People of the Philippines v Rolusape Sabalones

G.R. No. 123485. August 31, 1998

Facts:
● On the evening of June 1, 1985, Edwin Santos attended a wedding at the
residence of Inday Presores, sister of Rogelio Presores. He then proceeded to the house
of Maj. Tiempo where a small gathering was also taking place.
● Upon arriving, he saw Nelson and Glenn Tiempo, Rogelio Presores, Rogelio Oliveros,
Junior Villoria, Rey Bolo and Alfredo Nardo and at around 11 p.m., Stepehn Lim called
their group and requested them to push his car and asked them to drive his car home.
● Together with Nelson Tiempo, who was at the wheel, Rogelio Presores, Rogelio Oliveros
and Junior Villoria, they drove to the residence of Stephen Lim at Mansueto Compound,
Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu.
● Glenn Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Alfredo Nardo also went with them riding in an owner-type
jeep, in order to bring back the group as soon as the car of Mr. Lim was parked in his
home.
● The two vehicles traveled in convoy with the jeep 3 to 4 meters ahead of the car. When
they arrived at the gate of the house of Stephen Lim, they were met with a sudden burst
of gunfire. Santos looked at the direction where the gunfire came, and saw the persons
who fired at the jeep. He identified the accused, Teodulo Alegarbes, Rolusape Sabalones
and Timoteo Beronga as the persons who fired at the vehicle.
● After firing at the jeep, the accused shot the car of Lim and hit Nelson Tiempo on the
throat and Rogelio Presores on the breast. Nelson Tiempo was able to maneuver the car
back to Maj. Tiempo’s residence. Santos, upon arrival, immediately informed Maj.
Tiempo about the incident and the latter brought the victims to the Cebu Doctor's
Hospital.
● Accused-appellants Sabalones and Beronga denied their presence during the commission
of the crime. Sabalones presented numerous witnesses who stated that he was sound
asleep when the incident took place since he was watching over his brother’s wake.
● While Beronga testified that he attended a cock-derby in Cebu, and was fetched by his
wife at 7 p.m., arrived home by 10:30 p.m. to sleep. The defense even pointed out errors
from the testimonies of the witnesses arguing that the place where the incident happened
is dim and not lighted.
● According to a witness presented, Sabalones was implicated in the killing of Nabing
Velez because of the slapping incident involving her father-in-law, Federico Sabalones,
Sr. and Nabing Velez which took place prior to the death of Junior Sabalones
● The RTC as well as the CA ruled that the accused were guilty of 2 counts of murder and
3 counts of frustrated murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery and rejected
appellants' defense of alibi.
Issue:
● Whether or not the accused may be criminally liable for the death and injuries to the
victim
Ruling:
● The Supreme Court held that the case is not one of error in personae or mistake in
identity and not one of aberratio ictus as the lower court may suggest.
● Aberratio ictus refers to a mistake in the blow, characterized by aiming at one but hitting
the other due to imprecision of the blow. In the case at bar, the appellants opened fire at
the victims because they mistook the vehicles to be carrying the avenging men of Nabing
Velez and expected the same to retaliate.
● The defendant's intent transfers from the intended victim to the actual victim and can be
used to satisfy the criminal intent element of the crime that the defendant is being charged
with. The transferred intent doctrine is only used for completed crimes, and is not used
for attempted ones.
● The SC held that the fact that they were mistaken does not diminish their culpability as
mistake in identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in
● on his intended victim.”
● Thus the appeal was denied and the accused were convicted of 2 counts of murder and 3
counts of frustrated murder.