TodayisSunday,December28,2014

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.88189July9,1996

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,vs.TIBURCIOABALOS,accusedappellant.

REGALADO,J.:p

Inthisappeal,accusedappellantTiburcioAbalosseeksabsolutionfromthejudgmentofconvictionrenderedbytheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch27,ofCatbalogan,Samarwhichpronouncedhimguiltyofthecomplexcrimeofdirectassaultwithmurder inCriminalCaseNo.2302.Hisarguments in thepresentappeal turnon thecentralquestion of unwarranted credence allegedly extended by the trial court to the version of the criminal incidentnarrated by the sole prosecutionwitness. The totality of the evidence adduced, however, indubitably confirmsappellant'sguiltoftheoffensecharged.Accordingly,weaffirm.

An information filed in the trial court, datedApril 21, 1983, imputed the crime of direct assault withmurder tohereinappellantTiburcioAbalos,alias"Ewet,"withtheallegations

That on or about the 20th day of March, 1983, at nighttime, in the Municipality of Catbalogan,ProvinceofSamar,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,withdeliberateintenttokill,withtreacheryandevidentpremeditationandknowingfullywellthatoneSofronioLabinewasanagentofaperson inauthoritybeingamemberof the IntegratedNational Police with station at Catbalogan, Samar, did then and there willfully, unlawfully andfeloniouslyattack,assaultandstrikesaidSofronioLabinewithapieceofwood,whichsaidaccusedha(d) conveniently provided himself for the purpose while said P/Pfc. Sofronio Labine, a dulyappointed and qualified member of the said INP, was engaged in the performance of his officialduties or on the occasion of such performance, that is, maintaining peace and order during thebarangay fiestaofCanlapwas,ofsaidmunicipality, thereby inflictinguponhim"Laceratedwound2inchesparietalarearight.Bloodoozing frombothearsandnose"whichwounddirectlycausedhisdeath.

Thatinthecommissionofthecrime,theaggravatingcircumstanceofnocturnitywaspresent.1

AthisarraignmentonJune7,1983,appellant,withtheassistanceofcounsel,enteredapleaofnotguilty.2Thetrial conducted thereafter culminated in the decision 3 of the trial court on February 3, 1989 finding appellant guilty aschargedandmetingout tohim thepenaltyof "life imprisonment,with theaccessoriesof the law."Appellantwas likewiseorderedtoindemnifytheheirsofthevictiminthesumofP30,000.00actualandcompensatorydamagesintheamountofP2,633.00,withP15,000.00asmoraldamagesandtopaythecosts.4

As recounted by prosecutionwitness Felipe Basal, a farmer residing in Barangay Pupua, Catbalogan, Samar,appellantassaultedthevictim,Pfc.SofronioLabine,ataround8:00P.M.ofMarch20,1983,whichwasthenthedayofthebarangayfiestacelebrationsinBarangayCanlapwas,Catbalogan,Samar.Theincidenttranspirednearthehouseofappellantatthesaidbarangay.FelipeBasalwasthenhavingadrinkingsessioninfrontoftheshantyofoneRodulfoFigueroa,Jr.whichwassituatedjustafewmetersfromtheresidenceofappellant.

AccordingtoBasal,ataboutthattimehenoticedthefatherofappellant,PoliceMajorCecilioAbalos,scoldinghisemployees inhis transportationbusiness for turning inonly twohundredpesos inearnings for that day.WhileMajorAbaloswasthusberatinghisemployees,appellantarrivedandaskedhis fathernot toscoldthemandtojustletthemtakepartinthebarangayfestivities.ThisinfuriatedtheelderAbalosandsetoffaheatedargument

betweenfatherandson.5

Whilethetwowerethusquarreling,awomanshouted"Justicia,boliguekumi!Adiinmagaaringasa."meaning,"Policeofficer,helpus!Somebody'smakingtroublehere."Thevictim,Pfc.SofronioLabine,thenappearedonthesceneandaskedMajorAbalos,"Whatisit,sir?"ThevictimsalutedAbaloswhenthelatterturnedaroundtofacehim.AsMajorAbalosleveledhiscarbineatLabine,appellanthurriedlyleftandprocuredapieceofwood,abouttwoinchesthick,threeincheswideandthreefeetlong,fromanearbyFordFieravehicle.

He thenswiftly returnedandunceremoniouslyswungwith thatwoodenpieceatLabine frombehind,hitting thepolicemanatthebackoftherightsideofhishead.Labinecollapsedunconsciousinaheap,andhelaterexpiredfrom the severe skull fracture he sustained from that blow. Felipe Basal and his wife took flight right afterappellantstruckthevictim,fearfulthattheymightbehitbypossiblestraybullets6shouldagunfightensue.

Appellant's testimony,ontheotherhand, isofadifferent tenor.HeadmitshavingstruckLabinewithapieceofwoodduring the incident inquestionbutclaims thathedidso in theerroneousbelief thathis fatherwasbeingattackedbyamemberoftheNewPeople'sArmy(NPA).Accordingtoappellant,hewasthenseatedinsidetheirfamilyowned Sarao jeepney parked beside the store of Rodulfo Figueroa, Jr. near their home in BarangayCanlapwaswhenhenoticedamaninfatigueuniformsuddenlyaccosthisfather.Atthattime,appellant'sfatherhadjustarrivedfromatripfromWright,Samarandhadjustalightedfromhisservicevehicle,aFordFiera.

ThemantriedtodisarmMajorAbalosofhisfirearmbutthelatterresistedandwhilethetwoweregrapplingforpossession of the gun, appellant instinctively went to the rescue of his father. He got a piece of wood fromFigueroa'sstorewithwhichhethenclubbedLabinewhomhedidnotrecognizeatthatpoint.WhenLabinefelltotheground from theblow,appellant immediately fled toBarangayMercedesnearby, fearing that themanhadcompanionswhomight retaliate.Whenhecame to knowof the identity of his victim the followingmorning, heforthwithsurrenderedtotheauthorities.7

As mentioned at the outset, the foregoing version of the factual antecedents as presented by appellant wasroundlyrejectedbythelowercourtwhichfoundthesameunworthyofbelief.Appellantascribesreversibleerrorstothetrialcourt(a)innotgivingcredencetotheevidenceadducedbythedefense(b)inbelievingtheevidencepresented by the prosecution (c) in relying on the prosecution's evidence which falls short of the requiredquantumofevidencethatwouldwarrantaconviction(d)infindingthattreacheryattendedthecommissionofthecrimeand failing tocredit inappellant's favorhisvoluntarysurrenderand(e) in findingappellantguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimecharged.8

In the main, appellant insists that the trial court should not have given credence to the story of the loneeyewitness for the prosecution.He also contends that since the testimony of thatwitness bore clear traces ofincredibility,particularlythefactthathecouldnothavehadaclearviewoftheincidentduetopoorvisibility,theprosecutionshouldhavepresentedaswellthewomanwhohadcalledforhelpattheheightoftheincidentifonlytocorroborateBasal'snarrationoftheevents.Appellantalsoassailsasinherently incrediblethefactthat it tookquite a time for witness Felipe Basal to come forward and divulgewhat he knew to the authorities. All these,unfortunately,areflawedarguments.

From theevidence in thecaseatbar, theprosecutionhasconvincinglyproved, through theclearandpositivetestimony of Basal, themanner inwhich the victimwas killed by herein appellant. The record is bereft of anyshowingthatsaidprosecutionwitnesswasactuatedbyanyevilmotivationordubiousintent intestifyingagainstappellant.Moreover,adoctrineof longstanding in this jurisdiction is that the testimonyofa loneeyewitness, ifcredible and positive, is sufficient to convict an accused. 9 There was thus no need, as appellant would want theprosecution to do, to present in court the woman who shouted for assistance since her testimony would only becorroborativeinnature.

The presentation of such species of evidence in court would only be warranted when there are compellingreasonstosuspectthattheeyewitnessisprevaricatingorthathisobservationswereinaccurate.10Besides, it isuptothePeopletodeterminewhoshouldbepresentedasprosecutionwitnessonthebasisof itsownassessmentof thenecessity for such testimony. 11Also, no unreasonable delay could even be attributed to Felipe Basal considering thatduringthewakeforPfc.Labine,Basalcameandintimatedtothewidowofthevictimthathewasgoingtotestifyregardingherhusband'sslaying.12

Appellant'scontentionthatthedeceasedhadattackedandattemptedtodivesthisfatherofhisfirearmisratherpreposterousconsideringthatnoreasonwasadvancedastowhythedeceasedpatrolmanwouldassaultapoliceofficerofsuperiorrank.Parenthetically,theconditionofvisibilityatthetimeoftheincidentwasconducivenotonlyto the clear and positive identification of appellant as the victim's assailant but likewise to an actual andunobstructedviewoftheeventsthatledtothevictim'sviolentdeath.

Basalwas seated just a fewmeters away from the protagonistswhomheall knew, he being also a longtimeresidentofthatmunicipality.Therewasatwelvefoothighfluorescentlamppostlocatedalongtheroadandwhich,

byappellant'sownreckoning,wasjustseventeenmetersawayfromthem.13Notwithstandingthefact thatacoupleoftreespartlyobstructedthepost, theilluminationcastbythefluorescent lampandthenearbyhousesprovidedsufficientbrightnessfortheidentificationofthecombatants.

Curiously enough, appellant's assertion that there was poor visibility is ironically contradicted by his testimonywhichisdetailedonfactsthatonecouldreadilyrecallafterwitnessinganeventinbroaddaylight.WhileappellantconsidersunbelievableBasal'sidentificationofhimsupposedlybecauseofinadequatelighting,hehimself,underthesameconditions,couldclearlyseehis father'sassailantwearinga fatigueuniformwhichwasdifferent fromthatwornbypolicemen.Heevenassertsthathesawhisfatherclutchingthecarbinewithhishandsholdingthebuttwhilehispurportedassailantheldontightlytotherifle.14Whatthesefactsestablishisthatthelightsintheareaat the timeof the incidentwereenough toaffordBasalanexcellentviewof the incident,contrary toappellant'spretense.Appellant'stestimonyisthusnegatedbytherulethatevidence,tobebelieved,musthavebeengivennotonlybyacrediblewitness,butthatthesamemustalsobereasonablyacceptableinitself.

Appellant'sflightrightafterhehadassaultedthevictimisalsocorrosiveofhistestimony.For,ifitweretruethathehadmerelylaboredunderthewrongnotionthathisfatherwasbeingattackedbyamemberoftheNPA,andthatitwasaninnocentcaseoferrorinpersonae,hecouldhavereadilysurrenderedtohisfatherrightthenandthere. After all, Cecilio Abaloswas a policemajor andwas theStationCommander of the IntegratedNationalPolice(INP)inWright,Samar.Further,therewasnonecessityatallforhimtofleefromthecrimesceneforfearof retaliationconsidering thathewas in thecompanyofhisown fatherwho,aside fromhisposition,was thenarmed with a carbine. Appellant's explanation is, therefore, absurd and should be considered as selfservingevidencewithnoweightinlaw.

Ontheoffensecommittedbyappellant,thetrialcourtcorrectlyconcludedthatheshouldbeheldaccountableforthe complex crime of direct assault with murder. There are two modes of committing atentados contra laautoridadosusagentes underArticle 148of theRevisedPenalCode.The first is not a trueatentado as it istantamounttorebellionorsedition,exceptthatthereisnopublicuprising.Ontheotherhand,thesecondmodeisthemorecommonwayofcommittingassaultandisaggravatedwhenthereisaweaponemployedintheattack,ortheoffenderisapublicofficer,ortheoffenderlayshandsuponapersoninauthority.15

Appellantcommittedthesecondformofassault,theelementsofwhicharethattheremustbeanattack,useofforce,orserious intimidationorresistanceuponaperson inauthorityorhisagent theassaultwasmadewhenthesaidpersonwasperforminghisdutiesorontheoccasionofsuchperformanceandtheaccusedknewthatthevictimisapersoninauthorityorhisagent,thatis,thattheaccusedmusthavetheintentiontooffend,injureorassaulttheoffendedpartyasapersoninauthorityoranagentofapersoninauthority.16

Here,LabinewasadulyappointedmemberofthethenINPinCatbalogan,Samarand,thus,wasanagentofapersoninauthoritypursuanttoArticle152oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended.Thereisalsonodisputethathewas in theactualperformanceofhisdutieswhenassaultedbyappellant, that is,hewasmaintainingpeaceandorderduringthefiestainBarangayCanlapwas.AppellanthimselftestifiedthathepersonallyknewLabinetobe a policeman 17 and, in fact, Labine was then wearing his uniform. These facts should have sufficiently deterredappellant fromattackinghim,andhisdefiantconductclearlydemonstratesthathereallyhadthecriminal intent toassaultandinjureanagentofthelaw.

When theassault results in thekillingof thatagentorofaperson inauthority for thatmatter, therearises thecomplexcrimeofdirectassaultwithmurderorhomicide.18 The killing in the instant case constituted the felony ofmurderqualifiedbyalevosia through treacherousmeansdeliberatelyadoptedPfc.Labinewasstruck frombehindwhilehewasbeingconfrontedatthesametimebyappellant'sfather.Theevidenceshowsthatappellantdeliberatelywentbehindthevictimwhomhethenhitwithapieceofwoodwhichhedeliberatelygotforthatpurpose.

Obviously,appellantresortedtosuchmeanstoavoidanyrisktohimself,knowingfullywellthathisquarrywasapoliceman who could readily mount a defense. The aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation andnocturnity,however,werenotdulyproven,ascorrectlyruledbythecourtbelow.Ontheotherhand,appellant'svoluntarysurrenderevenifdulytakenintoaccountbythetrialcourtwouldhavebeeninconsequential.

The offense is a complex crime, the penalty for which is that for the graver offense, to be imposed in themaximum period. Considering that the more serious crime of murder then carried the penalty of reclusiontemporal in its maximum period to death, the imposable penalty should have been death. The mitigatingcircumstance,inthatcontext,wouldhavebeenunavailingandinapplicablesincethepenaltythusimposedbythelaw is indivisible. 19At all events, the punishment of death could not be imposed as it would have to be reduced toreclusionperpetuaduetothethenexistingproscriptionagainsttheimpositionofthedeathpenalty.20

However, thedesignationby the trialcourtof the imposablepenaltyas"life imprisonment" iserroneous,as thesameshouldproperlybedenominatedasreclusionperpetua.21Also,thedeathindemnitypayabletotheheirsofthevictim,underthepresentjurisprudentialpolicy,isP50,000.00.

ACCORDINGLY, with the MODIFICATION that the penalty imposed upon accusedappellant Tiburcio Abalosshouldbereclusionperpetua,andthat thedeath indemnity ishereby increasedtoP50,000.00, the judgmentofthe court a quo in Criminal Case No. 2302 is AFFIRMED in all other respects, with costs against accusedappellant.

SOORDERED.

Romero,Puno,MendozaandTorres,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1Rollo,12.

2Ibid.,4.

3PerJudgeSinforianoA.Monsanto.

4Rollo,9.

5TSN,November6,1984,1623.

6Ibid.,id.,2329.

7Ibid.,November14,1988,3236.

8BrieffortheAccusedAppellant,1Rollo,13.

9 People vs. Bondoc,G.R.No. 98400,May 23, 1994, 232SCRA 478People vs. Paglinawan,G.R.No.107804,June28,1994,233SCRA494.

10Peoplevs.Comia,G.R.No.109761,September1,1994,236SCRA185.

11Peoplevs.DelaCruz,G.R.No.108180,February8,1994,229SCRA754.

12TSN,April8,1985,18.

13Ibid.,November14,1988,41.

14Ibid.,id.,4547.

15Aquino,R.C.,TheRevisedPenalCode,Vol.II,1987ed.,146.

16U.S.vs.Alvear,etal.,35Phil.626(1916)Peoplevs.Rellin,77Phil.1038(1947)Peoplevs.Villaseor,L28574,October24,1970,35SCRA460.

17TSN,November14,1988,45.

18Peoplevs.Cesar,L26185,March13,1968,22SCRA1024Peoplevs.Renegado,L27031,May31,1974,57SCRA275Peoplevs.Gadiano,L31818,July30,1982,115SCRA559.

19Article48,inrelationtoArt.63,RevisedPenalCode.

20Sec.19(1),Art.III,1987ConstitutionPeoplevs.Muoz,etal.,L3896970,February9,1989,170SCRA107.

21 See Administrative Circular 692, dated October 8, 1992, re "Correct Application of the Penalty ofReclusionPerpetua."

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation