G.R.No.188322.April11,2012.

*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee,vs. JOSEPH ASILANyTABORNAL,
accusedappellant.
RemedialLaw;CriminalProcedure;Appeals;Itisawellsettledrulethattheassessmentofthetrial
courtregardingthecredibilityofwitnesseswillgenerallynotbedisturbedonappeal;Exceptions. Itisa
wellsettledrulethattheassessmentofthetrialcourtregardingthecredibilityofwitnesseswillgenerally
notbedisturbedonappeal.Therationaleforthisdoctrineisthatthetrialcourtisinabetterpositionto
decidetheissue,asitheardthewitnessesthemselvesandobservedtheirdeportmentandmannerof
testifying during the trial. The only exceptions to this rule are the following: 1. When patent
inconsistenciesinthestatementsofwitnessesareignoredbythetrialcourt;or2.Whentheconclusions
arrivedatareclearlyunsupportedbytheevidence.
Same;Evidence;Witnesses;Witnessesarenotexpectedtoremembereverysingledetailofanincident
with perfect or total recall.The alleged inconsistency in Binosas testimony does not render his
testimonyfictitious.Thefactthathewasabletoprovidemoredetailsoftheeventsonlyduringcross
examinationisnotunusual,andonthecontrarytendstobuttress,ratherthanweaken,hiscredibility,
sinceitshowsthathewasneithercoachednorwerehisanswerscontrived.Afterall,[w]itnessesarenot
expectedtoremembereverysingledetailofanincidentwithperfectortotalrecall.AsforSanDiegos
testimony,itisnotunnaturalforhimtohaveadetailedrecollectionoftheincident.Differentpersons
havedifferentreactionstosimilarsituations.Thereisnotypicalreactiontoasuddenoccurrence.
Same; Same; Same; No standard form of behavior is expected of an individual who witnesses
somethingshockingorgruesomelikemurder.ThisCourtwouldliketoreiteratethatnostandardformof
behaviorisexpectedofanindividualwhowitnessessomethingshockingorgruesomelikemurder.Thisis
especiallytruewhenthe
_______________
*FIRSTDIVISION.
406
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
06
People vs. Asilan
assailantisnear.Itisnotunusualthatsomepeoplewouldfeelreluctantingettinginvolvedina
criminalincident.
Same;Same;Flight;Flightisindicativeofguilt,butitsconverseisnotnecessarilytrue.Inthesame
manner,itisalsonotsurprisingthatAsilanreturnedtothesceneofthecrimeafterstabbingAdovas.His
failuretofleeandtheapparentnormalcyofhisbehaviorsubsequenttothecommissionofthecrimedo
notimplyhisinnocence.ThisCourt,elucidatingonthispoint,declared:Flightisindicativeofguilt,but
itsconverseisnotnecessarilytrue.Culpritsbehavedifferentlyandevenerraticallyinexternalizingand
manifesting theirguilt.Somemayescapeor fleeacircumstancestronglyillustrativeofguiltwhile
others may remain in the same vicinity so as to create a semblance of regularity, thereby avoiding
suspicionfromothermembersofthecommunity.
CriminalLaw;Denials;Thedefenseofdenialfailsevenmorewhentheassailant,asinthiscase,was
positively identified by credible witnesses, against whom no ulterior motive could be ascribed.
Unfortunately, Asilans bare denial, when juxtaposed with the prosecution witnesses positive
declarations,isnotworthyofcredence.Denial,whichistheusualrefugeofoffenders,isaninherently
weakdefense,andmustbebuttressedbyotherpersuasiveevidenceofnonculpabilitytomeritcredibility.
Thedefenseofdenialfailsevenmorewhentheassailant,asinthiscase,waspositivelyidentifiedby
crediblewitnesses,againstwhomnoulteriormotivecouldbeascribed.
Same;Treachery;Itisbasicinourpenallawthattreacheryispresentwhentheoffenderemploys
means,methodsorformswhichtenddirectlyandespeciallytoinsuretheexecutionofthecrime,without
risktohimselfarisingfromthedefensewhichtheoffendedpartymightmake.Theprosecutionwasable
tosufficientlyestablishtheattendanceoftreacheryinthecaseatbar.Itisbasicinourpenallawthat
treachery is present when the offender employs means, methods or forms which tend directly and
especiallytoinsuretheexecutionofthecrime,withoutrisktohimselfarisingfromthedefensewhichthe
offendedpartymightmake.InPeoplev.Tan,315SCRA375(1999),thisCourtexpoundedontheconcept
of treachery as follows: The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, without the
slightestprovocationonthepartoftheperson
407
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 40
7
 People vs. Asilan
attacked. Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employingmeans,methodsorformsintheexecutionthereof,whichtenddirectlyandespeciallytoinsure
itsexecution,withoutriskarisingfromthedefensewhichtheoffendedpartymightmake.Inthecaseat
bar,theattackonMagdalinoOloswastreacherous,becausehewascaughtoffguardandwastherefore
unabletodefendhimself,astestifiedtobytheprosecutionwitnessesandasindicatedbythewounds
inflictedonhim.BotheyewitnessestestifiedonhowAsilanattackedAdovasfrombehind.Adovascould
not have defended himself because Asilan stabbed him at his back repeatedlysansprovocation or
warning.ThedecidingfactoristhatAsilansexecutionofhisattackmadeitimpossibleforAdovasto
defendhimselforretaliate.
RemedialLaw;CriminalProcedure;Information;UnderSection6,theInformationissufficientifit
contains the full name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or
omissionsconstitutingtheoffense,thenameoftheoffendedparty,theapproximatedate,andtheplaceof
theoffense.ThisCourtheldthat[u]nderSection6,theInformationissufficientifitcontainsthefull
nameoftheaccused,thedesignationoftheoffensegivenbythestatute,theactsoromissionsconstituting
theoffense,thenameoftheoffendedparty,theapproximatedate,andtheplaceoftheoffense.The
Information herein complied with these conditions. Contrary to Asilans contention, the qualifying
circumstance of treachery was specifically alleged in the Information. The rule is that qualifying
circumstances must be properly pleaded in the Information in order not to violate the accuseds
constitutionalrighttobeproperlyinformedofthenatureandcauseoftheaccusationagainsthim.Asilan
neverclaimedthathewasdeprivedofhisrighttobefullyapprisedofthenatureofthechargesagainst
himduetotheinsufficiencyoftheInformation.
CriminalLaw;Damages;LossofEarningCapacity;Factorsincomputingtheamountofdamages
recoverableforthelossofearningcapacityofthedeceased.Thefollowingarethefactorsincomputing
theamountofdamagesrecoverableforthelossofearningcapacityofthedeceased:1)Thenumberof
yearsonthebasisofwhichthedamagesshallbecomputed.Thisisbasedontheformula(2/3x80ageof
thedeceasedatthetimeofhisdeath=lifeexpectancy),whichisadoptedfromtheAmericanExpectancy
TableofMortality;and2)
408
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
08
People vs. Asilan
Therateatwhichthelossessustainedbytheheirsofthedeceasedshouldbefixed.Netincomeis
arrivedatbydeductingtheamountofthevictimslivingexpensesfromtheamountofhisgrossincome.
ThelossofearningcapacityofAsilanisthuscomputedasfollows:NetEarningCapacity=lifeexpectancy
x[grossannualincomelivingexpenses]=2/3[80ageattimeofdeath]x[grossannualincome50%of
grossannualincome]=2/3[8029]x[P103,260.00P51,630.00]=34xP51,630.00=P1,755,420.00.
APPEALfromadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellant.
LEONARDODECASTRO,J.:
This is an appeal filed by the accusedappellant Joseph AsilanyTabornal (Asilan) to
challengetheFebruary25,2009Decision1oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CR.H.C.No.
02686, which affirmedin totohis Murder conviction, rendered by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC),Branch20oftheCityofManilaonJanuary8,2007,inCriminalCaseNo.06243060.
OnMarch31,2006,AsilanwaschargedwiththecomplexcrimeofDirectAssaultwithMurder
inanInformation,2thepertinentportionofwhichreads:
ThatonoraboutMarch27,2006,intheCityofManila,Philippines,thesaidaccused,conspiring,
and confederating with another whose true name, real identity and present whereabouts are still
unknown and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
attack,assaultandusepersonal
_______________
1Rollo,pp.225;pennedbyAssociateJusticeMyrnaDimarananVidalwithAssociateJusticesMartinS.Villarama,Jr.(now
amemberofthisCourt)andRosalindaAsuncionVicente,concurring.
2Records,p.1.
409
 VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 409
People vs. Asilan
violenceuponthepersonofPO1RANDYADOVASyPECAAT,amemberofthePhilippineNational
PoliceassignedatCampBagongDiwa,Bicutan,Taguig,MM,dulyqualified,appointed,andactingas
such, and therefore an agent of a person in authority, which fact was known to the said accused,
whilePO1RANDYADOVASyPECAATwas in theperformanceofhisofficialduty,thatis,while
handcuffingtheatlargecoconspiratorforillegalpossessionofdeadlyweapon,hereinaccusedsuddenly
appearedandwithintenttokill,treacheryandevidentpremeditation,attack,assault,andusepersonal
violenceuponsaidpoliceofficerbythenandthererepeatedlystabbingthelatterwithafanknife
thengrabbinghisservicefirearmandshootinghim,therebyinflictinguponthesaidPO1RANDY
ADOVASyPECAATmortalstabandgunshotwoundswhichwerethedirectandimmediatecauseof
hisdeaththereafter.
Asilan pleaded not guilty upon his arraignment 3on April 10, 2006. PreTrial Conference
followedonApril26,2006,wherethecounselsagreedtostipulatethatAsilan,whowasatthat
timepresentintheRTC,wasthesameAsilannamedintheInformation,andthatthevictim,
PoliceOfficer1(PO1)RandyAdovasyPecaat(Adovas),wasapoliceofficerinactivedutyatthe
timeofhisdeath.4Trialonthemeritsensuedaftertheterminationofthepretrialconference.
Belowistheprosecutions version,assuccinctlysummarizedbytheOfficeoftheSolicitor
General(OSG)fromthetestimonyofJoselitoBinosa(Binosa)5:
IntheeveningofMarch27,2006,around10:00oclock,JoselitoBinosa,ajeepneybarker/carwashboy
whilechattingwithhisfriendsattheElNioBakeryalongTeresaStreet,Sta.Mesa,Manila,hearda
gunshotnearby.Hethenwenttotheplacewherethesoundcameandfromwherehewasstandingwhich
wasaboutthree(3)tofour(4)metersaway,hesawauniformedpoliceman,
_______________
3Id.,atp.4.
4Id.,atp.13.
5TSN,May31,2006,pp.130.
410
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Asilan
whoseemedtobearrestingsomeoneandorderingthelattertolayontheground.
Thepoliceofficerpushedthemantothewall,pokedthegunonhimandwasabouttohandcuffthe
latterwhenanotherman,hereinappellantAsilanarrived,drewsomethingfromhisbackandstabbedthe
policeofficeronhisbackseveraltimesuntilthelatterfelltotheground.
The man who was being arrested by the police officer held the latters hand while he was being
stabbedrepeatedlyby[Asilan].Themanwhowasbeingarrestedthentooktheofficersgunandshotthe
latterwithit.
ThefellowbarkerofJoselitoBinosathenthrewstonesatthemalefactorswhosubsequentlyleftthe
place.
JoselitoBinosasecretlyfollowed[Asilan]andhiscompanionwhowalkedtowardstherailroadtrack
takingTeresaSt.,Sta.Mesa,Manila.[Asilan]enteredanalleyandthereafterreturnedtotheplaceofthe
incident.Theothermanwalkedontothetracks.
Atthatmoment,apolicemanpassedbyandBinosapointed[Asilan]tohim.[Asilan]wasarrestedand
theknifewhichwasusedinthestabbingwasconfiscatedbythepoliceman. (Citationsomitted.)
6

TheabovenarrationofeventswaslargelycorroboratedbyPolJustineSanDiego(SanDiego),
astudent,whoalsowitnessedtheeventsthattranspiredonMarch27,2006. 7
TheprosecutionalsosubmittedasevidenceMedicoLegalReportNo.M21906, 8accomplished
andtestifiedtobyDr.VladimirV.Villaseor.ThepertinentportionoftheMedicoLegalReport
states:
SPECIMENSUBMITTED:
CadaverofRandyPecaatAdovas,29y/omale,married,apoliceman,167cminheightandaresident
of19WestBankRoad,Floodway,RosarioPasigCity.
_______________
6CARollo,pp.155156.
7TSN,June14,2006,pp.110.
8FolderofExhibits,p.25.
411
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 411
People vs. Asilan
PURPOSEOFLABORATORYEXAMINATION:
Todeterminethecauseofdeath.
FINDINGS:
Bodybelongstoafairlynourished,fairlydevelopedmalecadaverinrigormortiswithpostmortem
lividityatthedependentportionsofthebody.Conjunctivae,lipsandnailbedsarepale.Withexploratory
laparotomyincisionattheanteriorabdominalwall,measuring29cmlong,alongtheanteriormidline.
Trunk&UpperExtremity:
1)Stabwound,rightaxillaryregion,measuring6x4cm,16cmfromtheanteriormidline.
2)Stab wound, right hypochondriac region, measuring 2.3 x 0.7 cm, 2cm right of the anterior
midline,9cmdeep,directedposteriorwards,downwards&medialwards,laceratingtherightlobeofthe
liver.
over
CONCLUSION:
Cause of death is MULTIPLE STAB WOUNDS & GUNSHOT WOUND OF THE TRUNK AND
UPPEREXTREMITIES.
Meanwhile,Asilan,inhisAppellantsBrief,9summeduphisdefenseasfollows:
On March 27, 2006, at around 10:00 oclock p.m.JOSEPH ASILAN[Asilan] was on board a
passengerjeepneyonhiswaytoMandaluyong.Ashehadtotransfertoanotherjeepney,[Asilan]alighted
atOldSta.MesaandwaitedforajeepboundforPasigCity.Suddenly,three(3)motorcyclesstoppedin
frontofhim,thepassengersofwhichapproachedandfriskedhim.Hewasthereafterbroughttothepolice
stationandinasmallroom,hewasforcedtoadmittothestabbingofapoliceofficer.Thereafter,hewas
broughttoanearbyhospitalandwasmedicallyexamined.Thenhewasagaintakentothepolicestation
wherehewasconfrontedwiththeknifewhichwasallegedlyusedinstabbingPO1Adovas.Hewas
_______________
9CARollo,pp.92112.
412
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Asilan
mauledforrefusingtoconfesstothestabbingofthesaidpoliceman.Afterwards,hewaspresentedto
alleged eyewitnesses. However, the supposed eyewitnesses were not the ones presented by the
prosecutionincourt. 10

TheRTCconvictedAsilanofMurderinitsDecision 11datedJanuary8,2007,thedispositive
portionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theCourtfindstheProsecutiontohavefailedtoestablishand
provebeyondreasonabledoubttheoffenseofdirectassault.Whereacomplexcrimeischargedandthe
evidencefailstosupportthechargeastooneofthecomponent,theaccusedcanbeconvictedoftheother
(Peoplev.Roma,374SCRA457).
WHEREFORE,hisguilthavingbeenprovenbeyondreasonabledoubtforthecrimeofmurderwith
the qualifying circumstance of treachery, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Joseph
AsilanyTabornalGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofmurderandisherebyimposedthe
penaltyofreclusionperpetua.HeisherebyorderedtopaytheheirsofPO1RandyAdovasyPeCaatthe
sumofP84,224.00asactualdamages,P25,000.00formoraldamagesandP50,000.00civilindemnity. 12

TheRTC,inacquittingAsilanofDirectAssault,heldthatwhileitwasconfirmedthatAdovas
wasinhispoliceuniformatthetimeofhisdeath,theprosecutionfailedtoestablishconvincingly
thathewasintheperformanceofhisdutywhenhewasassaultedbyAsilan.TheRTCexplained
thattherewas noevidence toshowthat Adovas was arrestingsomebodyatthetimeAsilan
stabbedhim.13TheRTCadded:
Whattheframersofthelawwantedwastoknowthereasonoftheassaultuponapersoninauthority
orhisagents.Theprosecutionfailedtoshowwhythevictimwaspushingthemanonthewallorwhyhe
pokedhisgunatthelatter.Thatthevictimwasassaulted
_______________
10Id.,atpp.9798.
11Records,pp.7695.
12Id.,atpp.9495.
13Id.,atp.91.
413
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 413
People vs. Asilan
whileintheperformanceofhisdutyorbyreasonthereofwasnotconclusivelyproven. 14
 InconvictingAsilanofMurder,theRTCheldthathisdefenseofdenialcouldnotbeaccorded
moreweightthanthecategoricalassertionsofthewitnesseswhopositivelyidentifiedhimasthe
manwhosuddenlyappearedfrombehind[Adovas]andstabbedthelatterrepeatedly. 15Moreover,
Asilanadmittedthathewasatthesceneofthecrimewhenhewasarrested,thathecouldnot
giveanyreasonforthewitnessestofalselytestifyagainsthim,andthathedidnotknowthem.
Anenttheaggravatingcircumstances,theRTCfoundthatthekillingofAdovaswasprovento
be attended with treachery since Adovas was attacked from behind, depriving him of the
opportunitytodefendhimself.16However,theRTCdeclaredthattheaggravatingcircumstanceof
evidentpremeditationcouldnotbeappreciatedxxxabsentevidencethat[Asilan]plannedor
preparedtokill[Adovas]orofthetimewhentheplotwasconceived. 17
Astothedamages,theRTCfoundtheprosecutionsevidence,whichconsistedofAdovass
wifestestimony,andthereceiptsoftheexpensessheincurredinAdovasshospitalization,wake,
andburial,sufficienttoawardmoralandactualdamages.
OnJanuary19,2007,Asilanappealed 18hisconvictiontotheCourtofAppeals,mainlyonthe
groundthattheprosecutionfailedtoprovehisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.He
_______________
14Id.,atp.92.
15Id.,atp.93.
16Id.,atp.92.
17Id.,atp.93.
18Id.,atp.98
414
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Asilan
subsequentlyfiledaMotiontoLitigateasaPauper,19whichonFebruary28,2007,wasgranted
inanOrder20bytheRTC.
OnFebruary25,2009,theCourtofAppealsrendereditsDecision,affirmingintototheRTCs
ruling.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theassailedDecisiondated08January2007oftheCourta
quoin Criminal Case No. 06243060, finding AccusedAppellantJOSEPH ASILAN Y
TABORNALguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofMurder,isherebyAFFIRMEDintoto. 21

The Court of Appeals rejected Asilans arguments and averred that his denial and bare
attempt at exculpation by trying to destroy the credibility of the candid, categorical, and
trustworthytestimoniesofthewitnessesmustfail.
Aggrieved,Asilanisnowappealing22hiscasetothisCourt,withthesameassignmentoferrors
hepositedbeforetheCourtofAppeals:
ASSIGNMENTOFERRORS
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED BY RELYING ON THE
INCONSISTENTANDUNNATURALTESTIMONYOFTHEALLEGEDEYEWITNESS.
II
THECOURTAQUOGRAVELYERREDINFINDINGTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANTGUILTYOFTHE
CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT
BEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.
_______________
19Id.,atpp.99101
20Id.,atp.105.
21Rollo,p.24.
22Id.,atpp.2627.
415
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 415
People vs. Asilan
III
THETRIALCOURTGRAVELY ERREDINAPPRECIATING THEQUALIFYINGCIRCUMSTANCE
OFTREACHERY. 23
 Discussion

AsilanwasconvictedofthecrimeofMurderunderArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCode:
Art.248.Murder.Anypersonwho,notfallingwithintheprovisionsofArticle246shall
killanother,shallbeguiltyofmurderandshallbepunishedbyreclusionperpetuatodeath,if
committedwithanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:
1.With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, withthe aidofarmedmen, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity;
2.Inconsiderationofaprice,reward,orpromise;
3.By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailmentorassaultuponarailroad,fallofanairship,bymeansofmotorvehicles,orwith
theuseofanyothermeansinvolvinggreatwasteandruin;
4.Onoccasionofanyofthecalamitiesenumeratedintheprecedingparagraph,orofan
earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public
calamity;
5.Withevidentpremeditation;
6.Withcruelty,bydeliberatelyandinhumanlyaugmentingthesufferingofthevictim,or
outragingorscoffingathispersonorcorpse.
Asilanclaimsthatthetestimoniesofthewitnesseswerenotonlyfilledwithinconsistencies,
theywerealsoincredibleforbeingcontrarytothecommonexperienceandobservation
_______________
23CARollo,p.94.
416
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Asilan
thatmankindcanapproveasprobableunderthecircumstance. 24
AsilaninsiststhatthetestimonyofBinosashouldnotbegivencredenceashewasselectivein
hisrecollectionoftheevents.AsilanclaimedthatBinosaseemedtohaverecalledmoredetailson
crossexamination, thus improving on the version he gave during his direct examination.
AsilanfurtherclaimsthatBinosassuggestionthatAsilanreturnedtothesceneofthecrime
afterhecommittedtheallegedcrimeisveryunlikely.AsilanaversthatSanDiegostestimony
waslikewisenotcredibleasitwasclearlyonlyamorerefinedversionofBinosasaccountofthe
events.Moreover,AsilansaysthatSanDiegostestimonyistoogoodtobetrueasheisunlikely
tohaveadetailedrecollectionofanevent,whichaccordingtohimhappenedwithinaspanoftwo
minutes.25
CredibilityofWitnesses
It is a wellsettled rule that the assessment of the trial court regarding the credibility of
witnesseswillgenerallynotbedisturbedonappeal.Therationaleforthisdoctrineisthatthe
trialcourtisinabetterpositiontodecidetheissue,asitheardthewitnessesthemselvesand
observedtheirdeportmentandmanneroftestifyingduringthetrial. 26Theonlyexceptionstothis
rulearethefollowing:
1.Whenpatentinconsistenciesinthestatementsofwitnessesareignoredbythetrialcourt;
or
2.Whentheconclusionsarrivedatareclearlyunsupportedbytheevidence. 27
_______________
24Id.,atpp.98105.
25Id.,atpp.104105.
26Peoplev.Obosa,429Phil.522,532533;380SCRA22,30(2002).
27Id.,atp.533;p.30.
417
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 417
People vs. Asilan
ThisCourtseesnoreasontoapplytheaboveexceptionsanddisturbthefindingsoftheRTC,
whichwereaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals.
 OurperusaloftherecordsshowedthattheRTCwasvigilantinitsdutytoascertainthetruth.
The RTC itself propounded clarificatory questions to Binosa and San Diego while they were
testifying.Attheendofthetrial,theRTCfoundthesewitnessescredible,andbelievedtheir
eyewitness accounts because they were categorical in their identification of Asilan as one of
Adovass assailants.The RTC alsopointedout that it could not find anydubious reason for
BinosaandSanDiegotofalselyimplicateAsilaninaheinouscrime. 28
AllegedInconsistencies
TheallegedinconsistencyinBinosastestimonydoesnotrenderhistestimonyfictitious.The
factthathewasabletoprovidemoredetailsoftheeventsonlyduringcrossexaminationisnot
unusual, and on the contrary tends to buttress, rather than weaken, his credibility, since it
showsthathewasneithercoachednorwerehisanswerscontrived. 29Afterall,[w]itnessesare
notexpectedtoremembereverysingledetailofanincidentwithperfectortotalrecall. 30
AsforSanDiegostestimony,itisnotunnaturalforhimtohaveadetailedrecollectionofthe
incident.Differentpersonshavedifferentreactionstosimilarsituations.Thereisnotypical
reactiontoasuddenoccurrence. 31ItisworthytonotethatSanDiegowasonlysixteenyearsold
when he witnessed the stabbing of Adovas. It was his first time to witness a person being
stabbedrightbeforehisveryeyes.Hetestifiedthatthreemonthsafterthatnight,theevents
werestillvividly
_______________
28Records,p.94.
29Peoplev.Orio,386Phil.786;330SCRA576(2000).
30Id.,atp.796;pp.584585.
31Peoplev.Letigio,335Phil.693,705;268SCRA227,238(1997).
418
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Asilan
imprintedinhismind.32Itisthusnotimprobablethathecould,withcertainty,identifyAsilanas
themanwhostabbedAdovasthatfatefulnight.
Likewise,ourscrutinyofthesocalledinconsistenciesrelieduponbyAsilanshowedthatthey
only referred to minor details, which did not affect the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses.33InPeoplev.Albarido,34thisCourtsaid:
Itiselementaryintheruleofevidencethatinconsistenciesinthetestimoniesofprosecutionwitnesses
withrespecttominordetailsandcollateralmattersdonotaffectthesubstanceoftheirdeclarationnor
theveracityorweightoftheirtestimony.Infact,theseminorinconsistenciesenhancethecredibilityof
the witnesses, for they remove any suspicion that their testimonies were contrived or rehearsed.
InPeople vs. Maglente, this Court ruled that inconsistencies in details which are irrelevant to the
elementsofthecrimearenotgroundsforacquittal.xxx. 35

Credibilityoftheevidence
Asilanfurtherasseveratesthatitisperplexinghownoneofthewitnesses,whowerepresent
duringtheincident,warnedAdovasoftheimpendingdangertohislife.Hecontendsthatfor
evidencetobebelieved,itmustnotonlyproceedfromthemouthofacrediblewitness,butmust
becredibleinitselfsuchasthecommonexperienceandobservationofmankindcanapproveas
probableunderthecircumstance.36
This Court would like to reiterate that no standard form of behavior is expected of an
individualwhowitnessessomethingshockingorgruesomelikemurder.Thisisespeciallytrue
whentheassailantisnear.Itisnotunusualthatsome
_______________
32TSN,June14,2006,pp.110.
33Peoplev.Albarido,420Phil.235,244;368SCRA194,202(2001).
34Id.
35Id.,atpp.244245;p.202.
36CARollo,p.105.
419
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 419
People vs. Asilan
peoplewouldfeelreluctantingettinginvolvedinacriminalincident.37
 Inthesamemanner,itisalsonotsurprisingthatAsilanreturnedtothesceneofthecrime
afterstabbingAdovas.Hisfailuretofleeandtheapparentnormalcyofhisbehaviorsubsequent
tothe commission ofthecrime donot implyhis innocence. 38This Court, elucidating on this
point,declared:
Flightisindicativeofguilt,butitsconverseisnotnecessarilytrue.Culpritsbehavedifferentlyandeven
erraticallyinexternalizingandmanifestingtheirguilt.Somemayescapeorfleeacircumstancestrongly
illustrative of guiltwhile others may remain in the same vicinity so as to create a semblance of
regularity,therebyavoidingsuspicionfromothermembersofthecommunity. 39

DefenseofDenial
Unfortunately,Asilansbaredenial,whenjuxtaposedwiththeprosecutionwitnessespositive
declarations, is not worthy ofcredence. Denial,which is the usual refuge of offenders,is an
inherentlyweakdefense,andmustbebuttressedbyotherpersuasiveevidenceofnonculpability
tomeritcredibility.Thedefenseofdenialfailsevenmorewhentheassailant,asinthiscase,was
positivelyidentifiedbycrediblewitnesses,againstwhomnoulteriormotivecouldbeascribed. 40
Asilannotonlyadmittedthathewasatthesceneofthecrimewhenhewasarrestedbythe
policeauthorities,healsoadmittedthathedidnotknowanyoftheprosecutionwitnessesprior
tohistrial.Moreover,hehadfilednocaseagainstthepoliceofficerswhomheaccusedofmauling
himtomakehimadmittothestabbingofAdovas.Asilansselfservingstatementsdeserveno
weightinlawandcannotbe
_______________
37Peoplev.Aliben,446Phil.349,373;398SCRA255,273(2003).
38Peoplev.Agunias,344Phil.467,481;279SCRA52,66(1997).
39Id.,atpp.481482;p.66.
40Peoplev.Barona,380Phil.204;323SCRA239(2000).
420
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Asilan
givengreaterevidentiaryvalueoverthetestimonyofthewitnesseswhotestifiedonpositive
points.41
QualifyingCircumstanceofTreachery
Asilanpleadsthattreachery cannotbeappreciatedinthepresentcaseastheprosecution
failedtoestablishthathehadconsciouslyordeliberatelyadoptedorchosenthemodeofattack
employeduponAdovastodeprivehimofanopportunitytodefendhimselforretaliate.Asilan
argues thatmeresuddennessoftheattackisnotenough toconstitutetreachery. Hefurther
positsthatwhileitmaybetruethatheallegedlycamefrombehind,themodeofattackcould
haveoccurredinaspurofthemoment.42
The RTC correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing of
Adovas.
Theprosecutionwasabletosufficientlyestablishtheattendanceoftreacheryinthecaseat
bar.Itisbasicinourpenallawthattreacheryispresentwhentheoffenderemploysmeans,
methodsorformswhichtenddirectlyandespeciallytoinsuretheexecutionofthecrime,without
risktohimselfarisingfromthedefensewhichtheoffendedpartymightmake. 43InPeoplev.
Tan,44thisCourtexpoundedontheconceptoftreacheryasfollows:
Theessenceoftreacheryisthesuddenandunexpectedattack,withouttheslightestprovocationon
thepartofthepersonattacked.Treacheryispresentwhentheoffendercommitsanyofthecrimesagainst
persons,employingmeans,methodsorformsintheexecutionthereof,whichtenddirectlyandespecially
toinsureitsexecution,withoutriskarisingfromthedefensewhichtheoffendedpartymightmake.Inthe
caseatbar,theattackonMagdalinoOloswastreacherous,becausehewascaughtoffguardandwas
therefore
_______________
41Id.,atpp.212213;p.246.
42CARollo,p.107.
43Peoplev.Isleta,332Phil.410,420;264SCRA374,383(1996).
44373Phil.990;315SCRA375(1999).
421
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 421
People vs. Asilan
unabletodefendhimself,astestifiedtobytheprosecutionwitnessesandasindicatedbythewounds
inflictedonhim. 45

BotheyewitnessestestifiedonhowAsilanattackedAdovasfrombehind.Adovascouldnot
havedefendedhimselfbecauseAsilanstabbedhimathisbackrepeatedlysansprovocationor
warning. The deciding factor is that Asilans execution of his attack made it impossible for
Adovastodefendhimselforretaliate.46
SufficiencyoftheInformation
Asilanalsoclaims that his constitutional right tobeinformedof the nature and causeof
accusationagainsthimwasinfringedwhenhewasconvictedforMurder,sincethemannerby
whichhecarriedoutthekillingwiththequalifyingcircumstanceoftreacherywasnotallegedin
theInformationagainsthim.Thus,heasserts,hewaseffectivelyonlychargedwithHomicide. 47
ThisCourtdoesnotfindmeritinAsilanscontentionthathecannotbeconvictedofmurder
becausehisactsoftreacherywerenotallegedwithspecificityintheInformation.Section6,Rule
110oftheRulesonCriminalProcedurestates:
Sec.6.Sufficiencyofcomplaintorinformation.Acomplaintorinformationissufficientifitstates
thenameoftheaccused;thedesignationoftheoffensebythestatute;theactsoromissionscomplainedof
asconstitutingtheoffense;thenameoftheoffendedparty;theapproximatetimeofthecommissionofthe
offense;andtheplacewhereintheoffensewascommitted.
Whentheoffenseiscommittedbymorethanoneperson,allofthemshallbeincludedinthecomplaint
orinformation.
_______________
45Id.,atp.1010;p.393.
46Peoplev.Pidoy,453Phil.221,230;405SCRA339,348(2003).
47CARollo,p.108.
422
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Asilan
ThisCourtheldthat[u]nderSection6,theInformationissufficientifitcontainsthefull
nameoftheaccused,thedesignationoftheoffensegivenbythestatute,theactsoromissions
constitutingtheoffense,thenameoftheoffendedparty,theapproximatedate,andtheplaceof
the offense.48The Information herein complied with these conditions. Contrary to Asilans
contention, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was specifically alleged in the
Information. The rule is that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the
Informationinordernottoviolatetheaccusedsconstitutionalrighttobeproperlyinformedof
thenatureandcauseoftheaccusationagainsthim. 49Asilanneverclaimedthathewasdeprived
ofhisrighttobefullyapprisedofthenatureofthechargesagainsthimduetotheinsufficiency
oftheInformation.
ThisCourtcompletelyagreeswiththeCourtofAppealspronouncementthatsincetreachery
wascorrectlyallegedintheInformationanddulyestablishedbytheprosecution,xxx[Asilan]s
convictionforthecrimeofmurderisproper.50
Inanycase,itisnowtoolateforAsilantoassailthesufficiencyoftheInformationonthe
ground that there was failure to specifically allege therein how treachery was carried out.
Section9,Rule117oftheRulesofCourtprovides:
SEC.9.Failuretomovetoquashortoallegeanygroundtherefor.Thefailureoftheaccusedto
assertanygroundofamotiontoquashbeforehepleadstothecomplaintorinformation,eitherbecause
hedidnotfileamotiontoquashorfailedtoallegethesameinsaidmotion,shallbedeemedawaiverof
anyobjectionsexceptthosebasedonthegroundsprovidedforinparagraphs(a),(b),(g),and(i)ofsection
3ofthisRule.
_______________
48Peoplev.LabEo,424Phil.482,497;373SCRA461,473(2002).
49Id.
50Rollo,pp.2324.
423
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 423
People vs. Asilan
Moreover,inPeoplev.Candaza,51thisCourtheldthat[a]nInformationwhichlacksessential
allegationsmaystillsustainaconvictionwhentheaccusedfailstoobjecttoitssufficiencyduring
thetrial,andthedeficiencywascuredbycompetentevidencepresentedtherein. 52Inthiscase,
Asilan not only failed to question the sufficiency of the Information at any time during the
pendencyofhiscasebeforetheRTC,healsoallowedtheprosecutiontopresentevidence,proving
theelementsoftreacheryinthecommissionoftheoffense.Asilanisthusdeemedtohavewaived
anyobjectionsagainstthesufficiencyoftheInformation.53
Pursuanttoprevailingjurisprudence, 54thisCourtisincreasingtheawardofcivilindemnity
fromFiftyThousandPesos(P50,000.00)toSeventyFiveThousandPesos(P75,000.00),andthe
moral damages from TwentyFive Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00).Moreover,inviewofthepresenceofthequalifyingcircumstanceoftreachery,an
additionalawardofThirtyThousandPesos(P30,000.00),asexemplarydamages,inaccordance
withArticle2230oftheCivilCode,55shouldbeawardedtotheheirsofAdovas.56
Astoactualdamages,Adovasswidow,IreneAdovas,presentedthereceiptsshowingthatshe
paidP25,224.00toOurLadyofLourdesHospital,Inc.,ashospitalexpenses, 57
_______________
51G.R.No.170474,June16,2006,491SCRA280.
52Id.,atp.289.
53Id.
54Peoplev.Asis,G.R.No.177573,July7,2010,624SCRA509,530.
55Art.2230.Incriminaloffenses,exemplarydamagesasapartofthecivilliabilitymaybeimposedwhenthecrime
wascommittedwithoneormoreaggravatingcircumstances.Suchdamagesareseparateanddistinctfromfinesandshall
bepaidtotheoffendedparty.
56Peoplev.Asis,supranote54at531.
57FolderofExhibits,p.31.
424
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Asilan
P35,000.00 to Marulas Memorial Homes,58and P20,000.00 to Funeraria Saranay as funeral
expenses,59oratotalofP80,224.00.
BoththeRTCandtheCourtofAppealsfailedtoconsiderthatunderArticle2206oftheCivil
Code,AsilanisalsoliableforthelossoftheearningcapacityofAdovas,andsuchindemnity
shouldbepaidtohisheirs:60
Art.2206.Theamountofdamagesfordeathcausedbyacrimeorquasidelictshallbeatleastthree
thousandpesos,eventhoughtheremayhavebeenmitigatingcircumstances.Inaddition:
(1)The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the
indemnityshallbepaidtotheheirsofthelatter;suchindemnityshallineverycasebeassessedand
awardedbythecourt,unlessthedeceasedonaccountofpermanentphysicaldisabilitynotcausedbythe
defendant,hadnoearningcapacityatthetimeofhisdeath;
IreneAdovastestified61ontheamountherhusbandreceivedaspoliceofficerandpresented
documentaryevidencetoshowthatAdovas,whowasonly29yearsoldwhenhedied, 62earned
P8,605.00amonth63atthetimeofhisdeath.
Thefollowingarethefactorsincomputingtheamountofdamagesrecoverableforthelossof
earningcapacityofthedeceased:
1)Thenumberofyearsonthebasisofwhichthedamagesshallbecomputed.Thisisbased
ontheformula(2/3x80ageofthedeceasedatthetimeofhisdeath=lifeexpectancy),whichis
adoptedfromtheAmericanExpectancyTableofMortality;and
_______________
58Id.,atp.32.
59Id.,atp.33.
60Peoplev.Lagat,G.R.No.187044,September14,2011,657SCRA713.
61TSN,July10,2006,p.17.
62FolderofExhibits,p.20.
63Id.,atp.28.
425
VOL. 669, APRIL 11, 2012 425
People vs. Asilan
2)Therateatwhichthelossessustainedbytheheirsofthedeceasedshouldbefixed. 64Net
incomeisarrivedatbydeductingtheamountofthevictimslivingexpensesfromtheamountof
hisgrossincome.65ThelossofearningcapacityofAsilanisthuscomputedasfollows:
Net Earning Capacity = life expectancy x [gross
annualincome living
expenses] 66

= 2/3 [80age at time of death]

x [gross annual income 50%
ofgrossannualincome]
= 2/3 [8029] x [P103,260.00
P51,630.00]
= 34 x P51,630.00
=P1,755,420.00
WHEREFORE,thedecisiondatedFebruary25,2009oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CR.
H.C. No. 02686 is hereby AFFIRMEDinsofar as it found accusedappellant Joseph
AsilanyTabornal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER and sentenced to suffer the
penaltyofreclusionperpetua,withMODIFICATIONastothedamages.Asilanisherebyordered
toindemnifytheheirsofRandyAdovasyPecaatthefollowing:(a)P75,000.00ascivilindemnity;
(b)P50,000.00asmoraldamages;(c)P30,000.00asexemplarydamages;(d)P80,224.00asactual
damages;(e)P1,755,420.00aslossofearningcapacity;and(f)interestonalldamagesawarded
attherateof6%perannumfromthedateoffinalityofthisjudgment.
_______________
64Peoplev.Lagat,G.R.No.187044,September14,2011,657SCRA713.
65Id.
66Peoplev.Verde,362Phil.305,321;302SCRA690,707(1999).
426
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Asilan
SOORDERED.
Corona(C.J.,Chairperson),Bersamin,DelCastilloandPerez,**JJ.,concur.
Judgmentaffirmedwithmodification.
Notes.Theruleisthatdocumentaryevidenceshouldbepresentedtosubstantiateaclaim
forlossofearningcapacity;Theruleisthatevidencenotobjectedtoisdeemedadmittedandmay
bevalidlyconsideredbythecourtinarrivingatitsjudgment.(Peoplevs.Lopez,643SCRA524
[2011]).
Thejustifyingcircumstanceofselfdefensemaynotsurviveinthefaceofappellantsflight
fromthesceneofthecrimecoupledwithhisfailuretopromptlyinformtheauthoritiesaboutthe
incident.(Peoplevs.Campos,653SCRA99[2011]).

o0o