PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLUSAPE SABALONES alias "Roling," ARTEMIO TIMOTEO BERONGA, TEODULO ALEGARBES and EUFEMIO CABANERO, accused, ROLUSAPE SABALONES alias "Roling" and ARTEMIO TIMOTEO BERONGA, accused-appellants; G.R. No. 123485 August 31, 1998
TOPIC: ERROR IN PERSONAE
|
ACCUSED/CONVICTED: |
MURDER: (2 counts) |
FRUSTRATED MURDER: (3 counts) |
|
1. Rolusape Sabalones 2. Teodulo Alegarbes 3. Timoteo Beronga |
1. Glen Tiempo 2. Alfredo Nardo |
1. Rey Bolo 2. Rogelio Presores 3. Nelson Tiempo |
FACTS:
1. Accused were charged with 2 counts of murder for the deaths of Glen Tiempo, 14 y/o, hospitalized but dead on arrival, and Alfredo Nardo, who instantly died after being shot.
3 counts of frustrated murder of Rey Bolo, Rogelio Presores, Nelson Tiempo.
2. Edwin Santos testified that on June 1, 1985 @ 9:00pm, victims attended a small gathering at the House of Maj. Tiempo at Mambaling Cebu.
3. Stephen Lim, also an attendee, called Edwin’s group and requested that they drive his car home. The car and jeep went in convoy.
|
CAR: Nelson Tiempo
(driver) Rogelio
Presores Rogelio
Oliveros Junior
Villoria Edwin Santos |
JEEP: (3 – 4meters
ahead of car) Alfredo Nardo
(driver) Rey Bolo Glenn Tiempo |
5. Edwin looked at where the gunfire was from and saw Teodulo Alegarbes, Rolusape Sabalones, and Timoteo Berong and identified them as the ones who discharged the gunshots.
6.
|
PROSECUTION |
DEFENSE |
|
Edwin Santos positively identified the accused and Sabalones as one of the gunmen. When the gunmen fired at the car, driver Nelson Tiempo, although shot at the throat, managed to maneuver the car to Maj. Tiempo’s house. They were brought to Cebu Doctor’s Hospital and escaped death. Rogelio Presores corroborated Edwin's testimony and recognized Rolusape Sabalones, as one of those who fired at the jeep. He also identified in Court Teodulo Alegarbes, Timoteo Beronga and another person, whom he recognized only through his facial appearance. |
Timeteo Beronga denied with an alibi of attending a cock-derby, eating supper with his family, proceeding to sleep, and only learning about the incident the next morning. Roling
Sabalones testified and presented witnesses that he was at his brother’s wake
and was sleeping at the time of the incident and also learned about it the
next day. |
7. RTC RULING:
Accused are GUILTY of two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery and rejected appellants' defense of alibi.
8. COURT OF APPEALS: Affirmed RTC ruling but modified the sentences.
For each count of murder- reclusion perpetua.
For each count of frustrated murder - ten years (10) of prision mayor (medium), as minimum, to seventeen years (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal (medium), as maximum.
Awards:
P20,000 to each of the victims of frustrated murder. However, it was silent on the indemnity of P50,000 awarded by the trial court to the heirs of each of the two deceased.
9. Hence, they appealed to SC.
ISSUES:
(1) W/N the accused are guilty of the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:
Yes. The credibility of witnesses was established and the evidence adduced was sufficient. Edwin Santos, a survivor of the assault, positively pointed to and identified the appellants as the authors of the crime. His testimony was categorical and straightforward. Rogelio Presores another survivor, also pointed to Timoteo Beronga, Teodulo Alegarbes and Roling Sabalones as the perpetrators of the crime.
The lower courts gave credence to said witnesses. It is stressed that factual findings of the lower courts, the trial court and the Court of Appeals are, as a general rule, binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.
The trial court found that Rolusape Sabalones and his friends were gathered at one table, conversing in whispers with each other, that there were two rifles on top of the table, and that they became panicky after hearing of the death of Nabing Velez on the radio. Hence, the observation of the trial court that "they went to their grisly destination amidst the dark and positioned themselves in defense of his turf against the invasion of a revengeful gang of supporters of the recently slain Nabing Velez.
Appellants also contested the trial court's ruling that there was "ABERRATIO ICTUS" / mistake in blow present. It must be stressed that the trial court relied on the concept of aberratio ictus to explain why the appellants staged the ambush, not to prove that appellants did in fact commit the crimes.
Pieces of evidence sufficiently show that appellants believed that they were suspected of having killed the recently slain Nabing Velez, and that they expected his group to retaliate against them. Hence, upon the arrival of the victims' vehicles which they mistook to be carrying the avenging men of Nabing Velez, appellants opened fire. Nonetheless, the fact that they were mistaken does not diminish their culpability. The Court has held that "mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim.
The case is better characterized as error personae or mistake in the identity of the victims, rather than aberratio ictus which means mistake in the blow, characterized by aiming at one but hitting the other due to imprecision in the blow.
SC ruling:
The appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with modification of penalties:
1) For MURDER of Glenn Tiempo and Alfredo Nardo, the accused-appellants are each sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count and to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the 2 deceased in the sum of P50,000;
2) For FRUSTRATED MURDER of Rey Bolo, Rogelio Presores, Nelson Tiempo the accused-appellants are each sentenced to suffer the penalty of 8 years of prision mayor (minimum), as minimum, to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal (minimum) as maximum; and to jointly and severally pay the victims, in the sum of P9,431.10, P5,412.69, and P21,594.22 as actual damages respectively.
Comments
Post a Comment