EN BANC

[ GR No. 131808, Feb 06, 2002 ]

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO CABILLAN
DECISION
426 Phil. 674

KAPUNAN, J.:

For automatic review is the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City,
finding accused-appellants Roberto Cabillan and Melvin Garcia guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Murder and sentencing them to suffer the death penalty.

The information charging appellants reads as follows:

That on or about the 21st day of August, 1996, in Cabanatuan City,

Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said
accused conspiring, confabulating and confederating with each other with
evident premeditation and treachery, without any just cause and with
intent to kill Jose Sta. Romana Sarmenta, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shoot said Jose Sta. Romana
Sarmenta with a rifle in the head thereby inflicting upon the latter a fatal
wound which directly caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]

Originally charged with appellants was Rogelio Felipe, who was later discharged to
be a state witness.

Upon arraignment on February 6, 1997, Roberto Cabillan pleaded "guilty," while

Melvin Garcia pleaded "not guilty." Subsequently, on March 18, 1997, Cabillan
withdrew his original plea and changed it to "not guilty."

Six (6) witnesses testified for the prosecution.

State witness Rogelio C. Felipe, 18, testified[2] that he and appellants worked as
helpers at Atty. Jose Sarmenta's poultry farm located in Macatbong, Cabanatuan
City. Rogelio had been employed in said farm for less than a month prior to the
lawyer's killing.

On August 19, 2001, or two days prior to the incident in question, Rogelio heard
Dodong Cabillan ask Atty. Sarmenta if he could borrow his radio. Atty. Sarmenta
refused, and told Dodong that he would give him money instead so Dodong could
buy his own radio. Atty. Sarmenta never did, however. When Atty. Sarmenta arrived
later in the afternoon, he discovered that, contrary to his explicit instructions,
Dodong was using his radio. Atty. Sarmenta berated Dodong. The lawyer's brother
Juvaldo joined in the fray and boxed Dodong. Dodong asked permission to leave
Atty. Sarmenta's employ but the lawyer refused.

At around 6:30 that evening, Rogelio overheard appellants say, "If they can get two
million pesos they will tie-up somebody." Rogelio was then cooking as the two drank
gin, about three meters away. He knew they were talking about Atty. Sarmenta
because appellants were angry with their employer.

In the early morning of August 20, 1996, Dodong got Atty. Sarmenta's long firearm,
which was equipped with a telescope, from the lawyer's cabinet. According to
Rogelio, Melvin helped Dodong obtain the gun by destroying the lawanit of Atty.
Sarmenta's room.

The next day, August 21, 1996, at around 6:30 p.m., appellants were again drinking
gin near the kitchen. Rogelio was then cooking dinner for Atty. Sarmenta. Rogelio
brought the food to Atty. Sarmenta's room, where the lawyer usually had his dinner.
Atty. Sarmenta got the food from Rogelio, brought it inside, and then went outside
the room to wash his hands. He then asked Rogelio to clean the toilet.

Rogelio had just finished cleaning the toilet when he suddenly heard a gunshot.
Rogelio saw Atty. Sarmenta fall, his head bleeding. He rushed to their sleeping
quarters, turned on the light and saw Dodong holding a .22 caliber gun, equipped
with a telescope. Dodong was standing and aiming through the screen separating
their sleeping quarters from the room where Atty. Sarmenta previously stood, just
three meters away. Dodong had inserted the muzzle of the gun in a hole on the
screen. The gun was still pointed towards Atty. Sarmenta.

Melvin pushed Rogelio to their bed and pointed a gun at him. Afraid, Rogelio did not
dare run.

The killing of Atty. Sarmenta accomplished, appellants went to the victim's room
and pulled the body near the bed. They took the money from his pocket, and his
clothes and other personal belongings from the cabinet. Rogelio would later learn
from appellants' friend that they had taken P12,000.00 in cash from the deceased.

Melvin warned Rogelio that they would kill him if he did not go with them.
Appellants then hid the shotgun they got from the room and left the caliber .22 rifle
with the telescope in the poultry house.

Dodong, Melvin and Rogelio then rode in Atty. Sarmenta's car, with Dodong driving.
In their haste, the car hit a house post, causing a big dent on the right passenger
side. The car later bogged down and had to be abandoned somewhere near a bridge
in Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija. Appellants pushed the car to a fertilizer store nearby.
Rogelio, who had remained inside the car, was then ordered to alight. Dodong called
a tricycle driver and gave him P100 to watch over the car until their return. Dodong
hailed a taxi and asked that they be taken to Pier 14 at the South Harbor, Manila.

At the pier, Dodong bought three tickets and they all took the boat to Cagayan de
Oro City, Dodong's hometown. Rogelio, Dodong and Melvin stayed at the house of
Dodong's relatives. Two weeks after their arrival, Dodong's aunt gave Rogelio P
1,500.00 and was ordered to leave immediately. Sensing that appellants were going
to kill him, Rogelio departed at once. Rogelio bought a ticket for Manila.

After arriving in Manila, he contacted his brother-in-law, Kuya Ding. The latter
accompanied him to Batangas City, where Rogelio surrendered to an Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor. Rogelio divulged everything he knew about the killing of Atty.
Sarmenta. Thereafter, he was taken to the provincial police headquarters at Camp
Miguel Malvar, Camp Kumintang, Batangas City, where he executed a four-page
sworn statement[3] dated September 4, 1996 before P03 Oscar Melo Fernandez of
the Philippine National Police. From Batangas, he was fetched by Cabanatuan
policemen and was detained at Cabanatuan City, where he executed another sworn
statement.[4]

Rogelio denied that Dodong promised him a portion of the loot and that he was
testifying against appellants for not fulfilling said promise.

Juvaldo Sarmenta, the victim's brother, corroborated Rogelio's testimony that in the
afternoon of August 19, 1996, his brother berated Dodong for using his (Atty.
Sarmenta's) radio without permission. Atty. Sarmenta even threatened to terminate
Dodong's services and send him back to Manila. Juvaldo denied that he boxed
Dodong on that occasion, claiming that his "hands hit [Dodong's] mouth" when he
"pointed at [Dodong]."[5]

Atty. Virgilio Mendez, Supervising Senior Agent of the National Bureau of

Investigation (NBI) based in Cagayan de Oro City, was in charge of the surveillance
of this particular criminal investigation and led the team that effected the arrest of
appellants. Sometime in the first week of October 1996, one of his informants
reported that a group of armed men in Initao, Misamis Oriental, were bragging
about having killed a lawyer somewhere in Luzon. He deferred investigation on the
raw information until the same informant subsequently presented him with a credit
card supposedly obtained from the same group. The credit card was in the name of
Jose S. Sarmenta, a lawyer and the supposed victim of his earlier report.

Atty. Mendez made inquiries regarding the matter. As he awaited further

information, a certain Joel Sarmenta, son of Jose Sarmenta, went to his office to
seek his assistance in the arrest of the persons responsible for the killing of his
father. Atty. Mendez then instructed his informant to gather intelligence on the
whereabouts of the group. Atty. Mendez was subsequently informed that Dodong
had been spotted somewhere in Marawi City. On January 22, 1997, Dodong Cabillan
and Melvin Garcia were arrested by the NBI, Dodong in Marawi City and Melvin in
Pangantucan, Bulacan.[6]

Dr. Jun Concepcion, Senior Medico-legal Officer of the Cabanatuan City Health
Office, conducted the autopsy on the victim's body. His findings are contained in an
Autopsy Report[7] dated August 22, 1996, which is quoted herein:

FINDINGS (pertinent only)

Height: 175 cm. in length

Body was rigid state with several insect (ants) bites all through out.

Lacerated wound, linear, inverted V-shape on the mid-parietal

(+)
area.
Gunshot wound on the right parieto-temporal area, 3-fingerbreath
above the right ear as point of entry with trajectory towards the
(+) opposite side left superior portion of the left ear, 4-fingerbreath as
point of exit, (through-through), brain substance coming-out from
the point of exit.
(+) Ecchymosis (L) peri-orbital area.

INTERNALLY
Multiple skull fracture with different directions occupying the
(+)
entire skull.
(+) Hematoma under the scalp.

CAUSE OF DEATH

Intracranial injuries, severe secondary to extracranial multiple injuries.

Approximate date and time of death:

August 21, 1996 between 7:00 to 8:00 P.M.

Negative for any other evidence of external physical injuries.

The doctor concluded that the assailant must have fired the fatal shot at close range
from the victim. The absence of powder burns on the body indicates that the shot
was fired at least 24 inches from the muzzle of the gun to the bullet's point of entry.
From a sketch he drew, it was indicated that the bullet entered above the right ear
and exited at the left superior portion of the left ear.[8]

Samuel and Joel Sarmenta, Sons of the deceased, testified on matters relating to
appellants' civil liability. Samuel testified that their father was 63 years of age at the
time of his death. His untimely demise caused the family grief and anger.[9]
The victim earned during his lifetime annual income consisting of P220,000.00
from the practice of law, and a gross of P380,000.00 from his poultry farm. Their
father's wake, which lasted about 7 or 8 days, was held at the Funeraria Ilagan in
Cabanatuan City and at the Funeraria Paz in Quezon City. He was buried on August
28, 1996 at the Loyola Memorial Park in Marikina. For the wake in Cabanatuan City,
the family incurred expenses amounting to P10,000.00. For that in Quezon City, a
memorial plan worth P16,000.00 covered the expenses. "Incidental expenses"
amounted to P40,000.00. Finally, it was discovered that P30,000.00 in cash and a
caliber .22 Magnum worth P20,000.00 were missing from the residence after the
incident transpired.[10]

Appellants testified on their own behalf. Both pointed to Rogelio Felipe as the killer
of Atty. Sarmenta.

According to Dodong, 21, he had been working with Melvin and Rogelio at the farm
of Atty. Sarmenta for only four (4) days when the latter was shot. He claimed that on
that fateful day he was ordered by Rogelio to turn off the light in their room. Atty.
Sarmenta was then standing in front of the kitchen sink, washing dishes. Thereafter,
he saw Rogelio shoot Atty. Sarmenta with a caliber .22 rifle. Rogelio threatened him
and Melvin with the same rifle. He ordered Dodong to go to the kitchen and get the
victim's money. Rogelio then pulled the dead body of Atty. Sarmenta into the latter's
room. He instructed Melvin to enter the room and get their employer's clothes from
the cabinet. Next, he ordered the two to board the car and directed Melvin to drive.
When Dodong told his companions he wanted to go home, Rogelio and Melvin said
they would come with him. Rogelio said that Cagayan de Oro City was a faraway
place and that they will not be arrested there. Rogelio thus purchased tickets for the
boat to Cagayan de Oro City with the money taken from the body of Atty. Sarmenta.

Dodong claimed that he wanted to surrender to the authorities but his uncle
reminded him that he could be killed. One week after their arrival in Cagayan de Oro
City, Rogelio left them. Another week later, Dodong and Melvin parted ways.
Dodong proceeded to Misamis Oriental and then to Marawi City to evade arrest only
to be apprehended later by NBI agents.[11]

Melvin Garcia, 24, had been working at the poultry farm for about two months when
Atty. Sarmenta was killed. On the evening of August 21, 1996, Melvin was outside
the poultry house feeding the dogs when he heard a shot rang from his employer's
house. When he went inside, he saw Rogelio holding two guns, a caliber .38 and
caliber .22 rifle. Rogelio immediately pointed the guns at Melvin and Dodong, telling
them, "Don't run [or] I will kill you." Rogelio told him that he shot Atty. Sarmenta.
Rogelio instructed him to drag the body into the bedroom, after which he and
Dodong were ordered to get inside the car. Inside the car, Rogelio asked Dodong
whether "his place was near or far." Rogelio said they should all go to his place.
Dodong agreed.

Melvin denied that he ever talked about killing Atty. Sarmenta. He said that the
latter was a kind employer. He was not aware of any problems between Dodong and
Atty. Sarmenta prior to the incident. Neither did he harbor any grudge against the
latter. He claimed that he did not report Rogelio's participation in the killing
because he was afraid of him.[12]

On July 23, 1997, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused Roberto Cabillan alias "Dodong" and

Melvin M. Garcia alias "Rommel Garcia" alias "Robin Garcia" alias
"Junior" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder,
punishable under [Art] 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659, the Court hereby sentences them to suffer the
penalty of DEATH.

Further, the accused are further ordered to pay indemnity to the heirs of
the deceased offended party in the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages;
P40,000, representing burial and actual expenses; and P1,000,000.00 as
exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.[13]

The Court affirms the decision of the trial court finding appellants guilty for the
killing of Atty. Sarmenta.

Considerable weight must be accorded to the testimony of state witness Rogelio

Felipe, who positively identified Dodong as the assailant of Atty. Sarmenta. Rogelio
established Dodong's motives for killing the victim, who scolded him for the
unauthorized use of the radio. He also saw Dodong, aided by Melvin, get the gun
from the victim's room. He caught Dodong immediately after the shooting still
pointing the gun at where the victim previously stood. The trial court described
Rogelio's testimony as "unrehearsed, straight-forward, truthful and unembellished
[by] any exaggerations.[14] During the trial, the court remarked that the witness was
"testifying casually but intelligently.[15]

By contrast, the trial court did not give credence to the testimony of appellant
Dodong Cabillan:

x x x Dodong failed to hurdle the test of sincerity, having told one thing as
the truth and only to retract the same and substitute the same as the real
truth. It is difficult to tell, therefore, when he is telling the truth and when
he is not. x x x His capacity for prevarications has rendered his testimony
unbelievable and untrustworthy. On at least three occasions, Dodong has
been proved to his face as telling a lie: once, when he was berated and
scolded by the victim in the presence of [the victims] brother Ubaldo
Sarmenta when he lied about how he got hold of the radio earlier refused
 him by the victim; then, when asked by Atty. Mendez, he pointed to Melvin
Garcia alias "Junior." as the perpetrator of the heinous killing; and, then,
again, when in open court he declared under oath, that it was the witness
Rogelio who was the lone perpetrator of the crime.

It is difficult to believe for the 18-year-old Rogelio to have masterminded

this killing. Here were Dodong and Melvin, six years the senior of Rogelio,
xxx would they allow themselves to be just ordered around by the budding
18-year-old? Towards this end, the two accused failed to show convincing
proof of Rogelio's capability to boss them around. On the contrary, Dodong
has been pictured by prosecution witness Ubaldo Sarmenta as bossing the
two[,] of [sic] Rogelio and Felipe.[16]

The evaluation of testimonial evidence by the trial court is accorded great respect
precisely for its chance to observe first hand the demeanor of the witness on the
stand, a matter which is important in determining whether what has been said
should be taken to the truth or falsehood.[17] Their findings are generally sustained
by the appellate courts unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or ubstance which will alter the
assailed decision or affect the result of the case.[18]

Special credence is also accorded to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who

are law enforcers,[19] such as District Agent-in-Charge of the NBI at Iligan City Atty.
Mendez. The sworn statements of arresting officers in open court, who have no
motive or reason to falsely testify in regard to a serious charge against the accused,
are worthy of credit.[20] Atty. Mendez's testimony corroborates that of Rogelio
Felipe, thereby, further strengthening the prosecution's case.

Like the trial court, this Court rejects appellants' defense pointing to Rogelio Felipe
as the lone perpetrator of the killing of Atty. Sarmenta. The trial court correctly
observed that:

They merely presented the lame, uncorroborated and illogical defense of

accusing the lone eyewitness as the perpetrator of this crime.

Neither did any of them narrate in detail the act of Rogelio in supposedly
killing the victim. No motive for Rogelio to kill the victim was advanced by
the defense. How easy for the two of them to gang up on Rogelio at
anytime during and after the commission of the crime. In Cagayan de Oro
City, how easy for, say Dodong, to inform on Rogelio and point him to the
police as the author of the killing of their patron. xxx[21]

The fact that the three fled to Dodong's hometown and stayed with his aunt in
Cagayan de Oro City buttresses the finding that it was Dodong, not Felipe, who was
calling the shots. As pointed out by the trial court, "if indeed Rogelio was the
aggressive one and applying the pressure upon the two accused, surely, Rogelio[,]
who is a complete stranger to Mindanao[,] would least choose to go there to seek
refuge."[22]

Conspiracy between Dodong and Melvin was sufficiently established. The testimony
of Rogelio shows that Melvin's participation included destroying the lawanit where
the gun was hidden, pulling the lifeless body of Atty. Sarmenta into his room, and
hiding the guns. Melvin also poked a gun at Rogelio and threatened to kill him if he
refused to join them. These acts conclusively show that Melvin shared a community
of purpose with Dodong to kill Atty. Sarmenta. Where the acts of the accused
collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design toward
the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the
perpetrators will be liable as principals.[23]

Treachery was also adequately proven as against appellant Dodong Cabillan. There
is treachery when the following conditions concur: (a) the employment of means of
execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or
retaliate, and (b) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.
[24] There is treachery in this case where the accused obtained the gun from the
victim's room, situated himself in the next room, waited until the accused turned his
back to wash his hands before suddenly and unexpectedly shooting the victim
through a screen window. Appellant Cabillan deliberately and consciously adopted
the means to ensure his criminal purpose and positioned himself at a vantage point
providing the least risk to himself, before shooting the victim who had no
opportunity to anticipate the imminence of his attack. The suddenness of the attack
without the slightest provocation from the victim who was unarmed and had nary an
opportunity to repel the aggression or defend herself, ineluctably qualifies the crime
with alevosia.[25]

The same cannot be said in the case of appellant Melvin Garcia. The circumstances
which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to
accomplish it, serves to aggravate the liability only of those persons who had
knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation
therein.[26] There is no evidence that Melvin knew the manner by which Dodong
was supposed to kill Atty. Sarmenta.

Appellants do not dispute their guilt, the existence of conspiracy or even the
presence of treachery. Indeed, they merely aim to reduce the penalty of death
imposed upon them. In their lone assignment of error, they contend that "[t]he trial
court erred in imposing the maximum penalty of death where it appears that the
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation is not present in the commission
of the crime charged."[27] The Court agrees with appellants.

To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must prove: (1) the
time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act showing that
the accused clung to their determination to commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of
sufficient period between the decision and the execution of the crime, to allow the
accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[28] It must appear that the
accused decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of execution, and that the
decision was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempt.
[29] Evident premeditation must be established with equal certainty and clearness
as the criminal act itself, it must be based on external acts that are evident, not
merely suspected, and which indicate deliberate planning.[30]

The Court agrees with appellants that evident premeditation was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt, the first requisite, i.e., the time when the accused decided to
commit the crime, being absent.

Although Rogelio overheard the two planning over a bottle of gin, it is not clear
whether Melvin actually agreed to the killing of Atty. Sarmenta. Initially, Rogelio
testified:

Insofar (sic) as you know, does Melvin Garcia has (sic) any
Q:
interest to plan the killing with Dodong?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: What made you come into (sic) conclusion?

Because I heard them conversing, planning to kill Atty. Sarmenta,
A:
sir.

Between the two of them, who initiated the killing of Atty.

Q:
Sarmenta?
A: Dodong Cabillan, sir.

Q: What is the reaction of Melvin Garcia to that particular proposal?

A: He gave his conformity, sir.[31]

When further queried on the plot, Rogelio said that the plan involved only the taking
of money from, and not the killing of, the victim.

ATTY. DALANGIN

You made mention that the P2,000,000.00, do you still affirm the
Q: statement in your sworn statement that according to Cabillan, if
he gets P2,000,000.00 he will tie one person.

They were planning to take the amount of P2,000,000.00 from

Q:
whom?
A: From Atty. Sarmenta, sir.
 Are they referring to Atty. Sarmenta to be the person who will be
Q:
tied?
A: Atty. Sarmenta, sir.

There was nothing in the plan for the killing of the good Atty.
Q:
Sarmenta?
A: None, sir.

Will you agree if we say that the real intention of the accused is
Q:
merely to rob the good Attorney of the P 2,000.000.00?
A: Yes, sir.

Did Cabillan state that he was going to share Melvin Garcia with
Q:
[sic] the P2,000,000.00?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: What is the reaction of Melvin Garcia?

He said they will be able to get the P2,000,000.00 they will leave
A:
and divide that amount, sir.[32] [Underscoring ours.]

In addition, Rogelio admitted that he merely inferred the plan to kill Atty. Sarmenta
when Dodong obtained the rifle. He clarified that Dodong never said anything about
killing the deceased should the latter resist.

COURT

According to you, the 2 accused have no intention to kill Atty.

Q: Sarmenta, do you know of any reason why they killed Atty.
Sarmenta?
A: There is, sir.

Q: What?
A: Because they got the firearm from the room of Atty. Sarmenta, sir.

Under the circumstances prevailing in that place, can they get the
Q: P2,000,000.00 or can they get the money without killing Atty.
Sarmenta?
A: No, sir.

Q: So you want the court to understand that Atty. Sarmenta was

killed because they want to get the P2,000,000.00 or any other
 amount?
A: Yes, sir.

So, you merely relied on that particular conclusion when you saw
Q:
Cabillan got the rifle, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.

But Cabillan never said that they will [sic] going to kill Atty.
Q:
Sarmenta if the good attorney will resist?
A: No. sir.[33] [Underscoring ours.]

Thus, while the prosecution may have established the time when appellants decided
to commit a crime - perhaps, robbery - it failed to prove the time when appellants
decided to commit the crime of murder of which they are charged.

Accordingly, appellant Dodong Cabillan is liable for Murder, having performed the
killing by means of treachery. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
prescribes for said crime the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Under Article
63 of the same Code, where the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible
penalties and where there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the
lesser penalty shall be applied -in this case, reclusion perpetua.

On the other hand, the qualifying circumstance of treachery is absent in the case of
appellant Melvin Garcia. He can, therefore, be held liable only for Homicide, for
which Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of reclusion
temporal. Article 64 of the same Code provides that where the penalties prescribed
by law contain three periods and where there are neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances, the court shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium
period. Applying said provision, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
period or 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months should be imposed
upon appellant Garcia. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, said penalty shall
constitute the maximum term, while the minimum shall be within the range of the
penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense, i.e., prision mayor
or 6 years and 1 day to 12 years.

Turning now to appellants' civil liability, jurisprudence provides that appellants are
liable to the heirs of the deceased for indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00,[34]
as well as P50,000.00 in moral damages.[35] The award of P40,000.00 in actual
expenses should be reduced. Records reveal that the prosecution was able to
produce only two receipts to establish their claim: the Statement of Account[36]
representing payments made to the Provident Memorial Plan the gross price of
which is P16,200.00, and a receipt[37] from the Funeraria Ilagan in Cabanatuan for
charges amounting to P10,000.00, or a total of P26,200.00 only. Neither was the
actual value of the loss of earning capacity sufficiently established. The victim's son
merely provided estimations of the deceased's annual income and no other evidence
was offered to corroborate the same. Finally, the award of exemplary damages must
be deleted, as there are no aggravating circumstances that attended the commission
of the crime.[38]

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is MODIFIED. Appellant

Roberto Cabillan alias "Dodong" is found guilty of Murder, as defined and punished
by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. Melvin M. Garcia alias Rommel Garcia alias Robin Gamboa
alias "Jr.," is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide, as defined and
punished by Article 249 of the same Code and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum to fifteen (15) years of reclusion
temporal in its medium period as maximum.

Appellants severally are ordered to pay the heirs of Atty. Jose Sta. Romana Sarmenta
indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, actual damages in the amount of
P26,200.00, and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ.,
concur.

[1] Records, p.1.

[2] TSN, February 19, 1997, pp. 2-10; TSN, February, 20, 1997, pp. 1-19; TSN,
February 26, 1997, pp. 3-6; TSN, March 5, 1997, pp. 2-6; TSN, March 18, 1997, pp. 3-
9.

[3] Exhibit "E."

[4] Exhibit "F."

[5] TSN, March 18, 1997, pp. 10-15.

[6] TSN, April 17, 1977, pp. 2-14.

[7] Exhibits "A" and "B."

[8] TSN, February 11, 1997, pp. 1-10.