PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDILBERTO LAREDO ALIAS “PETER,” WILFREDO LUMINATE ALIAS “EDING,” ABELARDO LUMINATE ALIAS “BELING,” AND NARCISO DALISAY ALIAS “…

Under the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, we
affirm the judgment of the Court
a quo finding
accused-appellants, Edilberto Laredo and Narciso Dalisay, guilty of two
separate crimes of Murder for which they were individually sentenced to two (2)
separate penalties of reclusion perpetua,
and of Frustrated Murder for which each was penalized with indeterminate
sentences.

Actually, four (4) accused were involved, namely, Edilberto Laredo alias “Peter,” Narciso Dalisay alias “Bebot,” and the brothers Abelardo
Luminate alias “Beling”
and Wilfredo Luminate alias
“Eding“. 
They were jointly charged with two separate crimes of Murder and one
separate crime of Frustrated Murder before the Regional Trial Court of San
Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch
45.^[1]
The Informations in the three criminal cases read as
follow:

In Crim. Case No.
R-1406

“That on or
about the 13th day of May, 1981, in Sitio Mangat, Barangay
San Pedro, Municipality of Rizal, Province of
Occidental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping
one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, with treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and
stab and wound with sharp bladed weapons one Bernabe Balin, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal
wounds which caused his untimely death.

“That by reason of the unlawful acts of the accused, the legal
heirs of said Bernabe Balin,
suffered actual, compensatory and moral damages and for which they should be
indemnified in the amount of not less than P12,000.00, Philippine currency.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.”

In Crim. Case No.
R-1407

“That on or about the 13^th day of May 1981, in Sitio Mangat, Barangay
San Pedro, Municipality of Rizal, Province of
Occidental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring and
confederating together and helping one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery and evident premeditation attack,
assault and stab and wound with sharp bladed weapons one Wilky
Rodas, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal
wounds which caused his untimely death.

“That by reason of the unlawful acts of the accused, the legal
heirs of said Wilky Rodas
suffered actual compensatory and moral damages and for which they should be
indemnified in the amount of not less than P12,000.00, Philippine currency.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.”

In Crim. Case No.
R-1435

“That on or about the 13th day of May 1981, in Sitio Mangat, Barangay
San Pedro, Municipality of Rizal, Province of Occidental Mindoro,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, conspiring and confederating together to kill, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery and evident
premeditation, attack, assault and use personal violence upon Rodelito Balin, by then and there
hacking him with sharp bladed weapon and throwing at him big stone, thereby
inflicting upon him serious wounds on the back and on the head, which
ordinarily would have caused his death, thereby performing all the acts of
execution which would have produced the crime of murder as a consequence.  Without however, producing said crime by
reason of causes independent of the will of the accused, that is, the timely
and able medical attendance rendered to said Rodelito Balin which prevented
his death.

“That as a consequence of the unlawful acts of the accused, Rodelito Balin suffered actual,
compensatory and moral damages and for which he should be indemnified in the
amount of not less than P1,000.00, Philippine currency.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Upon arraignment, all the accused entered pleas of “Not
Guilty” to each of the aforesaid crimes charged.  The three cases were then jointly heard on
the merits.

The prosecution evidence, as narrated by the Solicitor General,
is as follows:

“At about 9:00 o’clock in the evening of May 13, 1981, Rodelito Balin together, with his
brother Bernabe Balin and
his cousin Wilky Rodas, was
at their house located in a hill at Sitio Mangat, Rizal, Occidental
Mindoro.  They
were then lying down at the balcony or veranda of their house.  Suddenly, their house was stoned many times
by a group of persons.  Thereafter,
accused Edilberto ‘Peter’ Laredo, Wilfredo
‘Eding‘ Luminate, Abelardo ‘Beling’ Luminate and Narciso ‘Bebot‘ Dalisay went up to the Balin’s house.  Rodelito Balin has known Peter
Laredo for a long time, he
being a barrio mate of Rodelito.  The latter also knew Wilfredo
and Abelardo Luminate, who
often visited their barrio.  Rodelito personally knows Narciso
Dalisay, who was a classmate of his (pp. 4-8, tsn., April
1, 1982; pp. 7-9, tsn., June 16, 1982).

“After all the accused went up the Balins’
house, Beling Luminate
ordered Rodelito and Bernabe
Balin and Wilky Rodas to raise their hands, which they obeyed.  When Wilky Rodas raised his hand, he was hacked by Peter Laredo on the
left hand.  Beling
Luminate then stabbed Bernabe
Balin, followed by Eding Luminate who struck Bernabe with
a piece of wood.  Peter Laredo then
hacked Bernabe Balin and Wilky Rodas at the back.  Then Beling Luminate approached Wilky Rodas and Bernabe Balin and stabbed them. 
Bernabe Balin was
hit in the stomach and back.  Bebot Dalisay thereafter threw a
stone at Bernabe Balin who
was hit at the back.  Thereafter, Peter
Laredo hacked Rodelito Balin
at the back.  Rodelito
ran away.  Bebot
Dalisay then threw a stone at Rodelito
who was hit on the head, causing him to stumble and lose consciousness (pp.
9-14, TSN, April 1, 1982).

“Meanwhile, at about the same time and place, Jaime Carino was at his house which was near the house of Bernabe Balin.  The family of the Laredos, some of whom he
recognized as Peter Laredo, Eding Luminate,
Bebot Dalisay, Beling Luminate and several
others, arrived and stoned his house. 
Then the Laredos proceeded to the house of Bernabe Balin.  Jaime Carino then
heard the shouts of Bernabe Balin
and Wilky Rodas (p. 15-16,
TSN, July 22, 1982).

“After several minutes, Bernabe Balin arrived at the house of Jaime Carino.  He noticed Bernabe Balin to have sustained several stab and hack wounds.  The latter told Carino that the accused were responsible for inflicting the
wounds on his person.  Carino gave Bernabe Balin water to drink. 
After about an hour later, Bernabe Balin expired (pp. 16-17, TSN, July 22, 1982).

“As a consequence of the wounds inflicted by the accused, Wilky Rodas also died, while Rodelito Balin sustained several
serious injuries (Exhs. ‘B’ and
‘G’)” (pp. 8-11, Brief for the Appellee).

Upon the other hand, accused-appellant Edilberto
“Peter” Laredo contends that he was the only one who had inflicted injuries
upon the victims, but that he had acted in complete self-defense.  He claims that while he was in Sitio Mangat with his brother
Alfredo, two persons blocked their way and hit him with a stone. 
While he was chasing those persons who stoned them, two more persons
suddenly appeared.  One of them fired a
shot at him but failed to hit him.  Then
said person ran away.  The three other
persons had their bolos with them.  One
of them then hacked him but he was able to defend himself with his bolo and
knife, being familiar with the act of self-defense or “arnis.”
The next person fell after stabbing and hacking him.  The third person ran but he was able to hit
him at the back.  Thereafter, he
proceeded to the Rizal police station where he
surrendered himself.  He came to know the
names of the victims only after the investigation.

The accused brothers, Wilfredo and Abelardo Luminate, denied any
participation in the incident.

Accused-appellant, Narciso Dalisay, also denied participation in the crimes charged and
interposed the defense of alibi.  Narciso contends that at about 6:00 in the evening of 13 May 1981, he went to the house of Inocentes Laredo, his
landlord.  He talked to Inocentes up to 7:00 and then slept there.  His testimony was substantially corroborated
by Mansueta Latuza.  The following morning, he was invited by
Station Commander Avelino Pacaul
to the Police Station in Sudlon, Rizal,
where Rodelito Balin
implicated him in the incident.

On 1 July 1987, the Trial Court rejected the protestations of innocence
of the accused and rendered judgment, with the following decretal
portions:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment
is hereby rendered as follows:

“1.     In
Criminal Case No. R-1406, the court finds the accused Edilberto Laredo alias ‘Peter’, Wilfredo
Luminate alias ‘Eding‘, Abelardo Luminate alias ‘Beling‘ and Narciso Dalisay alias ‘Bebot‘ GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt as principals
of the crime of Murder with the attendant circumstance of treachery, defined by
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and punished by reclusion temporal
in its maximum period to death – the maximum penalty of death, however,
is now abolished by the New Constitution. 
There being one aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and
one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to offset the same, the
penalty should be imposed in the medium period which is reclusion perpetua.

“In view thereof, the Court hereby sentences each of the
accused Edilberto Laredo alias ‘Peter’, Wilfredo Luminate alias ‘Eding‘, Abelardo Luminate alias ‘Beling‘, and Narciso Dalisay alias ‘Bebot‘ to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with
accessories provided by law; and to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased Bernabe Balin in the sum of TWELVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000.00) without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.

“The accused shall, however, be entitled to the full term of
their preventive imprisonment, provided, that they shall have agreed in writing
to abide with the disciplinary rules and regulations imposed on convicted
prisoners; otherwise, each of them shall be credited only four-fifth (4/5) of
their preventive imprisonment.

“2.     In
Criminal Case No. R-1407, the Court finds the accused Edilberto Laredo alias ‘Peter’, Wilfredo
Luminate alias ‘Eding‘, Abelardo Luminate alias ‘Beling‘ and Narciso Dalisay alias ‘Bebot‘ GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of Murder with the attendant
circumstance of treachery, defined by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and
punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to death – the maximum penalty of death, however, is now abolished by the New
Constitution.  There being one
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and one mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender to offset the same, the penalty should be
imposed in the medium period which is reclusion perpetua.

“In view thereof, the Court hereby sentences each of the
accused Edilberto Laredo alias ‘Peter’, Wilfredo Luminate alias ‘Eding’, Abelardo Luminate alias ‘Beling’ and Narciso Dalisay alias ‘Bebot’ to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with
accessories provided by law; to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of
the deceased Wilky Rodas in
the sum of TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000.00) without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

“The accused shall, however, be entitled to the full term of
their preventive imprisonment, provided, that they shall have agreed in writing
to abide with the disciplinary rules and regulations imposed on convicted
prisoners; otherwise, each of them shall be credited only four-fifth (4/5) of
his preventive imprisonment.

“3.     In
Criminal Case No. R-1435, the Court finds the accused Edilberto Laredo alias ‘Peter’, Wilfredo
Luminate alias ‘Eding‘, Abelardo Luminate alias ‘Beling‘ and Narciso Dalisay alias ‘Bebot‘, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of Frustrated Murder with
the attendant circumstance of treachery, defined in Article 248 in relation to
Article 250, both of the Revised Penal Code and punished one degree lower than
that which should be imposed under the provision of Article 50, and that is Prision Mayor in its maximum period to Reclusion
Temporal in its medium period. 
There being one aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and
one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to offset the same, the
penalty should be imposed in the medium period which is twelve (12) years, five
(5) months and eleven (11) days to fourteen (14) years, ten (10) months and
twenty (20) days.  Applying, however, the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, each of the accused Edilberto
Laredo alias ‘Peter’, Wilfredo Luminate
alias ‘Eding‘, Abelardo Luminate alias ‘Beling‘ and Narciso Dalisay alias ‘Bebot‘ are hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
ranging from TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor
as minimum to TWELVE (12) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of Reclusion
Temporal as maximum, with accessories provided by law; and to indemnify,
jointly and severally, the offended party Rodelito Balin in the sum of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

“The accused shall, however, be entitled to the full term of
their preventive imprisonment, provided, that they shall have agreed in writing to abide with the
disciplinary rules and regulations
imposed on convicted prisoners; otherwise, each of them shall be credited only
four-fifth (4/5) of his preventive imprisonment.

“Moreover, the maximum period of service of the above penalties
by each of the accused shall in no case exceed forty (40) years, as provided
for in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.

“With costs against the accused in all
instances.

SO ORDERED.” (pp.
40-42, Decision; pp. 694-696, Original Record).

Assailing their
conviction, all the accused filed their appeal. 
Subsequently, the brothers, accused Wilfredo
and Abelardo Luminate,
withdrew their appeal which was granted by this Court in the Resolution of 25
July 1988 (Rollo, p. 185).  Accused-appellants Edilberto
Laredo and Narciso Dalisay
filed a Joint Brief.  The Errors they
have assigned immediately precede the discussions thereon.

“I.       The lower court
erred in holding that the testimony of prosecution witness Rodelito
Balin is ‘clear and convincing’ and his declarations
are ‘positive and unequivocal’;”

Accused-appellants
contend that the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Rodelito
Balin, who was himself involved in the incident, is
not worthy of belief because his declarations in open court and in his Sworn
Statement submitted to support his complaint are filled with contradictions,
discrepancies, inconsistencies and improbabilities.

The contention lacks
merit.

Accused-appellants point
out that Rodelito Balin testified
that all the accused went up their balcony and assaulted them.  While in his
Sworn Statement (Exhibit “C”, p. 11, Original Record), he declared
that it was Peter alone who went up the balcony and hacked Bernabe Balin and Wilky Rodas.  An
examination of the Affidavit, however, does not show any statement that it was only Peter who went up the
balcony.

Accused-appellants also
aver that Rodelito said in open Court that Beling Luminate ordered them to
raise their hands before they were attacked in the balcony but that in his
Sworn Statement, he did not mention that order. 
Rodelito explained that he told the
investigator that they were
asked to raise their hands; however, the investigator failed to mention it
(TSN, June 17, 1982, pp. 2-3).

Accused-appellants
further claim that Rodelito Balin
stated that Beling Luminate
stabbed Bernabe while on the balcony.  While in his Sworn Statement, he stated that Beling stabbed Bernabe when the
latter was on the ground.  The record,
however, fails to show that Rodelito testified that Beling stabbed Bernabe while he
was on the balcony.  Besides, there is
testimony to the effect that while the attack started on the balcony, it was
continued on the ground (TSN, April 1, 1982, p. 15; June 16, 1982, pp. 14-15).

Additionally, accused-appellants
point out that Rodelito testified that all the
accused participated in killing Bernabe and Wilky.  But in his
Sworn Statement, he stated that it was
Peter alone who killed them using a bolo. 
A reading of the sworn statement, however, does not indicate that Rodelito stated that Peter alone killed Bernabe and Wilky.

Accused-appellants
further aver that Rodelito said that Peter hacked Wilky with a bolo on the left hand while he was raising his
hands but the medical certificate shows instead a stab wound on the left
forearm, and that the incised wound appears on the right hand.  This does not, however, detract from Rodelito’s testimony that Wilky
was hacked and sustained serious physical injuries.

Lastly,
accused-appellants assert that Rodelito could not
have possibly identified the assailants since it was dark due to the absence of any light in the house of the Balins.  It was not
so dark, however, because there was moonlight (TSN, June 16, 1982, pp. 15;
33).  The incident also occurred at the
veranda (TSN, ibid., pp. 7-8).  He also
recognized the voice of Beling Luminate
who told them to raise their hands (TSN, ibid., p. 32).

But even assuming the
accuracy of the alleged contradictions between Rodelito’s
oral testimony and his Affidavit, they do not detract from the
credibility of the victim’s testimony in its totality.  It is a matter of judicial experience that an
affidavit, being taken ex–parte
is almost always incomplete and often
inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions, sometimes for want of
suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable
to recall the connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction
of the first suggestions of his memory and for his accurate recollection of all
that belongs to the subject (People vs. Virgilio
Pasco y Santos, et al., G. R. No. 68520, January 22, 1990; People vs. Baybayon, et al., G. R. No. L-49856, April 3,
1990).  And as far as the inconsistencies
are concerned, they actually refer to minor details which neither affect Rodelito’s credibility.

“II.      The lower court
erred in holding that the testimony of prosecution witness Jaime Carino corroborated the story of Rodelito
Balen that the four accused inflicted the serious
wounds on the three victims;”

Accused-appellants assail
the admissibility of the dying
declaration of Bernabe made to prosecution witness
Jaime Carino. 
It is claimed that the dying declaration is inconsistent with the sworn
statement of Rodelito who never said that Eding Luminate stabbed Bernabe.  There is no
inconsistency.  Rodelito
did not state categorically that Eding stabbed Bernabe although he was one of the attackers.  Besides, what Bernabe said to Jaime Carino
before the former’s death was that Peter, Beling and Eding were responsible
for inflicting his wounds (TSN, July 22, 1982, p. 17).

Accused-appellants
stoutly contend that Bernabe could not have
made a dying declaration since he suffered serious and fatal injuries, which precluded him from negotiating the distance to the house of Jaime Carino,
much less talk coherently.

Jaime Carino
testified that Bernabe arrived in his house and told
him that accused-appellants were responsible for inflicting his wounds.  This was corroborated by Rodelito
who said that after Bernabe was stabbed, hacked,
struck with a piece of wood, and hit with a stone, he was able to run towards
the house of Jaime (TSN, April 1, 1982, p. 11). 
There is no showing either that the injuries suffered by Bernabe could have caused his immediate death.  On the contrary, upon arrival at Jaime’s
house, he still asked for a drink of water and it was only an hour later that
he passed away (TSN, July 22, 1984, pp. 17-18).

Accused-appellants
further allege that the dying declaration is not worthy of credit
because it was motivated by passion, anger or a desire for revenge
because Bernabe had a bolo fight with Efren Laredo, brother of Peter earlier that same day.  This is unmeritorious.  If Bernabe’s motive
were only for revenge, he would have named Efren
Laredo alone as his assailant instead of his brother Peter.  When a person is at the point of death, every
motive for falsehood is silenced, and the mind induced by the most powerful
consideration to speak the truth, and therefore his statements, under such
circumstances, deserve great weight. 
Here, the victim made his statement before he died with full knowledge
that he was fatally injured.  There is
nothing to show that the utterance is unreliable or that the declarant is not worthy of trust.  Hence, the dying declaration is
admissible (People vs. Diaz, G. R. No. 75433, November 9, 1988, 167 SCRA
239).  And even if not strictly an ante–mortem
statement, it could still be considered, at the very least, part of the res gestae and,
therefore, admissible in evidence.

“III. 
The lower court erred in holding that the crime committed is
murder and frustrated murder qualified by treachery, and that conspiracy and
evident premeditation were proven;”

Accused-appellants maintain that the Trial Court erred in holding
that the crime committed is Murder qualified by treachery.  They argue that since the assault was
preceded by the stoning, that was a clear warning for the occupants to get
ready and defend themselves, thus eliminating the element of treachery.

The pretension is not well
taken.  Treachery exists when the
offender commits any crime against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from any defense which the offended party might make (People vs. Rojas,
G. R. Nos. L-46960-62,
January 8, 1987, 147 SCRA 169). 
The fact that accused-appellants threw stones at the victim’s house
before they went up, would not negate the treacherous
character of the assault.  The victims
were told to raise their hands before they were attacked, thus insuring the
killing without any risk to the assailants (People vs. Ricohermoso,
G. R. Nos. L-30527-28,
March 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 431).

That there was conspiracy is shown by the concerted efforts of
accused-appellants to injure and liquidate the victims.  Each performed his role towards that
end.  They were together at the scene of
the crime and left the place at the same time, which are further indicia of
conspiracy (People vs. Cagod, G. R. No. L-36016, January 18, 1978, 81 SCRA 110).

No error either was committed by the lower Court in appreciating
the circumstance of evident premeditation for, as it opined, “there is
ample evidence of how and why the crime was planned and sufficient time (from
6:00 PM to 9:00 PM) to plan and reflect on the commission of the crime.”

“IV.    The lower court
erred in completely not taking into account the version of the appellants,
which it more credible than the version of the prosecution.”

Accused-appellant Peter Laredo contends that he alone inflicted
the injuries on the victims in self-defense. 
He claims that while he was in Sitio Mangat, he was hit with a stone by two men.  He chased them
but they were joined by two other
persons.  One of them fired a shot at him
but missed.  The three others attacked
him with their bolos but he was able to dispose of his assailants who turned
out to be the victims in this case.

That assertion is belied not only by the contrary declarations of
Rodelito but also by the physical conditions of the victims.  Those victims sustained numerous serious and
fatal wounds.  Surely, all of those could
not have been inflicted by Peter alone. 
The inescapable conclusion is that Peter was not the lone assassin.  As this Court has had occasion to hold,
numerous wounds in the body of the victims indicate plurality of assailants
(People vs. Orongan, G. R. No. L-32751,
December 12, 1988, 168 SCRA 586). 
Aside from the fact that the version of self-defense is not supported by
any other evidence, it is beyond human credulity that Peter did not suffer any
injury, considering that he was allegedly assaulted simultaneously by at least
four men with a handgun and
bolos (People vs. Maranan, G.R. Nos. L-47228-32, December 15, 1986, 146 SCRA 243).

As far as accused-appellant, Narciso
“Bebot” Dalisay,
is concerned he denied any participation in the crime charged and interposed
the defense of alibi.  He alleged that he
was in the house of Inocentes Laredo, his landlord,
when the incident happened and that the following day, 14 May 1981, he was just invited by Station Commander Avelino Pacaul to the Police
Station in Sudlon, Rizal.

Such a defense is unavailing. 
The positive identification of the accused being decisive, the defense
of alibi cannot assume importance in the case at bar.  Rodelito positively
identified Narciso as one of those who assaulted
him.  It was neither physically
impossible for the accused to be at the house of the Balins
where the incident occurred as said house is only three (3) kilometers from the
house of Inocentes Laredo (People vs. Aboga, G.R. No. 70255, January 29, 1987, 147 SCRA 404).

Accused-appellant Narciso further claims that the entry made by Pat. Dimalaluan in the police blotter, Entry No. 2190 (Exhibit “H”), that he had surrendered to the police and
admitted stabbing Bernabe Balin
is erroneous for it is contrary to the testimonies of Pat. Recaredo Laredo and Mansueta Latuza.

 The contention lacks merit.  The testimony of Pat.
Laredo that accused-appellant Narciso told him that
he had nothing to do with the incident is self-serving; while
that of Mansueta Latuza
that Narciso was in their house throughout the
evening of the incident, cannot prevail over the official entry made in the course of the performance of a duty.  It is also presumed that official duty has
been regularly performed (sec. 5 (m), Rule 131, Rules of
Court).  The fact that
Pat. Dimalaluan was not presented by the
prosecution to testify to the accuracy and correctness of the entry on the
police blotter is of no moment as the witness was available to both parties
(People vs. Caragao, G.R. NO. L-28258,
December 27, 1969, 30 SCRA 993). 
Besides, accused-appellant Narciso has not
shown any ill-motive why Pat. Dimalaluan would make
an erroneous entry in the police blotter falsely implicating him.

Finally, the defense that accused-appellants lacked motive to commit the crime against the
victims is belied by the fact that earlier, or at 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon
on the same date of the incident, there was a bolo fight between Efren Laredo, brother of Peter, and the victim Bernabe, over a carabao, during
which Efren hacked Bernabe with
a bolo but which the latter successfully
parried, and Efren himself was hit on the hand
instead.  Sufficient motive to avenge the
injury sustained by Efren Laredo, therefore, existed.

Rounding up, the evidence of guilt of accused-appellants exists
to a moral and legal certainty.

The indeterminate sentence for the crime of Frustrated Murder,
however, has to be modified.  The
imposable penalty under Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code is prision mayor, maximum, to reclusion temporal,
medium, the same to be applied in its medium period, or from twelve (12) years
and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.  Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
penalty should be within the range of prision correccional, maximum, to prision
mayor, medium.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED^[2]
with the modification that for the crime of Frustrated Murder in Criminal Case
No. R-1435, accused-appellants Edilberto Laredo and Narciso Dalisay should suffer the
penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum.  The civil
indemnity to be paid by accused-appellants Edilberto  “Peter” Laredo and Narciso “Bebot” Dalisay, jointly and severally, to the heirs of deceased Bernabe Balin and Wilky Rodas is raised to
P30,000.00, consonant with doctrinal jurisprudence.  Proportionate costs.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento,
and Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Judge Restituto L. Aguilar,
presiding.

^[2]
The ponente maintains her dissent in People vs.
Millora, G. R. Nos. L-38968-70, February 2, 1989, as to the penalties for the two crimes of Murder.