G.R. No.

125688 April 3, 2000 WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds all the three accused in
conspiracy with each other, GUILTY beyon[d] reasonable doubt of the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IGNACIO crime of MURDER, qualified by treachery as principal by direct participation
CUPINO, 1 VINCENT DEJORAS and RAMON GALOS a.k.a. Jun, as punished under the Revised Penal Code. This Court hereby sentences
accused, IGNACIO CUPINO and VINCENT DEJORAS, Accused- the two accused, Vincent Dejoras and Ignacio Copino, the third accused
Appellants. being at large, to individually suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA without the attendance of any mitigating circumstance and
tointly and severally pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim the sum of
PANGANIBAN, J.:
P50,000.00 for the death of Gromyko Valliente, P40,000.00 as actual
damages and burial expenses, P20,000.00 moral damages, and to pay the
Conspiracy must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the costs. 10
present appeal, the prosecution eyewitness testified that one of the
appellants hadined the other accused in approaching the victim, but
In view of the penalty imposed, the appeal was filed directly with this
subsequently tried to prevent them from stabbing this same victim. Such
Court. 11
dubious participation is insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the said appellant conspired with the others in committing the offense.
Accordingly, the constitutional presumption of innocence must be upheld. The Facts
He must be acquitted.
Version of the Prosecution
The Case
In its Brief, 12
the Office of the Solicitor General presents the facts in this
Vincent Dejoras and Ignacio Cupino 2 appeal the March 6, 1995 wise:
Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City
(Branch 25). Dejoras and Cupino, together with one Ramon Galos, 4 were At around 9:45 in the evening of August 16, 1989, during the celebration
convicted of robbery with murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. of the town fiesta of Patag, Cagayan de Oro City, accused Ramon Galos
and Gromyko Valiente (herein victim) were having a heated argument in
On October 19, 1989, an Information 5 was filed by Fourth Assistant City front of Dod's Store, which was owned by a certain Piloton, located at the
Fiscal Petronio P. Pilien, charging the three as follows: crossing of Patag (Testimony of Silverio Bahian, TSN, September 6, 1990,
pp. 4-5; Testimony of Ferdinand Bangayan, TSN, July 2, 1990, pp. 5-6).
That on or about August 16, 1989, at more or less 9:45 in the evening . .
., at Patag Crossing, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the Then, appellants Ignacio Cupino and Vincent Dejoras arrived, and a
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, fistfight erupted. Cupino, Dejoras and Galos ganged up on Valiente who
confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to also fought back (Testimony of Silverio Bahian at pp. 6-7, supra;
kill[;] armed with a knife [with] which one of them was then conveniently Testimony of Ferdinand Bangayan at p. 7, supra.). Beaten and
provided[;] with treachery, evident premeditation, superior strength, did outnumbered, Valiente ran away towards the direction of a small pathway
then and ther[e] wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously [through] accused leading to the store of a certain Major Grio, which was beside Dod's Store.
(Ramon Galos alias Jun), . . . [stab] one Gromyco 6Valliente 7 [hitting him] The trio chased . . . him (Testimony of Ferdinand Bangayan at p. 10, id.).
at the left/right portion of his arm and abdomen, thus inflicting mortal Galos caught up with Valiente and then stabbed him twice in the stomach
wounds upon [the] offended party's person which directly caused his with a small bolo (Testimony of Silverio Bahian at pp. 9-10, supra.).
instantaneous death.
With the bolo still embedded on his stomach, Valiente crawled along the
Contrary to Article 248 in relation to Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. pathway. Cupino also caught up with Valiente (pp. 11-12, id.). Then
Cupino pulled the bolo from the victim's body and was about to stab the
victim again when Dejoras tried to grab Cupino's hands, but instead
Arraigned on January 22, 1990, 8 both appellants entered a plea of not
Dejoras got hold of the blade of the bolo and was injured in the process.
guilty. Trial ensued. Thereafter, the lower court rendered its assailed
Dejoras left, coming out of the pathway with his wounded right hand (pp.
Decision, 9 the dispositive part of which we quote thus:
12-13, id.).
Meanwhile, Cupino proceeded to stab the victim twice in the stomach. hand was bloodied, and fearing that more harm would fall upon them,
Afterward, Cupino and Galos fled from the scene of the crime (p. 14, id.). Copino and Dejoras too ran away.
Valiente, who was seriously wounded and soaked in his own blood, cried
for help. He was brought to a hospital but later died (p. 19, id.; Testimony Dejoras went to City Hospital to have his wound treated and then they
of Ferdinand Bangayan at pp. 12-13, supra.). went home. At midnight of the same day, a policeman went to his house
and brought him to the OKK Police Station where he was booked into the
The autopsy conducted on the victim's body revealed that he sustained police blotter. The following day, Copino and Dejoras learned that
four (4) stab wounds: one on the left subpostal margin, another wound on Gromyko Valiente had died. Together with their parents the[y] went to the
the right subpostal margin, and two (2) sutured wounds on the left cocital Tourism Hall to have their statements taken by the police. 14
area. The wound that was inflicted on the pancreas of the victim was
considered fatal since it caused the massive hemorrhage. The cause of Ruling of the Trial Court
death was attributed to massive intra-abdominal hemorrhage due to
multiple stab wounds (Testimony of Dr. Apolinar Vacalares, TSN, February
The trial court ruled that (1) appellants were guilty of murder, as the
13, 1991, pp. 6-7). 13
killing was qualified by treachery; (2) conspiracy was proven by the chain
of circumstantial evidence submitted; and (3) the aggravating
Version of the Defense circumstance of superior strength was absorbed by treachery and may no
longer be used to increase the penalty to its maximum period.
For their part, appellants submit the following as the facts of the case:
The Issues
On August 16, 1999, Ignacio Copino celebrated the town fiesta of Patag,
Cagayan de Oro City at home with his family and friends, one of whom Appellants aver that the court a quo committed the following errors:
was Vincent Dejoras. After eating dinner at around 7:00 p.m., Dejoras,
together with his co-workers, headed for home. Copino decided to
I. In failing to appreciate the testimony of accused-appellants and in giving
accompany the group and at the Patag crossing, he was able to convince
full weight and credit to the version of prosecution witnesses.
Dejoras to go to the "perya" and gamble, as he had P30 with him.

II. In holding that there was conspiracy between accused-appellants.

The pair lost all of the P30 in the "pula-puti" game and decided to call it
quits. On their way home, they saw Ramon Galos "alias Panit" and
Grom[yk]o Valiente "alyas Bobong", two of their acquaintances, apparently III. In holding that accused-appellants herein [were] guilty as
having an altercation. charged. 15

They were about two meters from Galos and Valiente when Galos suddenly We shall discuss the foregoing issues in the following sequence: (1)
said: "Nasi is here (referring to Copino), you hit him." (Transcript of credibility of the prosecution evidence, (2) conspiracy and (3) proper
Stenographic Notes, VINCENT DEJORAS, Hearing April 4, 1991, page 7). penalty.
Galos then kicked Valiente and the latter fell down. Valiente was able to
get up and run towards an alley at the back of Dod's store with Galos in The Court's Ruling
close pursuit. Copino and Dejoras ran after the two with the intention to
pacify the fighters. Galos was able to corner Valiente and once again, the
This appeal is partly meritorious. We affirm the challenged Decision in
two traded blows. When Copino and Dejoras were finally able to catch up
regard to Ignacio Cupino, but reverse it in regard to Vincent Dejoras.
with the two, they noticed that Valiente was already bleeding. Eyewitness
Silverio Bahian later recounted that he saw Panit pull out a bolo and stab
Bobong. First Issue

Dejoras, on his part, tried to stop Galos from inflicting more wounds and Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses
he too was wounded in the process. What happened was that instead of
holding Galos' hand, he was able to hold the blade of the knife, thereby Appellants challenge the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the
injuring himself. Galos then ran away. Upon the realization that his right prosecution witnesses. They argue that there are contradictions patent in
their testimonies. We disagree. As we have repeatedly said, the trial A This chair. This table or this chair I am sitting on. [In front] of me. Just
court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is generally binding upon very near me.
us. 16 Alter a thorough review of the records before us, we find no reason
to disagree with the trial court in finding no material inconsistency in the Q From what direction was this Bobong coming . . .?
prosecution witnesses' testimonies.
A Going to the checkpoint.
Neither are we impressed with appellants' assertion that the evidence for
the prosecution is weak. The claims of the defense are belied by the clear,
Q What about the other person [with] whom he had an altercation?
credible and straightforward testimony of Prosecution Eyewitness Silverio
Bahian, which we quote:
A Going to the crossing.
Q At this time, August 16, 1989, at more or less 9:45 p.m., what
particular place in the store of Piloton? Q What happened after they had an altercation?

A [In front] of the store. A After their altercation, this Nasi 19

and Beni 20
were walking from the
road.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Who is this Nasi?
Q What where you doing there?
A Nasi Copino.
A I was reading komiks.
Q Who is this Beni?
xxx xxx xxx
A Dejoras.
Q While you were there at Piloton store, reading komiks, what happened if
any? Q When these two came, Beni and Nasi, where were the two who were
having an argument?
A There was an argument between Bobong Valiente 17 and Panit. 18

A Mr. Bahian approached the two who were having an altercation.

xxx xxx xxx
Q What about the person [with] whom he had an altercation? Where was
he at that time?
Q Now, you said that there was an argument, where did this altercation
[take] place?
A He followed him.
A [In front] of me.
Q So, what happened after Bobong went to Nasi and Beni and the other
person Panit?
Q How far away from you? From where you are sitting, point to any object
within the court room to indicate what you [meant by "in front"] of you?
A They ganged up [on] Bobong.
A Less than a meter.
Q When you said they ganged up on Bobong, to whom are you referring . .
.?
Q From where you are sitting, point to any object[.]

A Panit, Nasi and Beni.

Q From your place in relation to the place where they ganged up on Q Will you please demonstrate again how Panit stabbed Bobong after he
Bobong, how far away was that? held him and[;] pulling him[,] he thrust the knife forward?

A About three meters. A (Witness demonstrating his right arm forward).

xxx xxx xxx Q How many times was he stabbed by Panit? This Bobong?

Q Where [was] this place in relation to you whe[n] they ganged up on A I think twice.
Bobong?
Q And where was this Bobong hit if he was hit?
A In the middle of the road.
A In the stomach.
Q And what was the condition of the road on that night of August 16, 1989
at 9:45 p.m.? Q What was used in the stabbing of Bobong by Panit?

A It was bright. A A small bolo.

Q Why do you say that it [was] "hayag"? Q Will you please describe the small bolo or what appears to be a bolo to
you? How long was this?
A Because there was a lamppost.
A About 12 inches including the handle.
Q Where [was] this lamppost located in relation to you?
Q What about the blade? Was this double bladed or not?
A [In front] of me.
A Single bladed.
Q So, what happened after they ganged up . . . this Nasi, Beni and Panit,
as you said, they ganged up on Bobong? What happened? ACP CABALLERO, JR.: (resuming).

A Since Bobong [could] not keep up a fight with the three, Bobong ran Q Now, what happened after Bobong was held up by this Panit and
towards me. stabbed twice as you said? What happened to Bobong?

Q What happened after Bobong ran towards you as you said? A Bobong crawled going to a small alley.

A He was being held by Panit. Q You mentioned this alley. Now, from where you are situated then while
reading komiks [on] this alley, how far was this from you?
Q Will you demonstrate how he was h[e]ld by Panit?
A Just here.
A (Witness demonstrating by stretching his left arm and closing hi[s] fist
and twisting it to his left side). (Witness stretching his left arm going to his left side)

Q So, what happened after that? After he was held up and as you said Q What happened to the small bolo which was used in the stabbing? Do
twisted? you know where was it at the time Bobong crawled?

A Panit stabbed Bobong.

A The small bolo was still embedded on the left portion just below the A Nasi pulled the small bolo, and that [was] why Beni was wounded.
breast, solar plexus.
Q What happened after Beni was injured?
Q So, what happened after Bobong crawled[;] who was going to the area
which you testified was just near you? A Beni went out.

A Nasi caught up with him. Q And where was Nasi then at this time when Beni, as you said, went out?

Q You mentioned, of course, . . . Nasi. Nasi who? A Nasi was still [in front] of Bobong.

A Copino. Q Was he motionless [in front] of Bobong or what?

Q What happened after he was overtaken by Nasi Copino? A He continued to stab Bobong.

A Nasi pulled the small bolo. Q Where was Bobong hit when he was stabbed by Nasi?

Q What happened next after Nasi pulled the small bolo? A At first, he was able to parry the thrust of Nasi.

A When he was about to thrust the small bolo to the body of Bobong, his Q So, what happened to Bobong after he parried the stab of Nasi?
friend held his hand.
A Bobong fell down.
Q Who [was] this companion of Nasi that you are referring to who held up
his hand?
Q What happened after that?

A Beni.
A Nasi again stabbed Bobong.

Q Do you know the real name of Beni?

Q And where was Bobong hit at this particular time?

A It is only his nickname that I know.

A In the stomach.

Q Beni what?
Q So, what happened after that?

A Dejoras.
A Nasi ran away. 21

Q What happened after the hand of Nasi was held up by Beni?

The above testimony clearly demonstrates the conspiracy between Ramon
Galos and Appellant Ignacio Cupino. Both of them showed their common
A It was the small bolo which was held by Beni. intent to kill Valliente. On the part of Galos, conspiracy was shown by his
act of grabbing the fleeing victim, simultaneously drawing his small bolo
Q Which part of the knife was held by Beni Dejoras? or pisaw, and stabbing the latter twice. By running after the wounded
victim, Cupino showed unity of purpose with Galos. When he eventually
A The blade. caught up with the victim, Cupino pulled out the bolo that was embedded
in the body of the latter and used it to stab him again. Clearly, by the
consonance of their deeds, both assailants conspired to kill Valliente. 22
Q So, what happened after he held the blade?
We agree with the court a quo that treachery qualified the slaying to incident on the eve of the fiesta. His answers to the propounded questions
murder. By diverting the attention of Valliente to the approaching Dejoras merely established that Dejorasined Galos and Cupino when they
and Cupino, Galos was obviously making sure that the victim could not approached the victim. The prosecution filled, however, to show, what
defend himself. When Valliente turned his back, Galos began his attack, Dejoras specifically did that proved his participation in the conspiracy.
which eventually led to the stabbing of the former. Treachery was not Rather, what the said eyewitness said was that Dejoras tried to prevent
necessarily precluded by either the occurrence of a tussle before the victim Cupino from stabbing the victim, clearly showing that he did not support
was killed 23 or by the frontal nature of the attack. 24 We also agree with the criminal intent and conspiracy of the other two accused. 31 These
the lower court that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior incontrovertible data lead to one conclusion: there is reasonable doubt on
strength was absorbed by alevosia. 25 whether Dejoras conspired with Galos and Cupino in killing Valliente. We
are therefore constrained to exonerate him. Indeed, guilt must be proven
Second Issue beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, there is reasonable doubt on the
culpability of Appellant Dejoras as a principal.
Conspiracy: Dejoras' Liability
Dejoras cannot be held liable as an accomplice, either. 32
In Elijorde, 33
we
said:
Though we uphold the findings of the trial court with regard to Appellant
Cupino, we differ with its conclusion that Appellant Dejoras was guilty.
The cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly or
intentionally rendered which cannot exist without previous cognizance of
It is axiomatic that the prosecution must establish conspiracy beyond
the criminal act intended to be executed. It is therefore required in order
reasonable doubt. 26Conspiracy is not a harmless innuendo to be taken
to be liable either as a principal by indispensable cooperation or as an
lightly or accepted at every turn. It is a legal concept that imputes
accomplice that the accused must unite with the criminal design of the
culpability under specific circumstances. 27 As such, it must be established
principal by direct participation.
as clearly as any element of the crime. The quantum of evidence to be
satisfied is, we repeat, beyond reasonable doubt. 28
The acts of Appellant Dejoras showed that he was not aware of his
companions' intent to kill Valliente; at the very least, there is reasonable
In People v. Elijorde, 29
a case with similar facts, we said:
doubt as to his knowledge thereof. In any event, community of design, the
first of the requisite elements that must be present before a person may
Indeed, with respect to accused Reynaldo Punzalan, the Court cannot be held liable as an accomplice, is lacking. 34
assert with moral certainty that he is guilty of murder. Conspiracy must be
proved as indubitably as the crime itself through clear and convincing
On the prosecution's theory that Dejoras may have inflicted injury on the
evidence, not merely by conjecture. To hold an accused guilty as a co-
victim when heined in the fray, we have combed the records and found no
principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an
basis for this speculation. We note that the eyewitness could not recount
overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Hence, conspiracy,
the details of the brawl, but merely provided a general picture, saying that
exists in a situation where at the time the malefactors were committing
everything happened so fast. 35 Hence, we find no basis for Appellant
the crime, their actions impliedly showed unity of purpose among them, a
Dejoras' liability even for physical injuries. 36
concerted effort to bring about the death of the victim. In a great majority
of cases, complicity was established by proof of acts done in concert, i.e.,
acts which yielded the reasonable inference that the doers thereof were Penalty and Damages
acting with a common intent or design. Therefore, the task in every case is
determining whether the particular acts established by the requisite When the crime was committed, the penalty for murder was reclusion
quantum of proof do reasonably yield that inference. (Footnotes omitted) temporal (maximum) to death. 37 Since no generic modifying circumstance
was proven, the trial court correctly sentenced Cupino to reclusion
Thus, in Elijorde we found one of the accused, a certain Punzalan, innocent perpetua. 38
under the circumstances. 30 Similarly, in the present case, we find
Appellant Vincent Dejoras not guilty. We increase to P50,000 the award for moral damages, in consonance with
current jurisprudence. 39 The facts showing moral damages were proven
Unlike the trial court, we are quite mindful of the testimony of Prosecution during the trial. However, the established actual damages amount to only
Eyewitness Bahian regarding Appellant Dejoras' participation in that bloody
P30,000, not P40,000 as found by the lower court. 40 The award of
P50,000 civil indemnity for the death of Gromyko Valliente is affirmed. 41

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the appealed Decision insofar as it found

Appellant Ignacio Cupino GUILTY of MURDER and sentenced him
to reclusion perpetua. Appellant Cupino is solely responsible for paying the
heirs of the victim, Gromyko Valliente, the amounts of P50,000 as
indemnity ex delicto, P30,000 as actual damages and P50,000 as moral
damages. Appellant Vincent Dejoras is ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED
from custody IMMEDIATELY, unless he is being legally held for another
cause. In this regard, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed
to report his compliance, within five (5) days from receipt hereof. Costs
against Appellant Cupino.

SO ORDERED.