SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 88189. July 9, 1996]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TIBURCIO ABALOS, accused-appellant. DECISION REGALADO, J. In this appeal, accused-appellant Tiburcio Abalos seeks absolution from the ud!ment of con"iction rendered b# the $e!ional Trial Court, %ranch &', of Catbalo!an, Samar (hich pronounced him !uilt# of the comple) crime of direct assault (ith murder in Criminal Case No* &+,&* -is ar!uments in the present appeal turn on the central .uestion of un(arranted credence alle!edl# e)tended b# the trial court to the "ersion of the criminal incident narrated b# the sole prosecution (itness* The totalit# of the e"idence adduced, ho(e"er, indubitabl# confirms appellant/ s !uilt of the offense char!ed* Accordin!l#, (e affirm* An information filed in the trial court, dated April &0, 012+, imputed the crime of direct assault (ith murder to herein appellant Tiburcio Abalos, alias 3E(et,3 (ith the alle!ations 4 3That on or about the &,th da# of 5arch, 012+, at ni!httime, in the 5unicipalit# of Catbalo!an, 6ro"ince of Samar, 6hilippines, and (ithin the urisdiction of this -onorable Court, the abo"e-named accused, (ith deliberate intent to kill, (ith treacher# and e"ident premeditation and kno(in! full# (ell that one Sofronio 7abine (as an a!ent of a person in authorit# bein! a member of the Inte!rated National 6olice (ith station at Catbalo!an, Samar, did then and there (ilfull#, unla(full# and feloniousl# attack, assault and strike said Sofronio 7abine (ith a piece of (ood, (hich said accused ha8d9 con"enientl# pro"ided himself for the purpose (hile said 6:6fc* Sofronio 7abine, a dul# appointed and .ualified member of the said IN6, (as en!a!ed in the performance of his official duties or on the occasion of such performance, that is, maintainin! peace and order durin! the baran!a# fiesta of Canlap(as, of said municipalit#, thereb# inflictin! upon him /7acerated (ound & inches parietal area ri!ht* %lood oo;in! from both ears and nose/ (hich (ound directl# caused his death* 3That in the commission of the crime, the a!!ra"atin! circumstance of nocturnit# (as present*3 <0= At his arrai!nment on >une ', 012+ appellant (ith the assistance of counsel, entered a plea of not !uilt#*<&= The trial conducted thereafter culminated in the decision <+= of the trial court on ?ebruar# +, 0121 findin! appellant !uilt# as char!ed and metin! out to him the penalt# of 3life imprisonment, (ith the accessories of the la(*3 Appellant (as like(ise ordered to indemnif# the heirs of the "ictim in the sum of 6+,,,,,*,,@ actual and compensator# dama!es in the amount of 6&,A++*,,, (ith 60B,,,,*,, as moral dama!es@ and to pa# the costs*<C= As recounted b# prosecution (itness ?elipe %asal, a farmer residin! in %aran!a# 6upua, Catbalo!an, Samar, appellant assaulted the "ictim, 6fc* Sofronio 7abine, at around 2D,, 6*5* of 5arch &,, 012+, (hich (as then the da# of the barangay fiesta celebrations in %aran!a# Canlap(as, Catbalo!an, Samar* The incident transpired near the house of appellant at the said barangay* ?elipe %asal (as then ha"in! a drinkin! session in front of the shant# of one $odulfo ?i!ueroa, >r* (hich (as situated ust a fe( meters from the residence of appellant* Accordin! to %asal, at about that time he noticed the father of appellant, 6olice 5a or Cecilio Abalos, scoldin! his emplo#ees in his transportation business for turnin! in onl# t(o hundred pesos in earnin!s for that da#* Ehile 5a or Abalos (as thus beratin! his emplo#ees, appellant arri"ed and asked his father not to scold them and to ust let them take part in the barangay festi"ities* This infuriated the elder Abalos and set off a heated ar!ument bet(een father and son* <B=

A PEOPLE ! ABALOS
Ehile the t(o (ere thus .uarrelin!, a (oman shouted 3 Justicia, boligue kami! Adi in mag-a-aringasa,3 meanin!, 36olice officer, help usF Somebod#/s makin! trouble here*3 The "ictim, 6fc* Sofronio 7abine, then appeared on the scene and asked 5a or Abalos, 3Ehat is it, sirG3 The "ictim saluted Abalos (hen the latter turned around to face him* As 5a or Abalos le"eled his carbine at 7abine, appellant hurriedl# left and procured a piece of (ood, about t(o inches thick, three inches (ide and three feet lon!, from a nearb# ?ord ?iera "ehicle* -e then s(iftl# returned and unceremoniousl# s(un! (ith that (ooden piece at 7abine from behind, hittin! the policeman at the back of the ri!ht side of his head* 7abine collapsed unconscious in a heap, and he later e)pired from the se"ere skull fracture he sustained from that blo(* ?elipe %asal and his (ife took fli!ht ri!ht after appellant struck the "ictim, fearful that the# mi!ht be hit b# possible stra# bullets<A= should a !unfi!ht ensue* Appellant/s testimon#, on the other hand, is of a different tenor* -e admits ha"in! struck 7abine (ith a piece of (ood durin! the incident in .uestion but claims that he did so in the erroneous belief that his father (as bein! attacked b# a member of the Ne( 6eople/s Arm# 8N6A9* Accordin! to appellant, he (as then seated inside their famil#-o(ned Sarao eepne# parked beside the store of $odulfo ?i!ueroa, >r* near their home in %aran!a# Canlap(as (hen he noticed a man in fati!ue uniform suddenl# accost his father* At that time, appellant/s father had ust arri"ed from a trip from Eri!ht, Samar and had ust ali!hted from his ser"ice "ehicle, a ?ord ?iera* The man tried to disarm 5a or Abalos of his firearm but the latter resisted and (hile the t(o (ere !rapplin! for possession of the !un, appellant instincti"el# (ent to the rescue of his father* -e !ot a piece of (ood from ?i!ueroa/s store (ith (hich he then clubbed 7abine (hom he did not reco!ni;e at that point* Ehen 7abine fell to the !round from the blo(, appellant immediatel# fled to %aran!a# 5ercedes nearb#, fearin! that the man had companions (ho mi!ht retaliate* Ehen he came to kno( of the identit# of his "ictim the follo(in! mornin!, he forth(ith surrendered to the authorities* <'= As mentioned at the outset, the fore!oin! "ersion of the factual antecedents as presented b# appellant (as roundl# re ected b# the lo(er court (hich found the same un(orth# of belief* Appellant ascribes re"ersible errors to the trial court 8a9 in not !i"in! credence to the e"idence adduced b# the defense, 8b9 in belie"in! the e"idence presented b# the prosecution, 8c9 in rel#in! on the prosecution/s e"idence (hich falls short of the re.uired .uantum of e"idence that (ould (arrant a con"iction@ 8d9 in findin! that treacher# attended the commission of the crime and failin! to credit in appellant/s fa"or his "oluntar# surrender@ and 8e9 in findin! appellant !uilt# be#ond reasonable doubt of the crime char!ed* <2= In the main, appellant insists that the trial court should not ha"e !i"en credence to the stor# of the lone e#e(itness for the prosecution* -e also contends that since the testimon# of that (itness bore clear traces of incredibilit#, particularl# the fact that he could not ha"e had a clear "ie( of the incident due to poor "isibilit#, the prosecution should ha"e presented as (ell the (oman (ho had called for help at the hei!ht of the incident if onl# to corroborate %asal/s narration of the e"ents* Appellant also assails as inherentl# incredible the fact that it took .uite a time for (itness ?elipe %asal to come for(ard and di"ul!e (hat he kne( to the authorities* All these, unfortunatel#, are fla(ed ar!uments* ?rom the e"idence in the case at bar, the prosecution has con"incin!l# pro"ed, throu!h the clear and positi"e testimon# of %asal, the manner in (hich the "ictim (as killed b# herein appellant* The record is bereft of an# sho(in! that said prosecution (itness (as actuated b# an# e"il moti"ation or dubious intent in testif#in! a!ainst appellant* 5oreo"er, a doctrine of lon! standin! in this urisdiction is that the testimon# of a lone e#e(itness, if credible and positi"e, is sufficient to con"ict an accused* <1= There (as thus no need, as appellant (ould (ant the prosecution to do, to present in court the (oman (ho shouted for assistance since her testimon# (ould onl# be corroborati"e in nature* The presentation of such species of e"idence in court (ould onl# be (arranted (hen there are compellin! reasons to suspect that the e#e(itness is pre"aricatin! or that his obser"ations (ere inaccurate*<0,= %esides, it is up to the 6eople to determine (ho should be presented as prosecution (itness

on the basis of its o(n assessment of the necessit# for such testimon#* <00= Also, no unreasonable dela# could e"en be attributed to ?elipe %asal considerin! that durin! the (ake for 6fc* 7abine, %asal came and intimated to the (ido( of the "ictim that he (as !oin! to testif# re!ardin! her husband/s sla#in!* <0&= Appellant/s contention that the deceased had attacked and attempted to di"est his father of his firearm is rather preposterous considerin! that no reason (as ad"anced as to (h# the deceased patrolman (ould assault a police officer of superior rank* 6arentheticall#, the condition of "isibilit# at the time of the incident (as conduci"e not onl# to the clear and positi"e identification of appellant as the "ictim/s assailant but like(ise to an actual and unobstructed "ie( of the e"ents that led to the "ictim/s "iolent death* %asal (as seated ust a fe( meters a(a# from the prota!onists (hom he all kne(, he bein! also a lon!-time resident of that municipalit#* There (as a t(el"e-foot hi!h fluorescent lamppost located alon! the road and (hich, b# appellant/s o(n reckonin!, (as ust se"enteen meters a(a# from them* <0+= Not(ithstandin! the fact that a couple of trees partl# obstructed the post, the illumination cast b# the fluorescent lamp and the nearb# houses pro"ided sufficient bri!htness for the identification of the combatants* Curiousl# enou!h, appellant/s assertion that there (as poor "isibilit# is ironicall# contradicted b# his testimon# (hich is detailed on facts that one could readil# recall after (itnessin! an e"ent in broad da#li!ht* Ehile appellant considers unbelie"able %asal/s identification of him supposedl# because of inade.uate li!htin!, he himself, under the same conditions, could clearl# see his father/s assailant (earin! a fati!ue uniform (hich (as different from that (orn b# policemen* -e e"en asserts that he sa( his father clutchin! the carbine (ith his hands holdin! the butt (hile his purported assailant held on ti!htl# to the rifle* <0C= Ehat these facts establish is that the li!hts in the area at the time of the incident (ere enou!h to afford %asal an e)cellent "ie( of the incident, contrar# to appellant/s pretense* Appellant/s testimon# is thus ne!ated b# the rule that e"idence, to be belie"ed, must ha"e been !i"en not onl# b# a credible (itness, but that the same must also be reasonabl# acceptable in itself* Appellant/s fli!ht ri!ht after he had assaulted the "ictim is also corrosi"e of his testimon#* ?or, if it (ere true that he had merel# labored under the (ron! notion that his father (as bein! attacked b# a member of the N6A, and that it (as an innocent case of error in personae, he could ha"e readil# surrendered to his father ri!ht then and there* After all, Cecilio Abalos (as a police ma or and (as the Station Commander of the Inte!rated National 6olice 8IN69 in Eri!ht, Samar* ?urther, there (as no necessit# at all for him to flee from the crime scene for fear of retaliation considerin! that he (as in the compan# of his o(n father (ho, aside from his position, (as then armed (ith a carbine* Appellant/s e)planation is, therefore, absurd and should be considered as self-ser"in! e"idence (ith no (ei!ht in la(* On the offense committed b# appellant, the trial court correctl# concluded that he should be held accountable for the comple) crime of direct assault (ith murder* There are t(o modes of committin! atentados contra la autoridad o sus agentes under Article 0C2 of the $e"ised 6enal Code* The first is not a trueatentado as it is tantamount to rebellion or sedition, e)cept that there is no public uprisin!* On the other hand the second mode is the more common (a# of committin! assault and is a!!ra"ated (hen there is a (eapon emplo#ed in the attack, or the offender is a public officer, or the offender la#s hands upon a person in authorit#*<0B= Appellant committed the second form of assault, the elements of (hich are that there must be an attack, use of force, or serious intimidation or resistance upon a person in authorit# or his a!ent@ the assault (as made (hen the said person (as performin! his duties or on the occasion of such performance@ and the accused kne( that the "ictim is a person in authorit# or his a!ent, that is, that the accused must ha"e the intention to offend, in ure or assault the offended part# as a person in authorit# or an a!ent of a person in authorit#* <0A= -ere, 7abine (as a dul# appointed member of the then IN6 in Catbalo!an, Samar and, thus, (as an a!ent of a person in authorit# pursuant to Article 0B& of the $e"ised 6enal Code, as amended* There is also no dispute that he (as in the actual performance of his duties (hen assaulted b# appellant, that is, he (as maintainin! peace and order durin! the fiesta in %aran!a# Canlap(as* Appellant himself testified that he personall# kne( 7abine to be a policeman <0'= and, in fact, 7abine (as then (earin! his uniform* These

facts should ha"e sufficientl# deterred appellant from attackin! him, and his defiant conduct clearl# demonstrates that he reall# had the criminal intent to assault and in ure an a!ent of the la(* Ehen the assault results in the killin! of that a!ent or of a person in authorit# for that matter, there arises the comple) crime of direct assault (ith murder or homicide* <02= The killin! in the instant case constituted the felon# of murder .ualified b# alevosia throu!h treacherous means deliberatel# adopted* 6fc* 7abine (as struck from behind (hile he (as bein! confronted at the same time b# appellant/s father* The e"idence sho(s that appellant deliberatel# (ent behind the "ictim (hom he then hit (ith a piece of (ood (hich he deliberatel# !ot for that purpose* Ob"iousl#, appellant resorted to such means to a"oid an# risk to himself, kno(in! full# (ell that his .uarr# (as a policeman (ho could readil# mount a defense* The a!!ra"atin! circumstances of e"ident premeditation and nocturnit#, ho(e"er, (ere not dul# pro"en, as correctl# ruled b# the court belo(* On the other hand, appellant/s "oluntar# surrender e"en if dul# taken into account b# the trial court (ould ha"e been inconse.uential* The offense is a comple) crime, the penalt# for (hich is that for the !ra"er offense, to be imposed in the ma)imum period* Considerin! that the more serious crime of murder then carried the penalt# of reclusion temporal in its ma)imum period to death, the imposable penalt# should ha"e been death* The miti!atin! circumstance, in that conte)t, (ould ha"e been una"ailin! and inapplicable since the penalt# thus imposed b# the la( is indi"isible* <01= At all e"ents, the punishment of death could not be imposed as it (ould ha"e to be reduced to reclusion perpetua due to the then e)istin! proscription a!ainst the imposition of the death penalt#*<&,= -o(e"er, the desi!nation b# the trial court of the imposable penalt# as 3life imprisonment3 is erroneous, as the same should properl# be denominated as reclusion perpetua*<&0= Also, the death indemnit# pa#able to the heirs of the "ictim, under the present urisprudential polic#, is 6B,,,,,*,,* ACCORDINGL", (ith the 5ODI?ICATION that the penalt# imposed upon accused-appellant Tiburcio Abalos should be reclusion perpetua, and that the death indemnit# is hereb# increased to 6B,,,,,*,,, the ud!ment of the court a quo in Criminal Case No* &+,& is A??I$5ED in all other respects, (ith costs a!ainst accused-appellant* SO ORDERED. Romero, Puno, Mendoza, and Torres, Jr , JJ , concur