PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. PANCHO ENTRIALGO, APPELLANT.

People versus Entrialgo

The Case

People versus Entrialgo is a criminal appeal in which the State, through the People of the Philippines, prosecuted Pancho Entrialgo for the killing of the spouses Benjamin and Avelina Tabang on the evening of the thirtieth of July, 2000, in Barangay Santa Cruz, Puerto Princesa City. The accused was charged with two counts of murder, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for the husband and to imprisonment for the wife. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it shows how the Supreme Court treats an uncorroborated denial against positive testimony, it shows how the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation must be proved separately for each victim, and it shows how the abolition of the death penalty converts a capital sentence into reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Procedural History

Two informations for murder were filed against the accused in the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City, Branch 49, one for the death of Benjamin Tabang and one for the death of Avelina Tabang. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court ruled that denials cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses. It found the accused guilty of murder for the death of Benjamin, appreciating evident premeditation only as to him, and guilty of homicide for the death of Avelina. It imposed the death penalty in the murder case and an indeterminate prison term in the homicide case, and ordered the payment of civil indemnity to both sets of heirs. The accused elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the findings and the ruling of the trial court in its entirety. The case then reached the Supreme Court on automatic review, and the Court affirmed the conviction while modifying the penalties and the civil liabilities.

Facts

The accused and the prosecution's principal witness, Rolly Panaligan, were both barangay tanods of Barangay Santa Cruz. The barangay chairman, Benjamin Tabang, dismissed the accused from that position sometime before the thirtieth of July, 2000, and the accused harbored ill feelings toward Benjamin as a result.

On the evening of the thirtieth of July, 2000, Rolly met the Tabang spouses on his way to the sari-sari store. Soon after, the accused, armed with a bolo, saw Rolly and asked where Benjamin was. Told that Benjamin was on his way to report for duty as barangay captain, the accused disclosed his plan to kill Benjamin. Rolly tried to discourage him, but the accused did not respond. Later that evening, the accused went to Rolly's house and confessed that he had killed Benjamin and his wife Avelina. Rolly's wife, Mary Ann Panaligan, who is the accused's sister, corroborated that the accused came to see her husband that evening and that the two spoke in a dimly lit area; when she brought an improvised light, the accused told her not to light it, so she went home.

The next morning, Rolly learned of the deaths of the spouses. Out of remorse, he surrendered to the police and executed a statement about the incident. The physician who testified reported that Benjamin suffered four hacking wounds and Avelina suffered three hacking wounds and two lacerated wounds, and that both died of multiple hacking wounds. The accused denied the charges and claimed that he had slept at about seven in the evening after a long day at work, but he presented no evidence to corroborate his testimony.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the killings of Benjamin and Avelina Tabang despite the absence of an eyewitness and on the strength of the prosecution's circumstantial evidence.
• Whether or not evident premeditation qualified the killing of Benjamin Tabang as murder.
• Whether or not nighttime may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
• Whether or not the death penalty may be imposed, and what penalties and civil liabilities should be fixed on appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Article 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling with the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; With evident premeditation.

This provision supplies the qualifying circumstances that raise a killing to murder, and the Court used it to test whether evident premeditation attended the killing of Benjamin.

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Article 249. Homicide. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

This provision governs the killing of Avelina, because no qualifying circumstance was proved as to her death.

Section 2 of Republic Act Number 9346, the law prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, is the provision the Court applied in reducing the capital sentence, and the Court cited it expressly in the murder case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. The accused's bare denial, uncorroborated by any evidence, could not prevail over the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses. The Court held that the trial court and the Court of Appeals were correct in finding that the accused killed the Tabang spouses.

On the second issue, the Court sustained evident premeditation only as to Benjamin. The prosecution proved the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that he clung to that determination, and a sufficient interval of time between the determination and its execution to allow him to reflect on the consequences of his act. That proof related to Benjamin alone, so the killing of Benjamin was murder, while the killing of Avelina was homicide.

On the third issue, the Court rejected nighttime as an aggravating circumstance. The prosecution submitted no evidence that the accused intentionally chose the evening to commit the crimes, and the trial court did not explain why it considered nighttime aggravating.

On the fourth issue, the Court modified the penalties. Because of Section 2 of Republic Act Number 9346, the death sentence in the murder case was reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. In the homicide case, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court fixed the minimum at twelve years of prision mayor in its maximum period and the maximum at twenty years of reclusion temporal in its maximum period. The Court also awarded moral damages of fifty thousand pesos to the heirs of each victim, holding that in cases of violent death moral damages are awarded even in the absence of proof, because an untimely death invariably brings emotional pain and anguish to the victim's family.

Doctrine

First, a denial that is uncorroborated cannot overcome the positive and categorical testimony of prosecution witnesses; the defense of denial is weak and self-serving unless buttressed by evidence.

Second, evident premeditation, to qualify a killing as murder, requires proof of three elements: the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that he clung to that determination, and a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution to allow him to reflect on the consequences of his act. It must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and it must be proved as to each victim separately.

Third, nighttime is not aggravating unless the prosecution shows that the offender purposely sought it to facilitate the crime or to insure impunity.

Fourth, with the abolition of the death penalty, a conviction for murder qualified under Article 248 carries reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and the accused is liable for civil indemnity and moral damages, the latter awarded even without proof in cases of violent death.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding Pancho Entrialgo guilty of murder for the death of Benjamin Tabang and of homicide for the death of Avelina Tabang, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in the first case and to an indeterminate term in the second, and ordering him to pay civil indemnity and moral damages to the heirs of both victims, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize this line: evident premeditation must be proved for each victim, and an uncorroborated denial cannot overcome positive testimony. Examiners use this case to test the elements of evident premeditation, the requisites of nighttime as an aggravating circumstance, and the effect of the abolition of the death penalty on a murder conviction.