BENEDICT URETA, BERNARDO TARAN AND VICTOR DE JUAN, PETITIONERS, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SOCRATES FULGENCIO AND THE HEIRS OF ROCEL

Petitioners assail the decision^[2]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 14627, dated March 26,
1997, which affirmed with modification the consolidated judgment dated
January 29, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan,
Branch 4, in Criminal Cases Nos. 3322-23. The appellate court upgraded
the conviction of petitioners Bernardo Taran, Victor de Juan, and
Benedict Ureta in Criminal Case No. 3322 from homicide to murder and
sustained the conviction of petitioner Benedict Ureta in Criminal Case
No. 3323 for frustrated homicide. Before us, petitioners pray for
acquittal.

The antecedents of this petition are as follows:

On March 25, 1991, two separate informations for murder and
frustrated homicide were filed with the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan against
herein petitioners. In Criminal Case No. 3322, Ureta, de Juan, and Taran
were charged with murder allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about the 30th day of November, 1990, in the
evening,
in Barangay Bugasongan, Municipality of Lezo, Province of Aklan,
Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with deadly weapons
consisting of a rifle and knives, conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping one another, with evident premeditation, treachery, abuse of
superior strenght (sic) and with intent to kill, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stab and shoot one
JOSE ROCEL FULGENCIO, thereby inflicting upon the latter physical
injuries,…

x x x

as per Post Mortem Examination Report signed by Dr.
Reynaldo P.
Sucgang, Jr., Medical Specialist 1 of the Dr. Rafael S. Tumbokon
Memorial Hospital, Kalibo, Aklan, hereto attached and made an integral
part hereof, which physical injuries caused the death of said JOSE ROCEL
FULGENCIO.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^[3]

In Criminal Case No. 3323, the charge sheet for frustrated
homicide filed against Ureta reads:

That on or about the 30th day of November, 1990 in the
evening,
in Barangay Bugasongan, Municipality of Lezo, Province of Aklan,
Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a rifle, with
intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and shoot one SOCRATES FULGENCIO, thereby inflicting
upon the latter physical injury, to wit:

“Gunshot wound, lateral aspect, proximal 3rd left thigh.”

as per Medico Legal Report on Physical Injuries issued by
Dr.
Stevens N. Fuentes, M.D., Medical Officer III of the Dr. Rafael S.
Tumbokon Memorial Hospital, Kalibo, Aklan, hereto attached and made an
integral part hereof, the accused having thus performed all the acts of
execution which would have produced the crime of Homicide as a
consequence, but nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the accused, that is, the timely and able
medical assistance rendered to said SOCRATES FULGENCIO, which prevented
his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^[4]

When arraigned, petitioners pleaded not guilty. Since the two
cases arose out of the same incident, they were tried jointly.

The prosecution presented Socrates Fulgencio, Dr. Reynaldo
Sucgang,
and Dr. Stevens Fuentes as its witnesses. Socrates Fulgencio, who
survived the homicidal attack, was the sole eyewitness to the crimes.
The two doctors, employed at the Dr. Rafael Tumbokon Memorial Hospital
in Kalibo, Aklan, had conducted the autopsy on the deceased, Jose Rocel
Fulgencio, and had medically examined the surviving brother, Socrates
Fulgencio.

SOCRATES FULGENCIO declared that at about 7:00 P.M. of
November 30,
1990, he and his brother Jose Rocel Fulgencio, hereafter simply Rocel,
were on their way home from the house of their aunt, Erna dela Cruz, in
Bugasongan, Lezo, Aklan. When they passed the residence of Councilman
Renato Leonardo, six men came out of said house. Of this group, Socrates
recognized Isidro de Juan, Ely Leonardo, Nilo Cezar, and Armando Cezar.
They surrounded Rocel, while Socrates merely stood aside. Moments
later, petitioners Bernardo Taran and Victor de Juan arrived on board a
motorcycle and joined the six men. Taran had a gun in his right hand,
while de Juan had a knife tucked in his waistband. Moments later,
Benedict Ureta and Rudolfo Taran also arrived. Ureta and Rocel had a
brief altercation. Bernardo Taran then struck Rocel’s face with a gun,
while de Juan stabbed Rocel’s stomach, and Ureta shot Rocel with a long
firearm. A certain Rodel Sorio also struck Rocel with a bolo but
Socrates did not see where Rocel was hit. Despite his wounds, Rocel was
able to run for about five meters from his assailants before collapsing.
Socrates helped Rocel to stand up but Ureta allegedly shot him
(Socrates) in the thigh. Socrates fell and rolled away. When he looked
back to where his brother was, Socrates saw three unidentified persons
striking Rocel with their bolos. Socrates fled home. He asked for help
from his sister Judy Grace and brother Cyril to bring Rocel to a
hospital. Rocel died from the injuries he sustained.

DR. REYNALDO SUCGANG testified that he conducted the
post-mortem
examination on Rocel Fulgencio’s cadaver. He found multiple stab wounds
in the victim’s right chest and a gunshot injury. His findings were as
follows:

EXTERNAL FINDINGS: = Multiple stabbed (sic) wounds, right
chest, Right upper Quadrant, left axillary area

Hacking wound back & left Thigh

GSW right thigh, thru & thru

INTERNAL FINDINGS: = Penetrating wound at mid-liver
(depth-4
inch) with cut/severed arteries penetrating the right diaphragm with
massive blood loss & blood clots.

CAUSE OF DEATH: = Massive Blood Loss

Stabbed wounds (02 points)^[5]

Dr. Sucgang further testified that the victim in Criminal
Case No.
3322, Rocel Fulgencio, also sustained a “contusion hematoma right
forearm” and “contusion hematoma right hand” among his injuries.^[6]

DR. STEVENS FUENTES testified in Criminal Case No. 3323 that
he
examined the injuries of Socrates Fulgencio. He found that Socrates
sustained a gunshot wound on the “proximal third lateral aspect of the
left thigh.”^[7]

The defense version of the incident was summed up by the
Court of Appeals as follows:

At around 8:00 o’clock, accused-appellant Benedict Ureta
was at
the house of Nelson Castaño in Bugasongan, Lezo, Aklan, when he heard a
shot. He went outside and saw Rocel Fulgencio holding a gun. He accosted
Rocel but the latter pointed the gun at him so he grabbed the gun and
they grappled for possession. Accused-appellant Bernardo Taran arrived
and held Rocel by the shoulders, pulled him backward and then jumped to
the canal alongside the road. Benedict Ureta was able to get the gun
from Rocel but the latter pulled out another gun and pointed it to the
former. Benedict Ureta fired and retreated about 25 to 30 meters away.
Rocel fell down but fired his gun at random five (5) times. At this
juncture, Socrates Fulgencio was seen crawling towards Rocel. Socrates
got the gun from Rocel, fired it once then ran away. Three unidentified
persons then came and boloed (sic) Rocel who was lying on the road and
then ran away towards Numancia.

Shortly thereafter, accused-appellant Victor de Juan and
Dioclesio Sabino arrived on a motorcycle coming from Numancia. They
stopped when they saw a man lying on the road. They went near and
recognized the man to be Rocel Fulgencio. There were several people
there, among them were Leoncito Legaspi and Ely Leonardo. A tricycle
arrived and Rocel was loaded on it. After the tricycle had left, Victor
de Juan and Dioclesio Sabino went home.^[8]

The trial court convicted petitioners of homicide in Criminal
Case
No. 3322 and petitioner Ureta of frustrated homicide in Criminal Case
No. 3323 but ruled out conspiracy among the petitioners. The decretal
portion of its consolidated judgment reads:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused BERNARDO TARAN in CRIMINAL
CASE
NO. 3322 GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as an accomplice to the crime of
Homicide without aggravating or mitigating circumstances, he is hereby
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWO (2)
YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional as
minimum to EIGHT (8) years and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as maximum
and to indemnify the heirs of the victim Rocel Fulgencio the sum of
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) jointly with his other co-accused.

Accused VICTOR DE JUAN is found GUILTY in the same case
beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide without mitigating
circumstance and he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment of EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1)
DAY of reclusion temporal and to indemnify the heirs of the victim Rocel
Fulgencio the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) jointly with his
other co-accused.

Accused BENEDICT URETA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt as
an accomplice to the crime of Homicide in CRIMINAL CASE No. 3322 and is
hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS,
FOUR (4) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional as minimum to
EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as maximum and to
indemnify the heirs of the victim Rocel Fulgencio the sum of FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) jointly with his co-accused.

In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3323, the accused BENEDICT URETA is
found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Homicide and
is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
of TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
correccional as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
mayor as maximum and to indemnity (sic) the victim Socrates Fulgencio
the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as moral and compensatory
damages.

SO ORDERED.^[9]

Petitioners appealed their conviction to the Court of Appeals

contending that the trial court erred in condemning them solely on the
basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution’s eyewitness.

On March 26, 1997, the Court of Appeals promulgated its
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision with
respect to Criminal case No. 3322 is hereby MODIFIED as to the nature of
the offense committed and the degree of participation of each of the
malefactors. As MODIFIED, We find accused-appellants Benedict Ureta,
Victor de Juan and Bernardo Taran guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder and are each sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty ranging from seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of
Reclusion Temporal as minimum to Reclusion Perpetua
as maximum. With respect to Criminal Case No. 3323, We affirm the
findings of the court a quo.

SO ORDERED.^[10]

In ruling that the killing of Rocel is murder, rather than
homicide, the appellate court found that Rocel’s killing was attended by
abuse of superior strength. Rocel was unarmed when attacked by
petitioners, who not only acted in concert but were armed with dangerous
weapons as well. The appellate court also found petitioners equally
guilty as conspirators.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the appellate
court denied their motion in its resolution of August 25, 1998.^[11]

Hence this petition, anchored on the following grounds:

I

THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS WERE (sic)

RENDERED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AS PROSECUTION FAILED TO PRESENT
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN FAVOR OF
THE ACCUSED-PETITIONERS, BASED AS IT IS ON THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF A
POLLUTED LONE EYEWITNESS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ACCUSED PRESENTED A
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE PROVING THEIR LAWFUL DEFENSES, CONSISTING OF
UNREBBUTED (sic) CONTRARY TESTIMONIES NOT ONLY OF THE PETITIONERS
THEMSELVES BUT ALSO SEVERAL INDEPENDENT AND DISINTEREDTED (sic)
EYE-WITNESSES.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED ERROR AS
WELL AS
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
IN NOT AQUITTING (sic) PETITIONERS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSOLIDATED
CRIMINAL CASES.^[12]

As hereafter discussed, we find the instant petition without
merit.

Pertinent for our resolution of this petition is the issue of
the
sufficiency of the prosecution evidence, consisting mainly of the
uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, to convict petitioners
beyond reasonable doubt. This matter hinges, in turn, on the question of
the credibility of the eyewitness, Socrates Fulgencio.

Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in
affirming
their conviction based on the suspect testimony of the sole prosecution
eyewitness. Petitioners point out that no less than nine disinterested
eyewitnesses of unquestioned candor, fairness, intelligence and
truthfulness, had contradicted Socrates’ testimony.

The Office of the Solicitor General, as counsel for the
State,
counters that there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the testimony of
Socrates Fulgencio. Socrates steadfastly testified on the actual
commission of the crime and positively identified its perpetrators. No
ill motive could be imputed to him to falsely testify against
petitioners. Nor would the fact that Rocel was his brother impel him to
perjure and falsely implicate petitioners, for it is unnatural for a
relative who is interested in seeking justice to accuse persons other
than the real culprits. Further, Socrates could not possibly be mistaken
as to petitioners’ identities for he knew them since childhood. Lastly,
the denials by petitioners cannot prevail over the positive
identification by the prosecution eyewitness.

Petitioners’ contentions for their acquittal are far from
persuasive. Note that the trial court found Socrates to be a credible
witness, deserving of full faith and credence. Note likewise that the
appellate court did not disturb the trial court’s appreciation of
Socrates’ credibility. It is doctrinal that the trial court’s assessment
of the credibility of a witness when affirmed by the Court of Appeals
is entitled to great weight and respect.^[13]
Petitioners fail to show any persuasive reason for us to depart from
this doctrine, other than insisting that several witnesses for the
defense contradicted Socrates’ version of the incident. However,
credibility must be weighed not by the number of witnesses but by the
quality of their testimonies.

The inconsistencies referred to by petitioners in a
last-ditch
effort to demolish Socrates’ credibility concern only minor and
collateral matters. They do not relate to the essential elements of the
crime. For instance, it hardly matters where or from whom petitioner
Ureta got hold of a gun. It is likewise immaterial whether petitioner de
Juan’s shirt was tucked in or not. Petitioners harp on matters
irrelevant to the elements of the crime. The alleged minor
inconsistencies pointed out by petitioners are not grounds for
acquittal.^[14]
Moreover,
inconsistencies in the testimony of a prosecution witness with respect
to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of
his declarations or the veracity of his testimony, but rather, they
enhance his credibility for they erase any suspicion that the testimony
was contrived or rehearsed.^[15]

The records show that Socrates Fulgencio’s identification of
petitioners as among the perpetrators of the crime is positive,
categorical, and consistent. Socrates could not have been mistaken in
his identification, as the OSG stresses, because he knew petitioners
since childhood. Petitioners fail to show any ill motive for Socrates to
falsely accuse them of the crime or to pervert the truth. Where there
is no evidence to show any dubious or improper motive why a prosecution
witness should bear false witness against the accused or falsely
implicate him in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith
and credit.^[16]

As against the positive identification by Socrates Fulgencio
of
petitioners Taran and de Juan as among the assailants of Rocel, all that
Taran and de Juan could offer is the defense of alibi and denial. Alibi
is one of the weakest defenses, not only because it is inherently weak
and unreliable, but more so because it can easily be fabricated and
concocted. For alibi to prosper, one must not only prove that he was
somewhere else when the crime was committed but must also show that it
was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the
crime.^[17] Their
concocted
alibi must fail. As to their defense of denial, it cannot prevail over
the positive testimony of the prosecution’s eyewitness. Between the
self-serving denials of petitioners and their positive identification by
eyewitness Socrates Fulgencio, the latter deserves greater
credence.^[18]

The records show that petitioner Ureta claimed self-defense.
When
an accused invokes self-defense, the onus probandi is shifted to him to
prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of his
defense.^[19]
Three requisites must concur for a plea of self-defense to prosper: (1)
unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself.^[20]
For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual,
sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a
threatening or intimidating attitude.^[21]

We find none of the foregoing elements of self-defense
present in
this case. First, the trial court found that there was no unlawful
aggression on the part of Rocel against Ureta, when the latter shot the
former, following their brief altercation.^[22]
Otherwise put, there was no actual or threatened attack against Ureta
that the latter had to repel. Second, recall that Rocel was unarmed.
Even assuming arguendo that Rocel had threatened to attack Ureta, the
use of a gun by the latter to repel such an attack would not be
reasonable. We must also point out that it is contrary to human
experience and reason for an unarmed man to attack another who is armed
with a gun, particularly where the latter had several armed companions.
Third, the trial court found that there was no sufficient provocation on
the part of Rocel before Ureta shot him.^[23] On this score, the appellate court sustained
the findings of the trial court when it ruled out Ureta’s theory of
self-defense.^[24]

We note that the autopsy report showed that Rocel did not die
from
the gunshot wound inflicted on him, but from multiple stab wounds.
However, we also note that the Court of Appeals found that conspiracy
among the petitioners was amply established. As shown in the testimony
of Socrates Fulgencio, the petitioners acted in concert. Ureta shot
Rocel, Taran pistol-whipped him, de Juan stabbed him, while several
other unidentified persons struck him with bolos. All the foregoing acts
showed a common purpose, interest, and design, thereby establishing a
conspiracy among them. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all,
hence, it is not necessary that all the participants deliver the fatal
blow.^[25] With
conspiracy duly
established, all the petitioners are guilty of murder for the death of
Rocel Fulgencio. No error was committed by the appellate court in this
regard.

However, there is an error concerning the penalty imposed.
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is punished by
reclusion perpetua to death. Both are indivisible
penalties. But there being no aggravating circumstance, the penalty
imposable in this case is reclusion perpetua.
Moreover, aside from civil indemnity of P50,000, the heirs of the
victim are entitled to the award of moral damages in the amount also of
P50,000, pursuant to current jurisprudence, without need of further
proof other than the fact of the victim’s death.

As to the offense of frustrated homicide in Criminal Case No.
3323,
wherein petitioner Benedict Ureta alone is charged for gunshot injuries
inflicted on complaining witness Socrates Fulgencio, we find
petitioner’s defense of denial untenable. As found by Dr. Stevens
Fuentes, the wound inflicted on Socrates was serious. Left unattended,
the injury could have caused the death of the victim. It is quite ironic
that petitioners would make it appear that Socrates was the attacker,
allegedly using his fallen brother’s weapon. Yet, as summed up by the
CA, their defense clearly showed it was Ureta who was able to get
Rocel’s gun. Moreover, if Socrates had attacked or shot at any one of
the petitioners, why is it that none of them suffered any injury? The
truth is only the brothers Rocel and Socrates were found with gunshot
wounds, according to the medico-legal reports. We conclude that
petitioner Ureta’s defense to the charge of frustrated homicide is a
mere concoction, deserving no serious consideration.

Settled is the rule that the testimony of a single witness,
when
credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, even in
a charge of murder^[26] and
surely also in a charge of frustrated homicide. As earlier stated, we
find the testimony of Socrates Fulgencio for the prosecution
straightforward, convincing and entitled to full faith and credit. The
conviction of petitioner Benedict Ureta in Criminal Case No. 3323 was
properly sustained by the appellate court.

WHEREFORE, the petition is
DENIED. The assailed
decision dated March 26, 1997 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No.
14627, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioners BENEDICT URETA,
VICTOR DE JUAN, AND BERNARDO TARAN are declared GUILTY of murder in
Criminal Case No. 3322, and each is hereby sentenced to suffer the
PENALTY of reclusion perpetua. They are also
ordered to pay
jointly and severally the sum of P50,000 to the heirs of the victim,
Jose Rocel Fulgencio, as civil indemnity and another sum of P50,000 as
moral damages. Petitioner BENEDICT URETA is found GUILTY of frustrated
homicide in Criminal Case No. 3323, and hereby sentenced to the
indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day
of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor as maximum. The order for him to pay the complaining
witness, Socrates Fulgencio, the sum of P20,000 as compensatory damages
for the latter’s injuries is upheld. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, and
Corona, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Also spelled
as Rossel, Rosel, Rossell and Russel in the records.
^[2] Rollo, pp.
7-15. Per Galvez, J., with Ramirez and Adefuin-De la Cruz, JJ.,
concurring.
^[3] Records,
Criminal Case No. 3322, pp. 1-2. For physical injuries found, see f.n.
5, infra.
^[4] Records,
Criminal Case No. 3323, p. 1.
^[5] Records,
Criminal Case No. 3322, p. 275.
^[6] Id. at 276.

^[7] Id. at 278.

^[8] Rollo, pp.
9-10.
^[9] Records,
Crim. Case No. 3322, p. 259.
^[10] Rollo, p.
15.
^[11] CA Rollo,
p. 189.
^[12] Id. at 31.

^[13] Manalili v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113447, 280 SCRA 400, 417 (1997).
^[14] See People
v. Gelin and Gelin, G.R. No. 135693, April 1 2002, p. 5, People v.
Maglente, 306 SCRA 546, 567 (1999).
^[15] People v.
Anacan, G.R.
No. 144318, April 3, 2002, p. 5, citing People v. Albarido and Igdoy,
G.R. No. 102367, October 25, 2001, p. 7.
^[16] People v.
Ponsaran and
Ponsaran, G.R. Nos. 13916-17, February 6, 2002, p. 11, citing People v.
Banguis, 291 SCRA 279, 288 (1998).
^[17] People v.
Ronquillo, G.R. No. 126136, April 5, 2002, p. 16, citing People v. Juan,
et al., 322 SCRA 598, 616 (2000).
^[18] See People
v. Ciron, Jr., G.R. No. 139409, March 18, 2002, p. 6, citing People v.
De Castro, 252 SCRA 341, 351 (1996).
^[19] People v.
Obordo, G.R. No. 139528, May 9, 2002, p. 9, citing People v. Damitan,
G.R. No. 140544, December 7, 2001, p. 7.
^[20] People v.
Calabroso, G.R. No. 126368, 340 SCRA 332, 338 (2000).
^[21] People v.
Sarabia, G.R. No. 106102, 317 SCRA 684, 693 (1999).
^[22] Rollo, p.
50.
^[23] Ibid.

^[24] CA Rollo,
p. 155.
^[25] People v.
Cantuba, et al., G.R. No. 126022, March 12, 2002, p. 13, citing People
v. Catampongan, 318 SCRA 674, 685 (1999).
^[26] People v.
Hinault, et
al, G.R. No. 143764, February 15, 2002, p. 14, citing People v. Toyco,
349 SCRA 385 (2001); People v. Pascual, 331 SCRA 252 (2000); People v.
Pirame, 327 SCRA 552 (2000).