People vs Sabangan (dec.

11 2013)

Facts:
Private complainant Helen Felonia Gallardo,on Jan. 27, 2003, testified that her father Abe
Felonia, who is a barangay captain of Duroloman, Arakan, Cotabato, was gunned down on Dec.
27, 1999. She learned about the death of his father from a certain Efren Balecer and verified it
with her husband, brother and sister but the perpetrators were not yet identified until witnesses
were presented. The death of their father shocked the family especially his wife whereas her
blood pressure worsened and the family prayed for two million pesos for damages and P68, 000
for the burial.
There were two perpetrators that was seen running after the crime was committed. Four
witnesses were presented namely: Navales, Allado, Badia and Cordero. Police chief Roberto
Badian, who conducted the investigation learned from Navales, Allado and Cordero, after being
seen again at a police safe house, that the accused was Gerry Sabangan as the triggerman, who
was spotted in antipas; and Cordero testified and positively pointed out Gerry Sabangan was the
first guy who ran after bumping the latter and Noli Bornasal,who was also armed, as the second
guy who personally asked the witness himself of the direction of the first guy ran to and followed
the same. The witnesses made their sworn statements of the event took place on the killing of
Abe Felonia in its complete rundown. Subsequently, both accused denied any involvement with
Felonias death which was supported by Sabangans family and relatives and Bornasals Co-
worker, respectively as witnesses. The accused-witnesses presented their sworn statements on
the defense of both the accused and trial ensued.
The Regional Trial Court promulgated its decision on Nov. 5, 2004 finding both Sabangan
and Bornasal guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC senetenced them to prison with a penalty
of RECLUSION PERPETUA and pay civil indemnity and damages to the heirs of the victim and
attorneys fees. Both accused directly appealed the RTC judgement. Sabangan reiterated his alibi
of being at Antipas and it was physically impossible for him to be in Kidapawan which is 40
kilometers apart. On the other hand, Bornasal argued that no circumstantial evidence was
presented to establish with moral certainty the alleged conspiracy between the triggerman.
Wherefore the appeal was partly granted whereby Sabangans criminal liability was affirmed and
Bornasal was acquitted of his criminal charge.
Hence, the present appeal of Sabangan averring that he was made to sit outside a police
outpost; while the police officers brought the witnesses then asked them to confirm whether the
man sitting outside the police outpost was the one who shot Felonia.
Issue:
WON the manner by which the investigating police officers conducted his out-of-court
identification by the witnesses was grossly suggestive, therefore, highly unreliable.
Held:

The appeal is unmeritorious. The Court sustains Sabangans conviction for Felonias
murder. Murder is defined and penalized under Article248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended:

ART. 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill
another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion Perpetua, to death if
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity;

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise;

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,

derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or
with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin;

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an

earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public
calamity;

5. with evident premeditation;

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. (Emphasis supplied.)

The totality of the evidence for the prosecution against Sabangan establishes with moral
certainty all the essential elements of the crime of murder qualified by treachery. Sabangans
attack on Felonia was sudden and unexpected, the manner of which was deliberately adopted to
give Felonia little or no chance at all to defend himself or retaliate. Sabangan clearly employed
treachery in killing Felonia.

The Court though does not find convincing proof of evident premeditation.

In order to be appreciated, the circumstance must not merely be premeditation; it must be

"evident premeditation. To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must
establish the confluence of the following requisites:(a) the time when the offender determined
to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination;
and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to
allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. Evident premeditation, like other
circumstances that would qualify a killing as murder, must be established by clear and positive
evidence showing the planning and the preparation stages prior to the killing. Without such
evidence, mere presumptions and inferences, no matter how logical and probable, will not
suffice.

The prosecutions evidence herein pertained merely to the actual commission by

Sabangan of the crime. It did not submit any proof that Sabangan, at some prior time, determined
to kill Felonia; that Sabangan performed an act manifestly indicating that he clung to his
determination to kill Felonia; and that there was sufficient interval of time between his
determination and execution which allowed Sabangan to reflect upon the consequences of his
act.

Contrary to Sabangans contention, there appears no irregularity in the conduct by the

investigating police officers of the out-of-court identification of Sabangan by the witnesses. The
out-of-court identification made by the witnesses in the case at bar complies with the totality of
circumstances test. Given the particular circumstances in this case, the probability that the
witnesses were influenced to misidentify Sabangan as Felonias assailant seems far-fetched.

WHERFORE, the decision of the court of appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION,

increasing the amounts of civil indemnity and damages to be payed.

People vs Marquez (1982)

Fact:

On November 16, "1966" between seven and seven-thirty in the evening while Francisca
Marquez was in their house in barrio Dahican Catanauan, Quezon together with her seven
children and maid Rufina Martinez, somebody called in front of their window who identified
themselves as PC soldier looking for contraband. Francisca replied that they did not have any
contraband and that her husband, Angel Tan, was in the poblacion at that time. The men
ordered her to open up otherwise they will shoot up their house. Afraid, Francisca opened the
window shutter when, suddenly, a man whom she later on recognized as Renato Marquez
jumped inside. She was able to recognized Renato Marquez as the light was bright. Renato held
Francisca by the nape and pushed her towards the door and at gunpoint ordered her to open
the same. Francisca was not able to shout as she was caught by surprise and besides, she was
afraid. When she opened the door, accused Samuel Jacobo and Francisco Forneste, both armed
with guns, entered and ordered her to put out their contraband and when she told them that
they did not have any, the intruders demanded for money. Five minutes after the accused
began ransacking the house, Jacobo took her upstairs and tied both her arms and made her he
face down on the floor together with her children. Subsequently, her daughter Leticia and
helper Rufina Martinez were taken downstairs by Francisco Forneste. Shortly she heard Leticia
shout: "Nanay" while Rufina Martinez screamed "Nanang Kikay, Nanang Kikay." Afterwards,
both Leticia and Rufina were taken upstairs by Francisco Forneste, tied and also made to lie
face down on the floor and both the accused left.

In the course of the proceedings in the lower court, Renato Marquez died. Pursuant to
the lower court's order dated October 1, 1968, Renato Marquez was dropped as defendant,
and the case as against him, dismissed. After trial, the lower court found Francisco Forneste and
Samuel Jacobo guilty of the crime of robbery with rape as defined under Article 294, paragraph
2 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced them to LIFE INPRISONMENT and damages to be
awarded to the offended party.

In their statement of facts on appeal, the appellants do not dispute the factual findings
of the lower court on the commission of the crime and the circumstances of its commission.
They however, take exception to the lower court's finding that the accused were positively
identified as the perpetrators of the crime by the prosecution witnesses.

The accused, in refuting the lower court's finding that they were positively identified by
the complaining witnesses, stress that these witnesses stated on three occasions that they did
not know the identity of the persons who perpetrated the crime. These occasions were: (1)
During the investigation conducted by the Chief of Police of Catanauan immediately after the
incident at about 9:00 in the evening of November 16, 1963, the complaining witnesses, when
asked by the former if they recognized the robbers answered in the negative; (2) On November
17, 1963 or the day after the incident, Leticia Tan, when asked about the Identity of the robbers
at the house of Goding Tan by Sgt. Lastimoso, a member of the Catanauan Police Force,
answered that she did not know them; (3) When the complaining witnesses were brought to
the office of the Chief of Police of Catanauan on November 17, 1963, to identify the suspects.
among them Renato Marquez and the appellants herein, the complaining witnesses were not
able to identify the robbers, much less the accused who were directly pointed to them by
Patrolman Mariano Yuson, a member of the police force of Catanauan who took over the
investigation of the incident.

Hence, their lone assignment of error is:

Issue:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCUSED WERE IDENTIFIED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THEY WERE THE PERPETRATORS OF THE ROBBERY.
Ruling:

NO. These circumstances do not affect the credibility of the complaining witnesses as
regards their identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime. The silence of the
complaining witnesses on the identity of the accused immediately after the incident was
explained by the ordeal they had just suffered at the hands of the accused. The accused were
armed during the incident and the complaining witnesses were threatened with death.
Francisca Marquez expressed fear that the accused might take revenge in case she would
divulge their Identity on the first investigation.

According to facts established, on November 20, 1963, the PC took down her affidavit.
There were many persons in the office where they confronted the accused. She pointed the
accused secretly to the PC as she was afraid that if she will do it openly, the accused might take
revenge against them. In that confrontation, she pointed to accused Francisco Forneste as one
with the "bigote". Before the occurrence of the crime, she already knew Renato Marquez and
Francisco Forneste. She can recognize them anywhere, anytime and any place that she will
meet them. Renato is her distant relative while Francisco Forneste is known to her as he is also
from Catanauan. She knows his parents and she used to see him in the poblacion. Moreover
the complaining witnesses who were initially silent on the Identity of the accused, gave
descriptions instead.

Since, in the commission of the crime, the following aggravating circumstances alleged
in the information were proved by the prosecution: (1) nighttime; (2) unlawful entry; (3)
dwelling of the offended parties; (4) by disguise, that is by pretending to be PC officers: and (5)
by utter disregard due to victims' age and sex with no mitigating circumstances to offset the
same, the lower court was correct in imposing the maximum penalty pursuant to Article 294
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the sentence of life imprisonment should be
denominated reclusion perpetua considering that this is the technical term of the penalty which
carries with it the imposition of accessory penalties. (People v. Mobe, 51 Phil. 88: People v.
Pilones, 84 SCRA 167; People v. De Jesus, 85 SCRA 686; People v. De la Cruz, 85 SCRA 285.)

WHEREFORE, the accused-appellants FRANCISCO FORNESTE and SAMUEL JACOBOs

criminal liability from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua and pay civil indemnity to the
offened paty. SO ORDERED.