Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ingal vs. People
Ingal vs. People
trivial matters only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the Same; Same; Same; Alibi; No jurisprudence in criminal
credibility of witnesses, for they erase the suspicion of law is more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all
rehearsed testimony. defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove, and
Same; Same; Same; Same; When it comes to credibility, for which reason it is generally rejected; Requisites for alibi to
the trial court’s assessment deserves great weight, and is even prosper.—Petitioner likewise interposes the defense of alibi.
conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or No jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than that alibi
oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and
influence.—We find the evidence of the prosecution to be more difficult to disprove, and for which reason it is generally
credible than that adduced by petitioner. When it comes to rejected. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is imperative
credibility, the trial court’s assessment deserves great weight, that the accused establish two elements: (1) he was not at the
and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it
arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the
weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full time of its commission. Petitioner failed to do so.
opportunity to observe directly the witnesses’ deportment and Same; Same; Conspiracy; It is hornbook doctrine that
manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than conspiracy must be proved by positive and convincing
the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly. evidence, the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself;
Same; Same; Same; Denials; Denial cannot prevail over Conspiracy is not an element of the crime of murder or
the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses who were not homicide; It assumes pivotal importance in the determination
shown to have any ill motive to testify against appellants.—A of the liability of the perpetrators.—Article 8 of the Revised
denial unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is Penal Code provides that there is conspiracy when two or
negative, self-serving, merits no weight in law, and cannot more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it.
therefore be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony It is hornbook doctrine that conspiracy must be proved by
of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. positive and convincing evidence, the same quantum of
Further, denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of evidence as the crime itself. Once conspiracy is established, all
prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have any ill the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of
motive to testify against appellants. Absence of improper their degree of participation, for in the contemplation of the
motives makes a testimony worthy of full faith and credence. law, the act of one becomes the act of all, and it matters not
In this case, petitioner testified that he did not know of any who among the accused inflicted the fatal blow to the victim.
reason why Mmes. Bona and Tan testified against him. Conspiracy is not an element of the crime of murder or
homicide. Conspiracy assumes pivotal importance in the
634
determination of the liability of the perpetrators. Thus, if the
evidence adduced by the prosecution fails to prove conspiracy,
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED only those whose liability can be established can be held liable
for the crime charged. In the case under consideration, the
Ingal vs. People prosecution was able to prove that petitioner was the one who
stabbed the victim. But since conspiracy was not shown in the
instant case, the other accused cannot be convicted because plan to kill was hatched or the time that elapsed before it was
their respective liabilities were not satisfactorily proved as carried out. In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to
well. Petitioner alone is liable for the death of the victim. establish that evident premeditation attended the killing.
Same; Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Treachery; Same; Same; Damages; Civil Indemnity; Civil indemnity
There is treachery in a sudden and unexpected attack which is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without
renders the victim unable to defend himself by reason of the need of proof other than the commission of the crime;
suddenness and severity Damages that may be awarded when death occurs due to a
crime.—With respect to award of damages, both the trial court
635
and the Court of Appeals did not award any. When death
occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded:
VOL. 547, MARCH 4, 2008 635 (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2)
actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4)
Ingal vs. People exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages. Civil
indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim
of the attack.—The information alleged treachery in the without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.
commission of the crime. As correctly found by the trial court, Under prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 to
treachery attended the killing. There is treachery in a sudden the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order.
and unexpected attack which renders the victim unable to Same; Same; Same; Actual Damages; It is necessary for
defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the a party seeking actual damages to produce competent proof or
attack. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected the best evidence obtainable, such as receipts, to justify an
attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving award therefor; The
the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby
ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and 636
hospitalization and funeral expenses were not supported by VOL. 547, MARCH 4, 2008 637
receipts. However, the award of P25,000.00 in temperate
Ingal vs. People
damages in homicide or murder cases is proper when no
evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in the trial
court. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate (RTC) of Manila, Branch 2, convicting petitioner Jose S.
damages may be recovered, as it cannot be denied that the Ingal of the crime of murder.
heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss, although the exact For the death of one Rolando N. Domingo a.k.a.
amount was not proved. Toto, petitioner was charged with murder in an
information which reads:
Same; Same; Same; Moral Damages; Moral damages
must also be awarded because it is mandatory in cases of “That on or about March 2, 1987, in the City of Manila,
murder and homicide, without need of allegation and proof Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating
other than the death of the victim.—Moral damages must also together with one RICARDO LIDOT who has already been
be awarded because it is mandatory in cases of murder and convicted of the said offense under Crim. Case No. 87-53676
homicide, without need of allegation and proof other than the with RTC of Manila, Branch V, and with others whose true
death of the victim. The award of P50,000.00 as moral names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown
damages is in order. and helping one another, taking advantage of their superior
strength, did then and there willfully, unlawful and feloniously,
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals. with intent to kill, and with treachery and evident
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. premeditation, attack, assault and use personal violence upon
Rosendo C. Ramos for petitioner. the person of one ROLANDO DOMINGO y NALANGAN @
The Solicitor General for respondent. TOTO by then and there stabbing the latter on different parts
of his body with a deadly weapon, thereby inflicting upon him
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate
Assailed before Us is the Decision1 of the Court of cause of his death thereafter.”3
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01056, dated 31
August 2005, which affirmed in toto the decision2 of the When arraigned on 27 September 1994, petitioner,
Regional Trial Court with the assistance of counsel de oficio, pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged.4
_______________ The prosecution presented the following witnesses,
namely: (1) Myrna Nalangan Domingo;5 (2) Aida
1 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas with Associate Bona;6 (3) Rosalinda Tan;7 (4) Dr. Marcial G. Ceñido;8
Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., (5) SPO2 Leon Salac, Jr.;9 and (6) PFC Benjamin C.
concurring; CA Rollo, pp. 123-137. Boco.10
2 Records, pp. 293-302. Myrna Nalangan Domingo, the mother of the victim,
testified that her son was a nineteen-year-old student
637
when he
_______________ his eyelid. She added she did not see anyone helping the
petitioner when he stabbed the victim. Aside from the
3 Id., at p. 1.
victim, only she, Rosalinda Tan, and the girlfriend of the
4 Id., at p. 16.
victim were in the carinderia.
5 TSN, 4 October 1994.
Mrs. Bona explained she gave her first written
6 TSN, 25 October 1994.
statement about the incident on 26 August 1994. On the
7 TSN, 28 February 1995.
night of the incident, she told the police about the
8 TSN, 7 April 1995.
appearance of the suspect. What she revealed was
9 TSN, 19 May 1995.
reduced into writing but she did not sign it and told the
10 TSN, 7 September 1995.
police she would sign the same only if the suspect
638 would be apprehended. She said she first saw the
petitioner on 2 March 1987 and saw him the second
time when he was arrested on 26 August 1994.
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Rosalinda Tan, a helper at the carinderia of Mrs. Bona,
Ingal vs. People testified that at around 9:00 p.m. of 2 March 1987, she
was attending to the needs of the customers in the
died on 2 March 1987. She said she was at home when carinderia. A person, later identified as the petitioner,
she learned that her son was stabbed and was brought to came to the carinderia and stabbed Rolando Domingo.
the Mary Johnston Hospital. Upon learning of the news, She disclosed she
she immediately went to the hospital to see her son. She 639
said her son was still alive when she arrived in the
hospital, but he eventually passed away that same day.
She said she incurred hospital and funeral expenses. The VOL. 547, MARCH 4, 2008 639
death of her son caused her anguish and pain. Ingal vs. People
The next witness for the prosecution was Aida Bona,
a resident of Perla Street, Tondo, Manila, and the owner was in front of the victim, about two meters away, when
of the carinderia where the stabbing took place. She petitioner placed a towel on the neck of the victim and
narrated that at around 9:00 p.m. of 2 March 1987, she stabbed him thrice. Petitioner thereafter removed the
was in front of her carinderia and the victim, Rolando towel and walked away towards the end of Perla Street.
Domingo, nicknamed Toto, was eating thereat. While Like Mrs. Bona, she executed a sworn statement when
Toto was eating, petitioner Jose Ingal approached him, petitioner was arrested. She explained that only one
pulled his hair and repeatedly stabbed him. She was person stabbed the victim.11
around an arm’s length away from Toto when he was Former Medico-Legal Officer of the Western Police
stabbed. After petitioner stabbed Toto, he just walked District (WPD) Dr. Marcial G. Ceñido testified that on 3
away as if nothing happened. She shouted for help but March 1987, he conducted the autopsy on Rolando
nobody came to help. She said she was certain the Domingo’s body which was identified12 by the latter’s
assailant was the petitioner because of the right mole on
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b2d7b0a857cb449003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/35 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b2d7b0a857cb449003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/35
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 547 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 547
sister, Nympha Mationg. He said the victim suffered petitioner. He said he prepared documents — Progress
four stab wounds, two of which were penetrating and Report dated 27 August 1994 and the statements of
fatal. The first wound was non-penetrating and located witnesses — and thereafter placed the petitioner under
at the right upper thorax, right chest. The second one arrest. However, he was not the one who took the
was penetrating and located at the left cheek on the left statements of Aida Bona and Rosalinda Tan.
side. The third one penetrated the left anterior while the The other witness was Benjamin C. Boco, retired
fourth was non-penetrating at the back. He said the Police Inspector of the WPD assigned to the Homicide
bladed weapon used was a tres cantos. The primary Section. He recounted that on 3 March 1987, he
cause of death was a penetrating stab wound on the received a call from a certain Mr. Garrote, a Security
chest. He issued Autopsy Report No. W-87-16713 and Guard of Mary Johnston Hospital, informing him that a
the victim’s Certificate of Death.14 stabbing victim died. Upon receipt of said information,
The testimony of Solomon Batallar, member of the he proceeded to the hospital and saw the victim at the
WPD, was dispensed with when the parties stipulated morgue. The victim was Rolando Domingo. He
that his testimony would show that he accompanied the thereafter went to the crime scene and talked to Aida
mother of the victim to the residence of the petitioner, Bona, the owner of the carinderia where the stabbing
and that the petitioner was brought to the police station. happened. Mrs. Bona told him that the victim was eating
Testifying next for the prosecution was SPO2 Leon in her carinderia when the suspect, Jose Ingal, suddenly
Salac, Jr., a member of the WPD Command assigned to arrived and stabbed the victim. Boco said he tried to get
the Homicide Section. He testified that on 27 August a written statement from Mrs. Bona who declined and
1994, he was assigned as an investigator in the Special told him that she would be willing to give her statement
Team of the WPDC that handles cases pertaining to upon the apprehension of the suspect. Boco said he then
crimes against persons. He went to a certain house where the suspect was allegedly
hiding, but the suspect was not there. So, he went back
_______________ to the office and prepared an Advance Report.15
The prosecution formally offered Exhibits “A” to
11 TSN, 28 February 1995, pp. 31-32. “G,” inclusive, with sub-markings which the trial court
12 Exh. “C”; Records, p. 129. admitted.16
13 Exh. “D”; id., at p. 130. For the defense, the following took the witness stand:
14 Exh. “E”; id., at pp. 132-133. (1) Juanito Yang;17 (2) SPO1 Loreto A. Concepcion;18
(3) Ricardo
640
_______________
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
15 Exh. “G”; id., at p. 136.
Ingal vs. People
16 Id., at p. 137.
17 TSN, 16 February 1996.
remembered handling the case involving the murder of 18 TSN, 23 February 1996.
Rolando Domingo in which the suspect was the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b2d7b0a857cb449003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/35 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b2d7b0a857cb449003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/35
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 547 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 547
Ingal said that he knew Rolando Domingo to be a to 2 March 1987. She narrated that on said date, at
loafer, and that he only learned what happened to around 9:00 p.m., she was in the carinderia of Aling
Domingo a day after the latter was stabbed to death. He Bona which was located in Perla St., Tondo, Manila.
came to know that a certain Joseph stabbed the victim. While looking at the food being sold there, she noticed a
Ingal disclosed that his only nickname is Joe. He man (whom she later learned was named Toto) and a
explained that upon learning of the death of Domingo, woman eating in the carinderia. She then saw two
he still stayed in his house at Coral St., Tondo, for two persons, who arrived together, approach Toto. One of
months before transferring to Dagupan, Tondo. From the them tapped the shoulder of Toto and told him “Sumama
time Domingo was stabbed until petitioner was arrested ka sa amin.” Toto did not answer. The one who tapped
in 1994, the latter worked as a delivery man of fish and the shoulder of Toto asked his companion—whom she
never lived outside of Tondo. knew to be Carding Daga—for a weapon. This Carding
Ingal testified he did not know Ricardo Lidot alias Daga drew a tres cantos from his waist and handed it to
Carding Daga. He likewise disputed the declarations of another person. Upon receiving the weapon, the person
Mmes. Aida Bona and Rosalinda Tan that he was the who tapped the shoulder of Toto stabbed the latter three
one who stabbed Rolando Domingo. He first saw Mrs. times. Mrs. Ibajo said she was two to three feet away
Bona when she testified in court, while it was at the from the victim who was on her left. She saw that
police headquarters that he first saw Mrs. Tan. He did Carding Daga and the person who stabbed the victim
not know any reason why these two women testified had two more companions who waited at the corner. The
against him. two who approached the victim went toward the two
persons in the corner and told them, “Let us go and see
643
each other at Smokey Mountain.” Then they walked
away as if nothing happened. Toto was picked up by his
VOL. 547, MARCH 4, 2008 643 lady companion, was placed in a pedicab, and was taken
to the hospital.
Ingal vs. People
Mrs. Ibajo explained that she knew the petitioner
because she knew his relatives. She bared that this was
Ingal disclosed that it took him twenty minutes by the first time she revealed what she knew about the
jeepney to travel from his residence to his place of work stabbing incident. She did not see Jose Ingal at the
in the Navotas Fish Port, and that Elcano St. where he carinderia before or after 9:00 p.m. She added that her
delivered fish on 2 March 1987 was only one ride away residence in March 1987 was only a block away from
from his house. After finishing delivery at 7:00 a.m. of 3 the crime scene.
March 1987, he went home and slept. He learned of the
stabbing incident three days after from his neighbor. He 644
denied he was called Bobot or Joseph.
Remedios Ibajo testified that on 2 March 1987, she 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
was a resident of 85 Quezon St., Tondo, Manila. She
said she had known petitioner Ingal for a long time prior Ingal vs. People
On 11 February 1999, the prosecution filed a Motion days from notice. The Office of the Solicitor General
for Reconsideration asking that the penalty imposed on manifested that it was not submitting a Supplemental
petitioner be modified to reclusion perpetua as Brief, considering that the arguments raised by
prescribed by law.30 On 12 February 1999, petitioner petitioner had been discussed and refuted in its
filed a Notice of Appeal.31 In an Order32 dated 9 March appellee’s brief dated 8 November 2000. On the part of
1999, the trial court, finding the motion to be the petitioner, he manifested that it was likewise
meritorious, modified its decision and sentenced unnecessary to file a supplemental brief since the
petitioner to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. allegations contained in his appellant’s brief would be
Consequently, it forwarded the records of the case to the same arguments he would submit to the Court.
this Court. Petitioner assails his conviction, arguing there was
error:
_______________
I
29 Id., at p. 302.
IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE CLAIMS OF THE TWO
30 Id., at pp. 308-309.
(2) ALLEGED EYEWITNESSES THAT THERE IS ONLY
31 Id., at p. 310.
ONE (1) SUSPECT IN THE KILLING OF VICTIM
32 Id., at p. 313.
ROLANDO DOMINGO, THAT IS, THE ACCUSED-
646 APPELLANT HEREIN, CONTRARY TO THE
INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE POLICE
INVESTIGATOR, PFC. JUANITO B. YANG, POLICE
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED INVESTIGATOR OF THE WESTERN POLICE DISTRICT
Ingal vs. People WHO CONDUCTED FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION ON
APRIL 3, 1987 TO THE EFFECT THAT
Pursuant, however, to our ruling in People v. Mateo,33
the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for _______________
appropriate action and disposition. 33 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
On 31 August 2005, the Court of Appeals rendered a 34 CA Rollo, p. 137.
decision affirming in toto the decision of the trial court, 35 Id., at p. 18.
the decretal portion reading:
647
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed
December 9, 1998 Decision of the Regional Trial Court is
VOL. 547, MARCH 4, 2008 647
AFFIRMED in toto. This case is hereby transmitted to the
Honorable Supreme Court for final disposition.”34 Ingal vs. People
In our Resolution35 dated 19 June 2006, the parties THERE WERE, IN FACT, FOUR (4) SUSPECTS, ONE OF
were required to simultaneously file their respective WHOM IS RICARDO LIDOT WHO WAS ALREADY
supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within thirty (30)
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b2d7b0a857cb449003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/35 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b2d7b0a857cb449003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/35
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 547 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 547
CHARGED AND CONVICTED FOR THE DEATH OF THE Sgt. Juanito Yang testified that Ricardo Lidot alias
VICTIM. Carding Daga admitted to him that he was the one who
II stabbed
IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON THE
BASIS OF THE TESTIMONIES OF TWO (2) ALLEGED 648
detract from the veracity of their testimony that was contrary to ordinary human experience and conduct,
petitioner stabbed the victim. Their failure to mention thereby rendering her testimony unworthy of credence.
the three other malefactors simply means that they did We find the testimony of Mrs. Bona to be worthy of
not see them when the assault was made. We agree with belief. The statement of the defense that Mrs. Bona
the Office of the Solicitor General when it said that: waited for seven years after divulging what she knew
about the stabbing incident is awry. After the incident,
_______________ Mrs. Bona immediately gave her statement to the police
36 TSN, 16 February 1996, pp. 5, 9-10. that petitioner was the one who stabbed the victim. This
37 Exh. 3; Records, p. 8 is evidenced by the Advance Report41 dated 3 March
38 Exh. “4”; id., at p. 225. 1987 prepared by PFC Benjamin Boco. It is not true that
39 Exh. “F”; id., at p. 134. she waited for seven years before revealing what she
knew. What she did not immediately give to the police
649 was her written statement under oath, because she was
fearful that something bad might happen to her because
VOL. 547, MARCH 4, 2008 649 the suspect was still at large. She explained she would
only give her written statement when the suspect was
Ingal vs. People apprehended, because the crime was a grave offense.42
This was what she did once petitioner was arrested and
“Said witnesses merely testified that they did not see anybody jailed.
else helping appellant in stabbing the victim. Their testimonies
did not rule out the presence of other assailants as _______________
subsequently established by the progress report naming one 40 CA Rollo, pp. 100-101.
Ricardo Lidot alias Carding Daga, Joseph alias Bebot and Jose 41 Exh. “G”; Records, p. 136.
Ingal, and two (2) unidentified persons as the suspects. Indeed, 42 TSN, 25 October 1994, pp. 10-12.
defense witness Ricardo de Leon testified that it was Lidot
who handed the “tres cantos” to Joseph who in turn stabbed 650
the victim thrice. Certainly, there is no inconsistency between
the progress report and the testimonies of the prosecution
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
eyewitnesses.”40
Ingal vs. People
On the second assigned error, petitioner faults Mrs.
Bona for having waited for the apprehension of the She cannot be faulted for doing what she did. Fear of
assailant after more than seven years to divulge to the reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get
policemen what had transpired on the night of 2 March involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations
1987. If she truly were able to witness the crime, the fact for a witness’ delay in reporting a crime to the
that she revealed what she saw only after seven years authorities.43 Initial reluctance to volunteer information
regarding a crime due to fear of reprisal is common
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b2d7b0a857cb449003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/35 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b2d7b0a857cb449003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/35
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 547 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 547
obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly testimony worthy of full faith and credence.52 In this
the witnesses’ deportment and manner of case, petitioner testified that he did not know of any
reason why Mmes. Bona and Tan testified against him.53
_______________ Petitioner likewise interposes the defense of alibi. No
47 TSN, 25 October 1994, pp. 12, 16-17; 28 February 1995, pp. 27, jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than that
29 & 36. alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to
48 People v. Santiago, 465 Phil. 151, 161; 420 SCRA 248, 255 contrive and difficult to disprove, and for which reason
(2004). it is generally rejected.54 For the defense of alibi to
49 People v. Opeliña, 458 Phil. 1001, 1014; 412 SCRA 343, 354 prosper, it is imperative that the accused establish two
(2003). elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time
the offense was committed; and (2) it was
652
_______________
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 50 People v. Escultor, G.R. Nos. 149366-67, 27 May 2004, 429
SCRA 651, 661.
Ingal vs. People
51 People v. Alviz, G.R. Nos. 144551-55, 29 June 2004, 433 SCRA
164, 172.
testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the 52 People v. Brecinio, 469 Phil. 654, 665; 425 SCRA 616, 625
appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence (2004).
properly.50 53 TSN, 19 September 1996, p. 17; 11 December 1996, p. 15.
The Court of Appeals further affirmed the findings of 54 People v. Sanchez, 426 Phil. 19, 31; 375 SCRA 355, 365 (2002).
the RTC. In this regard, it is settled that when the trial
court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate 653
court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding
upon this Court. We find no compelling reason to VOL. 547, MARCH 4, 2008 653
deviate from their findings.
Petitioner interposes the defenses of denial and alibi. Ingal vs. People
As against the damning evidence of the prosecution,
they must necessarily fail. A denial unsubstantiated by physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the
clear and convincing evidence is negative, self-serving, time of its commission.55 Petitioner failed to do so.
merits no weight in law, and cannot therefore be given In the case at bar, petitioner avers that he was
greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible working when the stabbing happened. He said that it
witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.51 takes him twenty minutes by jeepney to travel from his
Further, denial cannot prevail over the positive residence to his place of work in the Navotas Fish Port,
testimonies of prosecution witnesses who were not and that Elcano St. where he delivered fish on 2 March
shown to have any ill motive to testify against 1987 was only one ride away from his house. Thus, it
appellants. Absence of improper motives makes a was not possible for him to have been at the scene of the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b2d7b0a857cb449003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/35 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b2d7b0a857cb449003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/35
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 547 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 547
crime when the crime was being committed. On top of dence as the crime itself.56 Once conspiracy is
this, he failed to present witnesses like his employer or established, all the conspirators are answerable as co-
any of his five companions who was allegedly with him principals regardless of their degree of participation, for
when he went to Elcano St., Divisoria, who could testify in the contemplation of the law, the act of one becomes
that he was somewhere else when Rolando Domingo the act of all, and it matters not who among the accused
was attacked. inflicted the fatal blow to the victim.57
Anent the third assigned error, petitioner maintains Conspiracy is not an element of the crime of murder
that the prosecution failed to discharge the quantum of or homicide. Conspiracy assumes pivotal importance in
proof required to support a conviction because it failed the determination of the liability of the perpetrators.58
to establish all the elements of the crime charged as Thus, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution fails to
alleged in the information. The information, he states, prove conspiracy, only those whose liability can be
accuses him of the crime of murder in conspiracy with established can be held liable for the crime charged. In
Ricardo Lidot and two others. Since the testimonies of the case under consideration, the prosecution was able to
Mmes. Bona and Tan only show that the assailant, prove that petitioner was the one who stabbed the
supposedly the petitioner, was alone when he attacked victim. But since conspiracy was not shown in the
the victim then conspiracy was not established as instant case, the other accused cannot be convicted
alleged in the information, and he should thus be because their respective liabilities were not satisfactorily
exonerated. proved as well. Petitioner alone is liable for the death of
The information alleged that petitioner, together with the victim.
Ricardo Lidot and others whose names are still We now go to the nature of the crime committed. The
unknown, conspired in killing Rolando Domingo. information alleged treachery in the commission of the
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there crime. As correctly found by the trial court, treachery
is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to attended the killing. There is treachery in a sudden and
commit a crime and decide to commit it. It is hornbook unexpected attack which renders the victim unable to
doctrine that conspiracy must be proved by positive and defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity
convincing evidence, the same quantum of evi- of the attack.59 The essence of treachery is the sudden
and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an
_______________ unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real
55 People v. Flora, 389 Phil. 601, 611; 334 SCRA 262, 272 (2000). chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its
commission without risk to the aggressor, and without
654 the slightest
58 People v. Peralta, 134 Phil. 703, 717-718; 25 SCRA 759, 772 reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. The
(1968). penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. There
59 People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. L-59097, 20 September 1988, 165 being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances,
SCRA 490, 496. the penalty for murder should be imposed in its medium
period or reclusion perpetua.63 Thus, for the mur-
655
_______________
VOL. 547, MARCH 4, 2008 655 60 People v. Botona, G.R. No. 161291, 27 September 2004, 439
Ingal vs. People SCRA 294, 301.
61 Gorospe v. People, 466 Phil. 206, 216; 421 SCRA 446, 453
(2004).
provocation on the part of the victim.60 In the case at
62 People v. Agudez, G.R. Nos. 138386-87, 20 May 2004, 428
bar, the victim was attacked from behind while he was
SCRA 692, 709.
eating. The victim was not able to defend himself or
63 Arts. 64[1] and 248, Revised Penal Code; People v. Quirol, G.R.
retaliate because the attack was so sudden and
No. 149259, 20 October 2005, 473 SCRA 509, 518.
unexpected. Since treachery was properly alleged in the
information, the same can be used to qualify the killing 656
to murder.
Without a doubt, the intention of petitioner was to
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
kill the victim. This intention was very clear when he
treacherously attacked the victim when the latter was Ingal vs. People
eating at the carinderia. The number of times (four)
petitioner stabbed the victim in the chest area supports der of Rolando Domingo, there being no other
this conclusion. The intent to kill is shown by the mitigating or aggravating circumstance attending the
weapon used by the offender and the parts of the same, the penalty imposed on petitioner is reclusion
victim’s body at which the weapon was aimed.61 perpetua.
The Information likewise alleged the qualifying With respect to award of damages, both the trial
circumstance of evident premeditation. Evident court and the Court of Appeals did not award any. When
premeditation, however, may not be appreciated where death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may
there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death
hatched or the time that elapsed before it was carried of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3)
out.62 In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5)
establish that evident premeditation attended the killing. temperate damages.64
We now go to the imposition of the penalty. Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs
Petitioner is guilty of murder. The crime was committed of the victim without need of proof other than the
on March 2, 1987. At that time the penalty for murder commission of the crime.65 Under prevailing
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code was