PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ SARINO, CHARLITO RAMIREZ SARINO AND OSCAR FLORA, ALIAS “OCA,” ACCUSED.  BENJAMIN RAMIREZ SARINO AND OSCAR FLO…

Accused Benjamin Ramirez Sarino, Charlito Ramirez Sarino (who is
still at large^[1]
and consequently has not been arraigned) and Oscar Flora, alias
“Oca,” were charged on April 7, 1988 in Criminal Cases Nos. 6200-MN
and 6201-MN of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Metro Manila, Branch 72,
with murder and frustrated murder in separate informations of the following
import:

For Murder in
Criminal Case No. 6200-MN

“That on or about the 25th day of February, 1988, in the
Municipality of Navotas, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused armed with a Samurai (sic), conspiring and confederating and mutually
helping with (sic) one another, with intent to kill, treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and stab one JOLITO ROSEL Y RONDINA,* hitting
the latter at the right side of the body, thereby inflicting upon the latter
stab wounds which immediately caused his death.”^[2]

For Frustrated
Murder in Criminal Case No. 6201-MN

“That on or about the 25th day of February, 1988, in the
Municipality of Navotas, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring and confederating
and mutually helping with (sic) one another with intent to kill, with treachery
and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and stab one Nympha Rosel, thereby performing all
the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of Murder, but did
not produce the same for (sic) reason of causes independent of the accused’s
will, that is, the able and timely medical attendance given to the victim
Nympha Rosel which prevented her death.”^[3]

Herein accused-appellants Benjamin Ramirez Sarino and Oscar
Flora, duly assisted by counsel de oficio, Atty. Froilan Zapanta, pleaded not guilty at the arraignment,^[4] hence trial on the merits ensued with
respect to these appellants.

The factual antecedents of this case, as found from the
prosecution’s evidence by the court a quo and reiterated by
the Solicitor General with page references to the transcripts of the
stenographic notes of the trial, have been further carefully reviewed by us
and, finding the same to be correct, we reproduce hereunder the pertinent parts
thereof.

“x x x on February 25, 1988 at past 9:00 p.m., Jolito Rosel
was in his house at lsla Puting Bato, Navotas, Metro Manila. He was with his wife Nympha, his mother
Encarnacion and sister Ceferina. They ha(d) just arrived from the nearby house
of Ceferina where they had a sort of reunion occasioned by the arrival of
Encarnacion from Cebu. Jolito, who sat
at the bench in the front portion of the house, asked (for) coffee from his
wife and had taken one sip thereof only when all of a sudden accused Oscar
Flora, together with Charlito Ramirez Sarino, arrived. Oscar grabbed Encarnacion by the hair and
her head struck against (sic) a gun held by Oscar. The latter said ‘you are good for only one bullet’ to
Encarnacion. Charlito confronted
Ceferina, who is the wife of his brother Bienvenido, held her by the hair also
and pointed a long bolo at her neck. Charlito told Ceferina not to move. At this point, accused Benjamin Ramirez Sarino, brother of Charlito,
entered the place. He came from his
nearby house where he, Charlito and Oscar were earlier drinking beer. Benjamin shouted ‘putang ina ninyo’ and
immediately stabbed Jolito with a knife who (sic) was hit in the right side of
the abdomen (Exh. E-1). Nympha shouted
for help, saying her husband was stabbed. At this point, Benjamin also stabbed her at the right side of the
stomach. Nympha was then two months
pregnant. Soon after Jolito and Nympha
were stabbed by Benjamin with a knife, the latter urged his companions to ran
(sic) away and all of them did.

“Jolito and Nympha were rushed to the Tondo Medical Center
where Nympha was operated on to prevent her death (Exhs. C and C-1). Jolito died and the cause of his death
was: ‘shock, traumatic, due to a stab
wound that lacerated the abdominal aorta and the bladder’ (Exhs. D and D-1).

“There was no known quarrel between Jolito and Benjamin, Oscar
and Charlito. Their relationship was
cordial. There was, however, some
misunderstanding brought about by Jolito’s calling the attention of Benjamin to
the decreasing width of a nearby canal resulting in the increase of the area
occupied by Benjamin’s house.”^[5]

The contrary presentation of the defense, based on the evidence presented
by both appellants, was likewise completely summarized by the trial court in
its decision.

“Accused Benjamin Ramirez Sarino, after denying the
accusations against him, insisted that he was already asleep but was awakened
by shouts being made by Jolito who was challenging the ‘matatapang’ in the
place to come out. He ignored the
challenge. Shortly, thereafter, he
heard Encarnacion saying ‘saklolo’. Benjamin looked out from his house’s window and saw Jolito lying prostrate on the ground, face
up, already allegedly stabbed. Benjamin
planned to go down but his wife prevented him from doing so for fear of
involvement in the incident as the assailant/s may return. He and his wife then went to sleep. Early the following morning, Benjamin left
for work in Alabang where his wife visited and told him that they should not go
home to their house anymore because Cesar, Jolito’s brother, was saying
Benjamin killed Jolito. Benjamin was
arrested after sometime during the wake for his dead child at his in-laws’
residence in Bagong Silang.

“Benjamin’s version was corroborated by his wife and witnesses
Elizabeth Marquez and Daisy Alarcon, who both claimed having seen Oscar stabbed
(sic) Jolito and probably Nympha also.

“Accused Oscar Flora, for his part, claimed that he, being an
officer of the Barangay Tanod Brigade, was at the Barangay Tanod Outpost when
two Barangay Tanods by the names of Paterno and Edison arrived and asked him to
go with them to the scene of the stabbing incident. He saw a commotion thereat and (was) told that Jolito was
stabbed. He asked Edison and Paterno to
bring Jolito to the hospital. Encarnacion, who was ‘nagwawala’, was pacified by him. She even gave P10.00 for the tricycle fare
to bring Jolito to the hospital. He did
not notice that Nympha was stabbed or with blood. Paterno, however, saw her bloodied.

“Oscar saw and talked to Ceferina who said Jolito was stabbed
by Benjamin. Oscar went to the latter’s
house but was told Benjamin was no longer there. Encarnacion told him the Sarino brothers had already left.

“Oscar denied the accusations against him. He was not aware of any reason at all for
being implicated in these cases. He
added that he continued residing in the place which he never left. His arrest by Navotas policemen in his
in-laws’ house in Fairview on October 9, 1989 was just a coincidence. He came from work and merely passed by the
place.”^[6]

The case for the prosecution having found favor with the lower
court, on March 7, 1990 it
rendered judgment containing the following decretal portion:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
finding accused Benjamin Ramirez Sarino and Oscar Flora guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes of Murder, for the death of Jolito Rosel, and
Frustrated Murder, for the stabbing of Nympha Rosel, and they are each hereby
sentenced to two prison terms, as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No.
6200-MN for Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code: life imprisonment or reclusion
perpetua;

2. In Criminal Case No.
6201-MN for Frustrated Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248, in
relation to Article 50, of the Revised Penal Code: SIX (6) YEARS, ONE (1) MONTH and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of prision
mayor, as minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS and TWENTY (20)
DAYS of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

“The two accused Benjamin Ramirez Sarino and Oscar Flora are
ordered to pay Nympha Rosel P30,000.00 for the loss of her husband’s life as
indemnification therefor and to pay the costs.

“The two accused, who are detention prisoners, if they agreed
in writing to abide by the rules governing the conduct of convicted prisoners
shall be credited in full for the preventive imprisonment they have already
under­gone in connection with these cases, otherwise, they shall only be
credited with 4/5 thereof.”^[7]

In a bid to gain reversal of the lower court’s judgment,
appellants have come to us, each with his own assignment of errors on the bases
of which they fault the court below hoping to undermine its decision.

Appellant Sarino avers that the lower court erred in (1) holding
that he was the one who stabbed the spouses Jolito and Nympha Rosel despite the
clear, truthful and unbiased testimonies of other eyewitnesses to the incident
pinpointing Oscar Flora as the perpetrator of the acts; (2) having favorably
appreciated the evidence of the prosecution
instead of having favorably appreciated his evidence; (3) convicting him
of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder as charged in the information
rather than of the lower offenses of homicide and frustrated homicide, assuming
but without admitting that he was the assailant; and (4) convicting instead of
acquitting him on the ground that his guilt has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt.^[8]

Appellant Flora, on the other hand, substantially asserts that
the court a quo erred in (1) finding the existence of a
conspiracy among appellants; (2) finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crimes charged; and (3) not
acquitting him thereof.^[9]

Undoubtedly, the instant cases furnish another occasion to
reiterate the settled doctrine that the appellate courts will not disturb the
factual findings of the trial court, especially as to credibility of witnesses;
that conclusions and findings of fact by the trial court are entitled to great
weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and cogent
reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine real
evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying.^[10]
We shall nevertheless analyze the respective submissions of the parties in
these cases.

It is an established
fact that the deceased Jolito Rosel was stabbed to death and that his wife Nympha was likewise
stabbed but, due to timely medical assistance, was fortunate enough to have a
second lease on life. The question
posed by the asseverations of appellants, however, is who perpetrated the
killing of the deceased husband and the stabbing of his wife who, at that time,
was two months on the family way.

Just like two sides of the coin, the cases at bar present two
conflicting contentions. The
prosecution witnesses consistently point to appellant Benjamin Ramirez Sarino
as the one who stabbed the deceased Jolito and his wife Nympha, while appellant
Oscar Flora and Charlito Ramirez Sarino
were holding the deceased’s mother and sister. On the other hand, the two appellants, each hoping to exculpate
himself, respectively point to the other as the possible culprit by each of
them denying that he was at the scene of the crime at the time the criminal acts were committed. Parenthetically, the half-hearted
invocations of the defense of alibi by appellants need not be glorified by a discussion of the puerility
thereof nor by the banality of authorities refuting the same.

From a painstaking scrutiny of the records and a thorough
consideration of the evidence, we have no reason to doubt the veracity and the
accuracy of the identification made by the prosecution witnesses. Three eyewitnesses who were at the scene of
the crime, namely Encarnacion, Ceferina and Nympha, all surnamed Rosel,
positively identified appellants as the culprits in the slaying of the deceased and the wounding of his
wife.^[11] The trial court found their
testimonies as more or less with unanimity, given in a forthright, convincing
and, at times, passionate manner.^[12]

Encarnacion Rosel could not have been mistaken in identifying the
assailants as she was at the scene of the incident
and was then very near the deceased.^[13]
Besides, there was also a kerosene lamp there which brightly illuminated their
house. This enabled her to see within
the periphery of her vision all the people there.^[14]
A kerosene lamp gives off sufficient illumination like a “gasera” or
“lamparahan,” and the illumination produced by these gadgets is
sufficient for the identification of persons.^[15]
Where considerations of visibility are favorable and the witness does not appear to be biased against the
accused, his or her assertions as to the identity of the malefactor should
normally be accepted. This is more so
when the witness is the victim or a close relative because such a witness
usually strives to remember the faces of the assailants.^[16]

Another added factor is that the assailant Benjamin Ramirez
Sarino is the brother of said witness son-in-law, Bienvenido Ramirez Sarino,
and whenever she visits them in Navotas, she sees them all together.^[17]
She was able to see the short firearm which was poked at her head by appellant
Oscar Flora.^[18] She
came to know Flora’s name when, after the stabbing, appellant Sarino urged
Flora to run away.^[19]

Another eyewitness is the victim herself, Nympha Rosel, who
positively identified appellant Sarino.^[20] Her
version of the incident corresponds with that of her mother-in-law,
Encarnacion, in all its substantial details. They were one in pointing to all the accused as the malefactors. In her case, she was only two steps away
from her deceased husband^[21] and
so she could not have erred in giving even the minute details of the
crime. She denied that her husband ever
shouted and challenged anyone to a fight as the appellants aver.^[22]
She corroborated her mother-in-law’s narration of the incident on all material
points. Furthermore, there was only a short interval of time between
the acts of appellant Sarino in stabbing her and her deceased husband. After, she shouted: “Kapitbahay, tulungan ninyo po
kami,” appellant Sarino immediately Stabbed her.^[23]

Ceferina Rosel Sarino, who is the wife of Bienvenido Sarino and
the sister of the deceased, was another eyewitness who likewise positively
identified appellant Benjamin Ramirez Sarino.^[24] Her
testimony fully substan­tiates the other eyewitnesses’ account of the incident.

The findings and declarations of the two medico-legal officers further strengthen the
eyewitnesses’ version of the factual antecedents of the case. The three aforementioned eyewitnesses
testified that appellant Sarino suddenly appeared inside the house and stabbed
the deceased who was then sitting
on a bench. Dr. Benjamin Dizon
testified that the assailant, who could have been in front of the deceased, may
have been standing while his victim must have been sitting.^[25] The medical report shows that the
victim’s abdominal aorta and bladder were lacerated.^[26] When Nympha Rosel shouted for help,
she was stabbed at the right side of the stomach. Dr. Luisito Naguit testified that her assailant could be standing
at the time of the attack.^[27] Surgical procedure was performed at
her abdominal cavity in order to repair the peritonial rent.^[28]

The defense belittles the fact that the prosecution witnesses
were mainly composed of the mother of the deceased, his sister and his wife,^[29]
insinuating thereby the lack of
credibility in their testimonies by
reason of familial loyalty. This
is sophistic reasoning.

There is absolutely nothing in our laws to disqualify a person
from testifying in a criminal case in which the said person’s relative was
involved, if the former was really at the scene of the crime and was a witness
to the execution of the criminal act.^[30] Thus, in People vs. Bragaes, et al.,^[31] we held that it was immaterial that
the witnesses were related to the victim because their testimonies, independent
of the relationship, were not inherently improbable in themselves, and neither
was there proof that they were charged with improper
motives to incriminate the appellants.

The defense also argues that the version presented by the
prosecution, to the affect that appellant Sarino for no apparent reason at all
would just stab the spouses Jolito and Nympha Rosel, is absurd if not too
incredible to warrant belief.^[32] Such argument loses sight of the fact
that lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and the
participation of the accused therein are definitely established. Motive becomes relevant and its absence may
assume determinative significance when the accused has not been positively
identified, and proof thereof becomes essential only when evidence of the
commission of the crime is purely circumstantial or is inconclusive.^[33]

Appellant Flora, on his part, submits that no prosecution witness
was presented to point to him positively as the assailant.^[34]
Unfortunately for him, he is legally estopped to invoke this defense and, at
any rate, such pretension has explicitly been rejected by the trial court with good reason.

It is true that, according to the records of these cases, he was not identified in open court by
the witnesses. This is due to the fact
that at the time these witnesses
testified, he had not yet been
arraigned.^[35]
After his arraignment, the trial with respect to him proceeded and he presented
Paterno Oftana who was allegedly a barangay tanod like him.^[36] However, pursuant to the order of the
trial court dated November 29, 1989, counsel for appellant Flora and the
prosecution agreed that the evidence already adduced against appellant Sarino
be deemed automatically reproduced in these
cases as evidence for the prosecution against appellant Flora. Such stipulated evidence includes the
admission of the latter’s identity, as well as the evidence formally offered by
the prosecution in these cases against appellant
Sarino.^[37]
Moreover, in the April 16, 1990 order of the lower court denying the motion for
reconsideration of the defense, it clearly held that “(i)n the course of
the joint trial of the cases, he was positively identified and his
participation clearly established.”^[38]

We have, furthermore, to reject this misrepresentation cum
disclaimer by appellant Flora on the inevitable consideration that the issue on
the identification of an accused hinges on the credibility of the witnesses and the determination of which, as we
have repeatedly explained, is the sole province of the trial court.^[39]

The defense likewise contends that the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses are tainted with falsehood and contradictions.^[40]
We have gone over their allegations and we are of the considered view that such
inconsistencies or imperfections, if any there be, relate to minor details and
the fact remains that there is no disagreement among them as to the identity of
the malefactors. Such inconsistencies,
if at all, demonstrate that their testimonies are spontaneous and
unrehearsed. These minor
inconsistencies can be attributed to the treachery of the human memory and the
rigor of examination during trial.^[41]

In contrast, the testimony of defense witness Elvira Ramirez,
wife of appellant Sarino, cannot be invoked or relied upon by appellants for
their purposes. This witness testified
that it was when she heard somebody shout “saklolo” from outside her
house that she looked out and saw Jolito already sprawled on the ground. She admitted that she did not actually see
who stabbed Jolito.^[42] She
also admitted that the day after the incident, she and her husband, appellant
Sarino, as well as appellant Flora, all left their respective residences.^[43]
Such actuations, which she established by her voluntary admissions, are
obviously not consistent with appellants’ claim of innocence.

Appellant Sarino testified that it was only when somebody shouted
“saklolo, saklolo, sinaksak ang anak ko” that he, together with his
wife, looked out of the window.^[44] It
turned out that Jolito and his wife, Nympha, had been stabbed. As to why he did not bother to go down
despite the cry for help from Encarnacion, he claimed that “fear
overtook” him and his wife, and so they simply went to sleep.^[45]

Considering that the deceased Jolito is the brother-in-law of his
brother, Bienvenido,^[46] and
Nympha is the former’s wife, and are consequently not strangers to him, we
cannot understand how appellant Sarino could merely ignore them after the
incident of which he was fully aware. As found by the trial court, he had no quarrel with them,^[47]
and his alleged fear at that time appears to be baseless considering that when
he looked out of the window, he did not notice the presence of any
assailant. Despite the fact that he saw
Jolito being carried away to the hospital and being helped by others, he simply
decided to retire that night.^[48]

He tried to explain away why, after he left for work the
following day, he later changed his residence, by claiming that he was informed
by his wife of certain threats against them and that they were driven away from
their house by the brother of Jolito Rosel.^[49] The
foregoing assertions of appellant Sarino strikes us as pure fabrications since,
by his own admission and despite his claim of innocence, he never bothered to
complain to the police or have the matter placed in the police blotter. He further admitted that he was in fact
arrested while attending the wake of his child in the residence of his in-laws
at Bagong Silang.^[50]

He also tried to bolster his claim of innocence by presenting two
witnesses in the persons of Elizabeth Marquez and Daisy Alarcon. However, Elizabeth Marquez herself was not
positive as to who actually stabbed the deceased. While she did initially state that the deceased was stabbed by
Oscar Flora,^[51]
she was thereafter constrained to admit that she came to know about him and his
name only as told to her by her cousin, one Antonio Bagsal.^[52]

Despite appellants’ denials, however, the records show that,
after the incident, all of them (including Charlito Ramirez who remains at
large) could not be located at their usual places of residence.^[53]
In fact, there was a need for the issuance of alias warrants of arrest to
effect their apprehension.^[54]
Needless to say, the flight of appellants bely their claims of innocence, for
it is indicative of their guilt.^[55] As
we have often quoted: “The wicked
flee when no man pursueth but the righteous are as bold as the lion.”^[56]

With respect to appellant Flora, it is perplexing why he never
bothered to inquire into the absence of the Sarinos from their residences since
February, 1988 (after the incident) up to October, 1989 despite being allegedly
informed that they were the assailants of the Rosels. It is unbelievable that during the same period, he never knew
that they had already been arrested, considering that he has been their
neighbor and friend for a long
time. Moreover, it is likewise puzzling
why he, as Barangay Tanod leader, failed to report the harrowing incident to
the police.^[57]

We additionally find no error in the findings of the court below
regarding the existence of conspiracy and treachery in these cases. Conspiracy is the common design to commit a
felony. It is not participation in all
the details of the execution of the crime.^[58] It
need not be proved by direct evidence, but can be inferred from the acts of the
accused.^[59]
We have repeatedly held that when the accused by their acts aimed at the same
object, one performing one part and the other performing another part so as to
complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts,
though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative,
indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence
of sentiments, the court will be justified in concluding that said accused were
engaged in a conspiracy.^[60]

The chain of circumstances attendant to these cases establishes
the existence of conspiracy. Appellant
Flora’s act of tightly holding to Encarnacion Rosel and poking a gun at her
head, coupled with Charlito Ramirez Sarino’s simultaneous act of pointing a long “samurai”
knife at Ceferina Rosel’s neck prior to the stabbing of the deceased,
undoubtedly reveal a unity of purpose. They aimed at one object, that is, to kill Jolito Rosel. Each had his own part to perform. While the fatal wound was inflicted by
appellant Sarino, appellant Flora is just
as guilty. Significantly, at the time
Jolito and Nympha Rosel were being stabbed, Flora and Charlito Ramirez Sarino
made no effort to prevent the assault.

As appropriately observed by the Solicitor General, the fact that
appellant Flora and Charlito Ramirez Sarino were systematic in their approach to
immobilize Ceferina Sarino and Encarnacion Rosel prior to the stabbing of
Jolito Rosel and the wounding of Nympha Rosel by appellant Benjamin Ramirez
Sarino, it can be inferred that conspiracy existed.^[61]

The attack was also very synchronal, sudden and unexpected. The deceased was relaxing on a bench,
sipping a cup of coffee when the three malefactors suddenly barged into the
premises of his dwelling. Nothing could
best be indicative of treachery than the mode or manner of attack chosen by the
conspirators which insured the accomplishment of the crime with impunity since
the victim was not afforded a chance to raise any form of defense.^[62]
Although the stabbing was frontal, treachery was still present as said Victim
was also not in a position to offer any effective defense.^[63]

Conspiracy and treachery were similarly attendant in the stabbing
of Nympha Rosel. Although appellants
did not principally plan to kill her, their actions nonetheless reveal that
they agreed to harm anyone who would give resistance or hinder their plan of
killing the deceased. This can be
inferred from the fact that, upon entering the house, appellant Flora and
accused Charlito Ramirez Sarino respectively threatened the deceased’s mother
and sister with a gun and a bolo. Nympha Rosel’s act of shouting for help was a form of resistance which
provoked appellant Sarino to immediately stab her. This attack was decidedly treacherous as the victim had no chance
to either repel the attack or escape from the scene.

The aggravating circumstance of dwelling, there having been no
provocation on the part of the victims, appears to have escaped the attention
of both the lower court and the Solicitor General. Insofar as the killing of Jolito Rosel is concerned, we are
inclined to resolve the doubt in favor of appellants since the records appear
to concede that he was attacked while seated on a bench outside his house.^[64] Although
that bench was beside the steps leading to the door of the house, it cannot be
considered as an integral part of a dependency of the victim’s dwelling. At any rate, there being no mitigating
circumstance, our rejection of said aggravating circumstance would not affect
the imposable penalty for the death of the victim.

With respect to the felonious attack against Nympha Rosel, however,
said aggravating circumstance of dwelling, has to be considered against
appellants in the determination of their liability. This victim was definitely inside her house, standing near the
door thereof when she was stabbed immediately after her husband was attacked.^[65]
This aggravating circumstance can be appreciated in the crime committed against
her even if not alleged in the information therefor.^[66]

We cannot, however, consider evident premeditation in the cases
at bar, which are readily distinguishable from seemingly similar cases by
reason of the rapidity of events culminating in the felonies herein charged,
coupled with the fact that even the motives or actuations of the felons prior
thereto are unknown. Under normal
conditions, where conspiracy is directly established with proof of the
attendant deliberation and selection of the method, time and means of executing
the crime, the existence of evident premeditation can be taken for granted.^[67]
Withal, in the factual milieu of the present cases, we are persuaded that
evident premeditation may not be appreciated since there is a total absence of proof or perceptible facts from
which can be inferred how and when the plan to kill the victim was hatched by
the three accused or how much time elapsed before it was carried out, such that
it cannot be determined if appellants had sufficient time between its inception
and its fulfillment to dispassionately consider and accept the consequences.^[68]

However, we are
satisfied that there was a conspiratorial concord among the accused. Unlike evident premeditation, wherein a
sufficient period of time must elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation
and reflection and for the perpetrator to deliberate on the consequences of his
intended deed, conspiracy arises on the very instant when the plotters agree,
expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue
it. Once this assent is established,
each and everyone of the conspirators is criminally liable for the crime
committed by anyone of them.^[69]

WHEREFORE, on the foregoing premises, the judgment of the
court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED, with the following MODIFICATIONS, viz.: (1) In
Criminal Case No. 6200-MN for murder, the phrase “life imprisonment”
in the dispositive portion of the judgment therein is hereby deleted and the
correct terminology of reclusion perpetua is maintained; (2) in
Criminal Case No. 6201-MN for frustrated murder, accused-appellants Benjamin
Ramirez Sarino and Oscar Flora are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty
of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17)
years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal, as maximum; and (3) the death indemnity to be paid to the
heirs of the deceased is increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with current jurisprudential
policy.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Nocon, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
Original Record, 234.

* This victim is also referred to
in some portions of the record as Joelito, Julito, Diolito or Deolito Rosel.

^[2]
Original Record, 2.

^[3]
Original Record II, 2.

^[4]
Original Record, 6, 180.

^[5]
Ibid., 238-236.

^[6]
Ibid., 236-237.

^[7]
Ibid., 238-239.

^[8]
Brief for Accused-Appellant Sarino, 1; Rollo, 124.

^[9]
Brief for Accused-Appellant Flora, 1; Rollo, 93.

^[10]
People vs. Carcedo, 198 SCRA 503 (1991).

^[11]
Rollo, 140.

^[12]
Original Record, 237.

^[13]
TSN, December 14, 1988, 14.

^[14]
Ibid., Id., 15; February 8, 1989, 9.

^[15]
People vs. Almenario, et al., 172 SCRA 268 (1989).

^[16]
People vs. Santito, Jr., et al., 201 SCRA 87 (1991).

^[17]
TSN, February 8, 1989, 6.

^[18]
Ibid., February 15, 1989, 5.

^[19]
Ibid., id., 6.

^[20]
Ibid., March 1, 1989.

^[21]
Ibid., February 15, 1989,
14.

^[22]
Ibid., April 5, 1989.

^[23]
Ibid., April 12, 1989, 9.

^[24]
Ibid., November 23, 1988, 2; May 10, 1989, 5.

^[25]
Ibid., August 7, 1989, 4.

^[26]
Ibid., id., 7; Exh. E; Original Record, 122.

^[27]
Ibid., id., 8.

^[28]
Exh. C; Original Record, 133.

^[29]
Brief for Accused-Appellant Flora, 6; Rollo, 98.

^[30]
People vs. De la Cruz, et al., 207 SCRA 632 (1992).

^[31]
203 SCRA 555 (1991).

^[32]
Brief for Accused-Appellant Sarino, 7; Rollo, 130.

^[33]
People vs. Ballinas, 202 SCRA 516 (1991).

^[34]
Brief for Accused-Appellant Flora, 6; Rollo, 98.

^[35]
TSN, November 6, 1989, 9.

^[36]
Ibid., January 3,
1990, 14.

^[37]
Original Record, 191.

^[38]
Ibid., 249.

^[39]
People vs. Ballinas, supra.

^[40]
Brief for Accused-Appellant Sarino,
7-9; Rollo, 130-132.

^[41]
People vs. Como, 202 SCRA 200 (1991).

^[42]
TSN, September 4, 1989, 4, 6.

^[43]
Ibid., Id., 6-9.

^[44]
Ibid., September 18, 1989, 4.

^[45]
Ibid., September 25, 1989, 7, 10-11.

^[46]
Ibid., September 18, 1989, 3.

^[47]
Original Record, 235; TSN, February 15, 1989, 7.

^[48]
TSN, September 25, 1989, 11.

^[49]
Ibid., id., 14-15.

^[50]
Ibid., id., 15-16.

^[51]
Ibid., October 2, 1989, 7.

^[52]
Ibid., id., 7-8; October 9,
1989, 4.

^[53]
Original Record, 3; Original Record II, 2-3.

^[54]
Original Record II, 3.

^[55]
People vs. Alabaso, 204. SCRA 458 (1991); People vs. Babac, 204 SCRA 968 (1991).

^[56]
Proverbs, 28:1, The Holy Bible, King James Version, 569.

^[57]
TSN, December 27, 1989, 7-8.

^[58]
Venturina vs. Sandiganbayan, 193 SCRA 40 (1991).

^[59]
People vs. Alitao, 194 SCRA 120
(1991); People vs. Umbrero,
et al., 196 SCRA 821 (1991).

^[60]
People vs. Geronimo, et al., 53
SCRA 246 (1973), and cases therein cited.

^[61]
Brief for the Appellee, 19; Rollo,
203.

^[62]
People vs. Gabatin, et al., 203 SCRA 225 (1991).

^[63]
See People vs. Cuadra, 85 SCRA 576 (1978).

^[64]
TSN, January 15, 1989, 4; March 1,
1989, 12.

^[65]
Ibid., March 1, 1989,
9-10, 17.

^[66]
People vs. Collado, 60 Phil. 610
(1934); People vs. Domondon, 60 Phil. 729 (1934).

^[67]
People vs. Custodio, et al., 97 Phil. 698 (1955).

^[68]
People vs. Upao Moro, 101 Phil. 1226 (1957).

^[69]
People vs. Monroy, et al., 104 Phil. 759 (1958).