PEOPLE v.

ROMEO MENDOZA Y REYES

Facts of the case

"That on or about the 29th day of May 1991, in the municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines,
a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above- named accused, armed with gun and
knives, conspiring and confederating together with one alias Jack whose true identity and present
whereabouts is still unknown, and mutually helping and aiding one another with intent to gain and by
means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
rob and divest one Glory Oropeo of cash money amounting to P3 0.00, while the said victim was aboard
a passenger jeep, cruising along Aurora Blvd., San Juan, Metro Manila, which is a Philippine Highway, to
the damage and prejudice of the owner thereof, in the aforementioned amount of P30.00; that on the
occasion of said robbery (hold-up) and for the purpose of enabling them to take, rob and carry away
personal belongings of all passengers in pursuance of their criminal act said accused, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the passengers
(sic) of said passenger jeep, one Ramilyn Zulueta by then and there hitting her head with a gun and
kicked (sic) her out of the passenger jeep which caused her to fall in (sic) the pavement hitting her head
on the ground, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal injuries which directly caused her death, while
Ma. Grace Zulueta, punching her face and hitting her head with a gun, as a result of which said Ma.
Grace Zulueta sustained physical injuries which required medical attendance for a period of less than
nine (9) days and incapacitated her from performing her customary labor for the same period of time.

Issue

"In the service of their sentence, the accused shall be credited in full with the period of their preventive
imprisonment.

The Court's Ruling

This appeal hinges primarily on the issue of credibility of witnesses. As this Court has ruled in
innumerable cases, the trial court is best equipped to make the assessment on said issue and therefore,
its factual findings are generally not disturbed on appeal unless the court a quo is perceived to have
overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted certain facts or circumstances of weight, which, if
properly considered, would affect the result of the case and warrant a reversal of the decision involved.
[29]
 We do not find in the instant case any such reason to depart from said general principle.
Nevertheless, in the interest of substantial justice, we shall confront the issues raised herein by the
appellants.

Appellants allege the following "inconsistent" testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses: (a) Grace
testified that it was Rejali who shouted "hold-up," pulled out a gun and fired, in contradiction to Glory's
testimony that the man in front of her, referring to Jack, announced the hold-up, and (b) at the direct
examination, Grace pointed out that she was struck behind her right ear but during cross-examination,
she said that she was hit on the left ear.

The first inconsistency may be attributed to the difference in the relative positions of Grace and Glory
inside the jeepney. Grace was seated near the rear entrance of the jeepney while Glory was behind the
driver. Because Grace was far from both Jack and Rejali who were seated near Glory, this could have
affected her perception of who announced the hold-up. At any rate, such disparity in their testimonies
does not at all derail the sufficiently established fact that both appellants herein participated in the hold-
up. As regards the injuries sustained by Grace, the certificate issued by her attending physician, Dr.
Sosepatro Aguila, states that she sustained injuries on both sides of the head, [30] clearly showing no
"contradictions" in her testimony with respect to where she was hit.

Be that as it may, these "inconsistencies" or "contradictions" are minor ones which do not have any
material, bearing on the culpability of the appellants as they do not in any way refute their positive
identification by the two eyewitnesses as the perpetrators of the hold-up. [31] On the contrary, they
reflect the truthfulness of the testimonies of Grace and Glory. As this Court said in People vs. Retuta:[32]

"The discrepancy signifies that the two witnesses did not deliberately pervert the truth in their
narrations. The discordance in their testimonies on minor matters heightens their credibility and shows
that their testimonies were not coached or rehearsed (People v. Doria, 55 SCRA 425). As this Honorable
Court held in People v. Agudu, 137 SCRA 516 to wit:

'However, the variance, if any, is on a minor detail which would not destroy the effectiveness of their
testimony. We cannot expect absolute uniformity in every detail because witnesses react differently to
what they see and hear, depending upon their situation and state of mind. Complete uniformity in
details is a badge of untruthfulness. The light contradictions, on the other hand, strengthens the
sincerity of the testimony of the witnesses.'

"Thus, far from evidence of falsehood, the minor inconsistency between the testimonies could justifiably
be regarded as a demonstration of their good faith."

PEOPLE v. GONZALO GALAS

Facts of the case

On 23 December 1995, at around 9:00 p.m., Federico Gamayon and his 15-year old son Crisanto, who
was riding on a carabao, and 6-year old nephew Joemar, [16] who was riding on the sled, were on their
way home to Tinagong Dagat from Sandoval, Narra, Palawan, where they had sold copra to a certain
Gabileo.  When they were near the house of accused Gonzalo Galas, Federico was called by Gonzalo. 
When Federico approached Gonzalo, the latter suddenly hacked Federico with a bolo. [17] Federico fell to
the ground,[18] then accused Josue Galas, Noe Galas, Dimas Acma, and Maximo Delgado "ganged up" on
Federico, according to Crisanto;[19] or "helped each other in mauling" Federico, according to Joemar.
[20]
 Josue Galas hacked Federico with a bolo, while Noe Galas, Dimas Acma, and Maximo Delgado were
armed with pieces of wood.[21]
Federico was unable to fight back; he could not even unsheath his bolo from its scabbard. [22]

Crisanto Gamayon could not do anything to help his father because he was afraid; moreover, the
accused ran after him.[23] Crisanto ran to his uncle for help, but the latter was not in his house.
[24]
 Crisanto did not return to the crime scene until the next day [25] and after the incident was reported to
the police authorities.

Federico lay there until the next day when the police and Dr. Dominador Hubo, the municipal health
officer, arrived to transport and examine Federico's cadaver.  Dr. Hubo conducted the autopsy and his
findings are quoted verbatim:[26]

The cadaver in the state of rigor mortiz [sic] wearing red jacket and red short pants.  The cadaver is
covered with a twig and leaves of cacawate tree and a small plastic canvass in a right side double up
position.  Several blood scattered the water where he is laying and a dry place.  The cadaver is located
approximately 200 yards from the house of Mr. Galas.

Issue

Each of the accused had a different version of what transpired.

Accused Gonzalo Galas claimed that on 23 December 1985 at around 9:00 p.m., he was twenty meters
away from his house in Sandoval, Narra, Palawan, helping a baby carabao nurse from its mother.  He
was then called and challenged to a fight by Federico Gamayon, and when he approached Federico, the
latter stabbed him with a bolo.  He grabbed his bolo and used it to defend himself.  He retreated; but
Federico still hit him.  They hacked each other.  Federico fell; Gonzalo went home to ask for help to get
to the doctor.  He was brought to the doctor by Maximo Delgado and Joel Buncag.  The medical
certificate issued to him (Exhibit "1") by the doctor indicates that he was wounded on the right arm and
on the left part of his abdomen.  According to Gonzalo, nobody witnessed the fight and nobody helped
him fight Federico.  He asserted that he had no previous quarrel with Federico and that the latter was
drunk that night.[32]

On their part, accused Josue and Noe Galas declared that on the date and time Federico was killed, they
were in Tigsiapo, Apu-aporaoan, Aborlan, Palawan, which is five kilometers away from the scene of the
crime, where they were hauling palay for Sergio Gabileo.  They came to know of the incident only the
day after it happened."[33]

Accused Maximo Delgado testified that on 23 December 1985 at 9:00 p.m., he was in his house in
Tinagong Dagat, Narra, Palawan,[34] about half a kilometer away from Gonzalo's home.  He was
summoned by Gonzalo's wife and one Joel Buncag to help bring Gonzalo to the hospital.  He denied
having inflicted any injury upon Federico. [35]

Accused Dimas Akma testified that on 23 December 1985 at 9:00 p.m. he was at Sandoval, Narra,
Palawan, at the house of one Decena which is approximately three kilometers away from the scene of
the crime.  At that time they had just finished threshing palay for Sergio Gabileo and were roasting
chicken for a little get-together.[36]
The Court's Ruling

In its decision dated 23 August 1993,[40] the trial court found all the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder as charged, and rendered judgment as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby holds that the prosecution has proven the guilt of
the accused Gonzalo Galas, Noel Galas, Josue Galas, Maximo Delgado and Dimas Akma beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code for having mutually helped, connived and conspired with each other in killing the victim,
Federico Gamayon with treachery, evident premeditation and the use of superior strength.  They are,
therefore, sentenced each to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to indemnify the heirs of
the victim the sum of P150,000.00 (or P30,000.00 each accused) as actual, moral and exemplary
damages, with costs.

With this conviction that makes the accused herein maximum security prisoners, they are hereby
ordered shipped immediately to the national penitentiary, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, to serve their
sentence there.

PEOPLE v. PABLITO NANG

Facts of the case

At around 7:00 o'clock p.m. on May 16, 1990, farmer Nicanor Gonzales, his wife Epifania and six of their
eleven children, namely: Monina, Celso, Elizabeth, Basilio, Ambrosio and Ronnie were in their house at
Sitio San Pedro, Lubosan, Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur. Feeling the urge to relieve himself before going
to bed, Nicanor proceeded downstairs to the comfort room adjacent to the house. Since it was already
dark, Epifania placed a lighted gas lamp on the windowsill overlooking the toilet to illuminate the place.
[4]
 After a while, Nicanor called for his daughter Elizabeth to take her turn in using the toilet. Forthwith,
Elizabeth went downstairs and walked towards the direction of the toilet. [5]
To her surprise, she saw her father being attacked by three masked men. As Nicanor struggled with the
assailants, their T-shirt masks dropped, enabling Elizabeth to recognize them with the aid of the light
emanating from the gas lamp on the window overlooking the toilet and the scene of the crime. She
recognized the two culprits who held her father's hands as accused-appellants Sumiba Gamo and
Lumonsog Gabasan, and the third who stabbed her father, as accused Pablito Nang. Elizabeth positively
identified the three assailants because she was familiar with their faces since they used to pass by their
place.[6]
After stabbing Nicanor, the three malefactors rushed inside the house. Out of fear, Elizabeth followed
them, only to be hit on the head by Gabasan who then stood as lookout beside the stairs. [7] Having
subsequently eluded Gabasan, Elizabeth managed to reach the upper floor of the house where she saw
her mother Epifania struggling against Pablito Nang and Sumiba Gamo. [8]
Earlier Epifania Gonzales, having heard the commotion coming from the direction of the comfort room,
decided to investigate. Before she could even step out of the door, two masked men she met
immediately grabbed her by the hands and poked knives at her. In the ensuing scuffle, she was able to
pry loose their masks. Aided by the light coming from the gas lamp on the window, Epifania recognized
the two who gripped her hands as Pablito Nang and Sumiba Gamo, both of whom were then armed with
hunting knives. She also saw Lumonsog Gabasan standing by the stairs. The three intruders were
familiar to her as Lumonsog Gabasan used to sell copra to them and buy on credit from her store. Nang
was known as "bugoy," being notorious in their community. [9]
Gabasan demanded money from Epifania who replied that they had no money. She pleaded with them
to spare her life. The two men warned her, instead, to keep quiet. But as Epifania continued to struggle
with the two, she sustained wounds on her left wrist and neck. While Pablito Nang was restraining her,
Sumiba Gamo searched their trunk, took the money in it, and told Nang about it. [10] As the three
intruders fled, one of them shouted threateningly that they would come back. After the three had left,
Epifania immediately shouted for help crying out, "Tabang mo kay gitulis me!" (Help us, we were
robbed!)
There being no immediate response to her cries for assistance, Epifania, hurriedly scampered
downstairs. As she left the house, she saw her husband Nicanor seriously wounded beside the mango
tree. When she asked him to identify his assailants, he named Pablito Nang and Sumiba Gamo and could
make no more utterance as he was choking in his own blood due to his grave condition. [11] When the
neighbors arrived, they placed the wounded Nicanor on a bench which they carried towards the road to
bring him to a doctor. Unfortunately, however, Nicanor expired after only a few minutes. [12]
When Epifania inspected the family trunk that was ransacked by the intruders, she found out that the
money consisting of paper bills and coins totalling some P500.00 were taken by the three men. [13]
The following day, Patrolman Alfren Humpa and Pfc. Ansaling Lingating conducted an investigation and
drew a sketch of the crime scene [14] which indicated the window of the Gonzales house overlooking the
toilet, the one meter distance of the toilet from the house, the four-meter distance of the toilet from
the mango tree where bloodstains were found and the distance of the house from the road where the
victim died.

Issue
The defense had an altogether different version of the occurrence. Accused-appellants Sumiba Gamo
and Lumonsog Gabasan interposed the defense of denial and alibi. In the morning of May 16, 1990, they
were hired by Lamberto Lingating Lusay to make copra at Guili-an, Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur. They
started making copra after breakfast at about 7:00 o'clock a.m. After they had finished their work at
about 4:00 o'clock p.m., they decided to go to the house of Lumonsog Gabasan in order to rest. While
there, Ernie Gandamon arrived and summoned Temie Gabasan, the brother of accused-appellant
Lumonsog Gabasan, to discuss the impending marriage between Temie and Ernie's cousin Myrna. The
father of Lumonsog Gabasan agreed to go to the house of Myrna in Sitio Guili-an, Poblacion, Lapuyan.
He was accompanied by accused-appellants Lumonsog Gabasan and Sumiba Gamo, Dugang, Temie and
Mamerto Masulog. The group brought two chickens to symbolize the plighted troth between Temie and
Myrna.
Upon arrival at their destination, accused-appellants cooked and prepared the chickens for supper, after
which a wedding covenant was forged between the father of the prospective groom and Mamerto
Masulog, the guardian of the bride-to-be. While having dinner, they heard gunshots coming from the
neighboring barangay, thereby prompting the father of accused-appellant Lumonsog and his younger
brother to go home at once out of concern for the rest of the family. Accused-appellants Lumonsog
Gabasan and Sumiba Gamo, together with Temie, stayed behind and slept at the house of Ernie that
evening. Upon waking up at 7:00 o'clock a.m., they then returned to their place of work. [17] The defense
presented Ernie Gandamon, Mamerto Masulog and Pendatun Bandatun to corroborate accused-
appellants' alibi.[18]

The Court's Ruling

"WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt accused SUMINA GAMO and
LUMONSOG GABASAN of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentences them to RECLUSION
PERPETUA or LIFE IMPRISONMENT, with all the accessory penalties prescribed by law and to return the
sum of FIVE HUNDRED (P500.00) PESOS to the heirs of victim Nicanor Gonzales which is the amount
taken by them and to pay FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS as to compensation for the death of the
victim Nicanor Gonzales to the latter's heirs without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Both
accused Sumina Gamo and Lumonsog Gabasan having been in prison since June 5, 1990, are hereby
credited FOUR-FIFTH (4/5) of such preventive imprisonment in the service of their sentence herein
imposed.

PEOPLE v. CEFERINO GUILLERMO

Facts of the case

Accused-appellant Ceferino Guillermo is a second-degree cousin of the deceased Ronnie de la Cruz.

[2]
 Before her marriage to accused-appellant, Carmen Guillermo and deceased Ronnie de la Cruz were
friends. After the marriage, accused-appellant suspected Carmen to be carrying on an illicit relationship
with Ronnie de la Cruz.[3] For this reason, accused-appellant harbored a grudge against Ronnie.  Ronnie's
father,  Eusebio de la Cruz, Sr., tried to reconcile the cousins and sought the help of Barangay Chairman
Carlos Dinamman, but their efforts were unsuccessful. [4] In fact, accused-appellant and deceased had an
altercation because  of some utterances made by the latter. [5]

To prevent a similar incident, Eusebio de la Cruz, Sr. sent his son Ronnie to live with the latter's aunt in
Tubtubob, Alfonso Lista, Ifugao.[6] The elder de la Cruz feared for the life of his son. After a year, 
however, Ronnie returned home to help  his father  tend their farm.[7]

On the evening of December 15, 1991, at around 8 o'clock, a fellowship was held in the premises of the
Pentecostal Church of Ubao, Aguinaldo, Ifugao. [8] Among those present were Ronnie de la Cruz, Eusebio
de la Cruz, Jr., Michael de la Cruz, and Jeny Bumagat.

Ronnie and Michael de la Cruz went out of the church to relieve themselves. [9] But after doing so, they
did not go back and  just remained outside.  Suddenly, accused-appellant appeared and shot Ronnie
point blank with a Garand rifle.[10] Ronnie was hit on the right breast and the upper part of his thigh.
[11]
 The two bullets which hit Ronnie also hit Michael, who was two meters behind him.  Michael was hit
on the back and the left leg.[12]

In convicting accused-appellant, the trial court relied on the testimonies of witnesses who pointed at
accused-appellant as the person who shot and killed Ronnie. The first witness, Michael  de la Cruz,
testified that Ceferino Guillermo shot Ronnie de la Cruz. [13] Another witness, Eusebio de la Cruz, Jr., also
pointed out accused-appellant as the one who shot and killed Ronnie and wounded Michael. [14]

The court also considered the testimony of Darlina Guillermo who testified that when she heard the
gunshots she ran towards the church to find out the cause of such gunshots.  On the way, she met
accused-appellant running from the church towards his house.  He had  a long gun and was followed by
his white dog. Darlina said that upon reaching the church, she found Ronnie dead on the ground. [15]

On the other hand, SPO3 Delfin Bullan testified that accused-appellant surrendered the Garand rifle
used by him in shooting Ronnie and Michael de la Cruz and that the rifle had been issued to accused-
appellant as member of the Citizen Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU). [16]

Issue

The trial court dismissed allegations that the witnesses,  Darlina Guillermo, Michael de la Cruz, and
Eusebio de la Cruz, Jr., were biased because of their relationship  to the deceased, pointing out that 
accused-appellant is likewise related to these witnesses.  The lower court said it could not find any
reason why the witnesses would falsely testify against accused-appellant.

The trial court likewise rejected accused-appellant's claim that at the time of the commission of the
crime he had to be brought home by Vicente Bilagot because he was drunk. Noting that alibi could easily
be fabricated,  the trial court stated that it does not suffice for accused-appellant merely to prove that
he was at some other place at the time of the killing but likewise that the place where he was allegedly
was so far  as to preclude the possibility that he could be at the scene of the crime at the time of the
killing. Accused-appellant failed to show this, according to the trial court, since the place where he
allegedly was at the time of the commission of the crime was only a stone's throw away from the church
where the killing took place.  Hence, it was not impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. 
Moreover, it was held that alibi could not prevail over the positive identification of accused-appellant by
the prosecution witnesses.

The Court's Ruling

AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Murder complexed with Frustrated Murder provided for and penalized by Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 6 and 48 of the same Code, and hereby sentences
him to reclusion perpetua, together with all the accessory penalties provided for by law, to pay the heirs
of Ronnie dela Cruz the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50.000.000 and EIGHTEEN THOUSAND PESOS
(P18,000.00) as actual expenses for the wake and burial of the victim, to pay Michael dela Cruz ONE
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P1,500.00) as medical expenses, incurred for his medical treatment,
without however, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.