PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. OSCAR BALDERAMA AND ERNESTO BALDERAMA, DEFENDANTS. ERNESTO BALDERAMA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

The filing of separate informations against brothers Ernesto
Balderama and Oscar Balderama for murder and homicide, respectively, for the
killing of 21-year-old Nestor Duran in Tondo, Manila, brought up a number of
legal issues, albeit heretofore resolved, that initially intermitted these
proceedings. The first information for
homicide against Oscar Balderama was filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Manila on 10 August 1984, thus –

“That on or about September 3, 1983, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence
upon one NESTOR DURAN, by then and there stabbing the latter with a bladed
weapon on his body, thereby inflicting upon the said NESTOR DURAN serious
physical injuries which was the direct and immediate cause of his death
thereafter.

Contrary to law.”

The information was docketed as Criminal
Case No. 28993.

Upon arraignment, Oscar pleaded not guilty to the charge.^[1]
The prosecution, however, moved to set aside the arraignment, reminding the
court that it had granted beforehand its motion to defer the same based on the
pending review of the case by the Ministry of Justice, which, on 9 April 1985,
finally directed the withdrawal of the information for homicide against Oscar
and the filing of an information for murder against both Oscar and Ernesto.^[2]
The court, through Judge Antonio M. Martinez of Branch XX, granted the motion.^[3]
Hence, on 14 May 1985, the following information for murder, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 36370, was filed against both Oscar Balderama and Ernesto
Balderama:

“That on or about September 3, 1983, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually helping each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to kill, and with treachery and evident premeditation,
attack, assault and use personal violence upon one NESTOR DURAN, by then and
there stabbing the latter with a bladed weapon on his body, thereby inflicting
upon the said NESTOR DURAN mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate
cause of his death thereafter.

Contrary to law.”

In Criminal Case No. 28993, the trial court, in its Order of 22
May 1985, denied the fiscal’s motion to withdraw the information for homicide
but allowed the filing of an amended information for murder against Oscar and
Ernesto.^[4]
Oscar filed a motion for the reconsideration of said Order, invoking double
jeopardy, which the court denied on 5 July 1985, holding that the defense
violated the “principle of right dealing and good faith” in failing
to inform the court of the pending petition for review before the Ministry of
Justice.^[5]
Later, however, the lower court relented. Noting that the information for homicide was sufficient in form, that
the court had acquired jurisdiction thereover, and that the accused had pleaded
not guilty to the charge, the court held that to dismiss the information for
homicide and to amend it to the more serious charge of murder could put the
accused in double jeopardy.^[6]

In an Order, dated 20 January 1986, Judge Conrado T. Limcaoco of
Branch XI, directed that Criminal Case No. 36370 be consolidated with Criminal
Case No. 28993.^[7]

On 24 March 1986, the court further directed that Oscar and
Ernesto be “tried under separate informations.”^[8]
The prosecution filed a motion for the reconsideration of this Order but the
lower court denied it in an Order, dated 23 May 1986, handwritten on the face
of the motion itself.^[9]

Criminal Case No. 28993 was later again raffled; this time the
case went to the sala of Judge Eduardo R. Bengzon who formally denied the
motion for the reconsideration of the Order of 24 March 1986.^[10]
The denial prompted the mother of the victim, Aurora Duran, to file with this
Court a petition (G.R. No. 76804-05) for certiorari.^[11]
The petition, however, was referred to the Court of Appeals for proper
determination pursuant to this Court’s Resolution of 19 January 1987.^[12]
In its Decision of 29 June 1987, the Court of Appeals^[13]
said that since Oscar’s plea in Criminal Case No. 28993 had been ordered
withdrawn on account of its improper entry, there could not have been a valid
arraignment. It concluded that inasmuch
as the existence of a plea was an essential requisite for double jeopardy to
set in, the trial court had abused its discretion in quashing the information
for murder against Oscar. Accordingly,
the Court of Appeals ordered the lower court to dismiss Criminal Case No. 28993
and to proceed with Criminal Case No. 36370.^[14]

Oscar appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to this Court
(G.R. No. 79030-31). In a Resolution,
dated 11 January 1988, this Court ruled that the appellate court’s order could
indeed place Oscar in double jeopardy. The Court thus set aside the appealed order, and it remanded the case to
the court of origin for trial of the accused Oscar Balderama for homicide on a
separate information from that of the accused Ernesto Balderama.^[15]

A motion for reconsideration of the above resolution having been
denied,^[16]
Branch XLIX of the lower court, now presided over by Judge Romeo J. Callejo,
set for trial Criminal Cases No. 28993 and No. 36370^[17]
which had theretofore been archived pending the resolution of the petition
aforesaid before this Court.^[18]

The prosecution’s evidence would show that between two and three
o’clock in the morning of 03 September 1983, Jose Noda, Jr., a jobless
28-year-old, was attending, at No. 214 and No. 216, Masikap Street, Tondo,
Manila, the wake for deceased “Mang Surek”. Between those early hours, a heated argument ensued between
Nestor Duran and Ernesto Balderama. Cooler heads intervened. Ernesto
went home. Nestor shortly thereafter
also left and stayed just outside his own house which was nearby. Nestor and Ernesto lived along the same
street.

Less than ten minutes later, Ernesto came back, carrying a piece
of wood (“pamalong kahoy”), and challenged Nestor to a fight. Nestor did not take on the challenge;
instead, he started to back away. Then,
Ernesto shouted, “Birahin mo na, birahin mo na.” Oscar, Ernesto’s
brother, suddenly emerged from behind and stabbed Nestor at the back. Nestor fell to the ground. Ernesto was about to and would have hit the
fallen Nestor with the “pamalo” had it not been for someone’s timely
intercession. Ernesto instead turned
his ire on this person, hitting him on the left forearm. Ernesto’s wife, Mercy, also slapped the
person and joined others in kicking him as he, too, now laid sprawled on the
ground. He was pulled out by Noda and
brought to the house of Aurora Duran, Nestor’s mother. Noda then saw Oscar ran away. Nestor was later brought to the hospital by
some good samaritans. The following
day, Noda learned that Nestor had died.^[19]

Corroborating Noda’s testimony was that of Enrico Ebueng. According to Ebueng, Ernesto, who was also
known in the community as Olong, arrived drunk and sought to stop the gambling
(“Pusoy”) being held at the wake. Nestor tried to reason with Olong, saying that the game proceeds
(“tong”) were intended for the wake. A heated argument ensued between Nestor and Ernesto. After the two were mollified, Nestor went
home with Ebueng. Later, Ernesto also
left but he soon returned and went in front of the house of Nestor. Ernesto, who was holding a nightstick
(“batuta”) used by barangay tanods,^[20]
challenged Nestor to a fight, “lalaki sa lalaki” but the latter, who
was by the door of his house, answered, “tama na, tama na”.^[21]
As Ernesto was stepping closer to Nestor, the latter, when Ernesto was now only
about a meter away, moved backwards towards the corner of Masikap and Mabuhay
Streets. At the corner, Ernesto
shouted, “Birahin mo, birahin mo.” Oscar suddenly appeared from
behind swung his right hand “backward and forward” at waist level and stabbed
Nestor from behind. Ernesto was going
to hit Nestor with the “batuta” after he fell but Ebueng succeeded in
pacifying Ernesto (“naawat ko na ho”).^[22]

Ebueng was two meters distant when he saw Oscar hit Nestor. The place was lighted by a fluorescent lamp
and a light bulb from nearby houses. Ebueng had followed the duo to the street corner three houses away from
Nestor’s house.

Nestor, an amateur cyclist who had seven medals to his credit as
a member of the Philippine Cycling Association,^[23]
died at the Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital.^[24]
He was autopsied at the Funeraria del Sol in Tondo by the medico-legal officer,
Dr. Marcial Ceñido, of the Western Police District. Dr. Ceñido testified that Nestor’s assailant used a “pointed
bladed weapon” in attacking Nestor at the back.^[25]
Exhibit A, the postmortem report he prepared, states:

“EXTERNAL FINDINGS:

1. Hacking wound, debrided
and sutured, left posterior lumbar extending to right of posterior midline,
measuring 19 cm. x 2 cm. grazing the 2nd and 3rd lumbar vertebrae, cutting the
tip of the 11th left rib, transecting the lower pole of the left kidney and
perforating the cessending colon; and

2. Deep abrasion, left
elbow measuring 4 cm. x 1.5 cm.

Others: Sutured laparotomy
incision measuring 27 cm., colostomy at right anterior abdomen, drainage at
left antero-lumbar region and cut down at the middle 3rd of the left arm.

INTERNAL FINDINGS:

1. Repaired lower pole of
the left kidney and ascending colon, cutting of the tip of the left 11th rib
and grazing of the 2nd and 3rd lumbar vertebrae; and generalized pallor;

2. Pneumonic consolidation
and subpleural petechias, bilateral; and

3. Recovered from stomach
about 1/2 glass of yellowish liquid without alcoholic odor.

CAUSE OF DEATH:

Hacked wound, penetrating, left posterior lumbar with terminal
pneumonia.”

A different version of the incident was narrated by the
defense. Ernesto, a “paper
agent” who was around 35 years old when the stabbing incident occurred,
was a “barangay tanod”. He
testified that at around three o’clock in the morning of 03 September 1983, he
and fellow “tanod” Eduardo Labadia went to Mabuhay Street. On chancing upon a group, among them Nestor
and Ebueng, who were on a “drinking” spree, he warned them, “Bawal
mag-inuman dito sa kalsada. Kung maari
lang po umakyat kayo sa bahay, baka madaanan kayo ng pulis at ipinagbabawal sa
amin ng OIC namin.”^[26]

Ernesto and other “barangay tanods” then proceeded to
the house where “Mang Surek” was lying in state. Shortly afterwards, Nestor arrived
apparently drunk. He hurled invectives
at Ernesto, saying “Putang ina mo, Olong,” and suddenly he pulled out a
knife. Ernesto retreated to around two
meters. As Ernesto was backing towards
the direction of Kagitingan Street, Nestor followed (“sumusugod po”)
and tried to stab Ernesto three times but never found their mark. Then someone, whom at the time Ernesto did
not recognize, passed behind him, swung his arm “forward and
backward” at waist level, and stabbed Nestor. The assailant ran away, while Ernesto proceeded home. He learned the following morning that the
person who stabbed Nestor was his own brother.^[27]

Oscar, 22 years old when he testified, was a native of San
Policarpio, Eastern Samar, but came to Manila July, 1983. He stayed with his brother Ernesto and
helped the latter in his paper business. On 02 September 1983, he slept at seven o’clock in the evening. Upon waking up at around three o’clock the
following morning, Oscar peeped through the window at the ground floor of
Ernesto’s two-storey house and saw Ernesto being attacked by a person who was
holding a bladed instrument. Posthaste,
he looked for something with which he could use to defend his brother and found
a knife used for slicing paper. He went
out, passed behind Ernesto, faced Nestor and then stabbed him (“kinadyot
ko siya”). He said that he had no
intention to kill but merely to save his brother from Ernesto’s attacker.^[28]
Oscar, after stabbing Nestor, ran towards Mabuhay Street, threw away the knife
he used, boarded a jeepney to Divisoria and proceeded to Dasmariñas, Cavite,
where his other brother stays.^[29]

To corroborate the Balderama brothers’ story, Peregrino Balais
testified that between one and four o’clock in the morning of 03 September
1983, he was watching the gambling game being held at the wake. He recalled having seen Ernesto Balderama,
Eduardo Labansa, and a cigarette vendor named Gloria, as among those watching
the “pusoy”. Suddenly, Nestor Duran
arrived, hurled invectives at Ernesto and pulled out a knife. Nestor said, “Putang ina mo, Olong,
pinahiya mo ako kanina sa mga bisita ko.” Ernesto stepped back, and while
still retreating a person came out from behind Ernesto and swung his right hand
towards Nestor Balais recognized the attacker as Oscar Balderama because the
place was well-lighted. Nestor tried to
chase Oscar but Nestor fell to the ground face down.^[30]

Also testifying for the defense was Elma Rodriguez, a
sexagenarian and a self-confessed police informer. She said that at 3:20 a.m. of 03 September 1983, she was walking
along Masikap Street on her way to the Asuncion Market to buy fruits when she
saw a person attacking (“sumusugod”) another who was retreating
towards Kagitingan Street. She
identified the attacker as Ernesto Duran. After Ernesto Duran tried to
stab his quarry, someone stepped out from the dark and stabbed Ernesto Duran.^[31]
The impression one gathers from the rest of her testimony is that, the defense
would want to picture Nestor as “a killer, a holdupper and a rioter”
and Ernesto a person of good character.”^[32]

On rebuttal, Aurora Duran swore that her son, Nestor, certainly
was not the notorious person the defense would rather make him appear to be.^[33]
The prosecution also presented documentary evidence showing that police and NBI
reports about a certain “Nestor Duran”, long deceased, with criminal
records, could not have been the victim who was only five or six years old at
the time.^[34]
Noda, also on rebuttal, testified that he never saw defense witnesses Peregrino
Balais and Elma Rodriguez in or around the vicinity of the stabbing incident.^[35]

On 30 May 1989, the lower court^[36]
rendered a decision, convicting the accused of the crime charged, viz:

“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No.
84-28993, the Court finds the Accused OSCAR BALDERAMA guilty beyond reasonable
doubt, as principal, for the crime of “Homicide” and hereby imposes
on him an indeterminate penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision
Mayor as Minimum to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1)
DAY, of Reclusion Temporal as Maximum;

2. In Criminal Case No.
85-36370, the Court finds the Accused ERNESTO BALDERAMA guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, as principal for the crime of “Murder” and hereby
imposes on him the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with all the
accessory penalties of the law.

Both Accused are hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally to
the heirs of Nestor Duran the amount of P10,000.00 as actual damages, the
amount of P30,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages and P10,000.00 as
attorney’s fees (Clemente Brinas v. People, et
al. 125 SCRA 687) and to pay the costs of
suit. The Prosecution has not adduced
sufficient competent evidence to prove that the deceased, at the time of his
death, had a fixed regular income from his being an amateur cyclist. Although the Prosecution adduced evidence
that Aurora Duran agreed to pay the Private Prosecutor a fixed fee of
P15,000.00 and P500.00 for every appearance of the Private Prosecutor before
the Court, however, the Court has the discretion to reduce the fees of counsel
considering all attendant circumstances.

The period during which the Accused underwent detention during the
pendency of these cases shall be credited to them provided that they agreed in
writing to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and regulations of the
City Jail.

SO ORDERED.”

The accused Balderama brothers interposed this appeal. Later, however, appellant Oscar Balderama
withdrew his appeal which, after verification, was granted by this Court in its
resolution of 10 February 1992,^[37]
leaving Ernesto’s case for consideration.

The issues center on the credibility of witnesses and their
declarations at the trial. As to be
expected, the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution are
diametrically opposed to those given by the defense witnesses. The established rule, of course, is that in
assigning values to declarations on the witness stand, the trial judge must
aptly be considered as the best evaluator.^[38]
Unlike an appellate court which has to rely almost entirely on inanimate
records and transcripts of stenographic notes, the trial judge has the
advantage of closely observing the demeanor of witnesses in responding to both
direct and cross examinations during hearings.^[39]
Thus, in the absence of any real showing that it has overlooked or misconstrued
some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which can affect his
conclusions on a case, the trial judge’s findings on credibility will not be
disturbed on appeal.^[40]
We do not find any valid exception in this case.

Going through the records, we can see that the prosecution
witnesses have come out straightforwardly, and hardly are we able to discern
any serious flaw in their declarations that would cast doubts on their
veracity. We cannot say that much in
the case of the defense witnesses. Ernesto’s own account of the incident lacks spontaneity, and leaves one
to wonder how it can possibly be believed. Ernesto was a “barangay tanod”. After the stabbing incident, he did not, despite the presence of
other “barangay tanods”, attempt to pursue and arrest the assailant; instead,
he declared, he proceeded home. He was
an eyewitness to the crime, and indeed, if we are to give credence to his
testimony, the intended victim of Nestor, yet he apparently remained
unconcerned. He said he did not,
despite his proximity, recognize his own brother when he gave the fatal thrust
to Nestor, yet, admittedly, the place was well-lighted. He did not even bother that evening to
investigate who the assailant was. Oscar himself, strangely enough, left the scene of the crime and
proceeded to Cavite without any word to Ernesto.

The testimonies of Noda and Ebueng were positive declarations,
whereas those of the accused brothers and their witnesses, by and large, were in
the nature of mere denials of appellant’s culpability. For instance, Balais testified that
appellant did not utter anything just before Oscar stabbed Nestor^[41]
to belie the testimonies of Noda and Ebueng that Ernesto shouted “Birahin
mo,” or “birahin mo na,” as Nestor was backing away from the
aggressive stance of Ernesto. In case
of contradictory declarations and statements, greater weight is generally given
to positive testimonies than to mere denials.^[42]

Appellant points out the supposed inconsistencies between the
testimonies in court of Noda and Ebueng, on the one hand, and their respective
sworn statements, Exhibits D and 5, on the other hand, particularly emphasizing
that both failed to mention in their “sinumpaang salaysay” that
appellant was carrying a “batuta” during the incident.^[43]
This particular inconsistency, the appellant argues, is so “glaring”­ that the
maxim falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus^[44]
should be applied. Besides the
insignificance of the so-called inconsistency, similar argument in the past
have repeatedly been put aside by the Court. In People v. Villanueva,^[45]
we said:

“x x x. 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. 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. 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.”

We add, a witness’ testimony at the stand
is open to scrutiny by both the prosecution and the defense, not to say even by
the trial court. Since the parties and
the court jointly shoulder the responsibility of ferreting out the truth,
testimonies are certainly much more reliable than affidavits.

The defense has not shown any evil or improper motive on the part
of Noda and Ebueng that would have prompted them to falsely impute
responsibility on appellant for so grave a crime as that for which he is
charged.^[46]
Appellant’s contention that Ebueng’s testimony is colored by his live-in
relationship with the niece of Nestor hardly makes a dent.^[47]
In the absence of ill motive on the part of a witness, the mere fact that he
may be a relative is not sufficient ground to disregard the witness’ testimony
nor does it render the same less worthy of credit.^[48]
In fact, it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating
a crime to accuse anyone other than the real culprit.^[49]

The trial court’s findings on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses
and in giving credence to their testimonies coincide with the physical
evidence. Thus, the defense theory that
Oscar frontally attacked Nestor is completely belied by the autopsy report to
the effect that Nestor sustained a mortal wound at the back. In the same manner, the defense story that
it was Nestor who was drunk is belied by the postmortem report that “about
1/2 glass of yellowish liquid without alcoholic odor” was found in the
victim’s stomach.

We are not convinced, however, of the trial court’s finding of
murder.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides that murder is
committed by any person who kills another treacherously. Under Art. 14 (16) of the same Code, there
is treachery “when the offender commits any of the crimes against person,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly
and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.” It was while Nestor was
retreating from Ernesto when Oscar stabbed Nestor at his back. An aggression from behind, however, does not
necessarily make the act treacherous.^[50]
There is no showing that the aggressors “consciously” adopted a mode
of attack to directly and specially ensure the execution of the act without any
risk to themselves. In fact, the
stabbing was preceded by challenges to fight on Nestor by Ernesto. The first was when the two had a heated
argument, and the second was less than ten minutes later, when Ernesto came
back with a “batuta”, which must have placed the deceased on guard; in any
case, the latter cannot be said to have been totally unaware of possible
danger.

We agree with the trial court that conspiracy has not been
established beyond any reasonable doubt. While conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused and
requires no evidence of prior agreement, such inferral, however, must show that
there was a concerted action before, during and after the commission of the
crime evincing a common purpose or design.^[51]
Neither joint nor simultaneous action per se is sufficient indicium
of conspiracy, a common design must further be shown to have motivated such
action.^[52]
The only two pieces of evidence on this matter were that Ernesto had yelled
“Birahin mo, birahin mo na” (Noda’s account) or “birahin mo,
birahin mo” (Ebueng’s testimony), following which remark Oscar who was
behind Nestor, stabbed Nestor, and that Ernesto thereafter attempted to strike
at the fallen Nestor. Nevertheless,
Ernesto’s remarks make him no less than a principal by inducement. In People v. Canial,^[53]
the Court said that for the utterances of an accused to make him a principal by
inducement, the same must be of a nature and uttered in such manner as to
become the determining cause of the crime, and that the inducement precisely
was intended to serve such purpose.” As aptly observed by the trial court:

“That the (a)ccused Ernesto Balderrama
had great moral ascendancy and influence over the accused Oscar Balderama is
bolstered by the fact that: (a) the
(a)ccused Oscar Balderama worked for his brother, the (a)ccused Ernesto
Balderama who gave him money for his allowances and clothings; (b) the
(a)ccused Ernesto Balderama gave the (a)ccused Oscar Balderama food and shelter
because the (a)ccused Oscar Balderama stayed in the house of Ernesto Balderama;
(c) the (a)ccused Ernesto Balderama who was 35-years old, was much older than
the (a)ccused Oscar Balderama who was barely 18-years old at the time; (d) the
(a)ccused Ernesto Balderama was a Barangay Tanod.”

We are convinced that Oscar, who was not
shown to have any rancor against Nestor, would not have given the fatal thrust
had it not been for Ernesto’s shout of “Birahin mo na” or
“birahin mo.”

Evident premeditation, which was alleged in the information, has
not been indubitably proven in this case. None of the elements of evident premeditation – (1) proof of the time
when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) proof of an overt act showing
that the accused had clung to his determination to commit the crime; and (3)
the lapse of time between the decision and the execution of the crime
sufficient to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts^[54]
– had been established by the prosecution. The essence of premeditation is that the accused meditated and reflected
on his criminal intent between the time when the crime was conceived by him and
the time it was actually perpetrated.^[55]

There being no aggravating circumstances nor mitigating
circumstances, the prescribed penalty under Article 249, in relation to Article
64, of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal in its medium
period. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the penalty that can be imposed on the accused appellant is an
indeterminate sentence within the range of prision mayor as
minimum and reclusion temporal medium as maximum. The award of indemnity should be increased
to P50,000.00, conformably to existing policy.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the lower court is
AFFIRMED as above modified. The
accused-appellant Ernesto Balderama is hereby declared GUILTY OF HOMICIDE and
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. He is further required to pay the heirs of
the victim the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), plus the cost of the
suit.

SO ORDERED.

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

Feliciano, J., (Chairman), on
leave.

---

^[1]
Record in Crim. Case No. 28993, p. 14.

^[2]
Ibid., p. 17. The resolution of
Deputy Minister Puno is found on p. 65.

^[3]
Ibid., p. 24.

^[4]
Ibid., p. 25.

^[5]
Ibid., p. 34.

^[6]
Ibid., p. 49.

^[7]
Record in Crim. Case No. 36370, pp. 94.

^[8]
Record in Crim. Case No. 28993, p. 72.

^[9]
Ibid., p. 77.

^[10]
Ibid., p. 108.

^[11]
Ibid., p. 153.

^[12]
Ibid., p. 150.

^[13]
Associate Justice Oscar M. Herrera, ponente, with Associate Justices
Leonor Ines Luciano and Justo P. Torres, Jr. concurring.

^[14]
Ibid., p. 206.

^[15]
Ibid., p. 247.

^[16]
Ibid., p. 255.

^[17]
Ibid., p. 257.

^[18]
Ibid., p. 243.

^[19]
TSN, April 22, 1988, p. 4-30.

^[20]
TSN, June 29, 1988 (p.m.), p. 33.

^[21]
Ibid., at 41.

^[22]
TSN, June 29, 1988 (a.m.), pp. 3-25.

^[23]
Exhs. F & N.

^[24]
TSN, May 4, 1988, pp. 34-40.

^[25]
TSN, April 22, 1988, p. 41 & 48.

^[26]
TSN, November 11, 1988, p. 8-15.

^[27]
Ibid., pp. 16-26.

^[28]
TSN, October 5, 1988, pp. 2-12.

^[29]
Ibid., pp. 17-18.

^[30]
TSN, August 22, 1988, pp. 20-36.

^[31]
TSN, March 6, 1989, pp. 4-15.

^[32]
Ibid., pp. 16 & 21-22.

^[33]
TSN, May 3, 1989, p. 33.

^[34]
Exhs. L & M.

^[35]
TSN, May 3, 1989, pp. 18 & 21.

^[36]
Judge Romeo J. Callejo, presiding.

^[37]
Rollo, 191.

^[38]
People v. Simbulan, G.R. No. 100754, October 13, 1992, 214 SCRA 537.

^[39]
People v. Peran, G.R. No. 95259, October 26, 1992, 215 SCRA 152.

^[40]
People v. Florida, G.R. No. 90254, September 24, 1992, 214 SCRA 227.

^[41]
TSN, August 22, 1988, p. 34-35.

^[42]
People v. Antud, G.R. No. 95684, october 27, 1992, 215 SCRA 190 citing
People v. Clores, G.R. No. 82362, April 26, 1990, 184 SCRA 638.

^[43]
Supplemental Brief, pp. 2-3.

^[44]
Ibid., p. 6.

^[45]
G.R. No. 96469, October 21, 1992, 215 SCRA 22, 28?29.

^[46]
Supra.

^[47]
Supplemental Brief, p. 6.

^[48]
People v. Sagadsad, G.R. No. 88042, November 13, 1992, 215 SCRA 641.

^[49]
People v. Almario, G.R. No. 69374, March 16, 1989, 171 SCRA 291.

^[50]
People v. Pajarit, G.R. No. 82770, October 19, 1992, 214 SCRA 678.

^[51]
Angelo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88392, June 26, 1992, 210 SCRA 402.

^[52]
People v. Regular, G.R. No. L-38674, 108 SCRA 23/1981/.

^[53]
L-31042-3, August 18, 1972, 46 SCRA 634.

^[54]
People v. Clamor, 198 SCRA 642.

^[55]
People v. Antud, G.R. No. 95684, 215 SCRA 190/1992/.