5/27/2017 G.R.No.

179709

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila


THIRDDIVISION


PEOPLEOFTHE G.R.No.179709
PHILIPPINES,
PlaintiffAppellee, Present:

CARPIOMORALES,Chairperson,
BRION,
versus BERSAMIN,

ABAD,*and
VILLARAMA,JR.,JJ.
FILOMENOMAYINGQUE,
GREGORIOMAYINGQUE,and
TORIBIOMAYINGQUEy Promulgated:
SANICO,
DefendantsAppellants.
July6,2010
xx

DECISION

BERSAMIN,J.:

Appellants Toribio Mayingque alias Loloy (Toribio), Gregorio Mayingque alias Gorio
(Gregorio), and Filomeno Mayingque alias Boy Roti (Filomeno) appeal the decision
[1]
promulgatedonJune15,2007bytheCourtofAppeals(CA) affirmingtheirconvictionfor
murder that the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 275, in Las Pias City handed down,
penalizing each with reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to pay P50,000.00 to the heirs of
deceased Edgardo Sumalde Tusi (Edgardo), and P20,000.00 as burial expenses to the wife of
[2]
Tusi.

TheappellantsandoneEdwinMacas(Edwin)wereindictedforthemurderofEdgardounder
[3]
theamendedinformationdatedJune28,1999, chargingthemthus:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 1/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

Thatonoraboutthe30thdayofMay,1999,intheCityofLasPias,Philippinesandwithin
thejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,conspiringandconfederating
togetherandallofthemmutuallyhelpingandaidingoneanother,withoutjustifiablemotivewith
intenttokillandbymeansoftreacheryandtakingadvantageofsuperiorstrength,didthenand
therewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyassault,attackandstaboneEDGARDOSUMALDE
TUSI,withdeadlyweapons(knifeandbolo),hittingthevictimonthedifferentpartsofhisbody,
therebyinflictinguponthelattermultiplemortalstabwounds,whichdirectlycausedhisdeath.
CONTRARYTOLAW.
Atarraignment,theappellantspleadednotguiltytotheinformation,asamended.Edwin
[4]
remainedatlargetothisdate.

EvidenceoftheProsecution

TheProsecutionpresentedSalvacionTusi(Salvacion),wifeofEdgardo,thevictim,who
testified that she knew the appellants because they usually had their drinking sessions on
Sundays at Edwins place, which was beside her residence at Pedro Sabido Street, BF Resort
Village,LasPiasCitythatinonesuchdrinkingsession,Edgardo,annoyedbythenoisemade
bytheappellantsandEdwin,waspromptedtoadmonishthemtotonedowntheirvoicesthatthe
[5]
appellants and Edwin resented Edgardos admonition that while she and Edgardo were
resting in front of their house at around 5 pm on May 30, 1999, Toribio arrived and without
saying anything stabbed Edgardo twice on his side that she shouted for help, but her cousin
Ruben Bernal could not do anything because Edwin, Filomeno and Gregorio had meanwhile
[6]
joinedTeofiloinassaultingEdgardo.

Ruben Bernal and Jaime Bernal corroborated Salvacions recollection of the assault on
Edgardo. According to them, the appellants ganged up on Edgardo, with Teofilo wielding a
kitchenknifewithwhichhestabbedEdgardotwiceandGregoriohackingEdgardoonthehead
withabolowhileFilomenoandEdwinrestrainedEdgardo.TheyheardEdwintelltheappellants
[7]
toensurethatEdgardowaslifelessbeforeleavinghim.

Dr. Romeo T. Salen, Medico Legal Officer of the Western Police District (now Manila
Police District) Crime Laboratory, appeared in court in representation of Dr. Emmanuel L.
Aranas,andbroughtthefollowingdocuments:(a)RequestforExaminationontheCadaverof
thedeceasedtransmittedbytheLasPiasPoliceandreceivedbyDr.Aranas(b)Certificationof

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 2/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

Identification and Consent for Autopsy signed by the brother of Edgardo (c) Post Mortem
Examination or Anatomical Sketch (d) Medico Legal Report and (e) Death Certificate of
[8]
EdgardopreparedbyDr.Aranas.

Dr.SalenexplainedthatbasedonDr.Aranaswrittenfindings,Edgardohadsustained12
[9]
woundsinthehead,neckandchest,eightofwhichhadbeenfatal.

EvidenceoftheDefense

For the Defense, the three appellants and one Agustin Tano (Tano) were presented as
witnesses.
Tano was on his way home in late afternoon of May 30, 1999 when he saw Edgardo
punch and then hit Toribio with a lead pipe. He next saw Toribio retaliate by successively
stabbingEdgardowithaknife.Tanoaddedthattheotheraccusedwerenotpresentduringthe
[10]
incident.

Filomenonarratedthatonthedayoftheincident,helefthishouseat9:00am to attend
thebirthdaypartyofhisnephewinGoldenGate,Moonwalk,LasPiasCitythatat6:30pm,his
wife arrived at Golden Gate, and begged him not to go home yet because Toribio had been
involvedinafightwithEdgardoandinturnthefamilyofEdgardohadthreatenedtoretaliate
against Toribios relatives to avenge Edgardos death that he and his wife thus remained in
Golden Gate from May 30, 1999 to July 28, 1999 out of fear that Edgardos relatives might
[11]
retaliateagainsthimalthoughhehadnothingtodowithEdgardosdeath thatitwaswhenhe
visited Toribio in detention when a police officer invited him for questioning regarding his
supposed involvement in the May 30, 1999 incident and that he (Filomeno) was then
immediately detained in the police station, but was later transferred to the Las Pias City Jail
[12]
withoutanyinvestigationbeingconducted.

Gregorio attested that on the date of the incident, he was taking care of his twomonth old
grandson, when his neighbor advised him to leave his house at once, because his son Toribio
hadbeeninvolvedinafightthatheentrustedhisgrandsontothecareofhisneighbortogoto
AntipoloCity,wherehisotherson,Gregorio,Jr.,wasresidingthathestayedinAntipoloCity

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 3/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

fortwomonthsbecauseoffearofToribiosenemiesinLasPiasCitythatwhenhereturnedto
[13]
Las Pias City on July 28, 1999 to fetch his wife and daughter, policemen invited him for
questioningandthathewasthendetainedforhisallegedinvolvementinthekillingofEdgardo.
[14]
ToribiostatedthathewasproceedingonfoottowardsEdwinsplaceataround5:00pmonMay
30,1999,whenhesawEdgardo,RubenandJaimedrinkingtogetherthatthethreehailedhim
andinvitedhimtodrinkwiththemthatalthoughhedeclinedtheofferinitially,herelentedafter
Edgardo got mad at him that Edgardo then invited him to join them, but he declined the
invitationandtoldthemthathewasgoingsomewhereelsethathisrefusalirkedEdgardo,who
warnedhimnotbeatoughiethatEdgardostoodupandattackedhimwithaleadpipe,hitting
[15]
himintheleftarmthathisinjuryleftascarofaninchonhisleftarm thatherantowards
Edwins place and stayed there for about 20 minutes that leaving Edwins house later on, he
passedbythethree,whowerestilldrinkingthatEdgardospottedhim,heldhimbythecollar,
andpunchedhimthatRubenandJaimealsohithimwithaleadpipeandawoodenclub(dos
pordos),injuringhisleftchestthatheparriedtheirblowsuntiltheyreachedthestreet,where
hefellonasmalltableusedforsellingIndianmangoesthathewasabletopickupasmallknife
usedforpeelingthemangoes,andwhilehewasabouttostandupfromaprostrateposition,he
stabbedEdgardoonthehead,neckandchestwiththeknifethathedidnotreporttheincidentto
the police, and, instead, went home that he did not anymore submit himself for medical
attention,becausehiswoundswereonlyslightthathesurrenderedtotheAntipoloCitypolice
authorities eight days later, upon learning that the other appellants had been implicated in
[16]
Eduardosdeathandwerebeinghunteddownbythepolice.

RulingoftheRTC

[17]
InitsJanuary30,2006decision, theRTCfoundtheappellantsguiltyofmurder,and
sentencedeachtosufferreclusionperpetua,andtopaytotheheirsofthedeceasedP50,000.00
andtothewifeofthedeceasedP20,000.00fortheburialexpenses.

TheRTCsupportedtheverdictwiththefollowingfindings:
TheselfdefenseversionofaccusedToribioMayingqueisagainsttheeyewitnessaccount
ofprosecutionwitnesseswhotoldtheCourtthatabout5:00intheafternoonof30thdayofMay,
1999 Salvacion Tusi and her husband, the victim herein, were resting in front of their house

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 4/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

located at Pedro Sabido St. BF Resort Village, Las Pias City, together with a cousin, Ruben
Bernal.

AccusedToribioLoloyMayingquearrivedandwithoutsayinganythingstabbedthevictim
two times. Salvacion shouted for help while her cousin Ruben Bernal was about to help her
husband but Roly, Edwin Macas and Gregorio arrived and helped in the killing of the victim
(TSN,p.5,Sept.6,1999).

Thefour(4)continuouslystabbedthevictimwithabladedweapons(Ibid,p.6).Threewere
positivelyidentifiedincourtastheperpetrators,towit:accusedToribio,GregorioandFilomeno,
allsurnamedMayingque.SalvacionincurredexpensesintheamountofP20,000.00asaresultof
thedeathofthevictim.

The reason why they stabbed and killed the victim was because they resented the
admonitionbythevictimtothem.Toribio,FilomenoandGregorioalwayshadadrinkingspreein
theplaceofEdwinMacaseverySundayandwereverynoisy.Thevictimaskedthemnottobe
noisy(Ibid,p.9).

The multiple wounds suffered by the victim even belies a any pretension of self defense.
Thevictimsuffered10stabwoundsand2incisedwounds.Inall,thevictimsuffered12wounds,
towit:

No. 1 Stab Wound, parietal region, measuring 4 by 0.5 cm right of the midsagittal line
whichisontherightpartoftheheadmeasuring4x.5cmwhichisasuperficialwoundbecause
therewasnootherorgandamagedanditisnotafatalinjury.Thisiscausedbyasharpbladed
weaponandthathepointedinjuryNo.1intheAnatomicalSketch

No. 2 Stab Wound, parietal region, measuring 2.5 by 0.2 cm, 10 cm right of midsagittal
line,hedescribedthatthiswoundisasuperficialwoundwhichisalmostthesamesizeofinjury
No.1whichwaslikewisecausedbyasharpbladedweapon

No.3,stabwound,rightorbitalregion,measuring4by0.4cm.4fromtheanteriormidline,
6 cm deep, directed posterior wards and downwards, piercing the optic nerve and the adjacent
softtissuesandmuscleswhichmeansfromfronttobackanditpiercedtheopticnervewhichis
responsibleforthemovementandfortheeyestosee.WoundNo.3isverydamagingbecauseit
willcauseblindnesstotherighteyeandifthebleedingisprofuseandifnomedicationisdone,
thepatientcoulddie.ThisisafatalinjuryandisindicatedintheAnatomicalSketch

No.4,Incisedwound,righttemporalregion,measuring5by0.7cm,8cmanteriormidline.
Thisisanincisedwoundalsoasuperficialinjurycausedbyasharpbladedinstrument

No.5,IncisedWound,submentalregion,measuring3by0.5cm,4cmleftoftheanterior
midline.This wound is located on the chin a superficial and non fatal injury and this injury is
indicatedinExhibitLasinjuryNo.5

No.6,Stabwound,neck,measuring1.5by1.5cm,alongtheanteriormidline,7cmdeep,
directedposteriorwards,downwards,andlateralwards,piercingtheupperlobeoftheleftlungs.
Thisinjuryislocatedontheleftsideoftheneckdirectedposteriorwardorfronttobackandthe
upperlobeoftheleftlungwasdestroyed.Thiswoundisfatalandcausedthedeathofthevictim.
ThisinjuryisindicatedintheAnatomicalSketchasWoundNo.6andtheinjurywascausedby
sharpbladedinstrument

No.7,StabWound,neck,measuring3.5by1.5cm,alongtheanteriormidline,7cmdeep,
directedposteriorwards,downwardsandlateralwards,piercingtheupperlobeoftheleftlung.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 5/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

Thisinjuryislocatedonthemiddlepartoftheneckandinjuredamajororganwhichisthelung
andfatal,thisisindicatedintheAnatomicalSketchasInjuryNo.7andcausedbyasharpbladed
instrument

No.8,StabWound,leftsupraclavicularregion,measuring2.5by1.5cm,12cmfromthe
anteriormidline,5cmdeep,directedposteriorwards,downwardsandmedialwards,piercingthe
upperlobeoftheleftlung.Thiswoundislocatedattheclavicularwhichistheboneofthechest
anddirectlybehindtheclavicularisthelungsandthisinjuryisfatalandcouldcausethedeathof
thevictimandsaidinjuryisindicatedintheAnatomicalSketchandtheinjurywascausedbya
sharpbladedinstrument

No.9,Stabwound,leftclavicularregion,measuring2by0.5cm.9cm.Fromtheanterior
midline,6cmdeep,directedposterwards,downwardsandmedialwards,passingthruthe1stleft
intercostalsspace,piercingtheupperlobeoftheleftlung.Thisinjuryislocatedattheclavicular
regionanddestroystheupperlobeoftheleftlungandthisisafatalwoundcausedbyabladed
weapon.ThisinjuryisindicatedintheAnatomicalSketchasWoundNo.9

No. 10, Stab wound, left infraclavicular region, measuring 2 by 1 cm. 12 cm from the
anteriormidline,10cmdeep,directedposteriorwards,downwardsandmedialwardspassingthru
the2ndleftintercostalsspace,piercingtheupperlobeoftheleftlung.Thisinjuryislocatedatthe
clavicularregiondirectlybehindisthelungandthisinjuryisfatalcausedbyabladedinstrument
andthesameisindicatedintheAnatomicalSketchasWoundNo.10.

No.11.Stabwound,sternalregion,measuring3by0.6cm.Alongtheanteriormidline,10
cm.Deep, directed posteriorwards, downwards and lateralwards, piercing the upper lobe of the
rightlung.Thisinjuryisontheexternalregionsofromthecentertotheoutsideithitstheupper
lobe of the right lung and this is a fatal wound and also indicated as Injury No. 11 in the
anatomicalsketch.

No. 12, Stab wound, right mammary region, measuring 3 by 2.5, 4 cm from the anterior
midline,directedposteriorwards,downwardsandtotheright,fracturingthe3rdrightthoracicrib,
piercing the pericardium and the right ventricle of the heart.This injury is located on the right
chest directed posteriorwards, downwards and fractured the third right thoracic rib and hit the
pericardiumandtherightventricleoftheheartonthemiddleandthiswoundwasveryfataland
caused by a sharp bladed instrument and this injury is likewise indicated in the Anatomical
Sketch

AccordingtoDr.Talen,therelativepositionoftheassailantininflictingwoundsNo.7to
10 most probably was facing the victim and the trajectory is directed downwards and the
inflictioncamefromabove.InjuryNos.1,2,4and5wereinflictedinanyposition.WoundNo.3
wasinflictedfromuptodown.Multiplestabwounds,head,neckandchestcausedofdeathofthe
victim.

The foregoing 12 injuries of the victim belie the self defense of accused Toribio
Mayingque. The multiple injuries of the victim support the claim of conspiracy by the
prosecution.Dr.SalentoldtheCourtthatthedifferentsizesofthewoundsshowthatindeedmore
thanoneassailantinflictedthewoundsandmorethanoneinstrumentused(TSN,pp.3233,Feb.
14,2001).Moreover,allthreehavebeenpositivelyidentifiedincourtastheperpetrators.Thus,
the Court can not accept the denial and alibi by the other two coaccused, namely: Gregorio
MayingqueandFilomenoMayingque.

It is clear from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that the accused treacherously
attackedthevictim.Theysuddenlyassaultedthevictim.Asheld:itisnecessarytoshowthatthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 6/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

aggressors cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from their superiority in strength.
(Peoplev.Casey,seenote63,supraat34[1981]citingPeoplev.Elizaga,86Phil.365.)There
mustbeproofoftherelativephysicalstrengthoftheaggressorsandtheassaultedpartyorproof
thattheaccusedsimultaneouslyassaultedthedeceased.(Peoplev.Casey,seenote63,supraat34
[1981] citing People v. Bustos, et al., 51 Phil. 385 People vs. Rubia, et al., 52 Phil. 172, 176
[18]
[1928].)(G.R.Nos.12039497,January16,2001,Peoplevs.DaniloPablo,EtAl.)





RulingoftheCA

[19]
Through its decision dated June 15, 2007, the CA affirmed the RTC, giving the
followingratiocination:

Theappealisbereftofmerit.

ThetestimoniesofSalvacion,Ruben,andJaimepositivelypointingtoaccusedappellantLoloy
astheonewhostabbedTusitwicewithakitchenknifealongwithaccusedappellantsGorioas
theonewhohackedTusiontheheadwithaboloandBoyRoti,astheonewhoheldTusiwhile
thelatterwasbeinghacked,whicharebolsteredbythemedicolegalfindingsthateight(8)outof
twelve(12)stabsandincisewoundssustainedbyTusiarefatalwounds,belieaccusedappellant
Loloysassertionofselfdefense.

Another factor which militates against accusedappellant Loloys claim of self defense are the
facts that he confessed his guilt in the course of his testimony before the lower court when he
stated that he surrendered to the Antipolo City Police authorities because he was conscience
strickenbythefactthatheallegedlyviolatedthepenalandthedivinelawswhenhestabbedTusi
successivelytogetevenwiththelatter,Ruben,andJaimewhowereallegedlyhittinghimwitha
leadpipeandwoodenclub,whichistantamounttoretaliationratherthanselfdefensethathedid
not submit the injuries on his left arm and chest to medical examination to at least clearly and
convincingly substantiate the alleged unlawful aggression on his person by Tusi, and that he
pleaded not guilty during the arraignment because his counsel advised him to do so, but deep
insidehisconscience,hefeltguiltyascharged.

xxx when the accused invokes selfdefense, it becomes incumbent upon him to
provebyclearandconvincingevidencethatheindeedactedindefenseofhimself.xxx
xxx
Moreover, the nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by the victim
belietheassertionofselfdefensesincethegravityofthesaidwoundsisindicativeofa
determinedefforttokillandnotjustdefend.Thenumberofwoundswasestablishedby
the physical evidence, which is a mute manifestation of truth and ranks high in the
hierarchyoftrustworthyevidence.xxx

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 7/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

ThedistancebetweenaccusedappellantBoyRotisallegedwhereaboutsonMay30,1999
andthecrimescenecouldbenegotiatedinthirty(30)minutesbyatricycleridesomuchsothatit
was physically possible for him to be present at the scene of the incident at that precise time.
Aside from his wife Lolita who started giving her direct testimony, but subsequently died,
accusedappellantBoyRoticouldhavepresentedhissister,LinaMayingque,acertainRoberto
Entosa, and his sisterinlaw (hipag) as witnesses to prove that he was in Golden Gate,
Moonwalk,LasPiasCityallthetime,andtodisprovetheprosecutionsclaimofhispresencein
BFResortVillagewhereTusiwasstabbedtodeathonMay30,1999.However,hedidnotdoso.
IfaccusedappellantBoyRotisfearthatthefamilyofTusiwouldretaliateforbeingabrotherof
accusedappellantLoloytoavengeTusisdeath,eventhoughhehadnothingtodowithit,istrue,
heshouldhavereportedthemattertothepoliceauthoritiesratherthanhideathissistershousein
MoonwalkuntilhisapprehensiononJuly28,1999.

AccusedappellantGoriosallegedactoffleeingforsafetyfromLasPiasCitytoAntipolo
Cityinordertoallegedlyavoidinvolvementinaneighborhoodfightinvolvinghissonaccused
appellantLoloy,entrustinghistwo(2)montholdgrandchildtothecareofaneighborwhowas
not that familiar to him, leaving his wife and daughter behind in Las Pias City exposed to the
purportedwrathofthefamilyofTusi,andleavinghisson,accusedappellantLoloy,tofighthis
alleged aggressors without doing anything to protect his son, are incredible, and contrary to
human nature and experience. His conduct could no less than be construed as an implied
admissionofguilt.

Foralibitoprosper,itisnotenoughforaccusedappellantsLoloyandGoriotoprovethat
theyweresomewhereelsewhenthecrimewascommitted.Theymustlikewise prove that they
couldnothavebeenphysicallypresentatthesceneofthecrimeoritsimmediatevicinityatthe
timeofitscommission.Positiveidentificationwherecategoricalandconsistentandnotattended
by any showing of ill motive on the part of eyewitnesses on the matter prevails over alibi and
denial.

On the other hand, Tanos testimony was incongruent with the testimonies of the other
defensewitnessesasregardstheactualdateoftheoccurrenceoftheoffense,andtheidentityof
Tusi.Saidtestimonycastdoubtonhiscredibilityasaneyewitnessanditfailstoovercomethe
evidencefortheprosecutionclearlyandconvincingly.

The testimony of Dr. Salen as regards the Anatomical Sketch, and Medico Legal Report,
amongotherthings,preparedbyDr.Aranasfallsundertheexceptiontothehearsayrulebecause
thesaidsketchandreportareentriesinofficialrecordsmadebyDr.Aranasintheperformanceof
his duty as a Medico Legal Officer of the WPD Crime Laboratory. Dr. Aranas had personal
knowledgeofthefactsstatedbyhimthesaidsketchandreportrelativetothenatureandnumber
ofwoundssustainedbyTusibecausehewastheonewhoperformedtheautopsyonthecadaver
ofTusi.Dr. Salen acquired such facts from the sketch and report made by his predecessor, Dr.
Aranas,whohadalegal duty to turn over the same to him as his successor.Such entries were
duly entered in a regular manner in the official records, hence, the entries in said sketch and
reportareprimafacieevidenceofthefactsthereinstatedandareadmissibleunderSection44,
Rule130oftheRulesofCourt.

Asanofficerhavinglegalcustodyofthesaidsketchandreport,Dr.Salenattestedthatthe
copiespresentedinthelowercourtweretheoriginalonespreparedbyDr.Aranas.
The findings on the wounds sustained by Tusi as found on the medico legal report was
writteninatechnicallanguagewhichisnotwellunderstoodbythelowercourt,andsaidmatter
requiredthespecialknowledge,skill,experienceortrainingpossessedbyDr.SalenasaMedico
Legal Officer of the WPD Crime Laboratory to give to the lower court the meaning of the
technical language used, particularly, whether or not the wounds described therein were fatal.
Hence,thelowercourtcouldreceiveinevidenceDr.SalensinterpretationofDr.Aranasfindings.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 8/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

Thetestimonyofanexpertwitnessisnotindispensabletoasuccessfulprosecution
for murder. While the autopsy report of a medico legal expert in cases of murder, or
homicide, is preferably accepted to show the extent of the injuries suffered by the
victim,itisnottheonlycompetentevidencetoprovetheinjuriesandthefactofdeath.
Thetestimoniesofcrediblewitnessesareequallyadmissibleregardingsuchinjuriesand
thesurroundingcircumstancesthereof.

On the nonoffer of evidence, notwithstanding the fact that the medical legal report and the
anatomicalsketchwerenotformallyoffered,theyarenonetheless,admissiblebecause

xxxEvidencenotformallyofferedcanbeconsideredbythecourtaslongasthey
have been properly identified by testimony duly recorded and they have themselves
beenincorporatedintherecordsofthecase.Allthedocumentaryandobjectevidencein
thiscasewereproperlyidentified,presentedandmarkedasexhibitsincourtxxx.Even
withouttheirformaloffer,therefore,theprosecutioncanstillestablishthecasebecause
witnesses properly identified those exhibits, and their testimonies are record.
Furthermore, appellants counsel had crossexamined the prosecution witnesses who
testifiedontheexhibits.

Inthiscase,thecounselofaccusedappellantsLoloy,Gorio,andBoyRotihadtheopportunityto
crossexamineDr.Salen,butdidnotdoso,insistingthatthelatterisnotqualifiedasamedico
legalexpert,andthathistestimonyishearsay.

RecordsshowthatEdgardoTusiwasnotinapositiontoputupanykindofdefenseconsidering
thefactthathewasseatedandrestingunderneathatreeinfrontofhishouseimmediatelybefore
accusedappellantLoloysuddenlyappearedandstabbedhimtwicewithakitchenknife.

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
meansandmethodorformsintheexecutionthereofwhichtenddirectlyandespeciallytoensure
its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense which the offended party
mightmake.Theessenceoftreacheryisthesuddenandunexpectedattackwithouttheslightest
provocationonthepartofthepersonattacked.

The participation of accusedappellants Gorio and Boy Roti in killing Tusi was shown when
accusedappellant Gorio subsequently hacked Tusi on the head with a bolo, while accused
appellantBoyRotiassistedbyholdingTusirightafterthestabbingbyaccusedappellantLoloyto
especiallyensurethestabbingandhackingwithoutrisktothemselves.

Conspiracyexistswhentwoormorepersonscometoanagreementconcerningthecommission
of a felony and decide to commit it. In the absence of direct proof of conspiracy, it may be
deducedfromthemode,methodandmannerbywhichtheoffensewasperpetrated,orinferred
fromtheactsoftheaccusedthemselveswhensuchpointtoajointpurposeanddesign,concerted
actionandcommunityofinterest.

Hence,thelowercourtcorrectlyheldthattreacheryandconspiracyattendedthekillingofTusi.

EvenifthevoluntarysurrenderofaccusedappellantLoloytotheAntipoloCityPolicewouldbe
appreciated, he would still be punished by reclusion perpetua, which is an indivisible penalty
withafixedduration,underArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCodebecausethepertinentportion
ofArticle63ofthesaidCodeprovidesthat:

In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be
applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 9/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

mayhaveattendedthecommissionofthedeed.

Hence, the lower court correctly sentenced accusedappellants Loloy, Gorio, and Boy Roti to
[20]
sufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.

Hence, this appeal, in which the appellants urge that the CA committed the following errors,
namely:

I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO ACCUSED
APPELLANTTORIBIOMAYINGQUESTHEORYOFSELFDEFENSE.

II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED
APPELLANTSCONSPIREDTOCOMMITTHECRIMEOFMURDER


III
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO HEARSAY
EVIDENCEWHICH BECAME THE BASIS FORTHE CONVICTION OF THEACCUSED
APPELLANTS.

IV
ONTHEASSUMPTIONTHATTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANTSAREGUILTY,THECOURT
A QUO, GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER, INCOMPLETE SELFDEFENSE AND IN FINDING THAT
THECRIMEWASATTENDEDBYTREACHERY.


On June 25, 2008, Gregorio manifested in writing that he was withdrawing his appeal
upon the advice and assistance of his counsel, because he intended to apply for executive
[21]
clemencybyreasonofhisadvancedageof78years.

OnJuly16,2008,theCourtallowedGregorioswithdrawalofappeal,andconsideredthe
[22]
judgmentfinalandexecutoryastohim.

Ruling

Theappealhasnomerit.

I

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 10/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

TheappellantswouldhavetheCourtreviewtheCAsaffirmanceoftheirconvictionbyattacking
theappellatecourtssupposedfailuretoaccordcredencetoToribiospleaofselfdefense,andby
assailingtheappellatecourtsappreciationoftheevidence.

TheCourtcannotaccepttheappellantsurging.

Tobeginwith,itisfundamentalthatthedeterminationbythetrialcourtofthecredibility
ofwitnesses,whenaffirmedbytheappellatecourt,isaccordedfullweightandcreditaswellas
[23]
greatrespect,ifnotconclusiveeffect. Suchdeterminationmadebythetrialcourtproceeds
from its firsthand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and
[24]
attitudeundergrillingexamination, therebyplacingthetrialcourtintheuniquepositionto
[25]
assessthewitnessescredibilityandtoappreciatetheirtruthfulness,honestyandcandor.

Inviewoftheforegoing,wesustaintheCAsaffirmanceoftheconviction.Wehavenot
been shown any fact or circumstance of weight and influence that the CA and the RTC
overlookedthat,ifconsidered,shouldaffecttheoutcomeofthecase.

Secondly, the essential elements of selfdefense are: (a) unlawful aggression (b)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it and (c) lack of sufficient
[26]
provocation on the part of the person defending himself. By invoking selfdefense, the
[27]
accusedmustprovebyclearandconvincingevidencetheelementsofselfdefense. Therule
consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that when the accused admitted that he was the
author of the death of the victim and his defense was anchored on selfdefense, it becomes
incumbentuponhimtoprovethe
[28]
justifyingcircumstancetothesatisfactionofthecourt. Therationaleforthisrequirementis
that the accused, having admitted the felonious wounding or killing of his adversary, is to be
heldcriminallyliableforthecrimeunlessheestablishestothesatisfactionofthecourtthefact
of selfdefense. Thereby, however, the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not
liftedfromtheshouldersoftheState,whichcarriesituntiltheendoftheproceedings.Inother
words, only the onus probandi has shifted to him, because selfdefense is an affirmative
[29]
allegation that must be established with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof. He
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 11/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

must now discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, not on the
weaknessofthatoftheProsecution,for,eveniftheProsecutionsevidenceisweak,itcannotbe
[30]
disbelievedinviewoftheaccusedsadmissionofthekilling.

BoththetrialcourtandtheCArejectedTeofilospleaofselfdefense.Weholdthatthey
did so correctly. Teofiloss evidence on selfdefense was not persuasive enough, and lacked
credibility.Simplystated,suchevidencedidnotprevailovertheclearshowingbySalvacionand
theBernalsthatTeofiloandhiscoconspiratorshadgangeduponEdgardowithaknife(Teofilo)
andbolo(Gregorio)whiletheothertwohadheldEdgardotorenderhimdefenseless.Indeed,we
agree with the conclusion of both lower courts that the plea of selfdefense was belied by the
number(12)andthedifferentsizesofthewoundsinflictedonEdgardo.Thepresenceofalarge
number of wounds on the victims body negated selfdefense, and indicated, instead, a
[31]
determinedefforttokillthevictim.

Toribio did not convincingly establish, first of all, that there was unlawful aggression
against him. His claim that Edgardo and the Bernals had attacked him with a lead pipe and
woodenclub,whichimpelledhimtostabEdgardo,becameimplausibletothelowercourts,and
tous,too,becauseToribiodidnotevensubmithimselftoanymedicalattention.Heshouldhave
doneso,if,truly,hehadsustainedinjuriesatthehandsofthevictimandhisgroup.Atanyrate,
the question as to who between the accused and the victim was the unlawful aggressor was a
question of fact best addressed to and left with the trial court for determination based on the
[32]
evidenceonrecord.

Thirdly,theCAdidnoterrinaffirmingtheconvictionofFilomeno,whosemainpleaconsisted
ofalibi.FilomenosalibiwouldplacehiminGoldenGate,Moonwalk,LasPiasCity,atthetime
of the commission of the crime. The CA rejected such alibi by indicating that the distance
between Golden Gate, Moonwalk, Las Pias City and Pedro Sabido Street, BF Resort Village,
LasPiasCitywherethecrimewascommittedcouldbenegotiatedthrougha30minutetricycle
ride,whichdidnotrenderimpossibleforFilomenotobeintheplaceofthecrimewhenitwas
committed. The CA also cited the abject failure of Filomeno, or other witnesses to credibly
establish his being in Golden Gate, Moonwalk, Las Pias City in the entire time from the
morningofMay30,1999tillafterthecommissionofthecrime,aswellastodisprovetheStates
positiveshowingthathewaspresentintheplaceofthecrimewhenitwascommitted.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 12/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

Alibi is an inherently weak and unreliable defense, because it is easy to fabricate and
[33]
difficulttodisprove. Toestablishalibi,theaccusedmustprove:(a)thathewasactuallyin
another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime and (b) that it was physically
[34]
impossibleforhimtobeatthesceneofthecrimewhenthecrimewasperpetrated. Physical
impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime
transpired and the place where the crime was committed, as well as to the facility of access
[35]
betweenthetwoplaces.


II
PenaltiesandDamages


As the consequence of the foregoing conclusion, the appellants are found guilty of
murder, and accordingly punished with reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 248 of the
[36]
RevisedPenalCode.

Thereisaneedtocorrecttheawardofdamages.

TheCAdidnotstatewhethertheamountofP50,000.00wasfordeathindemnityormoral
damages.Nonetheless,theCAshouldhaveawardedbothdamages,consideringthattheywere
[37]
of different kinds. For death indemnity, the amount of P50,000.00 is fixed pursuant to the
[38]
currentjudicialpolicyonthematter, withouttheneedofanyevidenceorproofof
[39]
damages. Likewise,thementalanguishofthesurvivingfamilyshouldbeassuagedbythe
[40]
awardofappropriateandreasonablemoraldamages. Althoughthesurvivingfamilysmental
anguish is not ever quantifiable with mathematical precision, the Court must nonetheless
determine the amount to which the heirs of the deceased are entitled. In this case, the Court
holdsthattheamountofP50,000.00isreasonable,which,pursuanttoprevailingjurisprudence,
[41]
isawardedevenintheabsenceofanyallegationandproofoftheheirsemotionalsuffering,
simplybecausehumannatureandexperiencehaveshownthat:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 13/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

xxx a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the
partofthevictimsfamily.Itisinherentlyhumantosuffersorrow,torment,painandangerwhena
lovedonebecomesthevictimofaviolentorbrutalkilling.Suchviolentdeathor brutal killing
not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his
love,affectionandsupport,butoftenleavesthemwiththegnawingfeelingthataninjusticehas
[42]
beendonetothem.


The Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be imposed in criminal cases as
part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
[43]
circumstances. TheCivilCode allows such damages to be awarded by way of example or
correctionforthepublicgood,inadditiontothemoral,temperate,liquidatedorcompensatory
[44]
damages. In this regard, the CA and the RTC committed the plain error of failing to
recognizetherightoftheheirsofthevictimtoexemplarydamagesbyvirtueoftheattendance
of treachery. The plain error, even if not assigned in this appeal, demands immediate
rectificationasamatteroflawduetothekillingbeingattendedbytreachery.

That treachery, being an attendant circumstance, was inseparable from murder did not
[45]
matter.AswellexplainedinPeoplev.Catubig:
ThetermaggravatingcircumstancesusedbytheCivilCode, the lawnothaving specified
otherwise,istobeunderstoodinitsbroadorgenericsense.Thecommissionofanoffensehasa
twopronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the
private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the
prescriptionofheavierpunishmentfortheaccusedandbyanawardofadditionaldamagestothe
victim.Theincreaseofthepenaltyorashifttoagraverfelonyunderscorestheexacerbationof
theoffensebytheattendanceofaggravatingcircumstances,whetherordinaryorqualifying,inits
commission. Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the award of
damages,however,islikewise,ifnotprimarily,intendedfortheoffendedpartywhosuffers
thereby.Itwouldmakelittlesenseforanawardofexemplarydamagestobeduetheprivate
offendedpartywhentheaggravatingcircumstanceisordinarybuttobewithheldwhenitis
qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a
distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil,
liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating
circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an
award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil
Code.


Accordingly, P30,000.00 is awarded as exemplary damages. We hold that true
exemplaritywillnotbeservedbyalesseramount.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 14/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

Lastly,theCourtretainstheawardofP20,000.00forburialexpenses,astheCAandRTC
fixed,consideringthattheappellantshavenotassailedsuchamount.Therecanbenoquestion
thatburialexpenseswerethereasonableconsequenceofthecriminalactoftheaccused.

WHEREFORE, appellants TORIBIO MAYINGQUE and FILOMENO
MAYINGQUEarefoundGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofMURDER, and
eachissentencedtosufferreclusionperpetua.

The appellants are ordered to pay to the heirs of Edgardo Tusi P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as actual damages, and P20,000.00 as
burialexpenses.


Costsofsuittobepaidbytheappellants.

SOORDERED.



LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:




CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson




ARTUROD.BRIONROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice



http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 15/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice


ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.




RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

*AdditionalmemberasperSpecialOrderNo.843datedMay17,2010.
[1]
Rollo,pp.221.
[2]
CARollo,pp.1321.
[3]
OriginalRecords,p.3
[4]
CARollo,p.18.
[5]
TSNSeptember6,1999,p.9.
[6]
Id.,pp.46.
[7]
TSNDecember6,1999,p.12September1,2000,pp.818.
[8]
TSN,February14,2001,pp.46.
[9]
Id.,pp.1433.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 16/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

[10]
TSN,December4,2003,pp.511.
[11]
TSN,October12,2004,pp.511.
[12]
TSN,May12,2005,p.12.
[13]
TSN,August11,2005,pp.1121.
[14]
Id.,pp.410.
[15]
TSN,November3,2005,pp.37.
[16]
Id.,pp.712.
[17]
OriginalRecords,pp.259267.
[18]
OriginalRecords,pp.265267
[19]
CA rollo, pp. 102120 the decision was penned by Justice Remedios A. SalazarFernando, and concurred in by Justice
RosalindaAsuncionVicenteandJusticeEnricoA.Lanzanas(retired).
[20]
Id.,pp.113120.
[21]
Rollo,pp.6569.
[22]
Id.,p.71theentryofjudgmentwasmadeonOctober3,2008,rollo,pp.7374.
[23]
Peoplev.Darilay,G.R.Nos.13975152,January26,2004,421SCRA45.
[24]
Gulmaticov.People,G.R.No.146296,October15,2007,536SCRA82.
[25]
People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 177569, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 306 People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019, 12
February2007,515SCRA537Peoplev.Taan, G.R. No. 169432, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 219 Perezv.People, G.R. No.
150443,January20,2006,479SCRA209Peoplev.Tonog,Jr.,G.R.No.144497,June29,2004,433SCRA13Peoplev.Genita,
Jr.,G.R.No.126171,March11,2004,425SCRA343Peoplev.Pacheco,G.R.No.142887,March2,2004,424SCRA164People
v.Abolidor,G.R.No.147231,February18,2004,423SCRA260Peoplev.Santiago,G.R.Nos.13754243,January20,2004,420
SCRA248Peoplev.Librando,G.R.No.132251,July6,2000,335SCRA232Peoplev.Alarcon,G.R.Nos.13319193,July11,
2000,335SCRA457.
[26]
Art.11(1),RevisedPenalCode.
[27]
Peoplev.Calabroso,G.R.No.126368,September14,2000,340SCRA332,338.
[28]
Peoplev.Camacho,G.R.No.138629,June20,2001,359SCRA200Peoplev.Quio,G.R.No.105580,May17,1994,232
SCRA400Peoplev.Capisonda,1Phil.575(1902)Peoplev.Baguio,43Phil.683(1922)People v. Silang Cruz, 53 Phil. 625
(1929) People v. Gutierrez, 53 Phil. 609 (1929) People v. Embalido, 58 Phil. 152 (1933) People v. Dorico, G.R. No. 31568,
November29,1973,54SCRA172Peoplev.BoholstCaballero,G.R.No.L23249,November25,1974,61SCRA180.
[29]
Peoplev.Gelera,G.R.No.121377,August15,1997,277SCRA450.
[30]
Peoplev.Molina,G.R.No.59436,August28,1992,213SCRA52Peoplev.Alapide,G.R.No.104276,September20,1994,
236SCRA555Peoplev.Albarico,G.R.Nos.10859697,November17,1994,238SCRA203Peoplev.Camahalan, G.R. No.
114032,February22,1995,241SCRA558.
[31]
Peoplev.Domingo,G.R.No.131817,August8,2001,362SCRA338,343Peoplev.Rivero,G.R.No.112721,March15,1995,
242SCRA354Peoplev.Nuestro,G.R.No.111288,January18,1995,240SCRA221.
[32]
Garciav.People,G.R.No.144699,March10,2004,425SCRA221.
[33]
Peoplev.Batidor,G.R.No.126027,February18,1999,303SCRA335.
[34]
Peoplev.Saban,G.R.No.110559,November24,1999,319SCRA36,Peoplev.Reduca,G.R.Nos.12609495,January21,
1999,301SCRA516,534.
[35]
Peoplev.DeLabajan,G.R.Nos.12996869,October27,1999,317SCRA566,575.
[36]
Art.248.Murder.Anypersonwho,notfallingwithintheprovisionsofarticle246shallkillanother,shallbeguiltyofmurder
andshallbepunishedbyreclusionperpetuatodeath,ifcommittedwithanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:
1.Withtreachery,takingadvantageofsuperiorstrength,withtheaidofarmedmen,oremployingmeanstoweakenthe
defenseorofmeansorpersonstoinsureoraffordimpunity.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 17/18
5/27/2017 G.R.No.179709

2.Inconsiderationofaprice,reward,orpromise.
3.Bymeansofinundation,fire,poison,explosion,shipwreck,strandingofavessel,derailmentorassaultuponarailroad,fallof
anairship,orbymeansofmotorvehicles,orwiththeuseofanyothermeansinvolvinggreatwasteandruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructivecyclone,epidemicorotherpubliccalamity.
5.Withevidentpremeditation.
6.Withcruelty,bydeliberatelyandinhumanlyaugmentingthesufferingofthevictim,oroutragingorscoffingathispersonor
corpse.
[37]
HeirsofCastrov.RaymundoBustos,L25913,February28,1969,27SCRA327.
[38]
Id.
[39]
Article2206,CivilCode:
Article2206.Theamountofdamagesfordeathcausedbyacrimeorquasidelictshallbeatleastthreethousandpesos,even
thoughtheremayhavebeenmitigatingcircumstances.Inaddition:
(1)Thedefendantshallbeliableforthelossoftheearningcapacityofthedeceased,andtheindemnityshallbepaidtotheheirs
ofthelattersuchindemnityshallineverycasebeassessedandawardedbythecourt,unlessthedeceasedonaccountofpermanent
physicaldisabilitynotcausedbythedefendant,hadnoearningcapacityatthetimeofhisdeath
(2)Ifthedeceasedwasobligedtogivesupportaccordingtotheprovisionsofarticle291,therecipientwhoisnotanheircalled
tothedecedent'sinheritancebythelawoftestateorintestatesuccession,maydemandsupportfromthepersoncausingthedeath,for
aperiodnotexceedingfiveyears,theexactdurationtobefixedbythecourt
(3)Thespouse,legitimateandillegitimatedescendantsandascendantsofthedeceasedmaydemandmoraldamagesformental
anguishbyreasonofthedeathofthedeceased.
[40]
Article2206,(3),inrelationtoArticle2217andArticle2219,CivilCode,andArticle107,RevisedPenalCode.
[41]
Peoplev.Berondo,G.R.No.177827,March30,2009,582SCRA547Peoplev.Domingo,G.R.No.184343,March2,2009,
580SCRA436,456457Peoplev.Osianas,G.R.No.182548,September30,2008,567SCRA319,340Peoplev.Buduhan,G.R.
No.178196,August6,2008,561SCRA337,367368Peoplev.Salva,G.R.No.132351,January10,2002,373SCRA55,69.
[42]
Peoplev.Panado,G.R.No.133439,December26,2000,348SCRA679,690691.
[43]
Article2230,CivilCode.
[44]
Article2229,CivilCode.
[45]
G.R.No.137842,August23,2001,363SCRA621,635.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/179709.htm 18/18