PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EUGENIO RESUMA, KUPAD ANGIAS AND ROMEO DE LA CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Eugenio Resuma, Kupad Angias, and Romeo de la Cruz pray for a
reversal of the decision^[1]
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, dated 07
February 1992, finding them guilty of the crimes of Murder and double Attempted
Murder, and sentencing them as follows:

“IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1964

1. The accused,
EUGENIO RESUMA, KUPAD ANGIAS and ROMEO DELA CRUZ, to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of the late Beronio Tagayon, jointly and
severally, (a) the sum of P50,000.00, as indemnity for death; (b) the sum of
P14,325.00, as actual damages incurred attendant to the death of the said
victim; (c) the amount of P15,000.00, as moral damages; (d) the amount of
P10,000.00, as exemplary damages; and to pay the cost.

IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1965

1. The accused,
EUGENIO RESUMA, KUPAD ANGIAS and ROMEO DELA CRUZ, to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and TWENTY
(20) DAYS of prision correccional, as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS, ONE (1)
MONTH and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the
costs.

IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1966

1. The accused,
EUGENIO RESUMA, KUPAD ANGIAS and ROMEO DELA CRUZ, to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and TWENTY
(20) DAYS, of prision correccional, as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS, ONE
(1) MONTH and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay
the costs.

Being detention prisoners, the accused are entitled to full credit of
the entire period of their preventive imprisonment in accordance with Article
29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6127, provided
they have voluntarily complied in writing to abide by the same disciplinary
rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, with only four-fifth (4/5)
thereof.

IT IS SO ORDERED.”^[2]

In separate Informations dated 3 June 1991 and filed on 5 June
1991 by First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Emmanuel S. de Peralta, the
accused Eugenio Resuma, Kupad Angias, and Romeo dela Cruz were all charged with
the crimes of Murder and double Attempted Murder, committed as follows:

IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1964

“That in the afternoon of February 6, 1991, at Sitio Daligdig,
Barangay Ragandang, Municipality of Lebak, Province of Sultan Kudarat,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, armed with firearms, conspiring, confederating together and mutually
aiding one another, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and
treachery, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack,
assault and shot one BERONIO TAGAYON with the use of the aforementioned weapons
thereby inflicting multiple gunshot wounds upon the latter which directly
caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW, particularly Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.”

IN CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 1965

2. “That in the afternoon of February 6,
1991, at Sitio Daligdig, Barangay Ragandang, Municipality of Lebak, Province of
Sultan Kudarat, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, armed with firearms, conspiring, confederating
together and mutually aiding one another, with intent to kill, with evident
premeditation and treachery, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, attack, assault (sic) and shot one DOMINADOR SALINDA, JR. with the
use of the aforementioned weapons, failing, however, to hit the latter thereby
commencing the commission of the crime of murder directly by overt acts but did
not perform all the acts of execution which, should have consumated [sic] it by
reason of some causes other than the spontaneous desistance of the accused,
that is, the victim was able to ran away for escape.

CONTRARY TO LAW, particularly Article 248
in relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.”

IN CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 1966

“That in the afternoon of February 6, 1991, at Sitio Daligdig,
Barangay Ragandang, Municipality of Lebak, Province of Sultan Kudarat,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, armed with firearms, conspiring, confederating together and mutually
aiding one another, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and
treachery, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously [sic],
attack, assault and shot one JOLITO HELAOS with the use of the afore-mentioned
weapons, failing, however, to hit the latter thereby commencing the commission
of the crime of murder directly by over acts but did not perform all the acts
of execution which should have consumated [sic] it by reason of some clauses
other than the spontaneous desistance of the accused, that is, the victim was
able to ran away for escape.

CONTRARY TO LAW, particularly Article 248
in relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal code of the Philippines.”

On 26 June 1991, the RTC appointed Atty. Jose Miguel as counsel
de oficio for the accused. On 8 July 1991, the accused, assisted by counsel de oficio,
were arraigned and they individually and separately entered a plea of not guilty
to each of the crimes charged. On the
same date, the prayer of both the prosecution and defense for a joint trial of
the three (3) cases was granted by the trial court. On 10 October 1991, the joint trial commenced.

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Dominador Salinda, Jr.,^[3]
Antonio Ticmon,^[4]
Jolito Helaos,^[5]
Delia Tagayon,^[6]
and Dr. Alfredo Calingin.^[7]

The version of the prosecution as to the factual background of
this case is as follows:

On 6 February 1991, at about five o’clock in the afternoon and
while Beronio Tagayon, Dominador Salinda, Jr., and Jolito Helaos were preparing
to go to their respective houses after cutting the grass on the land cultivated
by Tagayon, accused Eugenio Resuma, Kupad Angias, and Romeo dela Cruz, all
armed with shotguns, positioned themselves on an elevated portion of a hill
about four (4) fathoms away from where Tagayon, Salinda, Jr., and Helaos were
standing. As Salinda, Jr. and Helaos
started to walk, they heard one gunshot coming from the hill. As they turned around towards the direction
of the gunshot, they saw the tip of Resuma’s shotgun still smoking. Then they heard three (3) more
gunshots. They saw Tagayon slumped on
the ground. And as two (2) shotgun
pellets grazed the outer garments of Helaos, he and Salinda, Jr. scampered in
different directions to take cover.

Tagayon’s wife, Delia, who was about one hundred (100) meters
away watching her husband approach their house, heard the first gunshot as well
as the three (3) succeeding gunshots. She looked at the direction of the gunshots and saw the three (3)
accused holding their weapons and withdrawing from their elevated position. Then she saw her fallen husband, and rushed
to his aid. Antonio Ticmon, who was one
hundred fifty (150) meters away from where Tagayon fell, also heard the
gunshots and saw the accused withdrawing. Then he approached the fallen Tagayon and helped Delia carry Tagayon’s
wounded body to the latter’s house.

Shortly after Delia and Ticmon reached Tagayon’s house carrying
the wounded Tagayon, the latter died. The next day, 7 February 1991, Dr. Alfredo Calingin, accompanied by a
policeman, autopsied the body of Tagayon. He thereafter accomplished the autopsy report containing the details of
the cause of death of Tagayon. The
police authorities took the respective statements of Helaos, Salinda, Jr.,
Ticmon, and Delia Tagayon regarding the circumstances surrounding the alleged
attack on the victims.

The defense, in turn, presented the following witnesses: Romeo dela Cruz,^[8]
Kupad Angias,^[9]
Eugenio Resuma,^[10]
Carlos Bautista,^[11]
and Rolando Pillado.^[12]

The defense adopted by the accused was basically denial of the
crimes charged against them. To
substantiate their defense, each of the accused attempted to negate the
prosecution’s theory on the existence of conspiracy among the accused, and
their direct participation in the crimes charged.

All the accused denied having any knowledge whatsoever of the
alleged attack on Tagayon, Salinda, Jr., and Helaos. Accused dela Cruz averred that he did not have any
misunderstanding with the victims. Accused Angias denied having known the victims and accused Resuma
invoked alibi in support of his denial.

In addition, to counter the prosecution’s theory of conspiracy,
dela Cruz claimed that he did not know his co-accused Angias, and that he only
knew his co-accused Resuma as a buyer of the former’s (de la Cruz) corn. Accused Angias likewise denied knowing dela
Cruz although he admitted to knowing Resuma but only as the husband of Angias’
niece. Finally, Resuma alleged that he
could not have participated in the alleged crimes as he was scaling corn for
Carlos Bautista in Camp Apeco in Barangay Ragandang at the time of the alleged
attack on Tagayon.

In arriving at its judgment, the trial court found the evidence
presented by the prosecution credible and sufficient to convict all the accused
of the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt. In finding that all the accused directly participated in the attack on
the victims, the trial court stated:

“Evidently, the prosecution relied heavily on the testimonies
of the surviving offended victims, Dominador Salendab, Jr. [sic], and Jolito
Helaos, who allegedly identified the accused, Eugenio Resuma, Kupad Angias, and
Romeo dela Cruz, as the persons who ambushed them on their way going home at
about past 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of February 6, 1991, and who fired
gunshots at them which caused the death of their companion, Beronio Tagayon.

“There is no dispute that Beronio Tagayon was with Dominador
Salendab, Jr. [sic], and Jolito Helaos, when they were ambushed on their way
and firedupon [sic], which caused the death of Beronio Tagayon of gunshot
wounds. Undoubtedly, at 5:00 o’clock,
more or less, in the afternoon of February 6, 1991, it was still bright when
the incident in question took place. Carlos Bautista, who testified for the defense, had in fact declared in
court that at 6:00 o’clock in the evening of February 6, 1991, it was still
bright, and that at 6:30 o’clock in the evening of the same day, it was not yet
very dark. Indubitably, there was no
dispute as to the identification of a person at about 5:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of February 6, 1991. Evidently, it was still very bright at that time of the day. x x x.

“x x x. Consequently,
the Court feels that the defense of alibi of the accused in these cases
deserves no credence, not only for being uncorroborated but also for being
incredible, as it generates the impression that it is fabricated. x x x.

“Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing considerations,
the Court is morally convinced that, through conspiracy, it was the three
accused in theses [sic] cases who are responsible for the death of the deceased
victim, Beronio Tagayon, and of shooting at the offended private complainants,
Dominador Salendab, Jr. [sic], and Jolito Helaos, in the afternoon (5:00
o’clock p.m.) of February 6, 1991, in Sitio Daligdig, Ragandang, Lebak, Sultan
Kudarat.”^[13]

The trial court also discredited the defense posited by the
accused. It observed, thus:

“x x x. There is no
doubt that the testimonies of the accused, Kupad Angias and Romeo dela Cruz, in
denying involvement in the commission of the crimes imputed against them, were
uncorroborated. On the other hand,
while the accused Eugenio Resuma presented Rolando Pillado, apparently, to
corroborate his testimony; their testimonies, however, resulted to serious
contradictions and inconsistencies as disclosed somewhere in the preceding
paragraphs hereof. In effect, accused
Eugenio Resuma had only shown falsehoods in his testimony. x x x.

“The testimony of Carlos Bautista is definitely unconvincing,
and does not easily inspire confidence, belief and credence. How could you believe that for only fourteen
(14) sacks of corn, it took him the whole day of February 6, 1991, until 5:00
o’clock in the afternoon to haul them to Camp Apeco, Ragandang, Lebak, from
Erland, Ragandang, Lebak, covering a distance of only one (1) kilometer, and
using a sledge pulled by a six-year old carabao? Can we believe that a sledge with a dimension of 3 1/2 feet in
length by 3 feet in width could only load two sacks of corn?

“Admittedly, the defense put up by the accused in these cases
is alibi, a defense which is said to be the weakest, seldom believed or given
weight, as it is easy of fabrication, except when the identity of the accused
has not been positively made, and when the evidence of alibi is airtight, which
means that there was physical impossibility for the accused to be in the place
where the incident took place because they were in another place which makes it
physically impossible for them to be at the place of the incident. The Court is not, however, impressed by the
alibi put up by the accused. It is far
from being airtight. Considering,
therefore the distance of the place, where the accused were at the time of the
incident, which was not more than five (5) kilometers at most, it is not
improbable that they could have been in the place of the incident, committed
the acts imputed against them, then returned in the place where they claimed
they were, by negotiating the distance in a short time.

x x x           x x x      x x x

“Undoubtedly, the denial of the accused, Eugenio Resuma, Kupad
Angias, and Romeo dela Cruz, in the commission of the crimes imputed against
them, is unworthy of credence, and apart from being uncorroborated, it cannot
stand above prosecution’s clear and satisfactory evidence. x x x.”^[14]

Finally, in qualifying the acts of all the accused as
constituting the crimes of Murder and Attempted Murder, respectively, the trial
court made the following findings:

“The Court is further convinced that conspiracy was
satisfactorily established by positive and conclusive evidence as shown by the
community of purpose on the part of the three accused as they were seen going
together to the scene of the occurrence of the ambush with firearms and, later,
seen firing with their guns at the deceased victim, Beronio Tagayon, and the
two offended victims, Dominador Salendab, Jr. [sic], and Jolito Helaos.

“With the nature of the evidence presented by the prosecution,
were the qualifying aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident
premeditation, as alleged in the Informations filed against the accused in
these cases, duly established to qualify the crimes committed to Murder and
Attempted Murders?

“The Court honestly believes that on the basis of the method
or way that the accused had committed the crimes, there was deliberate planning
of the act before its execution. The
evidence of the prosecution, no doubt, had established the existence of evident
premeditation. Moreover, conspiracy
generally presupposes premeditation.

“Unquestionably, the victims in these cases were shot upon,
causing the death of one, without them having put up any resistance and/or
defense, as the attack on them was so sudden and unexpected. Indubitably, the accused had consciously
adopted the form of attack employed by them, in a manner that would insure the
execution of the crimes, without risk to themselves coining from the intended
victims. Treachery, no doubt, was duly
established by the evidence of the prosecution in these cases.

“Accordingly, the prosecution has successfully established the
guilt of the accused in each of the above-entitled cases beyond reasonable
doubt.”^[15]

In this appeal, accused-appellants raised a lone assignment of
error, namely:

“ASSIGNMENT
OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION
TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”

In support of their lone assignment of error, accused-appellants
claim as uncontroverted three (3) submissions of the defense: First, the testimony of accused Resuma that
he was scaling corn in Camp Apeco at the time of the ambush. Second, the testimony of prosecution witness
Carlos Bautista corroborating the alibi of accused Resuma. And third, the testimony of Barangay
Councilman Ramon Pillado regarding the alleged statements of complaining
witnesses Salinda, Jr., and Helaos given to him (Pillado) to the effect that
nobody witnessed the alleged ambush, and that nobody knew the identities of the
perpetrators. As for the other accused
Angias and dela Cruz, they insist on their innocence which they anchor upon
their alleged lack of knowledge of the crimes.

We find the arguments of accused-appellants to be untenable.

Accused-appellants fault the trial court for relying on the
direct and positive evidence of the prosecution consisting of the testimonies
of four (4) eyewitnesses to the crimes. Prosecution witnesses Dominador Salinda, Jr., Jolito Helaos, Delia
Tagayon, and Antonio Ticmon all testified that they saw the accused?appellants
standing, each of them wielding shotguns with barrels still smoking from the
earlier gunshots and aimed at the direction of where Tagayon, Salinda, Jr., and
Helaos were standing. Furthermore, they
testified as to the subsequent acts of the accused-appellants in retreating
from their location after shooting at their victims.

In the face of this direct and positive evidence of the
prosecution, the defense could only interpose denial and alibi. Yet, the accused-appellants would want this
Court to rule that it was error for the trial court to disregard their
substantially uncorroborated defense of denial and alibi.

We can not grant such improvident prayer of the
accused-appellants, lest we set at naught overwhelming jurisprudence, a
reiteration of which is found in the Court’s recent pronouncement in the case
of People­ of the Philippines vs. Sulpicio
Pajares,^[16]
wherein we held:

“In sum, the lame defense of bare denial by accused-appellant
cannot overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution proving him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. The solid
testimony of Reynaldo de Vera who witnessed the entire incident; the testimony
of police corporal Regalado that accused-appellant was positively identified by
the victim Alberto Pilapil before his death; accused-appellant’s positive identification
from among other inmates at the Police Headquarters by de Vera; and lastly, the
damaging testimony of defense witness Hilario Candido who admitted that he saw
a similar if not the same weapon in the possession of the accused the day
before the criminal incident occurred are enough indicators to an unprejudiced
mind that the crime of murder perpetrated by accused-appellant has been
established with moral and legal certainty.”

As to the other ground of accused-appellants’ appeal – that both
complaining witnesses Salinda, Jr. and Helaos had stated to defense witness
Pillado that nobody witnessed the attack, and that nobody could identify the
perpetrators thereof – this Court can consider such testimony of Pillado as, at
best, inaccurate, and at worst, of no probative value.

The records show that prosecution witness Salinda, Jr. testified
as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DOMINADOR SALINDA, JR.

Q:    You
said that you saw the gun from where the smoke came from, did you see the
person who was holding that gun?

A:     Yes,
sir.

Q:    Who
were those persons who were holding the gun?

A:     Eugenio
Resuma and Angias Kupad, sir.

Q:    How
far was Eugenio Resuma and Kupad Angias from you when you saw them?

A:     I
think they were about a fathom from me, sir.

Q:    Was
that after the first shot or after the three successive shots when you saw
Eugenio Resuma and Kupad Angias?

A:     After
the three successive shots, sir.

Q:    Aside
from Eugenio Resuma and Kupad Angias where there any other person you saw with
them?

A:     Yes,
sir, I saw a third person by the pilot road at the edge of the forest, sir, and
he was about two fathoms from Resuma and Angias.

Q:    You
said that you saw Eugenio Resuma holding a gun, what kind of gun was that?

A:     Twelve
gauge shot gun long, sir.

Q:    How
about Kupad Angias?

A:     He
was holding twelve gauge [sic] shot gun long.

Q:    You
said you saw Romeo dela Cruz, what was he holding when you saw him?

A:     A
pistolized twenty gauge, sir.

Q:    And
how far was Eugenio Resuma from Kupad Angias when you saw them?

A:     About
two fathoms, sir.

Q:    When
you saw Eugenio Resuma after the first three shots holding the gun, to whom was
he holding the gun?

A:     The
gun was pointed to the cornfield of Dodo.

Q:    How
about Kupad Angias?

A:     He
was also pointed the same place, sir.

Q:    And
how about Romeo dela Cruz?

A:     Romeo
dela Cruz was acting as a guard, sir, and he kept on looking at the house of
Dodo Tagayon.

Q:    This
Dodo Tagayon was he Beronio Tagayon?

A:     Yes,
sir.

Q: You said that the gun of Eugenio Resuma and
Kupad Angias was pointed to the cornfield of Dodo Tagayon, in what particular
place where you situated [sic] at that particular time when you saw them
pointing the gun at the cornfield of Dodo Tagayon?

A:     I
was standing on that pilot road, sir.

Q: How about Beronio Tagayon, where was he at that time in relation to
Eugenio Resuma and Kupad Angias when they were pointing their guns at the
cornfield?

A:     He
was already among his corn because he was hit.

Q:    Hit
by what?

A:     By
twelve gauge [sic] shotgun.

Q:    Why,
who shot him?

A:     Eugenio
Resuma, sir.

Q:    You
saw them?

A:     Yes,
sir.”^[17]

The third prosecution witness Jolito Helaos likewise gave a
similar testimony.

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF JOLITO HELAOS

“Q
–    And while walking towards the house
of Beronio Tagayon, do you remember if any unusual incident that happened?

A –      Yes, sir.

Q –     And what was that incident that happened?

A
–     We do not really expect in our life
that were [sic] were going to be ambushed by this Eugenio Resuma, Kupad Angias
and Romeo dela Cruz, sir.

Q –     You said that you were ambushed by these
three persons that you mentioned, will you tell us how were you ambushed?

A –      They fired at us, sir.

Q –     Were you able to see them?

A –      Yes, sir.

Q –     How far were you from Eugenio Resuma and
Kupad Angias and this Romeo dela Cruz when they fired at you?

A –      I estimated the distance to be 4 fathom
[sic], sir.

Q –     What kind of firearm did Eugenio Resuma use
when they fired at you?

A –      A long 12 gauge shot gun, sir.

Q –     How about Romeo dela Cruz, did he also fire
at you?

A –      We saw him carrying a gun but he did not
fire at us.

Q –     What kind of gun was that?

A –      A 20 gauge [sic] shot gun, sir.

Q –     How far was Eugenio [sic] Resuma from Kupad
Angias when you saw them fired [sic] the three of you?

A –      Maybe he was only a meter from Kupad
Angias, sir.

Q –     How about this Romeo dela Cruz, how far was
he from Kupad Angias?

A –      Maybe he [sic] only about a fathom from
Kupad Angias because he was behind Kupad Angias.

Q
–    Will you describe [sic] to us the
place were Eugenio Resuma, Kupad Angias and Romeo dela Cruz situated [sic] when
they fired at you and your two companions?

A –      It was a hilly portion covered with short
grasses and they could be seen clearly, sir.

Q –     And how many shots were fired by them?

A –      We first heard one shot, sir.

Q –     And then later?

A –      Then it was followed by three successive
shots which made us to seek cover, sir.

Q –     When the first shot was fired, will you tell
us what happened to Beronio Tagayon?

A –      He was hit, sir.

Q –     And after the three more shots, what
happened to Beronio Tagayon.

A –      On our way after the three gunshots
because we have to seek cover was that, Beronio Tagayon fell to the ground,
sir.

Q –     What about you, what did you do after the
three shots?

A –      I was also hit but only on my clothes and
on my pants, sir.

Q –     Who was ahead of the three of you when you
were walking towards the house of Beronio Tagayon?

A –      The one who was walking ahead was Beronio
Tagayon and I was following him and Dominador Salinda, Jr. was behind me, sir.

Q –     You said that after you heard the three
shots you ran away, towards what direction did you ran?

A –      We ran down the sloop [sic], sir.

Q
– By the way, where was Eugenio Resuma,
Kupad Angias and Romeo dela Cruz in relation to you when they fired at you and
your companions?

A –      Eugenio Resuma was on a hilly portion
towards our right, sir.

Q –     How about this Kupad Angias?

A –      He was on the same place, sir.

Q –     How about this Romeo dela Cruz?

A –      He was with his two companions, sir.

Q –     Later on, where did you proceed after
running?

A –      As I said we run down the sloop [sic] and
looked for our way to reach the house of Beronio Tagayon, sir.

Q –     Were you able to reach the house of Beronio
Tagayon?

A –      Yes, sir.

Q
– The last time you saw Eugenio
Resuma, Kupad Angias and Romeo dela Cruz in that afternoon of February 6, 1991,
after the last three shots, what were they doing?

A –      When I saw then after the three shot they
were running away, sir.

Q –     Towards what direction?

A –      They were proceeding to their own home,
sir.

Q –     When you saw them running towards their
houses how far were you from them?

A –      They were almost far from us, maybe about
130 meters more or less.

Q –     By the way, who were your companions in
running toward the house of Beronio Tagayon after the four shots were fired?

A –      Dominador Salida [sic], sir.”^[18]

The foregoing testimonies belie the accuracy of Pillado’s own
testimony. Such inaccuracy, however,
can be explained. It is true that
Salinda, Jr. and Helaos did not actually witness the first attack. But that is because the attack was so sudden
and was, shortly afterwards, continued for another brief period by the
accused-appellants, that Salinda, Jr. and Helaos could not have managed to get
even a momentary glimpse of the actual attack as they themselves were in the
midst of their own frantic effort to take cover. Moreover, their alleged statements to Pillado as testified to by
the latter, that they could not identify the attackers, referred not to the difficulty
in ascertaining the actual identities of the accused-appellants but, rather, to
the difficulty of ascertaining with precision the intended target of each
assailant, in view of the type of weapons used – shotguns which have the
capacity of hitting multiple targets with just a single shotgun shell – and the
proximity of the intended victims from each other.

At the same time, the portion of the testimony of defense witness
Pillado regarding the alleged subject statements of Salinda, Jr. and Helaos can
be considered as nothing more than hearsay evidence. Precisely, Pillado had no personal knowledge of whether there
were witnesses to the crimes as well as to the identities of the
perpetrators. He only obtained, and
later confused, such information from Salinda, Jr. and Helaos.

Under Rule 130, Section 36 of the Rules of Court, it is provided:

5.
TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE

Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. –
A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as
otherwise provided in these rules.

Inasmuch as the related portion of the testimony of defense
witness Pillado has no probative value – it being hearsay – it cannot sustain
accused-appellants’ arguments and prayer for the reversal of the trial court’s
decision, and their consequent acquittal of all the crimes for which they were
correctly convicted.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat dated 7 February
1992, is hereby AFFIRMED en toto.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Regalado, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
Penned by Judge German Malcampo

^[2]
Rollo pp. 144-145.

^[3]
Testimony pertaining to the circumstances surrounding the alleged attack on
himself, Beronio Tagayon, and Jolito Helaos, as well as the identities of the
alleged perpetrators thereof. [I/TSN,
pp. 2-12, 10 October 1991]

^[4]
Testimony pertaining to the identities of the alleged perpetrators; to the
gunshots he heard during the alleged attack; and to the circumstances
subsequent to the alleged attack. [II/TSN, pp. 2-19, 10 October 1991]

^[5]
Testimony pertaining to the circumstances surrounding the alleged attack on
himself, Beronio Tagayon, and Dominador Salinda, Jr. as well as the identities
of the alleged perpetrators thereof. [III/TSN, pp. 1-13, 16 October 1991]

^[6]
Testimony pertaining to her eyewitness account of the circumstances surrounding
the alleged attack, as well as the identities of the alleged perpetrators
thereof. [III/TSN, pp. 13-18, 16
October 1991]

^[7]
Testimony pertaining to the autopsy report he accomplished after examining the
body of Beronio Tagayon subsequent to the alleged attack. [IV/TSN, pp. 2-3, 29 October 1991]

^[8]
Testimony pertaining to his denial of the crimes charged against him. [V/TSN, pp. 2-7, 30 October 1991].

^[9]
Testimony pertaining to his denial of the crimes charged against him. [V/TSN, pp. 14-21, 30 October 1991].

^[10]
Testimony pertaining to his denial of the crimes charged against him, and his
defense of alibi. [VI/TSN, pp. 2-9, 06
November 1991].

^[11]
Testimony pertaining to the accused Resuma’s whereabouts at the time of the alleged
crimes. [VII/TSN, pp. 1-3, 07 November
1991].

^[12]
Testimony pertaining to conduct of the prosecution witnesses Helaos, Salinda,
Jr., and Ticmon immediately after the alleged attack. [VII/TSN, pp. 5-6, 07 November 1991].

^[13]
Rollo, pp. 39-41.

^[14]
Rollo, pp. 39-41, 43.

^[15]
Rollo, pp. 44-45.

^[16]
G.R. No. 100804, 29 April 1994.

^[17]
I/TSN, October 10, 1991, pp. 8-10

^[18]
III/TSN, October 16, 1991, pp. 4-6.