Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 121764 September 9, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RUL H. SES!RE"O, accused-appellant.

#UISUM!ING, J.:
On appeal is the decision dated u!ust "#, "$$#, of the Re!ional %&ial Cou&t, of
Cebu Cit', (&anch "), in C&i*inal Case No. C(+-,"-,,, finding he&ein appellant,
Raul .. Sesb&e/o, !uilt' of the c&i*e of *u&de& and sentencing hi* to reclusion
perpetua, fo& the death of one 0uciano *pa&ado.
ppellant has been a p&acticin! la1'e& fo& ove& thi&t' 2,34 'ea&s. d*itted to the (a&
on Ma&ch "-, "$55,
1
he has achieved p&o*inence in Cebu. %he victi*, 0uciano
*pa&ado, 1as a po&te& of 6illia* 0ines, Inc., a shippin! co*pan' also based in
Cebu.
On 7une $, "$$,, the Re!ional Di&ecto& of the National (u&eau of Investi!ation 2N(I4,
Re!ion -, filed a co*plaint a!ainst Sesb&e/o. %a8in! into conside&ation the !&avit'
and othe& ci&cu*stances of the offense, Cit' P&osecuto& 7ufelinito R. Pa&e9a c&eated a
co**ittee of th&ee assistant p&osecuto&s to conduct the p&eli*ina&' investi!ation.
2
On Septe*be& :, "$$,, the co**ittee cha&!ed Sesb&e/o 1ith *u&de&, alle!edl'
co**itted as follo1s;
%hat on o& about the ,&d da' of 7une "$$,, at about ";33 o<cloc8
ea&l' da1n, in the Cit' of Cebu, Philippines, and 1ithin the
9u&isdiction of this .ono&able Cou&t, the said accused, a&*ed 1ith a
fi&ea&*, 1ith t&eache&' and evident p&e*editation, 1ith delibe&ate
intent to 8ill, did then and the&e attac8, assault, and shot one
0uciano *pa&ado, hittin! hi* at the vital pa&ts of his bod', the&eb'
causin! upon hi* the follo1in! ph'sical in9u&ies, to 1it;
S.OC= SECONDR> %O ?+NS.O% 6O+ND O@ %.E C.ES%,
POS%ERO-0%ER0 SPEC%, RI?.% SIDE,
as a conseAuence of 1hich said 0uciano *pa&ado died fe1 hou&s
the&eafte&.
CON%RR> %O 06.
$
No bail 1as &eco**ended. On Septe*be& :, "$$,, appellant 1as a&&ested.
On Septe*be& ,, "$$,, the ve&' da' that the case 1as &affled to the t&ial cou&t,
appellant filed a Motion %o Buash 6a&&ant of &&est ndCO& to ?&ant (ail. %he *otion
1as t&eated as u&!ent and i**ediatel' set fo& hea&in! the neDt da'. (ut the hea&in!
did not push th&ou!h due to the fact that it 1as Satu&da', and the&e 1as no
p&osecuto& available. %he hea&in! on the bail application 1as then &eset to
Septe*be& 5, "$$,.
4
SubseAuentl', the p&osecution filed an Opposition to the +&!ent pplication fo& (ail. It
p&a'ed the accused<s application fo& bail be denied afte& a su**a&' hea&in!E o&,
alte&nativel', the application be conside&ed du&in! the &e!ula& t&ial, afte& the
a&&ai!n*ent of the accused.
%he p&osecution p&esented both testi*onial and docu*enta&' evidence in connection
1ith the said Opposition. 0ate&, the t&ial cou&t denied the application fo& bail in a
Resolution dated Dece*be& :), "$$,. It &eads in pa&t;
fte& a ca&eful anal'sis of the evidence adduced b' the
p&osecution, the Cou&t is of the 1ell-conside&ed vie1 and so holds
that the evidence a!ainst the accused is st&on!. s such the
accused has lost his constitutional &i!ht to bail fo& it 1as
dete&*ined afte& hea&in! that the evidence of !uilt a!ainst hi* is
st&on!. %o fo&feit the constitutional &i!ht to bail in capital offenses, it
is enou!h that the evidence of !uilt is st&on! 2Pa&e9a v. .on.
*ado& E. ?o*eF, ?.R. No. 0-"$-,,, 7ul' ,", "$5:4. %he
p&osecution 1itnesses in the case at ba& positivel' identified the
he&ein accused as the autho& of the c&i*e cha&!ed and that the
1eapon used in pe&pet&atin! the offense is the sa*e as that o1ned
b' the accused as could be !leaned f&o* thei& testi*onies and
*o&e pa&ticula&l' that of the ballistician.
%
(efo&e appellant could be a&&ai!ned, he dispensed 1ith the se&vices of his counsel.
+pon a&&ai!n*ent, appellant, actin! as his o1n counsel, ente&ed a plea of Gnot !uilt'G
to the cha&!e in C(+ No. ,"-,, fo& Mu&de&.
1
%&ial on the *e&its ensued. Pu&suant to Sec. #, Rule ""H of the "$)# Rules on
C&i*inal P&ocedu&e, the evidence p&esented at the bail hea&in!s 1as auto*aticall'
&ep&oduced at the t&ial.
s su**a&iFed b' the t&ial cou&t the p&osecution<s ve&sion of the case is as follo1s;
. . . P&osecution 1itness Ch&istophe& >apchan!co decla&ed that
1hile he and 0uciano *pa&ado 1e&e 1al8in! alon! l*aci!a St.
2EDh. G0-:G4, the' sa1 tt'. Raul .. Sesb&e/o at the balcon' of his
house 1hich 1as 1ell-li!hted 2EDh. G0-"G4. %he' passed b' and as
the' 1al8ed alon! l*aci!a St. at a distance of a&ound # *ete&s,
*o&e o& less, f&o* the !ate of tt'. Raul .. Sesb&e/o, the' hea&d
the sc&eechin! sound of a !ate co*in! f&o* thei& bac8.
I**ediatel', he tu&ned his head to1a&ds his bac8 and sa1 tt'.
Raul .. Sesb&e/o standin! in the *iddle of l*aci!a St. in f&ont of
his !ate and ai*in! his lon! fi&ea&* to1a&ds the*. @&o* 1he&e
tt'. Sesb&e/o stood to the place of Ch&istophe& >apchan!co and
0uciano *pa&ado 1e&e, the&e 1as nothin! that could obst&uct
thei& vie1. tt'. Sesb&e/o fi&st fi&ed : shots and he continued to fi&e
at the*. 0uciano *pa&ado 1as hit and as8ed that he be b&ou!ht
to the hospital. %he&e 1as no othe& pe&son 1ho shot eDcept tt'.
Sesb&e/o 2%SN, Cabatin!an, $C:-C$,4. nothe& P&osecution
1itness RiFald' Rabanes testified that f&o* his house to the house
of tt'. Sesb&e/o, the&e 1as nothin! that could obst&uct the vie1
2%SN, pa!e ":, &naeF, $C:$C$,4. t about ";33 o<cloc8 da1n on
7une ,, "$$,, he hea&d t1o 2:4 shots. .e sa1 t1o 2:4 pe&sons
&unnin! to1a&ds his house. .e then sa1 tt'. Raul Sesb&e/o
standin! at the *iddle of l*aci!a St&eet f&ontin! his !ate and
ai*in! his fi&ea&* and fi&in! in succession at the t1o 2:4 pe&sons
1ho* he &eco!niFed as Ch&istophe& >apchan!co and 0uciano
*pa&ado. >apchan!co 1as &unnin! in a Fi!Fa! *anne& on the
&i!ht side of l*aci!a St. 1hile 0uciano *pa&ado 1as &unnin! in
the sa*e *anne& on the left side of the &oad. .is house 1as hit b'
a bullet and his child 1as al*ost hit. 0ate&, Ch&istophe&
>apchan!co helped the 1ounded 0uciano *pa&ado b' ca&&'in!
hi* on his shoulde&. 6hile >apchan!co 1as ca&&'in! 0uciano
*pa&ado, he sa1 E&1in Pa&une and De*ete& Encina follo1in!
the* and helped >apchan!co b' holdin! the feet of 0uciano
*pa&ado. . .
6
%he p&incipal defense of the accused is out&i!ht denial. .e alle!ed that 1hile he 1as
p&esent at the place and ti*e of the incident in Auestion, it 1as not he 1ho shot the
victi* but an unidentified pe&son. .is ve&sion of the incident 1as su**a&iFed b' the
t&ial cou&t as follo1s;
. . . IOJn 7une ,, "$$, at past *idni!ht he hea&d noises co*in!
f&o* the sto&e of his 1ife. .e &oused f&o* bed and peeped th&ou!h
the 1indo1 ove&loo8in! the sto&e. .e sa1 that the doo& of his
1ife<s sto&e 1as al&ead' fo&ced open and th&ee pe&sons 9u*ped
do1n ove& the fence f&o* the sto&e ca&&'in! ba!s loaded 1ith
stolen ite*s. Outside the p&e*ises of his house b' the &oadside
&i!ht in f&ont of the sto&e, he sa1 0uciano *pa&ado and
Ch&istophe& >apchan!co obviousl' actin! as loo8 out 2sic4. .e
1ent do1n b&in!in! alon! a sha&p Sa*u&ai s1o&d 1hich 1as the
onl' 1eapon available in his possession at that ti*e as his .,) cal.
Revolve& 1as left in his office. .e opened the !ate of his house to
conf&ont the &obbe&s and shouted at the* to &etu&n the stolen
!oods b' sa'in!; G.o', iuli nan! in'on! 8ina1at.G %h&ee of the
&obbe&s 1ho tu&ned out to be E&1in Pa&une, De*ete& Encina and
7uanito %an!hian sta&ted to &un to1a&ds 0utao-lutao 1hen 0uciano
*pa&ado told the* to &un a1a' b' sa'in! GSI(%G. .e atte*pted
to bloc8 the th&ee but 0uciano *pa&ado shouted to hi*, sa'in!;
G'a1 na sila baba!i. Du!a' na ba'a *in! na!du*ot bato8 ni*o
8a' na!pasa8a 8a u! *!a 8aso bato8 8ana*oG. %hen 0uciano
*pa&ado shot hi* t1ice usin! a .:: calibe& pistol. .e 1as not hit.
%he thi&d ti*e that 0uciano sAueeFed the t&i!!e&, the pistol did not
fi&e. .e su&*ised that 0uciano *ust have &an out of bullets o& that
his pistol 9a**ed. .e 1as not hit because he duc8ed do1n to the
!&ound behind the t&un8 of a deco&ative pal* t&ee. Seein! 0uciano
*pa&ado fo&cin! open his !un, he stood up but Ch&istophe&
>apchan!co shot hi* 1ith an Indian Pana. .e duc8ed do1n a!ain.
.e sa1 0uciano *pa&ado and Ch&istophe& >apchan!co 1al8ed
2sic4 fast to1a&ds 0utao-lutao. %he co*panions of the t1o, na*el',
E&1in Pa&une, De*ete& Encina, 7uanito %an!ihan, (o' Rabanes
and othe&s th&e1 stones at hi* but failed to hit hi* because he
duc8ed do1n on the sa*e spot 1he&e he duc8ed do1n 1hen
0uciano *pa&ado shot hi* 1ith a .:: cal. pistol. t the co&ne& of
%u!as-la*aci!a St&eets an unidentified pe&son 1ith a co*panion
shouted; G.o', a'a ni iapil u! bato 8a' 1al *i' labotG, follo1ed b'
the 1o&d G'a'G. %he said unidentified pe&son 1ho 1as standin! at
the elevated po&tion of tile !utte& of co&ne& l*aci!a-%u!as St&eets
1ho 1as talle& than 0uciano *pa&ado, shot 0uciano *pa&ado
t1o ti*es . . . hittin! hi* on the &i!ht side belo1 the a&*pit.
7
fte& the pa&ties had &ested thei& &espective case, the t&ial cou&t &ende&ed the
assailed 9ud!*ent, the dispositive po&tion of 1hich &eads;
6.ERE@ORE, p&e*ises conside&ed, the Cou&t finds the accused,
Raul .. Sesb&e/o, !uilt' be'ond &easonable doubt, as p&incipal, fo&
the c&i*e of Mu&de&, defined and penaliFed b' &ticle :H) of the
Revised Penal Code, and sentences hi* to suffe& the penalt' of
RECLUSION PERPETUA, 1ith the inhe&ent accesso&' penalties
p&ovided b' la1E to inde*nif' the hei&s of the deceased, 0uciano
*pa&ado, in the a*ount of P#3,333.33E and to pa' the costs.
2
SO ORDERED.
&
(efo&e us, appellant &aises no1 the follo1in! assi!n*ent of e&&o&s;
". %.E %RI0 CO+R% ?ROSS0> ERRED IN
NO% @O00O6IN? %.E PROCED+RE @OR
R@@0E O@ CSES PER SEC%ION -, R+0E
::, R+0ES O@ CO+R%.
:. %.E %RI0 CO+R% ?ROSS0> ERRED
6.EN .ON. RRIES?DO RE@+SED %O
DISB+0I@> .IMSE0@ @ROM %R>IN? %.IS
CSE 6.I0E, IN COMPRISON, .E
IN.I(I%ED .IMSE0@ IN %R>IN? OR .ERIN?
%.E COMPNION CSE, CBU-3!3".
,. %.E %RI0 CO+R% ?ROSS0> ERRED IN
DISRE?RDIN? OR I?NORIN? EVIDENCES
O@ S+(S%NCE ND IMPOR%NCE 6.IC.,
I@ CONSIDERED, 6O+0D 0%ER %.E
RES+0%S OR DECISION IN %.IS CSE.
H. %.E %RI0 CO+R% ERRED IN RE0>IN? ON
SPEC+0%IONS, S+RMISES OR
CON7EC%+RES IN RRIVIN? % I%S
CONC0+SIONS 6.IC. RE CON%RDIC%ED
(> %.E EVIDENCE ON RECORD.
#. %.E %RI0 CO+R% ERRED IN @I0IN? OR
RE@+SIN? %O CONSIDER %.E RESONS O@
%.E CC+SED-PPE00N% %.% %.E
PROSEC+%ION @I0ED %O PROVE %.E
?+I0% O@ %.E CC+SED (E>OND %.E
S.DO6 O@ SIN?0E DO+(% OR @I0ED
%O %RVERSE %.E CONS%I%+%ION0 ND
S%%+%OR> PRES+MP%ION O@ INNOCENCE
O@ %.E CC+SED.
5. %.E %RI0 CO+R% ERRED IN RE@+SIN?
%O RESO0VE %.E MO%ION %O S%RI=E O+%
%.E %ES%IMON> O@ MONIC MPRDO
6.IC. 6S NO% S+(7EC%ED %O CROSS-
EKMIN%ION.
-. %.E %RI0 CO+R% ERRED IN RE@+SIN?
%O DISB+0I@> %.E PRIV%E
PROSEC+%ORS @ROM PPERIN? IN %.IS
CSE D+E %O %.E NON-P>MEN% O@ @I0IN?
@EES @OR CIVI0 C0IMS @OR DM?ES ND
SINCE MONIC MPRDO DID NO%
EN??E %.E 0E?0 SERVICES O@ %.E
PRIV%E PROSEC+%ORS.
). %.E %RI0 CO+R% ERRED IN DMI%%IN?
PROSEC+%ION EVIDENCE NO% PROPER0>
IDEN%I@IED IN OPEN CO+R% ND NO%
S+(7EC%ED %O CROSS-EKMIN%ION.
$. %.E %RI0 CO+R% ?ROSS0> ERRED IN
NO% PP0>IN? PR. ", SEC%ION ":, (I00 O@
RI?.%S, "$)- CONS%I%+%ION, IN RE0%ION
6I%. PR. :, SEC%ION "H, R%IC0E III,
CONS%I%+%ION 2ON RI?.% %O (E .ERD
G(> .IMSE0@ ND CO+NSE0G4, PR. C,
SEC%ION ", R+0E ""#, R+0ES ON CRIMIN0
PROCED+RE 2RI?.% %O GDE@END IN
PERSON AN# (> CO+NSE0 % EVER>
S%?E O@ %.E PROCEEDIN?S @ROM %.E
RRI?NMEN% %O %.E PROM+0?%ION O@
%.E 7+D?MEN%G4E ND SEC%ION -, R+0E
""5, R+0ES ON CRIMIN0 PROCED+RE.
"3 SS+MIN? 6I%.O+% DMI%%IN? %.%
%.E PEN0 CONVIC%ION O@ %.E CC+SED
IS NO% REVERSI(0E ERROR, S%I00, %.E
%RI0 CO+R% ?ROSS0> ERRED IN NO%
%=IN? IN%O CCO+N% SEC%ION "$2"4,
R%IC0E III, CONS%I%+%ION (O0IS.IN?
%.E DE%. PEN0%> and IN NO% PP0>IN?
%.E 7+RISPR+DENCE IN PEOPLE $s.
ALCANTARA, %3 SCRA !&&-!&'E PEOPLE $s.
NOLASCO, %3 SCRA %('-%3) ND PEOPLE
$s. *ABU+A,, &- SCRA %&.
"". %.E %RI0 CO+R% ?ROSS0> ERRED IN
CONC0+DIN? %.% %REC.ER> ND
EVIDEN% PREMEDI%%ION 6ERE PROVEN
(> %.E PROSEC+%ION EVEN I@ %.ERE IS
NO EVIDENCE %O S+PPOR% S+C.
CONC0+SION OR %.% %.E SME 6S
(SED ON SPEC+0%IONS, S+RMISES ND
CON7EC%+RES OR SS+MP%IONS 6I%.O+%
EVIDEN%IR> S+PPOR%.
3
In addition, appellant also sub*its the follo1in! fo& conside&ation of the Cou&t;
":. %.E %RI0 CO+R% ERRED IN RE0>IN?
ON %.E %ES%IMONIES O@ %.E
PROSEC+%ION 6I%NESSES DESPI%E
PROO@ %.% %.E> 6ERE C%+%ED (>
+0%ERIOR ND IMPROPER MO%IVES OR
%.% %.EIR %ES%IMONIES RE NO%
CREDI(0E @OR (EIN? CON%RR> %O
.+MN EKPERIENCE ND =NO60ED?E.
",. %.E %RI0 CO+R% ERRED IN DEN>IN?
%.E CC+SED-PPE00N% 2.IS RI?.%4 %O
SPEED> %RI0 ND SPEED> DISPOSI%ION
O@ .IS CSE.
"H. %.E %RI0 CO+R% ERRED IN DISMISSIN?
%.E CON%EMP% C.R?ES @I0ED (>
PPE00N% ?INS% RDIO NNO+NCERS
6.O 6ERE %R>IN? %O IN@0+ENCE %.E
%RI0 CO+R% IN%O CONVIC%IN? %.E
PPE00N%.
9
ppellant sub*its that ssi!ned E&&o&s ,, H, #, ), "", and ": *a' be consolidated
and discussed to!ethe& because the issues all boil do1n to 1hethe& o& not the
p&osecution has sufficientl' ove&co*e the constitutional p&esu*ption of innocence of
the accused.
1'
Conside&in! these assi!ned e&&o&s, the pe&tinent issues could be su**ed up as
follo1s;
". 6e&e appellant<s funda*ental &i!hts, includin! his &i!ht to due
p&ocess of la1, violated in this case because;
2a4 the&e 1as no speed' t&ial
and disposition of the caseL
2b4 the t&ial 9ud!e e&&ed in
&efusin! to disAualif' hi*self
f&o* hea&in! the caseL
2c4 the t&ial cou&t e&&ed in
&efusin! to &e-&affle the caseL
2d4 the t&ial cou&t e&&ed in
&efusin! to disAualif' the
p&ivate p&osecuto&sL
2e4 the&e 1as publicit'
p&e9udicial to accusedL
:. 6as the &i!ht to counsel of the accused violatedL
,. Is the evidence p&esented b' the p&osecution sufficient to
ove&co*e the p&esu*ption of innocence of the accused, and to
p&ove hi* !uilt' be'ond &easonable doubtL
H. Is the penalt' i*posed on appellant co&&ectL
6e shall no1 discuss these issues in seriati..
&t. III, Section "H of the Constitution p&ovides;
2"4 No pe&son shall be held to ans1e& fo& a c&i*inal offense 1ithout
due p&ocess of la1E
2:4 In all c&i*inal p&osecutions, the accused shall be p&esu*ed
innocent until the cont&a&' is p&oved, and shall en9o' the &i!ht to be
hea&d b' hi*self and counsel, to be info&*ed of the natu&e and
cause of the accusation a!ainst hi*, to have a speed', i*pa&tial,
and public t&ial, to *eet the 1itnesses face to face, and to have
co*pulso&' p&ocess to secu&e the attendance of 1itnesses and the
p&oduction of evidence in his behalf. . . .
ppellant ancho&s, fi&stl', his clai* that due p&ocess 1as violated because his &i!ht to
speed' t&ial 1as violated. .o1eve&, the &eco&ds of this case &eveal that bail hea&in!s
sta&ted on Septe*be& :-, "$$,, and te&*inated on Nove*be& ), "$$,. .e 1as
a&&ai!ned on 7anua&' "", "$$H. %he p&osecution p&esented its fi&st post-bail hea&in!s
1itness on the sa*e da'. %he defense p&esented its fi&st 1itness on 7une -, "$$H.
%he decision of the lo1e& cou&t 1as p&o*ul!ated on u!ust "#, "$$#. 6ith this
ch&onolo!', in ou& vie1, no undue dela' could be i*puted, *uch less pe&suasivel'
sho1n, a!ainst appellee and the t&ial cou&t.
ppellant also clai*s the t&ial cou&t i!no&ed va&ious Sup&e*e Cou&t Ci&cula&s
o&de&in! 9ud!es to decide cases 1ithin ninet' da's f&o* the inception of t&ial.
11
%his
is not Auite accu&ate. %he ninet'-da' pe&iod applies onl' afte& the case is sub*itted
fo& decision, not f&o* the sta&t of the t&ial.
12
4
If the t&ial appea&ed len!th', it 1as la&!el' due to the nu*be& of 1itnesses p&esented,
", fo& the p&osecution and "# fo& the defense. ppellant hi*self too8 the 1itness
stand a total of -5 ti*es, includin! :" ti*es on &ebuttal alone. s obse&ved b' the
t&ial cou&t;
. . . %he *anne& of p&esentin! his defense, unde&ta8en b' hi*self
alone 1ithout the p&ope& advice of a defense counsel, had
cont&ibuted la&!el' to the p&olon!ed t&ial of the case.
1$
6hethe& intentional o& not, appellant<s conduct of his o1n t&ial cont&ibuted to ti*e-
consu*in! tussles in the lo1e& cou&t. .o1 could the accused co*plain of dela's,
1he&e he hi*self caused the*L
14
ppellant also alle!es that his &i!ht to a speed' disposition of his case 1as violated.
.e clai*s that the t&ial 9ud!e !ave p&efe&ence to a civil case, as a!ainst his &i!ht as a
detention p&isone& to have his case !iven p&efe&ence pu&suant to R.. 53,,.
1%
%his is
unfounded, to sa' the least. %he hea&in! of the civil case ahead of his case
happened onl' once.
16
ppellant li8e1ise clai*s the t&ial 9ud!e 1as pa&tial, biased, and p&e9udiced because
he &efused to disAualif' hi*self f&o* hea&in! this case 1hile he inhibited hi*self f&o*
t&'in! its co*panion case. (ut as held in /ele0 $. Court of Appeals, ,H SCR "3$
2"$-34, *e&e i*putation of pa&tialit' o& bias is not a !&ound fo& inhibition.
%he !&ounds fo& disAualification o& inhibition of 9ud!es p&ovided fo& in Section ", Rule
",-, Rules of Cou&t a&e as follo1s;
Sec. ". #is1ualification of 2udges M No 9ud!e o& 9udicial office&
shall sit in an' case in 1hich he o& his 1ife o& child, is pecunia&il'
inte&ested as hei&, le!atee, c&edito&, o& othe&1ise o& in 1hich he is
&elated to eithe& pa&t' 1ithin the siDth de!&ee of consan!uinit' o&
affinit', o& to counsel 1ithin the fou&th de!&ee, co*puted acco&din!
to the &ules of the civil la1, o& in 1hich he has been eDecuto&,
ad*inist&ato&, !ua&dian, t&ustee o& counsel, o& in 1hich he has
p&esided in an' infe&io& cou&t 1hen his &ulin! o& decision is the
sub9ect of &evie1, 1ithout the 1&itten consent of all pa&ties in
inte&est, si!ned b' the* and ente&ed upon the &eco&d.
9ud!e *a', in the eDe&cise of his sound disc&etion, disAualif'
hi*self f&o* sittin! in a case, fo& 9ust o& valid &easons othe& than
those *entioned above.
None of the !&ounds above 1as cited to suppo&t the t&ial 9ud!e<s disAualification.
None 1as applicable to hi*. %hou!h the Rule p&ovides othe& 9ust and valid !&ounds
on 1hich a 9ud!e *a' disAualif' hi*self, the' a&e add&essed to his sound disc&etion,
and the&e 1as no abuse of said disc&etion. 6e can onl' conclude that the t&ial 9ud!e,
cont&a&' to appellant<s clai*, did not e&& in &efusin! to inhibit hi*self in the case at
ba&.
%hat the t&ial 9ud!e opted to believe the p&osecution<s evidence &athe& than that of the
defense is not a si!n of bias.
17
ppellant<s asse&tion that the t&ial cou&t e&&ed in &efusin! to a!&ee to &e-&affle the case
is, in ou& vie1, baseless. %he&e is no sho1in! that appellant &aised the issue of lac8
of notice of &affle at the ea&liest oppo&tunit'. %he appellant fi&st filed his Motion fo& Re-
Raffle of Case o& %&ansfe& of Case to nothe& (&anch of the R%C of Cebu Cit' onl'
on 7anua&' :#, "$$H.
1&
It 1as filed afte& appellant 1as al&ead' a&&ai!ned, and afte&
the p&osecution had p&esented its fi&st 1itness. In fact, the t&ial cou&t al&ead' issued a
Resolution den'in! his application fo& bail.
19
ppellant had 1illin!l' and activel'
pa&ticipated in these p&oceedin!s befo&e the t&ial cou&t.
2'
(' activel' pa&ticipatin!
the&eon, appellant is no1 dee*ed estopped f&o* co*plainin! that the p&oceedin!s
1e&e technicall' defective fo& 1ant of a notice of the &affle of his case. %o sa' the
least, appellant<s clai* co*es too late to be of an' *e&it.
On the *atte& of disAualif'in! p&ivate p&osecuto&s, it *ust be st&essed that the
inte&est of the p&ivate co*plainant is li*ited to the civil aspect of the case.
21
Even if
the t&ial cou&t had allo1ed the p&esence of p&ivate p&osecuto&s, it did not affect the
c&i*inal aspect of the case. %he &eco&ds clea&l' sho1 that the public p&osecuto&
&e*ained in full cont&ol du&in! the t&ial. s p&ovided in Section #, Rule ""3, Rules of
Cou&t, the case 1as p&osecuted unde& the di&ection and cont&ol of the public
p&osecuto&. Nothin! on &eco&d sho1s that he lost cont&ol and di&ection of the
p&osecution of the case 9ust because of the p&esence of p&ivate p&osecuto&s.
@u&the&, the appellant alle!es that ce&tain *e*be&s of *edia 1ith 1ho* he had a
Glon!-standin! battle, 1e&e p&essu&in! the t&ial cou&t to convict the accused.G
22
.e
states that these *edia *en Gattended the p&o*ul!ation of the 9ud!*ent to insu&e
the success and satisfaction of thei& desi&e fo& &even!e a!ainst the appellantG,
2$
and
that adve&se publicit' influenced the t&ial cou&t into convictin! the appellant.
24
.e
no1 faults the t&ial cou&t fo& &efusin! to decla&e these 9ou&nalists in conte*pt of cou&t.
.o1eve&, the cou&t<s &efusal to find said *edia p&actitione&s in conte*pt is not a
&eve&sible e&&o& that 1ould 1a&&ant the acAuittal of the accused. It 1as enti&el' 1ithin
the disc&etion of the t&ial cou&t to dete&*ine 1hethe& o& not the *edia pe&sonnel
conce&ned 1e&e !uilt' of conte*pt. (esides, a tho&ou!h &evie1 of the &eco&ds 'ields
no sufficient basis to sho1 that pe&vasive publicit' undul' influenced the cou&t<s
9ud!*ent. (efo&e 1e could conclude that appellant 1as p&e9udiced b' hostile *edia,
he *ust fi&st sho1 substantial p&oof, not *e&el' cast suspicions. %he&e *ust be a
sho1in! that adve&se publicit' indeed influenced the cou&t<s decision, as held in
3e44 $. #e Leon, :H- SCR 5#, 2"$$#4 and People $. Tee5an6ee, :H$ SCR #H
2"$$#4.
5
I%Jo 1a&&ant a findin! of p&e9udicial publicit' the&e *ust be
allegation and proof that the 9ud!es have been undul' influenced,
not si*pl' that the' *i!ht be, b' the ba&&a!e of publicit'.
2%
Pe&vasive publicit' is not per se p&e9udicial to the &i!ht of an
accused to fai& t&ial. %he *e&e fact that the t&ial of appellant 1as
!iven a da'-to-da', !avel-to-!avel cove&a!e does not 47 itself
p&ove that the publicit' so pe&*eated the *ind of the t&ial 9ud!e
and i*pai&ed his i*pa&tialit'. @o& one, it is i*possible to seal the
*inds of the *e*be&s of the bench f&o* p&e-t&ial and othe& off-
cou&t publicit' of sensational c&i*inal cases. %he state of the a&t of
ou& co**unication s'ste* b&in!s ne1s as the' happen st&ai!ht to
ou& b&ea8fast tables and &i!ht to ou& bed&oo*s. %hese ne1s fo&*
pa&t of ou& eve&'da' *enu of the facts and fictions of life. @o&
anothe&, ou& idea of a fai& and i*pa&tial 9ud!e is not that of a he&*it
1ho is out of touch 1ith the 1o&ld. 6e have not installed the 9u&'
s'ste* 1hose *e*be&s a&e ove&l' p&otected f&o* publicit' lest
the' lose thei& i*pa&tialit'. . . . Ou& 9ud!es a&e lea&ned in the la1
and t&ained to dis&e!a&d off-cou&t evidence and on-ca*e&a
pe&fo&*ances of pa&ties to a liti!ation. %hei& *e&e eDposu&e to
publications and publicit' stunts does not per se infect thei&
i*pa&tialit'.
t best appellant can onl' con9u&e possi4ilit7 of pre2udice on the
pa&t of the t&ial 9ud!e due to the ba&&a!e of publicit' that
cha&acte&iFed the investi!ation and t&ial of the case. In *artelino8
et al. $. Ale2andro8 et al., 1e &e9ected this standa&d of possibilit' of
p&e9udice and adopted the test of actual pre2udice as 1e &uled that
to 1a&&ant a findin! of p&e9udicial publicit', the&e *ust be alle!ation
and p&oof that the 9ud!es have been undul' influenced, not si*pl'
that the' *i!ht be, b' the ba&&a!e of publicit'. In the case at ba&,
the &eco&ds do not sho1 that the t&ial 9ud!e developed actual bias
a!ainst appellant as a conseAuence of the eDtensive *edia
cove&a!e of the p&e-t&ial and t&ial of his case. %he totalit7 of
circu.stances of the case does not p&ove that the t&ial 9ud!e
acAui&ed a fi9ed opinion as a &esult of pre2udicial publicit' 1hich is
incapable of chan!e even b' evidence p&esented du&in! the t&ial.
ppellant has the bu&den to p&ove this actual bias and he has not
discha&!ed the bu&den. 2E*phasis in the
o&i!inal4.
26
bsent a pe&suasive sho1in! b' the appellant that publicit' p&e9udicial to his case
1as &esponsible fo& his conviction b' the t&ial 9ud!e, 1e cannot accept his ba&e clai*
that his conviction ou!ht to be &eve&sed on that !&ound.
Relatedl', on the second issue, it *ust be pointed out that appellant has been a
p&acticin! la1'e& of lon! standin!. Initiall', he 1as assisted b' counsel of his choice
in this case. (ut he late& te&*inated the se&vices of his counsel due to
disa!&ee*ents. .e then too8 full cont&ol of his defense.
s *anifested in his *otion &e!a&din! the O&de& dated Dece*be& :), "$$, 2(ail
pplication4, he as8ed the t&ial cou&t to;
,. P0ESE NO%E that the unde&si!ned is ta8in! COMP0E%E
CON%RO0 in his defense in the t1o 2:4 cases 2C(+-,",-, and
C(+-,"-,H4 since he no1 &ealiFes that it is to his best inte&est and
advanta!e that does so unde& &i!ht unde& pa&. c, Sec. ", Rule ""#,
Rules on C&i*inal P&ocedu&e and his la1'e&s a&e bein! sub9ected
to p&essu&e.
27
(efo&e his a&&ai!n*ent on 7anua&' "", "$$H, the t&ial cou&t as8ed cla&ification f&o*
appellant, to 1it;
%%>. SES(RENO;
ppea&in! as counsel in *' o1n behalf.
CO+R%;
6ho a&e 2sic4 &ep&esentin! 'ou in these casesL
%%>. SES(RENO;
>ou& .ono& please, I a* ta8in! full cont&ol of the p&oceedin!s, >ou&
.ono& pa&ticula&l' the p&esentation of *' o1n testi*on' but 1ith
&espect 1ith othe& 1itnesses that *a' be p&esented b' *' la1'e&. I
full' unde&stand the contents, the late&al i*po&t and alle!ations in
the info&*ation. I 1ould li8e to *a8e it of &eco&d that in ente&in! a
plea of not !uilt' to such info&*ation I 1ould *a8e it clea& that I a*
not 1aivin! *' &i!ht to p&esent *' &ebuttal evidence in the
application fo& bail 1hich it is unde& Section # of Rule ""H 1hich
supposed to be a sepa&ate hea&in! f&o* the fo&*al t&ial on the
*e&its. %hat I have not a!&eed to have a 9oint hea&in! fo& the
application fo& bail and of the fo&*al t&ial on the *e&its. I have not
also 1aive 2sic4 *' &i!ht to Auestion to issuance of the 1a&&ant of
a&&est of Section : of the (ill of Ri!hts.
CO+R%;
(ut 1e have to a&&ai!n 'ou because unde& the "$)# Rules on
C&i*inal P&ocedu&e as a*ended the&e is no such thin! as 1aive&
6
of the a&&ai!n*ent. Necessa&il', unde& the &ules o& 1hateve&
cate!o&' is that c&i*e cha&!ed the accused *ust be a&&ai!ned
even fo& Ph'sical In9u&ies. So, unde& the set-up 1e have to conduct
an a&&ai!n*ent in both cases.
%%>. SES(RENO;
%hat is the p&e&o!ative of the Cou&t. M' onl' state*ent to be *ade
it 2sic4 of &eco&d that I have neve& 1aive 2sic4 those &i!ht 2sic4 1hich
I 9ust stated.
CO+R%;
6ell, 1aive& o& no 1aive&, the la1 clea&l' and eDplicitl' p&ovides
that onl' 1aive& 2sic4 1hich a&e not cont&a&' to la1, *o&als, and
public polic' a&e conside&ed o& countenance 2sic4 in Cou&t. ll
1aive&s 1hich 1ill &un counte& to public polic', *o&als and the la1,
the' a&e all conside&ed 1aive&s 1hich a&e null and void. ll those
thin!s 1ill be ta8en into conside&ations 2sic4. Statutes as 1ell as
9u&isp&udence, the Cou&t is ta8in! ca&e of all those thin!s. &&ai!ned
2sic4 the accused. (ut befo&e !oin! into this, a&e 'ou &eall' su&e
1ith the *a!nitude of the cha&!ed a!ainst 'ou 1ill neve& solicit the
assistance of counsel as 'ou did befo&eL
%%>. SES(RENO;
I have sou!ht the assistance of counsel. I 8no1 the sa'in! that a
la1'e& 1ho acts as his o1n counsel is a fool, >ou& .ono&. I 1ould
be a bi! fool if I 1ill allo1 *'self to be &ep&esented 2b'4 a la1'e&
1ho *a'be 2sic4 p&essu&ed.
CO+R%;
I have al&ead' stated in *' o&de& that insofa& as this P&esidin!
7ud!e is conce&ned the&e 1as no obse&vation of such p&essu&e
1ithin the fou& 2H4 1alls of this Cou&t. I don<t 8no1 outside the fou&
2H4 1alls of this Cou&t. (ut I 1ould li8e to tell all and sund&' that
insofa& as the alle!ed p&essu&e is conce&ned, the Cou&t noted no
such p&essu&e 1ithin the fou& 2H4 co&ne&s of this &oo*.
%%>. SES(RENO;
%he p&essu&e that I *ade on *'self and this counsel 1ill be
testified on the 1itness-stand 2sic4 1hen *' tu&n co*es, unde&oath
2sic4.
CO+R%;
%o &epeat, 'ou do not 1ant the assistance of an' othe& counsel
even possibl' 1ith 2sic4 the assistance of the PO la1'e&L
%%>. SES(RENO;
%he&e is no need, >ou& .ono& because unde& pa&a!&aph 5, Section
", Rule "#3 the accused can act as his o1n counsel and at his
option can see8 the assistance of anothe& la1'e&. I full' unde&stant
2sic4 the i*po&t of the info&*ation.
CO+R%;
So 'ou have chosen despite the p&oddin!s of this Cou&t that 'ou
have to solicit the assistance of counsel as 'ou did befo&e. %hat
'ou a&e 1aivin! t9os 2sic4 &i!ht to be assisted b' counsel.
%%>. SES(RENO;
%hat is co&&ect.
CO+R%;
0et us a&&ai!ned 2sic4 the accused. 0et it be placed on &eco&d 2that4
despite the p&oddin!s of this Cou&t, the accused 1anted to act as
counsel fo& hi*self.
CO+R%; 2to accused4
Does this i*pl' that even the ne1 counsel 'ou have included in
'ou& pleadin!s as tt'. C&isolo!o R. Montecla& he is neve& 'ou&
la1'e&L
%%>. SES(RENO;
.e is *' la1'e& but as I said I a* ta8in! full cont&ol of this 2sic4
p&oceedin!s. I 1ill ta8e le!al consultation 1ith *' la1'e&s if the
need a&ises.
CO+R%;
7
&e 1e *ade to unde&stand that hencefo&th, the&e shall be no
*o&e notices to be sent to these la1'e&s because 'ou a&e no1
ta8in! full cont&ol of these cases a!ainst 'ouL
%%>. SES(RENO;
Notice to *e 1ill be notice to the*. I 21ill4 9ust &eAuest, >ou& .ono&
additional notices 1hen necessa&' to the additional la1'e&s. I thin8
that is the le!al p&ocedu&e on the *atte&.
CO+R%;
>ou *a' no1 a&&ai!n the accused in both cases.
2&
Despite ad*onitions of the t&ial cou&t, he pe&sisted in his decision to t&' his o1n case.
%he &eco&d sho1s appellant, actin! as his o1n counsel, filed the notice of appeal. %o
alle!e no1 that his &i!ht to be assisted b' counsel 1as violated is to bend the t&uth
too fa&. In :a.4oa $. Cru0,
29
1e held that the substantial and constitutional &i!ht of
the accused to counsel is not violated 1he&e he 1as &ep&esented b' a *e*be& of the
(a&. ppellant chose to be &ep&esented in this case b' a p&o*inent and co*petent
*e*be& of the (a&, na*el' hi*self, even if the&e 1e&e othe& available counsel li8e
tt'. C&isolo!o Montecla&. ppellant is no1 estopped f&o* clai*in! that the t&ial cou&t
violated his &i!ht to be &ep&esented b' counsel of his o1n choice. Note that he also
b&ushed aside the cou&t<s offe& of assistance b' anothe& counsel, a PO la1'e&. .e
decla&ed the&e 1as no need the&efo&.
%he essential &eAui&e*ents of due p&ocess in this 9u&isdiction a&e 1ell established,
$i0;
2"4 %he&e *ust be a cou&t o& t&ibunal clothed 1ith
9udicial po1e& to hea& and dete&*ine the *atte&
befo&e itE
2:4 7u&isdiction *ust be la1full' acAui&ed ove&
the pe&son of the defendant o& p&ope&t' 1hich is
the sub9ect of the p&oceedin!E
2,4 %he defendant *ust be !iven an oppo&tunit'
to be hea&dE and
2H4 7ud!*ent *ust be &ende&ed upon la1ful
hea&in!.
$'
In People $. Castillo8 et al. -5 Phil. -:, )-, 1e &uled that if an accused has been
hea&d in a cou&t of co*petent 9u&isdiction, and p&oceeded a!ainst unde& the o&de&l'
p&ocess of la1, and onl' punished afte& inAui&' and investi!ation, upon notice to hi*,
1ith oppo&tunit' to be hea&d, and a 9ud!*ent a1a&ded 1ithin the autho&it' of the
constitutional la1, then he has had a due p&ocess.
ppl'in! the afo&e*entioned test to the ci&cu*stances of the instant case, the Cou&t
finds no b&each of appellant<s funda*ental &i!hts, includin! his &i!ht to due p&ocess
and to counsel, 1hich 1ould 9ustif' &eve&sal of the assailed decision.
On the c&ucial t5ird issue, 1e *ust inAui&e no1 1hethe& the p&osecution has
ove&co*e the p&esu*ption of innocence in favo& of the accused. Othe&1ise stated, is
the evidence p&esented b' the p&osecution sufficient to p&ove his !uilt be'ond
&easonable doubtL
%he victi*<s co*panion, Ch&istophe& >apchan!co, as 1itness fo& the p&osecution,
testified unde& oath as follo1s;
%%>. D+RNO;
No1 1hile 'ou 1e&e 1al8in! alon! l*aci!a St&eet 1ith 0uciano
*pa&ado, can 'ou tell us 1hat happenedL
; 6hile 1e 1e&e al&ead' at a distance of five 2#4 *ete&s, *o&e o&
less, f&o* the !ate of the house of Raul Sesb&eno 1e hea&d
sc&eechin! sound of the !ate of tt'. Sesb&eno.
B; @&o* 1he&e 'ou 1e&e 1al8in! alon! that l*aci!a St&eet
headin! to1a&ds 0utao-0utao f&o* 1hat side did 'ou hea& the
sc&eechin! sound of the !ateL
; t ou& bac8.
B; 6hen 'ou hea&d that sc&eechin! sound of the !ate on 1hat side
did 'ou tu&n a&ound 1hile 'ou 1e&e alon! l*aci!a St&eetL
IN%ERPRE%ER;
6itness indicatin! b' tu&nin! his head to1a&ds
the bac8.
%%>. D+RNO;
8
6hen 'ou tu&ned 'ou& head to1a&ds the !ate, 1ould 'ou 8indl' tell
the .ono&able Cou&t 1hat happened, if an'thin!L
; So, 1e sa1 tt'. Sesb&eno ai*in! his lon! fi&ea&* to1a&ds us.
B; 6hen 'ou sa1 tt'. Raul Sesb&eno ai*in! his &ifle to1a&ds 'ou,
as fa& as 'ou can &ecall ho1 fa& 1e&e 'ou and 0uciano *pa&ado
to Raul Sesb&enoL
; @ive 2#4 *ete&s, *o&e o& less.
B; @&o* the place 1he&e 'ou sa1 tt'. Sesb&eno ai*in! his &ifle
1as the&e an'thin! bet1een 'ou and tt'. Sesb&eno that could
obst&uct 'ou& vie1L
; No, si&, the&e 1as none.
$1
DDD DDD DDD
B; 6hen 'ou sa1 tt'. Sesb&eno ai*in! his &ifle at 'ou, 1hat
happened, if an', please tell the .ono&able Cou&tL
; Si*ultaneousl' t1o 2:4 shots bein! fi&ed 1e &an i**ediatel'.
$2
DDD DDD DDD
B; 6hile 'ou 1e&e &unnin! in a Fi!Fa! *anne& and *pa&ado also
&unnin! in a Fi!Fa! *anne&, 1ill 'ou please tell the .ono&able
Cou&t, 1hat happened neDtL
; I sa1 0uciano *pa&ado &unnin! in a sta!!a&d 2sic4
*anne&.
$$
B; 6hile 'ou 1e&e &unnin! in a Fi!Fa! *anne& at that ve&' point in
ti*e 'ou sa1 0uciano *pa&ado sta!!e&in! 1he&e 1as tt'.
Sesb&eno in &elation to 'ouL
; .e 1as at ou& bac8.
B; 6ould 'ou 8indl' tell the .ono&able Cou&t 1hat he 1as doin!
1hile he 1as at 'ou& bac8L
; .e 1as still standin! ai*in! his &ifle to1a&ds us.
$4
DDD DDD DDD
B; 6hat happened 1hile 'ou 1e&e &unnin! in a Fi!Fa! *anne& and
0uciano *pa&ado sta!!e&in! to1a&ds 2the4 a co&ne&L
; 6e 1e&e even shot b' tt'. Sesb&eno 1ith t1o 2:4 fi&in! !un.
2sic;.
B; fte& that 1hat happenedL
; nd I aided 0uciano *pa&ado 1ho 1as at that ti*e &unnin! in
a sta!!e&ed 2sic4 *anne&.
$%
DDD DDD DDD
B; 6hile 'ou helped 0uciano *pa&ado and in fact 'ou noticed the
pa&t of his bac8 1as hit, 1hat happened afte& thatL
; 0uciano *pa&ado told *e b' sa'in! he 1as hit and please
b&in! *e to the hospital.
B; In effect, 1hat did 'ou doL
; nd I hea&d a continuous fi&in! of the !un.
B; @&o* 1hat di&ection in &elation to 'ou f&o* 1he&e 'ou 1e&e did
'ou hea& continuous fi&in! of the !unL
; t ou& bac8.
$6
6hile appellant a&!ues that >apchan!co ad*itted that he neve& sa1 1ho fi&ed the
!un shots, because he 1as bus' &unnin! and did not loo8 bac8, on &eco&d is
>apchan!co<s decla&ation that the&e 1as no pe&son othe& than appellant 1ho fi&ed a
fi&ea&*. s held in People $. Sal$eron,
$7
if an e'e1itness sa1 the accused 1ith a
&ifle, seconds afte& the !unshot and afte& the victi* fell to the !&ound, the &easonable
conclusion the&eon is that the appellant 8illed the victi*.
nothe& e'e1itness, RiFald' Rabanes, also identified appellant as the one 1ho fi&ed
at *pa&ado and >apchan!co;
B; ?oin! bac8 to the Auestion, du&in! the ti*e 'ou 1e&e attendin!
'ou& 5-*onth bab' 21ho 1as4 teethin!, 1as the&e an'thin! unusual
that happenedL
9
; >es, the&e 1as.
B; Could 'ou 8indl' please tell the .ono&able Cou&tL
; t that ti*e, I hea&d t1o 2:4 shots. So, I stood up and I peeped
th&ou!h *' 1indo1 and the&e 1as si*ultaneous fi&in! of a !un. So,
I i**ediatel' opened *' 1indo1. %hen, I sa1 t1o 2:4 pe&sons
&unnin! to1a&ds *' house and also then I sa1 tt'. Raul Sesb&eno
ai*in! a fi&ea&* and fi&ed 2sic4 it &apidl', and he did not even 8no1
that *' house 1as hit and *' house 1as sha8en.
$&
DDD DDD DDD
B; 6ho 1e&e those t1o 2:4 people &unnin! to1a&ds 'ou& houseL
; >apchan!co and 0uciano *pa&ado.
$9
@u&the&, p&osecution 1itness Ed1in Pa&une testified that he and his co*panion,
De*ete& Encina, sa1 *pa&ado totte&, afte& bein! shot, to1a&ds the bou!ainvillea
plant at the side of l*aci!a St&eet. %he&e *pa&ado eventuall' fell on the !&ound,
face up1a&d. Pa&une also decla&ed he and Encina sa1 appellant in the *iddle of the
st&eet, ca&&'in! a lon! fi&ea&* 1hile !oin! to1a&ds the !ate of his house. %he' sa1
>apchan!co app&oach the fallen *pa&ado and lift hi*. Pa&une and Encina then
helped >apchan!co b&in! *pa&ado to the hospital 1he&e he died.
4'
6ith such 1ealth of details, 1e cannot fault the t&ial cou&t fo& !ivin! c&edence to the
testi*on' of the p&osecution<s 1itnesses. Mo&eove&, 1e *ust concede that !ene&all',
the t&ial 9ud!e is in a bette& position to decide on Auestions of c&edibilit' of 1itnesses
and *ate&ialit' of the evidence
p&esented.
41
@indin!s of the t&ial 9ud!e 1ho had the fullest oppo&tunit' to obse&ve the
de*eano& of the 1itnesses and to assess thei& c&edibilit' a&e entitled to the hi!hest
de!&ee of &espect.
42
@actual findin!s of the t&ial cou&t, if adeAuatel' suppo&ted b' the
&eco&ds of the case, 1ill !ene&all' not be distu&bed b' the appellate cou&ts on appeal.
4$
6e see no &eason no1 to depa&t f&o* this &ule. %he volu*inous &eco&ds of this
case suppo&t the factual findin!s of the t&ial cou&t. On these findin!s 1e *ust no1
&el', unless it could be sho1n that the t&ial 9ud!e ove&loo8ed o& i!no&ed *ate&ial facts
on &eco&d that 1ould cont&adict these findin!s, o& chan!e the &esultin! conclusions.
%he defense failed, in ou& vie1, to &efute the positive identification *ade b' the
p&osecution 1itnesses 1ho ta!!ed the appellant as the one 1ho shot the victi*.
%hese e'e1itnesses< decla&ations a&e positive testi*onial evidence. %he appellant<s
denial that he 1as the !un*an is ne!ative testi*on'.
44
%he positive, fo&th&i!ht
decla&ations of e'e1itnesses ce&tainl' out1ei!h the ne!ative, self-se&vin! denial of
the accused.
4%
6hile appellant clai*s so*ebod' else shot the victi* dead, appellant
did not, as he could not, identif' this pu&po&ted !un*an up to no1. Su&el' he could
not eDpect us to believe his clai* of a !unslin!e& e*e&!in! f&o* the shado1s to sla'
the victi*, 1ithout *o&e c&edible p&oof the&eon.
ppellant ha&ps on 1hat he pe&ceives to be inconsistencies of the 1itnesses<
testi*on'. .o1eve&, the' a&e inconsistencies on ne!li!ible details that do not dest&o'
the c&edibilit' and ve&acit' of the testi*on' offe&ed. No i*p&ope& *otive appea&s to
vitiate the s1o&n state*ent of the 1itnesses. Va&iations in the decla&ations of
1itnesses &espectin! incidental *atte&s do not det&act f&o* the 1ei!ht of testi*on' in
its enti&et' as to *ate&ial and i*po&tant facts.
46
No& do *ino& inconsistencies
p&eclude the positive identification of the accused.
47
Mino& inconsistencies in the
testi*onies of 1itnesses st&en!then, &athe& than 1ea8en, the c&edibilit' of the
1itnesses, as it clea&l' sho1s that the testi*onies offe&ed a&e neithe& &ehea&sed no&
coached.
4&
(ut in &e!a&d to the lethal 1eapon used in the co**ission of the offense, the&e is no
9ustifiable &eason, in ou& vie1, fo& doubt o& dispute. %he fi&ea&* used 1as a .::
calibe& &ifle, &e!iste&ed in the na*e of appellant.
Note1o&th' is the testi*on' of the N(I ballistician on &eco&d. .e found that the shell
*a&8ed eDhibit GES-"G and the test shell *a&8ed G%S-:G possessed sufficient identical
*a&8in!s to sho1 both 1e&e fi&ed f&o* one and the sa*e fi&ea&*E
49
that the siFe,
shape, and location of the fi&in! pin *a&8s on the t1o shells 1e&e the sa*eE
%'
and
that evidence shell GES-"G and anothe& test shell *a&8ed G%S-,G 1e&e fi&ed f&o* one
and the sa*e fi&ea&*.
%1
%he p&osecution a*pl' sho1ed that the test shells G%S-:G
and G%S-,G 1e&e test-fi&ed f&o* a .:: calibe& &ifle o1ned b' appellant. .e hi*self had
sub*itted both the &ifle and test bullets fo& &e-&e!ist&ation du&in! a &e-&e!ist&ation of
fi&ea&*s ca*pai!n conducted b' the police, 1ith test-fi&in! done on Ma&ch ::, "$$3.
%2
%he ballistician<s testi*on' &efutes appellant<s clai* that the&e 1as no conclusive
findin! on the fi&ea&* used in the shootin! of the victi*, since the&e 1e&e no sufficient
con!&uent st&iations on the evidence and test bullets. ppellant a&!ues that the&e
1e&e no sufficient *a&8in!s 1hich could lead to a positive conclusion that the
evidence and test bullets 1e&e fi&ed f&o* one and the sa*e fi&ea&*.
%$
%his
a&!u*ent, ho1eve&, is &ebutted b' the ballistician, 1ho pointed out that the slu! 1as
coppe&-coated and this coatin! *ate&ial could be easil' &e*oved.
%4
Even a *e&e
sc&atch of a fin!e&nail could &e*ove the coatin!, and *a8e co*pa&ison of st&iations
fo& identification pu&poses difficult, if not i*possible. ppellant, ho1eve&, could not
den' the ballistician<s conclusive findin!s as to the si*ila&it' of &esultant *a&8in!s in
the evidence and test shells sub*itted to the t&ial cou&t.
%hus, both testi*onial and &eal evidence p&esented b' the p&osecution lead us to the
fi&* conclusion that the p&esu*ption of appellant<s innocence has been ove&co*e
and his !uilt established be'ond &easonable doubt. .e is c&i*inall' &esponsible fo&
the 8illin! of the victi*, 0uciano *pa&ado.
10
.o1eve&, 1e no1 co*e to the neDt inAui&' in &e!a&d to the t5ird issue. 6as the 8illin!
.urder as found b' the t&ial cou&t, o& 5o.icide as ave&&ed b' the Solicito& ?ene&alL
cco&din! to hi*, the t&ial cou&t e&&ed in findin! the appellant !uilt' of *u&de&,
because the p&osecution failed to p&ove the Aualif'in! ci&cu*stances of evident
p&e*editation and t&eache&'. On these *atte&s, 1e find both the appellant<s and the
Solicito& ?ene&al<s sub*ission *e&ito&ious.
Ci&cu*stances specif'in! o& Aualif'in! an offense, o& a!!&avatin! the penalt'
the&efo& *ust be p&oved as conclusivel' as the act itself.
%%
Evident p&e*editation is
app&eciated 1he&e the eDecution of a c&i*inal act is p&eceded b' cool thou!ht and
&eflection upon the &esolution to ca&&' out the c&i*inal intent.
%6
%he &eAuisites of
evident p&e*editation a&e;
". %he ti*e 1hen the accused dete&*ined to
co**it the c&i*e.
:. n act *anifestl' indicatin! that the accused
has clun! to his dete&*ination.
,. sufficient lapse of ti*e bet1een such
dete&*ination and eDecution to allo1 hi* to
&eflect upon the ci&cu*stances of his act.
%7
.e&e, these &eAuisites 1e&e not *et. %he&e 1as no evidence p&esented as to the date
and ti*e 1hen appellant planned to 8ill the victi* and his co*panion, >apchan!co.
Even if the ti*e 1hen the appellant had planned such 8illin! could be dete&*ined,
the&e is no sho1in! that f&o* such ti*e up to the ti*e 1hen the victi* and
>apchan!co passed appellant<s house in the 1ee hou&s of the *o&nin! of 7une ,,
"$$,, sufficient ti*e had elapsed to allo1 appellant to &eflect on his plan and pe&sist
in ca&&'in! it out. 6e cannot, based on the p&osecution<s evidence, sustain the
findin! of evident p&e*editation absent a conclusive sho1in! of the constitutive
ele*ents of this vital ci&cu*stance Aualif'in! the offense of *u&de&.
Neithe& can 1e sustain the findin!s of the t&ial cou&t 1ith &espect to the p&esence of
t&eache&'. %&eache&' is p&esent 1hen the offende& e*plo's *eans, *ethods, o&
fo&*s 1hich tend to di&ectl' and speciall' insu&e the eDecution of the c&i*e, 1ithout
&is8 to hi*self a&isin! f&o* the defense 1hich the offended pa&t' *i!ht *a8e.
%&
%he
essence of t&eache&' is the sudden and uneDpected attac8 b' the a!!&esso& on an
unsuspectin! victi*, dep&ivin! the latte& of an' &eal chance to defend hi*self,
the&eb', ensu&in! its co**ission 1ithout &is8 to the a!!&esso&, and 1ithout the
sli!htest p&ovocation on the pa&t of the victi*.
%9
%o be app&eciated, t&eache&' &eAui&es p&oof of the follo1in!;
". the e*plo'*ent of *eans of eDecution 1hich !ives the
pe&son assaulted no oppo&tunit' to defend hi*self o&
&etaliateE and
:. that said *eans of eDecution 1e&e delibe&atel' o&
consciousl' adopted b' the assailant.
6'
In this case, the p&osecution failed to p&ove that the *eans of attac8 used
b' the appellant 1e&e delibe&atel' adopted b' hi* to 8ill the victi*.
>apchan!co<s testi*on' sho1s that he and the victi* 9ust happened to pass
b' the house of appellant at a ti*e 1hen the latte& 1as in his balcon'. %he&e
is no sho1in! that appellant 8ne1 o& eDpected that the victi* and
>apchan!co 1ould pass b' his house at that ti*e.
In the absence of the Aualif'in! ci&cu*stances of evident p&e*editation and
t&eache&', the c&i*e co**itted is not *u&de& but onl' ho*icide.
6e no1 co*e to the last issue conce&nin! penalt'. Reclusion perpetua is
app&op&iatel' i*posed if the conviction is fo& *u&de&, but not fo& ho*icide. +nde&
&ticle :H$ of the Revised Penal Code, the applicable penalt' fo& ho*icide is onl'
reclusion te.poral.
s the&e a&e neithe& a!!&avatin! no& *iti!atin! ci&cu*stances found b' the t&ial cou&t
o& sho1n afte& a &evie1 of the &eco&ds, the penalt' in this case shall be fiDed in its
*ediu* pe&iod of reclusion te.poral, 1hich &an!es f&o* a *ini*u* of "H 'ea&s, )
*onths and " da' to a *aDi*u* of "- 'ea&s and H *onths. @u&the&, appl'in! the
Indete&*inate Sentence 0a1, the i*posable penalt' shall be 1ithin the &an!e of
prision .a7or as a .ini.u. to reclusion te.poral in its *ediu* pe&iod as the
.a9i.u.. %he &an!e of prision .a7or is f&o* 5 'ea&s and " da' to ": 'ea&s. %he
span of reclusion te.poral, *ediu*, is f&o* "H 'ea&s, ) *onths, and " da' to "-
'ea&s and H *onths.
6.ERE@ORE, the assailed decision of the Re!ional %&ial Cou&t of Cebu Cit', (&anch
"), in C&i*inal Case No. C(+-,"-,, is he&eb' MODI@IED. ppellant Raul ..
Sesb&e/o is he&eb' found ?+I0%> of .OMICIDE and he&eb' sentenced to suffe& a
p&ison te&* of $ 'ea&s and " da' of prision .a7or, as a *ini*u*, to "5 'ea&s and H
*onths of reclusion te.poral, as a *aDi*u*, 1ith accesso&' penalties p&ovided b'
la1, to inde*nif' the hei&s of the deceased 0uciano *pa&ado in the a*ount of
P#3,333.33, and to pa' the costs.
SO ORDERED.
11