l\epublic of tbe tlbilippine.u .

; i;

Siupremt Court
;fflanila

THIRD DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a R~olutiori I
I,

dated November 28, 2018, which reads as follows: 'ji

, j

"G.R. No. 238755 (People of the Philippines v. Diego Wierallo y

Villegas) - This is an appeal by certiorari from the January 1!~, 2017
De~ision of the Court of Appeals (C~) in ~~-G.R. CR HC ~ffl·· 075?7
1

which affirmed the June 29, 2015 Jomt Decis10n2 of the Reg10~·al Trial
Court of Parafiaque City, Branch 195 (RTC), finding accused+' 'ppellant
Diego Veralloy Villegas (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable ' oubt of
murder, frustrated murder, and two counts of attempted murder.

Antecedents

In the evening of March 24, 2006, a shooting incident 1 ori'. took ~lace
Bayabas Street, Sampaloc Site II, Sucat, Parafiaque City, which re~ulted in :,
the death of Royston M. Carandang (Royston) and infliction o~1 gunshot .
woun~s on Marife Leo~ardo (Marife), Estrellita A. Carandang (E,~trellita), ·.
and Michael Ian Tula (Michael). !'.i ·

. .
After the pre1immary . . .
mvest1gatlon, appe 11ant, Denms
. 'I ato l"ico: • lie
(Dennis) and Frankie Lipata y Dula (Frankie) were formally ch~~ed with
murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and attempted murder, as •Jhown in.
the following second amended informations3 : ':
·1 '
.'11 . ,,,
,,
Criminal Case No. 06-0438 ·:1

That on or about the 24th day of March 2006, in the CitY j of

Parafiaque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honora,ple 'I

Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with~n.e I

John Doe, whose true name and present whereabouts is still unknown· d
all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, armed with fire ·· ·s,
with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, and abvse
,1[. .:· ..

1
Rollo, pp. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, and concurred in ~~ Associat~ 1:
Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Ramon A. Cruz. :I ·.
1
!,
2
CA ro//o, pp. 86-106; penned by Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal. 'I , •• ,

3
Id. at 25-27. ;! ··.
I -Sit .. ·'·
- over- .' (335)
I. "''lr~ 1.
Resolution -2 - G.R. No. 238755
November 28, 2018

of superior strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and

feloniously attack, assault and shoot one ROYSTON MUNCAL
CARANDANG, thereby inflicting upon him mortal gunshot wounds
which directly caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LA W. 4

Criminal Case No. 06-0439

That on or about the 24th day of March 2006, in the City of

Parafiaque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with one
John Doe, whose true name and present whereabouts is still unknown and
all of them mutually helping, and aiding one another, armed with firearms,
with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault, shoot, and employ
personal violence upon the person of one ESTRELLITA AGUILA
CARANDANG, on her left upper buttock, thereby inflicting upon her
injuries which should have produced the crime of Murder, as a
consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of cause or
causes independent of their will, that is, due to the timely and able medical
assistance rendered to said ESTRELLITA AGUILA CARANDANG,
which prevented her death.

CONTRARY TO LA W. 5

Criminal Case No. 06-0440

That on or about the 24th day of March 2006, in the City of

Parafiaque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with one
John Doe, whose true name and present whereabouts is still unknown and
all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, armed with firearms,
with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault, shoot, and employ
personal violence upon the person of one MARIFE LEONARDO, on her
stomach and right knee, thereby inflicting upon her injuries which should
have produced the crime of Murder, as a consequence, but nevertheless
did not produce it by reason of cause or causes independent of their will,
that is, due to the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said
MARIFE LEONARDO, which prevented her death.

CONTRARY TO LA W. 6

Criminal Case No. 06-0441

That on or about the 24th day of March 2006, in the City of

Parafiaque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with one
John Doe, whose true name and present whereabouts is still unknown and
all of them mutually helping, and aiding one another, with intent to kill,

45 Records, p. 184.
1

Id. at 1053.
6
Id. at 1146.
-ie
- over - (335)
lnCl>i'
Resolution -3 -
I~!
G.R. No. 23~ 55
November 2f, 2018
!1 i I,
i '' ·" ·li1
without justifiable cause and with abuse of superior strength, did then1' ' d 1:
'
there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault, shoot, 1 d .!:
employ personal violence upon the person of one MICHAEL IAN Tu: ,A,, I

hitting his left knee, thereby commencing the commission of the crinie of
11
Murder directly by overt acts but the said accused did not perform all!,' e J:
acts of execution which should have produced the crime of Murder :; ' a i_ (
·1

consequence by reason of cause or causes other than their 9 ·

J':·

spontaneous desistance, that is, due to the timely and able medl al
assistance rendered to said complainant. !i :
ii;
7
CONTRARYTOLAW. [t:
iii
I!.
:!
When arraigned, appellant duly assisted by counsel pleaded '.: · t guilty
to the charges. His co-accused, Dennis and Frankie, remained at large~I
1

;,

. 11

1
During .the trial, the prosecution presented as eyewitnesst to the
shooting Marlon Leonardo (Marlon), Michael, George Edmilao :, eorge),
and Rosita Carandang (Rosita), along with the following physicians' on their
respective medical findings: Dr. Jerome Grajeda (Dr. Grajeda), Dr~l Voltaire
P. Nulud (Dr. Nulud), and Dr. Leo Principe (Dr. Principe). Appty lant and
his tenant, Rodrigo Galam (Galam), testified for the defense. Ii . '
Ii
·I'.
Version of the Prosecution Ir
!!

. O~ March 24, 2?06, at .around ~ o'clock. in the evening, M.~lon an<i 1

his cousm Royston, fnend Michael, sister Marife, and aunt Estreµita were .
hanging out at the sari-sari store of Royston's aunt, Rosita, located~·.'.t.No. 4.l•·. .
Bayabas St., Sampaloc Site II, Barangay BF Homes, Parafiaque Q ty. Also:
present were one "Nocnoc," Christopher Gulaher, and Maloni eonardq.; 1

They were all seated and chatting in front of the store. '! · '·

Royston .was busy with his .cellphone whe~ appellant togethef;l .with his. ·.}!
1

co-accused amved, all armed with guns, commg from the outef road ()f (!
"labasan." Appellant and Dennis were the first to approach fioyston's Ji
group, followe~ by the two other co-accused. Appellant suddenly. PAii;ited his J:i
"super" .38-cahber short firearm at Royston and pulled the trtgg~r. Afterll
appellant had .fired three or fiv~ sh~ts,. De!111~s was also seen firin~jhis gun.{;
The four assailants began shootmg mdiscnmmately at the people 1~ front of i:
the store who scampered to safety. '! · ;

1:1

Royston fell and even knelt before appellant pleading, "Tamqina," but.
appellant fired two more shots at him. Appellant also fired at Marife, hitting ' I• ,.

her just below the navel. Michael ran for cover but appellant shot h~f11 on the
knee. Estrellita was hit on her lower middle back during the indi~riminate,

;I
7
Id. at 1241.
:~I~ -it:
- over- '
.1'
i,j (~~.I
1t:

"l
'i
~j
 Resolution -4 - G.R. No. 238755
November 28, 2018

Ii

firing. Thereafter, the assailants casually walked down towards the end of
Bayabas Street.

Marlon found the wounded Michael and Marife, as well as their other
companions, inside the store. Estrellita followed him inside. The rest of the
group helped bring the victims to the Parafiaque City Medical Center. A
.µeighbor, George, hid behind a video karera at the garage of the store while
i the shooting was going on. He brought Royston to the same hospital but the
i·

~atter was pronounced dead on arrival. Marife was confined and underwent
1,
\!
f,
i ~urgery due to serious injury on her small intestine. Michael and Estrellita
I.
11. were
I
also treated for gunshot wounds.
'!'
I
I'
;,,
l
'
' At around 2 o'clock in the morning of March 25, 2006, the policemen
arrested appellant at his residence on Calamansi St., Sampaloc Site II,
Parafiaque City.

Version of the Defense

Appellant claimed that on March 24, 2006, he was at home with his
family. From 8 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock in the afternoon, he
did some repairs in his house assisted by a certain "Boy." By 5 o'clock in
tjhe afternoon, Boy had left while he rested and watched television. After
fuaving dinner with his wife, children, and house helper, he went to bed. At
~round 2 o'clock in the early morning of March 25, 2006, his wife was
~wakened by the arrival of several policemen who came to invite him to the
police station. Since his conscience was clear that he did not commit any
qffense, he went with them.
'·

At the police station, he saw Leonardo Carandang, from their

1

neighborhood, who pointed to him as the one who shot Royston. He denied
any knowledge of the shooting incident as he was busy doing repairs in his
house. He asked that a paraffin test be conducted to show he did not shoot
Royston. The police officers refused his request and detained him. The
following day, he repeated his request, to no avail. During a visit at the jail,
4is brother told him that someone who wanted to testify to prove his
innocence was threatened by the private complainants.

Galam, now a retired member of the Philippine Marine Corps who

was renting one of the rooms at the ground floor of appellant's house since
January 16, 2006, testified that appellant never left his house on March 24,
2006. At the time of the shooting incident, he was in active service assigned
at the Second Marine Battalion in Puerto Princesa City, but was on a
vacation privilege. Prior to the incident, he had already been staying at
............. ,lM?pellant's residence, together with his wife and child, for two weeks .
Between his room and the gate of the house was a billiards table owned and
~
- over - (335)
biti..~
 l

I:ilj''I
I; I

i',. !
I

Resolution -5 - G.R. No. 2381755

I•

November 1~' 2018

1;1
I

rented out by appellant. On that day, appellant was busy repairing .; 1 ~ roof
1

q,fr
his house until 5 o'clock in the afternoon. He even chatted with··! appellant:,
when the latter. was already. resting. By. 7 o'clock in the. e;ening,i j,~p.pellant
went up to their room an~ mstructed him to close the billiard h~~ .and the:i•; 1

gate at 9 o'clock that mght. There were no players that da , · becam1e,j 1

1

appellant was busy with house repairs and could not attend to hi billiards.]' '

business. Thus, between 7and 9 o'clock that night, he was al or( playing!
billiards. At 9 o'clock in the evening, he went to his room to take ~ bath. AH:•
the time he was playing billiards, he never saw appellant come dffiwn from·J···.
his room or leave the house. It was impossible for anyone to cire downi:;
ticed. lt1~ 1
1
from the second floor or go out through the gate without being 1
,
1
was likewise impossible for anyone to have jumped out the hi ' second'! j

floor window. In the early morning of March 25, 2006, G. am was(1 1

1

awakened by knocking on the gate. He peeped through his jalous( window!::

and saw appellant's wife go down the stairs to open the gatefj! He saw::
appellant resist when the policemen invited him to go with the'. to the;:
1

police station to explain something. He later learned from appel1 t's wifeJ.I '.

I : -~ '' r
that appellant was a suspect in a ''patayan" (killing) in Sampal ·•c. Nowj I
residing at Quirino .P:ovince, Galam has also learned from his btl :· ther th~tl 1

appellant was put to Jail. .; ,I:

I !'i
' '~Ii
j.
Ruling of the RTC ,,J • j,
d 'i

.1:'1e RTC convicted appellant of the following crimes: (a) ~Lder rQ/
the killmg of Royston; (b) frustrated murder for the mortal gunsl'f?t wound,··
inflicted on Marife; and (c) two counts of attempted murder for ~~, gunshot,
wounds inflicted on Michael and Estrellita. On the charge of :frustrated,·
murder for the shooting of Estrellita, the trial court said that whil~j, she was,
able to present a medical certificate, there was no evidence of the ~~ture and'·
extent of her injuries. It was also held that the killing was a~~nded bY,
treachery because, as narrated by eyewitnesses, the attack was su~den and
unexpected, giving the victims no opportunity to defend themselves. i .i1 • i· t
·I·' il,:
1·.li' ' .1

The RTC did not give any weight to the appellant's defense !~f
denial.:·
The prosecution witnesses' positive, direct, categorical, and straigl}tforwarcif
declarations on the witness stand, that they actually saw appell*1t shoot
Royston and the other victims, was also supported by documentary ··
evidence. As to appellant's testimony that he just stayed in his h,puse that
day, the trial court found it self-serving and not duly corroborat~~· It also
1
found not credible the testimony of his witness, Galam, considl;: ing tha;f
appellant himself had never mentioned Galam' s presence in ~, s ho us¢. i';
Galam's explanation for not immediately telling the police that! I, ppellatjt,::,
was in his house during the time of the incident was likewise doubtful~ , i 'J:
!'ii 1:.1
1' ! Ji> ~: I

! !~ ' ' '" '

The dispositive portion of the RTC Joint Decision reads:

:1
I·
l•
.u,.,
1i
Ii ~ ;1,

- over- i!1 (335}i: '

m~.··

:1
Ii i, ·, ~ ;
If • ' ' '
Resolution -6 - G.R. No. 238755
i November 28, 2018

WHEREFORE, finding the evidence of the prosecution sufficient

to prove the guilt of accused Diego Verallo y Villegas, BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT, for the crimes of murder of Royston Muncal
Carandang; frustrated murder committed against Marife Leonardo, and
two (2) counts of attempted murder committed against Estrellita Aguila
Carandang and Michael Ian Tula, respectively, the court imposes on him
the following penalties:

1. In criminal case no. 06-0438, the court hereby sentences him to

suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua which carries with it the
accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life and that of
perpetual absolute disqualification which he shall suffer even
though pardoned unless the same shall have been expressly
remitted. Accused is also ordered to pay the heirs of the victim
the sum of Three Hundred Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred
(Php321,500.00) Pesos, as actual damages; Fifty Thousand
(Php50,000.00) Pesos, as civil indemnity ex delicto; Forty
Thousand (Php40,000.00) Pesos, as moral damages; and Twenty
Thousand (Php20,000.00) Pesos, as exemplary damages;

2. In criminal case no. 06-0439, the court hereby sentences him to

suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Two (2)
years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of prision correccional,
as minimum, to Eight (8) years and One ( 1) day of prision
mayor, as maximum, which carries with it accessory penalties of
civil interdiction and that of temporary absolute disqualification
and perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage;

3. In criminal case no. 06-0440 the court hereby sentences him to

suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of eight (8)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, which carries with it the accessory
penalties of civil interdiction during the period of sentence and
perpetual absolute disqualification which he shall suffer even
though pardoned unless the same shall have been expressly
remitted therein. Accused is also ordered to indemnify private
complainant the sum of One Hundred Thousand Five Hundred
(Phpl00,500.00) Pesos; and

4. In criminal case no. 06-0441 the court hereby sentences him to

suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Two (2)
years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of prision correccional,
as minimum, to Eight (8) years and One (1) day of prision
mayor, as maximum which carries with it accessory penalties of
civil interdiction and that of temporary absolute disqualification
and perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage.
Accused is also ordered to indemnify private complainant the
sum of Thirteen Thousand (Php13,000.00) Pesos.

The City Jail Warden of Paraiiaque City is hereby ordered to transfer

said accused to the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa City, immediately
upon receipt of this Decision.
!

.1,

~
- over-
(~~
 ,:I· J
I'
'I , "
Resolution -7 - G.R. No. 23~155
November 2~, 2018
i
,,
;1
As regards accused Dennis Catolico, Frankie Lipatay Dula,
John Do~, let this case remain in archive. Let a warrant of arrest be is~ ed
lti'
d
1 ··
id
1:

anew against them. · 1; •

So ORDERED • 8 I!'! :ii'l'

~' I
''
jt.I
I i 'li
.,,

Ruling of the CA I ', ;:

,.
I'
.I
:: ' ]·!
!, 4'
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of appellant fd, murder,·!,
frustrated murder, and two counts of attempted murder. It : ited the:l . I ,

circumstances of the shooting showing appellant's intent to kill. , e aimed I'

his gun directly at the victims and did not just intend to frighten •' e peoplej
in front of the store. Further, it was held that the acts committed b~. ppellant'.
were attended by treachery, the attack being so sudden that it )• ave the (
victims no opportunity to defend themselves. !•, , .:

· Ii
The defense of denial was likewise rejected by the CA. It her that the'
testimonies of prosecution witnesses Marlon, Rosita, George, an~ Michael.;
1

were consistent in pointing to him as the one who shot Royston anqj the other1
victims. These eyewitness accounts established that appellant I, suddenly]
appeared from behind Royston and fired three successive shots ~~ti e latter.;·,. '.I,

and followed. by two shots. On the other hand, Galam's testl. ,ony was:
deemed an afterthought, being merely concocted to support appell t's alibi.: 1 •·
I

The RTC correctly disregarded the witness' testimony.

However, the appellate court modified the award of damages, lfl"'

WHEREFORE the Joint Decision dated June 29, 2015 of![Jthe
Regional Trial Court of Parafiaque City, Branch 195 in Crim. Case ij·os.
06-0438, 06-0439, 06-0440 and 06-0441 is AFFIRMED with )'the
following MODIFICATIONS with respect to the damages awarde~~ to
wit: :I ,
11
I

'"
..";:
1. In Criminal Case No. 06-0438, accused-appellant Veral~~ ~is i' ·::
,.; I.I'-:~ 11
ordered to pay the heirs of Royston Carandang Php321,500.q ,.· as ::,' i!
actual damages, Phpl00,000.00as civil inde ' ity, ~ 11 ' 1; [
'i!: Iii
Phpl00,000.00 as moral damages, and Phpl00,000.00/: ~s .ri ·~ ,';
exemplary damages; i :I '

2. In Criminal Case No. 06-0439, accused-appellant Verallo is ord,~r~d ·'.!

1

to pay Estrellita Aguila Carandang PhpS0,000.00 as moral dam4.r es, :1,

I
and PhpS0,000.00 as exemplary damages; i, , I

3. In Criminal Case No. 06-0440, accused-appellant Verallo is ord~,red

~
to pay Marife Carandang PhplOS,500.00 as actual <lama es, '

Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemp ary

damages; and •1
l
:·1 .
8
CA rol/o, pp. I 05-106. ,:1 .sa.t..
- over-
~il>
I'
I
I
 Resolution -8 - G.R. No. 238755
November 28, 2018

4. In Criminal Case No. 06-0441, accused-appellant Verallo is

ordered to pay Michael Ian Tula Php13,000.00 as actual
damages, Php50,000.00 as moral damages, and Php50,000.00 as
exemplary damages.

An interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is likewise

imposed on all the damages awarded, to earn from the date of finality of
this judgment until fully paid, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
I
;,/:'
,
SO ORDERED. 9
lo'
1:
i! ISSUES
ii!
!!:'

. The issues presented for resolution are: 1) Whether appellant was

correctly convicted of murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder;
2) whether treachery attended the killing of Royston; and 3) whether
~ppellant was positively identified as the one who shot Estrellita, Marife and
Michael.

Appellant's Arguments

Appellant assails the trial and appellate courts for convicting him of
kurder despite the discrepancy between the eyewitness account of Michael
and the testimony of Dr. Nulud. Michael said that Royston was hit on the left
I

shoulder, center chest, and right lower chest. Dr. Nulud's medico-legal
report showed that Royston was shot from behind; all of the entry wounds
were found on his back.

On positive identification, appellant points out that he was not singled

~ut by the eyewitnesses as the one who shot Michael, Marife, and Estrellita.
Rosita ascribed the indiscriminate firing to the "group of Verallo" while
George pointed to both appellant and Dennis as the ones who fired the shots.
In the absence of conspiracy, each of the accused in this case should only be
held liable for his own acts, the corresponding damage, and the
consequences. Since the prosecution failed to ascribe the shooting of either
Michael, Marife, and Estrellita specifically to appellant, the latter should not
be held liable for the crimes of frustrated and attempted murder.

As to the qualifying circumstance of treachery, appellant contends

that the prosecution failed to prove that he had deliberately chosen the
particular mode of attack he employed. Hence, appellant should only be
held liable for homicide and frustrated homicide.

,,....,,,,.,

~
9
Id. at 269-270.

~z~
- over-
 .1
:I
I
Resolution -9 - G.R. No. 238755
November 2~~ 2018

With respect to the gunshot wounds sustained by Mic ael and:

· ."~: Ii. "''f

Estrellita, appellant avers that these were not mortal wounds. Mi~' EJ.el only .
1

sustained two wounds at the backside of his left knee - an entry w,~und and·'
an exit wound; thus, it cannot be said that appellant shot Michael ~fth intent,(
to kill. The same can be deduced from the gunshot wound sustined by _t
Estrellita. While she testified that she was hit in the lower back, no 1evidence .l
f

was presented to prove that the nature of the injuries indicated art1jintent to·
kill. Without intent to kill, the alleged act of shooting cannot be ognsidered
attempted murder, but only physical injuries. il ·
j

Solicitor General's Arguments 11

:I •I

The State, represented by the Solicitor General, asserts thw·" all the ,·
elements of murder are present in this case. The killing of Roi ton was
attended by treachery. Royston was just texting on his cellpho:; e, while
s~ated in fro?t of t~e store, when appellant a~proached and sud9~.nly sh?t 1
him several times with a short firearm. The swift and unexpected ~ttack did i !
not afford the unsuspecting victim any opportunity to defend himself.!( ·
!1
ii
!J

On the alleged inconsistency between Michael's testi~ 1

1
ny and ! 1

D~. Nulud's ~edico-legal report and court testimony, it is empha~'zed that:;(

Michael's testimony actually supports the statement of Dr. Nul, d. Wh~t,': 1

Michael saw, in fact, were the exit wounds on the left shoulder, ce~ er ches~, ;ii
and lower right chest. Regardless of how Michael's recollectitjf, . of thf;. '1
~hoo~ing incident is viewed, the fact . re~ains th~t ~ichael Rositively •.
1dent1fied appellant as the gunman, which 1s of pnme 1mportan~e. Even·
assuming there is such inconsistency, there are other eyewitness,~s. to the f
shooting of Royston whose credibility remains unchallenged. 'I 1:
..
::

iri'

.' :i .i '

The Solicitor General also concurred with the RTC and the: CA that
the shooting was done with intent to kill. This can be inferred frorri the fact, \.:
that appellant used a firearm, a lethal weapon, to indiscriminately !fire upon')l1
1
the victims. Such intent to kill was manifest when appellant sU<9cessively '
shot Royston at close range, and then continued to indiscriminat~~y fire af .,
Marife, Michael, and Estrellita. Fortunately, they managed to f~d safety,:(
~nside_ Rosita's house despite the gunshot w?unds they sustain~~· If th~ ·, ·
mtent10n was merely to scare the group seated m front of the store,: ~ppellaqt ·
could have just fired his gun into the air or aimed it away from tli:e peopl~ ·
nearby. Without any doubt, the appellant committed murder in it$. various ·
• • 'ii ...
stages, not homicide. , 1

,:j ii

On the matter of positive identification, the Solicitor Gener~l argue~

· :
that in criminal cases, the doctrine that evaluation of the cred~~ility of:'
witn.esses is a?dressed to ti:e sound discretion ~f the trial judge it,
settled: .•
Havmg the unique opportumty to observe the witnesses on the staqd and to ·
''I
:., '
1I Q..t1
...::- •'

- over - :i li ~z~)
'I
II
j

1J . fj ~
 I
Resolution -10 - G.R. No. 238755
'
i November 28, 2018
i
l
I

more closely ascertain if they are telling the truth or not, the judge's
conclusions deserve much weight and respect.

i
OUR RULING
I
I
We uphold the findings of the RTC, which were affirmed by the CA,
that appellant, using a short firearm, shot Royston at close range three or five
times and fired at Marife and Michael. Thereafter, together with his three
companions, appellant indiscriminately fired at the group in front of the
~tore, hitting Estrellita. Appellant was positively identified by no less than
four prosecution witnesses to the incident.
i1'
Appellant liable for the murder
ofRoyston Carandang

To hold the accused liable for murder, the prosecution must prove
that: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was
10
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor
infanticide. 11 The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all these
elements in the present case.

, Marlon was just two arms-length away from appellant when he saw
the latter shoot Royston with a super .38-caliber gun. He heard more than
five shots fired by appellant. 12 He had known appellant for more than five
years already, as he would always see him and join him in a drinking spree
13
~t appellant's house. After helping bring the victims to the hospital, he
~eported the incident to the police authorities and accompanied them in
~rresting appellant at his residence. 14

Michael, who was seated beside Royston, saw appellant fire at

:Royston, the first shot hitting his left shoulder, the second shot in the center
qhest, and the third shot in the right lower chest. 15 As he ran for cover,
~ppellant pointed his gun at him and hit him on his left knee. Shocked,
Michael managed to run inside the store. 16 While inside, he peeped through
I
i:
I
1
? 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 temporal in its maximum period to death if
committed with any of the following 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[.]
xx xx
11, People v. Zapuiz, 704 Phil, 511, 520 (2013).
1
~TSN, March 12, 2007, pp. 15-17.
13
Id. at 21.
:! Id.TSN,at 25-30.
May 9, 2007, pp. 17-19.
1
~ Id. at 23-24. s:e
- over- (335)
'"'cU
 ~
:
'
I
i
i
Resolution -11 - G.R. No. 23 755
November 2,, ,. 2018
j: ' 1,
I I
j, ;:
I':. Ii·'
1
the window and saw the assailants still firing their guns. He saw:! , ppellant1:
shoot Royston two more times. Thereafter, the assailants headed to,' ards th~.··,
end of Bayabas St. acting as if nothing happened. 17 He knew appel~ t as he·
also frequented gambling places such as during wakes for ·· e dead.
However, lie said he 18did not know appellant personally and no ~ tercation
I, r

existed between them. I'

i
,,i
I: ,, ·'

George testified that the victims were his neighbors and ~ nds. He~;
knew appellant whom he often saw at Sucat whenever he ,, ove his
passenger jeepney (namamasada). Appellant was among those in i, harge of!!
dispatchers. He knew Dennis who is also from Bayabas Street. Atl the time 'i'i
of the incident, he was playing video games at the garage of . oyston ':,s l,!
house in front of the sari-sari store. He saw appellant draw his g · : and fire ]:i
three successive shots at Royston, hitting the ~atter's upper left ,,h~st andj 1,

stomach. Thereafter, he saw appellant and Dennis fire shots at tho~. 1n fro~ti:
of the store, hitting Marife in the stomach and right foot, Michael · ·'his left~!
1

knee, and Estrellita in her lower middle back. While the shooting :, as goi~g1,
on, he hid behind the video karera, about five arms-length a:. ay. T1'ei'
assailants then walked down Bayabas Street as if nothing happene:,. Georgef
brought Royston to the hospital. 19 On cross-examination, Ge ge said): I.

appellant was just two-arms-length from Royston when appellant . .irst shot:
the latter. While hiding behind the video karera, he saw Royston i all down!
after he was shot. Royston even knelt down begging appellant tcif stop but 1

appellant continued to shoot. Marife was the next one shot but G~ · rge was
not sure who shot her because appellant and Dennis were firing th~~, ~uns at
the same time. Michael and Estrellita were also hit during the shootin ~ 2
11
' .
I , ,
. '
I ' .
I .··

Rosita testified that she knew appellant and his two c,; ~accuse~ ·
(Dennis and Frankie) having been a resident of Bayabas St. for 1, 1 years.·· ,
She was about one and a half (1 'l-2) meters away from Royston.; d more
than three (3) meters away from appellant when she saw the latter: 1re three,
successive shots that felled Royston. All the four accused were: shooting,.,,
indiscriminately and the people around were running away. !, fter th~::!:
shooting, the four assailants just walked nonchalantly towards th, · , end qf/
Bayabas Street as if nothing happened. 21 On cross-examination, sh~ clarifie8j,!
:! ,, ~! 1, I:

that after appellant had shot Royston, he pointed his gun at Marife: .and shqt::;:
her, hitting the lower portion of her navel. Thereafter, appellant start~d firidg/
indiscriminately and hit Marife in the knee. She also saw appel\Wit shod~ ..
Michael as the latter was about to go inside her house. However, s~¢' was not
.1

17
Id. at 32-34.
18
Id. at 65-67.
19
TSN, September 26, 2007, pp. 9-18 and 20-31. lj i i
:1,
20
TSN, October 24, 2007, pp. 25-30. I'',,11
21
TSN, November 12, 2008, pp. 8-10 and 15-20. ~··,,
"
- over- (335)
hlc.\.G:,,
,I
i :

·' I
'·1 ·
1
I
:

•(
 Resolution - 12 - G.R. No. 238755
November 28, 2018

~ure who fired at her sister Estrellita. She did not know of any
22
misunderstanding or altercation between appellant and her family.

The trial judge gave full faith and credence to the above testimonies.
His findings were affirmed by the appellate court. As a general rule, factual
findings of trial courts affirmed by the Court of Appeals are binding and
'
'· ~onclusive upon the Supreme Court. 23
!

• We find no sufficient justification here to depart from this time-

24
honored rule. As we emphatically declared in People v. Hillado :
I
I

With regard to the issue of credibility of witnesses, the Court has

time and again pointed out that appellate courts will not disturb the
findings of the trial court unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the
case. This is so because the trial judge heard the witnesses testify and had
the opportunity to observe their demeanor and manner of testifying. As
this Court has reiterated often enough, the matter of assigning values to
declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently
performed or carried out by a trial judge who, unlike appellate
magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the accused's
behavior, demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial. This Court has
none of the advantages of the trial judge's position, relying as it does only
on the cold records of the case and on the judge's discretion. Thus, in the
absence of showing that the factual findings of the trial judge were
reached arbitrarily or without sufficient basis, these findings are to be
received with respect by, and indeed are binding on this Court. 25
(Emphasis supplied)

It has been correctly observed that the natural interest of witnesses

iwho are relatives of the victims, more so being victims themselves, in
:securing the conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating
:persons other than the culprits; for, otherwise, the culprits would gain
:immunity. 26 Jurisprudence tells us that where there is no evidence that the
iwitnesses of the prosecution were actuated by ill motive, it is presumed that
[they were not so actuated and their testimony is entitled to full faith and
'credit. In the present case, no imputation of improper motive on the part of the
,prosecution witnesses was ever made by appellant. 27

!2223 TSN, November 4, 2009, pp. 22-27 and 29-31.

People v. Saba/ones, et al., 356 Phil. 255, 260 (1998).
24
1 367 Phil. 29 (1999).
25
: Id. at 41-42 (citations omitted).
Ji-lo . -~.'

!26
27
People v. Libre, 792 Phil. 12, 30 (2016), citing People v. Nelmida, 694 Phil. 529, 562-563 (2012).
: Id. at 29, citing People v. Dadao, et al., 725 Phil. 298, 310-311 (2014). ~
- over- (335)
'"' i.6'
 I::~'
ji
'I
Resolution -13 - G.R. No. 2~, 755
November 2$., 2018
l.·.·1
ill
Alibi a weak defense j,,
,,i1
I · 1

!: : :. ~! '1
Appellant's defense of alibi was correctly rejected by the RT, and 1
tqe~·:
CA I: :: I
. 1;'
il
l1l
,,. i"

Indeed, alibi is an inherently weak defense, and it becomes eaker ibiJ

1

,i

the face of the positive identification made by the prosecution witn s,ses. 28 itji
'Witnes~j
1
is likewise well-settled that where there is nothing to indicate thati
for the prosecution was act~ated ?Y
imp~oper. motive, the ~resumptf :n. is th~t:(
he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and CJiI dit. 29 1:
'
:
;,
•j'.
,
I
~
1i1

i .; ..

Moreover, for his alibi to prosper, appellant must prove that not only;;
was he somewhere else when the shooting incident took place, but also th~(·
it was. phy~ically .i~?ossible for him to .have been at the scene of ftie crime ..;
"Physical impossibility" refers to the distance between the place here the:· W. .

appellant was when the crime transpired and the place whe~~ it was:
1

committed, as well as the facility of access between the two plac~s. Where,
there is the l.e~st chanc~ for the accused to be present at the crime ~cene, th¢
defense of ahb1 must fall. 30 1
1

:1
1

11 i :

While appellant testified that he never left his house on ~arch 24, 1
2006, he admitted during cross-examination that his house, l<)cated at'·
Calamansi Street, Sampaloc Site, is just one k.ilometre away ?"ont[J Bayabas ·
Street where the shootmg took place; and that it would take him ~¥1Y about
20 minutes by car to go there. 31 On the other hand, his witness Gal~ faile~ ·
1

to convince the trial and appellate courts. First, his presence in thel \1. ouse op.• .
that day was never mentioned by appellant in his testimony in coul[i. Second,,
said witness failed to give a credible explanation as to why h~, did not,::
immediately execute a sworn statement before the authorities despf I having:. .
te
witnessed the arrest of appellant at the latter's residence in the weel! hours of ·
March 25, 2006. Ii .
:11 :
'·II
l1!"J
Eyewitness' description of exit 1,:,
•"
l;i
wounds on Royston 's body not :q
ii.I
fatal to prosecution's case Ii
•'I .

~ichaeJi~
:1

We find inexistent the alleged inconsistency between :I

testimony on the gunshot wounds sustained by Royston and D~·'I Nulud' s,: 1

statement that the entry points of the bullets were all at the back.'.'i.I ,,1 •. 1

Considerably, Michael was describing the wounds he saw on Royston~r "i

body immediately after he was fatally shot by appellant. When he tRstified i~H[
I ,I
' 'II
~iii'!. ;I,
' .:1 :·I:, ,·I
28
People v. Zapuiz, supra note 11, at521 (2013), citing People v. Bromo, 376 Phil. 877, 897 (1999r). 1[:, ':
29
Id., citing Velasco v. People, 518 Phil. 780, 797 (2006). . ·
30
Id. at 521-522, citing People v. Anticamara, 666 Phil. 484, 507-508 (2011). ,1
31
TSN, December 10, 2012, pp. 18-19. :I ~·,
- over- .;1
. :~·~ (~~.'
'11 '

i
~
~
I
i'·
Resolution -14 - G.R. No. 238755
November 28, 2018

court, Michael used his own body to point out the location of the gunshot
wounds. 32

We find that Michael's testimony is not inconsistent with Dr. Nulud's

finding that all entry wounds are at Royston' s back. Since the gunshot
wounds were "thru and thru," or penetrating, what Michael saw were exit
wounds, as shown in the Medico-Legal Report33 of Dr. Nulud.

The Certificate of Death34 indicated that Royston died from "Gunshot

Wounds of the trunks." Dr. Nulud, Chief Medico-Legal Officer at the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, conducted a post-
tnortem examination on the victim's cadaver. He testified that Royston
sustained mortal wounds after being shot at close range, viz.:

Q Based on your examination, Mr. Witness, what were your initial

findings on his body?
A The victim sustained 5 gunshot wounds all of them are thru and
thru gunshot wounds all located at the back or posterior portion
of the body.

Q When you say back posterior portion of the body, what are you
referring to exactly?
A Sa likod po.

xx xx

Q Now Mr. Witness you testified that all these 5 wounds are all
thru and thru gunshot wounds?
A Yes, ma'am.

Q And between these 5 gunshot wounds which do you think upon

your analysis and initial findings is the most fatal wound?

A Don po sa gunshot wound number 1 lacerated the upper lobe of

the left lung; don naman po sa number 4 lacerated the
diaphragm, the liver and the superior vena cava; while the
gunshot wound number 3 lacerated the left lower lobe of the left
lung and number 5 the jejunum, yung pinaka fatal po sa lahat
yong number 4.

xx xx

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. TOLENTINO

xx xx

~ 2 .TSN, May 9, 2007, p. 17.

33'
Records, p. 554.
~
34
Id. at 553.
- over- (335)
me 1,e
Resolution -15 - G.R. No. 2~~755
:I ~
,
:

November~~' 2018 ,F
I
i

Q From this situation doctor, from the entry wound, the i~i ,xit L
!!if
wound, the direction of the bullet, the size of the entry wq: • d,
'"'.h~t ~ould be the position of the assailant relative toj.! ,the
v1ct1m. !, 1

A He is facing the back of the victim, sir. I,,11'

!;
Q And how far from your own expert opinion was the assailant? !i
A Due to the absence of the indication that would approximat~I the
distance of the assailant to the victim, like tattooing and sinq~ he
is probably wearing a T-shirt that time, at least 2 ft., sir. 35 11
I'
I
''
I

Treachery l!I,

The RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the I'If!ualifying,. .

circumstance of treachery in the killing of Royston and the s~ oting o~
Marife and Estrellita. I! · : ·
11
I:
Paragraph 16: Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (RPW ~efine~'
treachery as the direct employment of means, methods or fo s m the,
execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and sp cially tq
insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from t~ defens~
which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery /~ that the, 1

attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and ' expecteq !
way, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no1111 hance "'td 1
I

resist or escape. In order for treachery to be properly apprec ., ted, two:

elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim· as not Jill 1

a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consci'' sly and.:
deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms [,jof atta4k•
employed by him. 36 An unexpected and sudden attack which r~~ders th~:
victim unable and unprepared to put up a defense is the essence of tr~F9hery. :I.J·!
3

·ll. : '!

Treachery was proven by the prosecution. This qualified th1;1 ;killing t~.:
murder. ', 1 1'
::1 ' 1::
;' :::i
Royston, together with his relatives and neighbors, was just *tting ah41
chatting in front of his aunt's sari-sari store when appellant ai\Cl his co: 1

accused arrived, all carrying firearms. At the precise moment when Royst~n
was texting on his cellphone, appellant suddenly drew his gun andf,•• shot him
at close range. Thereafter, appellant and his companions starj:ed firing
indiscriminately at the people without warning and without th,~ slightest
provocation from the unarmed victims. As swiftly as the assailan~f attack~d
I

j
35
TSN, March 7, 2011, pp. 6, 14-15 and 24-25. i\ • •
36
People v. Las Pinas, et al., 739 Phil. 502, 524-525 (2014), citing People v. Lagman, 685 rhil. 733, 745
(2012), I,

(~
37
People v. Libre, supra note 26, at 32.
- over-
~~~
 ~esolution - 16 - G.R. No. 238755
November 28, 2018

the group in front of the store, they quickly left and casually walked towards
the end of the street.

The assault on Royston, in particular, was a complete surprise as he

was unaware that he would be fatally shot while in the company of relatives
and neighbors who had gathered in front of his aunt's store. There is
treachery when the attack against an unarmed victim is so sudden that he had
38
clearly no inkling of what the assailant was about to do. Dr. Nulud's
testimony, that all entry wounds were found at the victim's back, indicated
that Royston was shot from behind. After he was felled by the first three
bullets from appellant's gun, Royston even pleaded for a chance to survive
fihen he begged appellant to stop but the latter fired at him again.

Appellant liable for frustrated

f!IUrder for inflicting mortal
wounds on Marife Leonardo

Rosita's daughter Marife, one of the victims, is a 33-year old mental

retardate who cannot speak. Dr. Principe, a surgeon at the Parafiaque City
Medical Center, testified that he operated on Marife who sustained a gunshot
. wound just below her navel. He described the nature and extent of her
injuries, as follows:

Q And when you examined the patient, what was your initial findings?
A On initial examination, the abdomen of the patient was very painful or
very tender on examination, there were two gunshot wounds on the
area of the abdomen below the umbilicus and another one on the left
iliac area.

xx xx

Q When you had that initial findings and initial examination on the
patient, what did you do?
A First we tried to stabilize the patient and prepare her for surgery and
when she was already stable, we did the operation.

Q And what kind of operation did you conduct on her?

A We did the midline incision from the epigastric area hanggang dito sa
may ibaba ng pusod and we explored the abdomen, we find multiple
perforations or butas sa ano sa small intestine niya especially yung
portion ng jejunum.

COURT:

Q Doctor, ano sa tagalog and jejunum?

A Small intestine ito sa tagalong maliit na bituka which is about 10 ft. ang
length nito and we usually subdivide it, first two ft. that is the
duodenum then the remaining you divide it into two yon ang jejunum
'
'
ua...J-'.... -··""~'·--·--------------

~
38
People v. Zapuiz, supra note 28, at 522, citing People v. Dollendo, et al., 679 Phil. 338, 346 (2012).
- over- (335)
mci,G
Resolution -17 - G.R. No. 23~755
November 2,r 2018

then ileum, so itong tinamaan na ito parang middle part ng·1f !~mall ~~····tri:

i1!

intestine. i~ - r·,·,.,,:

!I
xx xx ,,
!

11
A So based on the findings, what we did was, since there are il:µItiple
holes, we cannot repair the portion of the intestine that was a'.flfected
has to be cut the normal part joined together.

PROSC. ROBLES:

Q Mr. Witness, would you say that the multiple holes you foundiln
,, the
intestine of the patient was caused by the gunshot wounds? !1
A Yes, Your Honor. J·:
!i
11·1

COURT: 11'
,1
ii
ii

Q How long was the portion of the small intestine that you cut?
A About 2 ft., Your Honor. I'
I

Q And that 2 ft. was full of holes?

A Yes, Your Honor.

PROS. ROBLES

xx xx

Q Mr. Witness, without your medical assistance and the surgerJ, ·that ... ·,
you conducted on the patient, could that cause her death? . ! :j
A It will definitely cause her death because it can cause bowel ~f!illage
inside the peritoneum, can cause infection and bleeding lbf the
pelforated intestines can cause hemorrhagic shock. "39 (EtTiphasis
supplied) iI'
i ~I:
u
i,
A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all th~ acts of
execution which would prod~ce the felony as a c?nsequence b#t whic~, i :
nevertheless, do not produce 1t by reason of causes mdependent o;f the w1~~ fil,
of the. perpe_trator. In this case, _appellant performe~ all th1!i acts ~:f~I!
40

execution which could have resulted m the death of Manfe; but O,ecause qf;Jf 1

Prompt medical intervention, a cause independent of appellant's~':will, sn,e,:_,•''IIi I 111

survived. Thus, the RTC, as sustained by the CA, correctly led that :1
appellant is guilty of frustrated murder for the gunshot wounds inflicted on Ii

Marife. :11

:1
I·: ·~I
I'

Treachery likewise attended the wounding of Marife be9~use t}i~'

attack was so sudden and the said victim was defenseless. H~f mental,,,
condition further indicates that she could not have immediately thei, 1nsed
TSN, March 7, 2011, pp. 43-49. :,I .., ,
40
Article 6, Revised Penal Code. i '1' ~;' ,'
'1
-over- IJI (~~·.'
' ,,·1

,i
·1
 Resolution - 18 - G.R. No. 238755
November 28, 2018

impending danger to her life when appellant aimed the gun at her, hitting her
in the stomach.

Appellant liable for

attempted murder for
gunshot wound inflicted on
Estrellita Carandang
,,,
While Estrellita presented a medical certificate stating that she
~ustained a gunshot wound in her lower middle back, or the buttocks area,
there were no medical findings on the nature and possible complications of
her injury. The doctrinal rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim
is not life-threatening, the accused, not having performed all the acts of
execution that would have brought about death, the crime committed is only
attempted murder. 41

Treachery was also present in the wounding of Estrellita, who was hit
during the simultaneous firing of guns by appellant and his companions in
front of the store, after appellant had shot Royston and Marife. Rosita
testified that Estrellita was not able to run because she went to the fallen
Royston and held him. 42 The CA thus correctly affirmed the R TC ruling
that appellant is liable for attempted murder in the wounding of Estrellita
and not frustrated murder as charged in the information.

, Appellant contends that since Estrellita was shot during the

simultaneous firing of guns by all the assailants, each should be held liable
only for wounds each had inflicted on her. Such argument deserves scant
consideration.

1 To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be proof of

previous agreement to commit a crime, it being sufficient that the
Ijnalefactors shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. 43 In
such a case, the act of one becomes the act of all and each of the accused
im thereby be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed. 44
Conspiracy was alleged in the informations (Crim. Case Nos.
Q6-0438, 06-0439, and 06-0440) and sufficiently proven by the prosecution.
I

Thus, it does not matter who among the accused had actually shot Estrellita.
I
i
I

41
: People v. Alb(1cin, 394 Phil. 565, 585 (2000), citing People v. Tiu, et al., 290 Phil. 556, 564 ( 1992).
42
TSN, November 4, 2009, p. 23.
r
4
People v. Sota, er al., G.R. No. 203121, November 29, 2017, citing People v. CA,et al., 755 Phil. 80, 114
C2015).
44
Id., citing Buebos, et al. v.People, 573 Phil. 347, 360 (2008). :l2_
- over - (335)
""<MP·
Resolution -19 -

~ ' .:I
1.· 'I
I ,I: !;!!,:);!
It was established during trial that appellant arrived suddenl . with his1,i
co-accused, ~ach armed with a gun. He was the first one to sh~ot af! l}oyston/ :

then at Marife. Thereafter, all of them randomly fired their g ,·, s at t4e. 1

people in front of the store. They left the crime scene together~ walkirig,l; 1

casually towards the end of the road. There is no evidence th . anyotjeJ:1 I 1 •Ji

among them prevented the others from shooting Royston and ' e othrr~ i
victims. The acts of appellant and his co-accused before, during,· d aft~ril
the commission of the crime indicated a joint purpose and design, oncert~P:l:;
action, and community of interest. 45 i ;,

Appellant liable for attempted

homicide for gunshot wound
inflicted on Michael Jan Tula
l·;r
''I ,. . .,~

The other victim, Michael, pointed to appellant as the one ii ho sh()t~

him. His testimon~ was corroborated by George and Rosita who:] . oth. sa-w;.
appellant fire at Michael when the latter ran towards the house. D~j: Grajeda,;;
who attended to the injuries of Michael at the hospital, testified th :. Michaeli:
sustained two (2) wounds in the posterior aspect or the back side ~f the lef(
knee, caused by a single gunshot. 46 This medical finding is consi tent with:
the testimonies of Michael, George, and Rosita that appellant! fired a(
Michael only once, hitting him in the knee. Dr. Grajeda ' ave him(
prophylaxis and antibiotics and cleaned the wound. Michael sta~ .d in th~'i
hospital for one day. l! . ..
H1
'i
Although the wounding o~ ~ichael is also ~ttended by trea8?ery, the
so sudden and the victim defenseless, it cannot be con,dere
attempted stage of murder since the information in Criminal ase Np. if
06-0441 . failed to allege treac.hery: While abuse of superior str~fgth w~S· i
alleged, it was not at all proven m this case. 1: ·. I, :
1
1

.'·i
i .· ·\

Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a i 'rotorioqs~

inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor that is pl~inly an~;,!
obviously advantageous to the latter and purposely selected ;or taken;:! i

advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime. 47Evid~pce m~t::!

show th~t the ass~ilants consciously ~ought the advantage, or tha~:lthey ha~: i
the deliberate mtent to use this advantage. 48 To take :a,dvantage. 1
of superior strength means to purposely use force excessivelYi out oe·;
proportion to the means of defense available to the person att~~ked. The:'1
appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the ~~e, si~~'i

45
See Peoplev. Esponilla, 452 Phil. 517, 537 (2003). .·1' ! :· .
46
TSN, September 15, 2010, pp. 8-10. : ' .
47
Valenzuela v. People, 612 Phil. 907, 917 (2009), citing People v. Daquipil, et al.310 e~il. 327, 348
(1995), 1I ' :
48
Id., citing People v. Casingal, et al.,312 Phil. 945, 956 (1995); People v. Escoto, et al.,~. ·.p
Phil. 785;
799 (1995). : ~ l
- over - :, . (335) ,
:1 &\~

!i1
 Resolution -20 - G.R. No. 238755
!" November 28, 2018

and strength of the parties. 49 Mere superiority in numbers does not indicate
the presence of this circumstance. 50

In this case, there is no evidence of the relative age, size, and strength
of the assailants and their victims, or that they had consciously sought the
advantage of superiority in numbers. In fact, the evidence disclosed that
while appellant had three other companions who were also armed, only
appellant aimed his gun towards Michael and shot him once. In this light,
appellant should be held liable for attempted homicide only for the gunshot
:i; iround inflicted on Michael.
''I:
!1'.,
i' I
11;;,
Ii• ~ntent to Kill
;il~
I':
id
!·

Appellant argues that since the gunshot wounds sustained by Michael

and Estrellita were not mortal, intent to kill was not proven.

We disagree.

The principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated

homicide or murder is the assailant's intent to take the life of the person
attacked. Such intent must be proved clearly and convincingly, so as to
~xclude reasonable doubt thereof. 51 Intent to kill is only presumed if the
yictim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors. 52 If there is no
~ntent to kill on the part of the offender, he or she is liable only for physical
injuries. 53

Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist,

inter alia, of the means used by the malefactors; the nature, location, and
I

number of wounds sustained by the victim; the conduct of the malefactors

before, at the time of or immediately after the killing of the victim; the
circumstances under which the crime was committed; and the motive of the
accused. 54

In this case, after Michael had witnessed the killing of Royston he ran
for cover but then he saw appellant aiming his gun towards him. Appellant
fired his gun and hit Michael in his left knee. While Michael's wound is not
mortal, this does not disprove intent to kill on the part of appellant. Michael
was already running away and yet appellant still shot him. Appellant and his

4
~ Id., citing People v. Ventura, et al.,477 Phil. 458, 484 (2004); People v. Martinez, 185 Phil. 502, 507-508
Ql980); People v. Cabato, 243 Phil. 262, 272 (1988); People v. Carpio, et al., 269 Phil. 112, 122
Cl990);People v. Moka, et al.,273 Phil. 610, 621(1991); People v. De Leon, 378 Phil. 241, 252 (1999).
~o Id., citing People v. Escoto, supra note 48, at 800.
51
People v. Catbagan, 467 Phil. 1044, 1083 (2004), citing People v. Pagador, 409 Phil. 338, 351(2001) .
'
...............
. I.Etino v.People, G.R. No. 206632, February 14, 2018, citing Rivera v.People, 515 Phil. 824, 832 (2006).
. People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 217889, March 15, 2018, citing Cirera v.People, 739 Phil. 25, 39 (2014).
54
Mahawan v. People, 595 Phil. 397, 418 (2008), citing People v. Delim, 444 Phil. 430, 450 (2003). ;z;,e_
- over- (335)
""C.L-6'
 I
'I
: ~i
[' I

Resolution - 21 - G.R. No. 2~8755

November 2~, 2018
.ii, ,.

companions then fired indiscriminately at everyone in front of j·~e stoi~f

aware of the possibility that their lethal weapons (guns) could i~flict fat~l .
wounds upon anyone of these people. It was during this time thatib~:strellita.
was hit, fortunately just in her lower back, and not at the vital org_f. s of h~~-•
1
1

b0 dY• . ,:
i'·
1:'
..
'"":·,
·,, ·]''

ii
i

Hence, the CA correctly ruled that intent to kill was evident from the!
acts of appellant and his companions. i. . 1
1

Penalties and Civil Liabilities

The penalty prescribed by law for the crime of murder i~ reclusion,

55 .) .
perpetua to death. :ii' .·, i..::1,
56
I ' Ii
By applying Art. 63(2) of the RPC, the lesser of the two ii divisible I
penalties, i.e., reclusion perpetua, shall be imposed upon the app llant itj1
view of the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstan~~. Hence; l
appellant has been properly sentenced to suffer the penalty o~ ~eclusi~~,i
perpetua for the murder of Royston in Criminal Case No. 06-. 438. T}ie i 1

Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply, inter alia, to personsiiconvictrd,i

of offenses punished with death penalty or life imp·:·sonmerig!
. 1 d' l 57 I
me u mg rec us ion perpetua.
! I •• '
i: · i',i ' LI.<

•'.
:1·
~ !
/:
The penalty for frustrated murder is reclusion temporal, w4ich must:
be imposed in its medium period, considering that there are· neitherJ
aggravating nor mitigating circumstance. Applying the Ind~terminate!
Sentence Law, appellant should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of eig]it'
(8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, t~f fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as.
maximum. 58 The RTC, thus, imposed the correct penalty on apg~llant for
inflicting a mortal gunshot wound on Marife in Criminal Case No. 06,L0440. ._. ·
;,i•
·]

ii. • .· ·
F~r the c~me of attempted murder, the penalty shall te prisi~~:i 1

mayor, smce Article 51 of the RPC states that a penalty low~r by ~q,;
degrees th&n that prescribed by law for the consummated felon~ .shall ~e·;
imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony. Applying tbe:
:I :! !;, . ~ !
ij1 ·.:I i:.i
·11' "., _ !:::,,
55 1

Art. 248, Revised Penal Code. '1 •

56
Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. - In all cases in which the la';Y prescribes, a
single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating o): aggravating
circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. Ii 1 ;: ·.·,
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the (qllowing ru,:es i 1

1
shall be observed in the application thereof: . 11' :'.,i I
xx xx !'ii 1:1. ··:

2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is ~~ aggravatjng!
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. 'I ~' i
xx xx ' !:, .:
57
People v. Ada/Iom, 683 Phil. 618, 645 (2012).
58 i
People v. Pinuela, 444 Phil. 640, 653 (2004).
-over- *·
(335}·
~·:

:'l . i
l •'
1

!:'',
Resolution -22 - G.R. No. 238755
November 28, 2018

indeterminate Sentence Law, and absent any mitigating or aggravating

Circumstance in this case, the maximum of the sentence should be within the
range of prision mayor in its medium term, which has a duration of eight (8)
years and one (1) day to ten (10) years; and that the minimum should be
within the range of prision correccional, which has a duration of six (6)
months and one ( 1) day to six (6) years. Hence, we find proper the penalty
imposed by the RTC on appellant for inflicting a gunshot wound on
Estrellita in Criminal Case No. 06-0439.

, Art. 249 of the RPC provides the penalty of reclusion temporal for the
crime of homicide. Attempted homicide is punishable by prision
torreccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum
penalty to be meted out on the appellant should be anywhere within the
range of one ( 1) month and one ( 1) day to six (6) months of arresto mayor,
and the maximum should be within the range of six (6) months and one ( 1)
day to six (6) years of prision correccional. Considering that no aggravating
or mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, we hereby
sentence appellant, for attempted homicide committed against Michael, to an
indeterminate prison term of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto
mayor as minimum; to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day
of prision correccional medium as maximum in Criminal Case No. 06-0441.

I
The CA modified the damages awarded by the RTC. However, we
find that these modifications are still not in accord with recent jurisprudence.

, In People v. Jugueta 59 the Court has ruled that in the case of murder
~here the appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua, the following amounts
shall be awarded to the heirs of the victim: P75,000.00 for moral damages,
P75,000.00 for exemplary damages, and P75,000.00 for civil indemnity as
the essential civil liabilities, in addition to others as the records of each case
~ill substantiate. Hence, we impose herein the same amounts for such items
bf damages to the heirs of Royston Carandang. We also sustain the award of
hctual damages for the burial and funeral expenses, which were covered by
receipts, in the total amount of P321,500.00.
I
I
!

In the case of frustrated murder, Marife Leonardo is entitled to

PS0,000.00 as civil indemnity, PS0,000.00 as moral damages, and
PS0,000.00 as exemplary damages. Her medical and hospitalization
expenses covered by receipts amounted to only P20,500.00, which the RTC
granted by way of actual damages. However, the amount spent for surgery
(P80,000.00) which was not covered by receipts, was additionally awarded
by the RTC explaining that it was a reasonable expense that could have been
incurred for such an operation. In lieu of the aforesaid amounts, Marife
should be awarded P25,000.00 as temperate damages for her hospitalization

59
783 Phil. 806 (2016). ~
- over- (335)
i'I( \.t
 ·~

!
:
I
l!l
::1
111
:1

Resolution -23 - G.R. No. 2~·755

November 2~, 2018

and related expenses, which is in accord with our pronountj~ITI.ent iri~ 1

T. 60 1:
..1ugueta. ·Ii, ;.. 1'

1 .' 1

The attempted murder of Estrellita Carandang entitles h~ to t~~ ~ /

1

following: P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral dartj.: ges, andJ

P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. ,' ! 1
1

it: :'
In the case of attempted homicide, Michael Ian Tula is ~'..·.titled i9
P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P20,000.00 as moral damages. i':;
1,· '
:.i l:
In line with relevant jurisprudence, interest of six percent!;·j(6%) per,:
annum shall be charged on all the .items of civil liability impos~ herein,
computed from the date of the finality of this decision until fully paid.f 1 ,
I!

i:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The June 29, i' 15 Joint:
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Parafiaque City, Branc.' 195, asj'
affirmed by the January 11, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appea;\ in CA.-i
G.R. CR HC No. 07597, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICAt ONS, as,,
J:'. 11 1 I, I

10 ows: ~:i I ,

.I ;

1. In Criminal Case No. 06-0438, finding appellant Diego ':'erall~j:

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder for the fatal sq otmg ofi,.
Royston Carandang and is hereby sentenced to suffer the p~p.~lty of
reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of the s~~d victim·
~he a~ounts of P321,500.00 as actual damages, P75,000.00i. •. as civi·L·:
mdemn1ty, P75,000.00 for moral damages, and P75,000.00 for ~ emplary.
!, ..
1

damages. . .!' · .' '

I; i ·

2. In Criminal Case No. 06-0439, fmding appellant Verallo Diego~:

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Murder and !~s hereby
sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of Two (2) years, Four (4\)i months!
and One (1) day of.p:ision correccional,. as minim~m, to Eight (8) :rears and!:
One (1) day of przszon mayor, as maximum. He 1s further order~d to payl
Estrellita A. Carandang the following sums: P25,000.00 as civil ~demnicy,;!
P25,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damage~! '· · 1

I I

' I '
,!
:I

3. In Criminal Case No. 06-0440, finding appellant Diego~· Verallp:

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Frustrated Murder and 1 ~s hereb y,· '.

sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of Eight (8) Years an4! One U);
day of prision mayor, as minim~m, to Fourteen (14) Years, fight (8).
Months and One (!) Day of reclusion temporal, as maxmmm. He

60
1

rfurthr 1

People v. Oandasan, Jr., 787 Phil. 139, 166 (2016); People v. Advincula, G.R. No. 218 8, April l;t,
Q.

2018, II I

~
61
Id. (citations omitted). ·I
- over - · (335) ·
';) *-'C.116
_1;1
,,
 Resolution -24 - G.R. No. 238755
November 28, 2018

brdered to pay Marife Leonardo the amounts of PS0,000.00 as civil

indemnity, PS0,000.00 as moral damages, PS0,000.00 as exemplary
damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages.

4. In Criminal Case No. 06-0441, finding appellant Diego V. Verallo

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Homicide and is hereby
sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of Two (2) Months and One (1)
j; Day of arresto mayor as minimum, to Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and
,,
:·:; bne
I
(1) Day of prision correccional medium as maximum. He is further
i;· I
Ii!f '! 1 ordered to pay Michael Ian Tula the sums of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity,
:11.:
I! and P20,000.00 as moral damages.
I'~i
I
' I
!;!
J,1
;11
In addition, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be
imposed on all monetary awards from the date of finality of this decision
until fully paid. (Peralta, J., on official leave; Leonen, J., Acting
(:hairperson)
I

SO ORDERED."

~ur~'Y-
0 V. L~PtflN7~
n Clerk of Court r..cllt l.'l'H'i

Atty. Ruth Agnes D. Declaro Mr. Diego Verallo y Villgass

PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE c/o The Superintendent
Special & Appealed Cases Service New Bilibid Prison
DOJ Agencies Building BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS
East Avenue cor. NIA Road 1770 Muntinlupa City
~ Diliman, 1104 Quezon City
The Presiding Judge
COURT OF APPEALS REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
CA G.R. CR HC No. 07597 Branch I 95, I 700 Paraflaque City
1000 Manila (Crim. Case Nos. 06-0438 to 06-0441)

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE

134 Amorsolo Street Supreme Court, Manila
Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City [For uploading pursuant to A.M. I 2-7-1-SC]

CSSupt. Gerardo F. Padilla LIBRARY SERVICES

Superintendent Supreme Court, Manila
New Bilibid Prison
BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS
Judgment Division
1770 Muntinlupa City
JUDICIAL RECORDS OFFICE
Supreme Court, Manila

1
I 238755 (335)
/en/ URES
.~..... .;...;; .L