GIL TAPALLA AND RENE TAPALLA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision
of the respondent Court of Appeals promulgated on June 19, 1991, the dispositive part of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the decision appealed is affirmed with the modi­fication
that accused Gil Tapalla is also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of homicide and that both accused are sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of from seven (7) years of prision mayor to
twelve (12) years and one (1) day
of reclusion temporal.

“Costs against the accused-appellants.” (p. 7, Rollo.)

The facts of the case, as found by the Court of Appeals are as
follows:

“On March 25, 1988, at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening,
several unknown persons stoned the house of accused Gil Tapalla at Barangay
Magallang, Libon, Albay. Believing that
it was his next door neighbor, Vicente Balayo, who was responsible, Rene went
out of the house carrying a piece of bamboo and challenged Vicente to a fight.

“At this time, Vicente was conversing with Carlos Rañola and
Jose Arevalo at the balcony of his house. Upon hearing the challenge, Carlos and Jose approached and tried to
pacify Rene. But Rene cannot be
subdued.

“The deceased, Ernesto Roy, Sr., happened to pass by at this
juncture. When Rene saw him, he
said: ‘Here comes one of my ene­mies.’ And as soon as Ernesto came near, Rene
suddenly struck him on the chest with the bamboo.

“Thereupon, both Ernesto and Rene ran home. But before Ernesto could reach his house, he
hurled something at Rene.

“Infuriated, Rene went inside his house and came out a second
later armed with a samurai sword. He
approached Ernesto, who remained standing on the street, and started hacking
him. Not long after, Gil, Rene’s
father, joined the fray with a ‘guinonting,’ a kind of bolo. He also attacked Ernesto who tried to parry
the thrusts with his arms. A few
minutes later, Ernesto fell on the round severely wounded and bleeding
profusely.

“With both accused gone, Jose approached the victim. Upon seeing that he was still alive, Jose
summoned Vicente so that they could take the victim to a doctor.

“However, Vicente went to Bgy. Sagrada to get PC soldiers and
when they returned, Ernesto was already dead. The PC soldiers promptly arrested both accused who were taken to the
police station in Libon, Albay. Both weapons were confiscated.

“In the meantime, the body of the victim was brought to the
Pantao District Hospital where, after autopsy, the following injuries were
found:

“1. Gaping stab wound, 2-1/2 inches long and
3/4 of an inch deep, located at the medial portion of the right arm, 4-1/2 inches
from the axillary region and 2­-1/2 inches from the elbow joint.

“2. Incised wound 3/4 of
an inch long, located at the latero­-posterior portion of the right wrist,
running across, severing the radial vein.

“3. Superficial incised
wound, 2­-1/2 inches long located at the latero-posterior portion of the right
elbow, running horizon­tally.

“4. Incised wound, 1 inch
long, located at the dorsum of the left hand, near the base of the small
finger.

“5. Contusion, located at
the upper anterior medial portion of the chest wall.

“6. Probable cause of death based on the above findings was: Massive
external hemorrhage secondary to numbers 1 and 2 described injuries. (Exhibits ‘1,’ ‘1-A’).” (pp. 28-30.)

Father and son were charged with murder before the Regional Trial
Court of Albay where after trial, judgment was rendered declaring Rene Tapalla
guilty of homicide only and Gil Tapalla guilty of less serious physical
injuries.

Both accused appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered the
aforequoted decision. In this peti­tion
for review, the appellants contend that the trial court and the Court of
Appeals failed to consider many facts of substance and value that would have
resulted in their acquittal.

The petition has no merit. The Court of Appeals correctly found that the crime committed by Rene
was simple homicide. His claim that he
acted in self-defense is untenable. As
found by the Court of Appeals:

“x x x. The mere fact
that his house was stoned cannot certain­ly be considered an act of unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim who, incidentally, was not even shown as
one of the stone throwers. As it was,
when the accused came out of the house for the second time, already brandishing
a samurai sword, he became the unlawful aggressor.

“Secondly, We find that there was no aggression on the part of
the victim who was not shown to have thrown stones at the house and at Rene
when he came out the first time, and allegedly ganged up on him. Indeed, there is no evidence on the exact
number of assailants.

“Likewise, the means employed by the accused to defend
himself, that is, by using a samurai sword was clearly unreasonable under the
circumstances. The people who stoned
the house were not shown to have been armed. If Rene was really beaten up by eight men, how come that he and the
other defense wit­nesses cannot identify even one of them? He was not even sure if the deceased was one of his assailants.

“On the other hand, We find the prosecution’s version to be
more logical considering the location and nature of the injuries sustained by
the victim. The prosecution witnesses all said that Ernesto tried to
shield his face and chest with his arms. The autopsy report shows that all the injuries were inflicted on the
victim’s arms and wrists.

“The basic issue then in this case rests on credibility. As the findings of fact of the trial court
on the credibility of witnesses are generally entitled to the highest respect,
because of its opportunity to observe the deportment and de­meanor of the witnesses,
We see no reason to disturb its findings (People vs. Abagon, supra, citing
People vs. Traya, 147 SCRA 387 and People vs. Romilo, 147 SCRA 102).” (pp.
33-34, Rollo.)

Review of the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals is not a
function that this Court ordinarily undertakes, for as a general rule, such
findings are binding and conclusive upon us (Tolentino vs. De Jesus, 56 SCRA 67
and cases cited therein; People vs. Traya, 147 SCRA 381; Apex Investment and
Financing Corp. vs. IAC, 166 SCRA 458). However, jurisprudence has de­veloped certain exceptions to that rule,
namely: (1) where the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation,
surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3)
there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is made on misapprehen­sion
of facts; (5) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its
findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellants and appellee; (6)
the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial
court; (7) said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; (8) the facts set forth in the petition as
well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondents; and (9) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are prem­ised
on the absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. Unfortunately, we find nothing in the
records of this case which warrant a review based on any of these
well-recognized exceptions.

The Court of Appeals
correctly found that the crime committed by Rene was simple homicide. However, we disagree with the finding that
his father and co-accused, Gil Tapalla, is also liable for the same crime. According to the appellate court, when Gil
Tapalla rushed out to join the fight, his intention was not to defend his son
who was then hacking the victim with his sword, but rather, it was also his
intention to attack Ernesto with the bolo that he had drawn. In effect, the court was saying that having
acted in presumed conspiracy with Rene, Gil Tapalla is likewise guilty of the
crime of homicide.

However, this Court has
held in People vs. Laurio [200 SCRA 465, 467 (1991)] that:

“x x x. The same
degree of proof necessary to establish the crime is required to establish a
criminal conspiracy (People vs. Drilon, Jr., 123 SCRA 72). It cannot be established by conjectures but
by positive and conclusive evidence (People vs. Martinez, 127 SCRA 260). A conspiracy may be inferred from the
circumstances attending the commission of the crime, but, like any other
ingredi­ent of the offense, it must be established by clear and convincing
evidence (People vs. Agda, 111 SCRA 330).”

Also, in Siton vs. Enselada (204 SCRA 473), we held that “it
is not enough that the attack be joint or simultaneous. It is necessary that the assailants be
animated by one and the same purpose. A
conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly as the crime itself [citing People
vs. Caballero (53 Phil. 585); People vs. Barto­lay (42 SCRA 1); and People vs.
Doricao (54 SCRA 172)]. It must also be
established beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. Saavedra, 149 SCRA 610).”

In the case of Gil Tapalla, we agree with the trial court that
there is no evidence that he and Rene had conspired to kill Ernesto (p. 39,
Rollo). The circumstance that he joined
the fray armed with a bolo is not sufficient to warrant the conclusion that his
intention was to help his son kill Ernesto. The requi­site that there should be unity of criminal purpose among the
perpetrators of the crime, which may be gleaned from the surrounding
circumstances of the case, has not been satisfied. As a matter of fact, Gil Tapal­la only arrived at the scene of
the crime long after the fray had began (p. 39, Rollo). As found by the trial court, Gil inflicted
only one wound that was superfi­cial, wound No. 4, on the left hand, hence,
only less serious. All the other
injuries had been inflicted by Rene Tapalla (p. 39, Rollo). It cannot be said there­fore that the injury
inflicted by Gil on the victim could have been a probable cause of the latter’s
death.

In the absence of a conspiracy or unity of crimi­nal purpose and
intention immediately before the commission of the crime, or community of
criminal design, the criminal responsibility arising from acts directed against
one and the same person is individual and not collective. Each of the participants is liable only for
the acts committed by him (U.S. vs. Abiog, et al., 37 Phil. 137). Gil Tapalla
is guilty of the lesser crime of less serious physical injuries only.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
affirmed with regard to petitioner Rene Tapalla, but modified with regard to
Gil Tapalla whom we find guilty of the lesser crime of less serious physical
injuries. He is hereby sentenced to
suffer a straight penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor. Both accused shall be credited in the
service of their respective sentences with the full period of their preventive
imprisonment.

The records of this case do not show that the civil action had
been waived, instituted separately, or instituted prior to the criminal
action. Since both the trial court and
the Court of Appeals failed to render any judgment on the civil liability of
the accused, we further sentence Rene Tapalla to pay indemnity to the heirs of
Ernesto Roy the sum of P50,000.00 for his death.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Bellosillo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.