ENBANC

[G.R.No.140066.October14,2002]

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,vs.EFRENVILLENA,ARNALDO
CLEMENTE, PO3 EDWIN TINIO (acquitted) and PETER DOE, accused
appellants.

DECISION
PerCuriam:

Crucialtoasuccessfulprosecutionofacriminalcaseisproofbeyondreasonabledoubt,notonly
thatacrimewascommitted,butalsothattheaccusedwhowerebroughttotrialaretrulyresponsible
foritsperpetration.Judgeshavetheobligationtoferretouttherealauthorsofthecrimeandconvict
them.Inthecaseatbar,theidentificationoftheappellantsasthemalefactorsissquarelyputinissue.
OnDecember2,1996,thefour(4)accusedwerechargedwithrobberywithhomicideunderthe
followingInformation:[1]

Thatonoraboutthe28thdayofSeptember,1996,atabout2:00oclockintheafternoon,atBarangayEstanza,
MunicipalityofLingayen,ProvinceofPangasinan,PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorable
Court,theabovenamedaccused,togetherwithPeterDoe,whosecorrectnameandidentityhasnotyetbeen
establishedandstillatlarge,conspiring,confederatingwithandmutuallyhelpingoneanother,withintentto
gain,withviolenceand/orintimidationofperson(s),didthenandthere,wilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyrob,
stealandcarryawayassortedjewelries(sic)ofthespousesHerminioOrjalo,Sr.andJosefineOrjaloworth
P50,000.00,PhilippineCurrency,tothedamageoftheownerthereofintheaforesaidsumthatbyreasonofand
ontheoccasionofthesaidrobbery,thesaidaccused,conspiringtogether,confederatingwithandmutually
helpingoneanother,withintenttokill,didthenandthere,wilfully,unlawfullyandcriminallyattack,assaultand
shootHerminioOrjelo,Sr.withtheirguns,hittinghiminthehipandthigh,therebyinflictinguponhimserious
andmortalwoundswhichwerethedirectandimmediatecauseofhisdeath,tothedamageandprejudiceofthe
heirsofsaidHerminioOrjalo,Sr.

CONTRARYTOLAW.

ThecrimeoccurredinsidetheOrjaloresidenceinbarangayEstanza,Lingayen,Pangasinan.The
prosecution witnesses testified that on September 28, 1996 at about 1:30 p.m., the spouses
JosefinaandHerminioOrjalo,Sr.werehavinglunchintheirkitchentogetherwiththeirhousemaid
Jocelyn Sinaypan, their laundrywoman Teodorica Soriano and their one and a half year old
grandsonGerry.Shortly,theyheardsomeonecalloutfromthestore,besidetheirhouse:Taopo.Tao
po.Whentheypeepedthroughthekitchenwindow,theysawthefour(4)accusedinsidethestore.
Josefina immediately proceeded to the store. When she entered, accused Peter Doe left and
posted himself outside the gate.Only the accused Villena, Tinio and Clemente remained in the
storeandallwerearmed.AccusedClementewascarryingalonggunwhilethetwohadaguntucked
intheirwaistline.Theyintroducedthemselves as CIS agents.Accused Clemente was thin, tall, with
faircomplexion,sportedalongandcurlyhairandhadalongfaceandlegs.HehandedtoJosefinaa
photocopyofawarrantofarrest.[2]HeexplainedthattheOrjaloswerechargedwithkeepingagunin
theirhouseandahugeamountofmoneythattheylenttopeopleatusuriousinterest.Shedeniedthe
allegationsbuttheaccusedinsistedonthecharges.Failingtosettlethematter,Josefinareturnedto
thekitchen,showedthewarranttoherhusbandHerminioandaskedhimtotalktotheaccused.
The talk proved to be futile. Josefina then suggested that they would go to the police station to
clear the matter but the accused refused. Josefina and Herminio returned to the house to change
clothes,followedcloselybytheaccused.
Josefina left Herminio and the accused in the living room and proceeded to their bedroom to
change clothes. Upon her return to the living room, she was surprised to see Herminio lying face
downonthefloor.Shewasimmediatelyorderedtodothesame.[3]
AccusedClemente,carryingalongfirearm,wenttothekitchenwhereJocelynwaswashingthe
dishes.HetoldJocelyn:Ning,tawagkangamomo.Pumasokkasaloob(referringtothelivingroom).
WhenJocelynreachedthelivingroom,shefoundtheOrjaloslyingonthefloor.Shewasorderedby
accused Clemente to join them.[4] Accused Clemente then saw caretaker Alfonso Soriano and
laundrywomanTeodoricanearthepigpenandbeckonedthemtogoinsidethehouse.Onceinsidethe
livingroom,theyweredirectedbyaccusedClementetojointheOrjalosandJocelynonthefloor.They
didoutoffright.[5]
One of the accused announced a holdup.Accused Tinio tapped Josefina on the leg, made her
stand up and pointed towards the masters bedroom.[6] Josefina led the way to the bedroom, with
accused Tinio and Villena following her. Accused took the pieces of jewelry they found inside the
bedroom.AccusedVillenathenimmediatelyreturnedtothelivingroom.[7]
Inthelivingroom,accusedVillenawarnedthehouseholdtobequiet.Herminiopaidnoheedto
the warning, stood up and headed for the main door. Accused Villena asked where he was going.
Herminioreplied:Sarge,wehavenofault.Wehavenotsinnedagainstyou.AccusedVillenahollered:
Balik! Dapa! but Herminio continued to open the door. Accused Villena shot him. As Herminio
continuedtostepoutofthehouse,accusedClementefiredanothershotathim.Hit on the thigh
andthehip,Herminioslumpedontheground.
Upon hearing the gunshot, accused Tinio and Josefina rushed outside the bedroom. Jocelyn,
Teodorica, Josefina and Alfonso scurried out of the house through the kitchen door. The three
accused likewise scampered away. Jocelyn and Teodorica headed to their neighbors house while
Josefinaremainedintheyard,shoutingtotheirneighborsforhelp.[8]
When Josefina returned to the sala, she saw Herminio gasping for breath. Two neighbors
respondedtohercallforsuccor.TheyofferedtobringHerminiotothehospitalintheirtricycle.[9]En
route,theychanceduponbarangaycaptainMarioNavarrowhowasthendrivinghisjeepney.Josefina
flaggeddownhisjeepneyandrequestedMarioiftheycouldtransferHerminiotohisvehicleandbring
him to the hospital. Mario acceded but they failed to reach the hospital on time. The doctors
pronounced Herminio dead on arrival. The cause of death was heart attack, precipitated by the
gunshotwoundshesustainedonthehipandleftthigh.Theautopsyrevealedthatthetrajectory
ofthebulletswasdownwardandthevictimwasshotwhilerunning.[10]
WhenJosefinareturnedtoherhouse,herhousemaidswerenolongerinsight.Shelearnedthat
theLingayenpoliceinvestigatorshadarrivedearlierandinvitedherhousehelptothestationtogive
theirstatements.Laterthatnight,Josefinawasalsofetchedbythepolicemenforinvestigation.[11]
OnOctober1,1996,thePNPprovincialcommandofLingayeninvitedJosefinaandJocelynfora
followup investigation. Josefina and Jocelyn were shown three (3) pictures and were asked
whethertheyrecognizedanyofthemen.TheypointedtothepicturesofVillenaandTinioand
identifiedthemastheculprits.Inthepicture,Villenawasshowninwhiteshirt,holdingawhite
board with the following inscription: EFREN VILLENA, ROBBERY HOLDUP, LINGAYEN,
PANGASINAN.[12]
 Afterthephotoidentification,JosefinaandJocelynexecutedasupplementalswornstatement[13]
before the Pangasinan PNP provincial command, identifying accused Tinio and Villena as the
malefactors.JocelyndeposedthatitwasTiniowhocalledforherwhileshewaswashingthedishes
inthekitchenanditwasVillenawhofiredthefirstshotatOrjalo,Sr.She,however,declaredthatshe
didnotseewhofiredthesecondshot.
On the same date, a criminal complaint[14] was filed by Mrs. Josefina Orjalo against accused
Villena, Tinio and two (2) other unidentified men, John and Peter Doe. Preliminary examination of
Josefina Orjalo was conducted by Judge Hermogenes Fernandez on October 2, 1996 to determine
probablecause.[15]
The next day, October 3, 1996, Jocelyn, Teodorica and Alfonso were brought before Judge
Fernandez for preliminary examination. Upon the judges inquiry, Teodorica and Alfonso both
declaredtheycouldnotrecognizethemalefactorsiftheyseethemagain.[16]
OnOctober23,1996,thePNPCrimeInvestigationGroup(CIG),ProvincialFieldOffice,Dagupan
City, invited Josefina, Jocelyn and Teodorica to their office for a showup identification of suspect
ARNALDO CLEMENTE. All three identified Clemente as one of the malefactors. Jocelyn claimed
Clementewastheonewhocalledherfromthekitchenandorderedhertolieproneonthelivingroom
floor.She,however,declaredthatitwasnotaccusedClementewhoshotOrjalo,Sr.butastoutman
carryingasmallhandgunwhofiredthefirstshot.[17]JosefinaidentifiedClementeasoneoftheculprits
whocarriedalongfirearmduringtheheist.[18]TeodoricaclaimedClementewasoneofthemalefactors
butshecouldnotsaywhetherhewasoneofthegunmen.[19]
On October 24, 1996, upon motion of the prosecutor, the name ofARNALDO CLEMENTE was
includedasaccusedinthecriminalcomplaintfiledbyMrs.JosefinaOrjalo.[20]OnOctober29,1996,a
secondpreliminaryexaminationofJosefinaandJocelynwasconductedbyJudgeFernandezrelative
totheiridentificationofClemente.Onthesameday,awarrantwasissuedforthearrestofaccused
ClementewhoimmediatelysurrenderedtotheCIG.
Fortheirdefense,thethree(3)accusedinsistedthattheywerenotatthesceneofthecrimeat
thetimeofitscommission.
AccusedVillenatestifiedthatonSeptember8,1996,whilewaitingforhisplacementabroadand
uponhiswifesprodding,heappliedasdriverofataxiownedbyMr.RodrigoYarisantosinSanMateo,
Rizal. His wife Juliet learned about the vacancy as she was also an employee in the shoe
manufacturingbusinessofYarisantosinSanMateo.
On September 9, 1996, he started driving the taxi of Yarisantos that was authorized to ply any
routeinLuzon.YarisantosallowedaccusedVillenaandhiswifetoresideinoneoftheroomsatthe
groundfloorofhishouseinSanMateo.
Mr.Yarisantosmaintainedalogbookthatheleftontopofhisofficetableatthegroundfloorofhis
house.HeinstructedaccusedVillenatomakeadailyentryofthedateandtimehetookoutthetaxi
andthetimeofhisarrival.AccusedVillenafollowedthisroutine.Whenhearrivedatnight,hewould
loginthetimeofhisarrivalandreturntheignitionkeytoYarisantoswhowouldthenaffixhissignature
onthelastcolumn,afteraccusedstimein.
OnSeptember28,1996,aSaturday,hedrovethetaxifrom9:00a.m.until11:30a.m.whenhe
returnedtoSanMateoforlunch.Afterrestingforawhile,heagaintookoutthetaxiat1:30p.m.He
turnedinforthenightat8:30p.m.andreturnedtheignitionkeytoYarisantos.Histimeinandoutfor
thedaywerealldulyrecordedinthelogbook.
OnOctober9,1996,accusedVillenareturnedthetaxitoSanMateoat8:30p.m.Heandhiswife
requestedMr.YarisantostolendthemhistaxiastheywouldgotoSanCarlosCity,Pangasinan,to
visittheirkidsandgivetheirallowance.Mr.Yarisantosacceded.
 TheVillenasleftthatnightandarrivedinPangasinanat3:00a.m.thenextday.Minuteslater,a
group of policemen arrived at their house and invited accused Villena for questioning for allegedly
running over a man in Marikina. He denied the charge but the policemen poked a gun at him and
handcuffedhim.HewasdetainedattheprovincialjailofLingayen.JulietVillenaimmediatelyinformed
Yarisantos about the whereabouts of her husband. Later that night, Mr. Yarisantos came over to
PangasinantoretrievehistaxifromaccusedVillena.
Daysafter,accusedVillenawastransferredtothemunicipaljail.On October14,1996, at about
9:00a.m.,jailguardArthurCruzcalledouthisnameandorderedhimtostepoutofthejailbar. He
complied.CruzthenpointedhimouttoJosefinaOrjaloandJocelynSinaypanandtoldthemhisname.
After the women left, Cruz informed accused Villena that the women were the complainants in the
caseagainsthim.
Accused Villena swore that he did not know his coaccused Clemente and Tinio as it was only
days after his arrest that he met them at the municipal jail.Contrary to the description given by the
prosecutioneyewitnesses,hehasnotsportedcurlyhair.Hisdistinguishingmarksarehisbigmoleson
the right side and middle portion of his nose, a brace on his upper teeth and scar on his forehead
whichwerenevermentionedbyanyoftheprosecutionwitnesses.[21]
AccusedClementerecountedthatonSeptember26,1996,herailingmotherVioletarequested
himtoborrowP500.00fromtheirneighborNormaGarciasotheycouldgotoManilaforhermedical
treatment.Normaaccommodatedtheirrequestforaloan.Thenextday,September27,1996,while
accusedClementeandVioletawerepackingtheirclothesandpreparingtoleave,Normacameover
theirhouseandwishedthemwell.Motherandsonthenboardedatricycle,alightedatthebusstation
and took a bus bound for Pasay.From Pasay, they proceeded to the house of accused Clementes
uncleinLasPias.
On September 28, 1996, at about 11:00 a.m., accused Clemente accompanied Violeta to the
ManilaDoctorsHospitalforcheckup.TheyreturnedtoLasPiasaboutanhourlater.
ThenexttimeNormasawaccusedClementewasonOctober2,1996whenthelatterreturnedto
theirhouseinBarangayCapandanan,Lingayen,Pangasinan.AccusedClementepaiduptheirloanto
NormaGarcia.VioletaremainedinLasPiasforfurtherconsultation.
On October 16, 1996, Amado Garcia, the husband of Norma and a member of the CIG in
Dagupan,requestedaccusedClementetoaccompanyhimtotheCIGoffice.Whentheyreachedthe
office, accused Clemente saw in the lobby Mrs. Josefina Orjalo and her sister Evelyn, Teodorica
Sorianoandtwo(2)Lingayenpolicemen.Theystayedinthelobbyforabout20minutesbeforethey
wereallbroughtinintotheofficeofCIGMajorNerez.Mrs.OrjalothenpointedtoaccusedClemente
as one of those who robbed their house and killed her husband.Teodorica, who refused to identify
him,waskickedandcoercedbyMrs.OrjalotopointtoaccusedClementeasoneofthemalefactors.
[22]

AccusedTinio,forhispart,testifiedthathewasapoliceofficerassignedatthe31stcompanyof
theRegionalMobileForcedetailedinQuezon.IntheearlymorningofSeptember28,1996,heand
hiscompanyarrivedinCampRavina,Baler,Aurora,Quezon,forcombatoperations.At about
8:00a.m.thatday,ashootingcompetitionsponsoredbyprovincialcommanderCol.Madellastarted.
Accused Tinio was assigned to pick up the empty shells that would be discharged from
Madellas firearm during the competition. The competition ended at 6:00 p.m. Accused Tinios
presenceinthecamponsaiddaywasattestedtobypolicesuperintendentOrlandoMadella,Jr.,[23]
companycommanderpoliceinspectorEufemioEspino,[24]SPO1RolandoYugtoVer,[25]P02Dionilito
Balino,[26] team leader Deodencio Mila,[27] SPO1 Eduardo Gonzales,[28] SPO1 Rogelio Jose[29] and
SPO3LoretoViernes.[30]
After trial on the merits, the court a quo found the accused guilty of robbery with homicide and
meted out the death penalty. The trial judge, however, recommended the grant of executive
clemencytotheaccusedinviewoftheirlackofintenttokillthevictim.Thedispositiveportionof
thedecision[31]reads:

WHEREFORE,inthelightoftheforegoingconsiderationstheCourtfindsthethree(3)accusedEFREN
VILLENA,EDWINTINIOandARNALDOCLEMENTE,guiltybeyondreasonabledoubt,oftheoffenseof
RobberywithHomicide,withwhichtheyarechargedandpursuanttotheprovisionsofArticle294ofthe
RevisedPenalCodeasamendedbySections9and23ofRepublicActNo.7659,thisCourtimposesuponthe
saidaccusedtheDeathPenalty.Furthermore,theyareherebyorderedtopaysolidarilythefollowingamounts:

1.IndemnitytotheheirsofthedeceasedintheamountofP50,000.00

2.TheamountofP50,000.00representingthevalueofthejewelries(sic)whichtheystolefromtheoffended
parties

3.TheamountofP45,000.00asactualdamagesincurredasexpensesduringthewakeandthe45thdaynovena
prayer

4.TheamountofP23,000.00asFuneralExpensesincludingthecostofthecemeterylot

5.MoraldamagesintheamountofP100,000.00

6.AttorneysfeesintheamountofP20,000.00plusappearancefeesinthetotalamountofP15,000.00,

withoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvency.

Theaccusedarealsoorderedtopaythecostsofthissuit.

SOORDERED.

xxx

RECOMMENDATION

Inthelightofthecircumstancessurroundingthiscase,itisourconsideredopinionthatthedegreeofmalice
behindthefeloniousactsofthethreeaccuseddoesnotwarranttheimpositionofthestiffpenaltyofDeath
whichweareconstrainedtometeoutunderthelaw.WethereforerecommendexecutiveclemencytoHis
Excellency,thePresidentoftheRepublicofthePhilippinestotheendthatjusticemaybetemperedwithmercy.
xxx[32]

Afterlearningaboutthecase,oneJoeyCabagnot,shockedatthesentenceimposedonaccused
Tinio, came out in the open and informed Tinios relatives that he has videotapes of the shooting
competitionwhereaccusedTiniowaspresent.Consequently,accusedTiniofiledamotionfornew
trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. He adduced in court two (2) videotapes
coveringtheshootingcompetitioninBaler,Quezon,onSeptember28,1996.
Atthehearingonthemotion,JoeyCabagnot,aparticipantintheshootingcompetitioninCamp
Ravina, Quezon, testified that he requested his friend Nelianto Bihasa, to cover on videotape the
shooting competition. Cabagnot ultimately won first place in the shooting competition that was
attended, as shown in the first videotape, by the governor of Quezon, a provincial prosecutor, a
municipal councilor, Col. Orlando Madella, JudgeArmando Yangga and the parish priest of Aurora,
Baler, among others. Likewise shown in the tape were the banner and trophies for the winning
participants where the name of the shooting competition and the date it was held were printed and
engraved.CrucialtoaccusedTiniosmotionwereseveralportionsofthesecondvideotapecapturing
his image and establishing his presence in the shooting competition. When the second videotape,
whichwasshotintheafternoon,wasplayed,itregisteredthedateSeptember28,1996andthetime.
From 2:13 p.m. until 5:58 p.m, the image of accused Tinio appeared in the videotape at various
stagesofthecompetition.[33]
NBIexpertEngineer Viannie Libanwasorderedbythe trial court to check and determine the
authenticityofthevideotapes.Heexaminedthevideotapesframebyframeandfoundthattheywere
not tampered or spliced and the events were recorded continuously on the same day. The second
videotape showing the face of accused Tinio bore the date September 28, 1996 and the time of
coverage in the afternoon was likewise reflected from the beginning until the end of the tape. Engr.
Libanalsoexaminedthevideocamerausedandfoundthatthesettingofthetimeanddatemaybe
doneonlybeforeanactualrecordingismade.Heemphasizedthatthedateandtimecouldnolonger
beinsertedorsuperimposedonavideotapethatalreadycontainedarecording.[34]
Onthebasisofthenewevidencepresented,thetrialcourtacquittedaccusedTinio.[35]
IntheautomaticreviewbeforethisCourt,appellantsVillenaandClementelikewiseprayfortheir
acquittal,raisingandarguingthefollowingissuesinsupportoftheirappeal:
I

THECOURTAQUOERREDINCONVICTINGACCUSEDAPPELLANTSOFTHECRIMECHARGED
INTHEINFORMATIONDESPITETHEFAILUREOFTHEPROSECUTIONWITNESSESTOIDENTIFY
THEMPOSITIVELY,CATEGORICALLYANDCONSISTENTLYMAKINGTHEIRTESTIMONIES
INCREDIBLE,THUS,INSUFFICIENTTOCONVICT.
II

THECOURTAQUOERREDINCONCLUDINGTHATACCUSEDAPPELLANTSDEFENSEOFALIBI
CANNOTPREVAILOVERTHESAIDIDENTIFICATIONMADEBYTHEPROSECUTIONWITNESSES.

After a painstaking review of the records, we affirm the conviction of appellant Clemente but
acquitappellantVillena.
Eyewitness identification is often decisive of the conviction or acquittal of an accused.
Identificationofanaccusedthroughmugshotsisoneoftheestablishedproceduresinpinningdown
criminals.[36] However, to avoid charges of impermissible suggestion, there should be nothing in the
photograph that would focus attention on a single person.[37] In the case at bar, when prosecution
witnesses Josephine and Jocelyn were shown three (3) pictures during the October 1, 1996
investigation,theypointedtothepictureofappellantVillenaasoneofthemalefactors.However, his
mug shot conspicuously showed him holding up a board with the following markings: EFREN
VILLENA, ROBBERY HOLDUP, LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN. Clearly, the picture is conducive to
mistakenidentificationasitwasundulysuggestiveofasimilarcrimecommittedinthesameplacefor
which the witnesses were undergoing investigation. Appellant Villena, among others, was charged
withrobberywithhomicide.Theprosecutionalsoestablishedthatthemalefactorsannouncedahold
up before the actual robbery in the Orjalos residence in Lingayen, Pangasinan.The identification of
appellantVillenaisfraughtwithahighdegreeofsuggestiveinfluenceandisimpermissible.
In the case of appellant Clemente, however, we find that his complicity in the crime was
establishedbytheprosecutionbeyondmoralcertainty.Appellantszeroedinonsomeinconsistencies
in the statement and court testimonies of prosecution witnesses Jocelyn and Teodorica relative to
appellantClementesparticipationintheheist.Theylikewisearguethatastheprosecutionwitnesses
erred in unanimously pointing to appellant Tinio as one of the malefactors, the latter having been
subsequently acquitted by the trial court on new trial, their misidentification of Tinio eroded their
credibilityaseyewitnesses.
Wedonotagree.Tobesure,thetrialcourtcorrectlyruledthattheallegedinconsistenciesinthe
statementsofprosecutionwitnessesJocelynandTeodoricaduringthepoliceinvestigationandatthe
trialreferonlytominorpoints.WhetherornotitwasappellantClementewhofetchedJocelynfromthe
kitchen at the time of the heist and whether or not he was one of those who fired at the victim are
inconsequential. These statements do not go into the elements of the crime or the identification of
appellantClementeasoneoftheperpetratorsofthecrime.Thefactremainsthathisverypresencein
thecrimescenewaspositivelyestablishedbytheeyeballaccountoftheseprosecutionwitnesses.It
bears stress that in case of conflict between an affidavit and a testimony of a witness in court, the
latter commands greater weight.[38] Courts take judicial notice of the fact that an affidavit does not
purporttocontainacompletenarrationoffacts.Court testimonies, on the other hand, are generally
viewed as more reliable as they are subjected to extensive crossexamination from the opposing
counselandincisivequeriesfromthetrialjudge.Moreover,grantingarguendothattheinconsistencies
inthedeclarationsofJocelynandTeodoricaarematerialastoaffecttheircredibility,thedeclarations
of the widow, Josefina Orjalo, at the police investigation and during the trial implicating
appellant Clemente remain unshaken and consistent. She identified appellant Clemente as the
onewhohandedtoherthewarrantofarrestanddetailedhisparticipationintheheist.
The fact that accused Tinio was subsequently acquitted by the trial court on the basis of newly
discoveredevidencecannotbeinvokedbyappellantClementeinhisfavor.Thevideotapespresented
byaccusedTinioarepersonaltohimastheysupporthisalibi.AppellantClemente,ontheotherhand,
failedtoofferadditionalevidencetobolsterhisselfservingdefense.Hisexactwhereaboutsonsaid
dateandtimewasconfirmedonlybyhismother.Hertestimonymustbetakenwithagrainofsalt.
Bethatasitmay,wefinditapropostoreiteratetheobservationofthetrialcourtthattheactionsof
themalefactorsinperpetratingthecrimeatbardonotappeartoinvolveahighdegreeofmaliceasto
warranttheimpositionofthedeathpenalty.Itmaybededucedfromtherecordsthatthemalefactors,
including appellant Clemente, intended only to rob the victims.Herminio Orjalo, Sr. was shot as he
attemptedtorunaway.Thegunshotwoundshesustainedwereonhishipandthighandthetrajectory
ofthebulletsweredownward.Hiswoundsareclearlynonfatalashisimmediatecauseofdeathwas
cardiacarrest.Moreover,asthetrialcourtobserved,therewasnothingthatcouldhavepreventedthe
malefactors from killing all the eyewitnesses present in the house ensure their ultimate escape and
freedom. Instead, after the shots were fired, the malefactors scampered away and decided to just
leavethesceneofthecrime.
INVIEWWHEREOF,theappealedDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofLingayen,Pangasinan,
Branch 39, convicting appellant EFREN VILLENA in Criminal Case No. L5561 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and a new one entered ACQUITTING him of the crime charged. The Director of the
BureauofPrisonsisorderedtoimmediatelyreleaseappellantVillenafromcustodyunlessheisbeing
held for some other lawful cause. On the other hand, the same Decision convicting appellant
ARNALDOCLEMENTEisAFFIRMED.[39]Nocosts.
InaccordancewithArticle83oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbySection25ofRepublic
ActNo.7659,uponfinalityofthisdecision,lettherecordsofthesecasesbeforwardedtotheOfficeof
thePresidentforpossibleexerciseofexecutiveclemency.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, SandovalGutierrez, Corona, CarpioMorales, and
Callejo,Sr.,JJ.,concur.
Bellosillo,Mendoza, Quisumbing, YnaresSantiago, Carpio,andAustriaMartinez, JJ., on official
leave.

[1]
Rollo,pp.1213.

[2]
Thearrestwarrant,purportedlyissuedbyJudgePanis,RTCofPasig,waslateronconfirmedtobespurious.

[3]
TSN,JosefinaOrjalo,March24,1997,pp.6578TSN,JocelynSinaypan,February4,1997,pp.311TSN,Teodorica
Soriano,March18,1997,pp.1519.

[4]
TSN,JocelynSinaypan,February4,1997,pp.1213.

[5]
TSN,TeodoricaSoriano,March18,1997,pp.2022.

[6]
Ibid.,p.15.

[7]
TSN,JosefinaOrjalo,March24,1997,pp.7982TSN,TeodoricaSoriano,March18,1997,p.38.

[8]
TSN,JocelynSinaypan,February4,1997,pp.1718TSN,TeodoricaSoriano,March24,1997,pp.2325TSN,Josefina
Orjalo,March24,1997,p.83.

[9]
TSN,JosefinaOrjalo,March24,1997,p.84.

[10]
TSN,Dr.JoseRosario,April8,1997,Pp.313.

[11]
TSN,SPO1FranciscoBaniqued,investigatorattheLingayenpolicestation,March24,1997,pp.59,23&35.

[12]
TSN,JosefinaOrjalo,March24,1997,pp.105106,110112.

[13]
OriginalRecords,pp.4&7,respectively.

[14]
Ibid.,p.1.

[15]
TranscriptoftheOctober2,1996preliminaryexaminationOriginalRecords,pp.1214.

[16]
TranscriptoftheOctober3,1996preliminaryexaminationOriginalRecords,pp.1516.

[17]
SwornStatement,datedOctober23,1996,ofJocelynSinaypanbeforetheCIGOfficeOriginalRecords,p.29.

[18]
SwornStatementdatedOctober23,1996ofJosefinaOrjaloOriginalRecords,p.31.

[19]
SwornStatementdatedOctober23,1996ofTeodoricaSorianoOriginalRecords,p.33.

[20]
Ibid.,p.34.

[21]
TSN,EfrenVillena,May5,1997,pp.3059,May6,1997TSN,pp.615TSN,JulietVillena,May5,1997,pp.425
TSN,RodrigoYarisantos,April21,1997,pp.520.

[22]
July22,1997TSN,pp.259.HistestimonywascorroboratedinrelevantportionsbyNormaGarcia,July10and15,
1997TSN,pp.315and321,respectivelyaccusedsbrotherArielClementewhoobtainedthemedicalcertificaterelativeto
theirmothersmedicalconsultationonsaiddate,August5,1997TSN,pp.217,andbyVioletaClemente,July28,1997
TSN,pp.234.

[23]
July3,1997TSN,pp.343.

[24]
May7,1997TSN,pp.2753.

[25]
Asadministrativeofficer,hisdutywastocheckthedailyattendanceofthecompanymembers.Hesubmittedhisdaily
attendancerecordshowingthatonSeptember28,1996,accusedTiniowaspresentinCampBalerMay6,1997TSN,pp.
1941.

[26]
HebelongedtothesamecompanyasaccusedTinioandwaslikewisepresentduringtheshootingcompetitionMay7,
1997TSN,pp.319.

[27]
TeamLeaderofTeam4,RegionalMobileGroupIII,towhichaccusedTiniobelongedMay28,1997TSN,pp.338.

[28]
June2,1997TSN,pp.223.

[29]
June9,1997TSN,p.323.

[30]
June16,1997TSN,pp.323.

[31]
PennedbyJudgeEugenioG.Ramos,RegionalTrialCourt,FirstJudicialRegion,Branch39,Lingayen,Pangasinan
Rollo,pp.61114.

[32]
Ibid.,p.110.

[33]
TSN,NeliantoC.Bihasa,July21,1998,pp.338.

[34]
TSN,ViannieLiban,November26,1998,pp.1415andDecember10,1998TSN,pp.1617.

[35]
Resolution,datedJune7,1999Rollo,pp.115136.

[36]
TheotherusualnonscientificmethodsarebylineupsandshowupsSeeDelCarmen,CriminalProcedure,Lawand
Practice,3rdedition,pp.340344.

[37]
DelCarmen,LawandPractice,3rdedition,p.346.

[38]
Peoplevs.Ponayo,235SCRA226(1994).

[39] Three members of the Court maintain their position that Republic Act No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes the death
penalty, is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the Court, by majority vote, that the law is
constitutionalandthedeathpenaltyshouldbeaccordinglyimposed.