Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

EIGHTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Members:
- versus -
VILLON, S.E., Chairperson
SORONGON, E.D., and
MANUEL CATULANG y VILLEGAS SANTOS, R.A.M., JJ.
(deceased),
Accused,

JOEL CATULANG y GUTIERREZ, Promulgated:

POLY BERTULFO y DELLORO and
CRISPOLO BERTULFO y DELLORO,
Accused-Appellants. 19 Oct 2018
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

VILLON, J.:

Before Us is an appeal1 from the Decision dated June 1, 20162

rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 128 of Caloocan City
finding accused-appellants Joel Catulang y Gutierrez, Poly Bertulfo y
Delloro and Crispolo Bertulfo y Delloro (or ''appellants'') guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Murder in Criminal Case No. C-80172.

The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:

In Criminal Case No. C-80172, appellants and accused Manuel

Catulang y Villegas (or ''Manuel'') were charged with Murder under an
Information3 which reads:

''That on or about the 7th day of September, 2008, in

Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a

1 Notice of Appeal dated June 3, 2016, Records, p. 319; Order dated June 10, 2106, Records, p. 320
2 Records, pp. 307-317
3 Records, p. 2
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 2
DECISION

bladed weapons (sic) and ice pick, conspiring together,

confederating and mutually helping with one another, with the use
of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident
premeditation, attack, assault and use personal violence upon one
ROMEO CANTIGA y MANTALABA, by then and there, hitting his
head, stabbing him repeatedly, mauling him, thereby inflicting upon
the latter mortal wound which were (sic) the direct and immediate
cause of his death thereafter.

CONTRARY TO LAW.''

In Criminal Case No. C-80173, appellant Poly Bertulfo y Delloro

was indicted for Attempted Murder in an Information4 which reads:

''That on or about the 7 th day of September 2008 in Caloocan

City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill
and with treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and
use personal violence upon one RODEL CAGUS y APOSTOL, by
then and there, stabbing him on his back, thus, commencing
directly by overt acts the commission of the crime of MURDER, but
the herein accused nevertheless was not able to perform all the
acts of execution which would constitute the said felony as a
consequence, by reason or causes other than his own spontaneous
desistance, that is due to the timely arrival of their neighbors.

CONTRARY TO LAW.''

When arraigned on November 3, 2008, 5 appellants and Manuel

entered their separate pleas of ''Not Guilty'' to the crime of Murder. On
the same date, appellant Polly also pleaded not guilty to the crime of
Attempted Murder.6

Upon motion of the prosecution, the two cases were tried jointly. 7
During the trial of the cases, the prosecution presented the testimonies
of Jonathan Rebose (or ''Jonathan''), Lydia Cantiga (or ''Lydia''), P/Chief
Inspector Editha Martinez, (or ''PCI Martinez''), Eutiquio Seming, Jr. (or
''Eutiquio''), PO1 Mark Andrew Bartolome (or ''PO1 Bartolome'') and
Norberto Deciembro (or ''Norberto''). The defense, on the other hand,
presented the testimonies of appellants and Manuel.

4 Records, p. 16
5 Records, p. 25.
6 Records, p. 29
7 Order dated December 8, 2008, Records, p. 34
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 3
DECISION

The version of the prosecution is succinctly summarized by the

Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in the People's Brief:8

''On 7 September 2008, about 8:00 in the evening, there was

a commotion near the house of Spouses Romeo (Romeo) and
Lydia (Lydia) Cantiga. Romeo went to check their son, Raffy.
Arriving thereat, the spouses witnessed a brewing fight between
accused-appellants and their neighbors. After securing their son,
they decided to go home. Before going straight home, Romeo
thought of buying cigarettes in the store in front of accused-
appellant's house. Suddenly, the gate of the said house opened
and Manuel Catulang came out brandishing a wooden club (dos for
dos) and hit Romeo. Thereafter, Romeo was dragged inside by the
other co-accused who ganged upon said victim by mauling and
assaulting him with their weapons resulting in his death.

''Police Chief Inspector Editha B. Martinez, M.D., who

examined the victim's cadaver on 8 September 2008, testified on
her post-mortem findings that victim incurred multiple stabbed
wounds in the thorax and abdomen coupled with multiple
abrasions, contusions and wounds in the head and neck area.
Ultimately, deceased died due to the stab wounds to the thorax.''

Appellants and Manuel Catulang y Villegas (or “Manuel”) denied

the charge against them and presented their version of the incident, to
wit:

''On September 7, 2008, around 10:30 o'clock in the evening,

brothers Manuel and Joel were having a drinking spree with their
brothers-in-law, brothers Poly and Crispolo. Suddenly, Romeo went
inside their house through the steel gate, which was closed but had
no lock. Manuel noticed Romeo, along with an unidentified person,
at the terrace and the latter shouted at him, ''Matatapang ba talaga
kayo?'' Manuel approached Romeo but the latter stabbed him with
a tres cantos (three-edged ice pick). Manuel parried the weapon
and blood oozed from his right hand. They (Manuel and Romeo)
struggled with and grappled each other on the floor.

''Poly saw blood coming from Manuel. Poly saw a

screwdriver, picked it up and stabbed Romeo with it on the back.
Romeo stood up and went after Poly, and at this juncture, Poly
stabbed Romeo on the body. Romeo was able to push Poly as well
as hit him with his elbows. Sensing the strength of Romeo, Poly
stabbed the former until he (Romeo) fell on the ground. Barangay
officials and police officers arrived and the four (4) accused
surrendered.''9

On November 2, 2014, during the pendency of the case in the

8 Rollo, pp. 91-92
9 Rollo, p. 36
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 4
DECISION

lower court, Manuel died.10 By reason thereof, Criminal Case No. C-

80172, as against Manuel, was dismissed.11

After due proceedings, on June 1, 2016, the court a quo rendered

the assailed Decision finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of Murder. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

''WHEREFORE, finding the three (3) accused Joel Catulang

y Gutierrez, Poly Bertulfo y Delloro, and Crispulo Bertulfo y Delloro,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Murder, they are hereby
sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua, with all the accessory penalties
attached thereto.

“They are likewise directed to jointly and severally pay the

heirs of the deceased Romeo Cantiga y Mantalaba, as follows:

1. Thirty One Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Pesos

(P31,950.00), as actual damages.

2. Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), as civil

indemnity;

3. Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), as moral

damages; and

4. Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), as exemplary

damages.

“SO ORDERED.''

In the same Decision, Criminal Case No. C-80173, for Attempted

Murder against appellant Poly Bertulfo y Delloro (or “Poly”), was
dismissed for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Hence, the present appeal anchored on the following assigned

errors:12

I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE

CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE ON THE
PART OF MANUEL CATULANG AND POLY BERTULFO,
RESPECTIVELY.

II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING

10 Death Certificate, Records, p. 265

11 As narrated in the Decision dated June 1, 2016, Records, p. 308
12 Rollo, pp. 31-32
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 5
DECISION

THE FACT THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANTS VOLUNTARILY

SURRENDERED.

III. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF MURDER DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH CONSPIRACY AMONG
THEM.

IV. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO

DETERMINE THE INDIVIDUAL CULPABILITY OF THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.

V. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING

ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF MURDER DESPITE THE GLARING
INCONSISTENCIES IN THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES'
TESTIMONIES.

VI. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ABUSE OF SUPERIOR
STRENGTH ATTENDED THE DEATH OF ROMEO CANTIGA.

The appeal is without merit.

In an attempt to extricate themselves from criminal liability,

appellants interposed self-defense and defense of relative, claiming that
it was the victim Romeo Cantiga (or ''Romeo'') who initially made the
assault by barging into the house of Manuel, wielding a tres cantos ice
pick and inflicting physical injuries upon the latter. Appellants further
claim that when appellant Poly saw the ensuing fight between Romeo
and Manuel, his brother-in-law, and with blood oozing from Manuel's
hand, he came to the latter's rescue by stabbing Romeo three (3) times
with a screwdriver.

We are not persuaded.

In order for self-defense to be appreciated, the accused must

proved with clear and convincing evidence the following essential
elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b)
reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused to prevent
or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of the accused defending himself.13

On the other hand, defense of a relative requires the following

13 People vs Del Castillo, 663 SCRA 226

CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 6
DECISION

essential elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b)
reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused to prevent
or repel the unlawful aggression of the victim; and (c) in case the
provocation was given by the person attacked, that the person making
the defense took no part therein.

In both self-defense and defense of relatives, the element of

unlawful aggression must be present. If there is no unlawful aggression,
there would be nothing to prevent or repel. Unlawful aggression
presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent
danger on the life and limb of a person, not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude.14

Assuming arguendo that initially there was unlawful aggression

on the part of Romeo, as he was allegedly armed with an ice pick, the
imminence of the danger or threat to appellants had already ceased to
exist the moment Romeo was disarmed. There was no longer any
unlawful aggression to speak of that would justify appellants' act of
repeatedly beating and stabbing him to death. As testified to by Manuel,
he was able to parry Romeo's thrust, and the ice pick that the latter was
carrying was thrown away. Thus:

''Q: This person you definitely see appeared in your premises with a
bladed weapon, did he appear injured at that time?
A: None yet, sir.

Q: So you have a perfectly healthy person entering your house and

then something happened, you said that there was a struggle between
the two of you, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: In your struggle, you claimed that he was hit, stabbed, is that

correct?
A: Yes, sir because blood suddenly oozed from his body, sir.

Q: The blood appeared out of nowhere, he stabbed himself o ikaw ang

nakatulong sa pagsaksak sa kanya?
A: No. sir.

Q: How did it happen that he was hit in his body by the stab wound?
A: Kuya Poly helped me, sir.

Q: In what way did he help you?

A: While I was struggling or wrestling with Romeo Cantiga, sir, he
noticed that I was already bloodied, sir.

Q: What part of your body was bloodied, was there any wound?
14 People vs Caabay, 409 SCRA 486
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 7
DECISION

A: On my finger, sir.

Q: So it was gushing blood from your finger?

A: Yes, sir, while we were wrestling.

Q: When you were on struggle, were you able to get hold of the
weapon he was holding, the tres cantos, the 3-inch bladed weapon?
A: No, sir.

Q: He was still in possession of the bladed weapon when your Kuya

Poly intervened in this fight?
A: No, sir because after I parried the thrust, the 3-cantos was thrown
away.

Q: So this is what happened, you parried the thrust then the 3-cantos
flew away so at that point, when your Kuya Poly assisted you, the
victim was unarmed, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And yet the victim sustained stab wound, where did that come from
if the knife flew away?
A: Because Kuya Poly helped me, sir.''15

On the other hand, appellant Poly admitted that he repeatedly

stabbed the victim even after the latter was already unarmed and could
no longer offer resistance:

''Q: So you stabbed the victim, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: How many times did you do that?

A: I was not able to count, sir.

Q: According to the medical certificate, the victim suffered three (3)

stab wounds, the first stab wound was located at the right pectoral
region, the second one was located at the left pectoral region, the third
one at the right scapular region at the back and the head. Where was
the first stab wound against the victim?
A: The first stab wound was at the back, sir.

Q: Did the victim stop attacking Manuel Catulang after you stab him
the first time?
A: He stopped, sir, he stood up.

Q: Then you stabbed him twice more?

A: Yes, sir.''16

Clearly then, the repeated stabbing by appellant Poly of the

already unarmed and helpless Romeo inside their own compound can
no longer be justified. Appellant Poly did not thus intend to merely
15 TSN dated June 11, 2014, pp. 19-20
16 TSN dated October 21, 2014, pp. 8-9
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 8
DECISION

repel the alleged aggressive attack on the part of Romeo or to defend

himself and his relatives, but to ensure that the latter would not survive.
While appellant Poly claimed that he was only defending himself and his
companions in the house, he failed to justify his act of repeatedly
stabbing the victim who was already defenseless. 17 Parenthetically, the
tres cantos ice pick allegedly used by the victim Romeo was not even
presented in evidence. Thus, the court a quo rightfully rejected
appellants' plea of self-defense or defense of relative. Indeed, the nature
and the number of wounds sustained by the victims are important
indicia to disprove self-defense.18

As aptly argued by the OSG, when unlawful aggression ceases to

exist, the defender's act of continuously inflicting injury on the victim
and eventually stabbing him to death already constitute retaliation.
Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression
that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused
attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression was still existing
when the aggressor was injured by the accused.19

Besides, the means employed by appellants was not reasonably

commensurate to the nature and extent of Romeo's alleged unlawful
attack. The means employed by a person claiming self-defense must be
commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be
averted, and must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an
unlawful aggression.20 The nature or quality of the weapon; the physical
condition, the character, the size and other circumstances of the
aggressor as well as those of the person who invokes self-defense; and
the place and the occasion of the assault also define the reasonableness
of the means used in self-defense.21

The self-defense and defense of relative invoked by appellants are

likewise belied by the nature, number, and location of the wounds
inflicted on Romeo since the gravity of said wounds is indicative of a
determined effort to kill and not just to defend. 22 Here, the contusion,
abrasions and multiple stabbing injuries inflicted on Romeo by
appellants are inconsistent with their theory of self-defense and defense
of relative. PCI Martinez testified on her post-mortem findings after an
examination of the cadaver of the victim, thus:

17 TSN dated September 10, 2102, p. 14

18 Palaganas vs People, 501 SCRA 533
19 Razon vs People, 525 SCRA 284
20 People vs Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, 2003
21 People vs Catbagan, 423 SCRA 535
22 People vs Pateo, 430 SCRA 609
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 9
DECISION

''Q: Now, Madam Witness, I observed in your certificate of death

that you noted the victim died of stab wound to the thorax, is that
correct?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x x
Q: And you made notations, ''stab wounds'', plural, correct?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: How many stab wounds did you observe?

A: Can I refer to the autopsy report … I found three (3) stab
wounds, sir.

Q: And they penetrated both vital organs of the body of the victim?
A: Two of the three stab wounds penetrated the lungs, sir.

Q: From the time the injury was inflicted, how long would the victim
live if possible, Madam Witness?
A: Just a few minutes, sir.
x x x x x
Q: Madam Witness, you also observed other injuries sustained by
the victim?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: What kind of injuries are these?

A: I also found an abrasion, contusions on the head, sir. Also
multiple abrasions and a puncture wound on the thorax and on
internal examination, I also found fracture of the right second, third,
4th and 5th anterior ribs, sir.
x x x x x
Q: There is likewise widespread abrasions, contusions on the
person?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: You found these injuries on the head and on the body of the
victim?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: The position of the abrasion or contusion to the head, where is

that Madam Witness?
A: The abrasion was on the nasal region or here on the nose, sir.
The contusion is on the face. I also found an abrasion on the right
temporal region of the head and on internal examination, a scalp
hematoma on the forehead, sir.
x x x x x

Q: Would it be consistent to the idea of being mauled, Madam

Witness?
A: Yes, sir, it is consistent.

Q: As to the body of the victim, Madam Witness, you said that there
was broken ribs?
A: Yes, sir.
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 10
DECISION

x x x x x
Q: How many ribs were broken?
A: Four (4) ribs, sir.

Q: Would that be consistent with either being kicked or mauled also,

Madam Witness?
A: Yes, sir, it's possible.

Q: Meaning that his body also came into contact with rough surface
object?
A: A hard rough surface object, sir.
x x x x x
Q: And he was likewise mauled and suffered kicks and punches,
that's possible scenario?
A: It's possible, yes sir.

Q: You said that there was a hematoma, what part?

A: Yes, sir, forehead, frontal part of the head, sir.

Q: Meaning to say that his frontal part of the forehead suffered

being hit by a hard object hitting the skull.
A: Yes, sir it's possible.
x x x x x
Q: But you also observed Madam Witness that he had a wound to
(sic) the back? Meaning to say that he was hit by a weapon (at) the
back?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: How deep was the wound?

A: The stab wound at the back on the right scapular region
measured 3cm by 1 cm, 10 cm from the posterior midline, it is 2.5
cm deep, sir.

Q: So this is a stab wound, correct?

A: Yes, sir.
x x x x x
Q: Would you characterize any of the wounds as defensive wound?
A: I also found multiple abrasions on the extremities, sir. It's also
possible to be defensive wound but it's also possible that the
extremities also hit a hard rough object, sir but I did not find any
incised wounds or stab wounds on the extremities, sir.

Q: Meaning to say that when he was stabbed, there was no point

wherein he used his extremities to cover himself to avoid the blow?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: When the blows hit him and the stabbing and there was a
penetrating wound, he was not able to protect himself?
A: It's possible, sir.''23

The court a quo correctly appreciated conspiracy on the part of

23 TSN dated November 21, 2011, pp. 9-24
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 11
DECISION

appellants, as their overt acts showed a common design and purpose to

kill Romeo. Consequently, the act of one is the act of all.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit
it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. 24 It is
not necessary to show that two or more persons meet together and
entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful
scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out. 25
It may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts,
words, or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during and after
the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose. 26

Too, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength

attended the commission of the crime. Abuse of superior strength is
considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between
the victim and the aggressor that is plainly and obviously advantageous
to the aggressor and purposely selected or taken advantage of to
facilitate the commission of the crime. 27 The evidence must establish
that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the
deliberate intent to use this advantage. To take advantage of superior
strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the
means of defense available to the person attacked. The appreciation of
this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of
the parties.28

Witness Jonathan recounted how Manuel struck the victim with a

club and was thereafter dragged by appellants inside the house where
he was continuously beaten and stabbed. On cross-examination, he
declared that:

''Q: The hitting of Romy happened inside the house?

A: Yes, your Honor.
x x x x x
Q: So what you saw was Mang Romy being dragged inside the gate?
A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: Who dragged Romy?

A: Joel and Poly, your Honor.

Q: What did Manuel do?

24 Quidet vs People, 618 SCRA 1
25 People vs Bringas, 619 SCRA 481
26 Marasigan y De Guzman vs Fuentes, GR No. 201310, January 11, 2016
27 People vs Beduya, 627 SCRA 275
28 Francisco & Villanueva vs Malicse, Jr and People, 745 SCRA 123
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 12
DECISION

A: He closed the gate.

x x x x x
Q: The only incident that you actually saw is that the hitting made by
Manuel Catulang and the dragging of Mang Romy inside the house by
Joel and Poly?
A: Yes, ma'am and it was there that when they helped each other in
mauling.

Q: Were you able to see that incident of pinagtulung-tulungan?

Fiscal Cañete -
Already Answered, your Honor.
x x x x x
Q: You said awhile ago that Joel and Poly dragged Mang Romy inside
the house?
A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: When Poly was dragging Mang Romy inside the house, was he
using his two (2) hands?
A: Joel and Poly were using only one hand each in dragging Mang
Romy.

Q: Poly was using one hand in dragging Mang Romy inside the house?
A: Yes, ma'am, Poly was only using one hand but they were two in
dragging Mang Romy inside the house.

Q: Was Poly using one hand or both hands in dragging Mang Romy?
A: He was using both hands.

Q: You said during the cross-examination that you saw Poly holding a
screwdriver, am I not correct?
A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: And according to you, what you saw during the commotion was
Manuel Catulang hitting Mang Romy and thereafter Joel and Poly
dragged him inside the house, am I not correct?
A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: And in fact as you testified a while ago, Poly was using his two (2)
hands in dragging Mang Romy inside the house?
A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: But you said during the direct examination that Poly was holding a
screwdriver at that time?
A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: But you said during the direct examination that Poly was holding a
screwdriver at that time?
A: Yes, ma'am he was really holding a screwdriver.

Q: He was holding that screwdriver and at the same time pulling Mang
Romy using his both hands, is that correct?
A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: And you saw that screwdriver in the hand of Poly while he was
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 13
DECISION

holding Mang Romy inside the house?

A: Yes, ma'am he was still holding the screwdriver when he was
dragging Mang Romy inside the house.

Q: And you saw that screwdriver in a dark area and you were about ten
(10) meters away, is that correct?
A: Yes, ma'am.''29

Witness Lydia's testimony substantiated the conspiring efforts of

appellants to inflict harm upon Romeo to ensure the accomplishment of
their criminal intent. Lydia testified:

''Q: Where was Manuel Catulang when he hit your husband with a
2x2?
A: He went out from this gate carrying a dos por dos and he suddenly
approached us and hit my husband, sir.

Q: You said that after your husband was hit by Manuel Catulang with a
dos por dos, 2x2 wood, the three persons you identified as Crispolo
Bertulfo, Joel Catulag and a certain Poly Bertulfo came out and helped
him, where did they come from?
A: They also came from that house, sir.

Q: In what manner did they help or assist Manuel Catulang after

Manuel Catulang hit your husband with a piece of wood?
A: They carried my husband and somebody was holding him on the
shoulder below the armpit and somebody holding his feet and they
dragged him inside their gate.
x x x x x
Q: You noted that somebody was carrying him using his shoulder and
armpit and the others were carrying him by way of his legs, the person
that was dragging your husband, lifting him by his armpit and
shoulders, who was that person?
A: Manuel Catulang, sir.

Q: The persons at the feet who were also carrying him in his body?
A: The three of them dragged him holding his feet and dragged him
inside the gate, sir.

Q: Was your husband resisting?

A: He was shouting and I was likewise shouting and he was shouting
the words ''MAMAMATAY AKO, PAPATAYIN NILA AKO''. I was asking
for help, he was holding my skirt but I cannot help him because they
were four, sir.

Q: Did they succeed in dragging your husband bodily to that house

where the gate was?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x x
Q: Did they close the gate after your husband was dragged inside?
A: Yes, sir, they closed the gate, sir.

29 TSN dated January 25, 2010, pp. 24-30

CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 14
DECISION

Q: Did you see what part of the premises your husband was ultimately
brought?
A: They brought him inside the house, sir.
x x x x x
Q: Inside the house, Madam Witness, inside that place where he was
ultimately dragged, what did these four assailants do to your husband?
A: They helped each other in mauling my husband and in killing my
husband, sir.

Q: In particular, Madam Witness, these four persons, how did they

assault your husband?
A: They stabbed him using a bolo, a screwdriver, sir. The four of them
helped each other in killing my husband, sir.

Q: Which of them was using the bolo or ''itak''?

A: Crispolo Bertulfo was the one holding the bolo, sir.

Q: How about the one holding the screwdriver used to stab your
husband?
A: Poly Bertulfo, sir.

Q: The other two, were they also armed?

A: The Catulangs were armed with wood, sir.

Q: How long were they doing that to your husband?

A: Because after they brought my husband inside their house, this gate
was ajar. I peeped and I saw them helping each other in stabbing my
husband and I saw blood oozing from his body so I ran away, sir. I was
running and shouting until I reached our place and to the police station
and I told them that my husband was brought to a house and he was
already dead, sir.''30

Appellants' concerted efforts and design to kill was clearly

established by the nature and number of wounds sustained by Romeo.
Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist,
among other things, of the means used by the malefactors; the conduct
of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing
of the victim; and the nature, location and number of wounds sustained
by the victim.31 Indeed, appellants, one armed with a screwdriver, one
with a bolo and one with a wood, took advantage of their combined
strength and attacked the victim, who was alone and defenseless.32

Then, too, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender

cannot be appreciated in favor of appellants. In order that voluntary
surrender is appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following
requisites must concur: (a) the accused has not been actually arrested;
(b) the accused surrenders himself to a person in authority or the

30 TSN dated August 24, 2010, pp. 4-6

31 Guevarra vs People, 715 SCRA 384.
32 Decision dated June 1, 2016, p. 317
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 15
DECISION

latter’s agent; and (c) surrender is voluntary.33 The third requisite

requires the surrender to be spontaneous, indicating the intent of the
accused to unconditionally submit himself to the authorities, either
because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble
and expenses necessary for his search and capture.

Nonetheless, any determination of whether or not appellants are

entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is in vain
considering that the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua (the
imposition death penalty having been proscribed under Republic Act No.
934634). Such penalty being indivisible, it shall be applied regardless of
any mitigating circumstance that may have attended the commission of
the crime.35

Appellants, challenging their conviction, further argue that the

court a quo erred in its finding that the evidence presented by the
prosecution proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and that it
relied merely on the incredible and inconsistent testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, Lydia and Jonathan.

We are not persuaded.

The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the aforesaid

witnesses, if at all, are minor details that pertain "only to collateral or
trivial matters and has no substantial effect on the nature of the
offense."36 Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor
details do not impair their credibility where there is consistency in
relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the
assailant.37 The matter of assigning values to declarations by witnesses
on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the
trial judge, who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the
witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available
but not reflected on the record.38 Settled is the rule that when the
credibility of an eyewitness is at issue, due deference and respect is
given by the appellate courts to the assessment made by the trial courts,
33 People vs Ignacio, 325 SCRA 375
34 An Act Prohibiting The Imposition of Death Penalty in The Philippines, repealing Republic Act 8177
otherwise known as the Act Designating Death By Lethal Injection, Republic Act 7659 otherwise known as
the Death Penalty Law and all other laws, executive orders and decree (The law was signed on June 24,
2006).
35 Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.— In all cases in which the law prescribes a
single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
36 People vs Mamaruncas, 664 SCRA 182
37 People vs Bernabe, 604 SCRA 216
38 People vs Dante Dejillo and Gervacio "Dongkoy" Hoyle, Jr., 687 SCRA 537
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 16
DECISION

absent any showing that the trial courts overlooked facts and
circumstances of substance that would have affected the final outcome
of the case.39 After a thorough examination of the records of this case,
we find no compelling reason to doubt the veracity of the findings and
conclusions made by the trial court.

In People vs Cial,40 the Supreme Court held that:

“Time and again, we have held that when it comes to the

issue of credibility of the victim or the prosecution witnesses, the
findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect and,
generally, the appellate courts will not overturn the said findings unless
the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance which will alter the assailed
decision or affect the result of the case. This is so because trial
courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the
sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual
observation of the witnesses’ manner of testifying, her ‘furtive
glance, blush of unconscious shame, hesitation, flippant or
sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of
an oath’ – all of which are useful aids for an accurate
determination of a witness’ honesty and sincerity. Trial judges,
therefore, can better determine if such witnesses are telling the
truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies.
Again, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked
which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment
must be respected, for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct
and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were
lying. x x x” (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, as correctly pointed out by the OSG, between the categorical

statements of the prosecution's witnesses, on one hand, and appellants
preposterous account of the event, on the other, the former must prevail.

Appellants cry foul that their guilt was anchored on inconsistent

statements. Rather than destroy it, inconsistencies on minor details
bolster the credibility of a testimony. As the High Court in a case
explains:

“Where the alleged inconsistencies and contradictions in the

testimonies of the prosecution witnesses refer merely to minor details
in their testimonies, they do not destroy the credibility and value of the
main points the witnesses have testified to. Such inconsistencies on
minor points are clearly the result of the imperfections of the human
memory, for it is quite impossible for witnesses to remember and recall

39 People vs del Rosario, 642 SCRA 625

40 G.R. No. 191362, October 9, 2013
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 17
DECISION

all the minor details of an occurrence long past. Contradictions on

minor details on account of lapse of time, far from being evidence
of falsehood, constitute a demonstration of good faith and a
confirmation of the truth of the parties' participation.”41 (Emphasis
supplied)

The alleged inconsistencies refer only to minor details which are

completely unrelated to the crime. Moreover, discrepancies in the
testimony of Lydia Cantiga is justifiable. What she remembered was not
the inconsequential hairsplitting details of the incident, but material
facts surrounding the death of her husband, who was brutally and
helplessly mauled before her eyes. She even had to endure the
experience twice when she had to relive the horrid killing of her
husband.42

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED

for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated June 1, 2016 rendered by
Branch 128 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City in Criminal Case
No. C-80172, for Murder, is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

SESINANDO E. VILLON
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

EDWIN D. SORONGON RAFAEL ANTONIO M. SANTOS

Associate Justice Associate Justice

41 People vs. Jamero, G.R. No. L-19852, July 29, 1968

42 Rollo, pp. 108-109
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 08389 18
DECISION

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court.

SESINANDO E. VILLON
Associate Justice
Chairperson, 8th Division