People of the Philippines vs.

Alex Paling

FACTS:

In the evening of July 1, 1996, Richard, Jojo Paling (Jojo), and Rolly Talagtag (Rolly) were in the
house of Paling in SitioMahayag, Pres. Roxas, Cotabato watching television. At around 9:15 p.m., the group
left the said house and decided to proceed to the other house of Paling situated in the latter’s farm at Brgy.
Greenhills. This is where the three usually sleep at night. En route, Jojo and Rolly, along with the victim,
Walter Nolasco (Walter), were invited by Paling, Ernie, and Barangay Kagawad Rene Mondejar to a
drinking spree at the house of the latter. Jojo, Rolly, and Walter accepted the invitation, while Richard just
waited for them outside the house of Paling.
About 15 minutes later, Richard went back to his companions and told them that they had to go
home since they still have to go to school the following morning. The three acceded, but Ernie convinced
Walter to stay with them a little longer. Thus, Richard, Jojo, and Rolly went ahead, while Walter stayed
behind.
At around 10:00 p.m., Francisco, the uncle-in-law of Walter, was roused from his sleep by the
barking of his dogs. When he went out to find out why the dogs were barking, he saw Vilbar and Ernie
walking beside Walter. They were heading towards Brgy. Greenhills where Paling’s farmhouse was
located.
At around 10:30 p.m. that same night, Richard, who was already asleep in the farmhouse of Paling,
was awakened when he heard Jeniline Paling-Bernesto, the daughter of Paling, shout, “Kill him in a
distance. Don’t kill him here, kill him away from here.”
When Richard went outside to find out what was happening, he saw Paling, Vilbar, and Ernie
assaulting Walter. Vilbar was holding Walter, while Paling and Ernie were stabbing him.
After Walter was killed, the three accused warned Richard not to speak about it to anyone;
otherwise, they would also kill him. Thereafter, the three left, bringing with them the cadaver of Walter.
Incidentally, Francisco also recounted that about 30 minutes after he first saw Walter in the
company of Vilbar and Ernie heading towards Brgy. Greenhills, he was awakened again by the barking of
the dogs. When he checked again, he saw Vilbar and Ernie running. But this time, he did not see Walter
with them.

The following day, July 2, 1996, at 10:00 a.m., Walter’s cadaver was found in the farm of one Jonathan
Policarpio.

The Trial Court convicted them with crime as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code.

ISSUE:

THE COURT A QUO RENDERED JUDGMENT SOLELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF

THE LONE (EYE) WITNESS RICHARD NOLASCO WHICH WAS
MISAPPRECIATED BY THE JUDGE WHO INHERITED THIS CASE FROM THE
FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE WHO TRIED AND HEARD THIS CASE FROM ITS
INCEPTION TO ITS TERMINATION.
HELD:

The fact that the judge who rendered judgment was not the one who heard the witnesses
does not adversely affect the validity of conviction

Paling alleges that since the judge who penned the appealed decision is different from the judge who heard
the testimonies of the witnesses, the former was in no position to observe their demeanor diligently.

We disagree. The fact that the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had the occasion to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial but merely relied on the records of the case does not
render the judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its
conclusion. Citing People v. Competente, this Court held in People v. Alfredo:

The circumstance that the Judge who rendered the judgment was not the one who heard the
witnesses, does not detract from the validity of the verdict of conviction. Even a cursory perusal of the
Decision would show that it was based on the evidence presented during trial and that it was carefully
studied, with testimonies on direct and cross examination as well as questions from the Court carefully
passed upon.

Further, “it is not unusual for a judge who did not try a case in its entirety to decide it on the basis of the
records on hand.” This is because the judge “can rely on the transcripts of stenographic notes and calibrate
the testimonies of witnesses in accordance with their conformity to common experience, knowledge and
observation of ordinary men. Such reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process of law.”
Considering that, in the instant case, the transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the trial were extant
and complete, there was no impediment for the judge to decide the case.

In convicting Paling, the trial and appellate courts appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. In
addition, the RTC appreciated the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.

We disagree. The killing of Walter was neither attended by treachery nor evident premeditation. In this
regard, it is worth noting that “qualifying circumstances cannot be presumed, but must be established by
clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself.”

To prove treachery, the following must be clearly established: (1) the employment of such means of
execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense and retaliation; and (2) the
deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution. The essence of treachery is “the sudden and
unexpected attack by the aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to
defend oneself, ensuring the attack without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on
the part of the victim.”

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 105668. October 16, 1997]

THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. HERNANDO
DALABAJAN, DOMINADOR DALABAJAN and FERNANDO
DALABAJAN, defendants and appellants.

DECISION
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

This is an appeal interpose by Hernando, Dominador, and Fernando, all

surnamed Dalabajan.
On May 21, 1986, an information accusing Hernando Dalabajan,
[1]

Dominador Dalabajan, Fernando Dalabajan, Napoleon dela Torre, Charlie

Paduga and Megdonio Sabinet of the crime of murder was filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, stating:
That on or about the 1st day of January 1986, at Barangay Cayapas,
Municipality of Dumaran, Province of Palawan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill,
with evident premeditation and treachery, and taking advantage of superior
strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault
and stab with a bladed weapon, strike with a banca paddle and piece of wood
one Amado Zabalo Jr., hitting him various vital parts of his body and inflicting
upon him injuries which were the direct and immediate cause of his
instantaneous death.

CONTRARY TO LAW and committed with aggravating circumstances of

treachery, evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength.

Upon arraignment on separate dates, the aforesaid accused, duly assisted

by counsel, voluntarily entered separate pleas of not guilty to the offense
charged in the information.
In the course of trial, the charges against Megdonio Sabinet, Napoleon dela
Torre and Charlie Paduga were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence upon
recommendation of the provincial prosecutor.
The facts of the case, as found by the trial court, are as follows:

Sometime on January 1, 1986 at around 1:00 oclock in the morning and while the
people of Barangay Cayapas, Dumaran, Palawan were celebrating the New Years eve
with a dance at their Barangay Hall located near the seashore, Melencio dela Cruz saw
Hernando Dalabajan kick and stab one Amado Zabalo, Jr. as the latter was coming out
of the said Barangay Hall. Amado was kicked on his right thigh and stabbed on his
right abdomen.Other residents, mostly relatives of the Dalabajans, then joined
Hernando in mauling Amado. Amado tried to escape by running towards the nearby
seashore and wading into the water. Hernando Dalabajan, together with co-accused
Dominador and Fernando Dalabajan and the rest of their relatives, pursued
Amado. Upon the reaching the seashore only the three accused-appellants took a
banca and chased the latter. The rest of their relatives stayed by the seashore. When
the accused-appellants were finally able to overtake Amado about 30-40 meters away
from the shore, they helped one another in hitting him with bladed instruments,
wooden clubs and a boat paddle on different parts of his body. Thereafter, the three
accused left the already unmoving body of the victim which was face down in the
water and proceeded back towards the seashore. At this juncture, Melencio dela Cruz,
who was hiding behind the bushes by the seashore from where he watched the
incident happen, then went to the house of the victim and reported the incident to the
latters relatives.

Melencio dela Cruz also testified that he was able to witness the incident at the sea
thirty meters from his hiding place and saw it clearly since it was full moon on that
fateful night. There were many people who went to the shore and witnessed the
incident in question, but most of these people belonged to the Dalabajan clan. This
was the reason why he hid in the bushes, for fear of being discovered by any member
of the Dalabajan clan, a clan reputed in their community for their clannishness. He
also feared for his life because most of the Barangay Tanods were related to the
Dalabajans. He was able to follow the whole incident from the time Amado Zabalo,
Jr. was attacked in front of the Barangay Hall to the time the latter was chased and
killed at sea.
[2]

Amado Zabalo, Sr., the father of the victim, testified that, shortly after the
incident, he was informed about it by some residents of their barangay. He
immediately proceeded to the place of the incident and saw the already dead
body of his son. The cadaver of the victim was then brought to the Barangay
Hall.When the policemen arrived at 10:00 oclock that night, they conducted an
investigation and made a sketch showing the wounds sustained by the
victim. No autopsy was conducted on the victims cadaver since there was no
doctor available. The prosecution however submitted a death certificate in this
[3]

connection signed by the victims father and the Local Civil Registrar.

Lolito Carceller, a member of the police force of Dumaran, Palawan testified that he
was a member of the police team that investigated the incident in question. He was
also the one who prepared the sketch of the victims body showing the stab wounds
and injuries sustained by the victim. Upon his examination, he saw that the cadaver of
Amado Zabalo, Jr. bore the following wounds, to wit: one on the upper portion of the
head, a stab wound on the left eye, a stab wound on the left ear, a stab wound on the
left portion of the mouth, a stab wound on the right cheek and a stab wound on the
stomach. In addition, the two fingers on the left hand of the victim were dislocated.
[4]

On the other hand, one of the herein accused-appellants, Hernando Dalabajan, gave a
different version of the incident. He contends that at around midnight on December
31, 1985, he was at the barangay hall of Bgy. Cayapas, Dumaran, Palawan. There
were many people then at the said hall celebrating the New Years eve as there was a
dance to be held therein. Amado Zabalo, Jr., who was drunk at the time, went inside
the Barangay Hall and began to look for a dance partner. Hernando accosted Amado
and told him not to start dancing since the ladies were not yet in the dancing
hall. Without saying a word, Amado left. After a while, the dance started and
Hernando joined the other residents in dancing. Not long after, he went downstairs to
answer the call of nature.From out of nowhere Amado suddenly appeared and hacked
him with a bolo hitting him on his right elbow.Hernando ran away but Amado chased
him. When Hernando stumbled to the ground Amado hacked him again hitting him
this time at the left portion of his head. At this juncture, Hernando was able to get
hold of a piece of wood with which he clubbed Amado. Thereafter, the people around
ganged up on the latter as Hernando ran back to the Barangay Hall to seek the help of
their Barangay Captain. He however lost consciousness upon reaching the Barangay
Hall because of loss of blood which was oozing from his head. When he learned of
Amado Zabalo, Jr.s death the next day, he felt responsible for the victims death and,
thus, he went to the police and voluntarily surrendered, saying that he had clubbed the
victim the night before.

Hernando Dalabajan further testified that he never saw prosecution witness

Melencio dela Cruz at any time during that fateful night. [5]

Barangay Tanod Dominador Dalabajan, testified that he was also at the said
Barangay Hall together with five other Barangay Tanods in the evening of
December 31, 1985. They were requested by their Barangay Captain Eulogio
Sabinet, to maintain peace and order there in view of the dance to be held as
part of the New Years eve celebration. The said dance started at around 12:00
midnight. It was only the following day that he learned of Amados death in the
sea. He denies any participation in the killing of the deceased. [6]

For his part, Fernando Dalabajan did not even present any evidence, nor
did he testify in order to controvert the prosecutions assertion linking him to the
killing.
On February 26, 1990, after the case had been submitted for decision but
prior to the promulgation thereof by the trial court, Amado Zabalo, Sr., the
victims father, executed an Affidavit of Desistance, which stated:

SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY SA PAG-UURONG NG DEMANDA

AKO, si Amado Zabalo, Sr., nasa hustong gulang, may asawa at naninirahan sa
Barangay Cayapas, Dumaran, Palawan, pagkatapos manumpa alinsunod sa
batas, ay nagsasaad ng sumusunod:
1. Na ako ang ama ni Amado Zabalo, Jr. na namatay sa Cayapas,
Dumaran, noong ika-1 ng Inero, 1986;
2. Na dahil sa pagkamatay ng aking anak, ako ay dumulog ng hablang
murder sa hukuman laban kina Dominador Dalabajan, Hernando
Dalabajan at Fernando Dalabajan, at ang nasabing habla ay
kasalukuyang nililitis sa sangay bilang 50 ng RTC-Palawan at may
numerong criminal case No. 6315;
3. Na nitong mga huling araw pagkatapos kong magsagawa ng sariling
pagsisiyasat ay napag-alaman ko sa aking boung kasiyahan na ang
mag-amang si Dominador at Fernando Dalabajan ay wala palang mga
kasalanan at anumang kaugnayan sa pagkamatay ng anak kong si
Amado Zabalo Jr., at si Hernando Dalabajan naman ay napilitang
magtanggol na lamang ng kanyang sarili sapagkat siya ay
pinagtulungan nina Amado Zabalo Jr., at ng kanyang mga kasamahan;
4. Na hindi na ako interesado pang ipagpatuloy ang demanda ko laban
sa nasabing mag-aama kayat iniuurong ko na ang nasabing demanda
laban sa kanila;
5. Na aking isigawa ang sinumpaang salaysay na ito ng kusang loob at
buong laya, at akoy hindi tinakot at inalok ng anumang pabuya o
pangako at ginawa ko ang salaysay na ito upang patutuhan ang lahat
ng aking mga isinasaad sa itaas.
KUSANG loob kong nilagdaan ang salaysay na ito nitong ika-26 ng Pebrero,
1990, dito sa lungsod ng Puerto Princesa.
Sgd.
AMADO ZABALO SR.
May-Salaysay

On July 31, 1990, Melencio Dela Cruz, the sole eyewitness for the
prosecution, executed an affidavit recanting his testimony and instead stating
[7]

that he did not witness the incident, viz.:

AFFIDAVIT OF RECANTATION

I, MELENCIO DE LA CRUZ, Filipino, of legal age, married, and residing at

Calero, Puerto Princesa City, under oath allege:
1. That I was presented in court as one of prosecution witnesses in
Criminal Case No. 6315 entitled People of the Philippines versus
HERNANDO DALABAJAN et al.- for Murder now pending in
Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa
City.
2. That the truth of the matter is that I arrived at the scene of the
incident only after AMADO ZABALO, JR., the victim, was brought
to the shore and already dead. Hence, I was not able to witness the
actual happenings which led to his death.
3. That there being no witness at the time the investigation was being
conducted by the police concerning the death of AMADO ZABALO,
JR., I was prevailed upon by the victims father, AMADO ZABALO,
SR., to testify for the prosecution and when I refused to cooperate he
threatened to kill me. Thus, I was forced to sign an affidavit to attest
that I saw the actual killing of AMADO ZABALO, JR., by the
accused DOMINADOR DALABAJAN while accused MEGDONIO
SABINET, CHARLIE PADUGA and NAPOLEON DELA TORRE
were in the shore holding pieces of wood and waiting for AMADO
ZABALO, JR. to come ashore so that they could block him.
4. That I am recanting my aforesaid affidavit as well as my testimonies
in court because I am being bothered by my conscience for having
testified against the accused without witnessing the whole incident.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

Sgd.,
MELENCIO DELA CRUZ
Affiant
In addition, the accused-appellants also submitted, along with their
Appellants Brief, a copy of a sinumpaang Salaysay executed by one Manuela
Gabinete-Dacuan, a Barangay Kagawad, on August 3, 1991, wherein she
stated that everything Melencio dela Cruz said during his testimony is false
since the latter was not present at the crime scene at the time of the
incident. However, Gabinete-Dacuan was never presented as a witness for the
defense during the trial proper. These three documents were presented to the
trial court as annexes in an Urgent Motion for Release on Bail filed by the
[8]

Dalabajans only after the promulgation of the decision convicting them.

The trial court did not find the accused-appellants defense plausible and
accordingly found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murdering Amado
Zabalo, Jr. It thus stated in the dispositive portion of its Decision:[9]

WHEREFORE, and in view of the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby

rendered finding the 3 accused in the above-entitled case guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as the same is defined and penalized
of reclusion perpetua as well as to pay the costs. The 3 accused furthermore are
hereby ordered jointly and solidarily to indemnify the heirs of the deceased the
sum of P50,000.00 as and for the death of the deceased. They are furthermore
ordered to imdemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased the sum
of P1,000.00 and for actual damages.
SO ORDERED.
The accused-appellants are now before us on appeal with the following
assignment of errors:
I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED REVERSIBLY IN NOT ACCORDING

ACCUSED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED
INNOCENT AND TO AN IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED REVERSIBLY IN ACCORDING WEIGHT TO
THE UNTRUSTWORTHY AND IN FACT FABRICATED TESTIMONY OF
THE SOLE SUPPOSED EYEWITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION.
III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED REVERSIBLY IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-

APPELLANTS.
The accused-appellants, in denying culpability for the death of Amado
Zabalo, Jr., insists that the latter was killed as a result of a tumultuous
affray. They further insist that the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Melencio
dela Cruz, be disregarded for being manifestly fabricated, more so now that the
latter has executed an affidavit of desistance.
We find the appeal unmeritorious.
A recantation does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration. Like any
other testimony, it is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant
circumstances and especially the demeanor of the witness on the
stand. Moreover, it should be received with caution as otherwise it could make
solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of
unscrupulous witnesses. In the case at bar, Dela Cruzs recantation came only
[10]

after a lapse of almost four (4) years from the date of his last testimony in open
court. The case was submitted for decision before the trial court as early as
January 12, 1990. However, promulgation of judgment had to be reset a
number of times since the accused-appellants successively failed to appear on
the dates set. It was only on July 26, 1991 that the accused-appellants finally
appeared and the decision was promulgated. Thereafter, it was only on August
6, 1991, upon filing of an Urgent Motion for Release on Bail, that acussed-
appellants presented the Affidavit of Recantation executed by Dela Cruz.
It is highly doubtful that the eyewitness Dela Cruz, after through the trouble
of being sworn in, testifying in open court, and being subjected to a rigid cross-
examination by the defense counsel, wherein he unhesitatingly pointed to the
accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime, would, after four years,
suddenly turn around and reverse himself. We have previously held that mere
retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate the original
testimony if credible. The Court looks with disfavor upon retractions of
[11]

testimonies previously given in court. The rationale for the rule is

obvious: Affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually
through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is
exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will later be
repudiated. [12]

A testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside lightly, least of
all by a mere affidavit executed after the lapse of considerable time. In the case
at bar, although the Affidavit of Recantation was executed almost a year prior
to the promulgation of the decision, the accused-appellants was it fit to inform
the lower court of its existence only after the said promulgation, by attaching it
as an annex in their Urgent Motion for Release on Bail filed on August 6,
1991. Moreover, the promulgation of the decision was delayed and reset a
[13]

number of times due to the failure of the accused-appellants to appear as

scheduled. Thus, it is clear that the retraction is an afterthought and should not
be given probative value.
The accused-appellants, in praying that the case at bench be remanded to
the lower court for new trial, insist that the Affidavit of Desistance executed by
Dela Cruz constitutes newly discovered evidence. We hold that it is not. Section
2 of Rule 121 of the Rules of Court provides that the only grounds for new trial
are:
(a) That errors of law or irregularities have been committed during the trial
prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused;
(b) That new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused
could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial,
and which if introduced and admitted, would probably change the judgment.
Obviously, an affidavit of desistance, even judging from the meaning of this
caption itself, can not be said to be newly discovered evidence.
Anyway, the delay on the part of the accused-appellants in presenting the
Affidavit of Desistance casts serious doubt upon the veracity of the statements
made therein.
The case of U.S. vs. Dacir first enunciated the principle regarding
[14]

affidavits of recantation as basis for a new trial:

In general, motions for new trial based on affidavits of this kind are entitled to
but scant consideration.The mere fact that after a solemn trial in a court of
justice has been terminated, one of the witnesses, in conversation with friends
or under pressure from interested parties, may tell a different story as to the
incidents testified to by him, does not necessarily destroy the probative
testimony when on the witness stand. If new trials were granted in every
instance where the interested party or parties succeed in including some of the
witnesses to vary or modify their testimony outside of court and after the trial,
there would never be an end of criminal litigation. x x x
The value as evidence of the testimony of a witness given in open court in the
course of a trial had therein is due for the most part to the following
considerations: That under such conditions it is given under the sanction of an
oath and of the penalties prescribed for perjury; that the witness story is told in
the prescence of an impartial judge in the course of a solemn trial in open
court; That the witness is subject to cross-examination, with all the facilities
afforded thereby to test the truth and accuracy of his statements and to develop
his attitude of mind toward the parties, his disposition to assist the cause of
truth rather than to further some personal end; that the proceedings are had
under the protection of the court and under such conditions as to remover, so
far as is humanly possible, all likehood that undue or unfair influences will be
exercised to induce the witness to testify falsely; and finally, that under the
watchful eye of a trained judge his manner, his general bearing and demeanor
and even the intonation of his voice often unconsciously disclose the degree of
credit to which he is entitled as a witness. Manifestly, loose statements or even
sworn statements of witnesses, made after the trial has closed, varying or
contradicting their testimony given at the trial, will rarely be sufficient in the
absence of special circumstances, to raise such a doubt as to the truth of their
testimony given at the trial and accepted as true by the trial judge, as to justify
the granting of a new trial.
The affidavit of Desistance executed by the victims father also merits scant
consideration, for it is axiomatic in our jurisdiction that for such desistance to
benefit the accused, it must be given prior to the filing of a criminal
complaint. Here, the Affidavit of Desistance was filed long after the trial had
[15]

concluded. As such, like the Affidavit of Recantation executed by Dela Cruz,

Amado Zabalo, Sr.s sworn statement cannot serve as basis for the acquittal of
the accused-appellants. We cite with approval the argument of the Solicitor
General with regard to the said affidavits:
Even on their merits, the sworn statements are not impressed with faith and
credit. Melencio dela Cruz alleges that he testified for the prosecution because
Amado Zabalo, Sr. threatened to kill me. If true, why did it take him more than
four long years to wean away from the threat and retract his testimony[?] On
the other hand, Amado Zabalo, Sr.s affirmation of the alleged innocence of
accused-appellants is devoid of any probative value being hearsay and a mere
factual conclusion. And Kagawad Manuela Gabinete-Dacuans narration of the
alleged incident exculpating the accused-appellants is clearly and indubitably a
fabricated afterthought.
Neither constituting newly discovered evidence nor of such probative weight
as would probably change the judgment, the sworn statements in question
cannot even be a valid ground for new trial under Rule 121 of the Rules of
Court. According to this Honorable Court in People vs. Bigcas (211 SCRA
630):
As a general rule a motion for new trial will not be granted if based
on an affidavit of recantation of a witness whose effect, is to free the
appellant from participation in the commission of the crime. It would
be a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before the court of
justice simply because the witness who has given it later on changed
his mind for one reason or another, for such a rule will make a
solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of
unscrupulous witnesses. Because affidavits of retraction can easily be
secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, usually for monetary
consideration, the Court has invariably regarded such affidavits as
exceedingly unreliable (de Guzman vs. IAC, 184 SCRA [April 4,
1990]) (underscoring supplied).
The accused-apellants assert that inconsistencies abound in the testimony
of Dela Cruz, that it is uncorroborated, and has no probative value, it being a
mere fabrication. Contrary to this contention, upon close examination of the
testimony given by Melencio dela Cruz, we find that Dela Cruzs testimony is
credible, detailed, and was given in a forthright manner. His narration of what
transpired remained unshaken even when he was subjected to rigid cross-
examination by the defense counsel.Moreover, the testimony of Lolito
Carceller, who examined the corpse of the victim as to the location of the
wounds corroborates the testimony of Dela Cruz. Most of the wounds inflicted
upon the deceased which were examined and noted by Carceller were located
on the upper part of the body, specifically, above the armpits. The site of the
wounds lends credence to Dela Cruzs testimony that the victim was hit and
stabbed by the accused-appellants while the former was in armpit-deep water
and the accused were aboard a banca.
The accused-appellants insists that Dela Cuz could not have been able to
identify Zabalos assailants from a distance of thirty (30) to (40) meters. This
contention is incorrect. It had been established that Dela Cruz witnessed the
attack on Amado Zabalo, Jr. by the accused-appellants from the time of its
inception, when Hernando Dalabajan stabbed the victim, to the time when the
victim tried to escape by wading out to sea, and up to its horrible climax when
the victim was mercilessly killed by the three accused who unrelentingly
pursued him. Dela Cruz fully witnessed the attack on the victim.
Hernando Dalabajan insists that Dela Cruz was not present at the time of
the incident. However, upon cross-examination, it can be gleaned that his only
basis for such an assertion is that he did not see Dela Cruz that night, but he
did not discount the possibility that Dela Cruz was somewhere in the vicinity but
out of sight.
[16]

The trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of

treachery in qualifying the criminal offense to murder:
The Court in assessing the circumstances of the killing of the deceased Amado
Zabalo, Jr. by all the 3 accused who actively helped one another in
perpetrating the killing could not but rule that the killing was attended by
treachery to qualify the offense to murder. The above finding was primarily
premised on the fact that at the time the attack was launched at the sea by the 3
accused, the victim was not in a position to defend himself. Thus, at the time
of attack the victim was in the water with a depth up to his armpit. In the
situation he found himself it is quite obvious his freedom of movement to
adequately protect and defend his person was very much restricted taken in
conjunction with the 3 aggressors who were riding in a banca and hitting him
all at the same time.
From the manner of attack employed by the accused, it may reasonably be
deduced or inferred that accused consciously adopted the mode of attack
employed by them to insure its success. When they pursued the victim who
run towards the seashore and opted to go to the water, it must be construed
when they availed themselves of a banca, they did so with a decided advantage
on their part without risk to their personal safety. It can thus be seen that at the
time the fatal blows were delivered treachery can thus be firmly appreciated
against them.
Treachery may not be present a the inception of the attack, but if the
attack is continuous and treachery existed at the time of the
consummation of the killing the crime committed is not homicide but
murder. (People vs. Cario, et al., 55 SCRA 516).
We find no merit in the contention of accused-appellants that Amado
Zabalo, Jr. died on the occasion of a tumultuous affray. Pertinent provision of
the Revised Penal Code on death caused in a tumultuous affray reads:
Death caused in a tumultuous affray. When, while several persons, not
composing groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and
attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a confused
and tumultuous manner, and in the course of the affray someone is killed, and
it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or
persons who inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified, such person
or persons shall be punished by prision mayor. x x x (Art. 251 of the Revised
Penal Code) [Penalties omitted]
Consequently, the following elements must concur:

(1) That there be several persons;

(2) That they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting
and attacking each other reciprocally;

(3) That these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in
a confused and tumultuous manner;

(4) That someone was killed in the course of the affray;

(5) That it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased;

(6) That the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who
used violence can be identified.

In the case at bench, there were no groups of persons organized for the
common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other
reciprocally. Consequently, there was no affray among several groups of
persons in the course of which Amado Zabalo, Jr. died. The fact is that there
was only one group of persons, the accused themselves, who caused an attack
on a single victim, Amado Zabalo, Jr. This group of persons, motivated as they
were, attacked and killed the aforesaid victim. The persons who assaulted and
killed the victim were clearly identified. Since it was ascertained as to who
actually killed the deceased, the death of the victim cannot be said to have been
caused in a tumultuous affray.
There is, appreciated herein, as recommended by the Solicitor General, the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in the case of Hernando
Dalabajan. This mitigating circumstance is, however, offset by the aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength.Treachery has qualified the killing to murder. Consequently, as
correctly found by the trial court, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be
imposed.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED in all
respects.
SO ORDERED.