You are on page 1of 2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ROLUSAPE SABALONES alias Roling, ARTEMIO


TIMOTEO BERONGA, TEODULO ALEGARBES and EUFEMIO CABANERO, accused, ROLUSAPE
SABALONES alias Roling and ARTEMIO TIMOTEO BERONGA, accused-appellants.| 31 August 1998| J.
Panganiban

Procedural History:
The RTC convicted Rolusape Sabalones and Timoteo Beronga of 2 counts of murder and 3 counts of
frustrated murder. Penalty for murder: 14yrs 8mos 1 day -17yrs 4mos 1day, indemnity of 50,000;
Penalty for frustrated murder: 8 yrs - 14yrs 8mos, indemnity of 20,000
Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Penalty for murder: reclusion
perpetua; Penalty for frustrated murder: 10yrs-17yrs 4mos; Indemnity affirmed
o Case elevated to Supreme Court for review
Facts: (from testimony of Edwin Santos, a survivor)

Edwin Santos went to a small gathering at the house of Maj. Tiempo. He saw that the accused were also there.
Together with Nelson Tiempo, who was at the wheel, Rogelio Presores, Rogelio Oliveros and Junior Villoria,
they drove to the residence of Stephen Lim at Mansueto Compound, Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu upon request of
Lim.

Edwin Santos, Glenn Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Alfredo Nardo (driver) also went riding in an owner-type jeep, in
order to bring back the group [as] soon as the car of Mr. Lim was parked in his home.

The two vehicles traveled in convoy with the jeep 3 to 4 meters ahead of the car. When they arrived at the gate
of the house of Stephen Lim, they were met with a sudden burst of gunfire.

Edwin Santos looked at the direction where the gunfire came, and saw [the] persons [who] fired at the jeep. He
identified accused, Teodulo Alegarbes, Rolusape Sabalones and Timoteo Beronga as the persons who fired at
the vehicle.

Santos immediately informed Maj. Tiempo of the incident and the victims were brought to the hospital.

Contention of the People: Prosecution witnesses Edwin Santos and Rogelio Presores testified about the
shooting and identified the faces of the accused. Presores was riding in the car that is behind the jeep. He
positively identified Sabalones as one of the gunmen. When the gunmen fired at the car, driver Nelson Tiempo
immediately maneuvered and arrived at Major Juan Tiempos house from which they have escaped death.

Contention of the Accused: Accused-appellants Sabalones and Beronga denied their presence during the
commission of the crime. Sabalones presented numerous witnesses who stated that he was sound asleep when
the incident took place [since he got tired watching over his brothers wake]. While Beronga testified that he
attended a cock-derby in Cebu, and was fetched by his wife at 7 pm, arrived home by 10:30 pm to sleep.
Sabalones even escaped from place to place to flee from the wrath of Maj. Juan Tiempo, the father of the two
victims. The defense even pointed out errors from the testimonies of the witnesses arguing that the place where
the incident happened is dim and not lighted.

Issues: (1) WON the prosecution witnesses and evidences are credible. (2) WON the alibis are acceptable. (3)
WON correct penalty was imposed.

Prosecution witnesses and evidences are credible.

RTC findings were binding to court with appreciated testimonies of two witnesses. There was positive
identification by survivors who saw them when they peered during lulls in gunfire. The place was well-lit,
whether from post of cars headlights. The extrajudicial confession has no bearing because the conviction was
based on positive identification. It is binding though to the co-accused because it is used as circumstantial
evidence corroborated by one witness. The inconsistencies are minor and inconsequential which strengthen
credibility of testimony.

Aberratio Ictus ( Mistake of blow)

Appellants likewise accuse the trial court of engaging in conjecture in ruling that there was aberratio ictus in
this case.
This allegation does not advance the cause of the appellants. It must be stressed that the trial court relied on
the concept of aberratio ictus to explain why the appellants staged the ambush, not to prove that appellants
did in fact commit the crimes. Even assuming that the trial court did err in explaining the motive of the
appellants, this does not detract from its findings, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals and sustained by this
Court in the discussion above, that the guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In any event, the trial court was not engaging in conjecture in so ruling. The conclusion of the trial court and
the Court of Appeals that the appellants killed the wrong persons was based on the extrajudicial statement of
Appellant Beronga and the testimony of Jennifer Binghoy. These pieces of evidence sufficiently show that
appellants believed that they were suspected of having killed the recently slain Nabing Velez, and
that they expected his group to retaliate against them. Hence, upon the arrival of the victims vehicles
which they mistook to be carrying the avenging men of Nabing Velez, appellants opened fire. Nonetheless,
the fact that they were mistaken does not diminish their culpability. The Court has held that
mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in on
his intended victim
The case is better characterized as error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victims, rather
than aberratio ictus which means mistake in the blow, characterized by aiming at one but hitting the other due
to imprecision in the blow.

Alibis not acceptable.


It was still quite near the crime scene. It is overruled by positive identification. Using the case of People v.
Nescio, Alibi is not credible when the accused-appellant is only a short distance from the scene of the crime.
Furthermore, flight indicates guilt.

Correct penalty not imposed.


Under Article 248 of the RPC, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period, to death.
There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, aside from the qualifying circumstance of treachery,
the appellate court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua for murder. The CA erred in computing the
penalty for each of the three counts of frustrated murder. Under Article 50 of the RPC, the penalty for
frustrated felony is next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony because there
are no mitigating or aggravating conspiracy between the two accused..

Also there was a presence of treachery, because of the circumstances that the crime was done at night time and
that the accused hid themselves among the bamboo. Evident premeditation is also an aggravating circumstance
[the accused had planned to kill the victim some days before].
Supreme Court Judgment: Decision is affirmed. Penalty is modified.
Murder: Reclusion perpetua; indemnity of 50,000
Frustrated Murder: 8yrs-14yrs 8mos; indemnity to be paid should be the actual damages (hospital bills)

You might also like