THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE TAN, EDDIE TAN, AND FEDERICO FAJARDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the decision dated June 26, 1986 of the
Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte, 12th
Judicial Region, Branch IV, Iligan City, finding
appellants Vicente Tan, Eddie Tan and Federico Fajardo
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing them to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased Rodulfo Hinuctan in the sum of
P30,000.00.^[1]

The judgment of
conviction was based on the following facts:

On March 18, 1986,
at about 11:30 in the evening, Rodulfo Hinuctan 28 years old,
carpenter, with companions Ferdinand Piocos, Eddie de
la Cruz, Victor Balongag and Gabriel Barientos, were on their way home after a drink at Fermin Store in Palao, Iligan City.  As they were passing the yard of Colonel Cuyo’s house at Riverside,
Palao, their way was blocked by the accused Vicente
Tan, Eddie Tan, Federico Fajardo and Meliton Valencia.  The latter were armed with bladed weapons,
except for Meliton who was only carrying a flashlight.^[2]

Brandishing a bolo, Federico Fajardo
approached Hinuctan and pointed the bolo at him.  Hinuctan raised his
hands and placed them on Fajardo’s shoulders and
asked, “What is this, I have nothing to do with this.” At that
moment, Vicente Tan, coming from the right side, stabbed Hinuctan with a kitchen
knife (flamingco), hitting him on the right side of
the body below the armpit.  Hinuctan fell and as he lay on the ground bleeding, Eddie
Tan walked towards him and remarked, “He is already dead.^[3]

Hinuctan was rushed to the Mindanao
Sanitarium Hospital
where he died shortly thereafter.^[4]
Dr. Livey
Villarin who
conducted the autopsy found that the victim suffered a single stab wound
located at the mid-axillary area level of the rib
below the right armpit.  The wound was
fatal because it penetrated the lungs but death was attributable to
internal hemorrhage.^[5]

On March
20, 1986, an information was filed against Vicente Tan, Eddie Tan,
Federico Fajardo and Meliton
Valencia for the crime of homicide under Article 249
of the Revised Penal Code.^[6]
But on April 15, 1986, said information was amended to read as follows:

“The undersigned Second Assistant City Fiscal of Iligan accuses VICENTE TAN, EDDIE TAN, FEDERICO FAJARDO,
and MELITON VALENCIA for the crime of MURDER, committed as follows:

“That on or about March 18, 1986, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually helping each other, armed with a bladed weapon, by means of
treachery and evident premeditation, and with intent to kill, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault, stab and wound the said Rodulfo Hinuctan, thereby inflicting upon him the following
physical injuries, to wit:  x x x which caused his death.

“Contrary to and in violation of Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code with the aggravating circumstances of treachery
and evident premeditation. 
x x x.”^[7]

On June 26, 1986,
the trial court dismissed the case against Meliton Valencia
but found Vicente Tan, Eddie Tan and Federico Fajardo
guilty of the crime of murder, qualified by evident premeditation.  The lower court held that there was no
treachery.^[8]

In this appeal, the
appellants have raised the following errors:

“(1) The lower court erred in finding that there was conspiracy
among the three accused namely Vicente Tan, Eddie Tan and Federico Fajardo in the stabbing of the deceased Rodulfo
Hinuctan;

“(2) The lower court erred in finding that the killing of the deceased
by Eddie Tan was attended with evident premeditation.”^[9]

In their defense,
appellants not only denied any complicity in the killing of Hinuctan
but they also pointed co-accused Eddie Tan as the lone knifewielder,
by the latter’s own explicit admission in open court.

Eddie Tan, 36 years old,
single, mason, recounted that at around ten in the evening of March 18, 1986,
he was in his mother’s store near the gate of the City Hospital.  Then in plain view of several onlookers, he
was beaten at the back of his head by Hinuctan.  Wounded, Eddie went to the hospital and
secured a medical certificate,
after which he went home and took a knife. 
Because of the pain he suffered, he wanted to look for Hinuctan and retaliate.^[10]

Eddie was alone when he
caught up with Hinuctan and his group near the Cuyos residence at Riverside, Palao.  As Hinuctan was
about to throw stones at him, Eddie lunged at the victim with his knife and hit
him just below the right armpit.  Hinuctan was already sprawled on the ground by the time
Eddie’s brother Vicente Tan arrived with cousin
Federico Fajardo and Meliton
Valencia. 
Eddie told his brother, “Ting, he is already dead.”^[11]

Eddie Tan belied the
veracity of eyewitness Ferdinand Piocos‘ claim that
it was Eddie’s brother, Vicente, who stabbed Hinuctan.  Eddie accused Piocos
of lying in court because earlier Eddie had scolded him for going near their
(Eddie) house when it was already dark.^[12]

Vicente Tan, 40, years
old, married, also a mason, testified that at approximately eleven o’clock on the night of March 18, 1986, he was out drinking with cousin
Federico Fajardo at Virgie’s Store.  At 11:25 p.m., Meliton Valencia arrived and told them that he was looking
for Eddie Tan and was heading for the “first river.” The trio
(Vicente, Federico and Meliton) proceeded to the
river but before reaching their destination, they saw a commotion in front of Colonel Cuyo’s
house.  At a distance of four meters,
they saw a man lying on the ground.  Then
they saw Eddie who approached them and told them that the man was already
dead.  Fearful that they might be
“pinpointed and be retaliated,” they all ran away and it was only later that they found out that the corpse
was “Kiko” or Rodulfo
Hinuctan.^[13]

Vicente (who had served
sentence at the National Penitentiary for murder committed in 1968), vehemently
denied that he was Hinuctan’s assailant.  Having experienced “the
difficulty in the prison cell of Muntinglupa,”
he (Vicente) had already reformed. 
Vicente declared that it was Eddie who stabbed Hinuctan.^[14]

When queried as to why
the two prosecution witnesses would implicate him as the killer, Vicente said
that he had a quarrel with Barientos‘ father and Barientos and Piocos happened to
be close friends.^[15]

Appellants’ contention
that Hinuctan was already dead when they arrived at
the crime scene cannot stand against the positive identification made by the
prosecution eyewitnesses, especially in the absence of any evidence indicating
that said witnesses were prompted by improper motives to falsely testify
against the accused.  The alleged
“motives” advanced by the Tan brothers are too shallow and flimsy to
be taken seriously by the Court.

Ferdinand Piocos and Victor Balongag, both
19, saw the incident clearly.  The front
yard of the Cuyos residence was illumined by an electric
lamp post.  Piocos
stood at a distance of about four meters while Balongag
was about five meters away from
the scene of the stabbing.  Both
witnesses unerringly recognized and identified the appellants whom they have
known for a good many years since they were neighbors.^[16]

Despite the protestations
of the appellants, the existence of a conspiracy among them has been
convincingly shown.  Appellants blocked
the path of Hinuctan and his friends.  They were armed with deadly weapons.  They coordinated their movements in
assaulting Hinuctan. 
While Fajardo approached Hinuctan
and conversed with him, Vicente Tan emerged from the right side of the victim
and executed the fatal thrust which perforated his lungs.  As the victim lay dying on the ground, Eddie
Tan went near to make sure that he was dead. 
After having done so, he and the other appellants fled in the same
direction.

It is evident that the
appellants had a community of design.  They synchronized their actions towards the
same objective which was the liquidation of Hinuctan as a measure of vengeance.^[17]

With the finding of a conspiracy,
it is no longer material to determine who among the three appellants had
inflicted the mortal stab wound which swiftly brought about Hinuctan’s
death.  As co-conspirators, their
criminal responsibility is equal and collective.

Relative to the second
assigned error, the trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating
circumstance of known premeditation which qualified the killing of Hinuctan into murder. 
On direct examination, Eddie Tan stated:

“Q.  Where
were you at 10:00 P.M. on March 18, 1986?

“A.   At
the store of my mother.

” xxx         xxx       xxx       xxx.

“Q.  At
that time can you recall if there was any unusual incident happened?

“A:   Yes,
sir.  I was beaten.

“Q:  Who
beat you?

“A:   Rodulfo Hinuctan.

” xxx         xxx       xxx       xxx.

“Q:  When
you said you were beaten, you were hit?

“A:   Yes, sir.  At the back of my head.

“Q:  At
the time you were beaten, were there any witnesses?

“A.   They
were many who saw.

“Q:  After
you were beaten by Rodulfo Hinuctan,
what happened?

“A:   I
secure (sic) medical certificate at the City hospital.

“Q:  Was
there a medical certificate issued?

“A:   Yes, sir.

“Q:  Where
is the medical certificate now?

“A:   It
is now with the court.

“Q:  After
you were treated at the hospital, what did you do?

“A:   I
went home and took a knife.

“Q:  Why
did you get a knife?

“A:   Because
of the pain I suffered, I went to look for the person who hit my head to
retaliate.

“Q:  Who
was this person you were looking for?

“A:   Rodulfo Hinuctan.

” xxx         xxx       xxx       xxx.

“Q:  Approximately,
what time is that after you were treated at the hospital?

“A:   11:00 o’clock.

“Q:  Approximately,
what time was that when you stabbed Rodulfo Hinuctan?

“A:   11:30.”^[18]

Surely, from 10:00 p.m.
of March 18, 1986, when the thought of revenge germinated in Eddie’s mind after
he was mauled by the victim, until the actual stabbing of Hinuctan
more than one hour later, appellants had had the opportunity to reflect upon
the consequences of their actions. 
Eddie, for his part, had sufficient time to recover his equanimity and
to desist from committing the crime.  We note that even in the heat of anger, he
did not immediately run after Hinuctan.  Instead, he brought himself to the nearby
hospital to have his head wound treated and even asked to be issued a medical
certificate.  But there was no indication
of desistance on Eddie’s part.  From the
hospital, he dropped by his house to retrieve a knife and in so doing chose the
physical means with which to vent his resentment and anger on Hinuctan.  He then
enlisted the help of his elder brother Vicente and cousin Federico Fajardo and Meliton Valencia.  Together they went in search of Hinuctan whom they later spotted near the Cuyos residence. 
Such chain of events eventually culminated in the stabbing of Hinuctan at approximately 11:30 of that same evening.

In People vs. Durante,^[19]
the Court described the essence of
deliberate premeditation:  the execution
of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the
resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time adequate
enough to arrive at a cool judgment.

In People vs.
Cabrera,^[20]
the Court held that evident
premeditation was present where sometime before the killing, the accused
was angry at the victims and the killing was perpetrated as an act of
revenge.  Likewise in People vs. Dumdum,^[21] we held that evident premeditation
attended the assault conceived at least one hour before its perpetration.

In the case at bar, in slaying Hinuctan,
the appellants were actuated more by the spirit of lawlessness and revenge than
by any sudden impulse of uncontrollable fury, as deduced from the interval of
one hour and thirty minutes from the time that Eddie was impelled to take his
revenge until the moment of reckoning at Colonel Cuyos‘
front yard.

WHEREFORE, finding the appealed judgment to be in
accordance with law and jurisprudence, it is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs
against the appellants.  So ordered.

Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.

^[1]
Criminal Case No. 1004.

^[2]
TSN, June 18, 1986, pp.
8-10.

^[3]
Ibid, pp. 3-5, 10-14.

^[4]
lbid, p. 15.

^[5]
Exhibit A.

^[6]
Original Record, p. 1.

^[7]
Original Record, p. 18.

^[8]
Original Record, pp. 112-113.

^[9]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 56, Rollo.

^[10]
TSN, June 19, 1986, pp.
23-24.

^[11]
Ibid, pp. 24,
27.

^[12]
Ibid, p. 25.

^[13]
TSN, June 19, 1986, pp.
29-30.

^[14]
Ibid, p. 30; Original Record, pp. 72-73.

^[15]
Ibid, p. 31.

^[16]
TSN, June 18, 1986, pp. 13-14, 18.

^[17]
People vs. Velez, No. L-30038,
July 18, 1974, 58 SCRA 21.

^[18]
TSN, June 19, 1986, pp.
23-25.

^[19]
53 Phil. 363.

^[20]
43 Phil. 82, 101-102.

^[21]
92 SCRA 198.