G.R. No.

202867 July 15, 2013 and with evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and shoot Gregorio Conde with said unlicensed firearm,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, hitting him on the posterior aspect, middle third right forearm 1 cm. In diameter;
vs. thereby performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of
REGIE LABIAGA, Appellant. Murder as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the accused; that is by the timely and able medical
CARPIO, J.: assistance rendered to said Gregorio Conde which prevented his death.

The Case CONTRARY TO LAW.

Before the Court is an appeal assailing the Decision 1 dated 18 October 2011 of the Alias Balatong Barcenas remained at large. Both appellant and Demapanag pled not
Court of Appeals-Cebu (CA-Cebu) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01000. The CA-Cebu guilty in both cases and joint trial ensued thereafter. The prosecution presented four
affirmed with modification the Joint Decision2 dated 10 March 2008 of the Regional witnesses: Gregorio Conde, the victim in Criminal Case No. 2002-1777; Glenelyn
Trial Court of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, Branch 66 (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 2001-155) Conde, his daughter; and Dr. Jeremiah Obañana and Dr. Edwin Jose Figura, the
convicting Regie Labiaga alias "Banok" (appellant) of murder and Criminal Case No. physicians at the Sara District Hospital where the victims were admitted. The defense,
2002-1777 convicting appellant of frustrated murder. on the other hand, presented appellant, Demapanag, and the latter’s brother,
Frederick.
The Facts
Version of the prosecution
In Criminal Case No. 2001-1555, appellant, together with a certain Alias Balatong
Barcenas and Cristy Demapanag (Demapanag), was charged with Murder with the The prosecution’s version of the facts is as follows: At around 7:00 p.m. on 23
Use of Unlicensed Firearm under an Information3 which reads: December 2000, Gregorio Conde, and his two daughters, Judy and Glenelyn Conde,
were in their home at Barangay Malayu-an, Ajuy, Iloilo. Thereafter, Gregorio stepped
outside. Glenelyn was in their store, which was part of their house.
That on or about December 23, 2000 in the Municipality of Ajuy, Province of Iloilo,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, armed with unlicensed Shortly thereafter, appellant, who was approximately five meters away from
firearm, with deliberate intent and decided purpose to kill, by means of treachery Gregorio, shot the latter. Gregorio called Judy for help. When Judy and Glenelyn
and with evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and rushed to Gregorio’s aid, appellant shot Judy in the abdomen. The two other accused
feloniously attack, assault and shoot JUDY CONDE alias ‘JOJO’ with said unlicensed were standing behind the appellant. Appellant said, "she is already dead," and the
firearm, hitting her and inflicting gunshot wounds on the different parts of her breast three fled the crime scene.
which caused her death thereafter.
Gregorio and Judy were rushed to the Sara District Hospital. Judy was pronounced
CONTRARY TO LAW. dead on arrival while Gregorio made a full recovery after treatment of his gunshot
wound.
The same individuals were charged with Frustrated Murder with the Use of
Unlicensed Firearm in Criminal Case No. 2002-1777, under an Information4 which Dr. Jeremiah Obañana conducted the autopsy of Judy. His report stated that her
states: death was caused by "cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to Cardiac Tamponade due
to gunshot wound."5
That on or about December 23, 2000 in the Municipality of Ajuy, Province of Iloilo,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named Dr. Jose Edwin Figura, on the other hand, examined Gregorio after the incident. He
accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, armed with unlicensed found that Gregorio sustained a gunshot wound measuring one centimeter in
firearm, with deliberate intent and decided purpose to kill, by means of treachery diameter in his right forearm and "abrasion wounds hematoma formation" in his
right shoulder.6
Version of the defense The Ruling of the CA-Cebu

Appellant admitted that he was present during the shooting incident on 23 December Appellant impugned the RTC’s Joint Decision, claiming that "the RTC gravely erred in
2000. He claimed, however, that he acted in self-defense. Gregorio, armed with a convicting the appellant of the crime charged despite failure of the prosecution to
shotgun, challenged him to a fight. He attempted to shoot appellant, but the shotgun prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt."8 The CA-Cebu, however, upheld the
jammed. Appellant tried to wrest the shotgun from Gregorio, and during the struggle, conviction for murder and frustrated murder.
the shotgun fired. He claimed that he did not know if anyone was hit by that gunshot.
The CA-Cebu also modified the Joint Decision by imposing the payment of moral and
Demapanag claimed that at the time of the shooting, he was in D&D Ricemill, which exemplary damages in both criminal cases. The CA-Cebu made a distinction between
is approximately 14 kilometers away from the crime scene. This was corroborated by the civil indemnity awarded by the RTC in Criminal Case No. 2001-1555 and the moral
Frederick, Demapanag’s brother. damages. The CA-Cebu pointed out that:

The Ruling of the RTC The trial court granted the amount of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity in Criminal Case
No. 2001-1555. It did not award moral damages. Nonetheless, the trial court should
In its Joint Decision, the RTC acquitted Demapanag due to insufficiency of evidence. have awarded both, considering that they are two different kinds of damages. For
Appellant, however, was convicted of murder and frustrated murder. The dispositive death indemnity, the amount of ₱50,000.00 is fixed "pursuant to the current judicial
portion of the Joint Decision reads: policy on the matter, without need of any evidence or proof of damages. Likewise,
the mental anguish of the surviving family should be assuaged by the award of
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the court hereby finds the accused Regie appropriate and reasonable moral damages."9
Labiaga @ "Banok" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the Crime of Murder in Crim.
Case No. 2001-1555 and hereby sentences the said accused to reclusion perpetua The dispositive portion of the Decision of the CA-Cebu reads:
together with accessory penalty provided by law, to pay the heirs of Judy Conde
₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Joint Decision dated
and to pay the costs. March 10, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, in Barotac Viejo, Iloilo is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. The dispositive portion of the said Joint Decision
In Crim. Case No. 2002-1777, the court finds accused Regie Labiaga @ "Banok" should now read as follows:
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder and hereby
sentences the said accused to a prison term ranging from six (6) years and one (1) WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the court hereby finds the accused Regie
day of prision mayor as minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day of reclusion Labiaga @ "Banok" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder in Crim.
temporal as maximum, together with the necessary penalty provided by law and Case No. 2001-1555 and hereby sentences the said accused to reclusion perpetua
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. together with the accessory penalty provided by law, to pay the heirs of Judy Conde
₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱25,000.00 as
Accused’s entire period of detention shall be deducted from the penalty herein exemplary damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to
imposed when the accused serves his sentence. pay the costs.

For lack of sufficient evidence, accused Cristy Demapanag is acquitted of the crimes In Crim. Case No. 2002-1777 the court finds accused Regie Labiaga @ "Banok" GUILTY
charged in both cases. The Provincial Warden, Iloilo Rehabilitation Center, Pototan, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder and hereby sentences
Iloilo is hereby directed to release accused Cristy Demapanag from custody unless he the said accused to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1)
is being held for some other valid or lawful cause. day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of
reclusion temporal, as maximum, together with the accessory penalty provided by
SO ORDERED.7 law, to pay Gregorio Conde ₱25,000.00 as moral damages and ₱25,000.00 as
exemplary damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to
pay the costs Accused(’s) entire period of detention shall be deducted from the Appellant’s claim that he did not know whether Gregorio was hit when the shotgun
penalty herein imposed when the accused serves his sentence. accidentally fired is also implausible.

For lack of sufficient evidence, accused Cristy Demapanag is acquitted of the crime(s) In contrast, we find that the Condes’ account of the incident is persuasive. Both the
charged in both cases. The Provincial Warden, Iloilo Rehabilitation Center, Pototan, CA-Cebu and the RTC found that the testimonies of the Condes were credible and
Iloilo is hereby directed to release accused Cristy Demapanag from custody unless he presented in a clear and convincing manner. This Court has consistently put much
is being held for some other valid or lawful cause. weight on the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses, especially when
affirmed by the appellate court.14 In People v. Mangune,15 we stated that:
SO ORDERED.
It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their
SO ORDERED. 10 testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique
opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and to note their demeanor, conduct,
Hence, this appeal. and attitude under grilling examination. These are important in determining the
truthfulness of witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of
conflicting testimonies. For, indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice
The Ruling of the Court
are potent aids in ascertaining the witness’ credibility, and the trial court has the
opportunity to take advantage of these aids.16
Our review of the records of Criminal Case No. 2002-1777 convinces us that appellant
is guilty of attempted murder and not frustrated murder. We uphold appellant’s
Since the conclusions made by the RTC regarding the credibility of the witnesses were
conviction in Criminal Case No. 2001-1555 for murder, but modify the civil indemnity
not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight or misapprehension of relevant facts, the
awarded in Criminal Case No. 2001-1555, as well as the award of moral and
same must be sustained by this Court.
exemplary damages in both cases.

Attempted and Frustrated Murder

Treachery was correctly appreciated by the RTC and CA-Cebu. A treacherous attack
Appellant’s feeble attempt to invoke self-defense in both cases was correctly rejected
is one in which the victim was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself or
by the RTC and the CA-Cebu. This Court, in People v. Damitan,11 explained that:
resist the attack.17 The existence of treachery is not solely determined by the type of
weapon used. If it appears that the weapon was deliberately chosen to insure the
When the accused admits killing a person but pleads self-defense, the burden of
execution of the crime, and to render the victim defenseless, then treachery may be
evidence shifts to him to prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of his
properly appreciated against the accused. 18
defense. However, appellant’s version of the incident was uncorroborated. His bare
and self-serving assertions cannot prevail over the positive identification of the two
In the instant case, the Condes were unarmed when they were shot by appellant. The
(2) principal witnesses of the prosecution.12
use of a 12-gauge shotgun against two unarmed victims is undoubtedly treacherous,
as it denies the victims the chance to fend off the offender.
Appellant’s failure to present any other eyewitness to corroborate his testimony and
his unconvincing demonstration of the struggle between him and Gregorio before
We note, however, that appellant should be convicted of attempted murder, and not
the RTC lead us to reject his claim of self-defense. Also, as correctly pointed out by
frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 2002-1777.
the CA-Cebu, appellant’s theory of self-defense is belied by the fact that:

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines the stages in the commission of felonies:
x x x The appellant did not even bother to report to the police Gregorio’s alleged
unlawful aggression and that it was Gregorio who owned the gun, as appellant
claimed. And, when appellant was arrested the following morning, he did not also Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies
inform the police that what happened to Gregorio was merely accidental. 13 as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and Court (to the witness)
accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, Q: The nature of these injuries, not serious?
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator. A: Yes, Your Honor, not serious. He has also abrasion wounds hematoma formation
at the anterior aspect right shoulder.22
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should Since Gregorio’s gunshot wound was not mortal, we hold that appellant should be
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own convicted of attempted murder and not frustrated murder. Under Article 51 of the
spontaneous desistance. Revised Penal Code, the corresponding penalty for attempted murder shall be two
degrees lower than that prescribed for consummated murder under Article 248, that
In Serrano v. People,19 we distinguished a frustrated felony from an attempted felony is, prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period.
in this manner: Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law provides:

1.) In a frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of x x x the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum
execution which should produce the felony as a consequence; whereas in term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be
an attempted felony, the offender merely commences the commission of a properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum which
felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution. shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for
the offense.1âwphi1
2.) In a frustrated felony, the reason for the non-accomplishment of the
crime is some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator; on the other Thus, appellant should serve an indeterminate sentence ranging from two (2) years,
hand, in an attempted felony, the reason for the non-fulfillment of the crime four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional in its medium period to eight
is a cause or accident other than the offender’s own spontaneous (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period.
desistance.20
Award of damages
In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the wound would have
been fatal were it not for timely medical intervention. 21 If the evidence fails to In light of recent jurisprudence, we deem it proper to increase the amount of
convince the court that the wound sustained would have caused the victim’s death damages imposed by the lower court in both cases. In Criminal Case No. 2001-1555,
without timely medical attention, the accused should be convicted of attempted this Court hereby awards ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity 23 and ₱30,000.00 as
murder and not frustrated murder. exemplary damages.24 The award of ₱50,000.00 as moral damages in the foregoing
case is sustained. Appellant is also liable to pay ₱40,000.00 as moral damages and
In the instant case, it does not appear that the wound sustained by Gregorio Conde ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, in relation to Criminal Case No. 2002-1777.
was mortal. This was admitted by Dr. Edwin Figura, who examined Gregorio after the
shooting incident: WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the 18 October 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals-Cebu
in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01000 with MODIFICATIONS. In Criminal Case No. 2002-
Prosecutor Con-El: 1777, we find that appellant Regie Labiaga is GUILTY of Attempted Murder and shall
suffer an indeterminate sentence ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and
Q: When you examined the person of Gregorio Conde, can you tell the court what one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of
was the situation of the patient when you examined him? prision mayor as maximum, and pay ₱40,000.00 as moral damages and ₱30,000.00
as exemplary damages. In Criminal Case No. 2001-1555, appellant shall pay
A: He has a gunshot wound, but the patient was actually ambulatory and not in ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱30,000.00 as
distress. exemplary damages.