G.R. Nos. L-31646-52. August 06, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EXEQUIEL ANGELES Y KU, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PER CURIAM:
At a shooting incident that took place at the Melrose Kitchenette,
located at San Andres, Malate, Manila in the evening
of June 23, 1969, allegedly done by three persons, victims Rosita Garcia, Conrado (Amado) Dungca, and Herminigildo
Sebastian were killed; victims Jose Caraon Jr. and Fructuoso Abayon were wounded;
and victims Edilberto Aquino
and Saturnino Melida were
seriously injured.[1]
William Limson y Lopez was charged
and convicted by the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila for the murder of
Rosita Garcia, Amado Dungca
and Herminigildo Sebastian;[2]
for frustrated murder arising from
wounds inflicted on Edilberto Aquino
and Saturnino Melida;[3] and attempted murder for wounds inflicted on
Jose Caraon Jr. and Fructuoso
Abayon.[4]
The certification of Clerk of Court (Mariano L. Andrada) of the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila shows that
William Limson y Lopez was convicted in Criminal
Cases VI-292, murder; VI-Â294, murder; VI-295, murder; VI-288, frustrated
murder; VI-289, attempted murder; VI-291, frustrated murder; VI-293, attempted
murder, and given by the trial court the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender in all those cases, which were jointly tried. The decision was rendered on August 16, 1969, and became final and
executory in September, 1969. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender was credited accused William Limson y Lopez
to offset the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, and in
Criminal Cases VI-292, VI-294, and VI-295 he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
(Certification enclosed in Rollo).
Arising from the same
shooting incident, accused-appellant Exequiel Angeles
y Ku was charged in seven (7) informations[5] before the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila
for –
“x x x
conspiring and confederating together with William Limson
y Lopez who has already been charged with the same offense(s) in the Circuit
Criminal Court of Manila (docketed as Crim. Cases
Nos. CCC-VI-288 to CCC-VI-295), and subsequently convicted thereof, and with
one whose true name and identity are still unknown, and helping one another,
armed with guns of different calibers, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloÂniously, with evident premeditation, treachery and intent
to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence”
upon the seven victims, namely Rosita
Garcia, Herminigildo Sebastian, Conrado
(Amado) Dungca, Edilberto Aquino, Saturnino Melida, Jose Caraon and Fructuoso Abayon, thereby inflicting gunshot wounds upon said
victims, resulting in the deaths of Rosita Garcia, Herminigildo
Sebastian and Conrado Dungca. For the shooting of Edilberto
Aquino and Saturnino Melida, accused was charged with frustrated murder; for the
shooting of Jose Caraon and Fructuoso
Abayon, accused-appellant
Angeles was charged with attempted murder.[6]
The seven cases were tried jointly, by agreement of the parties,
as they arose from the same incident,[7]
and the trial court found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
in all the seven offenses charged, as follows:
“The penalty imposed herein is the
stiffest that this court has ever imposed upon a police officer. But it must be that way not only because the
facts and law justify it but to strongly impress upon the peace officers that
when they go beyond the limit of their duty, they become vicious criminals or
thugs who must be given the penalty that they deserve.
“Exemplary damages are likewise awarded to the victims or
their heirs to deter the accused and others in a similar condition from the
repetition of these ofÂfenses.
“Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
“(1) In CCC-VI-400, accused is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of murder, qualified by
treachery and there being proven the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation
without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, sentences him to Death
and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Herminigildo
Sebastian the sum of P12,000.00 jointly and severally with William Limson who has been previously convicted for the death of
said Herminigildo Sebastian;
“(2) In CCC-VI-397, accused is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of murder qualified by
treachery and there being proven the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, sentences
him to Death and to indemnify the heirs of the deÂceased Conrado
(Amado) Dungca the sum of
P12,000.00 jointly and severally with William Limson
who has been previously convicted for the death of said Conrado
(Amado) Dungca;
” (3) In CCC-VI-394, accused is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of murder qualified by
treachery and there being proven the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, sentences
him to Death and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Rosita Garcia the sum
of P12,000.00 jointly and severally with William Limson
who has been previously convicted for the death of said Rosita Garcia;
” (4) In CCC-VI-399, accused is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of frustrated murder
qualified by treaÂchery and there being proven the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same,
sentences him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17)
years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum and to
indemnify the victim herein Saturnino Melida the sum of P4,000.00 by way of moral damages jointly
and severally with William Limson who has been
previously convicted for the frustrated murder of said Saturnino
Melida;
“(5) In CCC-VI-398, accused is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of frustrated murder
qualified by treachery and there being proven the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same,
sentences him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17)
years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum and to
indemnify the victim Edilberto Aquino
the sum of P4,000.00 by way of moral damages jointly and severally with William
Limson who has been preÂviously convicted for the
frustrated murder of said Edilberto Aquino;
“(6) In CCC-VI-396, accused is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of attempted murder qualified
by treachery and there being proven the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, sentences him to an indeterminate penalty
ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum and to indemnify the
victim herein Fructuoso Abayon
the sum of P2,000.00 by way of moral damages jointly and severally with William
Limson who has been previously conÂvicted for the
attempted murder of said Fructuoso Abayon;
“(7) In CCC-VI-395, accused is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of attempted murder qualified
by treachery and there being proven the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, sentences him to an indeterminate penalty ranging
from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum and to inÂdemnify
the victim herein Jose Caraon, Jr., the sum of
P2,000.00 by way of moral damages jointly and severally with William Limson who has been previously convicted for the attempted
murder of said Jose Caraon Jr.; and
” (8) To pay exemplary damages in the amount of
P10,000.00 to the heirs of each of the deceased, Amado
Dungca, Herminigildo
Sebastian and Rosita Garcia; P4,000.00 each to Saturnino
Melida and Edilberto Aquino and P2,000.00 each to Fructuoso
Abayon and Jose Caraon, Jr.
“ (9) To pay the costs.
“So Ordered.”[8]
The injuries suffered by the seven victims of that shooting
incident were as follows:
Herminigildo Sebastian died on the spot
and was brought to the City Morgue where he was autopsied by Dr. Luis C. Larion, the Postmortem Findings showing the cause of death
as profuse hemorrhage and shock due to a gunshot wound peneÂtrating the chest
and lacerating the lungs, pericardium and
heart;[9]
Rosita Garcia was immediately brought to the PhilipÂpine General
Hospital but she died the same evening.
Her cadaver was brought to the City Morgue where it was autopsied by Dr.
Luis L. Larion, the Postmortem Findings showing the
cause of death as profuse hemorrhage and shock due to two gunshot wounds, one
penetrating the chest and lacerating the lungs, pericardium and thoracic aorta;[10]
Amado Dungca
was immediately brought to the Philippine General Hospital but he died the same
evening. His cadaver was brought to the
City Morgue where it was autopsied by Dr. Luis C. Larion,
the Postmortem Findings showing the cause of death as profuse hemorrhage and
shock due to the gunshot wounds, one on the posterior left shoulder and the
other penetrating the left lumbar region, fracturing the 3rd cervical and 11th
thoracic vertebra and lacerating the liver, mesentery, diaphragm and inferior
vena cava.[11]
The other victims were also brought to the Philippine General
Hospital that evening of June 23, 1969,
and Dr. George Barrios who attended to all of them, stated that the injury
suffered by each of them, is as follows:
(a)
Edilberto Aquino – a gunshot wound on the “xyphoid
area, no exit” which could have caused the death of said victim without
medical attendance;[12]
(b) Fructuoso Abayon
– a “soft gunshot wound left” of the pelvis which would not
immediately cause death even without medical attendance;[13]
(c) Jose Caraon Jr. – his “fracture
would require for a period of 7 to 9 days to heal” and the “same does
not cause death immediately”;[14]
(d) Saturnino Melida
– an open fracture which could have caused his death if no medical attendance
was extended to him.[15]
The prosecution’s version of the crime and identification of
accused-appellant Exequiel Angeles as one of the
three assailants on the night of June
23, 1969, is as follows:
Consolacion Ramos, 19 years, single,
waitress at the Melrose Kitchenette testified that on June 23, 1969, she was already a waitress of the
Melrose Kitchenette. She was on duty on
that date from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
At about 6:00 p.m. of June 23, 1969, two men approached the
Melrose Kitchenette, one of whom was accused Angeles. They were outside and just looked inside the
restaurant once. Accused Angeles and his
companion talked with each other.
Witness learned about the shooting incident the following day. Three days after the incident she saw the
accused Angeles near the Playboy Theater at Dakota, Malate,
and when the accused saw her, he ran to the upstairs of the Playboy
Theater. Before June 23, 1969, accused had been at the Melrose
Kitchenette as a customer.[16]
Rosario Vergara de Ablola,
34 years, married, restaurant manager of the Melrose Kitchenette, declared that
she knew the accused Angeles two months before the shooting incident at the
Melrose Kitchenette on June 23, 1969,
when he went there to drink. The
Kitchenette is in the name of her husband Celso Ablola. When
accused Angeles went to the Kitchenette to drink before June 23,
1969, with another
one in the uniform of a traffic policeman, witness knew that accused Angeles
was a policeman. Consolacion
Ramos served them at that time. On June 23,
1969, between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m., while she was in the restaurant getting
their sales for the morning, she sat at table 8 where she had a full view of
the restaurant and saw Edilberto Aquino,
Saturnino Melida, Jose Caraon Jr., Bert Elias and Amado Dungca. At that time
Lydia Romero was fixing napkins.
Sebastian, Dungca, Melida,
Aquino and Abayon were
drinking and eating. Witness and Rosita
Garcia (victim) were eating avocado.
Suddenly the shooting incident happened.
Witness saw one of the persons who fired shots and that person is the
accused Angeles. She could not tell how
many times he fired but she heard many shots.
Accused Angeles was inside the Melrose Kitchenette when he fired at the
direction of table 6. Witness could not
distinguish what kind of gun was used as she did not know anything about
guns. After hearing the shots, she
pushed the table and lay flat under the table.
She saw her companions, some falling and others lying on the floor. The shooting incident lasted for about three
minutes. She sensed somebody went to
table 6 and then the three assailants ran
away. Witness heard the cry of anguish
of persons, including victim Rosita Garcia who was lying at her
feet. She went to the Aristocrat
Restaurant to seek help. When she was investigated by the police on June 23,
1969, she did not
tell the investigator what she knew as she was afraid that those who fired
shots might be able to hide and take revenge on her. After accused William Limson
y Lopez was convicted, she was again investigated and this time she
identified accused Angeles.[17]
Positive identification of accused Angeles as one of those who fired shots
inside the Melrose Kitchenette on the night of June 23, 1969 was made by witness Rosario Vergara de Ablola.[18]
Lydia Romero, 31 years, married, declared that on June 23, 1969, she was employed in
the Melrose Kitchenette as night cashier.
Between 7 and 8 p.m. of said
date she was inside the Melrose Kitchenette.
She saw Herminigildo Sebastian and Rosita
Garcia at table 8. She also saw Dungca, Aquino, Caraon and Melida. On that night, between 7:30-8:00 p.m., while witness was preparing napkins at
table 8, a person suddenly entered and started shooting. There were more or less three persons. William Limson was
the one who started shooting. Accused
Angeles was with William Limson at the time. Witness saw accused Angeles behind Limson, but she did not notice whether or not the accused
Angeles was holding something at the time, but she heard successive shots from
different places inside the Kitchenette.
When the witness heard the shots, she stood up and she ran to the
kitchen. She saw Sebastian, Caraon, Dungca and Garcia
sprawled on the floor. The shots were
directed at table 6. Garcia was then at
table 8, facing witness. Garcia was hit
and could not talk. Dungca
was also hit, stood up and fell. Before
the shooting incident of June 23, 1969,
accused Angeles apprehended her because he was looking for her license.[19]
Edilberto Aquino,
25 years, married, one of the victims in the shooting incident, declared that
in September, 1968, he was employed as a waiter at the Aristocrat
Restaurant. The ULP
canteen was for the members of the union of waiters of the Aristocrat
Restaurant. In September of 1968, a
certain group was drinking in the ULP canteen, and
after drinking, they created trouble.
There were around ten or more persons in the group. Also present were Sebastian and other
waiters. William Limson
was in the group of drinking persons.
The drinking group created trouble, had an exchange of words with
Sebastian, threw bottles, destroyed the tables and chairs. Sebastian fought back, and there was a free
for all. The persons drinking ran away,
but three were apprehended by Sebastian, including Roberto Limson. On June 23, 1969, at around 7:45 p.m. he was at the Melrose KitchenÂette. Melida, Caraon, Sebastian and Dungca, his
co-waiters were also there. And so was
Rosita Garcia. Caraon
Jr. was beside the witness. Sebastian
was at the third table drinking with Melida and Dungca. Witness was
talking with Dungca when William Limson
entered the Melrose Kitchenette and fired.
He heard many shots. When Limson entered, she said:
“Mga putang
ina ninyo mga waiter kayo, tignan ko ang titigas
ninyo.”
After the shooting, he heard “Ayos
na pare, dead ball na si Sebastian.” Sebastian died. Jose Caraon was hit
on the right arm while Melida was hit on the
thigh. Dungca
died although he was brought to the Philippine General Hospital for operation
and was in fact operated on twice.[20] Edilberto Aquino testified that during the shooting incident when he
was already lying down he saw three pairs of feet belonging to the assailants.[21]
Before the prosecution rested its case, it manifested that Fructuoso Abayon, Jose Caraon and Saturnino Melida were not cooperative anymore to the prosecution.[22]
The defense based on alibi, presented its version as follows:
Angel Rebullido, 36 years old, married,
Instructor of the Philippine College of Commerce, declared that he came to know
accused Angeles as the former used to play billiard with the latter since
April, 1969, at the corner of Dakota and San Andres streets. On June
23, 1969, at about 4:30 to 5:00
p.m., witness was at the billiard hall at the corner of Dakota and
San Andres streets, Malate, Manila,
and accused Angeles approached him and the witness introduced accused to his
friends. At the instance of the accused
Angeles, they went to the house of Ben Friera at the
back of the San Andres playground. Upon
reaching the house, they saw persons playing lucky nine and accused Angeles
played with the ladies and he won the game.
The accused invited the witness, Friera and a
certain Ben to a “blow-out.” They went to San Andres to wait for a
taxicab. When they were about to board
the taxicab, accused Angeles saw Patrolman Friera,
brother of Ben Friera, who was asked to go with the
group, so they boarded the taxicab and went to Norva’s
Kitchenette in Nebraska. At the kitchenette, they ordered drinks. Accused Angeles ordered two cans of corned
beef and beer, while Patrolman Friera ordered
coffee. Accused Angeles called and
tabled two ladies. They left the Norva’s Kitchenette and Patrolman Friera
asked the group to walk to Kaggie in Mabini, at around 9 p.m., where they drank whisky and
stayed for around one-half hour, where Patrolman Friera
and accused Angeles sang. At around 10 p.m., they proceeded to Roxas Boulevard and turned to San Andres, where Patrolman Friera
and accused Angeles saw a crowd in the street, so they told the driver to stop
and they went down. They talked with
some people and they entered the Melrose Kitchenette and accused Angeles said
there was plenty of blood on the floor.
On August 26, 1969, witness learned that accused Angeles was
implicated in the shooting incident so witness voluntarily went to the police
headquarters to have his sworn statement taken.[23]
Mauro Friera, 35 years, married,
patrolman of the Manila Police Department, corroborated the testimony of Angel RebulÂlido.[24]
Accused Exequiel Angeles, 28 years,
patrolman of the Manila Police Department, confirmed the versions of Rebullido and Friera. He narrated how he was ordered to report to
Chief Morales on August 26, 1969
and how he was placed in a line-up of eight persons. He was ordered to surrender his firearm. He admitted that Exhibits
“E-2-Angeles” and “E-3-Angeles” were his firearms. On May, 1969, he arrested the owner of the
Melrose Kitchenette for violation of an ordinance prohibiting selling liquor
after 2:00 a.m., but he just warned
them. He denied seeing Consolacion Ramos at the Playboy
Theater.[25]
Jose Caraon Jr., one of the victims,
pointed out by the prosecution as a non-cooperative witness, 28 years old,
single, declared that he testified against William Limson
as he was a complaining witness. He saw
two men firing guns during the shooting incident and one was William Limson. He could not
identify the other person whom he saw shooting during the incident.[26]
Washington Bacud, 51 years, senior
ballistic expert of the Manila Police Department, declared he made a report on
the fireÂarms taken from the accused Angeles[27]
and the recovered slugs were not fired from those guns and that there were no
inÂdication of changing the barrels of both exhibits.[28]
That a shooting incident at the Melrose Kitchenette took place on
the night of June 23, 1969,
and that the aforementioned persons were the victims, some of whom died and
some of whom were injured, is undisputed.
The only principal issue in these cases is the alleged criminal
participation of accused-appellant Exequiel Angeles y Ku.
Appellant Angeles claims that the trial court erred in findÂing
him sufficiently identified on the basis of the testimonies of Rosario Vergara de Ablola and Lydia
Romero. Examining the testimony of
Rosario Vergara de Ablola,
it appears very clear that this witness positively identified accused Angeles
as one of the three who fired shots within the Melrose Kitchenette on the night of June 23, 1969.[29] Likewise, witness Lydia Romero positively
identified accused Angeles as one of the three assailants on the night in
question, standing behind accused William Limson,
although the witness did not see if he was holding anything during that
shooting incident.[30] According to the impression and observation
of the trial judge, (Judge
Manuel R. Pamaran) who was in a position to observe
the demeanor of these witnesses, “the testimonies of these witnesses on
the shooting incident and the identification of the accused Angeles were given
in a very spontaneous, natural, consistent and reasonable manner which are all
the earmarks of truth which became more credible in the cross-examination to which
they have been exposed.”[31]
Witness Lydia Romero was emphatic in the identification of the
accused when she stated that she knew the face of the accused but not his name
and that she cannot be mistaken about his face because she looked and stared at
him; and before the incident, she already met the accused when he was looking
for her license. According to the trial
court, “her testimony in the cross-examination[32] that she did not mention the name of Angeles
before because accused is a policeman and she believes that a policeman cannot
be arrested and as a matter of fact, she has a phobia on policeman, is an
indication of the naturalness of her testimony especially when the court
observes that this witness is not highly intelligent.”[33] It is also the observation of the trial
court that when witness Lydia Romero testified, “her emphasis, gesture and
inflection of voice exhibit her sincerity.”[34]
With respect to witness Rosario Vergara
de Ablola, the trial court believes that the
credibility of her testimony was enhanced when she declared that she did not
testify in the William Limson cases because actually
she did not see Limson during the shooting incident
and it is hard to tell a lie and that the person she saw then was accused
Angeles who was then two or three yards away from the door.[35]
It is also difficult to question the
credibility of witness Vergara on the mere ground
that she did not immediately point to the accused Angeles on June 23, 1969,
after the crime was committed, because she explained that she knew accused
Angeles was a policeman and she was afraid to talk and she was emboldened only
when she knew that William Limson was convicted.[36] It is the trial court’s observation that
“what actually happened is that before the conviction of William Limson, everybody was afraid to testify against Angeles
because of his being a policeman, but after Limson
was convicted by this court, the witnesses were encouraged to testify for they
realized that nobody can be above the law.”[37]
Aside from the positive identification of accused Angeles as one
of three assailants in the shooting incident at the Melrose Kitchenette on June
23, 1969, witness Consolacion Ramos testified that
she saw the accused Angeles at around 6:00 p.m. or about two hours before the
incident, peeping inside the Melrose KitchenÂette with a companion. This witness also stated that she saw the
accused Angeles at the Playboy Theater after the shooting incident and he
immediately ran upstairs. These proven
cirÂcumstances clearly implicate accused Angeles in the shooting incident.[38]
No evidence exists indicative of any evil or bad motive as to why
witnesses Romero, Vergara and Ramos would falsely
testify against the accused Angeles. The
mere fact that before the shooting incident of June 23, 1969, accused Angeles
called the attention of the spouses de Ablola
(Rosario Vergara de Ablola)
about an alleged violation of an ordinance prohibiting selling liquor after
2:00 a.m., and merely warned them, would not be sufficient reason or motive for
witness Rosario Vergara de Ablola
to testify falsely against accused Angeles.
The natural reaction of the spouses would be to be grateful for the
consideÂration given them by the accused Angeles in not filing charges but
merely warning them. The same conclusion
can be derived when accused Angeles asked for the license of witness Lydia
Romero before the shooting incident and nothing was done to arrest her.[39]
Where there is no evidence to show any reason or improper motive why the
prosecution witnesses should testify falsely
against the accused[40] or falsely implicate him in the heinous
crime of murder[41] the logical conclusion is that no such
improper motive existed and their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[42]
The inevitable conclusion is that the credibility of the
witnesses Romero, Vergara and Ramos were never
successfully assailed, hence their version of what happened during the shooting
incident speaks the truth.
As to the evidence presented by the senior ballistic expert of
the Manila Police Department, Washington Bacud, to
the effect that a ballistic examination of the two firearms surrendered by the
accused Angeles (Exhibits “E-2-Angeles” and “E-3-Angeles”)
indicated that the recovered slugs were not fired from those guns and there
were no indications of barrel swapping for both guns,[43]
to Our mind, such evidence becomes of
no moment to accused Angeles in the face of clear positive identification made
by witnesses Romero and Vergara that he was one of
the three assailants who fired guns during the shooting incident at the Melrose
Kitchenette on June 23, 1969. If it is
sufficiently proven that accused Angeles was one of the three who fired guns
during that incident, it becomes unnecessary to identify correctly the gun that
he fired, as the gun that he used might be different from the guns he
surrendered for ballistic test, two months after the incident.
The principal defense of accused Angeles is an alibi. He declared, supported by the testimonies of
Angel Rebullido and Mauro Friera[44]
that at the time of the shooting incident at Melrose Kitchenette, accused
Angeles was in Norva’s place, then at Kaggie’s Kitchenette.
Aside from the legal truism that alibi is considered a weak defense
because it can easily be fabricated and it is so easy for witnesses to get
confused as to dates, it can not prevail against the positive identification of
the accused by credible witnesses. It is
indispensably necessary in order to establish an alibi successfully that the
accused was at some other place at the time the crime was committed, and that
it was physically impossible for him to be in the place where the crime took
place.
In this case, accused Angeles was positively identified by
witnesses Romero and Vergara that he was at Melrose
KitchenÂette at the time of the shooting and he was one of the three persons
who entered and fired shots that evening of June 23, 1969.
There was no showing of a physical impossibility for accused to be at
Melrose Kitchenette during the shooting incident because accused Angeles and
his witnesses declared they were then at Norva’s
Kitchenette and Kaggie’s place, which are places in
the vicinity of Melrose Kitchenette.
The trial court did not give much credence to the testimony of
Angel Rebullido, Mauro Friera
and accused Angeles to prove the alibi because said sworn declarations
“lack spontaneity, frankness and sincerity of a credible testimony.”[45] The trial court did not believe in the testimony of witness Friera
because it was unlikely that a policeman like him, in uniform and while on
duty, would abandon his post and go to the restaurant or club for a good time.[46]
The trial court correctly disregarded the testimony of victim
Jose Caraon Jr. to the effect that while he saw two
men, including William Limson firing guns during the
incident, he did not see accused Angeles during that time, because this
witness, for failure to obtain a loan from Maxima Dungca,
mother of victim Amado Dungca,
became uncooperative to the prosecution.[47]
Conspiracy between the accused Angeles and his two comÂpanions
could be inferred from their acts when they suddenly entered the Melrose
Kitchenette that evening of June 23,
1969, and immediately helped one another in shooting at the
victims. They exhibited solidarity of
purpose by their sudden simultaneous firing of guns directed at the
victims. There is oneness in their
concerted acts. Besides, accused Angeles
was seen by witness Consolacion Ramos[48] looking inside the Melrose Kitchenette two
hours before the shooting incident, apparently to verify the presence of the
victims. That must be the reason why
when the three assailants entered the Melrose Kitchenette they were imÂmediately
able to fire at the victims without anymore verifying their presence thereat.
The presence of treachery
or alevosia in the commission of the crime is
established. The attack on the victims
was sudden and unexpected, catching the victims totally unprepared to make a
defense or to flee. There is no doubt
that the accused in shooting the victims suddenly and by surprise, employed
means and methods in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially
to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the possible
defense the victims might make. The
victims were unarmed and had no warning whatsoever before the attack commenced.[49]
The victims Saturnino Melida and Edilberto Aquino suffered injuries which might have caused their
death if not for the timely medical attendance given to them,[50]
so the trial court concluded that the crimes committed by accused Angeles
against the two are frustrated murder qualified by treachery.
The victims Fructuoso Abayon and Jose Caraon Jr.
suffered injuries which would not have caused death even in the absence of
medical attendance[51]
so the trial court concluded that the crimes committed by accused Angeles,
against the two are attempted murder qualified by treachery.
The trial court found the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation amply established by evidence.
In the second week of September of 1968, an incident occurred between
the victim Sebastian and his co-waiters and William Limson,
the companion of accused Angeles during the shooting incident. William Limson and
his companions created trouble in the Aristocrat employees canteen, destroyed
bottles and glasses, upturned tables, which led to the apprehension and
prosecution of the three companions of Limson.[52] The affidavit[53] found in the pocket of victim Sebastian at
the time of his death, also show that September, 1968 incident. Vengeance must have existed in the heart of Limson and his companions to kill Sebastian and his fellow
waiters, as shown, when Limson entered the Melrose
Kitchenette on the night of June 23, 1969, and before the firing of guns, in
his words “Mga putang ina ninyo
mga waiter kayo, tignan ko ang titigas
ninyo.
“[54] That such was the situation is also
indicated when one of the assailants, after the shooting incident uttered –
“Ayos na
pare, dead ball na si
Sebastian, nakaganti na tayo. “[55] Under such proven circumstances, it is
manifest that since October 1968, the accused Angeles, including the two other
assailants, had sufficient period in the judicial sense for meditation and reÂflection
to overcome the resolution of his will to commit a wrong. But the long period did not change the
resolution of the accused to kill, evidenced by what happened on the night of June 23,
1969. When accused Angeles conspired with William Limson and his companion to commit the crimes, the former
must have known that the motive for the shooting was vengeance. That accused Angeles must have planned the
shooting, together with the other two, becomes self-evident because Angeles
visited the Melrose Kitchenette two hours before the shooting incident trying
to determine the presence of the victims thereat.
The trial court did not find any mitigating circumstance in favor
of the accused and a review of the record of these cases do not show any.
Aside from the aggravating circumstance of treachery We also find
as present in each and every one of the above-mentioned Criminal Cases the
aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his public position. While it is not alleged in the information,
it was proven by the evidence, and therefore should be taken into account in
imposing the penalty.[56]
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court, being in
accordance with the law and the evidence, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Barredo,
Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,
Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., in the result.
Antonio, J., concurs. The policeman who,
taking advantage of his public position, commits murder, does not deserve
judicial leniency. As stated in a
previous case: “While the law protects
the police officer in the proper discharge of his duties, it must at the same
time just as effectively protect the individual from abuse of the police.” (U.S. v. Pabalan,
37 Phil. 352).
Makasiar, Santos,
and Abad
Santos, JJ., no part.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 5-11.
[2]
Crim. Case No. VI-295; Crim.
Case No. VI-294; Crim. Case No. VI-292.
[3]
Crim. Cases Nos. VI-291 and VI-288.
[4]
Crim. Cases Nos. VI-293 and VI-289; Rollo, pp. 20-23.
[5]
Crim. Cases Nos. VI-394 to Crim.
Case No. VI-400.
[6]
Rollo, pp. 2-11.
[7]
Id., p. 20.
[8]
Id., pp. 50-54.
[9]
pp. 62, 64-66, t.s.n., Sept. 9, 1969, Perez; Exh.
“H-3”; Postmortem Findings of Sebastian, p. 50, Record of Case No. CCC-VI-394.
[10]
Exhibit “G-3”, p. 45, Record of CCC– VI-
394.
[11]
Exhibit “F-4”, p. 40, Record of CCC-VI-394.
[12]
Exh. “A”, pp. 5-6, t.s.n.,
Sept. 9, 1969-Perez.
[13]
Exh. “B”, p. 6, t.s.n.,
Sept. 9, 1969-Perez.
[14]
Exh. “C”, p. 9, t.s.n.,
Sept. 9, 1969-Perez.
[15]
Exh. “D”, p. 8, t.s.n., Sept. 9,
1969-Perez.
[16]
pp. 75-89, t.s.n., Sept. 9, 1969, Cando.
[17]
pp. 18 to 70, t.s.n., Sept. 9, 1969, Cando.
[18]
pp. 31-33, t.s.n., Sept. 9, 1969, Cando.
[19]
pp. 59-69, t.s.n., Sept. 9, 1969-Perez.
[20]
pp. 10-21, t.s.n., Sept. 11, 1969, Rodriguez.
[21]
pp. 17-18, t.s.n., Sept. 11, 1969, Rodriguez.
[22]
p. 34, rollo.
[23]
pp. 2-10, t.s.n., Sept. 12, 1969, Perez.
[24]
pp. 12-14, t.s.n., Sept. 12, 1969, Perez.
[25]
pp. 18-35, t.s.n., Sept. 12, 1969, Perez.
[26]
pp. 6-10, t.s.n., Sept. 12, 1969, Perez.
[27]
Exhs. “E-2-Angeles” and
“E-3-Angeles”.
[28]
pp. 2-4, t.s.n., Sept. 18, 1969, Perez; pp. 2-5, t.s.n., Sept. 15, 1969, Palma; pp. 13-27, t.s.n., Sept. 9, 1969, Perez.
[29]
pp. 31-33, t.s.n., Sept. 9, 1969, Cando.
[30]
pp. 62-64, t.s.n., Sept. 9, 1969, Perez.
[31]
p. 40, rollo.
[32]
pp. 68-86, t.s.n., Sept. 9, 1969, Perez.
[33]
pp. 40-41, rollo.
[34]
p. 41, Id.
[35]
pp. 58-61, t.s.n., Sept. 9, 1969, Cando; p. 41, rollo.
[36]
p. 41, Id.
[37]
p. 41, Id.
[38]
pp. 41-42, Id.
[39]
pp. 42-43, Id.
[40]
People vs. Macalindong, 76 Phil. 719.
[41]
People vs. Baquiño, et al., 77 Phil. 721.
[42]
People vs. Borbono, 76 Phil. 702.
[43]
pp. 2-4, t.s.n., Sept. 18, 1969, Perez; pp. 2-5, t.s.n., Sept. 15, 1969, Palma; pp. 13-27, t.s.n., Sept. 9, 1969, Perez.
[44]
pp. 2-10, t.s.n., Sept. 12, 1969, Perez; pp. 12-14, t.s.n.,
Sept. 12, 1969, Perez.
[45]
p. 45, rollo.
[46]
p. 45, Id.
[47]
pp. 10-13, t.s.n., Sept. 18, 1969, Perez.
[48]
pp. 75-89, t.s.n., Sept. 9, 1969, Cando.
[49]
People vs. Pengson, 44 Phil. 244, 232.
[50]
Exhibits “A-Angeles” and “D-Angeles”.
[51]
Exhibits “B-Angeles” and “C-Angeles”.
[52]
pp. 10-21, t.s.n., Sept. 11, 1969, Rodriguez.
[53]
Exhibits “P-Angeles” and “3-Angeles”.
[54]
p. 18, t.s.n., Sept. 11, 1969, Rodriguez.
[55]
p. 19, t.s.n., Sept. 11, 1969, Rodriguez.
[56]
People vs. Collado, 60 Phil. 610.