PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO CENTENO ALIAS “PANCHITO”, JUAN CENTENO ALIAS “TOTOK” AND MANUEL CENTENO ALIAS “IYAO”, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

The accused-appellants, Francisco Centeno alias “Panchito”, Juan Centeno alias “Totok” and Manuel Centeno alias
“Iyao”, were charged with the crime of murder in an information filed
on July 10, 1972 with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, 11th
Judicial District. The information alleged that the three (3) accused,
cons­piring and working together, armed with firearms and with treachery
and evident premeditation inflicted wounds on Nestor Asistido which
caused his death.

On April 18, 1974, the trial court found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide with
the aggravating circumstance of their having taken advantage of
superior strength which was offset by the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment of
not less than six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to not more than fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and
twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with all the
accessory penalties provided for by law, to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased the sum of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) for the death of
Nestor Asistido, and in addition thereto the sum of Thirty-three
Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-six Pesos (P33,696.00) for loss of income,
plus Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for moral damages, and to pay the
costs.

The decision of the trial court was appealed to the then Court of Appeals.

On July 14, 1978, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Ameurfina A.
Melencio-Herrera and concurred in by Associate Justices Lorenzo Relova
and Simeon M. Gopengco, the Court of Appeals found from the records that
the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were clearly
attendant to the commission of the crime and, therefore, found the
accused-appellants guilty of murder as charged in the information.
According to the appellate court, the penalty prescribed by Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code for the crime of murder is reclusion temporal
in its maximum period to death. Following Section 34 of the Judiciary
Act and Section 12 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, however, the Court
of Appeals refrained from entering judgment and certified the case to
this Court for final determination.

On October 30, 1981, this Court after discussing the guidelines in People v. Daniel (86 SCRA 511) on the preliminary issue therein promulgated a resolution which, inter alia, reads:

“Accordingly, We refrain from passing on the correctness of the
assessment of the evidence by the Court of Appeals which We find to be
sufficiently thorough and exhaustive, and let said Court determine for
itself what the proper penalty should be under its own analysis of the
evidence, in accordance with the aforecited ruling of People v. Daniel,
supra.

“WHEREFORE, let this case be returned to the Court of Appeals for proper action as above indicated.”

We have carefully reviewed the entire records of this appeal. We find
correct the factual findings and conclusions of law in the amended
decision penned by Associate Justice Rodolfo A. Nocon and concurred in
by Associate Justices Juan A. Sison and Federico B. Alfonso of the
Intermediate Appellate Court. We, therefore, adopt the said decision in
its entirety and append it as an integral part of this decision. The
award for actual and moral damages, being supported by evidence, is
affirmed.

Following the precedent set in People v. de la Fuente (126 SCRA
518) wherein this Court increased the civil liability awarded by the
trial court to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), the award of Twelve
Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) as indemnification for the death of Nestor
Asistido is increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).

WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused-appellants Francisco Centeno alias “Panchito”, Juan Centeno alias “Totok” and Manuel Centeno alias
“Iyao” guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. The
sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court on each of the
accused-appellants is MODIFIED to RECLUSION PERPETUA and the
Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) awarded as indemnification is
increased to THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00). In all other respects,
the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Plana, Escolin, and De La Fuente, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera and Relova, JJ., no part, having participated in the Court of Appeals’ decision.

“ANNEX “A”

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

INTERMIDIATE APPELLATE COURT

MANILA

[AC-G.R. CR NO. 17144]

SECOND CRIMINAL CASES DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO
CENTENO, JUAN CENTENO ALIAS TOTOK AND MANUEL CENTENO ALIAS IYAO
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

The accused Francisco Centeno alias “Panchito,” Juan Centeno alias “Totok,” and Manuel Centeno alias
“Iyao” were originally charged with the crime of Murder in an
information filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo on 10 July 1972.
After trial, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch IV, found
them guilty of Homicide, hence this appeal.

The evidence for the prosecution is as follows:

The three accused, FRANCISCO Centeno, JUAN Centeno and MANUEL Centeno
are brothers. They are all residents of Barrio Maiayuan, Ajuy, Iloilo.
FRANCISCO, the eldest, was the Barrio Captain of the place having held
the position for four terms. They had another brother, Florentino, who
was married to one Ester Causing with whom he had two children. This
couple converted a portion of the seashore of Barrio Malayuan into a
docking place for a motor boat named Evelyn HI owned by Serafin Opinion,
Jr, This boat used to ferry passengers and cargo from Barrio Malayuan,
Ajuy to Victorias, Negros Occidental, and back. The spouses Florentino
Centeno and Ester Causing operated this motor boat, receiving
commissions for every passenger and cargo carried. A commission of P2.00
each was also being paid to the accused, FRANCISCO, JUAN,MANUEL and
another brother, use, for helping in the operation of the motor boat.
The couple had an errand boy named Nestor Asistido, who was also being
paid a commission of P2.00.

On 4 November 1971, Florentino Centeno was murdered in Sara, Iloilo. His
wife, Ester Causing received an indemnity of P60.000.00 as the
beneficiary of his life insurance policy. The persons who were
responsible for the crime were not prosecuted, and the three accused
blamed the widow for this. A feeling of enmity developed between them
particularly because both parties sought to gain control of the
management of the boat. Nestor Asistido, however, remained loyal to the
widow, who promised to see him through school, which fact the accused
inwardly resented.

In the afternoon of 21 November 1971, the father of Nestor, Arsenio
Asistido, was warned by accused MANUEL Centeno that if he (Arsenio)
would allow Nestor to stay with Ester, their sister-in-law, they would
kill him (Nestor) in less than six days. Arsenio told his son about
MANUEL’s threat. Nestor, however, informed his father that if Ester
could withdraw the proceeds of the life insurance of her husband, she
would transfer her family to Manila and would also send Nestor to school
there. That same afternoon, Arsenio went to see Ester and related what
MANUEL had threatened to do. Ester gave him a letter for the Mayor of
Ajuy and he was informed afterwards that the matter was already settled
at a conference before Police Sergeant Vicente Alamon which was attended
by MANUEL and JUAN, on the one hand, and Arsenio Asistido, on the
other, where the Sgt. succeeded in making them shake hands.

Notwithstanding, the following day, 12 November 1971, Arsenio Asistido
met accused FRANCISCO Centeno, and the latter told him, “Tay Arsing last
night your house where your son is living and your house in the
seashore was being guarded.” The next day, Arsenio and FRANCISCO met
again in the house of Augusto Leonides, the Secretary of the Mayor, and
FRANCISCO said to him, “Tay Arsing, you were fortunate last night that
you did not come out of your house.”

At noon of 1 December 1971, Nestor was in the house of his parents at
Barrio Malayuan. He set the table for his father, who, after taking his
lunch, left immediately for school where he was serving as janitor.
Between 1:00 to 2:00 o’clock that afternoon, Nestor went to the house of
Capid (Inocencia Basa) and Esteban Matulac alias “Tiban” which
was near the beach of Malayuan where the M/V Evelyn HI was docked. He
played bingo with Jesus Artesilla, Capid and her two sons and Rodel
Sariya. Not long after, the three accused arrived, FRANCISCO was armed
with a shot gun, JUAN Centeno, with a .38 caliber pistol, and MANUEL,
with a greasegun. They called Nestor, and when the latter did not come
out, MANUEL and JUAN went up the house while FRANCISCO remained
downstairs. Thuds were heard and Nestor cried out, “Manong Totok I am
not going to fight back.” The people inside the house jumped out except
Jesus Artesilla. The brothers, JUAN and MANUEL dragged Nestor to the
door and pushed him towards the stairs. As they did so, FRANCISCO
Centeno fired his gun at Nestor; the latter was hit and fell to the
ground. Then JUAN and MANUEL fired their guns at him. FRANCISCO then
turned to the people around and threatened them not to reveal to anyone
what had happened. Eyewitnesses to the incident in the house were Jesus
Artesilla, who was one of the bingo players, and a tuba gatherer of
JUAN, Teofisto Domegillo, a fish vendor, who happened to be in the
vicinity to buy fish (t.s.n., p. 4, Tauro) Pedro Nobleza, who was also
there to sail for Negros in the M/V Evelyn III, (t.s.n., p. 27, CM.
Tauro) and Bienvenido Brabo who had a house nearby. Scared, all of them
left after the occurrence.

JUAN and MANUEL thereafter dragged the body of Nestor towards aplace
where tall grasses grew near the house of Bienvenido Bravo. At about
5:00 o’clock that same afternoon, Jesus Artesilla, while atop a coconut
tree gathering ‘tuba” saw the body of Nestor Asistido in a supine
position. He went down the tree and approached the body and saw that it
was already lifeless. He even closed the eyes of Nestor. Panfilo Besana
also saw the body of the victim at about 5:30 that same afternoon when
he went to the cogon grasses to answer a call of nature.

At about 8:00 o ‘clock in the evening, the three accused together with
Jesus Artesilla and Bienvenido Brabo moved the body of Nestor Asistido
from the tall grasses. The accused ordered Artesilla and Bravo to wrap
the body in a fishing net owned by Bravo. Then JUAN and MANUEL loaded
the body in a banca and peddled towards the sea. They returned to shore
about 4:00 o ‘clock the following morning without the body of Nestor,
which was never recovered.

The respective defense of the accused is alibi. FRANCISCO maintained
that from 30 November 1971 to 3 December 1971, he contracted the
services of 14 laborers to pull grasses, transplant seedling and clean
the canals of his farm, which is in sitio Tigbao Centeno, two kilometres
away from Barrio Malayuan. He alleged that he and his hired laborers
worked in the farm from 7:30 in the morning to 4:00 o’clock in the
afternoon on 1 December 1971, and that he never left the field. In fact,
they had their lunch there, which was prepared by his wife and another
woman.

In his turn, JUAN claimed that from 26 November 1971 he plowed his field
which is situated at Sitio Bitac, one kilometer away from Barrio
Malayuan. He stated that, on the day of the incident or 1 December 1971,
he was at his ricefield managing the transplanting of the rice
seedlings, and that he never left the field until 5:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of that day.

Accused MANUEL, for his part, claimed that on 1 December 1971 he painted
the motorboat M/V Evelyn III which was docked about 350 meters from the
house of Esteban Matulac where the incident occurred, from 7:00 o’clock
in the morning to 4.00 o ‘clock in the afternoon. He likewise alleged
that he never left his job because they were being watched by Custodio
Flores, who was in charge of the repair of the boat.

The three accused likewise contended that the witnesses for the
prosecution testified for monetary considerations and upon instigation
of their sister-in-law Ester Causing. Their testimonies as to their
respective alibi were corroborated by Rafael Sumatra and Florenio
Gonzales for FRANCISCO, by Rolando Gisangro for JUAN, and by Custodio
Flores for MANUEL.

After trial on the merits, the lower court ruled out treachery and
evident premeditation and held the accused guilty, not of Murder, but of
Homicide, in a judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“x x x WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Francisco Centeno,
Juan Centeno and Manuel Centeno guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
homicide defined and penalized in Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code,
with the aggravating circumstance that advantage was taken of superior
strength which is offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender, and applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
hereby sentences each of them to suffer an imprisonment of not less
than SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor
as minimum, to not more than FIFTEEN (15) YEARS, SIX (6) MONTHS and
TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with all the
accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify Arsenio Asistido and
Nenita C. Asistido, the heirs of the deceased, the sum of P12,000.00 for
the death of Nestor Asistido and in addition thereto the sum of
P33,696.00 for the loss of income, plus P10.000.00 for moral damages and
to pay the costs.”

From said decision, the three accused have interposed this appeal on the following Assignments of Error:

” 1. The trial Court erred into believing the testimonies of
witnesses characterized by queerness and incredibility as they are and
narration of witnesses who came out to testify against the
accused-appellants eight months after the alleged incident and erred to
assume by probabilities and accused-appellants were responsible for the
death of Nestor Asistido.

“2. The trial Court erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty
of the crime charged despite improbabilities and the absence of corpus delicti.”

From the facts established, We find this appeal without merit.

In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an
element of the offense, there must be satisfactory evidence of the fact
of death and the identity of the victim. That a crime has been
committed, which is what corpus delicti really means, (People
v. Sanchez, 89 Phil. 423[1951] and there is evidence linking the
accused to the crime, has been dearly and positively established by the
testimonies of four eyewitnesses to its commission. That it was
committed at the place testified to by those witnesses is substantiated
by the findings of Capt. Balaois, who conducted an investigation,
showing the pool of blood inside the house of Inocencia Basa; the traces
of blood leading to a bigger pool of blood at the foot of the stairs
(Exhibits B, B-1 to B-5); and the blood trails which showed that the
body of the victim was dragged through rice paddies and coconut grove
until the trail was finally lost. Corpus delicti, therefore,
has been dearly established. The failure of the prosecution to produce
the body of the victim does not imply the absence of corpus delicti
(Peoplev. Mones,58 Phil. 46 (1933) for the term does not refer to the
body of the murdered person (People v. Taruc, et als., G.R. No. L-183
08, April 30, 1966, 16SCRA834).

The appellants, however, assail the credibility of prosecution witnesses
in that they testified against them eight months after the incident.
Notwithstanding, this factor will not assist the defense any for it has
been held that the initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer
information about a criminal case and their unwillingness to be involved
in or dragged into a criminal investigation is common and has been
judicially declared not to affect credibility (People v. Estocada, 75
SCRA 295[1977]). Moreover, there is evidence on record showing that
prosecution witnesses were being threatened by the appellants, one of
whom is a Barrio Captain, consequently, they were afraid to report to
the authorities what they knew about the incident. Witness Jesus
Artesilla even transferred his residence to Carlos, Iloilo, for fear of
his life. It was only afterthe declaration of martial law that he
summoned courage to reveal what he had seen (T.s.n., February 13,1973,
pp. 4 and 25). Witness Teofisto Demegillo also admitted that he was
afraid of the Centeno brothers.

In fact, the mother of the victim, Nenita Asistido, had to seek the
assistance of the Philippine Constabulary
to get the witnesses and to prevent the appellants from threatening them
(Exhibit “G”), so much so that the latter had to be kept in the PC
stockade for a time.

Nonetheless, eyewitness Pedro Nobleza informed the victim’s mother of
the occurrence so that in the same afternoon of December 1, 1971, the
father, Arsenio, reported to the Mayor that the three accused had killed
his son; while on December 3,1971, the mother, Nenita, reported to the
police that the accused had shot their son to death (Exhibit “3”).

The defense challenges the credibility of eyewitness Teofisto Demegillo
on the ground that he is a relative of the deceased. It is well-settled,
however, that relationship per se does not necessarily render
the testimony of a witness incredible. Besides, the same witness
testified that the appellants are his godbrothers (ts.n., October 17,
1972, p. 21). In fact, he even called them “Igsoon” meaning “brother.”

Eyewitness Pedro Nobleza’s testimony is also assailed as a mere
reiteration of Teofisto Demegillo. However, each of them happened to be
at the scene of the crime under different circumstances. Demegillo, as a
fish vendor, had to buy fish. While Nobleza intended to take the boat
and sail for Negros. Their testimonies are corroborative of the other,
and are further strengthened by those of Jesus Artesilla and Bienvenido
Bravo, two other eyewitnesses.

Panfilo Besana’s testimony is also denounced as inconsistent when he
said that the incident “happened a long time ago but up to the present
it is not known.” However, that was followed immediately by his
statement “I told them that one time when I went to answer the call of
nature, I saw the cadaver (t.s.n., December26,1972,p.42). The witness
must have been referring, therefore, to knowledge by the community, but
as to himself, he knew about the crime because he actually saw the
cadaver when he went to answer the call of nature.

And as to the presence of rocks or spades in the banca, all that Jesus
Artesilla declared was that he did not see any, but not that accused
JUAN and MANUEL did not carry any rocks or spades in their banca when
they took the body of the victim with them out to sea.

The fact that Capt. Balaois testified that he was not sure that the
trail of blood was human blood will not serve to destroy his
credibility, but on the contrary enhances it for he truthfully said that
he was not an expert on that.

And while it may be that when the father of the victim, Arsenio ,
Asistido, went to the scene of the crime in the afternoon of December 1,
1972, he did not find his son’s body, this may be explained by the fact
that it was almost dark when he and his party went so that there was
little chance of locating the victim’s body ; which was1 hidden among
tall cogon grasses. It was only the investigation the next day by Capt.
Balaois that disclosed the traces of blood (Exhibits B, B-1, B-6).

In the last analysis, the conclusions reached by a trial Court on the
question of credibility is entitled to great weight, and should
ordinarily be respected as it is in a better position to determine such
matters, unless a fact or circumstance of weight or influence has been
overlooked and its significance misinterpreted (People v. Monteverde,
L-31177, July 15,1976, 72 SCRA 69). We find the required exceptions
absent herein. The testimonies of prosecution ; witnesses are straight
forward and consistent on material points, the ‘ contradictions and
inconsistencies pointed out by the defense trivial and insignificant,
such that we can see no reason to disturb the conclusions reached by the
trial Court in so far as their credibility is concerned.

The defense of each the appellants in this case is that of alibi. It is
fundamental that this must be supported by clear and convincing evidence
to be given full faith and credence. Alibi is not 1 credible when there
appears no physical impossibility on the part of those invoking it to
have been at the scene of the crime (People 1 v. Estocado, 75 SCRA
295[1977]). In this case, appellant FRANCISCO was only two kilometers
away from the situs of the incident, JUAN, one kilometer, and MANUEL,
350 meters away.

It was not impossible for them, therefore, to have left their alleged I
places of work or activity and to have gone to the house where they
committed the offense. Besides, the rule is also well-settled that alibi
cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by
competent witnesses whose credibility is unassailable.

We come now to the nature of the crime committed. The trial Court
categorized it as Homicide. We disagree. As aptly pointed out by the
Solicitor General, whose views. We hereby adopt, the circumstances of
treachery and evident premeditation are clearly attendant herein. Thus,

“The Information charging the accused of Murder notes the
attendance of two qualifying circumstances – treachery and evident
premeditation. According to the Revised Penal Code, there is treachery
‘when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from
the defense which the offended party might make’ (Article 14, par. 6,
Revised Penal Code). In short, two conditions must concur: (1) the
employment of means, method or manner of execution which would insure
the offenders’ safety from any defensive or retaliatory act on the part
of the offended party, which means that no opportunity is given the
latter to do so (People v. Casalme, 17 SCRA 717[1966]); and (2) that
such means, method, or manner of execution was deliberately or
consciously chosen (People v. Dadis 18 SCRA 699[1966]) .

“In the case at bar, the treacherous manner in which the victim
was killed is manifest from the record. Nestor Asistido was mauled by
Juan Centeno and Manuel Centeno inside Basa’s house, despite his
protestations that he was not going to fight back. When he was already
weak, bloodied, and unable to defend himself, he was dragged to the
door. Juan and Manuel Centeno held him on both hands. While he was being
pushed down the stairs, Francisco Centeno fired his gun at him. It
should further be noted that the victim was unarmed, in contrast to the
accused who were each armed with firearms. Nestor Asistido was a young
man of nineteen (19) years. He was no match for three robust men like
the accused. The fact that the accused went to the place of Basa fully
armed, is an indication that the means of execution they employed was
deliberate or consciously chosen. After Francisco fired his gun at the
victim the latter fell to the ground. Yet, Juan and Manuel Centeno still
fired their guns at the fallen victim. All the earmarks of alevosia are
present in this case. We cannot see how anyone else can arrived at a
different conclusion.

“We also submit that the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation has been proven in this case. The plan of the accused to
kill Nestor Asistido made itself manifest as early as November 21,1971.
On said date Manuel Centeno informed Arsenio Asistido that if he would
allow his son Nestor to stay with Ester Causing, they would kill Nesior
in less than six (6) days. (pp. 5-6. tsn., October 17, 1972). It is true
that the Mayor of Ajuy tried to settle matters between the Asistido’s
on the one hand and the accused Centeno’s on the other hand. The accused
Juan and Manuel Centeno appeared cordial during their confrontation,
but the subsequent events that followed show that the accused have not
desisted from their original plan to kill Nestor. The following day,
when Arsenio Asistido met Francisco Centeno, the latter expressed their
original threat, (pp. 6-7, tsa, October 17, 1972). The same threat was
reiterated once more by Francisco Centeno on November 23, 1971. On
December 1, 1971, the accused went to the house of Inocencia Basa, fully
armed. There is no showing that they went to this place for any reason
other than to kill Nestor Asistido. The continuity of these events,
buttressed further by the treachery employed to kill the victim, show
the persistence of the accused to carry out the criminal intent they had
originally hatched. (People v. Tapitan, 27 SCRA 959). Sufficient time
had lapsed from November 21,1971, when the intent of the accused to kill
made itself manifest for the first time, until December 1, 1971, when
the crime was committed. This had given the accused sufficient
opportunity to reflect and deliberate upon the consequences of their
act. All these characterize the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation.” (Appellee’s Brief, pp. 18-20)

Treachery being present, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength appreciated by the trial Court can no longer be
considered as a separate generic aggravating circumstance since it must
be deemed absorbed in treachery.

As to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the same is
not home out by the evidence. By their own admission, appellants were
arrested by the authorities (t.s.n., June 19, 1973, p. 75, November
5,1973, p. 54). They never made any attempt to give themselves up prior
to their arrest nor to save the authorities from any trouble in their
search and capture. On the contrary, FRANCISCO and JUAN even tried to
evade the processes issued to them to secure their presence during the
preliminary investigation conducted by the Special Counsel (Exhibits A,
A-l, 1-A). With respect to MANUEL, who was studying in Manila, the
records show that the prosecution had already presented its evidence
against FRANCISCO and JUAN before MANUEL was allegedly informed by his
lawyer of this criminal charge against him such that prosecution
witnesses had to be recalled to the stand to testify on his
participation in the commission of the offense.^[1]
Therefore, the crime committed was that of murder and in the absence
of any mitigating aggravating circumstance the penalty which should be
imposed is reclusion perpetua.

“Accordingly, this Court finds accused-appellants Francisco Centeno, Juan Centeno alias Totok and Manuel Centeno alias Iyao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and hereby sentences each to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the victim Nestor
Asistido the sum ofP12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs. In view of the penalty thus imposed
and pursuant to the guidelines laid down in People v. Daniel, G.R. No.
L-40330, November 20,1978, let this case be certified to the Supreme
Court for review.”

SO ORDERED.

Sison and Alfonso, Jr., JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Lifted from the original
decision dated July 14, 1978 penned by then Court of Appeals Associate
Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera.