ANOD VS. PEOPLE

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    1/46

    THIRD DIVISION

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

    Plaintiff-Appellee,

    - versus-

    BERNARD MAPALO,

    Accused-Appellant.

    G.R. No. 172608

    Present:

    YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.,

    Chairpersn,

    A!STRIA-"ARTINE#,

    CA$$E%O, SR., and

    C&ICO-NA#ARIO,JJ.

    Pr'ul(ated:

    )e*ruar+ , /

    0- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -0

    1 E C I S I O N

    C&ICO-NA#ARIO,J.:

    In its 1ecisin234dated / Oct*er 5, the Re(inal Trial Curt 6RTC7, 8ranch

    9 f A(, $a !nin, in Cri'inal Case N. A-/3, fund appellant 8ernard

    "apal (uilt+ *e+nd reasna*le du*t f the cri'e f "urder, and i'psed upn

    hi' the penalt+ f reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the Curt f Appeals rendered a

    1ecisin24dated 3 N;e'*er

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    2/46

    Appellant, t(ether =ith Peter 1e, %hn 1e and Peter 1e, %r., =as

    char(ed *efre the RTC f A(, $a !nin =ith the cri'e f "urder, said t ha;e

    *een c''itted as fll=s:

    That n r a*ut the 39th

    da+ f )e*ruar+, 3>>5, in the "unicipalit+ f Arin(a+,Pr;ince f $a !nin, Philippines, and =ithin the ?urisdictin f this &nra*le

    Curt, the a*;e-na'ed accused, =ith intent t @ill and *ein( then ar'ed =ith

    lead pipes and *laded =eapns and cnspirin(, cnfederatin( and 'utuall+

    helpin( each ther, did then and there *+ 'eans f treacher+ and =ith e;identpre'editatin and ta@in( ad;anta(e f their superir stren(th, =il2l4full+,

    unla=full+ and felniusl+ attac@, assault and use persnal ;ilence n ne

    "anuel Pia'nte + !(a+ *+ clu**in( hi' =ith the said pipes and sta**in( hi'se;eral ti'es =ith the said *laded =eapns, and there*+ inflictin( n the

    afrena'ed ;icti' fatal in?uries =hich =ere the direct and i''ediate cause f his

    death, t the da'a(e and pre?udice f his heirs.

    Cntrar+ t la=.294

    The RTC rdered the issuance f a =arrant f arrest fr the apprehensin f the

    appellant. N *ail =as rec''ended.254hen the case =as called, appellant filed a

    "tin fr Rein;esti(atin and 8ail, =hich =as (ranted.

    On / "arch 3>>>

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    3/46

    'utuall+ helpin( each ther, did then and there *+ 'eans f treacher+ and =ith

    e;ident pre'editatin and ta@in( ad;anta(e f their superir stren(th, =il2l4full+,

    unla=full+ and felniusl+ attac@, assault and use persnal ;ilence n ne"anuel Pia'nte + !(a+ *+ clu**in( hi' =ith the said pipe and sta**in( hi'

    se;eral ti'es =ith the said *laded =eapns, and there*+ inflictin( n the

    afrena'ed ;icti' fatal in?uries =hich =ere the direct and i''ediate cause f hisdeath, t the da'a(e and pre?udice f his heirs.2/4

    CnseBuentl+, a =arrant f arrest =as issued fr the apprehensin f

    Ale?andr )a?ard, %r., %i''+ )ri(illana, and Rland "apal alias $and. Onl+

    Ale?andr )a?ard, %r. =as apprehended the ther t= re'ain at lar(e.

    On arrai(n'ent, appellant pleaded nt (uilt+.24Thereafter, trial n the 'erits

    c''enced.

    After the prsecutin had rested its case, Ale?andr )a?ard, %r. filed a

    1e'urrer t E;idence =hich =as (ranted *+ the RTC, in its Order2>4dated >5,234at arund >:

    p.'., he, aln( =ith his =ife, Caridad "apal, entertained se;eral (uests at theirresidence, na'el+, Crispin Caldern, Nel Crder, Ruel "ercad, and Rland

    "apal.24The+ dran@ =ine.294Appellant @ne= that there =as a Dalentines 1a+

    dance cele*ratin at the dance hall, lcated nrtheast f his huse at a distance f

    a*ut -9 'eters.254At 3:9 a.'., after his (uests had left the huse, he =ent t

    sleep.2

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    5/46

    The Ruling of the RTC

    After trial, the RTC rendered a 1ecisin, dated / Oct*er 5, findin(

    appellant (uilt+ *e+nd reasna*le du*t f the cri'e f "urder.

    It ruled that appellants defense f ali*i cannt pre;ail ;er the psiti;e

    identificatin f the lne e+e=itness. As e'phasied *+ the RTC, per ad'issin f

    appellant, the distance *et=een his huse and the dancin( hall is nl+ t 9

    'eters, 're r less. There =as n ph+sical i'pssi*ilit+ fr the appellant t *e

    present at the scene f the cri'e. "re;er, it fund Garcias testi'n+ t *e

    cnsistent and uncntradicted. On the ther hand, the RTC cnsidered the

    testi'n+ f Caridad "apal as def+in( the natural curse f hu'an reactin and

    e0perience. The RTC fund it stran(e that it =as nl+ Caridad "apal =h =asa=a@ened *+ the c''tin, =hile the appellant re'ained asleep. $earnin( f the

    sa'e, Caridad "apal e0psed herself t dan(er *+ prceedin( t the dance hall t

    see =hat the c''tin =as all a*ut =ithut e;en infr'in( her hus*and. The

    RTC cn?ectured that Caridad "apal prceeded t the dance hall nt t see =hat

    the c''tin =as all a*ut, *ut *ecause she =as infr'ed that her hus*and =as

    in;l;ed in a fi(ht.29/4

    )urther, the RTC ruled that cnspirac+ =as esta*lished *+ the

    prsecutin. Accrdin( t the RTC, the appellant =as clearl+ identified *+ Garciaas the ne =h struc@ Pia'nte n the head =ith a lead pipe, =hich alne is

    sufficient 'anifestatin f a cncerted, c''n and united desi(n =ith the ther

    accused t c''it an unla=ful and felnius act. The fact that the 'edical

    certificate sh=s the cause f death as sta* =unds =as dee'ed *+ the RTC as

    i''aterial, in ;ie= f the presence f cnspirac+. The RTC als appreciated the

    attendance f a*use f superir stren(th as a Bualif+in( circu'stance, n the

    ratinaliatin that the perpetratrs =ere ar'ed =ith *laded =eapns and a lead

    pipe that =ere ut f prprtin t the unar'ed Pia'nte.

    The decretal prtin f the RTC 1ecisin states:

    &ERE)ORE, the accused 8ERNAR1 "APA$O is here*+ fund Guilt+

    *e+nd reasna*le du*t f the cri'e f "!R1ER and is sentenced t suffer the

    penalt+ f REC$!SION PERPET!A.

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn37
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    6/46

    )urther, the accused is rdered t pa+ the heirs f "anuel Pia'nte the

    a'unt f T=el;e Thusand Se;en &undred Pess 6P3,/.7 as actualda'a(es. )ift+ Thusand Pess 6P

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    7/46

    the+ decided t c''it the sa'e, *+ cncerted acts. 254The Curt f Appeals 'ade

    the fll=in( *ser;atins:

    In the first place, the @illin( =as the result f a fi(ht that erupted suddenl+

    durin( the Dalentine dance, =hich discura(es the cnclusin that the @illin( =asplanned. Als, the =itness did nt see an+ sta**in(. &e did nt see an+ne elseperfr' an+ act f sta**in( r hittin(, ther than the appellant deli;erin( *l=s

    =ith a lead pipe n the ;icti'.There is n prf, therefre, f an+ cncerted

    actin r c''n desi(n t @ill the ;icti' that culd *e the *asis fr a findin( fcnspirac+ a'n( se;eral 'alefactrs. 8ecause f this, it culd nt *e said that

    cnspirac+ =as pr;en attendant *e+nd reasna*le du*t.2594

    In the a*sence f a cnspirac+, the Curt f Appeals said that the appellant

    culd nl+ *e held lia*le fr the cnseBuences f his =n cri'inal act. It ruled that

    =hen the appellant hit Pia'nte in the head =ith the lead pipe, he perfr'ed all

    the acts that =uld ha;e *ru(ht a*ut the death f the ;icti'. 2554Pia'ntes death

    h=e;er =as due t s'e ther super;enin( cause, independent f the appellants

    =ill.25

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    8/46

    I

    T&E CO!RT O) APPEA$S GRADE$Y ERRE1 IN CONDICTING T&E

    ACC!SE1-APPE$$ANT 1ESPITE )AI$!RE O) T&E PROSEC!TION TOI1ENTI)Y T&EACC!SE1-APPE$$ANT IN OPEN CO!RT and

    IIASS!"ING T&AT T&E ACC!SE1-APPE$$ANT IS G!I$TY, T&E CO!RT

    O) APPEA$S GRADE$Y ERRE1 IN CONDICTING &I" O) )R!STRATE1

    "!R1ER INSTEA1 O) )R!STRATE1 &O"ICI1E.25/4

    The Ruling of the Court

    In supprt f the first assi(n'ent f errr, appellant raises,for the first time,

    the defense that the =itness fr the prsecutin failed t psiti;el+ identif+ hi'

    durin( the trial prceedin(s. Citin(People v. alera254andPeople v. !atton,25>4appellant su*'its that the prsecutin failed t dischar(e its first dut+, =hich is

    the identificatin f the accused as the authr f the cri'e char(ed.2:

    p.'. n 39 )e*ruar+ 3>>5 until 9: a.'. f the fll=in( da+. Garcia =as then

    int0icated if he had *een drin@in( hard liBur cntinuusl+ fr si0 hurs. At suchpint, he can n ln(er psiti;el+ deter'ine a persns identit+. It is ar(ued that the

    fre(in( circu'stances create du*ts as t the identit+ f the appellant as ne f

    the perpetratrs f the cri'e.

    e first tac@le the issue n the lac@ f in-curt identificatin.

    True that n the 'atter f identificatin, the Curt in!attonsaid:

    "re i'prtantl+, the accused-appellant =as nt psiti;el+ identified incurt. True, his na'e =as referred t *+ *th 8asiert and On(ue in their

    respecti;e direct testi'nies.&=e;er, he =as nt identified in Curt. The failuref the prsecutin =itness t psiti;el+ identif+ the assailant in curt is fatal t the

    prsecutins cause. Pre-trial identificatin is nt sufficient.2

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    9/46

    Deril+, the recrds are *ereft f prf that there =as in-curt identificatin

    *+ the =itness Garcia f the appellant. Indeed, Garcia did nt pint t the appellant

    in the curtr'. Such fact can *e (leaned fr' the pertinent prtin f the

    transcript f sten(raphic ntes f the trial, reprduced hereunder, as fll=s:

    Direct"e#amination $y Prosecutor Rudio

    of the %itness Cali#to arcia

    F 1 +u @n= the accused 8ernard "apal

    A I @n=, sir.

    F If that accused is inside the curtr' n= =ill +u please stand up and pint

    t hi' if he is inside the curtr'

    A N, he is nt arund.

    CO!RT:

    F as he ntified fr 6sic7 tda+s hearin(

    INTERPRETER:Yes, he si(ned, sir.

    CO!RT: O R 1 E R:

    It appears that the accused 8ernard "apal =as *ein( ntified fr 6sic7

    tda+s hearin( and his =ife ca'e t Curt and infr'ed the &nra*le Curt that

    her hus*and culd nt c'e t Curt *ecause he is [email protected]

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    10/46

    'e do not see the a$solute need for complainant to point to appellant in

    open court as her attac(er. 'hile positive identification $y a %itness is re)uired

    $y the la% to convict an accused, it need not al%ays $e $y means of a physicalcourtroom identification. As the curt held inPeople v. Paglina%an*

    0 0 0. Althu(h it is rutine prcedure fr =itnesses t pint ut theaccused in pen curt *+ =a+ f identificatin, the fact that the =itness 0 0 0 did

    nt d s in this case =as *ecause the pu*lic prsecutr failed t as@ her t pint

    ut appellant, hence such 'issin des nt in an+ =a+ affect r di'inish thetruth r =ei(ht f her testi'n+.

    In"court identification of the offender is essential only %hen there is a

    )uestion or dou$t on %hether the one alleged to have committed the crime is thesame person %ho is charged in the information and su$+ect of the trial. This is

    especially true in cases %herein the identity of the accused, %ho is a stranger to

    the prosecution %itnesses, is du$ita$le.In the present case, h=e;er, there is n

    du*t at all that the rapist is the sa'e indi;idual 'entined in the Infr'atinsand descri*ed *+ the ;icti' durin( the trial. 6E'phasis supplied.7 2

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    11/46

    A Yes, sir.

    F In fact this Cali0t Garcia is an acBuaintance f +urs

    A Yes, sir.

    F &e is cnsidered a friend

    A Yes, sir I cnsider hi' as such.

    F Prir t the incident =hich happened s'eti'e n )e*ruar+ 39, 3>>5, +u ha;e

    ne;er Buarreled =ith this Cali0t Garcia

    A N, sir.

    F E;en after that incident that happened n )e*ruar+ 39, 3>>5 +u ne;erBuarreled =ith Cali0t Garcia

    A N, sir.

    F Yu @n= that this Cali0t Garcia is nt a relati;e f Pia'nte the ;icti' inthis case

    A I d nt @n= =hether he is a relati;e f the ;icti' r nt.

    F Yu @n= fr a fact that Cali0t Garcia e0ecuted a state'ent *efre the plice

    pintin( t +u r pintin( t +u as the assailant f Pai'nte did +u

    c'e t @n= that

    A N, sir.

    F Yu said that +u @n= Cali0t Garcia +ur friend accrdin( t +u, did +u cnfrnthi' =hen he testified a(ainst +u in curt

    A N, sir.

    F Yu did nt tell +ur friend that he =as 'ista@en in identif+in( +u as the

    assailant f Pia'nte, crrect

    A N, sir.2

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    12/46

    Cross e#amination of Caridad 0apalo

    $y Prosecutor achica

    F 1 +u @n= a certain Cali0t Garcia

    A Yes, sir.

    F &e is +ur 8aran(a+ 'ate

    A Yes, sir.

    F &is huse is clsed t +ur huse, crrect

    A )ar, sir.

    F 8ut he is sta+in( =ithin +ur *aran(a+ =hich is Sta. CeciliaA Yes, sir.

    F This Cali0t Garcia =h' +u @n= is a friend f +ur fa'il+, crrect

    A Yes, sir.

    F In fact, +ur fa'il+ ha;e 6sic7 ne;er Buarreled =ith Cali0t Garcia

    A Nne, sir.

    F Prir t the filin( f this case, +u @n= that Cali0t Garcia *ein( a friend =ill

    nt falsif+ his testi'n+ re(ardin( +ur hus*and

    A Yes, sir.

    ATTY. RI"AN1O:

    O*?ectin, +ur hnr.

    CO!RT:

    O*?ectin ;erruled.

    PROSEC!TOR $AC&ICA:

    F !ntil n=, this Cali0t Garcia is +ur friend

    A Yes, sir.

    PROSEC!TOR $AC&ICA:

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    13/46

    That =uld *e all fr the =itness.

    RE-1IRECT EHA"INATION 8Y ATTY. RI"AN1O:

    F This Cali0t Garcia =as +ur (uest in that e;enin( in +ur residence

    A N, sir.

    F Is +ur fa'il+ clse =ith 6sic7 this Cali0t Garcia

    A Yes, sir.2>5 until

    9: a.'. f the fll=in( da+, =e are nt cn;inced that the sa'e can ;erthr=

    the trial curts e;aluatin f Garcias testi'n+. 8e+nd appellants *are

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn62
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    14/46

    alle(atins, n e;idence =hatse;er =as prduced t sh= that Garcia suffered

    fr' such a le;el f int0icatin as t i'pair his facilit+ and disa*le hi' t

    identif+ appellant. In the case fPeople v. Dee,294the credi*ilit+ f the sur;i;in(

    ;icti' therein as =itness =as disputed *ecause he =as under the influence f

    liBur at the ti'e f the incident. InDee, the=itness =as e;en fund psiti;e fralchlic *reath, *ut the Curt ruled that such fact des nt necessaril+ pre;ent

    hi' fr' 'a@in( a psiti;e identificatin f his attac@ers, especiall+ since his le;el

    f int0icatin =as nt sh=n t i'pair his faculties. The credi*ilit+ f the =itness

    therein =as nt 'ade t suffer n that scre alne.254

    The fre(in( 'aterial cnsideratins, ta@en t(ether =ith the fact that

    =itness Garcia and the appellant are nt stran(ers t each ther, satisf+ us that the

    dan(er f Garcia 'isidentif+in( the appellant des nt e0ist. here theprsecutin e+e=itness =as fa'iliar =ith *th ;icti' and accused, and =here

    the locus criminis affrded (d ;isi*ilit+, and =here n i'prper 'ti;e can *e

    attri*uted t the =itness fr testif+in( a(ainst the accused, his ;ersin f the str+

    deser;es 'uch =ei(ht.2

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    15/46

    )r the defense f ali*i t prsper, it 'ust *e sh=n =ith clear and cn;incin(

    e;idence that at the ti'e f the c''issin f the cri'e char(ed, the accused is in

    a place ther than thesitusf the cri'e such that it =as ph+sicall+ i'pssi*le fr

    hi' t ha;e *een at thesitus criminis =hen the cri'e =as c''itted.2>4

    In the case at *ar, appellant =as nt successful in in;@in( the defense f

    ali*i. Appellant insists that he =as sleepin( at his residence at the ti'e =hen the

    incident ccurred. The RTC and the Curt f Appeals cnsistentl+ fund that the

    distance *et=een appellants residence and thedance hall, r thesitus criminis, is

    t 9 'eters, 're r less. 2/4Such a distance is ne(li(i*le. In fact, appellants

    =ife testified that fr' their residence, she culd see the peple dancin( at the hall.2/34It =as nt hi(hl+ i'pssi*le fr the appellant t *e ph+sicall+ present at the

    dancin( hall at the ti'e f the ccurrence f the incident. e, therefre, re?ectappellants defense f ali*i.

    e shall n= deter'ine the cri'inal lia*ilit+ f the appellant.

    T reiterate, the RTC, in cn;ictin( the appellant (uilt+ *e+nd reasna*le du*t

    f the cri'e f 'urder, prceeded fr' a ratinaliatin that there =as cnspirac+

    a'n( appellant and his c-accused. It als appreciated the attendance f a*use f

    superir stren(th t Bualif+ the cri'e t "urder.

    The Curt f Appeals =as una*le t a(ree =ith the RTC. It fund that the

    cnspirac+ =as nt pr;en *e+nd reasna*le du*t. It ruled that the =itness

    Garcia ad'itted t nt *ein( a*le t see the sta**in(. &e culd nl+ attest t the

    clu**in( f the ;icti' *+ appellant =ith a lead pipe. N prf =as sh=n as t the

    cncerted actin f the 'alefactrs f their c''n desi(n t @ill. It, thus,

    'dified the RTCs cn;ictin, and, instead, fund appellant (uilt+ f frustrated

    'urder.

    The A'ended Infr'atin char(ed the appellant and his c-accused =ith

    cnspirac+ in @illin( Pia'nte.

    Cnspirac+ e0ists =hen t= r 're persns c'e t an a(ree'ent

    cncernin( the c''issin f a feln+ and decide t c''it it. 2/4Cnspirac+ as a

    *asis fr cn;ictin 'ust rest n nthin( less than a 'ral certaint+.2/94Cnsiderin(

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn69http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn70http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn71http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn72http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn73http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn69http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn70http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn71http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn72http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn73
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    16/46

    the far-reachin( cnseBuences f cri'inal cnspirac+, the sa'e de(ree f prf

    necessar+ in esta*lishin( the cri'e is reBuired t supprt the attendance

    theref, i.e., it 'ust *e sh=n t e0ist as clearl+ and cn;incin(l+ as the

    c''issin f the ffense itself.2/54Thus, it has *een held that neither ?int nr

    si'ultaneus actins isper sesufficient prf f cnspirac+.2/4It =as, thus, incu'*ent n the part f the prsecutin t

    pr;e *e+nd reasna*le du*t that the appellant and his c-accused acted in

    cncert =ith a unit+ f purpse t @ill Pia'nte. The+ 'ust sh= t the

    satisfactin f this Curt the appellants ;ert act in pursuance r furtherance f the

    c'plicit+.24The+ 'ust sh= that appellants act f stri@in( Pia'nte =ith a pipe

    =as an intentinal participatin in the transactin =ith a ;ie= t the furtherance fthe c''n desi(n and purpse.234

    The prsecutin =as una*le t sh=, either *+ direct r indirect e;idence,

    prf f the a(ree'ent a'n( the appellant and his c-accused t =arrant

    cnspirac+ as a *asis fr appellants cn;ictin. N e;idence =as e;en adduced t

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn74http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn75http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn76http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn77http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn78http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn79http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn80http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn80http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn81http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn74http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn75http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn76http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn77http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn78http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn79http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn80http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn81
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    17/46

    sh= i'plied cnspirac+. Nthin( has *een sh=n that the appellant and his c-

    accused =ere ai'ed *+ their acts t=ards the acc'plish'ent f the sa'e

    unla=ful *?ect, each din( a part s that their c'*ined acts, thu(h apparentl+

    independent f each ther =ere, in fact, cnnected and cperati;e, indicatin( a

    clseness f persnal assciatin and a cncurrence f senti'ent.24

    This c'plete a*sence f e;idence n the part f the prsecutin t sh= the

    cnduct f the appellant and his c-accused, disclsin( a c''n understandin(

    a'n( the' relati;e t the c''issin f the ffense,294is fatal t the

    prsecutin. The prsecutins =itness culd nt testif+ n the 'anner *+ =hich the

    deceased Pia'nte =as sta**ed, precisel+ *ecause *+ his =n ad'issin, he did

    nt see the sta**in(. N accunt f the sta**in( =hich caused the death f the

    deceased Pia'nte =as e;er (i;en nr sh=n. !nfrtunatel+, n accunt f h=Pia'nte died =as e;er (i;en, e0cept fr the esta*lished fact that he died due t

    sta**in(. The appellants act f hldin( a lead pipe and hittin( the deceased in the

    head =as nt sh=n t *e in furtherance f the c''n desi(n f @illin( the

    deceased. hat transpired durin( the sta**in( f the ;icti', =hich is 'aterial t

    pr;in( the fact f cnspirac+, is, re(retta*l+, left 'erel+ t speculatin. This Curt

    'ust neither cn?ecture nr sur'ise that a cnspirac+ e0isted. The rule is clear that

    the (uilt f the accused 'ust *e pr;ed =ith 'ral certaint+.254All du*ts shuld

    *e resl;ed in fa;r f the accused. Thus, the ti'e hnred principle in cri'inal

    la= that if the inculpatr+ facts are capa*le f t= r 're e0planatins, necnsistent =ith the inncence f the accused and the ther =ith his (uilt, the Curt

    shuld adpt that =hich is 're fa;ra*le t the accused fr then the e;idence

    des nt fulfill the test f 'ral certaint+.2

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    18/46

    The nl+ in?ur+ attri*uta*le t $i is the cntusin n the ;icti's ri(ht ar'

    that resulted fr' $i stri@in( 2the ;icti'4 Aru(a+ =ith a *ase*all *at. In ;ie= fthe ;icti's super;enin( death fr' in?uries =hich cannt *e attri*uted t $i

    *e+nd reasna*le du*t, the effects f the cntusin caused *+ $i are nt 'rtal

    r at least lie entirel+ in the real' f speculatin. hen there is n e;idence factual incapacit+ f the ffended part+ fr la*r r f the reBuired 'edical

    attendance, the ffense is nl+ sli(ht ph+sical in?uries, penalied as fll=s:

    0 0 0 0

    The duratin f the penalt+ f arresto menor is fr' ne da+ t thirt+da+s. The feln+ f sli(ht ph+sical in?uries is necessaril+ included in the h'icide

    char(es. Since theInformation a(ainst $i states that a'n( the 'eans e'pl+ed t

    c''it the felnius act =as the use f the *ase*all *at, cn;ictin n the lesser

    ffense r sli(ht ph+sical in?uries is prper. There *ein( n a((ra;atin( r

    'iti(atin( circu'stances esta*lished, the i'psitin f the penalt+ in its 'ediu'perid is =arranted. $i =as cn;icted *+ the RTC n%anuar+ >5. &a;in( ln(

    ser;ed 're than the i'psa*le penalt+, $i is entitled t i''ediate release unless,f curse, he is *ein( la=full+ detained fr anther cause.24

    In the case at *ar, n in?ur+ =as sh=n t *e attri*uta*le t the appellant. The nl+

    'edical e;idence that appears n recrds is the deceased Pia'ntes death

    certificate,2>4=hich indicates that the cause f death is 'assi;e

    h+p;le'ia2>4secndar+ t 'ultiple sta* =unds. The factual findin(s f the

    RTC and the Curt f Appeals cincide t sh= that the cause f death f

    Pia'nte is 'ultiple sta* =unds. Nthin( has *een sh=n ther=ise. Other than

    the presence f 'ultiple sta* =unds, n ther t+pe f in?ur+ n the deceased =as

    esta*lished. N cntusins r in?ur+ n the head f the ;icti' r an+=here else in

    his *d+ caused *+ a lead pipe =as sh=n. The =itness Garcia, in his testi'n+,

    'erel+ pinted t sta* =unds n the different parts f the *d+ f the deceased.2>34N prf n the in?ur+ that =as sustained *+ the deceased that can *e

    attri*uta*le t appellants act =as de'nstrated. N ther ph+sical e;idence =as

    prffered.2>4

    e cannt cn;ict appellant f Atte'pted r )rustrated "urder r &'icide. The

    principal and essential ele'ent f atte'pted r frustrated h'icide r 'urder is the

    assailants intent t ta@e the life f the persn [email protected]>94Such intent 'ust *e

    pr;ed clearl+ and cn;incin(l+, s as t e0clude reasna*le du*t theref.

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn88http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn88http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn89http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn91http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn92http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn93http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn88http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn89http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn91http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn92http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn93
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    19/46

    2>54 Intent t @ill 'a+ *e pr;ed *+ e;idence f: 6a7 'ti;e 6*7 the nature r

    nu'*er f =eapns used in the c''issin f the cri'e 6c7 the nature and

    nu'*er f =unds inflicted n the ;icti' 6d7 the 'anner the cri'e =as

    c''itted and 6e7 =rds uttered *+ the ffender at the ti'e the in?uries are

    inflicted *+ hi' n the ;icti'.2>4

    &'icidal intent 'ust *e e;idenced *+ the acts that, at the ti'e f their

    e0ecutin, are un'ista@a*l+ calculated t prduce the death f the ;icti' *+

    adeBuate 'eans.2>/4e cannt infer intent t @ill fr' the appellants act f hittin(

    Pia'nte in the head =ith a lead pipe. In the first place, =unds =ere nt sh=n t

    ha;e *een inflicted *ecause f the act. Secndl+, a*sent prf f circu'stances t

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn94http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn95http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn96http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn97http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn94http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn95http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn96http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/172608.htm#_ftn97
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    20/46

    sh= the intent t @ill *e+nd reasna*le du*t, this Curt cannt declare that the

    sa'e =as attendant.

    hen the ffender shall ill-treat anther *+ deed =ithut causin( an+ in?ur+,

    and =ithut causin( dishnr, the ffense is "altreat'ent under Article ,2>4par.9 f the Re;ised Penal Cde. It =as *e+nd reasna*le du*t that *+ hittin(

    Pia'nte, appellant ill-treated the latter, =ithut causin( an+ in?ur+. As =e ha;e

    earlier stated, n prf f in?ur+ =as ffered. "altreat'ent is necessaril+ included

    in "urder, =hich is the ffense char(ed in the Infr'atin. Thus:

    ART. . 1light physical in+uries and maltreatment. The cri'e f sli(ht ph+sicalin?uries shall *e punished:

    0 0 0 09. 8+ arresto menorin its 'ini'u' perid r a fine nt e0ceedin(

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    21/46

    E CONC!R:

    CONSUELO NARES SANTIAGO

    Assciate %ustice

    Chairpersn

    MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA!MARTINE" ROMEO #. CALLE#O, SR.

    Assciate %ustice Assciate %ustice

    ATTESTATION

    I attest that the cnclusins in the a*;e 1ecisin =ere reached in cnsultatin

    *efre the case =as assi(ned t the =riter f the pinin f the Curts 1i;isin.

    CONSUELO NARES!SANTIAGO

    Assciate %ustice

    Chairpersn, Third 1i;isin

    CERTIFICATION

    Pursuant t Sectin 39, Article DIII f the Cnstitutin, and the 1i;isin

    Chairpersns Attestatin, it is here*+ certified that the cnclusins in the a*;e

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    22/46

    1ecisin =ere reached in cnsultatin *efre the case =as assi(ned t the =riter f

    the pinin f the Curts 1i;isin.

    RENATO S. PUNO

    Chief %ustice

    234Penned *+ Presidin( %ud(eSa'uel R. "artires recrds, pp. 9-9.24Penned *+ Assciate %ustice Rdri( D. Csic =ith Assciate %ustices Re(alad E. "aa'*n( and $ucenit N.

    Ta(le, cncurrin( CArollo, pp. 3->3.294Recrds, p. 3-a.254Id.at .2, p. /.2334Referrin( t ne f the accused, Rland "apal alias$and.234Suprante 3 at .2394Id.at 3.2354Id.at 39-35.234Id.24Id.at 3>5.24TSN, %une 3>>>, p. 9.294Id.at 5.254Id.at 9-5.2>>, p.

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    23/46

    2954Id.at 3.29.294Id.29/4Recrds, p. 94

    CArollo, p. 9.254Id.at and .25495< Phil. /93 63>>/7.25>4G.R. N. >, 3 SCRA 3.2>, pp. 39-3

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    24/46

    637the =itness fails t 'a@e a psiti;e trial identificatin.23 697.24Id.at //.24TSN,3< %ul+ 3>>, p. 3.234Id.24

    TSN,3< %ul+ 3>>, p. 3/.2949> Phil. /5 67.254Id.at 9.2, p. 9.2/34TSN,9 )e*ruar+ 3>>>, p. 33.2/4Dado v. People,55 Phil. 4Recrds, p. 9.24People v. /isda,55, 3/-3 697.234Id.at 3.24Id.at 3/.294People v. aralde,53 Phil. 3/5, 39 67.254People v. arillo, 55 Phil. 39, 3 697.27.24People v. 0acatana,G.R. N. $- "a+ 3>, 33 SCRA 9,35 April 5, 5/ SCRA 3/.24Id.at 94Recrds, p. 5.

    2>48ld lss1ee!arrisons Principles of Internal 0edicine,63thEd., 3>>37, p. 99.2>34TSN,3< %ul+ 3>>, pp. 35-3 Oct*er 3>>, p. .2>4hile it appears that ndAssistant Pr;incial Prsecutr Glria 1. Cat*a(an f the Office f the Pr;incial

    Prsecutr in A(, $a !nin sent a $etter f ReBuest t the 8ranch Cler@ f Curt, RTC, 8ranch 9 f

    A(, $a !nin that a su*pena *e issued t 1r. Ar'and A;ena f R&!, Arin(a+ $a !nin t *rin( thedeath certificate f the deceased Pia'nte and t testif+ theren n 9 April 3>>, nthin( appears n

    recrd =ith re(ard t the testi'n+ r the appearance f the afresaid 1r. Ar'and A;ena in

    curt.1eeRecrds, p. 94People v. Cat$agan,G.R. Ns. 35>59-9,9 )e*ruar+ 5, 59 SCRA

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    25/46

    2>54Id.2>, p. 35.2>/4Supra nte >3 at 4Art. f the Re;ised Penal Cde, pr;ides:

    ART. .1light physical in+uries and maltreatment.The cri'e f sli(ht ph+sical in?uries shall *epunished:3. 8+arresto menor=hen the ffender has inflicted ph+sical in?uries =hich shall incapacitate theffended part+ fr la*r fr' ne t nine da+s, r shall reBuire 'edical attendance durin( the

    sa'e perid

    . 8+arresto menorr a fine nt e0ceedin( pess and censure =hen the ffender has causedph+sical in?uries =hich d nt pre;ent the ffended part+ fr' en(a(in( in his ha*itual =r@ nr

    reBuire 'edical attendance.

    9.8+arresto menorin its 'ini'u' perid r a fine nt e0ceedin(

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    26/46

    to :ill an bein) then a&0e 5ith lea pipes an blae 5eapons an conspi&in), confee&atin) an0utuall2 helpin) each othe&, i then an the&e b2 0eans of t&eache&2 an 5ith evientp&e0eitation an ta:in) avanta)e of thei& supe&io& st&en)th, 5il;lano.>4inin) the Motion to be 5ell-ta:en, the RT" issue an O&e&,?ate $% Ap&il #883,a0ittin) the A0ene Info&0ation, vi@7

    The une&si)ne Assistant P&ovincial P&osecuto& accuses !RNARD MAPAO, A!6ANDRO4A6ARDO, 6R.,6IMM 4RIBIANA an ROANDO MAPAO alias ano of the c&i0e ofM/RD!R, co00itte as follo5s7

    That on o& about the #th a2 of 4eb&ua&2, #88(, in the Municipalit2 of A&in)a2, P&ovince of a /nion,Philippines, an 5ithin the 9u&isiction of this Hono&able "ou&t, the abovena0e accuse, 5ith intentto :ill an bein) then a&0e 5ith lea pipe an blae 5eapons an conspi&in), confee&atin) an0utuall2 helpin) each othe&, i then an the&e b2 0eans of t&eache&2 an 5ith evientp&e0eitation an ta:in) avanta)e of thei& supe&io& st&en)th, 5il;l

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    27/46

    Ba&cia testifie that on #$ 4eb&ua&2 #88(, a p&e-Valentine ance 5as hel in Sitio a&acbac, &)2.Sta. "ecilia in A&in)a2, a /nion.He 5atche the ance, alon) 5ith the appellant an 6i0024&i)illana.#'In the ea&l2 0o&nin) of # 4eb&ua&2 #88(, at a&oun 7'' a.0., a fi)ht e&upte bet5eenManuel Pia0onte *Pia0onte+ an the )&oup of ano Mapalo,##6i002 4&i)illana, an the appellant.#$

    Ba&cia fu&the& testifie that he 5itnesse the fi)ht f&o0 a istance of 0o&e o& less five *3+ 0ete&s. He

    clai0e that he coul see the incient ve&2 clea&l2 because of the li)ht at the ancin) hall.#He sa5the appellant clubPia0onte 5ith a lea pipe f&o0 behin, hittin) hi0 on the &i)ht sie of thehea.#(The pipe 5as one an a half *# an F+ feet in len)th, an one an a half *# an F+ inches inia0ete&.#3At that ti0e 5hen the appellant st&uc: Pia0onte 5ith a lea pipe, he sa5 6i0024&i)illana an ano Mapalo stanin) in f&ont of Pia0onte. ate&, he sa5 the ea bo2 ofPia0onte, 5hich ha suffe&e 0ultiple stab 5ouns.#?He sa5 stab 5ouns on the left an &i)ht pa&tsof the abo0en, an belo5 the left b&east, as 5ell as s0all 5ouns on the f&ont pa&t of his lefthip.#%Ba&cia isclose that heneithe& 5itnesse ho5 Pia0onte 5as stabbe, no& i he see the actof stabbin) Pia0onte.#1He oes not :no5 5ho stabbe the latte&.#8It 5as onl2 5hen Pia0onteGs shi&t5as &e0ove 5hen he sa5 stab 5ouns on the fo&0e&Gs ea bo2.$'

    The "ase fo& the Defense

    Appellant testifie that in the evenin) of # 4eb&ua&2 #88(,$#at a&oun 87'' p.0., he, alon) 5ith his5ife, "a&ia Mapalo, ente&taine seve&al )uests at thei& &esience, na0el2, "&ispin "ale&on, Noel"o&e&o, Ruel Me&cao, an Rolano Mapalo.$$The2 &an: 5ine.$Appellant :ne5 that the&e 5as aValentineGs Da2 ance celeb&ation at the ance hall, locate no&theast of his house at a istance ofabout $'-' 0ete&s.$(At #$7' a.0., afte& his )uests ha left the house, he 5ent to sleep.$3At 7''a.0., his 5ife 5o:e hi0 up an 5as info&0e that so0ebo2 ha been stabbe. He sai he ca0e to:no5 that Pia0onte 5as the pe&son 5ho 5as stabbe.$?He ae that he planne to )o out of thehouse, but his 5ife p&evente hi0 f&o0 oin) so.$%He, the&eafte&, &etu&ne to his &oo0, an 5entbac: to sleep.$1

    "o&&obo&atin) the appellantGs efense of enial an alibi, his 5ife, "a&ia Mapalo, na&&ate that on# 4eb&ua&2 #88($8at 17'' p.0., she se&ve b&an2 to he& husban an thei& )uests at thei&

    &esience. The celeb&ation finishe at a&oun #$7'' 0ini)ht. 'The&eafte&, she an he& husban5ent to sleep, 5hile thei& )uests p&oceee to the ance hall. At 7'' a.0., she a5o:e because of aco00otion f&o0 the ance hall.#She esc&ibe that the ance hall is a&oun ?' to %' 0ete&s,south5est of thei& &esience.$She 5ent outsie of thei& house, an alon) 5ith he& siste&-in-la5,Ma&issa Dapit, p&oceee to the e)e of the ancin) hall.She clai0e that he& husban i not )oout an 9ust sta2e at thei& house.(She eEplaine that she an Ma&issa Dapit 5ent out to see o& to:no5 the na0e of the pe&son 5ho ie at the co00otion.3At the ancin) hall, she sa5 the bo2 ofPia0onte, l2in) face o5n.?

    The Rulin) of the RT"

    Afte& t&ial, the RT" &ene&e a Decision, ate $% Octobe& $''(, finin) appellant )uilt2 be2on

    &easonable oubt of the c&i0e of Mu&e&.

    It &ule that appellantGs efense of alibi cannot p&evail ove& the positive ientification of the lonee2e5itness. As e0phasi@e b2 the RT", pe& a0ission of appellant, the istance bet5een his housean the ancin) hall is onl2 $' to ' 0ete&s, 0o&e o& less. The&e 5as no ph2sical i0possibilit2 fo&the appellant to be p&esent at the scene of the c&i0e. Mo&eove&, it foun Ba&ciaGs testi0on2 to beconsistent an uncont&aicte. On the othe& han, the RT" consie&e the testi0on2 of "a&iaMapalo as ef2in) the natu&al cou&se of hu0an &eaction an eEpe&ience. The RT" foun it st&an)ethat it 5as onl2 "a&ia Mapalo 5ho 5as a5a:ene b2 the co00otion, 5hile the appellant &e0aine

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt36
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    28/46

    asleep.ea&nin) of the sa0e, "a&ia Mapalo eEpose he&self to an)e& b2 p&oceein) to theance hall to see 5hat the co00otion 5as all about 5ithout even info&0in) he& husban. The RT"con9ectu&e that "a&ia Mapalo p&oceee to the ance hall not to see 5hat the co00otion 5as allabout, but because she 5as info&0e that he& husban 5as involve in a fi)ht.%

    4u&the&, the RT" &ule that conspi&ac2 5as establishe b2 the p&osecution. Acco&in) to the RT",

    the appellant 5as clea&l2 ientifie b2 Ba&cia as the one 5ho st&uc: Pia0onte on the hea 5ith alea pipe, 5hich alone is >sufficient 0anifestation of a conce&te, co00on an unite esi)n 5iththe othe& accuse to co00it an unla5ful an felonious act.> The fact that the 0eical ce&tificatesho5s the cause of eath as stab 5ouns 5as ee0e b2 the RT" as i00ate&ial, in vie5 of thep&esence of conspi&ac2. The RT" also app&eciate the attenance of abuse of supe&io& st&en)th as aCualif2in) ci&cu0stance, on the &ationali@ation that the pe&pet&ato&s 5e&e a&0e 5ith blae5eapons an a lea pipe that 5e&e out of p&opo&tion to the una&0e Pia0onte.

    The ec&etal po&tion of the RT" Decision states7

    =H!R!4OR!, the accuse !RNARD MAPAO is he&eb2 foun Built2 be2on &easonable oubtof the c&i0e of M/RD!R an is sentence to suffe& the penalt2 of R!"/SION P!RP!T/A.

    4u&the&, the accuse is o&e&e to pa2 the hei&s of Manuel Pia0onte the a0ount of T5elveThousan Seven Hun&e Pesos *P#$,%''.''+ as actual a0a)es. 4ift2 Thousan Pesos*P3','''.''+ as civil ine0nit2 fo& the eath of Pia0onte an 4ift2 Thousan Pesos *P3','''.''+ as0o&al a0a)es.1

    The Rulin) of the "ou&t of Appeals

    efo&e the appellate cou&t, appellant challen)e the c&eibilit2 of the p&osecutionGs lone e2e5itness.Appellant si0ila&l2 assaile the &ulin) of the RT" on the )&oun that it e&&e in convictin) hi0 espitethe failu&e of the p&osecution to p&ove his )uilt be2on &easonable oubt. 8

    The "ou&t of Appeals foun no aeCuate &eason to istu&b the finin)s of the RT" in 5ei)hin) thetesti0on2 of Ba&cia.It i not fin si)nificant the alle)e inconsistencies in Ba&ciaGs affiavits aseEecute befo&e the investi)atin) police an the p&osecuto&.('The appellate cou&t i not accept theappellantGs efense of alibi. The positive ientification of the p&osecution 5itness 5hich 5asconsistent an cate)o&ical, an sho5n to be 5ithout ill-0otive, has isc&eite appellantGs efense.

    The "ou&t of Appeals, ho5eve&, foun &eason to 0oif2 the finin)s of the RT". It convicte theappellant of f&ust&ate 0u&e& onl2. It 5as not convince that the evience on &eco& establisheconspi&ac2 a0on) the appellant an his co-accuse. The appellate cou&t &ationali@e that 5hile theevience sho5s that Pia0onte sustaine stab 5ouns 5hich cause his eath,(#the appellant 5asneve& ientifie as the one 5ho inflicte the stab 5ouns on the ecease. Acco&in) to theappellate cou&t, the p&osecutionGs evience onl2 establishe that the appellant clubbe Pia0onte5ith a lea pipe. Ho5eve&, the p&osecutionGs 5itness i not see the stabbin). He 5as not able to

    esc&ibe the pa&ticula& acts 5hich cause Pia0onteGs eath. Hence, it cannot be infe&&e f&o0 theaccount of the 5itness that the appellant an his co-accuse ca0e to an a)&ee0ent to co00it afelon2, o& that the2 ecie to co00it the sa0e, b2 conce&te acts.($The "ou&t of Appeals 0ae thefollo5in) obse&vations7

    In the fi&st place, the :illin) 5as the &esult of a fi)ht that e&upte suenl2 u&in) the Valentineance, 5hich iscou&a)es the conclusion that the :illin) 5as planne. Also, the 5itness i not seean2 stabbin). He i not see an2one else pe&fo&0 an2 act of stabbin) o& hittin), othe& than theappellant elive&in) blo5s 5ith a lea pipe on the victi0. The&e is no p&oof, the&efo&e, of an2

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt42
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    29/46

    conce&te action o& co00on esi)n to :ill the victi0 that coul be the basis fo& a finin) ofconspi&ac2 a0on) seve&al 0alefacto&s. ecause of this, it coul not be sai that conspi&ac2 5asp&oven attenant be2on &easonable oubt.(

    In the absence of a conspi&ac2, the "ou&t of Appeals sai that the appellant coul onl2 be hel liablefo& the conseCuences of his o5n c&i0inal act. It &ule that 5hen the appellant hit Pia0onte in the

    hea 5ith the lea pipe, he pe&fo&0e all the acts that 5oul have b&ou)ht about the eath of thevicti0.((Pia0onteGs eath ho5eve& 5as ue to so0e othe& supe&venin) cause, inepenent of theappellantGs 5ill.(3

    The fallo of the "ou&t of AppealsG Decision &eas, vi@7

    =H!R!4OR!, p&e0ises consie&e, the lo5e& cou&tGs Decision is he&eb2 MODI4I!D, in that theaccuse-appellant e&na& Mapalo is he&eb2 foun )uilt2 be2on &easonable oubt of the c&i0e of4&ust&ate Mu&e&. Accuse-appellant is he&eb2 sentence to 1 2ea&s an # a2 of p&ision 0a2o&, as0ini0u0 to #( 2ea&s, 1 0onths an # a2 of &eclusion te0po&al, as 0aEi0u0.

    4u&the&, the accuse is o&e&e to pa2 the hei&s of Manuel Pia0onte;,< the a0ount of T5ent2 4ive

    Thousan Pesos *P$3,'''.''+ as te0pe&ate a0a)es, Thi&t2 Thousan Pesos *P','''.''+ as civiline0nit2 an Thi&t2 Thousan Pesos *P','''.''+ as 0o&al a0a)es pu&suant to p&evailin)

    9u&isp&uence. *People v. Pacana, (3 S"RA %$ ;$'''

  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    30/46

    =e fi&st tac:le the issue on the lac: of in-cou&t ientification.

    T&ue that on the 0atte& of ientification, the "ou&t in Hatton sai7

    Mo&e i0po&tantl2, the accuse-appellant 5as not positivel2 ientifie in cou&t. T&ue, his na0e 5as&efe&&e to b2 both asie&to an On)ue in thei& &espective i&ect testi0onies. Ho5eve&, he 5as not

    ientifie in "ou&t. The failu&e of the p&osecution 5itness to positivel2 ientif2 the assailant in cou&t isfatal to the p&osecutionGs cause.P&e-t&ial ientification is not sufficient.3#

    Ve&il2, the &eco&s a&e be&eft of p&oof that the&e 5as in-cou&t ientification b2 the 5itness Ba&cia ofthe appellant. Inee, Ba&cia i not point to the appellant in the cou&t&oo0. Such fact can be)leane f&o0 the pe&tinent po&tion of the t&ansc&ipt of steno)&aphic notes of the t&ial, &ep&oucehe&eune&, as follo5s7

    Di&ect-eEa0ination b2 P&osecuto& Ruio of the 5itness "aliEto Ba&cia

    Do 2ou :no5 the accuse e&na& Mapalo

    A I :no5, si&.

    If that accuse is insie the cou&t&oo0 no5 5ill 2ou please stan up an point to hi0 if he is insiethe cou&t&oo0

    A No, he is not a&oun.

    "O/RT7

    =as he notifie fo& *sic+ toa2Gs hea&in)

    INT!RPR!T!R7

    es, he si)ne, si&.

    "O/RT7 O R D ! R7

    It appea&s that the accuse e&na& Mapalo 5as bein) notifie fo& *sic+ toa2Gs hea&in) an his 5ifeca0e to "ou&t an info&0e the Hono&able "ou&t that he& husban coul not co0e to "ou&t becausehe is sic:.3$

    The sa0e testi0on2, ho5eve&, conspicuousl2 &eveals that the&e 5as no ientification in open cou&t ofthe appellant because sai appellant 5as not p&esent at the ti0e, espite notice, as acco&in) to his5ife, he 5as sic:.

    In a late& case, this "ou&t cla&ifie that a ph2sical cou&t&oo0 ientification is essential onl2 5henthe&e is a Cuestion o& oubt on 5hethe& the one alle)e to have co00itte the c&i0e is the sa0epe&son 5ho is cha&)e in the info&0ation an sub9ect of the t&ial. In People v. ue@aa,3this "ou&teEpoune, thus7

    =e o not see the absolute nee fo& co0plainant to point to appellant in open cou&t as he& attac:e&.=hile positive ientification b2 a 5itness is &eCui&e b2 the la5 to convict an accuse, it nee not

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt53
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    31/46

    al5a2s be b2 0eans of a ph2sical cou&t&oo0 ientification. As the cou&t hel in People v.Pa)lina5an7

    >E E E. Althou)h it is &outine p&oceu&e fo& 5itnesses to point out the accuse in open cou&t b2 5a2 ofientification, the fact that the 5itness E E E i not o so in this case 5as because the publicp&osecuto& faile to as: he& to point out appellant, hence such o0ission oes not in an2 5a2 affect o&

    i0inish the t&uth o& 5ei)ht of he& testi0on2.>

    In-cou&t ientification of the offene& is essential onl2 5hen the&e is a Cuestion o& oubt on 5hethe&the one alle)e to have co00itte the c&i0e is the sa0e pe&son 5ho is cha&)e in the info&0ationan sub9ect of the t&ial. This is especiall2 t&ue in cases 5he&ein the ientit2 of the accuse, 5ho is ast&an)e& to the p&osecution 5itnesses, is ubitable. In the p&esent case, ho5eve&, the&e is no oubtat all that the &apist is the sa0e iniviual 0entione in the Info&0ations an esc&ibe b2 the victi0u&in) the t&ial. *!0phasis supplie.+3(

    =e o not fin he&ein a case 5he&e the&e is a Cuestion o& oubt as to 5hethe& the one alle)e tohave co00itte the c&i0e is the sa0e pe&son cha&)e in the info&0ation an sub9ect of the t&ial. Infact, appellant neve& enie that he is the pe&son inicte in the Info&0ation, an sub9ect of the

    p&oceein)s. His enial is that he i not pa&ticipate in the co00ission of the c&i0e. Hence, in-cou&tientification is not inispensable in the case at ba&.

    =e a&e convince that the ientit2 of the appellant 5as sufficientl2 establishe b2 the evience on&eco&.

    The appellant is not a st&an)e& to the 5itness Ba&cia. The ientit2 of the appellant to Ba&cia oes notappea& to be cont&ove&tible. In fact, appellant hi0self a0its that he an Ba&cia a&e f&iens. Thus7

    "&oss-eEa0ination b2 P&osecuto& achica of ;appellant< e&na& Mapalo

    M&. =itness 2ou sai that 2ou 5e&e info&0e b2 2ou& counsel a 5hile a)o that a ce&tain "aliEto

    Ba&cia testifie a)ainst 2ou in this case i I )et 2ou &i)ht

    A es, si&.

    An this "aliEto Ba&ica is a &esient of the sa0e a&an)a2 as 2ou a&e

    A es, si&.

    In fact this "aliEto Ba&cia is an acCuaintance of 2ou&s

    A es, si&.

    He is consie&e a f&ien

    A es, si& I consie& hi0 as such.

    P&io& to the incient 5hich happene so0eti0e on 4eb&ua&2 #, #88(, 2ou have neve& Cua&&ele5ith this "aliEto Ba&cia

    A No, si&.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt54
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    32/46

    !ven afte& that incient that happene on 4eb&ua&2 #, #88( 2ou neve& Cua&&ele 5ith "aliEtoBa&cia

    A No, si&.

    ou :no5 that this "aliEto Ba&cia is not a &elative of Pia0onte the victi0 in this case

    A I o not :no5 5hethe& he is a &elative of the victi0 o& not.

    ou :no5 fo& a fact that "aliEto Ba&cia eEecute a state0ent befo&e the police pointin) to 2ou o&pointin) to 2ou as the assailant of Pai0onte i 2ou co0e to :no5 that

    A No, si&.

    ou sai that 2ou :no5 "aliEto Ba&cia 2ou& f&ien acco&in) to 2ou, i 2ou conf&ont hi0 5hen hetestifie a)ainst 2ou in cou&t

    A No, si&.

    ou i not tell 2ou& f&ien that he 5as 0ista:en in ientif2in) 2ou as the assailant of Pia0onte,co&&ect

    A No, si&. 33

    The p&ope& ientification of the appellant is fu&the& bolste&e b2 the fact that appellantGs 5ife, "a&iaMapalo co&&obo&ate the testi0on2 that the 5itness Ba&cia is a fa0il2 f&ien of the spouses. Thus7

    "&oss eEa0ination of "a&ia Mapalo b2 P&osecuto& achica

    Do 2ou :no5 a ce&tain "aliEto Ba&cia

    A es, si&.

    He is 2ou& a&an)a2 0ate

    A es, si&.

    His house is close to 2ou& house, co&&ect

    A 4a&, si&.

    ut he is sta2in) 5ithin 2ou& ba&an)a2 5hich is Sta. "ecilia

    A es, si&.

    This "aliEto Ba&cia 5ho0 2ou :no5 is a f&ien of 2ou& fa0il2, co&&ect

    A es, si&.

    In fact, 2ou& fa0il2 have *sic+ neve& Cua&&ele 5ith "aliEto Ba&cia

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt55
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    33/46

    A None, si&.

    P&io& to the filin) of this case, 2ou :no5 that "aliEto Ba&cia bein) a f&ien 5ill not falsif2 histesti0on2 &e)a&in) 2ou& husban

    A es, si&.

    ATT. RIMANDO7

    Ob9ection, 2ou& hono&.

    "O/RT7

    Ob9ection ove&&ule.

    PROS!"/TOR A"HI"A7

    /ntil no5, this "aliEto Ba&cia is 2ou& f&ien

    A es, si&.

    PROS!"/TOR A"HI"A7

    That 5oul be all fo& the 5itness.

    R!-DIR!"T !JAMINATION ATT. RIMANDO7

    This "aliEto Ba&cia 5as 2ou& )uest in that evenin) in 2ou& &esience

    A No, si&.

    Is 2ou& fa0il2 close 5ith *sic+ this "aliEto Ba&cia

    A es, si&.3?

    Mo&eove&, 5e o not fin he&ein the p&esence of facto&s3%that coul cause the 5itness Ba&cia to0isientif2 the appellant. In People v. i0pan)o),31this "ou&t enu0e&ate seve&al othe& :no5ncauses of 0isientification, vi@7

    E E E Kno5n causes of 0isientification have been ientifie as follo5s7

    >Ientification testi0on2 has at least th&ee co0ponents. 4i&st, 5itnessin) a c&i0e, 5hethe& as avicti0 o& a b2stane&, involves pe&ception of an event actuall2 occu&&in). Secon, the 5itness 0ust0e0o&i@e etails of the event. Thi&, the 5itness 0ust be able to &ecall an co00unicate accu&atel2.Dan)e&s of un&eliabilit2 in e2e5itness testi0on2 a&ise at each of these th&ee sta)es, fo& 5heneve&people atte0pt to acCui&e, &etain, an &et&ieve info&0ation accu&atel2, the2 a&e li0ite b2 no&0alhu0an fallibilities an su))estive influences.>38

    The&e is no Cuestion that the 5itness Ba&cia 5as at a close &an)e of 0e&el2 five 0ete&s 0o&e o& lessf&o0 the scene of the incient.?'Neithe& can it be sai that the illu0ination 5as poo&. The ancin)

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt60
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    34/46

    hall 5as li)hte.?#No i0p&ope& 0otive 5as att&ibute to the 5itness Ba&cia fo& testif2in) a)ainst theappellant. Mo&eove&, 5itness Ba&cia is fa0ilia& not onl2 to appellant. Ba&cia 5as also fa0ilia& 5ith theecease, Pia0onte. =itness Ba&cia, in his testi0on2, &efe&&e to Pia0onte as his thi& cousin.?$

    On appellantGs sub0ission that it is oubtful if 5itness Ba&cia can still have positivel2 ientifie hi0as one of the pe&pet&ato&s of the c&i0e consie&in) that the fo&0e& a0itte to &in:in) ha& liCuo&

    f&o0 87'' p.0. on # 4eb&ua&2 #88( until 7'' a.0. of the follo5in) a2, 5e a&e not convince thatthe sa0e can ove&th&o5 the t&ial cou&tGs evaluation of Ba&ciaGs testi0on2. e2on appellantGs ba&ealle)ations, no evience 5hatsoeve& 5as p&ouce to sho5 that Ba&cia suffe&e f&o0 such a level ofintoEication as to i0pai& his facilit2 an isable hi0 to ientif2 appellant. In the case of People v.Dee,?the c&eibilit2 of the su&vivin) victi0 the&ein as 5itness 5as ispute because he 5as une&the influence of liCuo& at the ti0e of the incient. In Dee, the 5itness 5as even foun positive fo&alcoholic b&eath, but the "ou&t &ule that such fact oes not necessa&il2 p&event hi0 f&o0 0a:in) apositive ientification of his attac:e&s, especiall2 since his level of intoEication 5as not sho5n toi0pai& his faculties. The c&eibilit2 of the 5itness the&ein 5as not 0ae to suffe& on that sco&ealone.?(

    The fo&e)oin) 0ate&ial consie&ations, ta:en to)ethe& 5ith the fact that 5itness Ba&cia an the

    appellant a&e not st&an)e&s to each othe&, satisf2 us that the an)e& of Ba&cia 0isientif2in) theappellant oes not eEist. =he&e the p&osecution e2e5itness 5as fa0ilia& 5ith both victi0 anaccuse, an 5he&e the locus c&i0inis affo&e )oo visibilit2, an 5he&e no i0p&ope& 0otive can beatt&ibute to the 5itness fo& testif2in) a)ainst the accuse, his ve&sion of the sto&2 ese&ves 0uch5ei)ht.?3

    Hence, 5e o not fin an2 &eason to epa&t f&o0 the )ene&al &ule that the conclusions of the t&ialcou&t on the c&eibilit2 of 5itnesses ese&ve )&eat &espect, vi@7

    The assess0ent of the c&eibilit2 of 5itness an thei& testi0on2 is a 0atte& best une&ta:en b2 thet&ial cou&t because of its uniCue oppo&tunit2 to obse&ve the 5itnesses fi&sthan an to note thei&e0eano&, conuct an attitue une& eEa0ination. Its finin)s on such 0atte&s a&e binin) anconclusive on appellate cou&ts unless so0e facts o& ci&cu0stances of 5ei)ht an substance have

    been ove&loo:e, 0isapp&ehene o& 0isinte&p&ete.??

    AppellantGs efense of alibi an enial cannot stan in the face of the positive ientification of theaccuse. =e have unfailin)l2 hel that alibi an enial bein) inhe&entl2 5ea: cannot p&evail ove& thepositive ientification of the accuse as the pe&pet&ato& of the c&i0e.?%It is facile to fab&icate anifficult to isp&ove, an is )ene&all2 &e9ecte.?1

    4o& the efense of alibi to p&ospe&, it 0ust be sho5n 5ith clea& an convincin) eviencethat at theti0e of the co00ission of the c&i0e cha&)e, the accuse is in a place othe& than the situs of thec&i0e such that it 5as ph2sicall2 i0possible fo& hi0 to have been at the situs c&i0inis 5hen the c&i0e5as co00itte.?8

    In the case at ba&, appellant 5as not successful in invo:in) the efense of alibi. Appellant insists thathe 5as sleepin) at his &esience at the ti0e 5hen the incient occu&&e. The RT" an the "ou&t of

    Appeals consistentl2 foun that the istance bet5een appellantGs &esience an the ance hall, o&the situs c&i0inis, is $' to ' 0ete&s, 0o&e o& less.%'Such a istance is ne)li)ible. In fact, appellantGs5ife testifie that f&o0 thei& &esience, she coul see the people ancin) at the hall.%#It 5as nothi)hl2 i0possible fo& the appellant to be ph2sicall2 p&esent at the ancin) hall at the ti0e of theoccu&&ence of the incient. =e, the&efo&e, &e9ect appellantGs efense of alibi.

    =e shall no5 ete&0ine the c&i0inal liabilit2 of the appellant.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt71
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    35/46

    To reiterate, the RTC, in convicting the appellant guilty beyond reasonabledoubt of the crime of murder, proceeded from a rationalization that therewas conspiracy among appellant and his co-accused. It also appreciatedthe attendance of abuse of superior strength to qualify the crime to urder.

    The Court of !ppeals was unable to agree with the RTC. It found that theconspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. It ruled that thewitness "arcia admitted to not being able to see the stabbing. #e couldonly attest to the clubbing of the victim by appellant with a lead pipe. $o

    proof was shown as to the concerted action of the malefactors of theircommon design to %ill. It, thus, modified the RTC&s conviction, and, instead,found appellant guilty of frustrated murder.

    The A0ene Info&0ation cha&)e the appellant an his co-accuse 5ith conspi&ac2 in :illin)Pia0onte.

    "onspi&ac2 eEists 5hen t5o o& 0o&e pe&sons co0e to an a)&ee0ent conce&nin) the co00ission of afelon2 an ecie to co00it it.%$"onspi&ac2 as a basis fo& conviction 0ust &est on nothin) less thana 0o&al ce&taint2.%"onsie&in) the fa&-&eachin) conseCuences of c&i0inal conspi&ac2, the sa0ee)&ee of p&oof necessa&2 in establishin) the c&i0e is &eCui&e to suppo&t the attenance the&eof,i.e., it 0ust be sho5n to eEist as clea&l2 an convincin)l2 as the co00ission of the offenseitself.%(Thus, it has been hel that neithe& 9oint no& si0ultaneous actions is pe& se sufficient p&oof ofconspi&ac2.%3

    =e a&e, fu&the&, )uie b2 the follo5in) p&onounce0ent of the "ou&t7

    'or conspiracy to e(ist, the participants must agree to the commission ofthe felony and decide to commit it, which agreement may be deduced fromthe mode and manner of the commission of the offense or inferred from theacts that point to )oint purpose and design, concerted action andcommunity of intent. ( ( (.*+

    =hile conspi&ac2 nee not be establishe b2 i&ect evience, it is, nonetheless, &eCui&e that it bep&ove b2 clea& an convincin) evience b2 sho5in) a se&ies of acts one b2 each of the accuse inconce&t an in pu&suance of the co00on unla5ful pu&pose.%%

    The&e is a 5ant of evience to sho5 the conce&te acts of the appellant an his co-accuse inpu&suin) a co00on esi)n - to :ill the ecease, Pia0onte. The sole e2e5itness fo& thep&osecution, Ba&cia, 5as cate)o&ical an p&ecise in ecla&in) that he i not see the act of stabbin)Pia0onte, no& the 0anne& in 5hich Pia0onte 5as stabbe. He late& lea&ne that Pia0onte ie f&o0stab 5ouns 5hen he sa5 the latte&Gs ea bo2 cove&e 5ith stab 5ouns. The cause of eath ofPia0onte, as foun b2 the RT" an the "ou&t of Appeals,%1an as bo&ne b2 the &eco&s, is 0ultiplestab 5ouns.%8It 5as, thus, incu0bent on the pa&t of the p&osecution to p&ove be2on &easonableoubt that the appellant an his co-accuse acte in conce&t 5ith a unit2 of pu&pose to :ill Pia0onte.The2 0ust sho5 to the satisfaction of this "ou&t the appellantGs ove&t act in pu&suance o& fu&the&anceof the co0plicit2.1'The2 0ust sho5 that appellantGs act of st&i:in) Pia0onte 5ith a pipe 5as an

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt80
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    36/46

    intentional pa&ticipation in the t&ansaction 5ith a vie5 to the fu&the&ance of the co00on esi)n anpu&pose.1#

    The p&osecution 5as unable to sho5, eithe& b2 i&ect o& ini&ect evience, p&oof of the a)&ee0enta0on) the appellant an his co-accuse to 5a&&ant conspi&ac2 as a basis fo& appellantGs conviction.No evience 5as even auce to sho5 i0plie conspi&ac2. Nothin) has been sho5n that the

    appellant an his co-accuse 5e&e >ai0e b2 thei& acts to5a&s the acco0plish0ent of the sa0eunla5ful ob9ect, each oin) a pa&t so that thei& co0bine acts, thou)h appa&entl2 inepenent ofeach othe& 5e&e, in fact, connecte an coope&ative, inicatin) a closeness of pe&sonal associationan a concu&&ence of senti0ent.>1$

    This co0plete absence of evience on the pa&t of the p&osecution to sho5 the conuct of theappellant an his co-accuse, isclosin) a co00on une&stanin) a0on) the0 &elative to theco00ission of the offense,1is fatal to the p&osecution. The p&osecutionGs 5itness coul not testif2 onthe 0anne& b2 5hich the ecease Pia0onte 5as stabbe, p&ecisel2 because b2 his o5n a0ission,he i not see the stabbin). No account of the stabbin) 5hich cause the eath of the eceasePia0onte 5as eve& )iven no& sho5n. /nfo&tunatel2, no account of ho5 Pia0onte ie 5as eve&)iven, eEcept fo& the establishe fact that he ie ue to stabbin). The appellantGs act of holin) a

    lea pipe an hittin) the ecease in the hea 5as not sho5n to be in fu&the&ance of the co00onesi)n of :illin) the ecease. =hat t&anspi&e u&in) the stabbin) of the victi0, 5hich is 0ate&ial top&ovin) the fact of conspi&ac2, is, &e)&ettabl2, left 0e&el2 to speculation. This "ou&t 0ust neithe&con9ectu&e no& su&0ise that a conspi&ac2 eEiste. The &ule is clea& that the )uilt of the accuse 0ustbe p&ove 5ith 0o&al ce&taint2.1(All oubts shoul be &esolve in favo& of the accuse. Thus, theti0e hono&e p&inciple in c&i0inal la5 that if the inculpato&2 facts a&e capable of t5o o& 0o&eeEplanations, one consistent 5ith the innocence of the accuse an the othe& 5ith his )uilt, the "ou&tshoul aopt that 5hich is 0o&e favo&able to the accuse fo& then the evience oes not fulfill thetest of 0o&al ce&taint2.13

    iabilit2 of the Accuse e&na& Mapalo

    The&e bein) no conspi&ac2, the liabilit2 of the appellant 5ill &evolve a&oun his iniviual pa&ticipation

    in the event.1?

    In the case of i v. People,1%a st&eet fi)ht ensue &esultin) in the eath of the victi0 the&ein. Noconspi&ac2 5as p&oven be2on &easonable oubt. The liabilit2 of the accuse i 5ho 5as sho5n tohave st&uc: the victi0Gs &i)ht a&0 5ith a baseball bat, &esultin) in a contusion 5as, thus, ete&0ineb2 the "ou&t in the follo5in) 0anne&7

    The onl2 in9u&2 att&ibutable to i is the contusion on the victi0Gs &i)ht a&0 that &esulte f&o0 i st&i:in);the victi0< A&u)a2 5ith a baseball bat. In vie5 of the victi0Gs supe&venin) eath f&o0 in9u&ies 5hichcannot be att&ibute to i be2on &easonable oubt, the effects of the contusion cause b2 i a&e not0o&tal o& at least lie enti&el2 in the &eal0 of speculation. =hen the&e is no evience of actualincapacit2 of the offene pa&t2 fo& labo& o& of the &eCui&e 0eical attenance, the offense is onl2

    sli)ht ph2sical in9u&ies, penali@e as follo5s7

    E E E E

    The u&ation of the penalt2 of a&&esto 0eno& is f&o0 one a2 to thi&t2 a2s. The felon2 of sli)htph2sical in9u&ies is necessa&il2 inclue in the ho0icie cha&)es. Since the Info&0ation a)ainst istates that a0on) the 0eans e0plo2e to co00it the felonious act 5as the use of the baseball bat,conviction on the lesse& offense o& sli)ht ph2sical in9u&ies is p&ope&. The&e bein) no a))&avatin) o&0iti)atin) ci&cu0stances establishe, the i0position of the penalt2 in its 0eiu0 pe&io is 5a&&ante.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt81http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt82http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt86http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt87http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt81http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt82http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt86http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt87
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    37/46

    i 5as convicte b2 the RT" on 6anua&2 3, #88(. Havin) lon) se&ve 0o&e than the i0posablepenalt2, i is entitle to i00eiate &elease unless, of cou&se, he is bein) la5full2 etaine fo&anothe& cause.11

    In the case at ba&, no in9u&2 5as sho5n to be att&ibutable to the appellant. The onl2 0eical eviencethat appea&s on &eco&s is the ecease Pia0onteGs eath ce&tificate,185hich inicates that the

    cause of eath is 0assive h2povole0ia8'secona&2 to 0ultiple stab 5ouns. The factual finin)s ofthe RT" an the "ou&t of Appeals coincie to sho5 that the cause of eath of Pia0onte is 0ultiplestab 5ouns. Nothin) has been sho5n othe&5ise. Othe& than the p&esence of 0ultiple stab 5ouns,no othe& t2pe of in9u&2 on the ecease 5as establishe. No contusions o& in9u&2 on the hea of thevicti0 o& an25he&e else in his bo2 cause b2 a lea pipe 5as sho5n. The 5itness Ba&cia, in histesti0on2, 0e&el2 pointe to stab 5ouns on the iffe&ent pa&ts of the bo2 of the ecease. 8#Nop&oof on the in9u&2 that 5as sustaine b2 the ecease that can be att&ibutable to appellantGs act 5ase0onst&ate. No othe& ph2sical evience 5as p&offe&e.8$

    e cannot convict appellant of !ttempted or 'rustrated urder or#omicide. The principal and essential element of attempted or frustratedhomicide or murder is the assailant&s intent to ta%e the life of the personattac%ed./uch intent must be proved clearly and convincingly, so as toe(clude reasonable doubt thereof.0Intent to %ill may be proved byevidence of1 2a3 motive4 2b3 the nature or number of weapons used in thecommission of the crime4 2c3 the nature and number of wounds inflicted onthe victim4 2d3 the manner the crime was committed4 and 2e3 words utteredby the offender at the time the in)uries are inflicted by him on the victim. 5

    In the case at ba&, no 0otive on the pa&t of appellant to :ill Pia0onte 5as sho5n eithe& p&io& o&subseCuent to the incient. No& can such intent to :ill be infe&&e f&o0 his acts. It bea&s &eite&atin)that no in9u&2 on the bo2 of the ecease 5as att&ibute to the appellantGs act of hittin) the victi0

    5ith a lea pipe. On the natu&e of the 5eapon use, the lea pipe 5as esc&ibe b2 Ba&cia as onean a half feet in len)th, an one an a half inches in ia0ete&. The &elevant testi0on2 of Ba&cia onthe incient follo5s7

    No5 2ou sai that e&na& Mapalo clubbe this Manuel Pia0onte. He clubbe hi0 f&o0 behin

    A es, si&.

    An 5hat i he use in clubbin) the victi0, is it lea pipe

    A es, si&.

    Ho5 lon) is that lea pipe

    A A&oun this len)th. *=itness e0onst&ate # #L$ feet+.

    An ho5 5ie is the ia0ete&

    A # F inches.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt88http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt88http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt90http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt91http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt92http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt93http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt94http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt95http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt88http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt90http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt91http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt92http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt93http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt94http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt95
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    38/46

    =hat pa&t of his bo2 5as hit

    A Ri)ht sie of the hea, si&. *=itness sho5in) the &i)ht sie of his hea.+8?

    Ho0icial intent 0ust be evience b2 the acts that, at the ti0e of thei& eEecution, a&e un0ista:abl2calculate to p&ouce the eath of the victi0 b2 aeCuate 0eans.8%=e cannot infe& intent to :ill f&o0

    the appellantGs act of hittin) Pia0onte in the hea 5ith a lea pipe. In the fi&st place, 5ouns 5e&enot sho5n to have been inflicte because of the act. Seconl2, absent p&oof of ci&cu0stances tosho5 the intent to :ill be2on &easonable oubt, this "ou&t cannot ecla&e that the sa0e 5asattenant.

    =hen the offene& shall ill-t&eat anothe& b2 ee 5ithout causin) an2 in9u&2, an 5ithout causin)ishono&, the offense is Malt&eat0ent une& A&ticle $??,81pa&. of the Revise Penal "oe. It 5asbe2on &easonable oubt that b2 hittin) Pia0onte, appellant ill-t&eate the latte&, 5ithout causin) an2in9u&2. As 5e have ea&lie& state, no p&oof of in9u&2 5as offe&e. Malt&eat0ent is necessa&il2 incluein Mu&e&, 5hich is the offense cha&)e in the Info&0ation. Thus7

    ART. $??. Sli)ht ph2sical in9u&ies an 0alt&eat0ent. The c&i0e of sli)ht ph2sical in9u&ies shall be

    punishe7

    E E E E

    . 2 a&&esto 0eno& in its 0ini0u0 pe&io o& a fine not eEceein) 3' pesos 5hen the offene& shallill-t&eat anothe& b2 ee 5ithout causin) an2 in9u&2.

    The u&ation of the penalt2 of a&&esto 0eno& in its 0ini0u0 pe&io is # a2 to #' a2s.

    =H!R!4OR!, the Decision of the "ou&t of Appeals, ate $# Nove0be& $''3, in "A-B.R. "R H"No. ''('1 is MODI4I!D.Appellant e&na& Mapalo is A"/ITT!D of the cha&)e of M/RD!R fo&lac: of evience be2on &easonable oubt.He %& 'ou() GUILT* o' +e -r%e o' M!LTRE!TMENT,

    as efine an punishe b2 A&ticle $??, pa&. of the Revise Penal "oe. He is acco&in)l2sentence to suffe& the penalt2 of i0p&ison0ent of a&&esto 0eno& of #' a2s."onsie&in) thatappellant has been inca&ce&ate since $''(, 5hich is 5ell-be2on the pe&io of the penalt2 he&eini0pose, the Di&ecto& of the u&eau of P&isons is o&e&e to cause appellantGs IMM!DIAT!R!!AS!, unless appellant is bein) la5full2 hel fo& anothe& cause, an to info&0 this "ou&t, 5ithinfive *3+ a2s f&o0 &eceipt of this Decision, of the co0pliance the&e5ith.

    SO ORD!R!D.

    MINIT! /. CHICO#N!$!RIOAssociate 6ustice

    =! "ON"/R7

    CONSUELO *N!RES S!NTI!GOAssociate 6ustice

    "hai&pe&son

    M!. !LICI! !USTRI!#M!RTINE$Associate 6ustice

    ROMEO . C!LLEO, SR.Asscociate 6ustice

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt96http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt97http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt98http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt96http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt97http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#fnt98
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    39/46

    A T T ! S T A T I O N

    I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision 5e&e &eache in consultation befo&e the case 5asassi)ne to the 5&ite& of the opinion of the "ou&tGs Division.

    CONSUELO *N!RES#S!NTI!GO

    Associate 6ustice"hai&pe&son, Thi& Division

    " ! R T I 4 I " A T I O N

    Pu&suant to Section #, A&ticle VIII of the "onstitution, an the Division "hai&pe&sonGs Attestation, itis he&eb2 ce&tifie that the conclusions in the above Decision 5e&e &eache in consultation befo&ethe case 5as assi)ne to the 5&ite& of the opinion of the "ou&tGs Division.

    RE*N!TO S. PUNO"hief 6ustice

    Foo+(o+e&

    #Penne b2 P&esiin) 6u)e Sa0uel R. Ma&ti&es &eco&s, pp. 1'-11.

    $Penne b2 Associate 6ustice Ro&i)o V. "osico 5ith Associate 6ustices Re)alao !.Maa0bon) an ucenito N. Ta)le, concu&&in) "A &ollo, pp. 1#-8#.

    Reco&s, p. #-a.

    (I. at ?.

    3I. at 3.

    ?I. at (#.

    %I. at ?.

    1I. at ?$.

    8I. at $(-$3'.

    #'TSN, #3 6ul2 #88?, p. %.

    ##Refe&&in) to one of the accuse, Rolano Mapalo alias >ano.>

    #$Sup&a note #' at 1.

    #I. at #'.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_172608_2007.html#rnt13
  • 7/24/2019 ANOD VS. PEOPLE

    40/46

    #(I. at #-#(.

    #3I. at #(.

    #?I.

    #%I.

    #1I. at #'.

    #8I.

    $'I. at #3.

    $#The&e appea&s to be a confusion on the ate. The incient t&anspi&e f&o0 the evenin) of#$ 4eb&ua&2 #88( to ea&l2 0o&nin) of # 4eb&ua&2 #88(.

    $$TSN, $1 6une #888, p. .

    $I. at (.

    $(I. at -(.

    $3I.

    $?I. at ?.

    $%I. at 3-?.

    $1

    I.

    $8Sup&a note $#.

    'TSN, $ 4eb&ua&a