Witnesses; It would be in line with human
experience that a victim or an eyewitness of a crime would
endeavor to find ways to identify the assailant so that in the event
that he or she survives, the criminal could be apprehended.—It
would be in line with human experience that a victim or an
eyewitness of a crime would endeavor to find ways to identify the
assailant so that in the
151
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 151
event that he or she survives, the criminal could be apprehended.

It has also been previously held that: It is the most natural
reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to see the looks
and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which the
crime was committed. Most often the face of the assailant and
body movements thereof, creates a lasting impression which
cannot be easily erased from their memory.
Same; Same; Same; As a general rule, a witness can testify
only to the facts he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which
are derived from his own perception.—As a general rule, “[a]
witness can testify only to the facts he knows of his personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception,
x x x.” All other kinds of testimony are hearsay and are
inadmissible as evidence. The Rules of Court, however, provide
several exceptions to the general rule, and one of which is when
the evidence is part of res gestae, thus: Section 42. Part of res
gestae.—Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence
is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with
respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as
part of res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal
act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be
received as part of the res gestae.
Same; Same; Res Gestae; Considering that the statements of
the bystanders were made immediately after the startling
occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible as evidence given in res
gestae.—There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group
peacefully eating lunch on a school campus is a startling
occurrence. Considering that the statements of the bystanders
were made immediately after the startling occurrence, they are,
in fact, admissible as evidence given in res gestae.
Criminal Law; Alibi; It is settled that the defense of alibi
cannot prevail over the positive identification of the victim.—It is
settled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the victim. In People v. Benjamin Peteluna, 689
SCRA 190 (2013), this court is stated that: x x x In this case, the
victims were able to positively identify their attackers while the
accused-appellants merely offered alibis and denials as their
defense. The credibility of the victims was upheld by both the trial
court and the
152
appellate court while giving little credence to the accused-

appellants’ alibis. There is, thus, no reason to disturb their
findings.
Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Treachery; The swiftness
and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for the
victims to retaliate or even to defend themselves. Treachery,
therefore, was present in this case.—The victims, who were
unarmed, were also attacked with lead pipes and baseball bats.
The only way they could parry the blows was with their arms. In
a situation where they were unarmed and outnumbered, it would
be impossible for them to fight back against the attackers. The
attack also happened in less than a minute, which would preclude
any possibility of the bystanders being able to help them until
after the incident. The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack
gave no opportunity for the victims to retaliate or even to defend
themselves. Treachery, therefore, was present in this case.
Same; Conspiracy; Conspiracy, once proven, has the effect of
attaching liability to all of the accused, regardless of their degree
of participation.—It should be remembered that the trial court
found that there was conspiracy among the accused-appellants
and the appellate court sustained this finding. Conspiracy, once
proven, has the effect of attaching liability to all ofthe accused,
regardless of their degree of participation, thus: Once an
express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of the
conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the
extent and character of their respective active
participation in the commission of the crime or crimes
perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in
contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all. The
foregoing rule is anchored on the sound principle that “when two
or more persons unite to accomplish a criminal object, whether
through the physical volition of one, or all, proceeding severally or
collectively, each individual whose evil will actively contributes to
the wrong-doing is in law responsible for the whole, the same as
though performed by himself alone.” Although it is axiomatic that
no one is liable for acts other than his own, “when two or more
persons agree or conspire to commit a crime, each is responsible
for all the acts of the others, done in furtherance of the agreement
or conspiracy.” The imposition of collective liability upon the
conspirators is clearly explained in one case where this Court held
that ... it is impossible to graduate the separate liability of each
(conspirator) with-
153
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 153
out taking into consideration the close and inseparable relation of

each of them with the criminal act, for the commission of which
they all acted by common agreement ... The crime must therefore
in view of the solidarity of the act and intent which existed
between the ... accused, be regarded as the act of the band or
party created by them, and they are all equally responsible.
Verily, the moment it is established that the malefactors
conspired and confederated in the commission of the
felony proved, collective liability of the accused
conspirators attaches by reason of the conspiracy, and the
court shall not speculate nor even investigate as to the
actual degree of participation of each of the perpetrators
present at the scene of the crime. x x x.
ABAD, J., Dissenting Opinion:
Remedial Law; Evidence; Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt;
View that in every criminal action, the prosecution has to establish
the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, by proof beyond
reasonable doubt.—In every criminal action, the prosecution has
to establish the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, by
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, its first duty is to prove
the identity of the offender for, even if the commission of the
offense can be established, no conviction can take place without
proof of his identity beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal Law; Alibi; View that true, alibi is a weak defense in
the face of positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses that the
accused committed the crime.—True, alibi is a weak defense in
the face of positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses that the
accused committed the crime. But such testimonies must be
credible and must come from credible witnesses. Several
circumstances militate against the mauling victims’ testimonies
that they were able to identify their attackers.
Remedial Law; Evidence; View that the circumstances of the
separate identifications, taking place in split seconds, defy belief.—
Just what are the chances that four out of five witnesses who
were fleeing and, indeed, running for their lives would just look
back, risk stumbling and crashing down, to put in evidence the
identities of some of those whom the RTC and the CA convicted?
Very little. It appears a convenient excuse for providing evidence
where none
154
existed. The circumstances of the separate identifications, taking

place in split seconds, defy belief. What baffles me is the fact that
the trial court acquitted SJ Morano whom SR Fortes and Gaston
identified while looking back on the run but convicted SJ
Zingapan, Soliva, and Medalla who were also targets of look-back
testimonies.
Same; Same; Res Gestae; View that the statement of the
bystanders, made while some of the wounded were bleeding there
and the excitement lingered, may be given in evidence as part of
the res gestae.—The statement of the bystanders, made while
some of the wounded were bleeding there and the excitement
lingered, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae.
Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence provides: Sec. 42.
Part of the res gestae.—Statements made by a person while a
startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof,
may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. x x x These
statements are spontaneous reactions inspired by the excitement
of the moment. It may be assumed that, unlike tardy witnesses,
the bystanders who made the statements had no opportunity to
deliberate or fabricate. The words they uttered are part of the
commotion they described. The res gestae contradicts the attempt
of prosecution witnesses to show that a number of the attackers
wore masks or that identification was possible because the masks
of some fell off.
Constitutional Law; Right to Remain Silent; View that the
right to silence is given to persons under suspicion for committing
some crimes, not to the victims whose duty is to promptly assist the
police investigators in pinpointing criminal responsibilities.—The
right to silence is given to persons under suspicion for committing
some crimes, not to the victims whose duty is to promptly assist
the police investigators in pinpointing criminal responsibilities.
No evidence has been presented to show that the UP police force
was partial to the opposing fraternity. I am thus unable to blame
the accused for believing that the only possible reason in this case
for withholding information from the police from day one was that
the victims and their counsel had yet to put their acts together.
Criminal Law; Aggravating Circumstances; Treachery; View
that while the attack by masked men is doubly condemnable, not
only for the treachery involved but also for the cowardice and
deception
155
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 155
that came with it, the Supreme Court cannot hastily send to prison
those charged with these crimes without proof beyond reasonable
doubt that they committed them.—While the attack by masked
men is doubly condemnable, not only for the treachery involved
but also for the cowardice and deception that came with it, the
Court cannot hastily send to prison those charged with these
crimes without proof beyond reasonable doubt that they
committed them. The Constitution ordains this. In a case like
this, where the identities and participations of the several accused
involved are difficult to prove, the ideal solution is to convince the
least guilty of them, the one who showed the most reluctance and
delivered the lightest blows, to turn state witness. I am unable to
say if efforts in this direction were taken by the NBI or the
prosecutors to ensure that they had a good case.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
De Castro & Cagampang Law Offices for accused-
appellant Christopher Soliva.
Villareal, Rosacia, Dino & Patag Law Offices for
appellant Alvir.
Estelito P. Mendoza for appellant Zingapan.
LEONEN, J.:
It is in the hallowed grounds of a university where
students, faculty, and research personnel should feel safest.
After all, this is where ideas that could probably solve the
sordid realities in this world are peacefully nurtured and
debated. Universities produce hope. They incubate all our
youthful dreams.
Yet, there are elements within this academic milieu that
trade misplaced concepts of perverse brotherhood for these
hopes. Fraternity rumbles exist because of past impunity.
156

This has resulted in a senseless death whose justice is now

the subject matter of this case. It is rare that these cases
are prosecuted. It is even more extraordinary that there
are credible witnesses who present themselves
courageously before an able and experienced trial court
judge.
This culture of impunity must stop. There is no space in
this society for hooliganism disguised as fraternity
rumbles. The perpetrators must stand and suffer the legal
consequences of their actions. They must do so for there is
an individual who now lies dead, robbed of his dreams and
the dreams of his family. Excruciating grief for them will
never be enough.
It is undisputed that on December 8, 1994, at around
12:30 to 1:00 in the afternoon, seven (7) members of the
Sigma Rho Fraternity were eating lunch at the Beach
House Canteen, near the Main Library of the University of
the Philippines, Diliman, when they were attacked by
several masked men carrying baseball bats and lead pipes.
Some of them sustained injuries that required
hospitalization. One of them, Dennis Venturina, died from
his injuries.
An information[1] for murder, docketed as Criminal Case
No. Q95-61133, was filed against several members of the
Scintilla Juris Fraternity, namely, Danilo Feliciano, Jr.,
Julius Victor L. Medalla, Warren L. Zingapan, Robert
Michael Beltran Alvir, Christopher L. Soliva, Reynaldo G.
Ablanida, Carlo Jolette Fajardo, George Morano, Raymund
E. Narag, Gilbert Merle Magpantay, Benedict Guerrero,
and Rodolfo Peñalosa, Jr. with the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 219. The information reads:
That on or about the 8th day of December 1994, in Quezon City,

Philippines, the above-named accused, wearing masks and/or
other forms of disguise, conspiring, confederating with other
persons whose true
_______________
[1] Original records, Vol. I, p. 3.
157
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 157

names, identities and whereabouts have not as yet been

ascertained, and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill,
qualified with treachery, and with evident premeditation, taking
advantage of superior strength, armed with baseball bats, lead
pipes, and cutters, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the
person of DENNIS F. VENTURINA, by then and there hitting
him on the head and clubbing him on different parts of his body
thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal injuries which
were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage
and prejudice of the heirs of said DENNIS F. VENTURINA.
(Emphasis supplied)

Separate informations were also filed against them for
the attempted murder of Sigma Rho Fraternity members
Cesar Mangrobang, Jr.,[2] Cristobal Gaston, Jr.,[3] and
Leandro Lachica,[4] and the frustrated murder of Sigma
Rho Fraternity members Mervin Natalicio[5] and Arnel
Fortes.[6] Only 11 of the accused stood trial since one of the
accused, Benedict Guerrero, remained at large.
A trial on the merits ensued.
The facts, according to the prosecution, are as follows:
Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, Dennis Venturina,
Mervin Natalicio, Cristobal Gaston, Jr., Felix Tumaneng,[7]
and Cesar Mangrobang, Jr. are all members of the Sigma
Rho Fraternity. On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to
1:00 p.m., they were having lunch at Beach House Canteen,
located at the back of the Main Library of the University of
the Philippines,
_______________
[2] Docketed as Q95-61134.
[7] Felix Tumaneng was not presented as a witness by the prosecution.
158

Diliman, Quezon City.[8] Suddenly, Dennis Venturina

shouted, “Brods, brods!”[9]
According to Leandro Lachica, Grand Archon of Sigma
Rho Fraternity, he looked around when Venturina shouted,
and he saw about ten (10) men charging toward them.[10]
The men were armed with baseball bats and lead pipes,
and their heads were covered with either handkerchiefs or
shirts.[11] Within a few seconds, five (5) of the men started
attacking him, hitting him with their lead pipes.[12] During
the attack, he recognized one of the attackers as Robert
Michael Beltran Alvir because his mask fell off.[13]
Lachica tried to parry the blows of his attackers,
suffering scratches and contusions.[14] He was, however,
able to run to the nearby College of Education.[15] Just
before reaching it, he looked back and saw Warren
Zingapan and Julius Victor L. Medalla holding lead pipes
and standing where the commotion was.[16] Both of them
did not have their masks on.[17] He was familiar with Alvir,
Zingapan, and Medalla because he often saw them in the
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP) and
Zingapan used to be his friend.[18] The attack lasted about
thirty (30) to forty-five (45) seconds.[19]
According to Mervin Natalicio, the Vice Grand Archon of
Sigma Rho, he looked to his left when Venturina shouted.
[20]
_______________
[8] TSN, June 5, 1995, pp. 9-11.
[9] TSN, July 3, 1995, p. 7.
[10] TSN, June 5, 1995, p. 25.
[11] Id., at pp. 11-12.
[12] Id., at p. 12.
[13] Id.
[14] Id., at p. 13.
[15] Id., at pp. 13-14.
[16] Id., at pp. 45-46.
[17] Id., at pp. 13-14.
[18] Id.
[19] Id., at p. 33.
[20] TSN, July 3, 1995, p. 7.
159
He saw about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) men, most of who

were wearing masks, running toward them.[21] He was
stunned, and he started running.[22] He stumbled over the
protruding roots of a tree.[23] He got up, but the attackers
came after him and beat him up with lead pipes and
baseball bats until he fell down.[24] While he was parrying
the blows, he recognized two (2) of the attackers as Warren
Zingapan and Christopher L. Soliva since they were not
wearing any masks.[25] After about thirty (30) seconds,
they stopped hitting him.[26] He was lying on his back and
when he looked up, he saw another group of four (4) to five
(5) men coming toward him, led by Benedict Guerrero.[27]
This group also beat him up.[28] He did not move until
another group of masked men beat him up for about five (5)
to eight (8) seconds.[29] When the attacks ceased, he was
found lying on the ground.[30] Several bystanders brought
him to the U.P. Infirmary where he stayed for more than a
week for the treatment of his wounds and fractures.[31]
According to Cesar Mangrobang, Jr., member of Sigma
Rho, he also looked back when Venturina shouted and saw
a group of men with baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of
them wore pieces of cloth around their heads.[32] He ran
when they attacked, but two (2) men, whose faces were
covered with pieces of cloth, blocked his way and hit him
with lead pipes.[33] While running and parrying the blows,
he recognized them as
_______________
[21] Id.
[22] Id., at p. 10.
[23] Id.
[24] Id., at pp. 12-13.
[25] Id., at pp. 14-16.
[26] Id., at p. 16.
[27] Id., at pp. 16-17.
[28] Id., at p. 17.
[29] Id., at p. 19.
[30] Id., at pp. 19-20.
[31] Id.
[32] TSN, September 28, 1995, pp. 14-15.
[33] Id., at p. 16.
160

Gilbert Merle Magpantay and Carlo Jolette Fajardo

because their masks fell off.[34] He successfully evaded his
attackers and ran to the Main Library.[35] He then decided
that he needed to help his fraternity brothers and turned
back toward Beach House.[36] There, he saw Venturina
lying on the ground.[37] Danilo Feliciano, Jr. was beating
Venturina up with a lead pipe while Raymund E. Narag
was aiming to hit Venturina.[38] When they saw him, they
went toward his direction.[39] They were about to hit him
when somebody shouted that policemen were coming.
Feliciano and Narag then ran away.[40]
Cesar Mangrobang, Jr. then saw Arnel Fortes. Fortes
accompanied him to his car so they could bring Venturina
to the U.P. Infirmary.[41] When they brought the car over,
other people, presumably bystanders, were already loading
Venturina into another vehicle.[42] They followed that
vehicle to the U.P. Infirmary where they saw Natalicio.[43]
He stayed at the infirmary until the following morning.[44]
According to Cristobal Gaston, Jr., member of Sigma
Rho, he immediately stood up when he heard someone
shout, “Brods!”[45] He saw a group of men charging toward
them carrying lead pipes and baseball bats.[46] Most of
them had pieces of cloth covering their faces.[47] He was
about to run when two (2)
_______________
[34] Id., at pp. 17-18.
[35] Id., at pp. 20-21.
[36] Id., at pp. 21-22.
[37] Id., at p. 23.
[38] Id., at pp. 23-26.
[39] Id., at p. 28.
[40] Id., at pp. 28-29.
[41] Id., at p. 33.
[42] Id., at p. 34.
[43] Id., at p. 35.
[44] Id., at p. 36.
[45] TSN, October 11, 1995, p. 15.
[46] Id.
[47] Id., at pp. 16-17.
161
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 161

of the attackers approached him.[48] One struck him with a

heavy pipe while the other stabbed him with a bladed
instrument.[49] He was able to parry most of the blows from
the lead pipe, but he sustained stab wounds on the chest
and on his left forearm.[50] He was able to run away.[51]
When he sensed that no one was chasing him, he looked
back to Beach House Canteen and saw Danilo Feliciano,
Jr., Warren Zingapan, and George Morano.[52] He decided
to go back to the canteen to help his fraternity brothers.[53]
When he arrived, he did not see any of his fraternity
brothers but only saw the ones who attacked them.[54] He
ended up going to their hang-out instead to meet with his
other fraternity brothers.[55] They then proceeded to the
College of Law where the rest of the fraternity was already
discussing the incident.[56]
According to Arnel Fortes, member of Sigma Rho, he
also ran when he saw the group of attackers coming toward
them.[57] When he looked back, he saw Danilo Feliciano,
Jr. hitting Venturina.[58] He was also able to see Warren
Zingapan and George Morano at the scene.[59]
Leandro Lachica, in the meantime, upon reaching the
College of Education, boarded a jeepney to the College of
Law to wait for their other fraternity brothers.[60] One of
his fraternity brothers, Peter Corvera, told him that he
received informa-
_______________
[48] Id., at pp. 17-18.
[49] Id., at pp. 19-20.
[50] Id., at p. 24.
[51] Id., at p. 31.
[52] Id., at pp. 31-32.
[53] Id., at p. 33.
[54] Id., at pp. 34-35.
[55] Id., at p. 40.
[56] Id., at pp. 44-45.
[57] TSN, October 30, 1995, p. 74.
[58] Id., at pp. 30-31.
[59] Id., at pp. 77-78.
[60] TSN, June 21, 1995, pp. 5-6.
162

tion that members of Scintilla Juris were seen in the west

wing of the Main Library and were regrouping in SM
North.[61] Lachica and his group then set off for SM North
to confront Scintilla Juris and identify their attackers.[62]
When they arrived in SM North, pillboxes and stones
were thrown at them.[63] Lachica saw Robert Michael
Beltran Alvir and Warren Zingapan and a certain Carlo
Taparan.[64] They had no choice but to get away from the
mall and proceed instead to U.P. where the Sigma Rho
Fraternity members held a meeting.[65]
On the night of December 8, 1994, the officers of Sigma
Rho advised the victims to lodge their complaints with the
National Bureau of Investigation.[66] Their counsel, Atty.
Frank Chavez, told the U.P. Police that the victims would
be giving their statements before the National Bureau of
Investigation, promising to give the U.P. Police copies of
their statements. In the meantime, Venturina was
transferred from the U.P. Infirmary to St. Luke’s Hospital
on December 8, 1994. He died on December 10, 1994.[67]
On December 11, 1994, an autopsy was conducted on the
cadaver of Dennis Venturina.[68] Dr. Rolando Victoria, a
medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of
Investigation, found that Venturina had “several
contusions located at the back of the upper left arm and
hematoma on the back of both hands,”[69] “two (2) lacerated
wounds at the back of the head,[70]
_______________
[61] TSN, June 5, 1995, p. 14.
[62] Id.
[63] Id., at pp. 14-15.
[64] Id., at p. 17.
[65] Id., at p. 15.
[66] Id., at p. 20.
[67] TSN, September 16, 1996, pp. 10-14.
[68] TSN, July 24, 1995, pp. 6-7.
[69] Id., at pp. 14-16.
[70] Id., at pp. 16-17.
163
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 163

generalized hematoma on the skull,”[71] “several fractures

on the head,”[72] and “inter-cranial hemmorrhage.”[73] The
injuries, according to Dr. Victoria, could have been caused
by a hard blunt object.[74] Dr. Victoria concluded that
Venturina died of traumatic head injuries.[75]
On December 12, 1994, Lachica, Natalicio, Mangrobang,
Fortes, and Gaston executed their respective affidavits[76]
before the National Bureau of Investigation and underwent
medico-legal examinations[77] with their medico-legal
officer, Dr. Aurelio Villena. According to Dr. Villena, he
found that Mervin Natalicio had “lacerated wounds on the
top of the head, above the left ear, and on the fingers;
contused abrasions on both knees; contusion on the left leg
and thigh,”[78] all of which could have been caused by any
hard, blunt object. These injuries required medical
attendance for a period of ten (10) days to thirty (30) days
from the date of infliction.[79]
Dr. Villena found on Arnel Fortes “lacerated wounds on
the head and on the right leg which could have been caused
by a blunt instrument.”[80] These injuries required
hospitalization for a period of ten (10) days to thirty (30)
days from date of infliction.[81] He also found on Cesar
Mangrobang, Jr. a “healed abrasion on the left forearm
which could possibly be caused by contact with [a] rough
hard surface and would require one
_______________
[71] Id., at p. 18.
[72] Id., at pp. 19-20.
[73] Id., at p. 22.
[74] Id., at p. 41.
[75] Id., at p. 23.
[76] TSN, June 5, 1995, p. 17; TSN, July 3, 1995, p. 20; TSN, September
28, 1995, pp. 116-117; TSN, October 20, 1995, p. 34; TSN, October 11,
1995, p. 48.
[77] TSN, June 5, 1995, p. 17.
[78] TSN, July 31, 1995, p. 14.
[79] Id., at p. 46.
[80] Id., at pp. 26-28.
[81] Id., at p. 46.
164

(1) to nine (9) days of medical attention.”[82] He found on

Leandro Lachica “contusions on the mid auxiliary left side,
left forearm and lacerated wound on the infra scapular
area, left side.”[83] On Christopher Gaston, Jr. he found
“lacerated wounds on the anterior chest, left side, left
forearm; swollen knuckles of both hands; contusions on the
mid auxiliary left side, left forearm and lacerated wound on
the infra scapular area, left side.”[84]
On September 18, 1997, after the prosecution presented
its evidence-in-chief, the court granted the demurrer to
evidence filed by Rodolfo Peñalosa, Jr. on the ground that
he was not identified by the prosecution’s witnesses and
that he was not mentioned in any of the documentary
evidence of the prosecution.[85]
Upon the presentation of their evidence, the defense
introduced their own statement of the facts, as follows:
According to Romeo Cabrera,[86] a member of the U.P.
Police, he was on foot patrol with another member of the
U.P. Police, Oscar Salvador, at the time of the incident.
They were near the College of Arts and Sciences (Palma
Hall) when he vaguely heard somebody shouting,
“Rumble!” They went to the place where the alleged rumble
was happening and saw injured men being helped by
bystanders. They helped an injured person board the
service vehicle of the Beach House Canteen. They asked
what his name was, and he replied that he was Mervin
Natalicio. When he asked Natalicio who hit him, the latter
was not able to reply but instead told him that his
attackers were wearing masks. Oscar Salvador[87]
corroborated his testimony.
_______________
[82] Id., at p. 401.
[83] Id., at pp. 31-33.
[84] Id.
[85] RTC Decision, p. 15.
[86] TSN, November 11, 1995.
[87] TSN, November 20, 1995.
165
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 165

Benjamin Lato,[88] a utility worker of the Beach House

Canteen, likewise testified that the identities of the
attackers were unrecognizable because of their masks. He,
however, admitted that he did not see the attack; he just
saw a man sprawled on the ground at the time of the
incident.
Frisco Capilo,[89] a utility worker of U.P. assigned to the
Main Library, was buying a cigarette at a vendor located
nearby. From there, he allegedly saw the whole incident.
He testified that ten (10) men, wearing either masks of red
and black bonnets or with shirts covering their faces, came
from a red car parked nearby. He also saw three (3) men
being hit with lead pipes by the masked men. Two (2) of the
men fell after being hit. One of the victims was lifting the
other to help him, but the attackers overtook him.
Afterwards, the attackers ran away. He then saw students
helping those who were injured. He likewise helped in
carrying one of the injured victims, which he later found
out to be Arnel Fortes.
A U.P. student and member of the Sigma Alpha Nu
Sorority, Eda Panganiban,[90] testified that she and her
friends were in line to order lunch at the Beach House
Canteen when a commotion happened. She saw around
fifteen (15) to eighteen (18) masked men attack a group of
Sigma Rhoans. She did not see any mask fall off. Her
sorority sister and another U.P. student, Luz Perez,[91]
corroborated her story that the masked men were
unrecognizable because of their masks. Perez, however,
admitted that a member of Scintilla Juris approached her
to make a statement.
Another sorority sister, Bathalani Tiamzon,[92] testified
on substantially the same matters as Panganiban and
Perez. She also stated that she saw a person lying on the
ground who
_______________
[88] TSN, November 27, 1995.
[89] TSN, December 4, 1995.
[90] TSN, December 11, 1995.
[91] Id.
[92] TSN, December 18, 1995.
166

was being beaten up by about three (3) to five (5) masked

men. She also stated that some of the men were wearing
black masks while some were wearing white t-shirts as
masks. She did not see any mask fall off the faces of the
attackers.
According to Feliciana Feliciano,[93] accused-appellant
Danilo Feliciano, Jr.’s mother, her son was in Pampanga to
visit his sick grandfather at the time of the incident. She
alleged that her son went to Pampanga before lunch that
day and visited the school where she teaches to get their
house key from her.
According to Robert Michael Beltran Alvir,[94] he had
not been feeling well since December 5, 1994. He said that
he could not have possibly been in U.P. on December 8,
1994 since he was absent even from work. He also testified
that he wore glasses and, thus, could not have possibly
been the person identified by Leandro Lachica. He also
stated that he was not enrolled in U.P. at the time since he
was working to support himself.
According to Julius Victor Medalla,[95] he and another
classmate, Michael Vibas, were working on a school project
on December 8, 1994. He also claimed that he could not
have participated in the rumble as he had an injury
affecting his balance. The injury was caused by an incident
in August 1994 when he was struck in the head by an
unknown assailant. His testimony was corroborated by
Jose Victor Santos[96] who stated that after lunch that day,
Medalla played darts with him and, afterwards, they went
to Jollibee.
Christopher Soliva,[97] on the other hand, testified that
he was eating lunch with his girlfriend and another friend
in Jollibee, Philcoa, on December 8, 1994. They went back
to
_______________
[93] TSN, November 27, 1995.
[94] TSN, February 2, 2000.
[95] TSN, September 22, 1999.
[96] TSN, August 11, 1999.
[97] TSN, June 16, 1999.
167
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 167

U.P. before 1:00 p.m. and went straight to their fraternity

hang-out where he was told that there had been a rumble
at the Main Library. He also met several Sigma Rhoans
acting suspiciously as they passed by the hang-out. They
were also told by their head, Carlo Taparan, not to react to
the Sigma Rhoans and just go home. Anna Cabahug,[98] his
girlfriend, corroborated his story.
Warren Zingapan[99] also testified that he was not in
U.P. at the time of the incident. He claimed to have gone to
SM North to buy a gift for a friend’s wedding but ran into a
fraternity brother. He also alleged that some Sigma
Rhoans attacked them in SM North that day.
On February 28, 2002, the trial court rendered its
decision[100] with the finding that Robert Michael Alvir,
Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Christopher Soliva, Julius Victor
Medalla, and Warren Zingapan were guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder and attempted murder and
were sentenced to, among other penalties, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.[101] The trial court, however, acquitted
Reynaldo Ablanida, Carlo Jolette Fajardo, Gilbert
Magpantay, George Morano, and Raymund Narag.[102] The
case against Benedict Guerrero was ordered archived by
the court until his apprehension.[103]
The trial court, in evaluating the voluminous evidence at
hand, concluded that:
After a judicious evaluation of the matter, the Court is of the

considered view that of the ten accused, some were sufficiently
identified and some were not. The Court believes that out of the
amorphous images during
_______________
[98] TSN, November 23, 1998.
[99] TSN, May 12, 1999.
[100] Penned by the Hon. Jose Catral Mendoza, now an Associate Justice of this
Court (CA Rollo, pp. 576-644).
[101] RTC Decision, pp. 81-83.
[102] Id., at pp. 82-83.
[103] Id., at p. 83.
168

the pandemonium, the beleaguered victims were able to espy and

identify some of the attackers etching an indelible impression in
their memory. In this regard, the prosecution eyewitnesses were
emphatic that they saw the attackers rush towards them wielding
deadly weapons like baseball bats, lead pipes, pieces of wood and
bladed ones, and pounce on their hapless victims, run after them,
and being present with one another at the scene of the crime
during the assault. Although each victim had a very strong motive
to place his fraternity rivals permanently behind bars, not one of
them testified against all of them. If the prosecution eyewitnesses,
who were all Sigma Rhoans, were simply bent on convicting
Scintilla Juris members for that matter, they could have easily
tagged each and every single accused as a participant in the
atrocious and barbaric assault to make sure that no one else
would escape conviction. Instead, each eyewitness named only one
or two and some were candid enough to say that they did not see
who delivered the blows against them.[104]

Because one of the penalties meted out was reclusion
perpetua, the case was brought to this court on automatic
appeal. However, due to the amendment of the Rules on
Appeal,[105] the case was remanded to the Court of
Appeals.[106] In the Court of Appeals, the case had to be re-
raffled several times[107] before it was eventually assigned
to Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. for the writing of
the decision.
_______________
[104] Id., at pp. 48-49.
[105] Per People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA
640, which modified the rules on direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
[106] Per resolution of this Court dated April 13, 2005, CA Rollo, p. 297.
[107] Justice Romeo F. Barza voluntarily inhibited due to membership
in Sigma Rho Fraternity. Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Isaias P.
Dicdican also voluntarily inhibited, but the reason was not shown in the
records.
169
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 169

On December 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in a

Special First Division of Five, affirmed[108] the decision of
the Regional Trial Court, with three (3) members
concurring[109] and one (1) dissenting.[110]
The decision of the Court of Appeals was then brought to
this court for review.
The issue before this court is whether the prosecution
was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-
appellants attacked private complainants and caused the
death of Dennis Venturina.
On the basis, however, of the arguments presented to
this court by both parties, the issue may be further refined,
thus:
1. Whether accused-appellants’ constitutional rights
were violated when the information against them contained
the aggravating circumstance of the use of masks despite the
prosecution presenting witnesses to prove that the masks fell
off; and
2. Whether the Regional Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals correctly ruled, on the basis of the evidence, that
accused-appellants were sufficiently identified.
I
An information is sufficient when
the accused is fully apprised of
the charge against him to enable
him to prepare his defense
It is the argument of appellants that the information

filed against them violates their constitutional right to be
informed
_______________
[108] Rollo, pp. 4-72; CA Rollo, pp. 1480-1551.
[109] Justices Amelita G. Tolentino, Jose C. Reyes, Jr., and Mariflor P.
Punzalan-Castillo.
[110] Justice Stephen C. Cruz.
170

of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.

They argue that the prosecution should not have included
the phrase “wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise”
in the information since they were presenting testimonial
evidence that not all the accused were wearing masks or
that their masks fell off.
It is enshrined in our Bill of Rights that “[n]o person
shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law.”[111] This includes the right of the accused
to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and “to be
informed of the nature and accusation against him.”[112]
Upon a finding of probable cause, an information is filed
by the prosecutor against the accused, in compliance with
the due process of the law. Rule 110, Section 1, paragraph 1
of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that:
A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of

the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute;
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the
commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was
committed.
In People v. Wilson Lab-eo,[113] this court has stated

that:
The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a

person of common understanding to know the charge against him,
and the court to render judgment properly. x x x The purpose is to
allow the accused to fully prepare for his defense, precluding
surprises during the trial.[114]
_______________
[111] CONST., Art. III, Sec. 14(1).
[112] CONST., Art. III, Sec. 14(2).
[113] 424 Phil. 482; 373 SCRA 461 (2002) [Per J. Carpio, Third
Division].
[114] People v. Wilson Lab-eo, 424 Phil. 482, 497; 373 SCRA 461, 473
(2002) [Per J. Carpio, Third Division], citing Jumawan v. Eviota,
171
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 171

Contrary to the arguments of the appellants, the

inclusion of the phrase “wearing masks and/or other forms
of disguise” in the information does not violate their
constitutional rights.
It should be remembered that every aggravating
circumstance being alleged must be stated in the
information. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance,
even if duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such.
[115] It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to
state the aggravating circumstance of “wearing masks
and/or other forms of disguise” in the information in order
for all the evidence, introduced to that effect, to be
admissible by the trial court.
In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating
circumstance because, like nighttime, it allows the accused
to remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out
his crimes.
The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial
evidence that tends to prove that the accused were masked
but the masks fell off does not prevent them from including
disguise as an aggravating circumstance.[116] What is
important in alleging disguise as an aggravating
circumstance is that there was a concealment of identity by
the accused. The inclusion of disguise in the information
was, therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the accused
that in the commission of the offense they were being
charged with, they tried to conceal their identity.
The introduction of evidence which shows that some of
the accused were not wearing masks is also not violative of
their right to be informed of their offenses.
_______________
G.R. Nos. 85512-13, July 28, 1994, 234 SCRA 524 [Per J. Mendoza, En
Banc].
[115] RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 110, Sec. 8.
[116] See People v. Sabangan Cabato, 243 Phil. 262; 160 SCRA 98
(1988) [Per J. Cortes, Third Division] and People v. Veloso, 197 Phil. 846;
112 SCRA 173 (1982) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
172

The information charges conspiracy among the accused.

Conspiracy presupposes that “the act of one is the act of
all.”[117] This would mean all the accused had been one in
their plan to conceal their identity even if there was
evidence later on to prove that some of them might not
have done so.
In any case, the accused were being charged with the
crime of murder, frustrated murder, and attempted
murder. All that is needed for the information to be
sufficient is that the elements of the crime have been
alleged and that there are sufficient details as to the time,
place, and persons involved in the offense.
II
Findings of the trial court, when
affirmed by the appellate court,
are entitled to great weight and
credence
As a general rule, the findings of fact by the trial court,
when affirmed by the appellate court, are given great
weight and credence on review. The rationale for this was
explained in People v. Daniel Quijada,[118] as follows:
Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court,
especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great
weight and respect. For, the trial court has the advantage of
observing the witnesses through the different indicators of
truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted
assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous
mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready
reply; or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the
hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone,
_______________
[117] People v. Halil Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013, 706 SCRA 508
[Per J. Perez, En Banc].
[118] 328 Phil. 505; 259 SCRA 191 (1996) [Per J. Davide, En Banc].
173
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 173

the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of
it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the
carriage and mien.[119]
There are, of course, recognized exceptions to this rule.
In People v. Leticia Labarias, [120] this court stated that:
It is the policy of this Court to sustain the factual findings of

the trial court on the reasonable assumption that it is in a better
position to assess the evidence before it, particularly the
testimonies of the witnesses, who reveal much of themselves by
their deportment on the stand. The exception that makes the
rule is where such findings are clearly arbitrary or
erroneous as when they are tainted with bias or hostility or
are so lacking in basis as to suggest that they were
reached without the careful study and perceptiveness that
should characterize a judicial decision.[121] (Emphasis
supplied)
In criminal cases, the exception gains even more

importance since the presumption is always in favor of
innocence. It is only upon proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt that a conviction is sustained.
In this case, a total of eleven (11) witnesses for the
prosecution and forty-two (42) witnesses for the defense
were put on the stand from 1995 to 2001. In an eighty-
three (83)-page
_______________
[119] People v. Daniel Quijada, 328 Phil. 505, 530-531; 259 SCRA 191,
212-213 (1996) [Per J. Davide, En Banc], citing People v. De Guzman, G.R.
No. 76742, August 7, 1990, 188 SCRA 407 [Per J. Cruz, First Division];
People v. De Leon, 315 Phil. 584; 248 SCRA 609 (1995) [Per J. Davide, Jr.,
First Division]; People v. Delovino, 317 Phil. 741; 247 SCRA 637 (1995)
[Per J. Davide, Jr., First Division]; Creamer v. Bivert, 214 MO 473, 474
(1908); M. Frances Mcnamara, 200 Famous Legal Quotations, p. 548
(1967).
[120] G.R. No. 87165, January 25, 1993, 217 SCRA 483 [Per J. Cruz,
First Division].
[121] Id., at p. 484.
174

decision, the trial court acquitted six (6) and convicted five
(5) of the accused. On the basis of these numbers alone, it
cannot be said that the trial court acted arbitrarily or that
its decision was “so lacking in basis” that it was arrived at
without a judicious and exhaustive study of all the evidence
presented.
Inasmuch, however, as the trial court’s findings hold
great persuasive value, there is also nothing that precludes
this court from coming to its own conclusions based on an
independent review of the facts and the evidence on record.
The accused were sufficiently
identified by the witnesses for the
prosecution
The trial court, in weighing all the evidence on hand,
found the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution
to be credible. In its decision, the trial court stated that:
x x x. Although each victim had a very strong motive to place

his fraternity rivals permanently behind bars, not one testified
against all of them. If the prosecution eyewitnesses, who
were all Sigma Rhoans, were simply bent on convicting
Scintilla Juris members for that matter, they could have
easily tagged each and every accused as a participant in
the atrocious and barbaric assault to make sure no one
would escape conviction. Instead, each eyewitness named
only one or two and some were candid enough to say that
they did not see who delivered the blows against them.
Thus, the prosecution witnesses, Ernest Paulo Tan, Dennis
Gaio and Darwin Asuncion, testified to have seen it all but they
could not, and did not, disclose any name. Lachica, on the other
hand, said that he did not have the opportunity to see and
identify the person who hit him in the back and inflicted a two-
inch cut. His forearm was also hit by a lead pipe but he did not
see who did it. Natalicio, one of the other three who were
hospitalized, was
175
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 175

severely beaten by three waves of attackers totalling more than

15 but he could only name 3 of them. He added, however, that he
would be able to recognize those he saw if he would see them
again. Of them, Mangrobang pointed to at least 5 but he stressed
that he did not see Zingapan, Soliva, Guerrero, Del Rosario,
Daraoay, Denoista, and Peñalosa during the onslaught. Gaston
could have named any of the accused as the one who repeatedly
hit him with a heavy pipe and stabbed him but he frankly said
their faces were covered. Like Natalicio, Fortes was repeatedly
beaten by several groups but did not name any of the accused as
one of those who attacked him. The persons he identified were
those leading the pack with one of them as the assailant of
Venturina, and the two others who he saw standing while he was
running away. He added that he saw some of the accused during
the attack but did not know then their names.[122] (Emphasis
supplied)
We agree.
The trial court correctly held that “considering the
swiftness of the incident,”[123] there would be slight
inconsistencies in their statements. In People v. Adriano
Cabrillas,[124] it was previously observed that:
It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying

on the occurrence of a crime to give varying details as
there may be some details which one witness may notice
while the other may not observe or remember. In fact,
jurisprudence even warns against a perfect dovetailing of
narration by different witnesses as it could mean that their
testimonies were prefabricated and rehearsed.[125] (Emphasis
supplied)
_______________
[123] Id., at p. 57.
[124] G.R. No. 175980, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 174 [Per J. Del
Castillo, First Division].
[125] Id., at p. 191, citing People v. Lacbayan, 393 Phil. 800, 807; 339
SCRA 396, 401 (2000) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
176

According to their testimonies, Lachica was able to

identify Alvir, Zingapan, and Medalla;[126] Natalicio was
able to identify Medalla, Zingapan, and Soliva;[127] and
Fortes was able to identify Feliciano, Medalla, and
Zingapan.[128] Their positive identification was due to the
fact that they either wore no masks or that their masks fell
off.
It would be in line with human experience that a victim
or an eyewitness of a crime would endeavor to find ways to
identify the assailant so that in the event that he or she
survives, the criminal could be apprehended. It has also
been previously held that:
It is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence

to strive to see the looks and faces of their assailants and observe
the manner in which the crime was committed. Most often the
face of the assailant and body movements thereof, creates a
lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from their
memory.[129]
In the commotion, it was more than likely that the

masked assailants could have lost their masks. It had been
testified by the victims that some of the assailants were
wearing masks of either a piece of cloth or a handkerchief
and that Alvir,[130] Zingapan,[131] Soliva,[132] and
Feliciano[133] had masks on at first but their masks fell off
and hung around their necks. Equally telling was the
testimony of defense witness Frisco
_______________
[126] TSN, June 5, 1995, pp. 11-13.
[127] TSN, July 3, 1995, pp. 21-22.
[128] TSN, October 30, 1995, pp. 91, 112.
[129] People v. Opiniado Dolar, G.R. No. 100805, March 24, 1994, 231
SCRA 414, 423 [Per J. Puno, Second Division], citing People v. Sartagoda,
G.R. No. 97525, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 251, 257 [Per J. Campos, Jr.,
Second Division].
[130] TSN, June 21, 1995, p. 33.
[131] TSN, July 5, 1995, p. 24.
[132] Id., at pp. 48-52.
[133] TSN, September 28, 1995, p. 24.
177
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 177

Capilo during cross-examination who observed that some of

the attackers were wearing masks and some were not,
thus:
Q Mr. Capilo, do you know this Scintilla Juris Fraternity?
A No, sir.
Q During the incident of December 8, 1994, there were a lot of people
eating in the Beach House Canteen, and then running towards
different directions, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q And some people were wearing masks and some were not?
A Yes, sir.[134]

While the attack was swift and sudden, the victims
would have had the presence of mind to take a look at their
assailants if they were identifiable. Their positive
identification, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
must be upheld to be credible.
It has been argued that the trial court did not give
Mangrobang’s testimony credence while Gaston’s testimony
was found to be “hazy.” This argument is unmeritorious.
It should be noted that it was the trial court itself that
stated that the acquittal of the Scintilla Juris members
identified by Mangrobang “should not be. misinterpreted to
mean that the testimony of Mangrobang was an absolute
fabrication.”[135] The court went on to state that they “were
exonerated merely because they were accorded the benefit
of the doubt as their identification by Mangrobang, under
tumultuous and chaotic circumstances were [sic] not
corroborated and their alibis, not refuted.”[136] There was,
therefore, no basis to say
_______________
[134] TSN, December 4, 1995, p. 47; See also RTC Decision, p. 51.
[136] Id.
178

that Mangrobang was not credible; it was only that the

evidence presented was not strong enough to overcome the
presumption of innocence.
Gaston’s testimony, on the other hand, was considered
“hazy”[137] by the trial court only with regard to his
identification of Zingapan’s companion. Gaston testified
that he saw Zingapan with Morano, with Zingapan moving
and Morano staying in place. Fortes, however, testified
that both Zingapan and Morano were running after him.
Lachica also testified that it was Medalla, not Morano, who
was with Zingapan. Because of this confusion, the trial
court found that there was doubt as to who was really
beside Zingapan. The uncertainty resulted into an acquittal
for Morano. Despite this, the court still did not impute
doubt in their testimonies that Zingapan was present at
the scene.
Be that as it may, the acquittals made by the trial court
further prove that its decision was brought about only upon
a thorough examination of the evidence presented. It
accepted that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies
of the victims but that these were minor and did not affect
their credibility. It ruled that “[s]uch inconsistencies, and
even probabilities, are not unusual ‘for there is no person
with perfect faculties or senses.’”[138]
Evidence as part of the res gestae
may be admissible but have little
persuasive value in this case
According to the testimony of U.P. Police Officer
Salvador,[139] when he arrived at the scene, he interviewed
the bystanders who all told him that they could not
recognize the
_______________
[137] Id., at p. 65.
[138] Id., at p. 58.
[139] TSN, November 20, 1995, p. 20.
179
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 179

attackers since they were all masked. This, it is argued,

could be evidence that could be given as part of the res
gestae.
As a general rule, “[a] witness can testify only to the
facts he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which
are derived from his own perception, x x x.”[140] All other
kinds of testimony are hearsay and are inadmissible as
evidence. The Rules of Court, however, provide several
exceptions to the general rule, and one of which is when the
evidence is part of res gestae, thus:
Section 42. Part of res gestae.—Statements made by a person

while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof,
may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. So, also, statements
accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it
a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.[141]
In People v. Rodrigo Salafranca,[142] this court has

previously discussed the admissibility of testimony taken
as part of res gestae, stating that:
A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res

gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the
hearsay rule when the following requisites concur, to wit: (a) the
principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the
statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive or
devise; and (c) the statements must concern the occurrence in
question and its immediately attending circumstances.
x x x x
_______________
[140] RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 130, Sec. 36.
[141] RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 130(C)(6), Sec. 42.
[142] G.R. No. 173476, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 501 [Per J. Bersamin,
First Division].
180

The term res gestae has been defined as “those circumstances

which are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act
and which are admissible when illustrative of such act.” In a
general way, res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and
declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate
its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with
the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and
fabrication. The rule on res gestae encompasses the exclamations
and statements made by either the participants, victims, or
spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately
after the commission of the crime when the circumstances are
such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or
utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there
was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate
a false statement. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of
the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or
exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the
principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a
part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives
any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.[143]

There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group
peacefully eating lunch on a school campus is a startling
occur-
_______________
[143] People v. Rodrigo Salafranca, G.R. No. 173476, February 22,
2012, 666 SCRA 501, 512-514 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division], citing
People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 94570, September 28, 1994, 237 SCRA 218, 224
[Per J. Cruz, First Division]; People v. Maguikay, G.R. Nos. 103226-28,
October 14, 1994, 237 SCRA 587, 600 [Per J. Puno, Second Division];
Alhambra Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. DeCelle, 118 P. 2d 19, 47 C.A. 2d 409;
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. v. Lewis, 61 N.E. 2d 297, 326 Ill. App. 117;
Kaiko v. Dolinger, 440 A. 2d 198, 184 Conn. 509; Southern Surety Co. v.
Weaver, Com. App., 273 S.W. 838; People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 74740,
August 28, 1992, 213 SCRA 70, 79 [Per J. Davide, Jr., Third Division];
Molloy v. Chicago Rapid Transit Co., 166 N.E. 530, 335 Ill. 164; Campbell
v. Gladden, 118 A. 2d 133, 383 Pa. 144, 53 A.L.R. 2d 1222.
181
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 181

rence. Considering that the statements of the bystanders

were made immediately after the startling occurrence, they
are, in fact, admissible as evidence given in res gestae.
In People v. Albarido,[144] however, this court has stated
that “in accord to ordinary human experience”:
x x x persons who witness an event perceive the same from

their respective points of reference. Therefore, almost always,
they have different accounts of how it happened. Certainly,
we cannot expect the testimony of witnesses to a crime to be
consistent in all aspects because different persons have different
impressions and recollections of the same incident. x x x[145]
(Emphasis supplied)

The statements made by the bystanders, although
admissible, have little persuasive value since the
bystanders could have seen the events transpiring at
different vantage points and at different points in time.
Even Frisco Capilo, one of the bystanders at the time of the
attack, testified that the attackers had their masks on at
first, but later on, some remained masked and some were
unmasked.
When the bystanders’ testimonies are weighed against
those of the victims who witnessed the entirety of the
incident from beginning to end at close range, the former
become merely corroborative of the fact that an attack
occurred. Their account of the incident, therefore, must be
given considerably less weight than that of the victims.
_______________
[144] 420 Phil. 235; 368 SCRA 194 (2001) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Third Division].
[145] Id., at p. 245; pp. 202-203, citing People v. Real, 367 Phil. 524; 308
SCRA 244 (1999) [Per J. Pardo, First Division]. This statement was used
in order to justify that minor inconsistencies do not affect the witnesses’
credibility so long as they concur on the material aspects of the incident.
182

The belated identification by the

victims do not detract from their
positive identification of the ap-
pellants
It is argued that the fact that the victims stayed silent
about the incident to the U.P. Police or the Quezon City
Police but instead executed affidavits with the National
Bureau of Investigation four (4) days after the incident
gives doubt as to the credibility of their testimonies.
U.P. Police Officer Romeo Cabrera[146] testified that on
their way to the U.P. Infirmary, he interviewed the victims
who all told him they could not recognize the attackers
because they were all wearing masks. Meanwhile, Dr.
Mislang[147] testified to the effect that when she asked
Natalicio who attacked them, Natalicio answered that he
did not know because they were masked.
It must be remembered that the parties involved in this
case belong to rival fraternities. While this court does not
condone their archaic and oftentimes barbaric traditions, it
is conceded that there are certain practices that are unique
to fraternal organizations.
It is quite possible that at this point in time, they knew
the identities of their attackers but chose not to disclose it
without first conferring with their other fraternity
brothers. This probability is bolstered by the actions of
Sigma Rho after the incident, which showed that they
confronted the members of Scintilla Juris in SM North.
Because of the tenuous relationship of rival fraternities, it
would not have been prudent for Sigma Rho to retaliate
against the wrong fraternity.
Their act of not disclosing the correct information to the
U.P. Police or to Dr. Mislang does not make the police
officer or the doctor’s testimonies more credible than that of
the
_______________
[146] TSN, November 13, 1995, pp. 37-38.
[147] TSN, September 16, 1998, p. 20.
183
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 183
victims. It should not be forgotten that the victims actually

witnessed the entire incident, while Officer Salvador,
Officer Cabrera, and Dr. Mislang were merely relaying
secondhand information.
The fact that they went to the National Bureau of
Investigation four (4) days after the incident also does not
affect their credibility since most of them had been
hospitalized from their injuries and needed to recover first.
Since a fraternity moves as one unit, it would be
understandable that they decided to wait until all of them
were well enough to go to the National Bureau of
Investigation headquarters in order to give their
statements.
Seniority is also often the norm in fraternities. It was
upon the advice of their senior “brods” and their legal
counsel that they executed their sworn statements before
the National Bureau of Investigation four (4) days after the
incident.
The decision to report the incident to the National
Bureau of Investigation instead of to the U.P. Police was
the call of their legal counsel who might have deemed the
National Bureau of Investigation more equipped to handle
the investigation. This does not, however, affect the
credibility of the witnesses since they were merely
following the legal advice of their counsel.
Indeed, there is reason to believe that the National
Bureau of Investigation is better equipped than the U.P.
Police to handle the investigation of the case. As stated in
the U.P. College of Economics website:
The UP Diliman Police (UPDP) is tasked with maintaining

campus security. Their station is located in front of the College
of Architecture.
The primary missions of the UPDP are to maintain peace and
order, secure and protect lives and property, enforce basic laws,
applicable Quezon City Ordinances, and University Rules and
Regulations including policies and standards; and to perform such
other functions relative
184

to the general safety and security of the students, employees, and
residents in the U.P. Diliman Campus. x x x.[148] (Emphasis
supplied)
It can be seen that the U.P. Police is employed by U.P.

primarily for campus security. They are by no means an
actual police force that is equipped to handle a full-blown
murder investigation. Fraternity-related violence in U.P.
has also increasingly become more frequent, which might
possibly have desensitized the U.P. Police in such a way
that would prevent their objectivity in the conduct of their
investigations. The victims’ reliance on the National
Bureau of Investigation, therefore, is understandable.
III
Alibi cannot prevail over the posi-
tive identification of the victim
It is settled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over
the positive identification of the victim.[149] In People v.
Benjamin Peteluna,[150] this court is stated that:
It is a time-honored principle that the positive
identification of the appellant by a witness destroys the
defense of alibi and denial. Thus:
x x x. It is well-entrenched that alibi
and denial are inherently weak and have
always been viewed with disfavor by the
courts due to the facility with which they
can be concocted. They warrant the least
credibility
_______________
[148] UP Diliman Police, <http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/up-diliman-
police/> (visited March 4, 2014).
[149] People v. Benjamin Peteluna, G.R. No. 187048, January 23, 2013,
689 SCRA 190, 197 [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
[150] G.R. No. 187048, January 23, 2013, 689 SCRA 190 [Per J. Perez,
Second Division].
185
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 185

or none at all and cannot prevail over

the positive identification of the appellant
by the prosecution witnesses. For alibi to
prosper, it is not enough to prove that
appellant was somewhere else when the
crime was committed; he must also
demonstrate that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the
scene of the crime at the time of its
commission. Unless substantiated by
clear and convincing proof, such defense is
negative, self-serving, and undeserving of
any weight in law. Denial, like alibi, as an
exonerating justification[,] is inherently
weak and if uncorroborated regresses to
blatant impotence. Like alibi, it also
constitutes self-serving negative evidence
which cannot be accorded greater
evidentiary weight than the declaration of
credible witnesses who testify on
affirmative matters.[151]
In this case, the victims were able to positively identify
their attackers while the accused-appellants merely offered
alibis and denials as their defense. The credibility of the
victims was upheld by both the trial court and the
appellate court while giving little credence to the accused-
appellants’ alibis. There is, thus, no reason to disturb their
findings.
Accused-appellants were correctly
charged with murder, and there
was treachery in the commission
of the crime
_______________
[151] Id., at p. 197, citing People v. Barde, G.R. No. 183094, September
22, 2010, 631 SCRA 187, 211 [Per J. Perez, First Division]; People v.
Estepano, 367 Phil. 209, 217-218; 307 SCRA 701, 708-709 (1999) [Per J.
Bellosillo, Second Division]; People v. Berdin, 462 Phil. 290, 304; 416
SCRA 582, 593 (2003) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc]; People v.
Francisco, 397 Phil. 973, 985; 344 SCRA 110, 120-121 (2000) [Per CJ.
Davide, Jr., En Banc].
186

According to the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised

Penal Code, the accused-appellants were correctly charged
with murder. Article 248 states:
ART. 248. Murder.—Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of
murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength,
with the aid of armed men, or employing means to
weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity;
x x x x

It is undisputed that on December 8, 1994, a group of
men armed with lead pipes and baseball bats attacked
Dennis Venturina and his companions, which resulted in
Venturina’s death.
As correctly found by the trial court and the appellate
court, the offense committed against Dennis Venturina was
committed by a group that took advantage of its superior
strength and with the aid of armed men. The appellate
court, however, incorrectly ruled out the presence of
treachery in the commission of the offense.
It has been stated previously by this court that:
[T]reachery is present when the offender commits any of the

crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in
the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.[152]
_______________
[152]People v. Gary Vergara, G.R. No. 177763, July 3, 2013, 700 SCRA
412, 423 [Per J. De Castro, First Division], citing People v.
187
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 187

Similarly, in People v. Leozar Dela Cruz,[153] this court

stated that:
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the

crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in
the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense
which the offended party might make. The essence of
treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and
in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording
the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance
to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements
must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives
the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or
retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or
consciously adopted.[154] (Emphasis supplied)
The appellate court, in affirming the conviction of the

accused-appellants, ruled that contrary to the findings of
the trial court, there was no treachery involved. In
particular, they ruled that although the attack was sudden
and unexpected, “[i]t was done in broad daylight with a lot
of people who could see them”[155] and that “there was a
possibility for
_______________
Laurio, G.R. No. 182523, September 13, 2012, 680 SCRA 560, 571-572
[Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
[153] G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 738 [Per J.
Velasco, Third Division].
[154] People v. Leozar Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010,
612 SCRA 738, 747 [Per J. Velasco, Third Division], citing People v.
Amazan, 402 Phil. 247, 270; 349 SCRA 218, 233 (2001) [Per J. Mendoza,
Second Division]; People v. Bato, 401 Phil. 415, 431; 348 SCRA 253, 260
(2000) [Per J. Pardo, First Division]; People v. Albarido, 420 Phil. 235,
252; 368 SCRA 194, 208 (2001) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third
Division], citing People v. Francisco, 389 Phil. 243, 266; 333 SCRA 725,
746 (2000) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].
[155] CA Decision, p. 59.
188

the victims to have fought back or that the people in the

canteen could have helped the victims.”[156]
This reasoning is clearly erroneous. The victims in this
case were eating lunch on campus. They were not at a place
where they would be reasonably expected to be on guard for
any sudden attack by rival fraternity men.
The victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked
with lead pipes and baseball bats. The only way they could
parry the blows was with their arms. In a situation where
they were unarmed and outnumbered, it would be
impossible for them to fight back against the attackers. The
attack also happened in less than a minute, which would
preclude any possibility of the bystanders being able to
help them until after the incident.
The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no
opportunity for the victims to retaliate or even to defend
themselves. Treachery, therefore, was present in this case.
The presence of conspiracy makes
all of the accused-appellants liable
for murder and attempted murder
In the decision of the trial court, all of the accused-
appellants were found guilty of the murder of Dennis
Venturina and the attempted murder of Mervin Natalicio,
Cesar Mangrobang, Jr., Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, and
Cristobal Gaston, Jr. The appellate court, however,
modified their liabilities and found that the accused-
appellants were guilty of attempted murder only against
Natalicio and Fortes, and not against Mangrobang,
Lachica, and Gaston.
It is the appellate court’s reasoning that because
Lachica and Mangrobang “were no longer chased by the
attackers,”[157] it concluded that accused-appellants
“voluntary desisted from
_______________
[156] Id.
[157] CA Decision, p. 61.
189
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 189

pursuing them and from inflicting harm to them, which

shows that they did not have the intent to do more than to
make them suffer pain by slightly injuring them.”[158] It
also pointed out that the wound inflicted on Gaston “was
too shallow to have been done with an intent to kill.”[159]
Thus, it concluded that the accused-appellants would have
been guilty only of slight physical injuries.
This is erroneous.
It should be remembered that the trial court found that
there was conspiracy among the accused-appellants[160]
and the appellate court sustained this finding.[161]
Conspiracy, once proven, has the effect of attaching
liability to all ofthe accused, regardless of their degree of
participation, thus:
Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of
the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of
the extent and character of their respective active
participation in the commission of the crime or crimes
perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in
contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all. The
foregoing rule is anchored on the sound principle that “when two
or more persons unite to accomplish a criminal object, whether
through the physical volition of one, or all, proceeding severally or
collectively, each individual whose evil will actively contributes to
the wrong-doing is in law responsible for the whole, the same as
though performed by himself alone.” Although it is axiomatic that
no one is liable for acts other than his own, “when two or more
persons agree or conspire to commit a crime, each is responsible
for all the acts of the others, done in furtherance of the agreement
or conspiracy.” The
_______________
[158] Id.
[159] Id.
[160] See RTC Decision, pp. 78-79.
[161] See CA Decision, pp. 22-23.
190

imposition of collective liability upon the conspirators is clearly

explained in one case where this Court held that
... it is impossible to graduate the separate
liability of each (conspirator) without taking
into consideration the close and inseparable
relation of each of them with the criminal act,
for the commission of which they all acted by
common agreement ... The crime must
therefore in view of the solidarity of the act
and intent which existed between the ...
accused, be regarded as the act of the band or
party created by them, and they are all equally
responsible.
Verily, the moment it is established that the malefactors
conspired and confederated in the commission of the
felony proved, collective liability of the accused
conspirators attaches by reason of the conspiracy, and the
court shall not speculate nor even investigate as to the
actual degree of participation of each of the perpetrators
present at the scene of the crime. x x x.[162] (Emphasis
supplied)

The liabilities of the accused-appellants in this case
arose from a single incident wherein the accused-
appellants were armed with baseball bats and lead pipes,
all in agreement to do the highest amount of damage
possible to the victims. Some were able to run away and
take cover, but the others would fall prey at the hands of
their attackers. The intent to kill was already present at
the moment of attack and that intent was shared by all of
the accused-appellants alike when
_______________
[162] People v. Peralta, et al., 134 Phil. 703; 25 SCRA 759 (1968) [Per
Curiam, En Banc], citing U.S. v. Ramos, 2 Phil. 434 (1903) [Per J.
Willard, En Banc]; U.S. v. Maza, 5 Phil. 346 (1905) [Per J. Johnson, En
Banc]; U.S. v. Grant and Kennedy, 18 Phil. 122 (1910) [Per J. Trent, En
Banc]; U.S. v. Ipil, 27 Phil. 530 (1914) [Per J. Johnson, En Banc]; U.S. v.
Synder, 3 McCrary, 377; People v. Bannaisan, 49 Phil. 423 (1926) [Per J.
Villa-Real, En Banc]; U.S. v. Bundal, et al., 3 Phil. 89 (1903) [Per J.
Torres, En Banc].
191
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 191

the presence of conspiracy was proven. It is, therefore,

immaterial to distinguish between the seriousness of the
injuries suffered by the victims to determine the respective
liabilities of their attackers. What is relevant is only as to
whether the death occurs as a result of that intent to kill
and whether there are qualifying, aggravating or
mitigating circumstances that can be appreciated.
The appellate court, therefore, erred in finding the
accused-appellants guilty only of slight physical injuries. It
would be illogical to presume that despite the swiftness
and suddenness of the attack, the attackers intended to kill
only Venturina, Natalicio, and Fortes, and only intended to
injure Lachica, Mangrobang, and Gaston. Since the intent
to kill was evident from the moment the accused-appellants
took their first swing, all of them were liable for that intent
to kill.
For this reason, the accused-appellants should be liable
for the murder of Dennis Venturina and the attempted
murder of Mervin Natalicio, Cesar Mangrobang, Jr.,
Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, and Cristobal Gaston, Jr.
A Final Note
It is not only the loss of one promising young life; rather,
it is also the effect on the five other lives whose once bright
futures are now put in jeopardy because of one senseless
act of bravado. There is now more honor for them to accept
their responsibility and serve the consequences of their
actions. There is, however, nothing that they can do to
bring back Dennis Venturina or fully compensate for his
senseless and painful loss.
This is not the first fraternity-related case to come to
this court; neither will it be the last. Perhaps this case and
many cases like it can empower those who have a better
view of masculinity: one which valorizes courage, sacrifice
and honor in more life-saving pursuits.
192

“Giting at dangal” are words of the anthem of the

University of the Philippines. It colors the stories of many
who choose to expend their energy in order that our people
will have better lives. Fraternity rumbles are an anathema,
an immature and useless expenditure of testosterone. It
fosters a culture that retards manhood. It is devoid of
“giting at dangal.”
This kind of shameful violence must stop.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in
C.A.-G.R. CR No. 01158 dated November 26, 2010 is
AFFIRMED insofar as the accused-appellants Danilo
Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor Medalla, Christopher Soliva,
Warren L. Zingapan, and Robert Michael Beltran Alvir are
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder in
Criminal Case No. Q95-61133 with the MODIFICATION
that they be found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Attempted Murder in Criminal Case Nos. Q95-61136, Q95-
61135, Q95-61134, Q95-61138, and Q95-61137.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno** (CJ.) and Del Castillo,*** JJ., concur.

Peralta, J.,**** I join the dissent of J. Abad.
Abad, J., See Dissenting Opinion.
_______________
** Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno was designated as acting
member of the Third Division, vice Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco,
Jr., per Raffle dated February 1, 2012.
*** Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo was designated as acting
member of the Third Division, vice Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza
who penned the lower court decision, per Raffle dated April 29, 2014.
**** Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta was designated as Acting
Chairperson of the Third Division, vice Associate Justice Presbitero J.
Velasco, Jr. recused himself due to close relation to one of the parties.
193
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 193

DISSENTING OPINION
ABAD, J.:
I strongly dissent from the majority Decision.
The incident in this case was an offshoot of a campus
war between members of two fraternities at the University
of the Philippines (UP) where one group, allegedly masked,
surprised and beat up the other, resulting in injuries to
some and death to one.
Alleging conspiracy, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City
filed an information for murder, two informations for
frustrated murder, and three informations for attempted
murder against 12 accused, belonging to the Scintilla Juris
Fraternity, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City in Criminal Cases Q95-61133 to 38 with no
bail recommended. Only 11 of the accused were tried,
however, since accused Benedict Guerrero remained at
large.
The Facts and Case
The evidence for the prosecution shows that seven
Sigma Rho Fraternity members were taking lunch at the
Beach House Canteen inside the UP campus in Diliman,
Quezon City, between 12:30 and 1:00 p.m. on December 8,
1994 when about 15 men, carrying baseball bats or lead
pipes, with some wearing masks, swooped down upon
them. SR Dennis Venturina shouted an alarm, “Brods!
Brods!” His brods scampered away but the attackers got to
some of them. (To avoid confusion, SR or SJ is affixed
before the names of those involved to distinguish members
of the Sigma Rho Fraternity from members of the Scintilla
Juris Fraternity.)
SR Leandro Lachica, his fraternity’s Grand Archon,
testified that the attackers all wore improvised masks of
cloth or t-shirts. Five of them went after SR Lachica,
hitting him on the back and forearms as he parried the
blows. In the course of
194

that attack, the mask of one of them, SJ Robert Michael

Beltran Alvir, with whom he was familiar, fell off. SR
Lachica got away from those who were beating him but he
looked back while running and saw SJ Warren Zingapan
and Julius Victor Medalla, two of the attackers, no longer
wearing masks. The attack lasted for about 30 to 45
seconds.[1]
SR Mervin Natalicio, a 4th year law student and Vice-
Grand Archon of his fraternity, testified that while most of
the attackers running towards their group wore masks, one
of them, SJ Medalla, wore none. Natalicio tried to scamper
away but he tripped on a tree root and fell. About 10
attackers, including SJ Zingapan and Christopher Soliva
who also wore no masks, bludgeoned him on the back,
arms, left shoulder, hips, toes, and right hand.[2]
After his initial attackers left SR Natalicio, a group of
four or five others led by SJ Benedict Guerrero, took over
and beat him up, too. A third group came and also mauled
him on the left side of his body. When Natalicio was so hurt
he could no longer move, some people brought him to the
UP Infirmary where they treated his injuries.[3]
SR Natalicio later went to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), gave his statement, and submitted
himself to medico-legal examination. He said that Scintilla
Juris members attacked them as an offshoot of an August
1994 rumble despite a signed truce.[4]
SR Cesar Mangrobang testified that after SR Venturina
sounded the alarm, he saw a group of men, some with cloth
masks, approach with lead pipes and clubs. As he received
a blow on his back, he tried to run but two masked men
blocked his way and repeatedly beat him up. When their
masks fell
_______________
[1] TSN, June 5, 1995, pp. 11-14.
[2] TSN, July 3, 1995, pp. 6-16.
[3] Id., at pp. 17-19.
[4] Id., at pp. 20-23.
195
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 195

off, the two turned out to be SJ Gilbert Magpantay and

Carlo Fajardo.[]
SR Mangrobang succeeded in running away until he
reached the corner of the Main Library. On glancing back,
he saw no one after him. He then decided to return to the
scene of the commotion where he saw from three to four
meters away SJ Danilo Feliciano, Jr. and Raymund Narag
hitting SR Venturina with lead pipes. SJ Feliciano’s cloth
mask had fallen off. SR Mangrobang also saw SJ Reynaldo
Ablanida wielding a lead pipe while running.[6]
SJ Narag and Feliciano were about to turn on SR
Mangrobang when somebody shouted, “Pulis! Takbo!
Takbo!” prompting the two to run in the direction of the
Main Library. SR Mangrobang and others helped carry SR
Venturina into a passenger jeepney to bring him to the
Infirmary.[7]
SR Cristobal Gaston, Jr. testified that, of the men who
came, two attacked him: the first with a lead pipe, hitting
him on the arms and hands as he tried to cover his head,
while the second stabbed him on the left chest and forearm.
The two wore masks. SR Gaston got away and ran towards
Palma Hall but, as he looked back, he saw SJ Zingapan,
Feliciano and George Morano at the scene.[8] SR Gaston
went to confer with his fraternity brothers at the College of
Law building. Later that evening, they met with their
alumni brothers.[9]
SR Arnel Fortes testified that some of the men who
attacked them wore masks but some did not. He saw SJ
Feliciano, whom he recognized despite a cloth mask, and
SJ Medalla who wore none. SR Fortes managed to run
away but, as he looked back, he saw SJ Zingapan and
Morano, who also wore no masks, running after him. They
hit him on the back,
_______________
[5] TSN, September 28, 1995, pp. 14-19.
[6] Id., at pp. 20-30.
[7] Id., at pp. 28-34.
[8] TSN, October 11, 1995, pp. 17-38.
[9] Id., at pp. 44-46.
196
causing him to fall. He stood up and tried to run again but

a group of 10 men attacked him for five to eight seconds,
hitting his head five to seven times. They also hit him on
the legs. He did not recognize any of his attackers. But,
standing up again after the second attack, SR Fortes saw
SJ Feliciano beating up SR Venturina. SJ Feliciano’s mask
fell off in the process.[10]
Dr. Rolando Victoria described the injuries that SR
Venturina suffered.[11] Dr. Aurea Villena, on the other
hand, testified on the results of her medical examinations
of SR Natalicio, Fortes, Mangrobang, Lachica, and Gaston
four days after the mauling incident.[12]
Emmanuel Batungbakal testified that he saw a group of
men board three cars that had no plate numbers. The cars
sped past the back of the law library. SJ Feliciano was one
of those on board. Batungbakal did not, however, witness
the reported incident that followed.[13]
Ernesto Paolo Tan testified that he was at the Beach
House Canteen during the incident. He saw three separate
groups of men, some of whom wore masks, attack SR
Natalicio. After the attackers left, he helped Natalicio
board a service vehicle.[14]
Dennis Gaio testified that he was having lunch outside
the canteen when three of the attackers came from the Arts
and Science Building followed by 10 more from the College
of Law. Some wore masks but the others did not. They
attacked the group that was having lunch, including SR
Venturina. He tried to help the latter after he had fallen
but one of the attackers stopped him. Gaio had two women
companions but he
_______________
[10] TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 42-63.
[11] TSN, July 24, 1995, pp. 11-24.
[12] TSN, July 31, 1995, pp. 9-10.
[13] TSN, November 6, 1995, pp. 33-39, 61-62.
[14] TSN, September 3, 1996, pp. 16-17, 24-54.
197
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 197

told them to run towards the sunken garden when he
sensed the arrival of the masked men.[15]
The defense presented 42 witnesses. To prove its claim
that the identities of the attackers were unrecognizable
because of their masks, the defense presented, among
others, Benito Lato and Frisco Capilo, both utility workers
at UP and some student customers at the canteen. Lato
recalled that he was collecting plates at the canteen when
the attackers came. But he was unable to recognize them
because they wore masks and he could see only their eyes.
[16] Capilo, on the other hand, testified that he was on his
way to the Main Library to work when several men, all
wearing masks and carrying lead pipes, rushed towards the
canteen and attacked some who were eating there.[17]
Daniel Mabazza testified that he was on his way out of
the canteen when 15 men arrived from the South wing of
the Main Library and attacked some customers who were
eating at the tables. He testified further that he was about
3 to 5 meters from where SR Venturina was attacked but
he could not identify any of the attackers because they
were all wearing masks and none of these fell off during
the attack.[18]
Alpha Sigma Nu Sorority members, Eda Pangilinan,
Luz Perez, and Bathalani Tiamson testified that they were
unable to identify the attackers because they all wore
masks. Pangilinan and Tiamson insisted that they did not
see any of the attackers’ masks fall off.[19]
UP police officer Romeo Cabrera testified that he and
fellow officer, Oscar Salvador, were at the Arts and Science
Building when they responded to reports that a rumble was
taking place at the back of the Main Library. On arrival at
_______________
[15] TSN, April 3, 1997, pp. 10-22.
[16] TSN, November 27, 1995, pp. 10-12.
[17] TSN, December 4, 1995, p. 13.
[18] TSN, September 17, 1997, pp. 7-16.
198

the Beach House Canteen, they saw the wounded SR

Natalicio with some companions. They put him on board a
jeepney and brought him to the UP Infirmary with his
companions. On the way, Cabrera asked SR Natalicio who
attacked his group. He replied that he did not recognize
any of them because they wore masks. Cabrera asked SR
Natalicio the same question after he had received
treatment. SR Natalicio gave the same answer. Cabrera
could not interrogate SR Venturina because the latter
suffered serious injuries.[20]
UP police officer Salvador testified that when he and
Cabrera responded to reports of commotion, they noticed a
mauling victim, SR Natalicio, surrounded by some people.
Salvador asked some of the bystanders who the culprits
were. They said they did not recognize them since they
were wearing mass.[21]
The police officers brought SR Natalicio and his three
companions to the Infirmary using the canteen’s jeepney.
On the way, Cabrera asked SR Natalicio and the others
with him who attacked them. They replied that they could
not tell since the men wore masks. Salvador saw SR
Venturina and Gaston being treated at the Infirmary. After
SR Natalicio was treated, Cabrera asked him again if he
recognized the men who hit him. Natalicio replied that he
did not because they wore masks. When asked how many
hit him, Natalicio said that he could not tell because he had
his back on them.[22]
SJ Feliciano testified that he was in Pampanga on
December 8, 1994, visiting his grandfather whom he
thought had undergone surgery of the prostate gland.[23]
His mother, Feliciana, and an elementary school teacher,
Rogelio Yumul, corroborated his testimony. Yumul testified
that he was on his
_______________
[20] TSN, November 13, 1995, pp. 22-53.
[21] TSN, November 20, 1995, pp. 15-22.
[22] Id., at pp. 22-40.
[23] TSN, February 17, 1999, pp. 8-9.
199
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 199

way to the principal’s office at around noon of December 8

when he saw Feliciano seated at a waiting shed.[24]
SJ Alvir testified that he had been ill since December 5.
Consequently, he neither reported for work nor went to UP
on December 8.[25]
SJ Medalla testified that on the day in question he was
with his classmate Michael Vibas working on a school
project. He claimed that he could not have taken part in
the rumble since he suffered from an August 1994 head
injury that affected his balance.[26] Jose Victor Santos
testified that he and Medalla played darts after lunch on
December 8 and they later went to Jollibee since Medalla
had to treat him after losing the game.[27] Dr. Gerardo
Legaspi corroborated Medalla’s testimony regarding his
previous head injuries.[28]
SJ Soliva testified that he was having lunch with his
girlfriend and her lady friend at Jollibee Philcoa when the
incident took place. They returned to UP at around 1:00
p.m. Soliva went straight to his “tambayan” where he
learned of the rumble at the main library.[29] Anna
Cabahug, Soliva’s girlfriend, corroborated his testimony.[30]
SJ Zingapan testified that he could not have taken part
in the incident at UP since he was at that time having
lunch with Teodoro Canay in Kamuning, Quezon City.
From there, he went to the SM City mall at around 1:00
p.m. to buy an electric thermos as a wedding gift for a town
mate. He was on his way out of the mall when he chanced
upon two of his “brods.”[31]
_______________
[24] TSN, November 12, 1997, pp. 7-10.
[25] TSN, February 2, 2000, pp. 9-16.
[26] TSN, September 22, 1999, pp. 4-21.
[27] TSN, August 11, 1999, pp. 7-12.
[28] TSN, September 15, 1999, pp. 10-25.
[29] TSN, June 16, 1999, pp. 12-21.
[30] TSN, November 23, 1998, pp. 5-27.
[31] TSN, May 12, 1999, pp. 7-18.
200

The RTC absolved SJ Rodolfo Peñalosa on a demurrer to

evidence since none of the prosecution witnesses testified
that he had taken part in the attack.
On February 28, 2002 the RTC rendered judgment[32]
finding SJ Alvir, Feliciano, Soliva, Medalla, and Zingapan
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of murder and
four counts of attempted murder. The comi gave credence
to the testimonies of the victims who identified their
attackers. It thought little of the failure of some of the
victims to name them when asked by the UP police officers
and the physicians at the Infirmary. It did not agree that
the victims’ delayed identification of their attackers tainted
their testimonies. The RTC held that the accused conspired
in the commission of the crimes charged. But it acquitted
SJ Ablanida, Fajardo, Magpantay, Morano, and Narag for
failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), Special First
Division of Five,[33] with one Justice dissenting, affirmed
the RTC Decision and found SJ Alvir, Feliciano, Soliva,
Medalla, and Zingapan guilty of three counts of slight
physical injuries in Criminal Cases Q95-61136, Q95-61135,
and Q95-61134; two counts of attempted murder in
Criminal Cases Q95-61138 and Q95-61137; and one count
of murder in Criminal Case Q95-61133. The CA imposed on
the accused the penalties that corresponded to the offenses
and ordered them to pay various civil indemnities to the
victims or, in the case of SR Venturina, to his heirs.
The CA ruled that the witnesses’ positive identification
of SJ Alvir, Feliciano, Soliva, Medalla, and Zingapan
prevailed
_______________
[32] Penned by Hon. Jose Catral Mendoza, now a member of the Court.
[33] The cases were re-raffled many times after several Court of
Appeals justices inhibited themselves, claiming close relation with a
party, a counsel, or a fraternity involved in the case. See: Court of Appeals
Decision, pp. 26-27.
201
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 201

over the latter’s defenses and alibis. It regarded the

inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses as
trivial and did not tarnish their credibility. The CA held
that the delay in the identification of the accused had been
explained: SR Natalicio and Fortes needed medical
attention; the others with them wanted to come together
when they filed their complaints.
The CA explained that it characterized the crimes
charged in Criminal Cases Q95-61136, Q95-61135, and
Q95-61134 as mere slight physical injuries since the intent
to kill was not evident, given that none of the accused
chased them. SR Gaston, said the CA, suffered only a
lacerated wound near his breast, precluding an attempt on
his life.
The Issue Presented
The central issue in this case is whether or not the CA
erred, like the RTC, in not rejecting the victims’
identification of their assailants as mere fabrications to go
around the fact that the latter wore masks and in thus not
absolving the accused of the charges.
In every criminal action, the prosecution has to establish
the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, by proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, its first duty is to prove
the identity of the offender for, even if the commission of
the offense can be established, no conviction can take place
without proof of his identity beyond reasonable doubt.[34]
True, alibi is a weak defense in the face of positive
testimonies of prosecution witnesses that the accused
committed
_______________
[34] People v. Pineda, 473 Phil. 517, 548; 429 SCRA 478, 504 (2004);
People v. Esmale, 313 Phil. 471, 492; 243 SCRA 578, 592 (1995), citing
Tuason v. Court of Appeals, 311 Phil. 813, 817; 241 SCRA 695, 697 (1995).
202

the crime. But such testimonies must be credible and must

come from credible witnesses.[35]
Several circumstances militate against the mauling
victims’ testimonies that they were able to identify their
attackers:
1. SR Lachica, one of the victims, himself testified that
the men he saw coming to attack his group, at least 10 in
number, all wore masks. He said:
Q: When one of your brod you heard shouted “Brods,” what did you do?
A: I stood up and I was alarmed. I stood up and looked back and from my
side, I saw at least ten (10) armed men and masked men.
Q: You said armed men, you saw armed men when you looked back. With
what were they armed with?
A: They were armed with lead pipes and baseball bats.
Q: You also mentioned that these men were wearing masks. What kind
of masks?
A: They were wearing handkerchiefs, piece of clothes, and some t-shirts.
[36]

SR Lachica also said that, as five of the attackers beat
him up on the back, he covered his head with his forearms.
[37] Consequently, it was not likely that, as he would claim,
he saw SJ Alvir’s mask fall off his face.
SR Lachica also testified that as he ran away from his
assailants, he looked back running and was able to place
the accused SJ Zingapan and Medalla at the scene.[38] But,
consid-
_______________
[35] People v. Mansueto, 391 Phil. 611, 633; 336 SCRA 715, 724 (2000);
People v. Crispin, 383 Phil. 919, 932; 327 SCRA 167, 179 (2000).
[36] TSN, June 5, 1995, p. 11.
[37] Id., at p. 29.
[38] Id., at p. 13.
203
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 203

ering that SR Lachica was trying to get away from the men
who were beating him up, it was not likely, having
succeeded in sprinting away, that he would look back and
risk slowing down his escape. He did not even claim that
SJ Zingapan and Medalla were among those who attacked
him. He appears to have just made up the statement to get
on record evidence that the two were part of the attackers.
2. SR Natalicio testified that the men who attacked
them mostly wore masks but SJ Medalla who led those
men wore no mask.[201] This is not easy to believe since SR
Lachica, the other prosecution witness, testified that the
attackers all wore masks but when he looked back while
getting away, he saw SJ Medalla already without a mask,
implying that the latter lost it, thus belying SR Natalicio’s
testimony that SJ Medalla wore no mask from the start.
SR Natalicio testified that while parrying his attackers’
blows, he saw SJ Zingapan and Soliva.[202] These two must
be near each other since he saw them at glance. But,
contradicting SR Natalicio, SR Gaston also saw SJ
Zingapan, not with Soliva but with Morano.[203]
3. The RTC itself gave no credence to SR Mangrobang’s
testimony and for this reason acquitted SJ Magpantay and
Fajardo, two of his attackers whose masks supposedly fell
off. The trial court also acquitted SJ Narag, whom SR
Mangrobang said he saw, when he returned to the scene of
the commotion, hitting SR Venturina with the aid of SJ
Feliciano. It is quite unbelievable that having narrowly
escaped his attackers, SR Mangrobang would go back while
the mauling was still in progress. Finally, the trial court
acquitted SJ Ablanida whom SR Mangrobang said he saw
wielding a lead pipe while running because it simply could
not believe this witness.
_______________
[39] TSN, July 3, 1995, p. 9.
[40] Id., at pp. 14-16.
[41] TSN, October 11, 1995, p. 143.
204

4. After SR Lachica and Natalicio, the third witness to

use the look-back proposition was SR Gaston. He testified
that one of two masked men tried to bludgeon him on the
head as the other lunged at him with a knife, wounding his
chest and forearm. As SR Gaston ran and escaped from
those two men, he managed to look back just to place SJ
Zingapan and Morano at the scene of the mauling.
The trial court itself found something terribly wrong
with SR Gaston’s testimonies. It said:
In this regard, Gaston related a hazy story. At one point, he

said that he saw Zingapan and Morano at the same place but not
at the same time explaining that the former was there first and
when he moved, the latter stood in the same place. Later, he said
that both were there at the same time. Granting arguendo that
Morano was moving, his story does not entirely jibe with that of
Fortes.[42]

5. SR Fortes was the fourth witness to foist the same
look-back proposition. He ran away after seeing about 15
men, armed with lead pipes and clubs, coming to attack his
group. But he looked back while on the run to see SJ
Zingapan and Morano, who supposedly had no masks, right
behind him. They hit him on the back, causing him to fall.
As he stood up and tried to run again, a group of 10 men
attacked him for five to eight seconds. He recognized none
of them. But, standing up again after the second attack, he
supposedly saw SJ Feliciano whose mask fell off while
beating up SR Venturina.
Just what are the chances that four out of five witnesses
who were fleeing and, indeed, running for their lives would
just look back, risk stumbling and crashing down, to put in
evidence the identities of some of those whom the RTC and
the CA convicted? Very little. It appears a convenient
excuse
_______________
205
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 205

for providing evidence where none existed. The

circumstances of the separate identifications, taking place
in split seconds, defy belief. What baffles me is the fact
that the trial court acquitted SJ Morano whom SR Fortes
and Gaston identified while looking back on the run but
convicted SJ Zingapan, Soliva, and Medalla who were also
targets of look-back testimonies.
The trial court had reason to further doubt SR Fortes’
testimonies. It said:
By the way, the Court has not ignored the testimony of

Arnel Fortes that Morano repeatedly struck him with a
lead pipe. It was, however, given during the rebuttal stage.
When he sat at the witness stand for the first time, he said
nothing of that sort. He could have been saying the truth
and that what he related was not an afterthought but still
the cloud of doubt remains. As there still that haziness, the
barrier remains uncleared.[43]
6. Emmanuel Batungbakal of course testified that he

saw three plateless cars rush out towards the Main
Library[44] with SJ Feliciano on board one car. But this
testimony is inconclusive since Batungbakal admitted on
cross-examination that he was not sure it was SJ Feliciano
he saw. Besides, as pointed out above, no credible
testimony supports the view that SJ Feliciano in fact took
part in the mauling.
The trial court acquitted some of the accused after
rejecting the testimonies of SR Mangrobang who fingered
SJ Feliciano as well. On the other hand, although SR
Gaston did not mention SJ Feliciano on direct testimony,
he brought up his name only on cross, a catch-up kind of
testimony that the trial court rejected in SJ Morano’s case.
SR Fortes, the final witness against SJ Feliciano, said an
uncanny thing: two groups of attackers had just
bludgeoned him one after the other, yet SR
_______________
[43] Id.
[44] TSN, November 6, 1995, pp. 31, 33.
206

Fortes claimed that he still managed to stand up in time to

observe SJ Feliciano attacking SR Venturina.
7. Notably, the two sides gave conflicting testimonies
regarding the victims’ opportunity to identify their
attackers. The prosecution witnesses claim that some of the
attackers could be identified because they wore no masks
or their masks fell off. The defense witnesses testified that
all the attackers wore masks and none of these fell off.
Since identification of the attackers is the key issue, the
Court has to consider which witnesses and stories appear
to be more credible.
I am impressed with the testimony of UP police officer
Salvador, who had served the UP’s police force for 18 years
and had no motive to fabricate or lie. He testified that
when he and fellow officer Cabrera arrived at the scene of
the mauling, he asked the bystanders the identities of the
assailants. The bystanders replied that they were unable to
identify the attackers because they wore masks. Salvador
testified:
Q: Upon being informed by the blue guard that there was a rumble
near the Beach House canteen, tell the Court what did you and
Cabrera do?
A: We rushed to the place where the incident took place, sir.
Q: And upon reaching the area of the Beach House Canteen, what did you
notice?
A: I noticed one victim together with some people, sir, and I asked some
of the bystanders if they saw what happened and they said they did
not recognize the attackers because they were wearing mask.[45]

The statement of the bystanders, made while some of
the wounded were bleeding there and the excitement
lingered, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae.
Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence provides:
_______________
[45] TSN, November 20, 1995, pp. 19-20.
207
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 207

Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae.—Statements made by a person

while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior
or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof,
may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. x x x
These statements are spontaneous reactions inspired by

the excitement of the moment. It may be assumed that,
unlike tardy witnesses, the bystanders who made the
statements had no opportunity to deliberate or fabricate.
The words they uttered are part of the commotion they
described.[46] The res gestae contradicts the attempt of
prosecution witnesses to show that a number of the
attackers wore masks or that identification was possible
because the masks of some fell off.
In fact, Luz Perez, a 3rd year Interior Design student,
then lining up to get food at the Beach House Canteen,
testified like many others that she was unable to identify
the attackers because they all wore masks. She said:
Q. How many masked men did you see Miss Perez?
A. There were about ten to fifteen masked men.
x x x x
ATTY. W. CHUA
Q. And can you identify any of the attackers that you saw?
WITNESS
A. No, I cannot.
Q. Why can you not identify them?
A. Because they were wearing masks.[47]
8. In the same way, while the startling incident and

the pains it caused still occupied their minds, SR Natalicio
and
_______________
[46] 2 Jones, Sec. 10:1, 6th Edition.
[47] TSN, December 11, 1995, pp. 80, 85.
208

his three companions admitted to the two UP police officers

investigating the mauling incident that they could not
identify their attackers because the latter wore masks. UP
police officer Cabrera testified:
Q On you way to the Infirmary, please tell the court
if anything had transpired.
A I asked Marvin Natalicio of his names, sir.
Q What else did you ask him, if any?
A I asked him who hit him, sir.
Q What did he say?
A He told me he did not recognize any of them because they were
wearing masks, sir.
Q What about his companions who were with you in this vehicle, did
you not ask them?
A They answered the same thing, they did not recognize any of them,
sir.
x x x x
Q Now, upon arriving at the Infirmary, please tell the Court what
transpired?
A At the Infirmary, there were two (2) other persons who were also
injured, Sir.
Q Please tell the court what you did at the U.P. Infirmary?
A I asked Marvin again if he recognized the two (2) other persons who
hit him and he answered the same thing as what I have asked him
when we were at the vehicle, Sir.[48]

Notably, as SR Fortes testified, it was “SOP” for all
fratmen to familiarize themselves with the faces and
names of the members of other fraternities.[49] This being
the case, there was no reason for SR Natalicio and his
companions, all frat-
_______________
[48] TSN, November 13, 1995, pp. 37-40.
[49] TSN, October 30, 1995, p. 12.
209
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 209

men, not to promptly name the attackers from the rival

fraternity when first queried by the police officers.
9. Besides, Dr. Carmen Mislang, a physician who had
been serving at the UP Infirmary for 20 years, also testified
that when asked, SR Natalicio and his companions told her
that they could not identify their attackers because the
latter were masked.[212] Dr. Mislang in fact included this
information in her medical report. She thus testified:
Q You said doctor, in this history of present illness, marked as Exhibit 9-
a-2=zingapan, that I quote:
“x x x he was allegedly hit by a lead pipe during the rumble by
unknown assailants.” What was the basis of your statement here?
A He told us, the group because they came with friends, they alleged
that he was hit by a group of people masked by a lead pipe. I asked if
they know the assailants and they said no because they are masked.
Q You said he, to whom are you referring to?
A The patient and their friends around because there are also
commotion in the emergency room, sir.
Q Are you referring to the patient by the name of Mervin Natalicio?
A Yes, sir.[51]

SR Natalicio of course denied having said that he could
not identify their assailants when the police officers and
the doctor asked him and his companions about it. But
between the latter, on the one hand, and those officers and
the doctor, on the other, the Court should have been more
inclined to believe the latter.
Indeed, there is no evidence that SR Natalicio, Lachica,
Fortes, Gaston, Mangrobang, and Tumaneng, who survived
_______________
[50] TSN, September 16, 1998, pp. 20-21.
[51] Id.
210

the mauling, gave statements shortly after the incident

either to the UP police officers or the Quezon City police
which had primary jurisdiction over the crimes. They took
four days mulling over it before going to the NBI to name
their assailants.
10. SR Natalicio of course gave a different version of
his interview with the UP police officers. When they asked
him who their assailants were, he said that he requested
them to come back as he was not feeling well.[52] There is
testimony that two of his Sigma Rho brothers conferred
with him to discuss what happened and their strategy for
getting back at those whom they believed were responsible.
Further to this, SR Lachica[53] and Gaston[54] testified that
they met with their alumni brothers that evening. SR
Natalicio said that when the police officers came back to
ask him the identities of the attackers, a senior fraternity
brother-lawyer was present and he told the police officers
that the statements would be given to the NBI and they
would just be furnished copies.[55]
This is ludicrous. The right to silence is given to persons
under suspicion for committing some crimes, not to the
victims whose duty is to promptly assist the police
investigators in pinpointing criminal responsibilities. No
evidence has been presented to show that the UP police
force was partial to the opposing fraternity. I am thus
unable to blame the accused for believing that the only
possible reason in this case for withholding information
from the police from day one was that the victims and their
counsel had yet to put their acts together.
11. The supposed identification of the accused came
four days later at the NBI office in Manila. Admittedly, the
victims and their brods waited for everyone to be ready
before they
_______________
[52] TSN, July 12, 1995, p. 3.
[53] TSN, June 5, 1995, p. 15.
[54] TSN, October 11, 1995, pp. 46, 148-149.
[55] TSN, February 7, 2001, p. 31.
211
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 211

came as a group to give their statements at the NBI office.

The excuse that SR Natalicio and Fortes needed medical
attention and that the others with them wanted to come
together when they filed their complaints at the NBI is not
a valid excuse. Since they claim that they were terribly
aggrieved and that one of them lost his life, the natural
thing was for them to demand immediate justice and action
from the police or the NBI on the afternoon of December 8,
1994.
12. The prosecution witnesses testified that the masks
of five of the accused just fell off to reveal who they were.
These were (a) SJ Alvir per SR Lachica’s testimony;[56] (b)
SJ Zingapan; and (c) SJ Medalla also per SR Lachica’s
testimony that the two were not wearing masks when he
looked back and saw them,[57] implying that they had
masks at the beginning of the attack; (d) SJ Magpantay;
and (e) SJ Fajardo per SR Mangrobang’s testimony that the
masks of these two fell off.[58] SR Fortes also testified that
he saw SJ Feliciano’s mask fell off as he was hitting SR
Venturina.[59]
Just what are the chances that the masks of five out of
12 accused just fell off during the mauling? Quite little or
nil since it was not actually a fraternity rumble where the
protagonists hit each other creating the possibility that any
mask they were wearing could fall off. Here, the victims
testified that they bore the punishment and were unable to
fight back since their attackers were numerous and carried
lead pipes and clubs. Indeed, none of the victims testified
that his action in protecting his head resulted in the
unmasking of one or some of his attackers. Evidently, the
attackers deliberately wore masks to hide their identities.
It made no sense for them to wear masks that would just
fall off when one sneezes.
_______________
[56] TSN, June 5, 1995, p. 12.
[57] Id., at p. 13.
[58] TSN, September 28, 1995, pp. 17-18.
[59] TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 62-63.

212

Those who swing bats to strike at objects before them

rarely hit their own faces. Only in funny movies like The
Three Stooges can that happen. What are the chances that
a mask would just fall off from the face of the person
wearing it? Construction and industrial laborers doing
strenuous work wear mask all day long to protect
themselves from dusts, chemicals, or fumes. Food
processing workers wear them at work to prevent food
contamination. They are not likely to be heard experiencing
unpredictable falling off of masks taking place in great
number. Here, if the prosecution were to be believed, five
out of just 12 accused lost their masks in only 30 to 45
seconds. The odds of this happening are unbelievable.
Indeed, prosecution witness Gaio himself who was at the
scene of the commotion testified that he did not see any of
the attackers losing their masks at any point in time. He
said:
ATTY. CHUA:
Q: At any point in time, did you see any mask pulling [sic] off?
WITNESS:
A: I did not see anything, sir.[60]
Gaio also belied SR Fortes’ testimony that SJ Feliciano’s mask fell off
while he was hitting SR Venturina. Gaio said:
Q: Mr. Dennis Venturina was hit and fell down, was the person who hit
Dennis wearing mask?
A: Their faces were covered, sir.
Q: All of them?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: There is no way to recognize them?
A: None, sir.[61]
_______________
[60] TSN, April 3, 1997, pp. 48-49.
[61] Id., at p. 49.
213
VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 213

While the attack by masked men is doubly condemnable,

not only for the treachery involved but also for the
cowardice and deception that came with it, the Court
cannot hastily send to prison those charged with these
crimes without proof beyond reasonable doubt that they
committed them. The Constitution ordains this.
In a case like this, where the identities and
participations of the several accused involved are difficult
to prove, the ideal solution is to convince the least guilty of
them, the one who showed the most reluctance and
delivered the lightest blows, to turn state witness. I am
unable to say if efforts in this direction were taken by the
NBI or the prosecutors to ensure that they had a good case.
I condemn the senseless death of SR Venturina and
commiserates with the sufferings of his family. Fraternity
wars, many of them cruel and barbaric, are the scourge of
many campuses. New recruits are romanticized with the
mystery, pride, and drama of brotherhood or kinship with
senior members of great reputation. This of course invites
envy and annoyance from other brotherhoods for none is
greater or more courageous than one’s own. They thus test
each other’s unity, capability, and resolve, destroying each
other, and subordinating the real purpose of their being in
school. They forget that true brotherhood comes from
mutual kindness and respect.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the petition,
REVERSE AND SET ASIDE the judgment of conviction
of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Cases Q95-61133 to
38 dated February 28, 2002, and ACQUIT the accused-
appellants Robert Michael Beltran Alvir, Danilo A.
Feliciano, Jr., Christopher L. Saliva, Julius Victor L.
Medalla, and Warren L. Zingapan on ground of reasonable
doubt.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
214

Notes.—While a startling event does not elicit a

standard form of human behavioral response, experience
shows that it oftentimes creates an indelible impression in
the mind that can be recalled vividly. (Diamante vs. People,
598 SCRA 500 [2009])
The rule of res gestae applies when the declarant himself
did not testify. (Flores vs. People, 602 SCRA 611 [2009])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

G.R. No. 196735. May 5, 2014.: - Third Division

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 196735. May 5, 2014.: - Third Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 196735. May 5, 2014.*

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Prosecution of Offenses;

VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 149

People vs. Feliciano, Jr.

probable cause, an information is filed by the prosecutor against

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Feliciano, Jr.

were being charged with the crime of murder, frustrated murder,

VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 151

People vs. Feliciano, Jr.

event that he or she survives, the criminal could be apprehended.

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Feliciano, Jr.

appellate court while giving little credence to the accused-

VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 153

People vs. Feliciano, Jr.

out taking into consideration the close and inseparable relation of

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Feliciano, Jr.

existed. The circumstances of the separate identifications, taking

VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 155

People vs. Feliciano, Jr.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

This has resulted in a senseless death whose justice is now

That on or about the 8th day of December 1994, in Quezon City,

VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 157

names, identities and whereabouts have not as yet been

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Diliman, Quezon City.[8] Suddenly, Dennis Venturina

He saw about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) men, most of who

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gilbert Merle Magpantay and Carlo Jolette Fajardo

VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 161

of the attackers approached him.[48] One struck him with a

162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tion that members of Scintilla Juris were seen in the west

VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 163

generalized hematoma on the skull,”[71] “several fractures

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

(1) to nine (9) days of medical attention.”[82] He found on

VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 165

Benjamin Lato,[88] a utility worker of the Beach House

166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

was being beaten up by about three (3) to five (5) masked

VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 167

U.P. before 1:00 p.m. and went straight to their fraternity

After a judicious evaluation of the matter, the Court is of the

168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the pandemonium, the beleaguered victims were able to espy and

VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 169

On December 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in a

It is the argument of appellants that the information

170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.

A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of

In People v. Wilson Lab-eo,[113] this court has stated

The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a

VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 171

Contrary to the arguments of the appellants, the

172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The information charges conspiracy among the accused.

VOL. 724, MAY 5, 2014 173

Sereno (CJ.) and Del Castillo,* JJ., concur.