PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGER MONTILLA, CARLITO DELA ROSA AND RICAREDO DELA ROSA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Appellants Roger Montilla and Carlito dela Rosa together with
Ricaredo dela Rosa, were charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court of
Masbate, Fifth Judicial Region, Branch XLIV, Masbate, Masbate. The information reads as follows:

“That on or about June 21, 1988, in the afternoon thereof, at
Barangay Madancalan, Municipality of Baleno, Province of Masbate, within the
jurisdiction of this Court, the said accused confederating together and helping
one another, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery and
superiority of strength did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault, hack and stab with a bolo Eusebio Rosero y Alamag, hitting the latter on the
different parts of the body, thereby inflicting wounds which directly caused
his instantaneous death.” (p. 15, Rollo)

Upon arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty. Hence, the case proceeded to trial.

To prove the case, the prosecution witnesses narrated the
circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime as follows:

In the afternoon of June 21, 1988, the victim Eusebio Rosero,
Sr., together with Dino Altitche and Juanito Zaragoza, were resting at the
seashore of Sitio Asinan, Barangay Madancalan, Baleno, Masbate, when accused
Ricaredo dela Rosa arrived. Ricaredo
dela Rosa and the victim conversed. In
the course of their conversation, the victim stabbed Ricaredo dela Rosa (pp.
5-6, TSN, May 23, 1989).

After this incident, both of them ran away and Dino Altitche
entered the picture by trying to pacify them. Ricardo dela Rosa went to the house of Juanito Zaragoza while Eusebio
Rosero, Sr. ran to the house of Dino Altitche and closed the door (p. 7, TSN,
May 23,1989). Appellants Roger Montilla
and Carlito dela Rosa, armed with bolos, went to the house of Dino Altitche and
waited for the victim to come out (p. 9 Ibid).

As the victim was coming out, appellants threw stones at
him. When the victim was hit, he lost
his hold of the door, enabling appellants to close in on him (p. 20, TSN, May 32, 1989). Appellants then stabbed and hacked the
victim to death. (p. 20 Ibid.).

According to the wife of the victim, that afternoon of June 21,
1988, while she was in their house at Asinan, Madancalan, Baleno, Masbate, the
three (3) accused helped one another in hacking her husband. Ricaredo dela Rosa hit her husband on the
breast, Carlito dela Rosa on the armpit, while Roger Montilla hacked and stoned
her husband, all finding their mark, causing Eusebio Rosero, Sr. to fall inside
the house of Dino Altitche.

According to her, she was
only four (4) meters away, but when asked by the court the point which
is of the same distance or place where she saw her husband fall, it was 15
meters. She was in the porch of her
house and she could see what was happening when her husband ran away, then by
the accused. While Eusebio Rosero, Sr.
was able to barricade himself inside the house of Dino Altitche, these accused
were able to pass through the
window of said house and they were able to enter, and after entering, they
ganged up upon the victim.

Pat. dela Rosa is the cousin of all the accused and after he was
informed of the quarrel by Dino Altitche, he proceeded to the place mentioned
where the quarrel was, and, on arrival he saw Roger Montilla holding the bolo
and shouting that he was the one who killed Eusebio Rosero, Sr. He peacefully surrendered to him.

When he asked the accused why he hacked Eusebio Rosero, Sr., he
said that he was angry at what he did to his dog. Previous to this incident, it was brought out during the trial
that Eusebio Rosero, Jr. got the dog of Roger Montilla and butchered it.

As for the doctor, she testified as to the wounds suffered by the
victim. There were five (5) wounds in
all, but according to the doctor, the most fatal of all is wound No. 3 which
was caused by a sharp bladed instrument for it penetrated the heart and lungs.

The defense witnesses presented their own version, thus:

According to Ricaredo dela Rosa, that afternoon of June 21, 1988,
at Asinan, Madancalan, Baleno, Masbate, there was a quarrel between Roger
Montilla and Eusebio Rosero, Sr. caused by the dog that was taken by Eusebio
Rosero, Jr., but was not returned. During the quarrel, Roger Montilla slapped Eusebio Rosero, Jr. who,
after being slapped ran towards their house and returned with a bolo
challenging Montilla to a fight. At the
same time, Ricaredo dela Rosa was trying to pacify Roger Montilla and Eusebio
Rosero, Jr.

While Ricaredo dela Rosa was standing, Eusebio Rosero, Sr.,
appeared, also with a bolo in his hand. Thinking that he has not done anything wrong against the Roseros, he
just stood there telling Eusebio Rosero, Jr. and Roger Montilla to stop. However, when Eusebio Rosero, Sr. reached
him, Eusebio Rosero, Sr. immediately hacked Ricaredo dela Rosa, hitting him on
the left shoulder in the process. Surprised as to what happened, Ricaredo dela Rosa shouted at Eusebio
Rosero, Sr. why he was hacking him, but instead of answering he continued to
hack him, so Ricaredo dela Rosa ran away
going to his house. After that
he closed his door and windows and did not know what happened next. After a few moments when he opened his
house, he learned that Eusebio Rosero, Sr.
was killed by Roger Montilla. According to him, he does not know how this happened because he was
inside his house which was closed,
for his wife was scared.

As for accused-appellant Carlito dela Rosa, he stated that he was
not present during the incident at Asinan, Madancalan, Baleno, Masbate during
that afternoon of June 21, 1988. He was
at Magdalena, Baleno, Masbate, and only learned that his brother was hacked and
what he did was to go to the place as informed to verify and finally saw his
brother. He asked his brother as to who
hacked him and he answered that it was Eusebio Rosero, Sr. When he tried to look for Eusebio Rosero,
Sr., he was told that the latter was already dead. So what he did was to bring his brother to town for medical
treatment.

As for accused-appellant Roger Montilla, that afternoon of June
21, 1988, he was at his house. At the
time, Eusebio Rosero, Jr. came to him and he confronted him as to where his dog was, but instead
of being answered civilly, Eusebio Rosero, Jr. got angry, so he slapped Eusebio
Rosero, Jr. Then Recaredo dela Rosa
came near to pacify them and after being pacified Eusebio Rosero, Jr. returned
to his house and then came back, challenging Montilla to a fight. The older Rosero now appeared with a bolo in his hand.

Roger Montilla now went inside his house, leaving the Roseros
outside. Later on, believing that they
were no longer there, he went out to go to the house of Ricaredo dela
Rosa. But instead of reaching the house
of Ricaredo dela Rosa, he was met on the way by Eusebio Rosero, Sr. who hacked
him. He was slightly wounded on the
right eyebrow, as shown in the medical certificate. Because of that, he fell and when Eusebio Rosero, Sr. approached
him, he scooped up some sand and threw it at the face of Eusebio Rosero, Sr.,
hitting him on the eyes which temporarily blinded him and it was at this moment
that he got hold of the bolo of his assailant and there was a scuffle. Roger Montilla was holding the handle of the
bolo, while Eusebio Rosero, Sr. was holding the duel end of the blade. They pulled back the bolo in order to have
possession and in the course of the struggle, Rosero, Sr. was able to get hold
of the sharp end of the bolo and wounded his hands. According to him, during the scuffle, he did not know whether
Eusebio Rosero, Sr. was hit by the point of the bolo.

After weighing the
evidence adduced both testimonial and documentary, the trial court disposed of
the case in a decision dated January 25, 1990, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

“WHEREFORE, finding accused CARLITO DELA ROSA to be guilty of
HOMICIDE beyond reasonable doubt and
ROGER MONTILLA to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER with
aggravating circumstance of superiority of strength, ROGER MONTILLA is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA to be served at the National Penitentiary;
CARLITO DELA ROSA is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty after considering
the aggravating circumstance of superiority of strength and the indeterminate
sentence law to prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in
its minimum period that is FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to EIGHT (8) YEARS.

“They are further
ordered to pay the heirs of the victim in the amount of P30,000.00 PRO RATA
or in solidum.

“As for RICAREDO DELA
ROSA, he is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of murder for he was only provoked
and it was through that provocation that he had to do something in order to
retaliate for the wounds he suffered from the hands of the victim.

“SO ORDERED.”
(pp. 24-25, Rollo)

From the aforesaid decision appellants assigned the following
errors:

I

THAT HONORABLE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES
GIVEN BY THE WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION NOTWITHSTAND­ING THEIR GLARING
INCONSISTENCIES, THEREBY COMMITTING GROSS AND SERIOUS MISAPPREHENSION OF THE
FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE.

II

THAT DECISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO
IS WITHOUT ANY LEGAL BASIS, IN FACT AND IN LAW.

Apparently, the resolution of the issues raised by the appellants
before this Court hinges on the credibility of the testimony of the prosecution
and defense witnesses. In this respect,
it is firmly settled that the findings of the trial court are given weight and
the highest degree of respect by the appellate court (People v. Caraig, G.R.
No. 91162, October 3, 1991) and may be disregarded only where substantial
errors have been committed or determinative facts have been overlooked and
which otherwise would have dictated a different conclusion or verdict. In the instant case it does not appear to
the court that the trial court committed any error in extending superior credit
to evidence adduced by the people.

Moreover, after having admitted killing the victim, appellant
Montilla still anchors his defense on alleged inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The settled rule is that an accused who interposes self-defense must
prove every element of this defense in order to avoid criminal liability for
the killing or injury of the victim (People v. Rey, 172 SCRA 149). He must prove self?defense beyond
reasonable doubt (People v. Urbiztondo, 132 SCRA 268).

In the instant case, instead of proving self-defense with his own
evidence, appellant Montilla simply chips away at the evidence of the
prosecution by pointing out alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. But despite his
effort, the fact still stands out that he inflicted injuries on the victim
without any justification, causing his death. His conviction must therefore stand (People v. Plandez, 132 SCRA 69).

On the other hand, appellant Carlito dela Rosa claims that he was
not at the scene of the crime in Sitio Asinan, Barrio Madancalan, Baleno,
Masbate when the victim was hacked to death. He was allegedly in Barrio Magdalena in the same town (p. 2, TSN, June
21, 1989).

But this pretense of appellant Carlito dela Rosa was belied by
the positive and clear testimony of prosecution witness Veronica Rosero, who
was inside her house which is near the house of Altitche.

“Q.  While
you were in your house at that particular date, what incident…unusual
incident have you noticed that took place?

A.    What
happened to my husband is that they killed him.

Q.   Who
killed your husband?

A.    Ricaredo
dela Rosa, Carlito dela Rosa and Roger Montilla.

Q.   The
three (3) accused in this case?

A.    Yes,
sir.

COURT:

Q.   How
did they kill your husband?

A.    They
helped one another in killing my husband.

BARSAGA

(continuing)

Q.  Were you present when these three (3) accused
helped each other in killing your husband?

BRAVO

A.    Leading,
your honor.

BARSAGA

Q.  Why were you able to say that it was these 3 accused
whom you have just mentioned who killed your husband?

A.    Because
they were the ones who went there and have bolos.

COURT

Q.   And
what happened?

A.    They
stabbed and hacked.

Q.   And
who hacked?

A.    Ricaredo
dela Rosa.

Q.   Only?

A.    Ricaredo
dela Rosa was one of those who hacked.

Q.   Roger
Montilla also hacked?

A.    Yes,
your Honor.

Q.   And
who made the stabbing?

A.    Carlito
dela Rosa

Q.   Only?

A.    Yes,
your Honor, and the 2 of them hacked.

COURT

Q.   In
what part of the body of your husband was he hit?

A.    On
the armpit.

Q.   Only?

A.    And
also on the left shoulder as demonstrated by the witness.” (pp. 18-­20, TSN,
May 23, 1989 Underscoring supplied.)

Appellant Carlito dela
Rosa was also identified by the victim in his antemortem statement heard
by prosecution witnesses Dino Altitche and Veronica Rosero.

DINO ALTITCHE’S TESTIMONY

“COURT

Q.   When
you arrived after returning with the policeman was the door of your house
already opened?

A.    Yes,
your Honor.

BARSAGA

x x x              x x x

Q.   Was
he able to talk to the victim in this case?

A.    Yes,
sir, he was able to talk to . . .he was able to utter 2 words.

Q.   Did
you hear it?

A.    Yes,
sir, because I was inside the house.

Q.   What
did he say?

A.   When the policeman asked
“who stabbed you” he was able
to answer “Carlito de la Rosa and
his companions.” (pp. 12-13, TSN, May 23, 1989 (Underscoring
supplied.)

VERONICA ROSERO’S TESTIMONY

“Q. Who
was that policeman?

A.    Rolecto
dela Rosa.

Q.   And
when this Pat. dela Rosa was investigating where were you?

A.    I
was there, I went inside.

Q.   And
what did you observe from the investigation of Pat. Dela Rosa?

A.    When
Pat. Dela Rosa arrived he was still alive.

Q.   Who
was still alive?

A.    Eusebio
Rosero, he was still investigated by the policeman.

Q.   And
what was the investigation about?

A.  He
was asked by the policeman “who
stabbed you” and he answered that
it was Carlito dela Rosa.

Q.   What
else?

A.    And
he also answered that they were many and then he died.”

(p. 22, TSN, May 23, 1989, underscoring supplied)

Based on the foregoing, evidence consisting of the positive
identification of Carlito dela Rosa as one
of those who inflicted injuries on the victim and the antemortem
declaration of the victim has established beyond any shadow of doubt the guilt
of the accused appellant Carlito dela Rosa.

As this Court has articulated, the defense of alibi is certainly
unavailing where there is affirmative evidence of the presence of the accused
at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission, if not his positive identification
as the perpetrator of the offense, as well as where there is an antemortem
statement of the victim received in evidence either as a dying declaration or as part of the res gestae
(People v. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459).

An antemortem statement is an evidence of the highest
order (People v. Almeda, 124 SCRA 491). At the treshhold of death, all thoughts of fabricating lies are
stilled. The utterance of a victim made immediately after
sustaining serious injuries may be
considered so-to-speak as pure emanations
of the stabbing and hacking incident or the incident speaking through the
victim.

Appellants in their last-ditch effort to absolve themselves from
liability, sought to allege inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses which merely refer to trivial matters and do not
discredit their credibility. But
assuming that the alleged inconsistencies do exist, they refer to mere
collateral matters and not to the vital fact that appellants hacked and stabbed
the victim after they had cornered him in the house of Dino Altitche.

This Court has recognized the fact that persons witnessing an
unfolding crime may not recall the sequence of the incidents in exactly the
same way. Persons react differently to
a similar situation (People v. Damian, 127 SCRA 507). What is important is that these persons corroborate each other on
material facts, although not on trivial or collateral matters.

Coming now to the respective liabilities of the appellants, We
find that both accused-appellants Montilla and Carlito dela Rosa should be
convicted only of homicide.

Among the circumstances that can qualify an act of killing
another as murder is “taking advantage of superior strength (par. 1, Art. 248,
Revised Penal Code). For numerical
superiority to constitute superior strength, it must be shown that the culprits
took advantage of their superior number in killing the victims.

In this case, the victim was first stoned at the doorway of the
house of Dino Altitche. When he was
hit, he lost his hold on the doorknob, enabling appellants to close in on him
and stab him with their bolos. Under
these circumstances, the superior strength of appellants was not necessary for
the killing of the victim. The stoning
of the victim had rendered him somewhat helpless, thus making it easy for
appellants to stab him.

Since Montilla and Carlito dela Rosa hacked and stabbed the
victim under the same circumstances, their guilt must necessarily be of the
same character.

WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing premises, the
judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, but with modification as to the conviction of appellant Montilla from
murder to homicide only. Appellants
Montilla and Carlito dela Rosa are hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Twelve (12) Years
of prision mayor as minimum to Seventeen (17) Years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal as maximum. The civil
indemnity awarded by the trial court is hereby increased from P30,000.00 to
P50,000.00 in accordance with existing jurisprudence (People v. Sison,189 SCRA
643).

SO ORDERED.

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