PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, VS. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA ALIAS “LABO,” MARIO DE LUNA Y LAGUARTILLA, FELIPE NAVA­CILLA Y SALVA, NOEL PALAD AND PETER CANIESO, ACCUSED…

Mario de Luna and Felipe Navacilla appeal from a decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Lucena City finding them guilty of murder.

The two (2) appellants were among five (5) persons who were
charged under the following information:

“That on or about the 18th day of January 1988, at Poblacion,
Municipality of Sariaya, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above?named accused, armed with
bladed and pointed instruments and stones, conspiring and confederating
together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
stab with the said bladed and pointed weapon and hit with the said stones one
Romanito Matocinos y Albunan, thereby inflicting upon the latter wounds and
injuries on different parts of his body which directly caused his death.

That the accused attacked and stabbed said Romanito Matocinos y
Albunan, suddenly and unexpectedly, without giving the latter any opportunity
to defend himself or to escape.

Contrary to law.”^[1]

Two (2) other accused, Noel Palad and
Peter Canieso, have remained at large, while the accused Teofilo Villanueva
also known as “Labo” was discharged from the information and utilized
as a state witness.

At arraignment, appellants Navacilla and de Luna entered a plea
of not guilty. Trial ensued and
judgment was rendered on 24 September 1990 as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the accused MARIO DE LUNA y LAGUARTILLA and FELIPE
NAVACILLA y SALVA are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals
of the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery, defined and penalized under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no modifying
circumstance to either aggravate or mitigate their liability, both accused are
each sentenced by the Court to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment or reclusion
perpetua; to pay the heirs of the deceased Romanito Matocinos, jointly
and severally, the sum of P6,302.00; compensatory damages of P50,000.00, by way
of unrealized earnings; and to pay the costs.”^[2]

The prosecution’s version of the relevant facts, which was
essentially accepted by the trial court, was presented principally through the
testimony of Manuel Atienza. Atienza’s
testimony was summarized by the trial court in the following manner:

“At about 11:00 o’clock in the evening of 18 January 1988,
while Atienza was passing Valderas Street at Sariaya, Quezon, Atienza saw a man
whom he later on recognized as ‘Ayo’ or Romanito Matocinos being ganged up by
the accused Teofilo Villanueva, Mario de Luna, Felipe Navacilla and two (2)
other male persons whom he knew by their faces only. Romanito Matocinos was stabbed by Teofilo Villanueva, Mario de
Luna and Felipe Navacilla one after the other. It was Teofilo Villanueva who stabbed the victim first, followed by
Mario de Luna and Felipe Navacilla. One
among the assailants also struck the victim with a stone but he failed to see
who, among them, did it. Romanito
Matocinos was hit in the front and back parts of his body. He (Manuel Atienza) also heard somebody
shout and plead for the life of the victim although he did not know who they
were. The accused ran away after they
stabbed the victim and the people present thereat carried the victim to a
tricycle. Manuel Atienza then left the scene
of the incident which was brightly lit by a mercury lamp coming from an
electric post situated about five (5) meters away.”^[3]

The accused Teofilo Villanueva who turned prosecution witness
gave a somewhat different version of how the victim Romanito Matocinos met his
violent death, a version which the trial court set out in the following terms:

“At about 11:00 o’clock in the evening of 18 January 1988,
while Teofilo Villanueva was passing Valderas Street at Sariaya, Quezon, on his
way home after visiting a certain Marites Valdoria, he noticed a commotion in
front of a store, and he saw Manolito or Romanito Matocinos being stabbed by
Peter Alcanse (Canieso) when he went to the scene. At that instance, he heard Noel Palad utter the following: ‘Pare, ako naman,’ and after removing the
weapon previously lunged at the victim’s stomach, he also stabbed the victim with it. The accused Mario de Luna then followed and
after taking the same weapon from the stomach of the victim, he likewise
stabbed the latter with it. Peter
Alcanse (Canieso) then removed the weapon, which is a ‘gulukan’ or small bolo
from the victim’s stomach, and together with the accused de Luna and Palad, he
fled the scene of the incident. Teofilo
Villanueva after witnessing the stabbing of Romanito Matocinos, went around
Magdami Street and while he was getting out at San Pablo Street, he met the
three (3) assailants. Peter Alcanse
(Canieso) warned him not to report what he (Villanueva) saw to the police
otherwise he will be the next person to follow the victim. Promising that he will not report the
incident to any policeman, he then proceeded to the place where he used to
sleep at night and he saw accused Felipe Navacilla already sleeping thereat.”^[4]

Appellants de Luna and Navacilla offered their own story
concerning the incident, stressing that they were chance observers, passers by
who happened to have seen a fight. Their story was set out by the trial court in its decision as follows:

“At about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of 18 January 1988,
after eating supper at a restaurant in Sariaya Quezon, accused Felipe
Navacilla, who was then a conductor of a jeepney plying the Lucena
City-Candelaria route, invited accused Mario de Luna, also a jeepney conductor,
to accompany him in his visit to a girl whom he was courting in Sariaya. Unfortunately, the house of the girl was
already closed when they arrived at her place so, they went home. On their way home, however, they saw three
(3) persons fighting with one another. At first, they did not mind what they saw but when they heard a woman
shouting for help, accused Navacilla tried to approach such persons. Both accused were then met by a man with a
gun who told them not to interfere otherwise something may happen to them. As they noticed that the assailants were
armed with guns and knives (balisong), they did not interfere and proceeded to
the jeepney where they slept.”^[5]

Appellant Navacilla in a separate brief assigned three (3) errors
while a joint brief for appellants Navacilla and de Luna set out four (4)
alleged errors. This assignment of
errors may be condensed in the following manner:

The trial court erred in:

(a) according credence to the testimony of
the prosecution witness Manuel Atienza;

(b) accepting and believing the testimony
of Teofilo Villanueva, accused turned state witness; and

(c) convicting the appellants.

In respect of their first assignment of error, appellants point
to a variance between statements made in Atienza’s affidavit executed on 4
March 1988 before the police authorities and his oral testimony in open court
given on 15 March 1989. In his
affidavit (“Salaysay“), Atienza stated that he had seen
appellant de Luna and Navacilla holding and wielding stones at the deceased
victim while the other accused were wielding knives:

“x x x x x
x x x
x

T-    Isalaysay
mo nga sa akin kung papaanong pagtutulong-tulong ang ginawa nitong sinasabi
mong mga tao?

S-    Iyong
dalawa pong hindi ko kilala ang pangalan ay patalim ang (sic) kita kong armas,
ang kay Labo o Teofilo ay patalim din samantalang ang hawak naman nitong dalawa
ni Mario at Felipe ay bato at (sic) kita ko naman nagsisisigaw itong isang
bakla at isang babae na hindi ko mga kilala ang pangalan.”^[6]

During the preliminary investigation of
the case, it appears that Manuel Atienza reiterated that he saw appellants
holding stones:

“Q:  While
you were walking from the North going to South along Rodriguez Street on January
18, 1988 at around 11:30 in the evening, do you still remember what unusual
incident that you saw?

A:    Yes,
sir. At first I heard a commotion and
then when I looked said commotion, I saw a free for all fight ‘labo-labo,’ sir.

Q:    Do
you know who were engaged in said ‘labo-labo’?

A:    I
only (sic) Teofilo Villanueva alias Labo, Mario de Luna and Felipe Navacilla
and other two (2) persons whom I do not know, sir.

Q:    You
said looked the commotion that were going on, in what particular act did this
alias Labo was doing? (sic)

A:    I
saw him opened the dagger, sir.

Q:    What
about Mario de Luna?

A:    Mario
de Luna and Felipe Navacilla were holding stones, sir.

Q:    After
that, what happened?

A:    And
the other persons whom I do not know the names were holding weapons, sir.

Q:    After
that, what happened next?

A:    I
saw that a certain person punch Romanito Matocinos, sir.

Q:    In
other words, said persons were able to hurt Romanito Matocinos?

A:    I
believe, sir.

Q:    Why
do you believe?

A:    Because
I saw, sir.

Q:    And
what happened to Matocinos?

A:    The
boy was trying to parry it, sir.

Q:    Was he able to parry the same?

A:    I
believe no, sir.

Q:    And
where is now Matocinos?

A:    He was already dead, sir.

x x x x x
x x
x x”^[7]

However, appellants insist,^[8]
Atienza stated in open court that appellants de Luna and Navacilla stabbed
Romanito Matocinos.

The trial court did not give much weight to appellants’ argument,
and, we believe, rightly so. Insofar as
the alleged inconsistency between statements in Atienza’s affidavit and
Atienza’s testimony in open court is concerned, it has often been noted by this
Court that an affidavit being taken ex parte is almost always
incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion and
sometimes from want of suggestion and inquiries, without the aid of which the
witness may be unable to recall the connected collateral circumstances
necessary for correction of the first suggestion of his memory and for his
accurate recollection of all
that belongs to the subject.^[9]
Moreover, affidavits are frequently not complete reproductions of what the
declarants had in mind, considering that affidavits are frequently prepared by
the administering officer and cast in the latter’s language or the latter’s
understanding of what the affiant had said, while the affiant frequently simply
signs the affidavit after the same has been read to him.^[10]
The statements made by witness Atienza during the preliminary investigation of
the criminal case were merely reiteration of what Atienza’s affidavit had set
out and it may be recalled that preliminary investigations are commonly fairly
summary or truncated in nature, being designed simply for the determination
(not of guilt beyond reasonable doubt but) of probable cause prior to the
filing of an information in court.

It is the statements of witness Atienza made in open court during
the trial which deserve careful consideration. Examination of this testimony shows that Atienza had seen five (5) persons
including the two (2) appellants ganging up on the victim Romanito Matocinos;
that he knew three (3) of the five (5) persons involved by name and by face,
having known them for sometime before the commission of the crime; that he had
observed a “labo-labo” with the accused attacking Romanito with
knives and stones; that he saw three (3) of the accused stabbing at Romanito
either successively or nearly simultaneously and that Romanito was also
assaulted with stones held by the two (2) appellants. This testimony should be taken in conjunction with the medical
evidence submitted at the trial to the effect that Romanito had suffered seven
(7) stab wounds (at least three [3] of which were identified as mortal in
character), five (5) incised wounds and two (2) abrasions in different parts of
his body and face. Thus, the fact that
witness Atienza stated in open court that he had observed the accused Teofilo
Villanueva, Mario de Luna and Felipe Navacilla stab or lunge at Romanito
Matocinos with bladed weapons, does not necessarily show that the two (2)
appellants de Luna and Navacilla, had not also struck the victim Romanito
Matocinos with stones. Appellants de
Luna and Navacilla may well have struck Romanito with stones (rather than
hurled stones at him) and then dropped the stones and stabbed Romanito with a
knife or knives. Indeed, state witness
Teofilo Villanueva had stated in open court that appellant de Luna pulled out a
bladed weapon thrust by one of the other accused into the stomach of the
victim, only to stab the victim once more with it.

It is also relevant to note that the allegation of conspiracy was
adequately proved, that the accused were attacking the sole and luckless victim
Romanito Matocinos with knives and stones in a deliberate and concerted manner and that the accused fled
together when other people arrived at the scene of the assault. In this situation, it is not essential that
the prosecution shall have proved the precise and detailed participation of
each of the accused, since well-established doctrine holds that where
conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all.^[11]
Finally, we must note that Atienza had known both appellants and the victim
before the occurrence of the crime and that he had positively identified
appellants and state witness Teofilo Villanueva as among the attackers of
Romanito Matocinos. Appellants have
neither alleged nor proved any evil and improper motive on the part of Atienza
for falsely imputing a crime as grave as murder to appellants.

In their second assignment of error, appellants fault the trial
court for accepting and believing
the testimony of Teofilo Villanueva who had become a prosecution witness. This assignment of error indicates some
confusion in appellants’ minds. For appellant
Felipe Navacilla took advantage of Teofilo Villanueva’s testimony in his effort
to rebut the declaration of prosecution witness Manuel Atienza that he (Felipe
Navacilla) had participated in the
stabbing of Romanito Matocinos. Navacilla contends that the trial court had failed to consider the fact
that he had not been positively identified by Teofilo Villanueva as one of the
assailants.^[12]
It is true that Teofilo Villanueva did not mention the name of Felipe Navacilla
in identifying the
attackers of Romanito Matocinos. Teofilo Villanueva’s failure to mention Felipe Navacilla
did not, however, impress the trial court. The trial court pointed out that appellants de Luna and Navacilla had
themselves admitted in open court their presence at the scene of the crime.^[13]
Moreover, we may add that witness Manuel Atienza had positively
identified. Felipe Navacilla as one of
the attackers of Matocinos along with Teofilo Villanueva and Mario de Luna.

The gist of appellants’ third assignment of error is that the trial
court erred in finding the presence of treachery.

As indicated earlier, the post mortem examination report showed
that Romanito Matocinos suffered seven (7) stab wounds, five (5) incised wounds
and two (2) abrasions in different parts of his body. Death was attributed to the multiple stab and incised wounds,
many of which were sustained by the victim on his chest. The number and location of these wounds indicate clearly that the
perpetrators intended not merely to inflict physical injuries upon Matocinos,
but also to snuff out his life.

Treachery qualifies killing into murder and the well-known rule
is that treachery is to be appreciated where means and methods are adopted
which render the victim unable to defend himself and permit the attackers to
carry out their felonious intent without danger to themselves arising from any
means of defense or retaliation which the victim may have.^[14]
In the present case, the victim Romanito Matocinos was alone and unarmed when
he was attacked simultaneously or “ganged up” by five (5) persons,
armed with knives and stones. He was
literally surrounded and overwhelmed by the five (5) attackers, each of them
thrusting away at him with a knife or striking him with a stone. Under the circumstances, Romanito Matocinos
did not stand a chance against his assailants, and we agree with the trial
court that his slaying must be regarded as murder.^[15]
The trial court found the sequence and combination of the facts and
circumstances proven as sufficient to produce a conviction of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. Appellants have not presented any basis for
overturning the conclusion so reached by the trial court.

Turning lastly to the award made by the trial court of
“compensatory damages of P50,000.00 by way of unrealized earnings,”
we note that the victim Romanito Matocinos was 20 years old at the time of his
slaying. The trial court found that he was earnings P800.00 a month and a
net annual income of P5,000.00. Under
the 1980 Commissioner’s Standard Ordinary Mortality Table, Matocinos was
expected to live for another fifty-one (51) years had he not been murdered.^[16]
Since, however, a man does not normally continue working to earn money up to
the final year or month of his life, fifty-one (51) years may reasonably be
reduced to forty (40) more years. For
that period of time, the net or compensable earnings lost by reason of Romanito
Matocino’s death is P200,000.00 (P5,000.00 x 40).

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the decision of the
trial court appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, except that the phrase “life
imprisonment” in the dispositive portion of that decision is hereby
DELETED,^[17]
and except for the award of compensatory damages by way of unrealized earnings
which is hereby INCREASED to P200,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Regalado, Nocon, and Campos,
Jr., JJ., concur.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), on
official leave.

^[1]
Information, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 9-10.

^[2]
Trial Court Decision, p. 11; Rollo, p. 47

^[3]
Id., p. 4; Rollo, p. 40.

^[4]
Id., p. 5; Rollo, p. 41.

^[5]
Id., p. 6; Rollo, p. 42

^[6]
Appellants’ Brief, p. 5; Rollo, p. 92.

^[7]
TSN, 12 April 1988, pp. 2-3; Records, pp. 12-13.

^[8]
Appellants’ Brief, p. 6.

^[9]
People v. Gonzales, 99 SCRA 697 (1980).

^[10]
People v. Dumpe, 183 SCRA 547 (1990); People v. Anggot, 105 SCRA
168 (1981); People v. Gonzales, supra.

^[11]
Angelo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88392, 25 June 1992; Paulino v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89978, 26 June 1992; People v. Punzalan, 203
SCRA 364 (1991); People v. Alvarez, 201 SCRA 364 (1991); People v.
Pascual, 204 SCRA 618 (1991).

^[12]
Appellant Felipe Navacilla’s Brief, p. 8; Rollo, p. 76.

^[13]
Trial Court Decision, p. 9; Rollo, p. 99.

^[14]
People v. Coyo, 196 SCRA 447 (1991); People v. Tiozon, 198 SCRA
368 (1991); People v. Toribio, 198 SCRA 529 (1991); People v.
Mabuhay, 185 SCRA 675 (1990).

^[15]
See, e.g., People v. Lao, 204 SCRA 337 (1991); People v. Jumadiao, 143 SCRA 383 (1986); People v.
Lopez, 132 SCRA 188 (1984); People v. Surban, 123 SCRA 218 (1983);
People v. Centeno, 130 SCRA 198
(1984); People v. Gutierrez, 26 SCRA 143 (1969).

^[16]
The formula is set out and applied in, e.g., People v. Quilaton, 205 SCRA 279 (1992); and People v.
Daniel, 136 SCRA 92 (1986).

^[17]
E.g., People v. Hasiron, G.R.
No. 100797, promul­gated 15 October 1992.