PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RONILO MACHETE ALIAS “PAWE” AND RENE O. MACHETE ALIAS “EBOY” (AT LARGE), ACCUSED. RONILO MACHETE ALIAS “PAWE,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court
finding appellant Ronilo Machete guilty of the crimes of murder and serious
physical injuries.

Ronilo Machete, together with Rene O. Machete, was charged in
three (3) separate informations:

1.   In Criminal Case No. N-1468, he was charged,
along with Rene O. Machete with the crime of murder with assault upon a person
in authority, for attacking Pat. Panfilo Mendoza and Pat. Leonilo Maranga and
the eventual fatal shooting of Pat. Mendoza;

2.   In Criminal Case No. N-1469, Ronilo Machete
and Rene O. Machete were charged with the attempted murder of Juanito Narrido,
who suffered gunshot wounds on the same occasion that saw the killing of Pat.
Mendoza; and

3.   In Criminal Case No. N-1470, Ronilo and Rene
Machete were charged with attempted murder in connection with the infliction of
gunshot wounds upon Elmeo Sabah on the same occasion when Pat. Mendoza was
killed and Juanito Narrido wounded by gunfire.

In the subsequent trial, only Ronilo Machete was prosecuted, his
co-accused and cousin Rene O. Machete having managed to elude arrest. At arraignment, Ronilo pleaded not guilty to
all the charges against him in the three (3) informations. After a joint trial of all three (3) cases,
the trial court convicted Ronilo Machete for the crime of murder and serious
physical injuries. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder in criminal case no. N-1468 as defined
and penalized in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and sentences him to
suffer and undergo imprisonment of reclusion
perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of Panfilo Mendoza the sum of
P50,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the
costs;

In criminal case N-1469 he is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of serious physical injuries defined and penalized under Article 263 (3) of the
Revised Penal Code; applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law the court sentences
him to suffer and undergo imprisonment of four (4) months and twenty (20) days
of arresto mayor as minimum to two (2) years and eleven (11) months and
ten (10) days of prision correcional as maximum; to indemnify Juanito
Narrido the sum of P15,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay the costs;

In criminal case N-1470 he is ACQUITTED for insufficiency of
evidence. The accused is credited with
the full period of his preventive imprisonment.”^[1]

In the present appeal, Ronilo Machete assigns the following as
errors:

I.

The trial court erred in finding
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged and in
giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and
disregarding that of the defense.

II.

Granting without admitting that, it was
Ronilo Machete who shot Pat. Panfilo Mendoza, the trial court erred in finding
him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder despite the absence
of qualifying circumstance of treachery.”^[2]

The evidence of the prosecution consisted principally of the
testimony of Pat. Maranga and Juanito Narrido and tended to prove the following
as the relevant facts.

On 20 January 1987, Pat. Maranga and Pat. Mendoza were assigned
as security officers at a public benefit dance in Sitio Bigaa, Barangay San
Pablo, Naval, Leyte. They arrived at
the situs of the dance at around 8:45 p.m. and stationed themselves at the
travelling store of one Maria Juanes which had been set up at the edge of the
dance area. Maria Juanes offered the
two (2) police officers coffee which they accepted and drank as they manned
their station.

While the two (2) policemen were sitting next to each other by
the travelling store, Ronilo Machete came up from behind them and suddenly
grabbed the armalite rifle held by Pat. Mendoza and immediately pointed the
rifle at Pat. Maranga; the latter’s own rifle was then taken by Rene
Machete. When the two (2) Machetes
moved away, Pat. Mendoza followed in the effort to retrieve his rifle. Ronilo Machete saw Pat. Mendoza following them
and he fired at him, hitting him with several bullets. After shooting down Pat. Mendoza, Ronilo
also fired at the crowd at the dance area, hitting Juanito Narrido in the
process.

When Pat. Mendoza was gunned down, Pat. Maranga ran into the
crowd to seek cover. Pat. Maranga heard
several more shots fired and then the firing stopped. The two (2) accused Machetes fled with the police officers’
rifles.

The body of Pat. Mendoza was brought to the district hospital of
Naval where he was examined by a Dr. Medalla. The Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Medalla stated that Pat. Mendoza had
sustained six (6) gunshot wounds, two (2) of which clearly showed that they
were sustained while the victim was lying on the ground.

Appellant Ronilo Machete offered his own version of the events of
that night. In his version, it was his
cousin Rene Machete who had gunned down Pat. Mendoza and who had continued to
fire at Mendoza while he lay on the ground. The testimony of Ronilo Machete was summed up by the trial court in the
following terms:

“Accused Ronilo Machete testified to prove that it was his
cousin Rene (@Eboy) Machete who shot and killed Pat. Panfilo Mendoza and hit
Juanito Narrido in the process also. He
claimed that when Pat. Mendoza started out to take his dancing partner he was
bumped by Rene @Eboy who was hurrying up to get a partner to dance among the
ladies; that after the piece, Mendoza confronted Eboy for bumping him. Mendoza would not accept Rene’s
apology. Instead he hit Rene with his
rifle.

Rene nursed his pain and confided to Ronilo that Pat. Mendoza is a bully
and was such since he was a kid. But
there will be a time when he could even the score. At about 11:30 P.M. when Ronilo was dancing he heard a commotion. He heard a shout, ‘Don’t do it, Boy!’ He
looked around and saw Rene with an armalite rifle. He was running after Dodong Mendoza. Ronilo stopped Rene but Rene still shot Mendoza who fell. Again, Rene fired at Mendoza.

After that Rene told Ronilo to go with him. He also advised Ronilo to pick up the
armalite of Maranga who was nowhere. Ronilo obeyed and they both disappeared with the two armalites. At that time, Ronilo said Pat. Maranga was
dancing and he left his rifle on the table. So the two Machetes went to Bandirahan from where they took a pumpboat
for Biliran. At Biliran, Ronilo suggested
that they part ways as Ronilo was afraid he might be implicated.

The court asked Ronilo what happened to the armalite he was
carrying. He said he left it in a hut
at the Biliran Bridge because there was a check point. Asked why he did not turn over the rifle to
the police at Biliran, he replied he was afraid to be detained because of said
rifle since Rene Machete escaped. So he
went to Malangas, Mindanao until he was arrested by a policeman from Naval,
Leyte in 1990 four years after the incident.”^[3]

Appellant Ronilo Machete presented two (2) witnesses who
corroborated in part Ronilo’s own testimony that his cousin Rene Machete, and
not appellant himself, had slain Pat. Mendoza. One witness, Antonio Juntilla, testified that while Pat. Maranga and
appellant Ronilo Machete were dancing with their respective partners, Pat.
Mendoza was about a meter away from a table where he (Pat. Mendoza) had placed
his armalite rifle. According to
Juntilla, Rene Machete walked towards the table, picked up the rifle and shot
Mendoza. A second defense witness,
Julianita Juanes, testified that when she heard a gunshot, she turned her head
towards the place where Pat. Mendoza was and she saw Mendoza lying on the
ground with Rene Machete standing over him and firing a gun at him.

Clearly, we have here again two (2) apparently conflicting
versions of the events which led to the death of Pat. Mendoza and the wounding
of Juanito Narrido. The central issue
is one of credibility of witnesses. The
well-established rule is that the trial court’s evaluation of the
credit-worthiness of the testimony given before it by witnesses must be
accorded great respect.^[4] The
evaluation of testimony is a primary task of trial courts before whom
conflicting versions of the same events come up day after day.^[5]

It may be noted that both versions could well have been substantially correct: that is, both Ronilo and Rene may have fired at Pat. Mendoza and
at the people at the dance area, with the armalite rifles taken from the police
officers. There was, in other words, no
inherent or physical impossibility of the two (2) Machetes (instead of just one
of them) firing at Pat. Mendoza and the people dancing, one after the other or
nearly at the same time. Prosecution
witness Pat. Maranga saw Ronilo as he fired; the defense witnesses may well
have seen Rene as he in turn fired. It
is not, however, necessary to belabor this point.

In any event, in the instant case, the prosecution witnesses
(Pat. Maranga and Juanito Narrido) positively testified that appellant Ronilo
Machete had shot Pat. Mendoza and had fired at the people on the dance
hall. Their testimony was affirmative
and forthright and the appellant has not presented any evidence showing any
evil or sinister motive on the part of Pat. Maranga or Juanito Narrido that
would have led either of them to testify falsely against appellant Ronilo
Machete and to impute to him serious crimes of which he was in fact
innocent. Appellant Ronilo Machete has
not pointed us to any substantial reason why this Court should overturn the
trial court’s appreciation of the evidence presented against appellant. The trial court concluded that appellant
Ronilo Machete had sought to deflect guilt away from himself and towards his
cousin Rene who was not present, who had escaped and (so far as the record
shows) has continued to date to evade capture by the law enforcement officers.

Appellant’s conduct after the slaying of Pat. Mendoza and the
shooting of Juanito Narrido was construed by the trial court as indicative of
his awareness of guilt. Ronilo Machete
admitted that he had gone into hiding in Malangas, Zamboanga del Sur and there
he was apprehended more than four (4) years after the commission of the crimes
here involved.^[6]
The trial court was entitled to take such behavior into account. The familiar rule is that flight from the
scene of the crime is indicative of guilt.^[7]

We turn to the question of whether treachery was present in the
slaying of Pat. Mendoza. The trial
court ruled that treachery had been shown, saying:

“x x x No doubt Pat. Mendoza was treacherously shot. He was not given the slightest chance to
defend himself. He was mowed down in
cold blood.”^[8]

Appellant Ronilo Machete argues that no
treachery was present in the instant case:

“x x x Assuming that it was indeed accused-appellant who shot
Pat. Panfilo Mendoza, it is submitted that the shooting was not treacherously
done leaving Pat. Mendoza not the slightest chance at all to defend
himself. As Pat. Leonilo Maranga himself
testified, after accused-appellant and his companion grabbed his armalite rifle
and that of the victim, the two (referring to accused-appellant and Rene
Machete) walked away. Thus, Pat.
Maranga testified during his direct examination as follows:

‘Q:   From
where did he get that armalite rifle in shooting Panfilo Mendoza?

A: He grabbed the armalite rifle of Panfilo Mendoza and after grabbing the
armalite rifle of Panfilo Mendoza, Ronilo poked the gun towards me and Rene
Machete got the armalite issued to [me] and they walked away. x x x.’ (TSN, May 20, 1991, p. 4)

Thus, when accused-appellant and his
companion walked away with the armalite rifles, Pat. Mendoza could have known
that if he would follow to retrieve his armalite rifle, the same armalite rifle
might be used against him. Thus, it
could not be said that Pat. Mendoza was left with no slightest chance to defend
himself and that he was caught by surprise.”^[9]

The Solicitor General agrees with
appellant’s contention on this point. The Solicitor General, elaborating on the position of appellant’s
counsel, states that:

“x x x [E]ven if the shooting was sudden and unexpected, as
regards to victim, and that he was not given the opportunity to undertake any
form of defense or evasion, this does not necessarily justify a finding of
treachery or alevosia, absent any evidence that his mode of assault
was consciously and deliberately adopted to insure execution of the crime
without risk of the offender. (People v. Ramirez, 203 SCRA 25 [1991]) Hence, there is no treachery
if the crime was committed on the spur of the moment. (Ibid.)

In the case at bar, Pat. Mendoza was sitting beside Pat. Maranga
when appellant and Rene Machete grabbed their respective firearms. (p. 10, TSN, May 20, 1991) Appellant even
aimed the firearm he grabbed
at Pat. Maranga to forestall possible resistance while Rene Machete grabbed the
latter’s firearm. (p. 4, Ibid.)
These actuations of appellant and Rene Machete forebode, and were in fact,
outward manifestations of dastardly intentions. For sure, in accordance with normal human experience, Pat.
Mendoza already had an inkling that he would be assaulted or even shot if he
tried to follow appellant and Rene Machete for the purpose of retrieving his
firearm. As regards Pat. Mendoza
therefore, the shooting was not totally unexpected.

Further, there is
no showing that appellant consciously and deliberately adopted the manner of attack purposively to avoid
risk unto himself. Instead, the
shooting appears to have been an instantaneous reaction on his part probably to
stop Pat. Mendoza from following them as they escaped. Had appellant indeed intended on
treacherously killing Pat. Mendoza, he would have shot him at the time they
grabbed the firearms.

Verily, these circumstances negate the attendance of treachery as a
circumstance qualifying the killing to murder. Well-settled is the rule that the circumstances which would qualify the
killing to murder must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself. (People v. Raquipo, 188 SCRA 571 [1990]) The
prosecution failed to do so.”^[10]
(Underscoring supplied)

We agree with the Solicitor General and appellant Ronilo Machete
that treachery had not been sufficiently shown in the instant case, that the
prosecution had not made an adequate showing that appellant had deliberately
adopted the method of attack here shown for the very purpose of avoiding risk
to the attacker himself. Appellant had
responded to Pat. Mendoza’s effort to follow the Machetes who had despoiled him
and Pat. Maranga of their armalite rifles. Accordingly, the crime committed by Ronilo Machete was homicide defined
and penalized in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, and not murder.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons above stated, the
decision of the trial court in Criminal Case No. N-1468 is hereby MODIFIED so as to hold appellant guilty
of the crime of homicide. There being
no mitigating or aggravating circumstance shown and applying the provisions of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant is hereby SENTENCED to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from ten (10)
years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months of reclusion temporal as maximum. As so modified, the decision of the trial court in Criminal Case
No. N-1468 is hereby AFFIRMED, while the decision of the trial court in
Criminal Cases Nos. N-1469 and N-1470 is hereby AFFIRMED en toto.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Romero, Melo, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 61.

^[2]
Id., p. 44.

^[3]
Id., p. 60.

^[4]
People v. Munda, 189 SCRA 425 (1990).

^[5]
Bonquilla v. Court of Appeals, 147 SCRA 9 (1987).

^[6]
TSN, 24 July 1991, p. 15.

^[7]
E.g., People v. Molina, 213 SCRA 52 (1992).

^[8]
Decision of the trial court, p. 5; Rollo, p. 61.

^[9]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 11-12; Rollo, pp. 54-55.

^[10]
Appellee’s Brief, pp. 11-13; Rollo, pp. 79-81.