G.R. No. 104398. March 01, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DOMINGO EUSTAQUIO, IGLECERIA EUSTAQUIO, JEAN EUSTAQUIO ALIAS NONOY, AND NONONG RUADO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
PUNO, J.:
This is an appeal by Domingo Eustaquio and Jean Eustaquio alias
“Nonoy” from the Decision, dated January 13, 1992, of the RTC, Fifth
Judicial Region, Br. 44, Masbate, Masbate[1] in
Crim. Case No. 6108 where they were convicted
for the Murder of Antonio Dante.
It appears that accused-appellants Domingo and Jean (alias Nonoy) Eustaquio, as well
as Igleceria Eustaquio and Nonong Ruado were charged with Murder in an
Information, dated August 21, 1990, which reads:
“The undersigned 2nd Asst. Provincial Prosecutor accuses
Domingo Eustaquio, Igleceria Eustaquio, Nonoy Eustaquio and Nonong Ruado of San
Francisco, Calumpang, Milagros, Masbate of the crime of Murder, committed as
follows:
That on or about May 3, 1990, in the morning thereof, at Sitio San
Francisco, Barangay Calumpang, Municipality of Milagros, Province of Masbate,
Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this court, the above-named accused,
confederating together and helping one another, with intent to kill, evident
premeditation, treachery and superiority of strength, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stab with a bolo and
strike with an iron bar and piece of bamboo one Antonio Dante, hitting him on
the different parts of the body, thereby inflicting wounds, which directly
caused his instantaneous death.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.”
The accused are related to each other. Domingo Eustaquio and Igleceria Eustaquio are husband and
wife. Jean (alias Nonoy) Eustaquio is
their son. Nonong Ruado is the nephew
of Igleceria. Except for Ruado, who
remained at large, they all pleaded not guilty to the charge.
To prove the Information of murder against accused-appellants,
the prosecution presented two witnesses, namely: ELMA FUENTES, the
daughter of the deceased Antonio Dante from his first marriage and AURELIA
DANTE, Antonio’s second wife.
According to their testimonies, on May 2, 1990, they, together
with the deceased Antonio, went to Sitio San Francisco, to attend its fiesta
celebration. The dance held that
evening lasted until dawn and they spent the night in the sitio.[2]
At 10:00 a.m., the following day, they started their trek home to Cabuyogan,
San Pablo, Mandaon, Masbate. When they
reached the trail in front of the residence of Domingo and Igleceria Eustaquio,
Domingo called Antonio and invited him to come over to their house. Antonio heeded the call and approached
Domingo. Elma and Aurelia, however,
continued walking down the trail until they reached a shaded area where they
stopped to wait for Antonio.[3]
From their place, Elma and Aurelia saw Domingo meet the deceased
outside the Eustaquio residence. Suddenly, Domingo brought out a bolo and hacked Antonio on the right
side of his body, and then on the back of his neck.[4] The
other accused, Igleceria and Jean (alias Nonoy) Eustaquio, and Nonong Ruado
simultaneously attacked Antonio, hitting him on different parts of the body
with their respective weapons. Jean
(alias Nonoy) was armed with an iron bar while Igleceria and Nonong wielded
pieces of bamboo measuring about one meter in length.[5] Elma
and Aurelia were shocked by the sudden and brutal assault on Antonio, they were
unable to shout for help.[6] They tried to approach the fallen
Antonio. They stopped because of the
threats made by Domingo.[7]
Unable to recover Antonio’s body, Elma and Aurelia walked for one
hour to Cabuyogan to the house of Aurelia’s brother, Ernesto Condenato. Unfortunately, they failed to find Ernesto.[8]
They then rushed to the residence of the deceased’s brother, Egmedio Dante in
Taisan.[9]
With Egmedio Dante and his son, Charley, the two returned to the
scene of the crime to recover Antonio’s body.[10] At
that time, accused-appellants had gone away. The deceased was brought to Egmedio’s house in Taisan and the killing
was reported to the police.[11] Dr.
Aguilar conducted the post-mortem examination on Antonio’s body.[12]
His report (Exh. “A”) states:
“Physical Findings:
1.
Rigor mortis at lower extremity. Rest of the body flaccid.
2.
Hematoma, 1/2 x
1/2 inches, at the right
temporal region.
3.
Lacerated wound,
eyebrow, right.
4.
Ecchysmosis, upper and lower eyelids, bilateral.
5.
Hematomas, circular, (2), located at the left temporal
region.
6.
Lacerated
wound, about two inches long, located at right deltoid region, with fracture of
the underlying bone, and fracture extending to the lower occipital bone,
accompanied by contusion of the cerebelum.
7.
Stab wound, about one
inch in diameter, located just below the xyphoid bone of the sternum, and
penetrating, puncturing the diaphragm.
8.
Stab wound, about two
inches in diameter, at the middle of the upper abdominal quadrant, right, just
below the last coastal area, penetrating and going through the lobe of the
liver.
9.
Hematomas, at the posterior aspects of both legs.
“Cause of
Death: SHOCK DUE TO BRAIN INJURY AND
EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL HEMORRHAGE DUE TO STAB WOUNDS, ABDOMEN.”
The version of accused-appellants is entirely different. Their story is that Antonio was killed
only by Domingo Eustaquio in defense of his wife, Igleceria. They likewise alleged that Jean (alias Nonoy)
Eustaquio was not in sitio San Francisco at the time of the incident. This line of defense was the subject of
testimonies by DOMINGO and IGLECERIA EUSTAQUIO and their
daughter, JEANITA EUSTAQUIO.
According to the defense, Antonio called in on the Eustaquios at
around seven o’clock in the morning of May 3, 1990. Domingo, Igleceria and Jeanita Eustaquio were then eating their
breakfast in their house. Upon the
Eustaquios’ invitation, the victim joined them for their morning meal.[13]
After breakfast, Antonio asked Igleceria — who was the sitio treasurer — if
he could borrow some money, so he could follow his wife to Manila. Igleceria rejected the request. She explained she did not have any money as
she had already turned over the proceeds of the dance to the fiesta committee
president.[14]
Antonio left immediately, and Domingo and Jeanita went to sleep.[15]
At around ten o’clock of the same morning, while accused
Igleceria was in the kitchen of their house preparing lunch, Antonio came
back. He was tipsy and smelled of
liquor. Antonio reiterated his request
for money, which Igleceria again turned down. Antonio then grabbed Igleceria’s collar and the side of her dress, and
told her in a low voice he was going to rape her. He did not, however, make any lascivious act that would indicate
he was going to act on his threat. The
collar and the side of the dress of Igleceria were torn when she tried’ to free
herself from Antonio’s grasp. Even
then, she did not scream for help.[16]
The commotion awakened Jeanita. She opened the window that separated her room from the kitchen, and saw
her mother in a kneeling position, trying to break free from Antonio who was
holding on to her dress. Jeanita
immediately went to her father and woke him up. They “casually” went down the stairs towards the
kitchen of their house. When they got
there, Domingo “in a low and soft voice” asked Antonio what he was
doing to Igleceria, and requested him to release her. Antonio angrily retorted, “Who are you?!” and freed
Igleceria. He then boxed Domingo on the
stomach.[17]
At that point, Igleceria and Jeanita went up the stairs of their house and
locked themselves inside a room. They
heard that Antonio and Domingo had brought their fight outside their
house. They opened a window and saw Antonio
bleeding. Allegedly, they did not see
Domingo carrying any bladed instrument, nor did they see any such weapon lying
on the ground.[18]
For his part, however, Domingo testified that after Antonio boxed him, he got
hold of a knife and stabbed Antonio twice in the abdomen.[19]
Although bleeding, Antonio managed to stay standing, and still
threatened the Eustaquios he would come back to kill them. Domingo then got a piece of bamboo and hit
Antonio several times on different parts of his head and body, until he fell to
the ground dead.[20]
Domingo then informed Igleceria and Jeanita he was going to Balud to surrender
to the authorities. He left.[21]
The defense likewise presented testimonial[22]
and documentary evidence to prove that Jean
(alias Nonoy) Eustaquio was not in Sitio San Francisco, on May 3,
1990. The documentary evidence is the
certification (Exh. “1”) made by Paquito A. Adrias, Barangay Captain
of Dao, Balud, Masbate, which as translated in English, reads:
“C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
“Jean Eustaquio on May 3, 1990 at 10:00 o’clock in the
morning, Thursday, was at Barangay Dao attending the meeting and when a roll
call of the constituents of barangay Dao, Balud, Masbate was called, he was
present. This Jean Eustaquio is farming
at Dao on the land of Antonio Arnaldo and he is staying in his own house. We signed this certification to affirm that
on that day, he is at our barangay Dao, Balud, Masbate.
“In truth in this certification I affixed my signature this
12th day of February, 1991, at Dao, Balud, Masbate.
(sgd)
PAQUITO A. ADRIAS
Barangay Captain
WITNESSES:
BARANGAY COUNCILMEN:
1. (sgd) Charito Arnaldo
2. (sgd) Elem Alayon
3. (sgd) Rogelio Romero
4. (sgd) Hospicio Cioco
5. (sgd) Dionono Damasco”
After trial, the lower court convicted the Eustaquios for
Murder. Domingo and Jean Eustaquio were
found guilty as principals, while Igleceria Eustaquio was convicted as an
accomplice. They were sentenced as
follows:
“WHEREFORE, from all these premises as testified and assessed
by the court there is no doubt that the crime has been committed by all the
accused beyond reasonable doubt with Domingo Eustaquio and Jean Eustaquio
(Nonong Eustaquio) as the principals by direct participation with mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender of Domingo Eustaquio, and Igleceria
Eustaquio being just an accomplice will be penalized with one degree
lower after the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
“With these findings, Jean (Nonong) Eustaquio, there being no
mitigating circumstances in his favor
and the crime of murder being committed in conspiracy as alleged in the
information he is hereby sentenced to suffer
an imprisonment of RECLUSION
PERPETUA to be served at the National Penitentiary.
“As to accused Domingo Eustaquio, there being a mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender and after applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law he is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS,
ONE (1) DAY of the minimum of prision mayor to TEN (10) YEARS, ONE (1)
DAY of the maximum.
“As for Igleceria Eustaquio, she being just an accomplice, she
is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of SIX (6) MONTHS, ONE (1) DAY as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS as
maximum of prision
correctional. They are all hereby sentenced to indemnify
the heirs of the victim Antonio Dante in the amount of P50,000.00 in solidum
and to pay the costs.
“As for accused Nonoy Ruado, the case as against him is
hereby placed in archives as he has not been brought within the jurisdiction of
this court. The case as against him
will just be revived upon his arrest.
“IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Only Domingo and Jean Eustaquio
appealed their conviction. They now
contend:
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING APPELLANT JEAN
EUSTAQUIO, THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO MEET THE TEST OF MORAL
CERTAINTY OF APPELLANT’S GUILT AND TO OVERCOME THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION
OF INNOCENCE IN HIS FAVOR;” and
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE CLAIM OF
APPELLANT DOMINGO EUSTAQUIO OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVE AND AS SUCH ERRED IN NOT
ACQUITTING APPELLANT.”
We find no
merit in the appeal.
We shall first resolve the defense of alibi foisted by
accused-appellant Jean Eustaquio. The worn-out rule is that the defense of
alibi is inherently weak. Time and
again, we have disregarded this
defense in view of the ease with which it is concocted, and we find no reason
to give it credence in the case at bench.
The trial court rightly gave little weight to the certification
of the barangay captain of Dao in view of the positive identification of
accused-appellants Domingo and Jean
(alias Nonoy) Eustaquio by the two prosecution eye-witnesses as the
perpetrators of the murder of the deceased Antonio. Witness Elma Fuentes testified:
“Q (Atty.
Manlapaz)
At that time where were
you proceeding to?
“A We
were going home, and when we reached the house of Domingo Eustaquio my father
was called by him.
“Q Who
is this Domingo who you said called your father? Is he one of the accused in
this case?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q If
Domingo Eustaquio is in Court would you be able to point to him?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q Please
point to him.
(Witness pointed to a man seated at the
left corner of the last row of the bench of the courtroom and when asked about
his name, identified himself as Domingo Eustaquio.
“Q After
your father was called by Domingo Eustaquio what happened next?
“A When
my father was called by Domingo Eustaquio, he went near the house of Domingo
but we were left behind not far from
the house and I saw that my father was being mauled by them.
“Q Who
were the companions of Domingo Eustaquio when your father was mauled?
“A His
wife Igleceria Eustaquio, Nonoy Eustaquio, Nonong Ruado.
“Q If
Igleceria Eustaquio and Nonoy Eustaquio are in court, could you point to them?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q Please
point to Igleceria.
(Witness pointing to a woman seated at
the last row of the courtroom, and when asked about her name, identified
herself as Igleceria Eustaquio.
“Q And
where is Nonoy Eustaquio if he is in court, could you point to him?
(Witness pointed to a man seated in the
middle row of the bench of the courtroom, and when asked about his name,
identified himself as Nonoy Eustaquio.
“Q What
about Nonong Ruado if he is in court, could you please point to him?
“A I
could point to him, but he is not present in court.
“Q Do
you know the relationship between Domingo Eustaquio and Igleceria Eustaquio?
“A Yes,
sir. They are husband and wife.
“Q What about Nonoy Eustaquio, how is he related to Domingo Eustaquio and Igleceria
Eustaquio?
“A He is the son of Igleceria and Domingo
Eustaquio.
“Q Now,
you said these accused helped in mauling
your father Antonio Dante. Will you
please tell us what weapon was used?
“A Domingo was using a bolo.
“Q What
about Igleceria, what did she use?
“A Bamboo
“Q How long was that bamboo used by Igleceria?
“A About
one (1) meter long.
“Q What about Nonoy Eustaquio, what did he use?
“A Iron
bar.
“Q What
about Nonong Ruado, what did he use?
“A Bamboo
“Q How
long?
“A Around
one meter.
“Q Will you also tell us who was the first to
attack your father among the four?
“A Domingo.
“Q You said that Domingo Eustaquio used a bolo
in attacking your father. Do you know
if your father was hit by the attack
with the bolo by Domingo Eustaquio?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q What part of his body was hit?
“A At his side of the body.
“COURT
“Q Right side or left side?
“A Right side.
“Atty.
Manlapaz
(continuing)
“Q How many times did Domingo Eustaquio hack
your father?
“A Two
times.
“Q And the second time?
“A In his abdomen.
“Q You also said that Nonoy Eustaquio used an
iron bar. How long was that iron bar
used by Nonoy Eustaquio?
“A Around
one arm length.
“Q And how did Nonoy Eustaquio use that iron bar
in attacking your father?
“A He
hit my father on his lower limb.
“Q And what about Igleceria Eustaquio? You said
she used a bamboo about a meter long. Was your father also attacked by Igleceria Eustaquio?
“A Yes, sir.
“COURT
“Q Were they all armed?
“A Yes, sir.
(TSN of January 29, 1991, pp. 3-5)
Similarly, witness Aurelia Dante
declared:
“Q (Atty.
Manlapaz)
Before he was stabbed, will you please tell the court the circumstances
surrounding the stabbing?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q Please
tell.
“A My husband was stabbed by Domingo Eustaquio
on his right side. (Witness
demonstrating by pointing to the right side of her body)
“Q What did Domingo Eustaquio use in stabbing
your husband?
“A A
bolo
“Q How many times did Domingo Eustaquio stab
your husband?
“A For
two times.
“Q You said when he was stabbed first, he was
hit on the right side of his body. The second time, where was he hit?
“A On
his upper abdomen.
“x x x
“Q Do you know one Igleceria Eustaquio?
“A
Yes, sir.
“Q How is she related to Domingo Eustaquio?
“A She is the wife of Domingo Eustaquio.
“Q Where
was Igleceria Eustaquio at the time your husband was stabbed?
“A They
helped one another.
“Q Who
were those who helped stabbing your husband?
“A Domingo
Eustaquio, Igleceria Eustaquio, Nonoy Eustaquio and Nonong Ruado.
“Q If
accused Domingo Eustaquio is in court, will you please point to him?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q Please
point to him, to Domingo Eustaquio.
“A That man. (Witness
pointing to a man seated within the
courtroom who when asked to identify himself, answered his name is Domingo
Eustaquio.)
“Q Do
you know all the accused previous to the incident?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q For
how many years?
“A For
a long time already.
“Q If accused Igleceria Eustaquio is in court,
will you please point to her?
(Witness
pointed to a woman seated within the courtroom who, when asked to identify
herself, answered her name is Igleceria Eustaquio.)
“Q Will
you please also point to accused Nonoy Eustaquio.
(Witness
pointed to a man seated on the third row of the bench who, when asked to
identify himself, answered his name is Nonoy Eustaquio.)
“Q Will
you please point to Nonong Ruado if he is in court.
“A He
is not in court.
“Q You said that these four accused helped each
other in killing your husband will you please tell us what weapon did Igleceria
use?
“A Piece
of bamboo.
“Q What
about Nonoy Eustaquio, what did he use?
“A Iron
Bar.
“Q What about Nonong Ruado, what did he use?
“A Piece of bamboo.
“Q You said Igleceria Eustaquio used bamboo in
attacking your husband. Do you know whether
your husband was hit when Igleceria Eustaquio attacked him with a bamboo?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q Where was your husband hit by Igleceria?
(Witness
pointing at her neck)
“Q How many times did Igleceria attack your
husband with a bamboo?
“A Several
times.
“Q What about Nonoy Eustaquio who you said
used an iron bar and you said also helped. Was your husband hit when he was attacked by Nonoy
Eustaquio?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q Where was he hit by Nonoy Eustaquio?
(Witness
pointing to the lower part of her knee.)
“Q
And
you said Nonong Ruado also helped in attacking your husband with the use of
bamboo. Was your husband also hit by
Nonong Ruado?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q Where
was your husband hit?
(Witness
demonstrating that her husband was hit on his nape.)
“COURT Is this
the same bamboo which was used by Ruado which was also used by Nonong?
“A Different,
Your Honor.”
(TSN of January 30, 1991, pp. 2-5)
We cannot downgrade the credibility of
Elma and Aurelia. As daughter and wife,
respectively, of the deceased Antonio, they were genuinely interested in
prosecuting the real killers of Antonio. They wanted justice to be done and justice will not be done if they were
to perjure themselves. Before the
incident, they had no axe to grind against accused-appellants, hence, were
bereft of any ill-motive to implicate them falsely.
Further, it must be noted that neither the barangay captain of
Dao, Balud, Masbate, nor any of the five (5) councilmen who signed the
certification (Exh. “1”) presented by Jean (alias Nonoy) Eustaquio, testified
before the trial court on his presence in Dao on May 3, 1990. They were not even presented to authenticate
the said document. Hence, the trial
court ruled correctly when it rejected the said certification as devoid of any
evidentiary weight.
It was also established
that the distance between Dao, Balud, Masbate and the scene of the crime could
be negotiated by a 30-minute walk.[23] It is thus possible that said
accused-appellant Jean (alias Nonoy) Eustaquio could have left the Dao barangay
meeting (which was attended by hundreds of people) after his turn in the roll
call to commit the crime at bench. In
fine, he was unable to establish beyond doubt the impossibility of his presence
at the scene of the crime.
We now come to the appeal of Domingo Eustaquio. We have no reason to disturb the trial
court’s ruling that the defense version of the killing of the victim is
incredible. The version is incongruous
with reality. The defense would want us
to believe that the deceased, Antonio, would suddenly attempt to rape Igleceria
Eustaquio; and then follow through on his threat, not by making lascivious acts
towards her, but by grabbing the collar and
side of her dress. As if this
were not enough, the defense peddled
the downright incredible reaction of accused-appellant Domingo to the alleged
attack by the deceased Antonio on Igleceria. The defense claimed that he went “casually” to the kitchen
without arming himself in any way, even though he knew that Antonio was
bigger than him. Then, according to the
testimony of Jeanita, Domingo, “in a low and soft voice,” asked
Antonio what he was doing to Igleceria.
To top it all, the Eustaquios claimed that Domingo
single-handedly inflicted the numerous injuries sustained by the deceased
Antonio by first stabbing him, and then finishing him off with a piece of
bamboo. It offends common sense why a
man, who is defending the honor of his wife, would discard the bladed weapon he
had used to stab his bigger and sturdier opponent, and pick up a mere piece of
bamboo to finish off his opponent.
The defense’s story was an obvious fabrication. It was intended to shield the other members
of the Eustaquio family from prosecution by showing that accused-appellant
Domingo alone killed the deceased. It
was also designed to provide Domingo with a justifying circumstance for such
killing, the alleged attack on the honor of his wife, Igleceria.
We note that the lower court erred in imposing the penalty of six
(6) years, one (1) day of the minimum of prision mayor, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of its
maximum. The penalty imposed by Art.
248 of the Revised Penal Code for
Murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period, to death, and Art. 64(2) of the same Code,
provides that “(w)hen only a mitigating circumstance is present in the
commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum
period.” Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and considering that
accused-appellant Domingo Eustaquio has the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender to his credit, without any corresponding aggravating
circumstance, we impose on him the penalty of from ten (10) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor in its maximum period, to
seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal
in its maximum period.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the court, a quo, finding accused-appellants DOMINGO EUSTAQUIO and JEAN EUSTAQUIO
guilty as principals by direct participation of the crime of Murder, is
AFFIRMED. The dispositive portion of
the decision is MODIFIED. We impose on
accused-appellant DOMINGO EUSTAQUIO the penalty of from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal. Costs against accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ.,
concur.
[1]
Presided by Judge Manuel C. Cenova. Igleceria Eustaquio was also convicted but
did not appeal her conviction.
[2]
TSN of January 29, 1991, p. 3; TSN of January 30, 1991.
[3]
Ibid., TSN of January 29, 1991; TSN of January 30, 1991,
pp. 2, 15-16.
[4]
Id..
[5]
TSN of January 29, 1991, pp. 4-5; TSN of January 30, 1991, pp. 2-5.
[6]
Ibid., TSN of January 29, 1991.
[7]
Id., TSN of January 29, 1991; TSN of January 30, 1991, p. 6.
[8]
TSN of January 29, 1991, p. 6; Ibid.,
TSN of January
30, 1991.
[9]
Ibid., TSN of January 29, 1991; TSN of January 30, 1991, p. 7.
[10]
Id., TSN of January 29,
1991; Ibid., TSN of
January 30,1991.
[11]
Id., TSN of January 29, 1991.
[12]
Dr. Aguilar testified regarding his findings during the post-mortem examination
of Antonio’s body on November 23, 1990 and on March 25, 1991.
[13]
TSN of May 15, 1991, pp. 1-3; TSN of May 16, 1991, pp. 2-3;
TSN of August 21, 1991, pp. 1-3.
[14]
TSN of May 15, 1991, p. 4; TSN of May 16, 1991, pp.
4, 14.
[15]
Ibid., TSN of May 15, 1991; TSN of May 16, 1991, pp. 4-5; TSN of August
21, 1991, p. 3.
[16]
TSN of May 15, 1991, pp. 4-6, 12-14.
[17]
TSN of May 16, 1991, pp. 5-6, 16-18; TSN of August 21, 1991, pp. 3-4.
[18]
TSN of May 15, 1991, p. 7; TSN of May 16, 1991, pp. 6-7, 18-19.
[19]
TSN of August 21, 1991, p. 4.
[20]
TSN of May 15, 1991, p. 7; TSN of August 21, 1991, p. 5.
[21]
Ibid., TSN of May 15, 1991; TSN
of August 21, 1991, p. 6.
[22]
Domingo, Igleceria and Jeanita Eustaquio testified that Jean (alias Nonoy) was
not in their house on May 3, 1990. The
defense also presented QUIRINO
ARCHIVO who testified
that Jean was in Sitio
Dao, Balud, Masbate attending a barangay meeting which lasted from 9:00 o’clock
in the morning to 12:00 o’clock noon. Archivo further testified that around 300 people attended the meeting.
[23]
Decision of the RTC, dated January 13, 1992, p. 3.