PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGER GENIAL AND RAUL SALVA, ACCUSED. RAUL SALVA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The accused-appellant herein,
Raul Salva, was convicted of murder by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, of
Surigao City in Criminal Case No. 3394 thereof and was sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties, to
indemnify the heirs of the victim, and to pay actual damages for burial
expenses, as well as the costs.

This case goes back to an
indictment for murder filed on April 16, 1991 against appellant Raul Salva and
his co-accused, Roger Genial, wherein it was alleged -?

“That on the 1st day of March 1991, at or about 4:00 o’clock
in the afternoon, in Brgy. Roxas, municipality of Mainit, province of Surigao
del Norte and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court accused (Roger
Genial and Raul Salva) conspiring, confederating and helping one another with
all freedom, intelligence, criminal intent and intent to kill, did then and
there voluntarily, unlawfully and felon(i)ously with treachery and evident
premeditation attack, assault and stab Benjamin Amar inflicting upon the victim
injuries which per post mortem report are described as follows:

‘Stab Wound – located
at the left 4th intercostal space, midclavicular line, measuring about 1.5
inches from the left nipple.

Abrasion, linear –
located at the left hypochondriac region measuring about 1.5 inches in length.

Stab wound – located at
the left portion of the back about 13 cm. below the subscapular region and 2
cm. from the verte(b)ral column, measuring about 1.5 cm. in length and 2.5 cm.
in depth.

Contusion – hematoma – located at the left
portion of the back about 20 cm. from the subscapular region and 2 cm. from the
vertebral column.’

which injuries caused the immediate death
of Benjamin Amar consequently inflicting as well actual, moral and compensatory
damages in the sum of P80,000.00.

This killing is attended by the qualifying circumstance of
treachery and the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and
superiority.”^[1]

On pleas of not guilty^[2] and after trial on the merits, appellant Salva was found guilty of
murder while Genial was found guilty of slight physical injuries, and the
following judgment was promulgated by the court below:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Raul Salva guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as principal of murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, the killing of the victim being qualified by treachery, and there being
no modifying circumstance to consider, hereby sentences him to reclusion
perpetua and its accessory penalties; and to pay the costs. Raul Salva is ordered to indemnify the heirs
of the victim Benjamin Amar in the sum of P50,000.00, and to pay actual damages
for burial expenses of P13,389.00.

Accused Roger Genial is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of slight, physical injuries and is hereby sentenced to ten (10) days of arresto
menor.”^[3]

From the evidence of the
prosecution, it appears that at about 4:30 P.M. of March 1, 1991 while the
victim, Benjamin Amar, was walking along a street in Barangay Roxas, Mainit,
Surigao del Norte, accused Roger Genial confronted Amar and asked “Why do
(sic) you report me to the barangay captain?”.^[4] Without waiting for an answer, Genial
immediately boxed Amar hitting him on the left side of his face. Genial then grabbed the bolo which was
tucked at the side of Amar and they grappled for its possession. While they were fighting, people started to
mill around them.

Thereafter, Genial fell
and Amar sat on top of him, while the former still continued to struggle. What transpired subsequently was recounted
by prosecution witness Juan Paramo, Jr. in his testimony during the trial,
thus:

“Q:   And when Roger
Genial fell down, what hap­pened next?

A:    Then I saw Raul Salva stabbed (sic) the back
of Benjamin Amar.

Q:    Let us make this clear. You said Benjamin Amar and Roger Genial were
grappling (with) each other and Roger Genial fell. When Roger Genial fell, where was Benjamin Amar?

A:     He was at the top (sic)
of Roger Genial.

Q:    Was he sitting or standing?

A:     He was sitting. Benjamin Amar was sitting on top of Roger
Genial.

Q:     While Benjamin Amar was
sitting on top of Roger Genial, what were they doing aside from Benjamin Amar
sitting on top of Roger Genial?

A:     They were grappling for
the possession of a bolo.

x x x

Q:     This Raul Salva you
mentioned, where was he while Roger Genial and Benjamin Amar were grappling
(for) possession of the bolo?

A:     At the back of
Benjamin.

Q:     And after that, what
happened next?

A:     Then he stabbed
Benjamin Amar.

x x x

Q:     After that, what
happened next, after stab­bing Benjamin Amar at the back?

A:     Then he pulled and stabbed
him.

(Witness indicating the front of his breast.)

x x x

Q:     After the stabbing on
the chest or in front of the body of Benjamin Amar, what happened next?

A:     Raul Salva ran away.

x x x

Q:     How about Roger Genial?

A:     He was there in front.

Q:     And after that what
happened next?

A:     Then Roger Genial left
Benjamin Amar who was already down.”^[5]

Another prosecution
witness, Pepino Tecson, had theretofore given testimony of the same tenor as
the aforequoted narration of Paramo, particularly on how Amar was stabbed
by Salva, in all its material parts and with substantial details.^[6]

The victim was later brought to the Mainit Medicare Hospital
where he died. Dr. Lourdes Alabat of
said hospital, who performed the post mortem examination, attributed the
victim’s death to “severe internal and external hemorrhage secondary to
stab wounds.”^[7]

The prosecution likewise presented the victim’s widow, Wella
Ellazo Vda. de Amar, who testified on the expenses she incurred for the burial
of her husband and other miscellaneous expenses in connection therewith, aside
from the factual bases for her claim for moral damages.^[8]

The defense, on the other hand, presented a different
account. To sustain the pleas of not
guilty of both accused at their arraignment, Genial declared in open court that
he stabbed Benjamin Amar allegedly in self-defense and further claimed that
Raul Salva had nothing to do with the death of Amar. Genial also claimed that he went to Eleodoro Francisco, a
barangay councilman, in order to surrender.^[9]

The defense also presented Station Commander Edinio Canangcaan
who confirmed the testimony of Genial that he went to Francisco after the
stabbing incident and thereafter readily surrendered to the arresting
officers. Canangcaan also testified
that the victim was a violent person who had stabbed a woman in a separate
incident in April, 1990.^[10]

Appellant Salva and
defense witness Benigno Namilit, for their part, concurred in their version
that on March 1, 1991, at around 4:30 P.M., they were together in a ricemill,
looking for ricefield workers, when they saw Amar calling Genial. As Genial approached Amar, the latter
suddenly hacked Genial who, however, was able to evade the blow. It was during the time when Genial and Amar
were wrestling for the possession of the bolo that Salva and Namilit “ran
away because they were afraid of the incident.”^[11]

The trial court declared
that “after weighing the merits of the respective claims, the court finds
and holds for the prosecution. First, at least three prosecution witnesses,
namely: Pepino Tecson, Juan Paramo, Jr.
and Bonifacio Mota identified Raul Salva as the person who stabbed Benjamin
Amar. x x x. Furthermore, there was no showing that the prosecution witnesses
had harbored any grudge or personal resentment against the accused. On the contrary, they clearly appeared to
have testified in the interest of truth and justice x x x.”^[12]

The court a quo additionally observed
that it was quite obvious that Roger Genial was being made the “fall
guy” in view of his claim of self-defense which, if accepted, would
exculpate both accused. It noted that
any admission that Salva participated in the stabbing would be fatal to the
posture of self-defense put up by Genial. It accordingly concluded that said claim appeared to be a “last-ditch ploy” to completely evade criminal responsibility
for the death of Benjamin Amar, hence it must be disallowed.^[13]

However, the lower court
also rejected the People’s allegation of conspiracy since, in its own words,
“the record is bereft of facts and circumstances indicative of a conspiracy between the accused. There was no showing that they were seen together at the rice mill
before the incident. Although both were
in the vicinity of the rice mill, there was no testimony that they were in the
same group. It was only during the
actual stabbing that Raul Salva appeared apparently from nowhere to participate
in the fray between Amar and Genial.”^[14]

Now, this appeal concerns
Raul Salva only, since Roger Genial was sentenced to suffer ten days of arresto menor and was subsequently
released on June 4, 1992.^[15] Said appellant, in seeking reversal,
imputes, errors to the trial court which may be consolidated into its allegedly
having erred in (1) finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a principal
in the murder charge, although accused Roger Genial owned and admitted
the killing of the victim; and (2) relying heavily on the prosecution witnesses
notwithstanding the admission of the widow of the victim that she paid P700.00
to them so that they would testify.^[16]

As is readily apparent, the verdict to be handed down in this
case hinges on the issue of the credibility of the prosecution and defense
witnesses. On this score, we start off with
the trite but well-settled rule that on the matter of credibility of witnesses
the findings of the trial court are given weight and the highest degree of
respect by appellate courts. This is
because logic and experience show that the former is in a better position to
decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their
deportment during the trial.^[17]

The testimonies of the three witnesses, Pepino Tecson, Juan
Paramo, Jr. and Bonifacio Mota, who witnessed the crime a few meters away and
in broad daylight, were clear and positive. They gave vivid descriptions on how appellant Salva stabbed Amar. They unerringly and unequivocally identified
appellant as the perpetrator thereof. They all remained consistent under extensive cross-examination and their
testimonies mutually corroborated the facts each of them narrated.

Appellant contends that the lower court erred in finding him
guilty of the crime charged by relying heavily on the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses who were allegedly paid P700.00 by the widow of the
victim. Yet while it is true that Mrs.
Wella Ellazo Vda. de Amar testified that she spent P700.00 for the witnesses,
this matter was sufficiently clarified by her explanation that such amount was actually
used “for fare and food expenses” of the witnesses during the trial
of the case.^[18]

Moreover, there was no evidence whatsoever of any ulterior or ill
motives on the part of the witnesses to falsely testify against appellant. In fact, the trial court itself found that
“there was no showing that the prosecution witnesses had harbored any
grudge or personal resentment against the accused. On the contrary, they clearly appeared to have testified in the
interest of truth and justice”.^[19] As
this Court has ruled in a recent case, in the absence of ill will, it is hardly
credible that these witnesses would prevaricate and cause damnation to one who
had brought them no harm or injury.^[20]

Appellant Salva denied participation in the crime, insisting that
he was with defense witness Namilit and they both ran away because they were
afraid. This claim hardly deserves any
consideration because aside from the fact that Salva was positively identified
by three eyewitnesses, the defense failed to show that after Salva supposedly
left, it was physically impossible for him to have returned to the scene of the
crime shortly thereafter. Furthermore,
the prosecution presented witness Bonifacio Mota who testified that he did not
see Namilit but that he saw “Bingbing Salem and Roger Genial”^[21]
with Salva on that fateful day. No
sur-rebuttal witness was presented by the defense to counter said contention of
Mota. All told, appellant’s denial,
therefore, cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the
prosecution witnesses that he committed the crime.^[22]

Finally, a careful examination of the records shows that
prosecution witnesses Paramo, Jr. and Mota clearly testified that appellant
Salva used his left hand in stabbing Amar.^[23]
Genial, while claiming that he was the one who stabbed the victim, nevertheless
admitted that he is right-handed.^[24] This
faux pas reveals the fact that it was not
Genial who stabbed Amar since the witnesses clearly established that the
culprit is a left-handed person. Yet
the defense utterly failed to explain these discrepancies, nor did appellant
Salva attempt to establish that he is dextral,
not sinistral, and thereby discredit the prosecution witnesses. As we held in People vs. Hatton,^[25] the fact that the accused is
left-handed and the witness testified that assailant stabbed the victim with
the right hand is not a trivial matter.

We agree with the lower
court that the record is bereft of evidence or factual indications of a
conspiracy between the accused. As we
ruled in People vs. Padrones,
et al.,^[26] conspiracy transcends companionship. For, conspiracy has as an essential ingredient the alleged association
of all the accused in the planning and commission of the crime.^[27] In the case at bar, there is do evidence to
show that Salva and Genial came to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and thereafter decided to commit it. In the absence of a conspiracy, it is elementary that each of the
accused is responsible only for the consequences of his own act.

The lower court held that
the stabbing to death of the victim by appellant Salva was qualified by
treachery just because it was sudden and unexpected and calculated to insure
its accomplishment without risk to the assailant. We do not agree.

For treachery to be
appreciated, two requisites must concur, namely, (1) that at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) that the
offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him.^[28] The mere fact that the attack was sudden and
unexpected does not show treachery, unless there is evidence that such form of
attack was purposely adopted by the accused. There must be evidence showing that the accused reflected on the
means, method and form of killing the victim.^[29] This
cannot be said in a situation where the slayer acted instantaneously upon the
advantage which resulted from the accidental fall of the person slain.^[30]

In the present case, the circumstances negate the hypothesis that
appellant Salva reflected on the means that he adopted in killing the victim,
hence alevosia evidently cannot be appreciated against him. Neither can the crime be qualified to murder
just because the information alleges abuse of superiority. The evidence does not show that the two
accused cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from their combined
strength.^[31]
The fact that they did not conspire to kill the deceased implies that they did
not jointly exploit their superior strength.^[32] With
much more reason should evident premeditation be disregarded as no evidence was
presented to prove any of its elements. Lastly, superiority and evident premeditation were alleged in the
information only as aggravating, and not qualifying, circumstances.

It has always been our jurisprudential policy that circumstances
which would qualify the killing to murder must be proved as indubitably as the
crime itself. In the absence of any
proven qualifying circumstance in this case, we hold that the crime committed
by appellant is simple homicide, without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance
attendant to its commission.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the lower court is
hereby MODIFIED and
accused-appellant Raul Salva is declared guilty of the crime of homicide. He is hereby sentenced to serve an
indeterminate penalty of ten years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and
four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum; to indemnify the heirs of the victim Benjamin Amar
in the amount of P50,000.00; and to pay actual damages of P13,389.00 for burial
and related expenses.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Nocon, and Puno, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Original Record, 1.

^[2]
Ibid., 17.

^[3]
Ibid., 70; per Judge Diomedes M.
Eviota.

^[4]
TSN, July 31, 1991, 6.

^[5]
TSN, September 24, 1991, 18-21.

^[6]
Ibid., July 31,
1991, 3-11.

^[7]
Ibid., September
24, 1991, 7.

^[8]
TSN, September 25, 1991, 4-6.

^[9]
Ibid., October
31, 1991, 12-14.

^[10]
Ibid., id., 6-7.

^[11]
TSN, October 30, 1991, 5-7, 15-17.

^[12]
Original Record, 67-68.

^[13]
Ibid., 68.

^[14]
Ibid., 69.

^[15]
Ibid., 79.

^[16]
Brief for the Defendant-Appellant, 1-2; Rollo, 24-25.

^[17]
People vs. Kintuan, 156 SCRA 195 (1987); People vs. Trigo, 174
SCRA 93 (1989).

^[18]
TSN, September 25, 1991, 7.

^[19]
Original Record, 68.

^[20]
People vs. Villagracia, et al., G.R. No. 94471, March 1, 1993.

^[21]
TSN, December 16, 1991, 12.

^[22]
People vs. Pasiliao, et al., 215 SCRA 163 (1992).

^[23]
TSN, September 24, 1991, 27; September 25, 1991, 10.

^[24]
Ibid., October
31, 1991, 19.

^[25]
210 SCRA 1 (1992).

^[26]
189 SCRA 496 (1990).

^[27]
People vs. Ablao, et al., 192 SCRA 698 (1990).

^[28]
People vs. Estillore, 141 SCRA
456, 460 (1986); Bernabe vs. Bolinas, Jr., etc., et al., 18 SCRA 812
(1966).

^[29]
People vs. Tumaob, 83 Phil. 738 (1949).

^[30]
People vs. Cañete, 44 Phil. 478, 481 (1923).

^[31]
People vs. Uy, et al., 206 SCRA 270 (1992).

^[32]
People vs. Ybañez, 56 SCRA 210 (1974).