PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALEX BANTILLO, ERNESTO ASUNCION, LARRY ASUNCION, RODOLFO ATANAS, PAQUITO FERNANDEZ AND ANORING BADANDO, ACCUSED, ALEX BANTILLO…

This is an appeal from the decision^[1]
rendered on March 17, 1994, by the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch
25, in Criminal Case No. 35146, finding accused-appellants Alex Bantillo and
Ernesto Asuncion guilty of murder.

On August 31, 1990, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Arsenio Villa charged
Alex Bantillo, Ernesto Asuncion, Larry Asuncion, Rodolfo Atanas, Paquito
Fernandez and Anoring Badando with the crime of murder, allegedly committed as
follows:

“That on or about the 6th day of March, 1990, in the Municipality of Carles,
Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
one another to better realize their purpose, with deliberate intent and decided
purpose to kill, armed with unlicensed firearms (pugakhang), with
treachery and evident premeditation and without any justifiable cause or motive,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and
shoot one FRANCISCO TEMBLOR with the firearms they were then provided,
inflicting upon their said victim multiple gunshot wounds on the head and on the
different parts of his body, which caused the instantaneous death of said
Francisco Temblor.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[2]

Upon arraignment, Alex Bantillo and Ernesto Asuncion, assisted by counsel,
entered a plea of not guilty.^[3]
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. Subsequently, the trial court rendered
judgment, disposing as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, there being a plethora of proof showing that
accused Ernesto Asuncion and Alex Bantillo are guilty beyond any shadow of doubt
of the crime of Murder as charged, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery
and aggravating circumstances of superiority of force and band, and without any
mitigating circumstance, said accused are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua with the accessory penalties as provided in Article 41 of
the Revised Penal Code and they are also ordered to indemnify the family of the
victim the sum of P50,000.00 as well as the amounts of P30,000.00 and P20,000.00
as moral and exemplary damages, respectively, and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.”^[4]

The factual antecedents of this case as culled from the records are as
follows:

Ruel Temblor (Ruel), the son of the victim, testified that at about 7:30 in
the morning of March 6, 1990, he accompanied his father, the deceased Francisco
Temblor, to cut coconut lumber in Barangay Batuanan, Carles, Iloilo, two
kilometers away from their residence. They walked along the seashore near an
ascending and rocky portion where there were coconut trees and bushes. He was
ahead of his father, by about 30 meters. While walking, Ruel heard gunfire and,
as he looked back, he saw his father fall to the ground. He then saw six
persons, all carrying long homemade firearms known as “pugakhang“, rush
and surround his father. He witnessed Alex Bantillo shoot his father on the
head. Thereafter, all the assailants ran towards the hills and vanished. Ruel
then proceeded to Barangay Barangcalan to seek the help of their employer, Eric
Lacson. But upon finding that Lacson was not there, he went home and informed
his mother (Celedonia) what happened to his father. Together with four male
companions, Ruel immediately returned to the scene of the crime to attend to his
dead father until a doctor and policemen arrived. He said that his family
incurred expenses in the amount of P20,000.00 for the wake and funeral of his
father.^[5]

Ruel positively identified the appellants in open court. He testified that he
personally knew the six perpetrators because all used to reside in the same
barangay. He added that Ernesto Asuncion is his first cousin while Larry
Asuncion is Ernesto’s son. He opined that Ernesto Asuncion had a grudge against
his father, that is why they killed him. He stated that Ernesto Asuncion lost as
barangay captain because his father supported another candidate in the person of
Romerico (Mariano) Asuncion.^[6]

Ruel’s testimony was corroborated in its material points by another
eyewitness, Alfredo Bandojo. Bandojo declared that at about 7:30 in the morning
of March 6, 1990, he went to Barangcalan aboard a pumpboat to get coconut lumber
stocked along the seashore. As they moored their pumpboat along the beach at the
tip of Batuanan, he saw Ruel walking along the seashore followed by his father.
Suddenly, he heard a series of explosions and saw the six accused persons,
coming out of the bushes and coconut trees carrying long homemade firearms. The
assailants descended to where the victim fell and then Alex Bantillo shot the
victim on the head and thereafter the perpetrators went away.^[7]

Dr. Judy Ann Trumpeta testified that she conducted the post-mortem
examination of the victim’s body. She found that it bore fifteen gunshot
wounds. Significantly, she found Francisco’s frontal bone as well as his left
and right parietal bones exploded, exposing the victim’s brain. As there were
powder burns on the wounds, she opined that some shots were fired at close range
probably less than three meters. She declared that the cause of the victim’s
death is cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to hypovolemic shock secondary to
multiple gunshot wounds.^[8]

The incident was reported to the Carles, Iloilo police. They conducted an
investigation but failed to apprehend any suspect. Two days after the incident,
Ruel went to the police station and gave the names of the suspects except the
name of Ernesto Asuncion.^[9]

Of the six perpetrators, only Alex Bantillo and Ernesto Asuncion were
apprehended and tried. The others still remain at large. Therefore, this case
concerns only these two appellants.

For his defense, Alex Bantillo denied shooting Francisco. He claimed that he
was in Barangay Manlot digging white clay at the time of the incident; that he
had no reason to kill the victim as he has no grudge against him; that it was
Eric Lacson who implicated him in the crime because the latter resented his
joining the Free Farmers Federation and not supporting Lacson’s candidacy during
the barangay elections.^[10]

Ernesto Asuncion denied taking part in the crime. He corroborated the alibi
of his co-accused Bantillo. He insisted that he was in Manlot supervising the
dyeing of clay starting at four o’ clock in the morning on the day the incident
took place. He said he too had no reason to kill the victim. Nonetheless, he
agreed that Batuanan was accessible to Manlot by pumpboat in less than an hour
or in one hour and a half at most. ^[11]

The defense presented three other witnesses. First, Rolando Saturnino
declared that Alex Bantillo, Ernesto Asuncion and Larry Asuncion were indeed
working in Manlot at the time the victim was killed.^[12] Second, Romerico Asuncion, who was the
incumbent barangay captain of Batuanan, stated that at about 7:00 o’ clock in
the morning he was along the seashore of Batuanan waiting for a pumpboat when
Celedonia and Ruel, wife and son respectively of the victim, told him that
Francisco was killed but they did not know the perpetrators. He also said that
his brother, Ernesto Asuncion, was in Manlot at the time of the incident because
the latter resided there.^[13] Third,
Eduardo Casibual disputed Ruel’s eyewitness testimony. He declared that he was
at the house of the victim when a boy arrived and told Celedonia and Ruel that
Francisco was killed. He added, mother and son rushed to the beach where the
incident took place.^[14]

The trial court found the version of the defense unworthy of credence. It
ruled that the denial and alibi put up by the defense is unavailing in the light
of the positive and convincing identification of the appellants as the authors
of the crime. Considering the evidence presented by the prosecution and the
defense, the court found appellants guilty as charged. Insisting on their
innocence, appellants promptly filed their notice of appeal.^[15] In their bid to obtain reversal of their
conviction, appellants now raise the following errors allegedly committed by the
trial court:

“1. THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE
TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESS RUEL TEMBLOR AND ALFREDO BANDOJO, THAT:

a. THEY ACTUALLY SAW THE KILLING AS NOTHING IMPAIR OR OBSTRUCT (sic) THEIR
VIEW OF THE CRIME BEING COMMITTED AT ABOUT 7:00 O’CLOCK IN THE MORNING;

b. BOTH ACTUALLY SAW ALEX BANTILLO SHOT FRANCISCO TEMBLOR IN THE
HEAD.

2. THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY
OF RUEL TEMBLOR THAT HIS FATHER WAS KILLED BECAUSE HIS FATHER HELPED ROMERICO
ASUNCION INSTEAD OF ERNESTO ASUNCION IN THE LAST BARANGAY ELECTION.

3. THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY
OF RUEL TEMBLOR THAT HE DID NOT REPORT TO BARANGAY CAPTAIN ROMERICO ASUNCION THE
INCIDENT BECAUSE THEY ARE NO LONGER IN GOOD TERMS.

4. THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE INCIDENT NO MENTION WAS MADE WHO KILLED FRANCISCO TEMBLOR
OR WHO WERE THE PERPETRATORS.

5. THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT TO THE TESTIMONY OF
ROMERICO ASUNCION THAT WHEN RUEL TEMBLOR AND HIS MOTHER CALLED FOR HIM, THEY DID
NOT MENTION ANYBODY WHO SHOT FRANCISCO TEMBLOR.

6. THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE
TESTIMONY OF EDUARDO CASIBUAL THAT RUEL TEMBLOR AND HIS MOTHER WAS (sic) AT
THEIR HOUSE WHEN SOMEBODY INFORMED THEM ABOUT THE DEATH OF FRANCISCO
TEMBLOR.

7. THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE DEFENSE OF
ALIBI OF THE ACCUSED.

8. THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ALL THE ACCUSED.”^[16]

Notwithstanding the formulation of eight issues by appellants, in our view,
the fundamental issue to be resolved is whether or not the trial court erred in
affording credence to prosecution’s evidence. We shall also consider the weight
and credibility of appellants’ defense.

In this case, prosecution witnesses Ruel Temblor and Alfredo Bandojo both
claim seeing appellants surround Francisco after the latter was shot. They claim
that as the victim lay on the ground, Alex Bantillo shot him on the head.
Appellants deny the charges against them. They aver that they were somewhere
else at the time of the incident. Moreover, appellants insist that Ruel could
not have witnessed the killing as he was in his house at the time of the
incident. He was seen by Eduardo Casibual there. In any case, appellants argue,
Ruel should have been killed too if indeed he was with his father because the
assailants would not spare a witness to tell the tale. As regards Bandojo,
appellants simply characterized him as “all-seeing witness”, thus,
unbelievable.^[17]

On this issue, this Court has almost invariably ruled that the assessment of
the credibility of witnesses is left largely to the trial court because of its
opportunity, unavailable to the appellate court, to see the witnesses on the
witness stand and determine by their conduct and demeanor whether they are
testifying truthfully and objectively. The determination of credibility is the
domain of the trial court, and the matter of assigning values to the testimonies
of the witnesses is best performed by it. Thus, unless significant circumstances
have been missed or omitted, the evaluation by the trial judge of the
credibility of witnesses is well-nigh conclusive on the Court.^[18] Additionally, we have consistently ruled
that when there are conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense, as
in this case, the findings of the trial court are generally entitled to great
weight.^[19]

Reviewing the evidence of the prosecution and of the defense, we see no
reason to doubt the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Ruel and Bandojo
knew appellants personally for a long time. Both positively identified
appellants. Their view of the incident was unobstructed, and they witnessed the
incident directly. Their distance from the crime scene was only a few meters.
And it happened at around 7:00 o’clock in the morning. Fourth, they had no
ill-motive to falsely implicate the appellants.

Appellants insist that Ruel could not be an eyewitness as he was seen in his
house at the time of the incident. Suffice it to state that between the positive
testimony of a witness and negative testimony of another, the former prevails.
Ruel Temblor’s testimony that he was at the scene of the crime when the incident
happened prevails over the declaration he was not there. Moreover, we note that
Ruel’s version is corroborated by Bandojo. This adds credence to the
prosecution’s story. Regarding the defense argument that Ruel should have been
killed too if indeed he was at the scene of the shooting, the same is highly
speculative if not fallacious, to say the least.

In any case, Bandojo’s testimony deserves full credence. Other than branding
Bandojo as “all-seeing witness,” appellants miserably failed to impeach his
clear testimony. Under rigorous cross-examination, Bandojo remained steadfast in
his assertion that appellants perpetrated the crime. Additionally, there is
nothing to indicate that Bandojo was moved by dubious or improper motives to
testify falsely against appellants, thus, his testimony is worthy of belief.^[20] In our view, Bandojo’s testimony alone
would be enough to convict appellants. Taken in conjunction with Ruel’s, said
testimony seals their fate.

Noteworthy, testimonies of the defense witnesses, which were intended to
bolster the appellants’ alibi, are far from convincing. They do not bear the
earmarks of truth. As noted by the trial court, witness Eduardo Casibual stated
that when he accidentally met for the first time the wife of Ernesto in
Estancia, Iloilo, in August 1990, she asked him to testify for her husband. They
had not known each other before that.^[21]
Yet, prior to that meeting, Casibual insisted that he never met with relatives
of the appellants.^[22] How then did she
know that Casibual saw the shooting incident so as to qualify as a witness
thereon? The trial court noted that Casibual had conferred with the appellants
and the defense lawyer about his testimony on the day of the hearing on January
28, 1993.^[23] There is another
contradiction in Casibual’s testimony. Casibual first declared that he had never
gone to the victim’s house until the day the crime occurred, yet he later
admitted that he went to the house of the deceased thrice before to have his
boat repaired.^[24] That his testimony
could have been contrived or tailored for the defense lessens its value and
credibility.

The testimony of Romerico Asuncion deserves less weight. In his direct
examination, he declared that he was in the beach waiting for a boat to
Estancia, Iloilo, when Celedonia and Ruel told him of Francisco’s death. But,
during the cross-examination, he stated that he was near his house when mother
and son told him about the killing.^[25]
Furthermore, it is improbable that the Temblors would seek Romerico Asuncion’s
help when they had a grudge against each other.

Next, appellant Ernesto Asuncion argues that he could not have killed
Francisco just because the latter supported another candidate in the barangay
elections. He avers that the motive ascribed to him is too flimsy. On this
point, it must be stressed that motive is a state of one’s mind which others
cannot discern. It is not an element of the crime, and so it does not have to be
proved.^[26] In fact, lack of motive for
committing a crime does not preclude conviction. It is judicial knowledge that
persons have been killed or assaulted for no reason at all.^[27]

Appellants also assail the credibility of the testimony of Ruel because
allegedly he did not report the crime to the barangay officials of Batuanan, but
informed his employer about the incident ahead of his own mother. Even if these
were true, they do not destroy the value of his testimony. There is no standard
behavioral response when one is confronted by a frightful event. Some may be
shocked into insensibility while others react irrationally. The general rule is
that witnesses react to a crime in different ways.^[28] As explained by Ruel during his
cross-examination, their relationship with the barangay authorities of Batuanan
is not good and so he did not report the incident immediately to them.^[29] Nonetheless Romerico Asuncion, then the
barangay chief, admitted that Ruel and Celedonia informed him of Francisco’s
death soon after it happened.^[30] Ruel
also stated that he proceeded to his employer first because he intended to seek
help in transporting the body of his father.^[31] As observed by the Solicitor General,
Ruel’s employer was in better position to render assistance on the matter, while
his mother would almost be shocked and paralyzed into inaction by the news of
her husband’s death.

What about the alibi of the appellants? For their alibi to prosper it is not
enough to prove that the appellants were somewhere else when the offense was
committed, but it must likewise be demonstrated that they were so far away that
they could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its
immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.^[32] As earlier mentioned, appellants insisted
that they were in Manlot working at the time of the incident. Even if true, this
does not preclude their being present at the scene of the crime which is
accessible by pumpboat. As admitted by appellant Ernesto Asuncion, from Manlot
one can reach Batuanan in one hour to one hour and a half by pumpboat. Moreover,
the alibi presented by the defense crumbles in the face of the positive
identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.^[33]

We likewise agree with the trial court that treachery attended the killing of
Francisco. The appellants waited in ambush behind the coconut trees and bushes,
and suddenly unleashed volleys of gunfire at the unsuspecting victim. The sudden
and unexpected attack and the deliberate manner the attack was carried out is
undoubtedly treacherous.^[34] The number
and location of wounds inflicted upon the victim attest to this treachery. The
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that after the victim had fallen to the
ground, the assailants surrounded then shot him again are supported by the
medical findings that some wounds have powder burns, indicating the close
distance when the victim was fired at.

However, the trial court erred in separately taking into account the
aggravating circumstances of band and superior strength. Treachery absorbs both
aggravating circumstances. Both refer essentially to the use of the combined
strength of the assailants to overpower the victim and consummate the
killing^[35]

As to moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00, the trial court’s award
should be upheld. Under Article 2219 (1) of the Civil Code, moral damages may be
recovered in a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. In their generic
sense, “physical injuries” includes death. Moral damages compensate for the
mental anguish, serious anxiety and moral shock suffered by the victim and his
family as the proximate result of the wrongful act. They are recoverable where a
criminal offense results in physical injuries which culminate in the death of
the victim. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that such damages
may be adjudicated, and assessment thereof is left to the discretion of the
court.^[36]

For the public’s edification, exemplary damages are awarded, particularly in
criminal cases where one or more aggravating circumstances attended the
offense.^[37] In this case, home-made
firearms (pugakhang) were used to perpetrate the killing. Although we
find no generic aggravating circumstance to justify exemplary damages in the
amount of P20,000.00 awarded by the trial court, in this case such award is
justified to impress on the public the state’s abhorrence to the proliferation
of firearms.

The heirs of the victim are also entitled to recover P20,000.00 for the
amount they spent for the wake and funeral expenses of the deceased as found by
the trial court. Accordingly, actual damages of P20,000.00 are properly awarded
to the heirs of the victim.

WHEREFORE, the decision rendered on March 17, 1994, by the Regional
Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 25, in Criminal Case No. 35146, finding
appellants Alex Bantillo and Ernesto Asuncion GUILTY of the
crime of MURDER beyond reasonable doubt is
AFFIRMED, and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the
amounts of P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P20,000.00 as actual damages and
P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs against
the appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr.,
JJ., concur.

^[2] RTC Records, p. 1.

^[3] Id. at 32-33.

^[4] Rollo, pp. 27-28.

^[5] TSN, August 29, 1991, pp.5-17.

^[6] Id. at 3-5.

^[7] TSN, May 21, 1992, pp. 3-17.

^[8] TSN, June 13, 1991, pp. 5-12 ; RTC
Records, p. 108.

^[9] TSN, November 11, 1993, pp. 7-17.

^[10] TSN, October 22, 1993, pp. 6-26.

^[11] TSN, April 16, 1993, pp. 4-15.

^[12] TSN, September 18, 1992, p. 7;
Rollo, p. 23.

^[13] TSN, November 6, 1992, pp. 4-11.

^[14] TSN, January 27, 1993, pp. 4-8.

^[15] Rollo, p. 29.

^[16] Id. at 46-47.

^[17] Id. at 51-54.

^[18] People vs. Mangahas,
GR-118777, July 28, 1999, p. 13.

^[19] People vs. Molas, 286
SCRA 684, 689 (1998).

^[20] People vs. Banguis, 291
SCRA 279, 288 (1998).

^[21] TSN, January 28, 1993, p. 9.

^[22] Ibid.

^[23] Ibid.; April 15, 1993, p.
12.

^[24] TSN, April 15, 1993, pp. 17, 20.

^[25] TSN, November 6, 1992, pp. 6,
12.

^[26] People vs. Rabutin, 272
SCRA 197, 208 (1997).

^[27] People vs. Cabodoc, 331
Phil 491, 507 (1996).

^[28] People vs. Adoviso, 309
SCRA 1, 14 (1999).

^[29] TSN, October 4, 1991, p. 5.

^[30] TSN, November 6, 1992, p. 5.

^[31] TSN, August 29, 1991, p. 11.

^[32] People vs. Javier, 336
Phil 177, 187 (1997).

^[33] People vs. Ferrer, 255
SCRA 19, 35 (1996).

^[34] People vs. Patrolla Jr.,
254 SCRA 467, 475 (1996).

^[35] F. D. Regalado. Criminal Law
Conspectus (2000), pp. 85 and 98, citing People vs. Medrana, 110 SCRA
130, 145 (1981) and People vs. Mori, 55 SCRA 382, 403 (1974).

^[36] People vs. Tambis, 311 SCRA 430,
442 (1999).

^[37] Article 2230, Civil Code.