SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 127489. July 11, 2003.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , appellee, vs . ALFREDO GALLEGO,

SAMUEL DELLONA, LEOBERT GAJETO, ERWIN VILLAROS, ROBERTO
APINAN, TINGTING GAJETO, ERNESTO AROLLADO, JOHN DOE @
"JUN" and RICHARD DOE @ "DIMAS," accused.

ALFREDO GALLEGO, SAMUEL DELLONA, LEOBERT GAJETO, and

ERWIN VILLAROS, appellants.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Arturo B. Revil for accused-appellants.

SYNOPSIS

Appellants Alfredo Gallego, Samuel Dellona, Leobert Gajeto and Erwin Villaros,
together with Roberto Apinan, Tingting Gajeto, Ernesto Arollado, a certain John Doe alias
Jun, and another Richard Doe alias Dimas, were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of
Masbate, Branch 48, and were each sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The present appeal, however, involved only appellants Gallego, Gajeto and Villaros.
However, Dellona had withdrawn his appeal. In their appeal before the Court, appellants
maintained that they were innocent of the crime charged and insisted that they merely
acted in self-defense.
The Supreme Court a rmed appellants' conviction for murder. The Court rejected
their claim of self-defense. The victim sustained no less than six (6) stab wounds; two of
the stab wounds were elliptical, on the right side of the chest, severing the upper lobe of
the right lung and the descending aorta, while the other four (4) stab wounds were located
at the right side of the interscapular area. The number, locations and depth of the wounds
sustained by the victim belied appellant Gallego's pretension that he killed the victim in
self-defense; the same are proof that Gallego intended to kill the victim and not merely to
defend himself. The Court also found it incredible that while appellant Gallego used both
his hands to wrest possession of the knife, the victim merely placed his left hand on the
appellant's shoulder instead of using it to pull away the hands of the appellant holding his
right hand. Even after appellant Gallego had wrested possession of the knife and had
stabbed the victim once on the chest, the latter merely placed his right hand on the other
shoulder of the appellant, thus allowing the appellant to stab him six more times without
let up on the chest and at the back. The human instinct for survival and self-preservation
would impel one who is about to be stabbed with a lethal weapon to try his utmost to
wrest possession of the weapon from the attacker. However, appellant Gallego would
have the Court believed that the victim merely placed his hand on the appellant's shoulder,
thus enabling him to stab the victim several times. The appellant's testimony was
altogether unconvincing, contrary to human nature and the natural course of things.

SYLLABUS
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 1. CRIMINAL LAW; JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; SELF-DEFENSE; CONCEPT. —
Like alibi, self-defense in criminal prosecutions is a weak defense because it is easy to
fabricate and di cult to disprove. Whether or not an accused acted in self-defense,
complete or incomplete, is a factual issue to be determined by the trial court based on the
evidence on record. Where the accused interposes self-defense as a justifying
circumstance, he thereby admits having killed the victim; the burden of evidence shifts
from the prosecution to the accused to prove with clear and convincing evidence the
con uence of the following essential requisites: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack
of su cient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression
is an essential and indispensable requisite, for without unlawful aggression on the part of
the victim, there can be, in a jural sense, no complete or incomplete self-defense. The
accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of
the prosecution because even if the evidence of the prosecution were weak, the same can
no longer be disbelieved after the accused has admitted killing the victim; hence, the
conviction of the accused must ensue as a matter of consequence. An act of aggression
when its author does not persist in his purpose, or when he discontinues his aggression
such that the object of his attack is no longer in peril, is not unlawful aggression. Self-
defense must be distinguished from retaliation; in that in retaliation, the inceptual unlawful
aggression had already ceased when the accused attacked him. In self-defense, the
unlawful aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the
person making the defense.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; THE NUMBER, LOCATIONS AND DEPTH OF THE WOUNDS
SUSTAINED BY THE VICTIM BELIE APPELLANT'S PRETENSION THAT HE KILLED THE
VICTIM IN SELF-DEFENSE. — The victim sustained no less than six (6) stab wounds; two of
the stab wounds were elliptical, on the right side of the chest, severing the upper lobe of
the right lung and the descending aorta, while the other four (4) stab wounds were located
at the right side of the interscapular area. The number, locations and depth of the wounds
sustained by the victim belie appellant Alfredo's pretension that he killed the victim in self-
defense; the same are proof that Alfredo intended to kill the victim and not merely to
defend himself.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. —
Dr. Maximo Reyes testi ed that the multiplicity and nature of the injuries in icted on the
victim clearly indicate that there was more than one attacker. He also con rmed that stab
wounds nos. 1 and 2 in his autopsy report, even if attended medically, were bound to cause
the victim's instantaneous death due to severe blood loss since the said wounds cut the
blood vessels going to the heart and lungs, and severed circulation from the aorta to the
heart. This was corroborated by Dr. Acuesta who, in addition, testi ed that the wounds on
the arms of the victim showed that it was the victim who tried to defend himself from his
assailants. It certainly de es reason why Alfredo had to in ict such injuries on the victim if
he was only defending himself. The ndings of the trial court belie appellant Alfredo's
claim that he also stabbed the victim with his knife: Moreover, the Court has carefully
examined and measured the fatal knife. It was six (6) inches long with the blade of the
knife about two and a half (2-1/2) inches long and the handle is three and one half (3-1/2)
inches long. The blade of the knife was one (1) centimeter wide at its widest part. It was
sharp on one side of the blade but not the back part. Yet, some of the stab wounds were
six (6) or ten (10) inches deep. We have held that physical evidence is evidence of the
highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; APPELLANT'S TESTIMONY IS UNCONVINCING AND CONTRARY
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 TO HUMAN NATURE AND THE NATURAL COURSE OF THINGS. — It is incredible that while
the appellant used both his hands to wrest possession of the knife, the victim merely
placed his left hand on the appellant's shoulder instead of using it to pull away the hands
of the appellant holding his right hand. Even after the appellant had wrested possession of
the knife and had stabbed the victim once on the chest, the latter merely placed his right
hand on the other shoulder of the appellant, thus allowing the appellant to stab him six
more times without let up on the chest and at the back. The human instinct for survival and
self-preservation would impel one who is about to be stabbed with a lethal weapon to try
his utmost to wrest possession of the weapon from the attacker. However, the appellant
would have us believe that the victim merely placed his hand on the appellant's shoulder,
thus enabling him to stab the victim several times. The appellant's testimony is altogether
unconvincing, contrary to human nature and the natural course of things.
5. ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES; MUST BE
CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE AND NOT IN TRUNCATED PARTS. — In construing the
testimony of a witness, such testimony must be considered as a whole, and not in its
truncated parts, and the meaning of any answer to isolated questions is to be ascertained
by due consideration of all the questions propounded on the witness and his answers
thereon throughout his testimony. Facts imperfectly stated in answer to a question may be
supplied or clari ed by his answer to another or other questions. In this case, Elpidio
stated in his sworn statement to SPO3 Vicente Aragona on December 5, 1992 that the four
appellants stabbed the victim and identi ed all of them as the culprits. However, when he
testi ed, Elpidio declared that each of the ve accused stabbed the victim, while accused
Ernesto Arollado hit the victim at the back of the head. Elpidio made a similar claim in his
supplemental statement in which he stated that nine of the crew members helped in killing
the victim. But Elpidio clari ed the matter when he testi ed on cross examination. The
records show that when apprised on December 5, 1992 that the three appellants, aside
from Alfredo who had earlier surrendered, were already in the custody of the police
authorities and detained thereat, Elpidio arrived in the municipal police station and gave his
sworn statement, identifying the four appellants as the assailants of the victim. The other
members of the crew were still at large and could not thus be pinpointed by Elpidio. There
is no substantial incongruency between the physical evidence on record and Elpidio's
testimony.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; DELAY IN REPORTING A CRIME DOES NOT AFFECT CREDIBILITY
IF THE REASONS THEREFOR ARE SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED. — That Elpidio did not report
the killing of the victim to the police authorities or identify the culprits to Tomas Codera,
the barangay o cials and police authorities immediately after the crime was committed
by the appellants does not impair the credibility of Elpidio. The evidence shows that after
witnessing the heinous crime committed by the appellants, he proceeded posthaste to the
house of Tomas Codera, the victim's stepfather and reported the crime. Elpidio expected
Tomas to inform the victim's widow. In People vs. Galido, we ruled that fear of reprisal and
the natural reluctance of witnesses to get involved in criminal cases are su cient
explanations for a witness' delay in reporting a crime to the authorities. Besides, Elpidio, in
the company of Rosita and Tomas, went to the police authorities and identi ed the
appellants on December 5, 1992, or barely three days after the commission of the crime.
aACHDS

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; NO STANDARD FORM OF BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE WHEN ONE IS

CONFRONTED WITH A STARTLING AND FRIGHTENING OCCURRENCE. — The well-
entrenched rule is that different people react differently when confronted with a startling
and frightening occurrence. There is no standard form of human behavioral response to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 crimes and other strange occurrences. Experience dictates that precisely because of the
startling acts of violence committed right before their eyes, eyewitnesses can recall with a
high degree of reliability the identities of the criminals and how at any given time the crime
has been committed by them.
8. CRIMINAL LAW; CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY;
CONSPIRACY; SHOWN BY CONCERTED ACT OR ACTS EMBARKED ON A COMMON
OBJECTIVE TO KILL THE VICTIM. — All the appellants conspired to kill the victim; hence,
all of them are criminally liable for the crime charged as principals by direct participation.
Indeed, as shown by the evidence on record, the appellants and the other accused each
armed with a bladed weapon, except accused Arollado who was armed with a piece of
wood, assaulted the victim, hitting him with their weapons on different parts of the body.
By their concerted act or acts, they embarked on a common objective — that of killing the
victim.

DECISION

CALLEJO, SR. , J : p

Certi ed to this Court for review by the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Section 13,
Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, is the Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate,
Branch 48, nding the appellants guilty of homicide. In its Decision 2 in CA-G.R. CR. No.
16723, the CA ruled that the appellants are guilty of murder as charged, and sentenced
each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
On March 12, 1993, appellants Alfredo Gallego, Samuel Dellona, Leobert Gajeto and
Erwin Villaros, together with Roberto Apinan, Tingting Gajeto, Ernesto Arollado, a certain
John Doe alyas Jun, and another Richard Doe alyas Dimas, were charged with murder
before the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, in an Information 3 which reads:
That on December 2, 1992, in the evening thereof while on board the
shing boat F/B EVER IV and anchored at Panguiranan River, Balud, Masbate,
Philippines, within the preliminary jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, taking advantage of nighttime, with intent to kill, evident
premeditation, treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously conspiring and helping one another and
armed with pieces of wood and knives, struck and stabbed one Alexander Adrias
with pieces of wood and deadly weapons, hitting the latter and thereby in icting
fatal wounds that caused his instantaneous death.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

On their arraignment on April 28, 1993, the four appellants pleaded not guilty to the
charge. 5 The other accused remained at large. Thereafter, trial ensued.
The Evidence of the Prosecution 6
On December 2, 1992, at about 5:00 p.m., the shing boat F/B Ever IV dropped
anchor at the Panguiranan River, Panguiranan, Balud, Masbate. On board were Ernesto
Arollado, the captain and radio operator; Roberto Apinan, the second captain; and the
members of the crew, including herein appellants. Alexander Adrias boarded the vessel to
buy sh from the crew members, but was told that the sh cold storage would be opened
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 later at 9:00 p.m. Thereafter, Alexander invited all the nine crew members to his house at
Barangay Salvacion, Balud, Masbate, just across the Panguiranan River, for a drinking
spree. The crew members agreed. The group went ashore on board Alexander's banca.
Alexander had also earlier invited Elpidio Suarez to go back to the shing boat with him
later that night to buy sh. Elpidio agreed. At 8:00 p.m., Alexander and his visitors had
consumed eight bottles of Tanduay Rhum ESQ. The group went back to the shing boat on
board Alexander's banca. Elpidio followed them in his own banca. When Elpidio was by the
outrigger on his way to the deck of the boat, he was shocked when he saw Alexander on
the deck, about three arm's length away, being stabbed by the accused and the appellants.
The boat was lit by "trouble lights" located at its rear and center. Leobert stabbed the
victim at the back; Samuel on the right jaw; Erwin on the body; Alfredo on the chest; and
Roberto on the body below the right breast. Tingting and Ernesto each hit the victim with a
piece of wood at the back of the head. Elpidio could not recall how many times the victim
was stabbed. Shocked by what he saw, Elpidio forthwith paddled back to shore and
rushed to the house of Tomas Codera, the victim's stepfather to inform the latter of the
gruesome incident.
At about 9:15 p.m., the F/B Sweetie Pie dropped anchor at Barangay Salvacion
across the Panguiranan River. Tomas, the boat captain, saw the F/B Ever IV, at a distance
of about fteen meters from his boat, lift anchor on its way out of the river going towards
the direction of Barangay Calumpang. He saw Alexander's banca being untied from the F/B
Ever IV. Tomas retrieved the banca and brought it to shore. When Tomas arrived home, he
inquired from his wife where Alexander was. He was told that Alexander had gone to the
F/B Ever IV on board his banca with the crew, and that the group had a drinking spree
earlier in the afternoon. Shortly thereafter, Elpidio arrived and informed Tomas that
Alexander had been stabbed on the deck of the F/B Ever IV. Elpidio, however, did not reveal
the identity of the assailants. Tomas forthwith returned to the F/B Sweetie Pie and cruised
along the river looking for the F/B Ever IV, but failed to locate it. The next day, at 7:00 a.m.,
Tomas informed Rosita of her husband's death. Tomas, via cb radio, heard that the
cadaver of Alexander had already been turned over to the police authorities at Barangay
Calumpang, Balud. Tomas rushed to the police station in the said barangay and was able
to recover Alexander's body from the police authorities and brought it back to Barangay
Salvacion.
Dr. Oscar B. Acuesta, Medical O cer V of the Balud Municipal Hospital, performed
an autopsy on the body of the victim and submitted a report on his findings, thus:
PHYSICAL FINDINGS:

1. Cadaver was embalmed

2. Stabbed [sic] [w]ound at the level of fourth intercostal space
Right chest penetrating the chest cavity hitting the Right Lung, wound
two inches in length
3. Stabbed Wound three inches in length at the level of fifth intercostal
space Right chest penetrating the Right lung
4. Stabbed Wound multiple (4 points) at the level of Right scapular
area penetrating the chest cavity hitting the Right Lung.
5. Stabbed Wound about 4 inches in length at the upper arm
6. Stabbed Wound about 2 inches in length at the upper arm
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 7. Lacerated Wound .5 inch in length at the left temporal area

CAUSE OF DEATH:
HEMORRHAGE, SEVERE SECONDARY TO MULTIPLE STABBED WOUND. 7

On December 7, 1992, another autopsy was conducted at the Veronica Memorial

Chapel by Dr. Maximo L. Reyes, Medico-Legal O cer of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), who submitted a more detailed description of the injuries in icted on
the victim as incorporated in his Medico-Legal Report No. N-92-3370, to wit:
POSTMORTEM FINDINGS

Body, previously embalmed.

Hemothorax, 1,000 cc. right; 1,200 left, consisting of uid and clotted
blood.
Hemorrhage, meningeal: subdural and subarachnoidal, extensive.
Contused abrasions, 1.0 x 2.0 cm. right side of face; 1.0 x 2.0 cm. upper
outer quadrant, left chest; 1.0 x 6.0 cm. posterior aspect, upper third, right forearm;
1.0 x 6.0 cm. left arm.
Hematoma, interstitial, scalp from both parietal area extending into the
vertex.
Lacerated wound, 2.0 cm. left temporal area.
STAB-WOUNDS:
1. Elliptical, gaping, 3.5 cm. with clean cut edges and with one
extremity sharp, other is contused, located over the right side of chest, 3.0 cm.
from anterior median line, level of 3rd intercostal space, directed backward,
laterally and downward, entering the chest, severing the upper lobe of right lung
with an approximate depth of 10.5 cm.
2. Elliptical, gaping, 4.0 cm. with clean cut edges and one extremity
sharp, other is contused, located over the sternal area along midline, level of 2nd
costal cartilage, directed backward, downward and to the left, entering the chest
severing the descending aorta with an approximate depth of 11.0 cm.
3. Four (4) in number, all with clean cut edges and with one extremity
sharp, other is contused, with sizes of biggest is 2.0 cm. and smallest of 1.0 cm.
all located over the interscapular area of right side, covering an area of 7.0 x 10.0
cm. all directed forward, downward and medially, only the upper two entered the
posterior chest wall, severing the middle and upper lobe of right lung, the lower
two is non-penetrating.

All other internal organs are pale.

Stomach, 1/2 filled with undigested food materials.
CAUSE OF DEATH: — STAB WOUNDS OF BODY; INTRACRANIAL
HEMORRHAGE, TRAUMATIC, CONTRIBUTORY. 8

In the meantime, Alfredo surrendered to the police o cers and admitted stabbing
the victim. He claimed, however, that he did so in self-defense. He was forthwith detained.
SPO1 Samuel S. Capasilan and PO3 Elmerando V. Santiago, Jr. prepared and signed a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Police Report dated December 3, 1992 stating that Alfredo was the suspect in the killing
of the victim. In the meantime, Samuel, Leobert, and Erwin were also detained in the
municipal jail. On December 5, 1992, Elpidio arrived in the police station and was brought
to the detention cell where he saw Leobert, Alfredo, Samuel and Erwin. He identi ed the
four as Alexander's assailants. He then gave a sworn statement to SPO3 Vicente Aragona
of the Balud Police Station alleging inter alia that Alfredo, Samuel, Leobert and Erwin
stabbed the victim. 9 On December 6, 1992, a criminal complaint was led with the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Balud, Masbate charging Alfredo, Samuel, Leobert and
Erwin with murder for the killing of Alexander. Elpidio testi ed during the preliminary
investigation.
On January 27, 1993, Elpidio Suarez executed a supplemental a davit alleging inter
alia that the other persons who ganged up on and helped in killing the victim were Ernesto
Arollado, Roberto Apinan, Tingting Gajeto, a certain "Dimas" and one named "Jun" whose
surname he did not know. 10
The Evidence of the Appellants 11
Appellant Alfredo Gallego admitted stabbing and killing the victim but claimed that
he acted in self-defense. The other appellants denied involvement in the killing. The
appellants adduced evidence that the crew members and Alexander, had a drinking spree
in the latter's house. They consumed eight bottles of Tanduay ESQ and feasted on cooked
sh. Shortly after their drinking spree, the group went back to F/B Ever IV. Exhausted and
intoxicated, the appellants, except Alfredo, went to sleep. As soon as they arrived at the
motor boat at about 8:00 p.m., Alexander ordered food from Alfredo, the cook of the boat.
Alfredo only gave rice to Alexander, and told the latter that he was not able to cook any
viand. Alexander was incensed and told the appellant that he was a useless cook and it
would be better for him to resign from his employment. The appellant ignored Alexander's
diatribes and went to the kitchen to tidy things up. Meanwhile, Alexander went to the
kitchen and took the knife from the tray near the door. With the knife in his hand, Alexander
went near the appellant. The appellant moved backward towards the front part of the boat
but Alexander pursued the appellant. When he was cornered, Alfredo was forced to
grapple with Alexander for the possession of the knife. With his left hand, Alfredo held the
victim's right forearm, and with his left hand, twisted the victim's right hand towards the
chest. Alexander placed his left hand on Alfredo's shoulder. Alfredo was able to wrest
possession of the knife, and stabbed the victim on the chest. Alexander placed his right
hand on Alfredo's other shoulder, as he was stabbed on the chest, on the abdomen and on
the back. Alexander fell, his head hitting the edge of the deck. Alfredo could no longer
remember the number of times he stabbed the victim. He forthwith awakened the other
appellants and informed them that he had just killed Alexander. They saw Alexander
prostrate on the deck, and immediately started the engine, pulled anchor and left
Panguiranan River. Alfredo suggested that they leave for Barangay Calumpang. At about
11:15 p.m., the boat arrived at Barangay Calumpang, Balud, Masbate, where Alfredo
surrendered to police o cers SPO1 Samuel S. Capasilan and PO3 Elmerando V. Santiago.
Jr. of the PNP Detachment. He admitted to the police o cers that he killed Alexander and
surrendered the knife he used in stabbing the victim.
On December 4, 1992, appellants Dellona, Gajeto and Villaros, arrived at the police
station to visit appellant Alfredo and give him clothes and some money. At 5:00 a.m.,
Elpidio and Rosita arrived at the station. Elpidio asked the names of the appellants. Later
at 8:00 p.m., appellants Dellona, Gajeto and Villaros were told to stay in the police station
and were detained. A criminal complaint for murder against them was filed on December 6,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 1992 with the MCTC. Elpidio executed an a davit and identi ed the appellants as the
assailants of Alexander. 12
On May 6, 1994, the trial court rendered judgment nding the appellants guilty of
homicide, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court nds the accused Alfredo Gallego, Samuel Dellona,
Leobert Gajeto and Erwin Villaros GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Homicide and hereby sentences each one of said accused to suffer
imprisonment of TEN (10) 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 and to pay the heirs of the victim, Alexander Adrias, the
amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos and to pay Eight Thousand
(P8,000.00) Pesos for vigil and burial expenses without subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED. 13

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appellants contend that:

I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED SAMUEL DELLONA, LEOBERT
GAJETO AND ERWIN VILLAROS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND PLEA OF GUILT, AND THE
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST ACCUSED ALFREDO
GALLEGO.
III

THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO EXERCISE COLD NEUTRALITY IN FINDING THE

ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION. 1 4

In its Decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that all the appellants are criminally liable
as principals by direct participation for the killing of Alexander and that the crime was
quali ed by abuse of superior strength; hence, the appellants are guilty of murder, and
sentenced the appellants, except Alfredo to reclusion perpetua.
Consequently, the Court of Appeals certi ed the case to this Court in view of the
penalty imposed on some of the appellants.
While awaiting resolution of the instant appeal, appellant Samuel Dellona y Bebing
led on February 2, 1999, an "Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal" from the trial court's May
6, 1994 judgment. The Court, in a Resolution dated June 9, 1999, 15 dismissed the appeal
insofar as appellant Samuel B. Dellona was concerned. The Resolution became nal on
July 21, 1999. Hence, the present appeal involves only the remaining three other
appellants: Alfredo Gallego, Leobert Gajeto and Erwin Villaros. The May 6, 1994 Decision
of Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, Masbate in Criminal Case No. 6955
has now become final and executory as to appellant Samuel Dellona.
The appellants did not le an additional Brief with this Court; hence, this case will be
resolved by the Court on the basis of the Briefs of the parties in the Court of Appeals.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The issues posed in this case may be synthesized, thus: (a) whether appellant
Alfredo acted in self-defense; and (b) whether the three appellants are guilty of murder.
Appellant Alfredo Gallego's
plea of self-defense is barren of merit.
Like alibi, self-defense in criminal prosecutions is a weak defense because it is easy
to fabricate and di cult to disprove. 16 Whether or not an accused acted in self-defense,
complete or incomplete, is a factual issue to be determined by the trial court based on the
evidence on record. Where the accused interposes self-defense as a justifying
circumstance, he thereby admits having killed the victim; the burden of evidence shifts
from the prosecution to the accused to prove with clear and convincing evidence the
con uence of the following essential requisites: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack
of su cient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 1 7 Unlawful
aggression is an essential and indispensable requisite, for without unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim, there can be, in a jural sense, no complete or incomplete self-
defense. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness of that of the prosecution because even if the evidence of the prosecution were
weak, the same can no longer be disbelieved after the accused has admitted killing the
victim; hence, the conviction of the accused must ensue as a matter of consequence. 18 An
act of aggression when its author does not persist in his purpose, or when he discontinues
his aggression such that the object of his attack is no longer in peril, is not unlawful
aggression. 19 Self-defense must be distinguished from retaliation; in that in retaliation, the
inceptual unlawful aggression had already ceased when the accused attacked him. In self-
defense, the unlawful aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured or
disabled by the person making the defense. 20
In this case, the trial court and the Court of Appeals debunked appellant Alfredo's
defense and gave credence with full probative weight to the testimony of Elpidio Suarez.
We agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Indeed, the evidence on record
belies his plea of self-defense.
First. The victim sustained no less than six (6) stab wounds; two of the stab wounds
were elliptical, on the right side of the chest, severing the upper lobe of the right lung and
the descending aorta, while the other four (4) stab wounds were located at the right side
of the interscapular area. The number, locations and depth of the wounds sustained by the
victim belie appellant Alfredo's pretension that he killed the victim in self-defense; the
same are proof that Alfredo intended to kill the victim and not merely to defend himself.
Dr. Maximo Reyes testi ed that the multiplicity and nature of the injuries indicted on
the victim clearly indicate that there was more than one attacker. He also con rmed that
stab wounds nos. 1 and 2 in his autopsy report, even if attended medically, were bound to
cause the victim's instantaneous death due to severe blood loss since the said wounds cut
the blood vessels going to the heart and lungs, and severed circulation from the aorta to
the heart. 21 This was corroborated by Dr. Acuesta who, in addition, testi ed that the
wounds on the arms of the victim showed that it was the victim who tried to defend
himself from his assailants. 22 It certainly de es reason why Alfredo had to in ict such
injuries on the victim if he was only defending himself. The ndings of the trial court belie
appellant Alfredo's claim that he also stabbed the victim with his knife:
Moreover, the Court has carefully examined and measured the fatal knife.
It was six (6) inches long with the blade of the knife about two and a half (2 1/2)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 inches long and the handle is three and one half (3 1/2) inches long. The blade of
the knife was one (1) centimeter wide at its widest part. It was sharp on one side
of the blade but not the back part. Yet, some of the stab wounds were six (6) or
ten (10) inches deep.

We have held that physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more
eloquently than a hundred witnesses. 23
Second. Appellant Alfredo managed to wrest possession of the knife from the
victim. While the appellant was grappling for the possession of the knife, the victim placed
his left hand on the appellant's right shoulder. Even after appellant had wrested
possession of the knife, he stabbed the victim while the latter placed his right hand on the
appellant's other shoulder. The inceptual aggression of the victim had already ceased after
the appellant had wrested possession of the knife. Nevertheless, the appellant stabbed the
hapless victim six more times. Two of the stab wounds were at the back of the victim. The
testimony of appellant Alfredo reads:
COURT
(to the witness)
Q When you feel that you were cornered on the front deck, how did you hold
the victim first?
A On his forearm.
Q Please demonstrate?

A (Witness showing his right forearm between the hand and the elbow)
Q That was the rst act that you did while the victim was approaching you
you held him on the forearm?

A Yes, Your Honor.

Q What was the immediate reaction of the victim when you held his forearm?
A When I held his forearm I felt that he is stronger than me, I immediately
caught his hand and twisted it towards his body.
Q That hand you twisted was the right hand of the victim holding the knife?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q And you twisted that hand holding the knife with your left hand because
you said your right hand was holding the forearm?
A No, Your Honor.

Q Which is correct?
A My left hand was the hand I used in holding his forearm and my right hand
twisted his hand holding the knife.
Q So it is very clear now that your rst act was to hold the forearm of the
victim with your left arm?

A Yes, Your Honor.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 (ATTY. CELERA continuing)
Q You will not change that anymore?
A No.
Q While your left hand was holding the forearm of the victim, your right hand
grabbed the hand of the victim holding the knife?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q And your right hand twisted the right hand of the victim towards the body
of the victim, is that correct?
A Yes, Your Honor.

Q Are you sure of that?

A Yes, Your Honor.
Q And you twisted that hands holding the knife towards the left hand of the
victim?
A Towards the chest of the victim.
Q And you said while you were twisting the right hand of the victim with the
knife with your right hand, the knife was closed to the chest of the victim, is
that correct?
A I only tried to take possession of the knife.

Q Why did you not pressed it against the left side of the victim?

A No, because I tried to take hold and there it was the time I stabbed him.
Q The victim's right hand was being twisted to his heart with the knife, is that
correct?

A Yes, sir.
Q And your left hand you said was holding the forearm of the victim?

A Yes, Your Honor.

(COURT continuing)

Q And all this time the left hand of the victim was free doing nothing when he
was being threatened?

A The left hand of the victim was the one holding me.
Q The victim did not hold your hands twisting the hand with a knife, is that
correct?

A He did not.
Q The victim simply held you on your right shoulder, is that correct?

A Yes, Your Honor.

Q The victim's hand with the knife was already being twisted nearer his
heart?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 A It was twisted but it did not touch his body.

Q That left hand of the victim holding your right shoulder did not help while
his right hand was being twisted to his heart?
A No sir, because he was only holding my shoulder.

Q In the struggle of twisting the right hand of the victim you were able to
recover that knife?
A When I forcedly twisted his right hand it loosen the knife and I was able to
take possession of the knife.

Q That left hand of the victim did not help in twisting his right hand in order
that that knife should not be recovered?
A He was just holding my shoulder.

Q So the victim's left hand remained in your shoulder?

A Yes, sir.

Q Finally you were able to recover the knife?

A When I twisted his hand and he loosen the hold of the knife I was able to
recover the knife.
Q That left hand of the victim still on your shoulder until you recovered the
knife?

A The left hand was still holding my shoulder and when I took hold the knife
there I was able to stab the victim.

Q When you rst stabbed the victim, the left hand of the victim was still on
your right shoulder?

A Yes, sir.
Q So when the victim was hit by your rst stab, that left hand was still on
your right shoulder, is that correct?

A Yes, sir.
Q When you withdraw [sic] the knife hitting the victim, was the left hand of
the victim still on your right shoulder?

A On my second stab two hands of the victim was [sic] already holding my
shoulder.
Q You mean both hands of the victim were holding your right shoulder?

A When I stabbed him already.

Q For the second time or after the second time?

A When I stabbed him he immediately held me with his two hands on my

shoulder.
Q That was after you stabbed him the second time?

A Yes, sir. 24
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 It is incredible that while the appellant used both his hands to wrest possession of
the knife, the victim merely placed his left hand on the appellant's shoulder instead of using
it to pull away the hands of the appellant holding his right hand. Even after the appellant
had wrested possession of the knife and had stabbed the victim once on the chest, the
latter merely placed his right hand on the other shoulder of the appellant, thus allowing the
appellant to stab him six more times without let up on the chest and at the back. The
human instinct for survival and self-preservation would impel one who is about to be
stabbed with a lethal weapon to try his utmost to wrest possession of the weapon from
the attacker. However, the appellant would have us believe that the victim merely placed
his hand on the appellant's shoulder, thus enabling him to stab the victim several times.
The appellant's testimony is altogether unconvincing, contrary to human nature and the
natural course of things.
Third. Appellant Dellona admitted on cross-examination that Alfredo's claim of self-
defense was an afterthought in a last ditch attempt to cover up for the other appellants,
hoping that the trial court would nd merit in Alfredo's plea. As testi ed to by appellant
Dellona on cross-examination:
Q: Gallego admitted the killing in order that the rest of you will not be
implicated in the crime?

A: Yes, sir. 25

The prosecution proved the

guilt of Appellants Gajeto and
Villaros for Murder beyond
reasonable doubt.
The appellants assert that the trial court erred in giving credence and full probative
weight to Elpidio's testimony. They contend that: (a) Elpidio was a professional witness;
(b) his testimony before the trial court that the victim was stabbed by eight members of
the crew of the F/B Ever IV and was assaulted by another member of the crew armed with
a piece of wood, is inconsistent with the a davit he executed during the preliminary
investigation that he saw only the four appellants stab the victim. This is also inconsistent
with his supplemental a davit to the NBI, that he saw the four appellants and the ve
other accused or nine members of the crew assaulting the victim; (c) he never informed
Rosita, the victim's widow, and the barangay o cials in Barangay Panguiranan and
Barangay Calumpang, Balud, Masbate, or the police authorities for that matter, that he
witnessed the crime; and (d) his testimony is incredible as it is belied by the physical
evidence on record as to the number of stab wounds the victim sustained. They also
assert that Rosita herself testi ed that only Alfredo stabbed Alexander. The other
appellants were implicated only because they happened to be at the police station to
deliver Alfredo's clothes and some money. When Elpidio arrived, he pointed to them as the
victim's assailants. Consequently, they were detained without any warrants of arrest. The
fact that the appellants returned to the police station barely three days from the killing is
evidence that their conscience was clear and that they were innocent of the crime charged.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond cavil that the appellants conspired with Alfredo in
killing the victim.
The assertions of the appellants do not persuade. At the outset, we note that the
trial court and the Court of Appeals gave credence and full probative weight to the
testimony of Elpidio, the lone eyewitness. The trial court found his testimony clear and
positive. The Court of Appeals concurred with the observations of the trial court and even
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 declared that the credibility of Elpidio was even bolstered on cross-examination, during
which Elpidio graphically and vividly described with speci city the manner in which each of
the appellants stabbed the victim:
Indeed, we do not doubt the truthfulness of Elpidio Suarez's testimony. No
proof of ulterior motive for him to implicate all the accused has been offered.
Where there is no evidence, and nothing to indicate that a witness for the
prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not
so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.

He in fact stood his ground and stuck to his story under intense cross
examination. Worse, the cross examination instead bolstered his story as the
cross examiner made the mistake of asking him to describe in detail the manner
in which each of the accused inflicted the wounds on the victim. 26

We agree with the Court of Appeals. We have carefully reviewed the records and
indeed, Elpidio, on cross-examination, described in detail how the appellants killed the
victim:
xxx xxx xxx

Q Right after informing Tomas Codera, you immediately left the place?
A Yes, sir.

Q You never reported [sic] said incident to any police authority?

A I did not anymore because I reported to Tomas Codera.

Q And even in Panguiranan which you said you crossed right after informing
Tomas Codera, you did not inform the barangay captain there, you did not
inform the Sangguniang Bayan Member Lino Aninang and you never
informed any other person or authorities for that matter because you have
already informed Tomas Codera, am I correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q Mr. Witness, did you report this incident to the police authorities the
following day, on December 3, 1992 or was it only on December 5, 1992
that you reported to the police of said incident?

A It was on December 5 that I reported the incident to the police authorities.

Q So it took you almost three (3) days before you reported the said incident to
the police authorities?

A Yes, together with the filing of the complaint. 27

All the appellants conspired to kill the victim; hence, all of them are criminally liable
for the crime charge as principals by direct participation. Indeed, as shown by the evidence
on record, the appellants and the other accused each armed with a bladed weapon, except
accused Arollado who was armed with a piece of wood, assaulted the victim, hitting him
with their weapons on different parts of the body. By their concerted act or acts, they
embarked on a common objective — that of killing the victim. 28
Elpidio had clear visibility of the stabbing because he was at the outrigger of the
boat, about three arm's length from where the victim was. The deck of the boat where the
stabbing occurred was lighted by four "trouble lights," thus:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Q How were you able to see the incident when it was 9:00 o'clock in the
evening?

A I witnessed the incident because in their boat itself there is a bright light
called trouble light.
Q And where were those lights located?

A These trouble lights are located at the center of the boat wherein there is a
mast which has a cross wood with two (2) trouble lights placed at both
ends which brightly lighted the surrounding area of the boat and the whole
boat.
COURT

(to the witness)

Q Where are the two (2) because you said there were four (4)?

A Two (2) trouble lights at both ends, making therefore four (4) trouble lights
in all that lighted the boat.
ATTY. CELERA

(continuing)

Q What was the position of Alexander Adrias when he was attacked by the
accused, Gallego?

A Alexander Adrias was standing.

xxx xxx xxx 29

Contrary to the assertion of the appellant that Elpidio soon left the scene before all
the appellants and the other accused had assaulted the victim, Elpidio testified that:
ATTY. REVIL
(continuing)

Q Mr. Witness, from the time you alleged to have witnessed the scene of the
incident you left after Alexander Adrias was stabbed by Alfredo Gallego?
A I paddled my boat to move backward but I did not leave yet.

Q And are you sure of that, Mr. Witness, that you did not leave immediately
after seeing Adrias to have been [sic] stabbed by Alfredo Gallego?

A Yes, sir. I was sure I did not leave.

Q And you mentioned likewise, Mr. [W]itness, that the other three (3) accused
were present when Alexander Adrias was stabbed?

A I was sure. 30

Case law has it that ndings of facts of the trial court, especially if a rmed by the
appellate court, are given great respect if not conclusive effect by this Court unless the
trial court ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted facts and circumstances of
substance which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case. Having had the
unique advantage of observing and monitoring at close range the demeanor and conduct
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 of witnesses as they testify, the trial court is in a better position to pass judgment on the
credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their testimony. 3 1 We have no reason
to deviate from the findings of the trial court and the appellate court.
In construing the testimony of a witness, such testimony must be considered as a
whole, and not in its truncated parts, and the meaning of any answer to isolated questions
is to be ascertained by due consideration of all the questions propounded on the witness
and his answers thereon throughout his testimony. Facts imperfectly stated in answer to a
question may be supplied or clarified by his answer to another or other questions. 32
In this case, Elpidio stated in his sworn statement to SPO3 Vicente Aragona on
December 5, 1992 that the four appellants stabbed the victim and identi ed all of them as
the culprits. However, when he testi ed, Elpidio declared that each of the ve accused
stabbed the victim, while accused Ernesto Arollado hit the victim at the back of the head.
Elpidio made a similar claim in his supplemental statement 33 in which he stated that nine
of the crew members helped in killing the victim. But Elpidio clari ed the matter when he
testified on cross examination:
ATTY. REVIL
(continuing)

Q And you never mentioned the ve (5) other accused which you included in
your supplemental a davit and your statement likewise before the NBI,
am I correct?
A I was not able to mention the ve (5) other accused because only four (4)
were present in the police line-up and Aragona told me that I have only to
include the four (4) who were present.

Q So Mr. Witness, the four (4) accused who were [ sic] present here today were
only included in this case because they were the ones present during the
police line-up which was undertaken in the presence of Policeman
Aragona, is that correct?

A It is [sic] only these four (4) accused whom I mentioned to Aragona but I
mentioned also the other five (5), only these four (4) were present. 34

The records show that when apprised on December 5, 1992 that the three
appellants, aside from Alfredo who had earlier surrendered, were already in the custody of
the police authorities and detained thereat, Elpidio arrived in the municipal police station
and gave his sworn statement, identifying the four appellants as the assailants of the
victim. The other members of the crew were still at large and could not thus be pinpointed
by Elpidio.
There is no substantial incongruency between the physical evidence on record and
Elpidio's testimony. We agree with the ruminations of the O ce of the Solicitor General in
its Brief for the appellee, thus:
The argument that the testimony of Suarez that nine (9) crew members of
the F/B Ever IV took turns in stabbing and hitting the victim is unbelievable
because it is contrary to the autopsy report showing that the victim suffered only
six (6) wounds, does not inspire concurrence.
Contrary to appellants' contention, the autopsy report of the NBI (Exh. "6")
showed that the victim did not only suffer stab wounds but likewise different
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 physical injuries in the form of "contused abrasions" located over the "right side of
the face, left side of the chest, right forearm and left arm." The report also states
the presence of "hematoma" over the scalp of the victim and the presence of
hemorrhage in the coverings of the brain. (pp. 7-B, TSN, July 26, 1993).
Accordingly, from the above ndings of the NBI, it is evident that nine (9)
persons collaborated in killing the victim, some of whom stabbed him while the
others used their st or blunt instruments thereby in icting those physical injuries
mentioned above.

In short, the fact that the victim suffered six (6) stab wounds plus several
physical injuries all over his body is consistent with the testimony of Suarez that
the nine (9) crew members of F/B Ever IV collaborated in killing the victim. 35

Although Dr. Maximo Reyes of the NBI Medico-Legal O ce mentioned only six (6)
wounds sustained by the victim, Dr. Oscar Acuesta testi ed that the victim sustained eight
stab wounds, thus:
Q Will you tell us your findings one by one doctor?
A (1) The cadaver was embalmed

(2) There was stabbed [sic] wound at the level of fourth intercostal space

Right chest penetrating the chest cavity hitting the right lung, wound was two
(2) inches in length

(3) Stabbed wound three (3) inches in length at the level of fth intercostal
space right chest penetrating the right lung

(4) Stabbed wound multiple (4) points at the level of right scapular area
penetrating the chest cavity hitting the right lung

(5) Stabbed wound about four (4) inches in length at the upper arm

(6) Stabbed wound about two (2) inches in length at the upper arm.
(7) Lacerated wound .5 inch in length at the left temporal area.

Q So how many stabbed [sic] wounds are there?

A There are only eight (8) and [the] last one lacerated. 3 6

Dr. Reyes did not consider the wounds sustained by the victim on the upper arm and
temporal area, claiming that the wounds could have been caused by a blunt instrument.
Dr. Acuesta considered the same as stab wounds. But the credibility of Elpidio is not
impaired by the testimony of either of the doctors. Elpidio testi ed that the victim was
ganged up by eight crew members who were armed with knives. While Elpidio was
certain that appellants Gajeto, Dellona, Gallego and Villaros did stab the victim on
different parts of his body, he did not see what parts of the victim's body were hit when
"Jun" and "Dimas" stabbed the victim. For his part, appellant Arollado hit the victim on
the back of his head and his nape. Neither Dr. Acuesta nor Dr. Reyes discounted the
possibility that two or more knives were used to stab the victim. Dr. Acuesta testi ed
that it was possible that two bladed weapons were used:
Q And what could have caused that stabbed [sic] wound?

A It was caused by a sharp edge instrument.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Q So the weapon that could have been used could be a knife or two (2)
bladed weapons?

A It could be possible.

Q How about the lacerated wound, what could have been caused? [sic]
A The lacerated wound is [sic] caused by a blunt instrument. 37

Dr. Reyes, for his part, testi ed that considering the nature and size of the wounds
sustained by the victim, the possibility that he was stabbed by only one person is a remote
one:
Q And the wound likewise could have been caused by only one person?
A It could possibly caused [sic] by only one perpetrator, well, the possibility is
remote the fact that there are several sizes of stab wounds during the
course of my examination.

Q But it is not [sic] Dr. that you mentioned a while ago that this could have
caused by only one instrument being perpetrated but maybe more than one
perpetrators, is it not?

A Yes, sir.

ATTY. REVIL
That would be all, Your Honor.

ATTY. CELERA
Only one question, Your Honor.

COURT

Proceed, please.
ATTY. CELERA

(on additional direct examination)

Q Dr. what is your basis for saying that the possibility is remote that this
injury could have been caused by one perpetrator?

A Well, the basis is that; rst, the multiplicity of physical injuries which is not
caused by only one (1) person. There were six (6) stab wounds which
inflicted indiscriminately. 38

We agree with the trial court's keen analysis of the physical evidence borne by the
medical certificates issued by Dr. Acuesta and Dr. Reyes vis-a-vis the fatal weapon, that the
victim could have been stabbed by two or more persons:
Moreover, the Court has carefully examined and measured the fatal knife.
It was six (6) inches long with the blade of the knife about two and a half (2-1/2)
inches long and the handle is three and one half (3-1/2) inches long. The blade of
the knife was one (1) centimeter wide at its widest part. It was sharp on one side
of the blade but not the back part. Yet, some of the stab wounds were six (6) or
ten (10) inches deep. 39

That Elpidio did not report the killing of the victim to the police authorities or identify
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the culprits to Tomas Codera, the barangay o cials and police authorities immediately
after the crime was committed by the appellants does not impair the credibility of Elpidio.
The evidence shows that after witnessing the heinous crime committed by the appellants,
he proceeded posthaste to the house of Tomas Codera, the victim's stepfather and
reported the crime. Elpidio expected Tomas to inform the victim's widow:
Q Right after informing Tomas Codera, you immediately left the place?
A Yes, sir.

Q You never reported said incident to any police authority?

A I did not anymore because I reported to Tomas Codera.

Q And even in Panguiranan which you said you crossed right after informing
Tomas Codera, you did not inform the barangay captain there, you did not
inform the Sangguniang Bayan Member Lino Aninang and you never
informed any other person or authorities for that matter because you have
already informed Tomas Codera, am I correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q Mr. Witness, did you report this incident to the police authorities the
following day, on December 3, 1992 or was it only on December 5, 1992
that you reported to the police of said incident?

A It was on December 5 that I reported the incident to the police authorities.

Q So it took you almost three (3) days before you reported the said incident to
the police authorities?
A Yes, together with the filing of the complaint. 40

In People vs. Galido, 41 we ruled that fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of
witnesses to get involved in criminal cases are su cient, explanations for a witness' delay
in reporting a crime to the authorities. Besides, Elpidio, in the company of Rosita and
Tomas, went to the police authorities and identi ed the appellants on December 5, 1992,
or barely three days after the commission of the crime.
The well-entrenched rule is that different people react differently when confronted
with a startling and frightening occurrence. There is no standard form of human behavioral
response to crimes and other strange occurrences. Experience dictates that precisely
because of the startling acts of violence committed right before their eyes, eyewitnesses
can recall with a high degree of reliability the identities of the criminals and how at any
given time the crime has been committed by them. 42
Admittedly, Rosita, the victim's wife, testi ed on cross-examination that in her
a davit on December 7, 1992, she stated that her husband was killed by appellant
Alfredo. However, as gleaned from the said a davit, she had no personal knowledge of
who killed her husband. She was merely informed by Tomas Codera that her husband was
killed by appellant Alfredo. Signi cantly, she also stated in the said a davit that she would
elaborate further when the case is called for trial.
Even if it were true that the appellants went to the police station ostensibly to give
clothes and money to Alfredo who had earlier surrendered to the police authorities, this
does not in any way bolster their claims of innocence. Their presence at the station is not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 su cient to overcome the prosecution's overwhelming evidence against them. It bears
stressing that the appellants were not aware that Elpidio had witnessed the crime; hence,
they did not expect that someone would point to them as the culprits. The appellants'
plaint on their arrest and detention does not hold water since they failed to raise the same
before their arraignment. 4 3
The Crime Committed by the Appellants
The trial court convicted the appellants with homicide with the attendance of abuse
of superior strength in the commission of the crime. The Court of Appeals concurred with
the trial court that indeed, the appellants abused their superior strength, but ruled that the
appellants are guilty of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. We agree with
the Court of Appeals. Nine assailants, including the appellants, ganged up on the victim
and in icted no less than six mortal wounds on the unarmed victim. The appellants took
advantage of superiority in number and superior power to overwhelm and kill the hapless
victim.
Proper Penalty on the Appellants
The crime was committed before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659 on
January 1, 1994. The penalty for the crime under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. In the absence of any aggravating
or mitigating circumstances in the commission of the crime, the imposable penalty on the
appellants is reclusion perpetua, medium period of the penalty, pursuant to Article 64 of
the Revised Penal Code.
Civil Liabilities of the Appellants
The trial court condemned the appellants to pay to the heirs of the victim Alexander
Adrias the amount of P50,000 and P8,000 for vigil and burial expenses but did not award
any moral and temperate damages. The decision of the trial court shall thus accordingly be
modi ed. Conformably to current jurisprudence, the heirs are entitled to civil indemnity ex
delicto in the amount of P50,000 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000. 44
Rosita Adrias testi ed that she spent the total amount of P81,000 for the vigil and
burial expenses and for the cemetery lot where the victim was interred. However, she failed
to adduce a single document to prove her claim. Hence, she is not entitled to actual
damages for the said amount. 45 She is, however, entitled to temperate damages in the
amount of P25,000 conformably to current jurisprudence. 46
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Masbate, Branch 48 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants Alfredo Gallego,
Leoberto Gajeto and Erwin Villaros are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, quali ed by abuse of superior strength and
there being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attendant in the commission
of the crime, said appellants are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. They are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally to the heirs of the victim
Alexander Adrias, P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as
temperate damages. TaSEHC

Appellant Dellosa is no longer liable for moral damages and temperate damages
considering that he withdrew his appeal. 4 7
With costs against appellants.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Austria-Martinez and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., is on leave.

Footnotes

1. Penned by Judge Ricardo B. Butalid.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner, with Associate Justices Alfredo L.
Benipayo, now the Solicitor General, and Buenaventura L. Guerrero, concurring.

3. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 6955.

4. Records, p. 1.

5. Id., at 31 & 35.

6. The prosecution presented six (6) witnesses, namely, Elpidio F. Suarez, Tomas Codera,
Rosita C. Adrias, SPO3 Vicente Aragona, Dr. Oscar Acuesta and Dr. Maximo Reyes.
7. Exhibits "E" and "E-1", Records, p. 13.

8. Exhibit "G", Id., at 77.

9. Exhibit "A", Id., at 6.

10. Exhibit "C", Id., at 10.

11. Only appellants Alfredo Gallego and Samuel Dellona testified. The testimony of
appellants Leobert Gajeto and Erwin Villaros were dispensed with on their claim that the
collective testimony of the said appellants were merely corroborative of the testimonies
of appellants Gallego and Dellona.

12. Exhibit "C", Records, p. 10-A.

13. Records, p. 285.

14. Rollo, p. 35.

15. Id., at 26-27.
16. People v. Noay, 296 SCRA 292 (1998).
17. People v. Patalinghug, 318 SCRA 116 (1999).
18. People v. Geneblazo, 361 SCRA 572 (2001).
19. Ibid.
20. People v. Decena, 235 SCRA 67 (1994).
21. Id., at 9-11.
22. TSN, 22 July 1993, pp. 17-19 (Dr. Acuesta).
23. People v. Silvano, 350 SCRA 650 (2001).
24. TSN, 28 July 1993, pp. 28-32 (Gallego).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 25. TSN, 27 July 1993, p. 18 (Dellona).
26. CA Decision, pp. 11-12.

27. TSN, 13 July 1993, pp. 118-119 (Suarez).

28. People vs. Gallo, 318 SCRA 157 (1999).
29. TSN, 13 July 1993, pp. 5-6 (Suarez).

30. TSN, 13 July 1993, pp. 17-18 (Elpidio).

31. People v. Galam, 325 SCRA 489 (2000).
32. FRANCISCO, THE REVISED RULES OF COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES , Vol. VII, Part II,
1997 ed., p. 542.
33. See note 10, supra.

34. TSN, 13 July 1993, p. 20 (Suarez).

35. CA Rollo, pp. 69-70.
36. TSN, 22 July 1993, p. 15 (Dr. Acuesta)

37. Id., at 16.

38. TSN, 26 July 1993, p. 14 (Dr. Reyes).
39. Records, p. 284.

40. TSN, 13 July 1993, pp. 24-25 (Suarez), Records, pp. 118-119.
41. 326 SCRA 187 (2000).
42. People v. Sumallo, 307 SCRA 521 (1999).
43. Under Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the accused
must raise the matter of the validity of his arrest before arraignment, otherwise he is
barred from doing so during trial and on appeal.

44. People v. Galladan, 318 SCRA 569 (1999).

45. People v. Berzuela, 341 SCRA 47 (2000).
46. People v. Del Valle, 372 SCRA 297 (2001); People v. Sumibcay, G.R. Nos. 132130-31,
May 29, 2002.
47. People v. Caballes, 274 SCRA 83 (1997).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com