Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

8th Judicial Region
Branch 34
Bulwagan Ng Katarungan
Tacloban City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO.

Plaintiff, 93-03-110
-versus- For: FRUSTRATED
ROGELIO MARGA, DANNY MARGA, MURDER
FELICITO BALILI, and SONNY SALVADOR
alias “SONNY CALDORA CAJEPO”
Accused.
X------------------------X
DECISION

At bar is a criminal case charging Rogelio Marga, Danny Marga, Feilicito Balili, and
Sonny Salvador alias “Sonny Caldora Cajepo” for the crime of frustrated murder.

In an Information charging all accused on March 14, 1999 reads as follows:

“That on or about 14th day of March 1999, in the City of Tacloban, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with a deadly
weapon (bolo), with intent to kill, qualified by treachery, taking advantage of superior
strength, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, and hack on RENANTE ONGUE on the
head, thereby inflicting upon said Renante Ongue a hack blow which ordinarily would
have caused the death of said Renante Ongue thus performing all the acts of execution
which should have produced the crime of murder as a consequence, but nevertheless did
not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will that is, by the timely and able
medical assistance rendered to Renante Ongue which prevented his death.”

CONTRARY TO LAW
 Upon arraignment, all accused entered their respective plea of NOT GUILTY. Thereafter,
trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented Renante Ongue, Edwin Lago, and Crispin
Botictic as its witnesses. Rogelio Marga, Danny Marga, and Felicito Balili took the witness stand
for the defense.

The prosecution did not mark any documentary evidence and manifested that the marking
will be made during the course of the trial.

On the part of the accused, the counsels did not mark any documentary evidence nor offer
any stipulation of facts.

Evidence for the prosecution.

1. Renante Ongue, the complainant, testifying on direct examination on September 17, 2002
with respect to substantiate the allegations in the Information testified that at around 8:00 p.m. of
March 13, 1999, he had a drinking session with his co-workers in Brgy. Taguiktik, San Jose,
Tacloban City. On March 14, 1999 at 3 in the morning, Ongue accompanied his co-workers to
board a jeep to their homes. Afterwards, he was suddenly held in both arms by Danny Marga and
Felicito Balili while Rogelio Marga kicked him in the stomach. Then, he was hacked by Sonny
with a long bolo or “sundang” on the head which produced a slanting wound extending to his
right eyebrow going up to his head and in the middle of his forehead. Then, the malefactors ran
away when Brgy. Tanods Edwin Lago and Crispin Botictic approached the victim and helped
him. The victim was brought to St. Paul’s Hospital where his wounds were treated and was
confined for one week. A Statement of Account dated as of March 18, 1999 issued by the Divine
World Hospital, Tacloban City amounting to P30,541.25 was submitted to the prosecution to
prove the actual damage caused (Exh. A to A-1).

However, on cross-examination, Ongue testified that he did not know the names of the
accused, only upon arrest that the names were supplied to him. He was only familiar with the
faces of all the accused. The complainant also failed to provide a Medical Certificate to prove
that he suffered injuries from the kicked blow allegedly delivered by accused Rogelio Marga.
The witness also pointed out that when he was hacked by Sonny, he was still being held by
Danny Marga and Felicito Balili.

2. Edwin Lago, second witness for the prosecution, testified on June 7, 2007 that on the day
of the incident, Lago and Butiktik were on duty as brgy. Tanods of Burayan, San Jose. Thus, the
whole incident was witnessed by them, who were posted at the corner of Burayan, leading
towards Taguiktik, 8 to 10 meters away from the victim and accused. After the incident, the
witness brought the victim to the hospital.

On cross-examination, however, the same witness testified that the one who kicked the
victim was Danny Marga, not by Rogelio Marga as alleged by the victim and contrary to what is
recorded in Lago’s Joint Affidavit. Also contrary to the testimony of the victim, the current
witness testified that after the victim was kicked, accused Rogelio Marga and Balili were not
anymore holding Ongue when Sonny hacked the victim. Crispin Botictic corroborates the
testimony of the witness.
3. The next witness of the prosecution was the attending physician of the victim to prove the
extent of the injuries suffered. To abbreviate proceeding, the Medical Certificate found on the
record, having been admitted by the defense as to its genuineness and due execution, its findings,
and the signature of the attending physician be marked as Exh. B to B-2 respectively. However,
such findings were not disclosed.

Evidence for the defense.

4. Rogelio and Danny Marga, first and third witnesses for the defense testified that they
deny the charges in the Information in which they acted in conspiracy with accused Felicito
Balili in hacking the victim to constitute the crime of frustrated murder. At 3 in the morning of
the day of the incident, after ferrying a passenger, Marga brothers entered Taguiktik, passing
through the corner of Burayan in order to buy cigarettes, but they were blocked by Ongue and
four others. Rogelio fell to the ground face down because Ongue immediately delivered punches.
Rogelio also claims that the victim was already wounded on his forehead when they encountered
him. Brgy. Tanod Lago witnessed that Rogelio got punched by Ongue but still did nothing.
When they were going home, they were held up by brgy. Tanods Lago and Boryak and were
pinpointed as the ones that hacked the victim, in which they deny such allegation.

On cross-examination, they testified that at 3 o’clock early in the morning of March 14,
1999, they walked from Paraiso to Taguiktik to buy cigarettes instead of using the motorcycle;
and that the Marga brothers did not file a complaint against Ongue when Rogelio was punched.

5. Felicito Balili, second witness for the defense, testified on October 5, 2010 that at the
time of the incident, he was sixteen (16) years old as provided in his Certificate of Live Birth
marked as Exh 1. At 3 in the morning on March 14, 1999, he was at the corner of Burayan
already going home from a birthday party. However, there was a fistfight in which Ongue was
hacked by Sonny. Balili further testified that he did not saw the accused Marga brothers during
the fistfight. Moreover, Balili was at the back of brgy. Tanods Butiktik and Lago the whole time,
but he was still pinpointed by the brgy. Tanod as one of the culprits. Thus, he was arrested by a
police officer.

On cross-examination, Balili testified that he was only an arm’s length from the back of
the brgy, tanod and the latter noticed him; that the brgy. Tanod also witnessed the fistfight in
which Sonny hacked Ongue; and that he was only implicated by brgy. Tanod Butiktik because he
did not run.

ISSUES

The case presents the following issues:

1. WON the witnesses of both counsels are credible

2. Whether or not the above-mentioned accused are guilty of the crime of frustrated
murder, qualified by treachery
 3. WON the malefactors acted in conspiracy
4. WON the complainant is entitled to recover damages from the accused due to the
injuries inflicted

Discussion

After a meticulous review of the records, the court sustains the version presented by the
prosecution. We shall now discuss the parties' arguments in seriatim.
First, the court extensively reviewed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and found
their declarations to be materially corroborated, consistent, clear and straightforward, without
any tinge of falsehood or sign of fabrication. They were subjected to lengthy and rigorous cross-
examinations, yet they stuck to their testimonies. Also, not only were the accused identified by
the prosecution eyewitnesses, the latter also testified as to their roles in the incident. It is hard to
believe that the complainant, a disinterested party who was not shown to have been moved by
improper motive, would perjure himself and falsely implicate the accused in the present case.
 Second, as to the attempt to discredit the eyewitness testimony of Brgy. Tanod Edwin Lago,
concerning who kicked the victim, must fail. The improbabilities pointed out by the defense are
too trivial to merit consideration. The counsel for the accused also allege that the prosecution
account had inconsistencies relating to the proper sequence of events after the hacking of the
victim. These, however, are minor and inconsequential flaws which strengthen, rather than
impair, the credibility of said eyewitnesses. Such harmless errors are indicative of truth, not
falsehood, and do not cast serious doubt on the veracity and reliability of complainant's
testimony.  (People vs. Sabolanes, et al, GR 123485, Aug 31, 1998)
Third, it is unlikely that brgy. Tanods of Burayan who were on duty would not do anything
upon witnessing people engaging in a fistfight. If such incompetency was true, then it is contrary
to the fact that the same brgy. Tanods would help the complainant be rushed to the hospital. The
events after the incident as testified to by witness Renante Ongue which was not controverted,
was as follows: 
Q. After these accused ran away, what if any did you do?
A. I went to the side of the street, sir because I was already wounded.
Q. And having gone to the side of the street, what happened next if any?
A. The Tanods approached me and they were the ones who helped me, sir.
Q. Do you know what the names of these tanods who approached you and helped you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you please tell the Honorable Court the names of these brgy. Tanods who
approached you and helped you?
A. Edwin Lago and one Crispin (witness cannot recall the surname)
 Q. How did these brgy. Tanods halped you?
A. They brought me to the hospital, sir.
Likewise, the contention of accused Balili of despite being at the back of the brgy. Tanod
while an alleged hacking of the victim occurred, he was still arrested because he did not run, to
wit:
Prosecutor Yee on cross-examination asked the accused:
Q. You tell the Honorable Court that you were behind the tanod while the fistfight was going
on am I correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How far were you from the brgy. Tanod?
A. About an arms length just at the back, sir.
COURT: How far were you with Ongue at that time?
A. From where I am seated up to the door of the courtroom (which counsels stipulates to be
8 to 10 meters)
PROS. YEE. You said you just one arms length away from the tanod, in your probability the
tanod notice your presence behind their back am I correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Including the tanod that pointed you as one of the participants in the melee?
A. Yes, sir.
COURT. So, the tanod that said that you are one among of those culprit was present at that
time?
A. Yes, Your honor.
COURT. And in fact that tanod was able to witness in so far as you are concerned what
happened during that fistfight?
A. Yes, Your honor.
COURT. And as a matter of fact that tanod was also was able to see how Ongue was hacked?
A. Yes, Your honor.
The court is not convinced that accused Balili’s testimony is within the realm of common
sense. If the brgy. Tanod indeed witnessed the hacking of Ongue while the accused was at his
back, it is unlikely that accused Balili be arrested.
 Fourth, the court appreciates the qualifying circumstance of treachery. There is treachery
when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure the execution of the
crime, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
The essence of treachery is the sudden, unexpected, on the person of the victim, without the
slightest provocation on the part of the latter. (People vs Repollo, GR 132130-31, May 29,
2002). 

In the present case, the attack was sudden and unexpected as the victim was suddenly held in
both arms as he was going home from a drinking session. The victim had no inkling that an
attack was forthcoming and had no opportunity to mount a defense from the kicking and,
ultimately, the hacking to his head. Thus, treachery is appreciated as a circumstance to qualify
the crime to murder.

Furthermore, abuse of superior strength attended the killing when all of the four accused held
the victim's hands, took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the
offense. However, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength cannot be
appreciated separately, it being necessarily absorbed in treachery.

Sixth, it is apparent that the malefactors acted out of a common design and, thus, in
conspiracy. It is settled that direct proof of conspiracy is not imperative and that conspiracy may
be inferred from acts of the perpetrators. As explained in People v. Amodia:
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It arises on the very instant the plotters
agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it. It
may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.
Thus, it has been held that a perpetrator's act of holding the victim's hand while another
perpetrator is striking a blow is indicative of conspiracy. (People vs. Amodia, G.R. No. 173791 -
Apr 07, 2009).
In this case, complainant testified as to the events of the incident, to wit:
Q. So, while you were proceeding home from where you accompanied Lito and other friends,
what happened if any?
A. On my way home, it was then that I was suddenly held my both arms, my left and my
right hands and I was kicked by Rogelio Marga.
xxx
Q. Who held your left hand?
A. Danny Marga
Q. And who held your right hand?
A. Felicito Balili.
Xxx
Q. After you were kicked by Danny Marga while still being held by Danny Marga and
Felicito Balili, what else happened?
 A. I was hacked by Sanny Salvador.
Xxx
Q. Now, after you were hacked once by Sonny Salvador, what happened next if any?
A. They all together ran away, they escaped, sir.
It is apparent that all four of them acted out of a common design as each of the accused took
hold of each of the victim’s arms while the other accused kicked him and was eventually hacked
by accused Sonny. From beginning until the end of the incident, all of the accused entered the
scene together and likewise left the scene together. Thus, it is indicative of a conspiracy.

Seventh, the court appreciates the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority in Balili's
favor as he was still a minor at the time of the incident. The record readily shows that Balili was
a sixteen (16) year old minor at the time of the commission of the crime on March 14, 1999. For
said reason, he must benefit from the provisions of R.A. No. 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006, as amended.

Finally, it is jurisprudentially held that when the accused intended to kill his victim, as
manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault, and his victim sustained fatal or mortal
wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime committed is frustrated
murder or frustrated homicide depending on whether or not any of the qualifying circumstances
under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code are present.55 However, if the wound/s sustained by
the victim in such a case were not fatal or mortal, then the crime committed is only attempted
murder or attempted homicide. (Palaganas vs People, GR 165483, Sep12, 2006)

Thus, the accused are guilty of attempted murder, not of frustrated murder, in Criminal
Case No. 93-03-110 for the injury sustained by Ongue. No convincing proof was offered to show
that the wound inflicted on Ongue was fatal and would have caused his death had medical help
not been provided. It is well settled that where the wounds inflicted on the victim are not
sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder, as the accused had not
performed all the acts of execution that would have brought about the victim's death.

The penalty for attempted murder is two degrees lower than that prescribed for the
consummated felony under Article 51 of the RPC. Accordingly, the imposable penalty is prision
mayor. 

WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 93-03-110, the Court finds accused Rogelio
Marga, Danny Marga, and Sonny Salvador guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Murder
defined and penalized under Article 248 in relation to Articles 6 and 51 of the Revised Penal
Code and hereby sentences each of them to the penalty of Prision Mayor. In view of the
privileged mitigating circumstance appreciated in favor of accused Felicito Balili, he is hereby
acquitted and referred to the local social welfare and development officer of the locality for the
appropriate intervention program, pursuant to the provisions of RA 9344. Accused are
each ORDERED to pay in solidum, the amount of P30,541.25 as actual damages to Renante
Ongue, who is, likewise, entitled to moral damages in the amount of P5,000.00 for the injuries
sustained by him. Also the sum of P60,000.00 as unearned income for one year at P 5,000.00 a
month for being unable to work as a car painter. Finally, the award in the amount of P20,000.00,
as exemplary damages to Ongue, is also in order considering that the crime was attended by the
qualifying circumstance of treachery.

The period during which the accused was under detention should be deducted from the
service of his sentence.

SO ORDERED

October 2, 2018, Tacloban City

ELLEN JOY D. DEBUTON

Judge

o Seems unlikely that a passenger that they do not know came to Danny’s house, woke him
up at 2:30 am and asked Danny to ferry him to V&G for P40
o Also seems unlikely that they returned the motorcycle and walked to Burayan from
Taguiktik to buy cigarettes. They passed by Burayan after ferrying the passenger or they
could have just hitch a ride to their elder brother
LAW:
Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill
another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity.
Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall
kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding
article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
Art. 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder or homicide. — The courts, in view of the
facts of the case, may impose upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime of parricide, murder
or homicide, defined and penalized in the preceding articles, a penalty lower by one degree than
that which should be imposed under the provision of Article 50.
The courts, considering the facts of the case, may likewise reduce by one degree the penalty
which under Article 51 should be imposed for an attempt to commit any of such crimes.

Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - Conspiracy and proposal to commit
felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it.

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to
some other person or persons.

Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. - Consummated felonies as well as

those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.

Republic Act No. 9344            

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND

WELFARE SYSTEM, CREATING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
COUNCIL UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at
the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the
child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt
from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with
discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act.

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.

Facts:

- He noticed that there was trouble but he did not mind it and proceeded to the highway.

- Right side is the darker side, but the left side has houses. The street was illuminated by
street lights

- They were standing by. Victim saw the accused while they were approaching him and
was able to identify them when he was held
- He was suddenly held in both arms by Danny Marga (held left hand) and Felicito Balili
(held right hand); interchanged

- Rogelio Marga came from the dark (right) side and kicked victim once in the stomach

- Sonny came from the right side because it was dark.

- Hacked by Sonny Salvdor/Sanny Caldora Cajepo/ Sanny Doe with a long bolo or
“sundang” on the head. The victim’s forehead has a slanting scar extending to his right
eyebrow going up to his head and in the middle of his forehead. It is 5 inches in length.

- They all together ran away; they escaped

- Victim went to the side of the street because already wounded

- Brgy. Tanods Edwin Lago and Crispin Botictic approached and helped him

- Victim was brought by Edwin Lago to St. Paul’s Hospital where his wounds were treated

- Victim was not with policemen when Marga brothers and Balili were arrested

- In the emergency room of the hospital,police officer made him sign an affidavit at March
14,1999 at 7am. The affidavit was already prepared and the victim only had to sign it.

- When signature was affixed, right eye was functioning and can clearly see

- Confined for one week. His medical expenses were more than P46,000

- Returned back to his job as a car painter more than a year since the incident

 Brgy. Tanod Edwin Lago was with Crispin Botictic. On the time of the incident, they
were on duty. They were posted at the corner of Burayan and the street leading towards
Taguiktik

 Saw 4 accused approaching towards the corner

 They blocked the way of Ongue after Rolly Tinapan and Gecain boarded a jeepney for
the city.

 Brgy. Tanod saw the group of the accused maltreat the victim by kicking him; they were
8-10 meters from the incident

 Rogelio and Balili were holding Ongue at that time when he was kicked

 Only Danny kicked Ongue. Sonny took out a bladed weapon and hacked Ongue using a
26-inch long bolo (including handle)
 Before bringing Ongue to the hospital, Lago saw the direction where the accused were
running to. They ran towards San Jose but were intercepted by a police officer. Crispin,
the other tanod, was there.

 Edwin Lago sent the victim to St. Paul’s Hospital

 After Ongue was boarded to the hospital, Lago immediately went back to the place of the
incident wherein 2 accused were already arrested who were pursued by Crispin Botictic.

 Crispin Botictic corroborated the testimony of Lago

EXHIBIT A- Statement of Account (March 18, 1999) issued by Divine Word Hospital.

EXHIBIT A-1- P30,541.25 as of March 18, 1999

JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF BRGY. TANODS (paragraph 4)- Rogelio kicked Ongue they
also kicked him and released him when Sonny hacked him Danilo and Rogelio kicked
Ongue ONLY DANILO KICKED HIM; Rogelio just held him (INCONSISTENT)

JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF BRGY. TANODS (paragraph 5)- tanods chased the 4 accused
after hacking Sonny

EXHIBIT B- Medical Certificate- it stipulated to defense as to the existence and due

execution and genuineness of Medical Certificate

EXHIBIT B-1- Findings of Medical certificate- proof of extent of injuries suffered

EXHIBIT B-2- Signature of the attending physician

EXHIBIT 1- Certificate of Live Birth of Felicito Balili- proves his minority

 Right eye is blurred because it was hit by hacking blow

 He knew Sonny because before, he lived at his aunt’s house as a housekeeper

 Only came to know Sonny’s name “Salvador” when he was detained, but victim was
already familiar with his face

 Monthly wage= P8,000 to P10,000 for one unit

 Average income= P5,000; no receipt of income every month because based on Job Order
Basis “Pakyaw”

 Damages sought= more than P100,000

 No document to prove that salary was P900 for the week; no receipt
 Victim was just enough tipsy. They drank 2 cases of beer with 3 people

 Did not know names or does not personally know Danny Marga, Rogelio Marga, and
Balili; only knew names when they were arrested

 Victim identified their faces since they live in the same area in San Jose

 No medical certificate due to the kick to the stomach by Rogelio

 No receipt that he paid P30,451.25 for medical fees. Only a statement of account

 All accused are residents of Brgy. Paraiso, San Jose

 Balili know Marga brothers only by face because they stayed in the same barangay.

 Sonny is only a visitor about one to two years and stayed in the same barangay. Cohaited
with a gay

o The testimony of the witness (Rogelio Marga) is offered for the purpose of denying the
charges in the Information that he acted in conspiracy with other accused, Danny Marga
and Felicito Balili in hacking the victim in this case to constitute the crime of frustrated
murder.

o Rogelio was awakened by Danny to ferry a passenger from Burayan to V & G

subdivision at 2am. Rogelio accompanied him.

o Afterwards, they returned the motorcycle to his (other) elder brother because he is going
to use it the next day

o At 3 o’clock in the morning, Marga brothers entered Taguiktik, passing through the
corner of Burayan in order to buy cigarettes.

o They were not able to buys cigarettes because they were met by Ongue and three others
who were covered by the santol tree. Rogelio was not able to see them because it was a
little dark.

o Ongue immediately delivered punches. Rogelio fell to the ground face down. When he
stood up, Ongue said, “we will see each other”.

o Ongue was already then wounded because they came to know that there was trouble at
the interior.

o They left heading towards coca-cola.

o Danny was having a conversation with Edwin Lago, the Brgy. Tanod. Rogelio
approached them.

o There were 3 Brgy. Tanods (Edwin Lago and Boryak.) They just looked or stared.

o Rogelio informed his brother that he was boxed by Ongue. The tanod overheard it. They
did not do anything.

o Marga brothers went home afterwards

o They were arrested or held up by Brgy. Tanods Lago and Boryak when they were going
to their house. Tanods alleged that the brothers are the ones who wounded Ongue.

o In fact, Rogelio was hit by the truncheon. His shirt was also torn because he refused to be
held. Their reason for resistance was because they were being accused of wounding
Santik (Ongue).

o But they were not able to do anything about it since the police officers arrived and they
pointed their guns at them.

o They were boarded in a motorcycle to the San Jose Police Station

o They were forced by the police officers to admit that they were the ones responsible for
the wounding of the victim.

o Brothers claimed that they were not the ones responsible. They do not know who h=is
responsible, only the name of Sonny.

o Only able to know Ongue during the trial. Before, Rogelio only knew Ongue’s nickname
(Santik). They sometimes meet at the billiard hall.

o Now, they know Sonny Salvador because he was also being detained

 Danilo Marga will belie the allegations of the prosecution’s witnesses, and testify what
transpired before, during, and after the alleged incident.

 At 2:30 am of March 14, 1999, he roused Rogelio from sleep in order to accompany him
in ferrying a passenger to V&G because of the fear of going alone

 They passed by Fajara. Rogelio said they passed by City Hospital (INCONSISTENT)

 Afterwards, they went back to their house. They left the motorcycle for hire since his
elder brother was going to use it to get fish at the shed
 Marga brothers proceeded to Taguiktik to buy cigarettes, which is the opposite side of
their barangay

 Along the way, Ongue blocked the way of Rogelio, who was ahead of Danny, and boxed
him.

 There were 4 persons who were with Ongue. When Rogelio was boxed, they ran away.
They also simultaneously boxed Rogelio (INCONSISTENT)

 Rogelio ran towards Danny. Latter told former that they should go home and Rogelio ran
towards home.

 Did not report the incident because brgy. Tanod Edwin Lago witnessed the incident.

 Danny asked Lago to stop Ongue but he did not

 Marga brothers were walking towards their house. When they passed the bridge, the brgy.
Tanods were there and arrested them

 Only knew of Renante Ongue at the time they were arrested

 Felicito Balili was 16 years old at the time of the incident.

 At 3am of the day of the incident, Balili was at the corner of Burayan already going
home.

 He was accompanied by more than 5 of his friends because it was the birthday of one of
his friends.

 There was a fistfight of more than 5 people. He saw Ongue was part of the fight. Ongue
had no group, he was alone.

 Did not saw Marga brothers during the fistfight

 He was at the back of the Brgy. Tanod Butiktik and Lago. They were able to witness
what happened in the fistfight

 He saw Sonny hack Ongue

 The people scampered to different directions

 Brgy. Tanod tried to run after Sonny but they were not able to overcome him. One of the
brgy tanod Butiktik pinpointed him and said, “There they are. They are one of them.”

 The only one implicated by the tanod because he was the only one who did not run.
 Balili was arrested by a police officer because at that time, there were police officers
roving.

 Did not complain when arrested because the armalite was pointed at him