G.R. No.

143404               June 08, 2005

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
JOSE BULAN and ALLAN BULAN, appellants.

DECISION

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This case was certified by the Court of Appeals (CA) to this Court for review, in view of
its finding in its Decision1 that appellants Jose Bulan and his son, Allan Bulan, are guilty
of murder as principals by indispensable cooperation punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death, and not merely as accomplices as found by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 42.

The Antecedents

Jose Bulan and his sons, Allan and Estemson, were charged with murder in an
Information filed on October 11, 1994. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:

That on or about the 6th day of June 1994 at Barangay Datag, Municipality of
Caramoran, Province of Catanduanes, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one
another for a common purpose, that is, to kill with treachery and evident premeditation,
did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, Jose Bulan and Allan Bulan held
both hands of Alberto Mariano to deprive him of any defense, while Estemson Bulan
stabbed him from behind with a deadly weapon, hitting him twice at the back which
resulted to his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of the victim’s heirs.

That the offense is aggravated by flight and use of superior strength.

ALL ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.2

Jose and Allan were duly arraigned on March 6, 1995, and pleaded not
guilty.3 Estemson, on the other hand, remained at large.

The Case for the Prosecution

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) based its summary of the facts of the case on
the documentary and object evidence, on the testimony of prosecution witnesses Dr.
Rico Lareza, SPO2 Pedro Roslin, Mariano Lopez, as well as Perlita Mariano and Pura
Mariano, the surviving sister and mother of the deceased Alberto Mariano, respectively.
Its version of the case is as follows:
1. On the night of June 6, 1994, a dance was taking place at the barangay plaza
of Barangay Datag, Municipality of Caramoran, Catanduanes. Alberto Mariano, a
barangay tanod in said barangay was assigned the task of seeing to it that
anybody who entered the gate to the dance hall at the plaza must have a ribbon
(pp. 4-5, tsn, Mariano, July 11, 1995; pp. 6-7, tsn, Lopez, July 10, 1995).

2. Appellant Allan Bulan came to the dance and entered the gate without the
required ribbon. Alberto Mariano followed appellant Allan Bulan into the dance
hall and asked him why he entered the gate without a ribbon. Instead of
answering Alberto’s question, Allan boxed him on the head. Accused Estemson
Bulan, Allan’s brother, who had entered the dance hall, likewise, boxed Alberto.
Estemson then held Alberto, while Allan boxed the latter on the chest. Perlita
Mariano, Alberto’s sister, who was present at the dance, embraced her brother
as Allan and Estemson unceasingly pummeled him (pp. 5-7, Mariano, July 11,
1995; pp. 22-25, tsn, Lopez, July 10, 1995; pp. 5-6, Decision).

3. The other barangay tanods present at the dance, Ceferino Ceballo and Juan

Boribor, and a barangay kagawad, Dante Ereso, stopped Allan and Estemson
from further beating Alberto. After being pacified by the barangay officials, Allan
and Estemson left the dance hall. Alberto, on the other hand, went back to
where he originally stood to resume his duty. His sister Perlita stood beside him
(p. 7, tsn, Mariano, July 11, 1995; p. 26, tsn, Lopez, July 10, 1995).

4. One Edwin Solo, a policeman, suddenly came into the dance hall and dragged
Alberto into the street just outside the entrance. Perlita embraced Alberto as he
was dragged outside the barangay plaza. Appellants Jose Bulan and Allan Bulan
were waiting for Alberto and immediately held the latter by his shoulders. Jose
held Alberto’s right shoulder while Allan held his left shoulder. Perlita was still
embracing her brother but she was pulled away from him (pp. 8-9 and 25, tsn,
Mariano, July 11, 1995; pp. 27-28 and 31-33, tsn, Lopez, July 10, 1995).

5. Accused Estemson Bulan suddenly appeared behind Alberto and stabbed him
twice in the back with a small bolo. Perlita screamed for help. However, despite
the fact that there were people at the entrance gate, nobody came to help
Alberto and Perlita. After stabbing Alberto, Estemson immediately escaped, while
Jose and Allan dragged the fatally wounded Alberto away from the barangay
plaza to the store of Valentin Talion, which was forty meters away from the
scene of the stabbing. They dropped Alberto face down on the ground in front of
Valentin’s store and then left, running towards the direction of [the] barangay
plaza (pp. 10-11, tsn, Mariano, July 11, 1995; pp. 18 and 33-37, tsn, Lopez, July
10, 1995).

6. Perlita, who followed Jose and Allan as they dragged her brother, kept on
shouting for help but nobody came to help them. After Jose and Allan left, Perlita
 returned to the barangay plaza and sought help from her relatives who were at
the dance. She, likewise, sought the help of the barangay officials present and
informed them that Alberto was already dead (pp. 12-13, tsn, Mariano, July 11,
1995).

7. Minutes later, Nelson Rubio, a policeman, went to the place where Alberto lay.
When the policeman tried to lift Alberto, the small bolo which was used in
stabbing Alberto and which remained embedded in his back, fell to the ground.
The Municipal Mayor of Caramoran and Dr. Rico Lareza, a doctor and the Chief
of the Caramoran Municipal Hospital, also went to the site where Alberto lay. The
doctor then requested the mayor to bring Alberto’s body to the hospital for a
post-mortem examination (pp. 13-14, tsn, Mariano, July 11, 1995; pp. 37-38,
tsn, Lopez, July 10, 1995; pp. 4-5, tsn, Lareza, May 22, 1995).

8. On the same night, at around 11:30, Dr. Lareza examined Alberto and found
that his body bore the following wounds and injuries:

(1) Stab wound, 6 cms. in length and 13 cms. in depth, located at back of
the victim at the level of the fifth intercostals space of the right middle
back, penetrating towards the heart;

(2) Stab wound, 3.5 cms. in length and 11 cms. in depth, located on the
left side of the back of the victim, directed upward towards the scapular
bone area from the left middle back;

(3) Linear hematoma, 4.5 cms. in length, located at the right side of the
neck, lateral aspect;

(4) Multiple abrasions located on the left third of the left little finger;

(5) Multiple abrasions located at the back middle part of the left index
finger; and

(6) Multiple abrasions located on the middle third of the right lower arm.
(pp. 7-9, tsn, Lareza, May 22, 1995)

9. According to Dr. Lareza, "(t)he most fatal wound is wound No. 1" (p. 9, tsn,
Lareza, May 22, 1995) and that Alberto Mariano died of Cardio-Respiratory Arrest
due to a stab wound penetrating towards the heart (vide, pp. 10-11, tsn, Lareza,
May 22, 1995; pp. 20-21, Record).4

The Case for the Appellants

Jose, a businessman from Datag East, Caramoran, Catanduanes, denied the charge. He
testified that on the night of June 6, 1994, he was with Mayor Idanan of Caramoran
and the latter’s son-in-law Ely Ty. He was with them from 10:00 p.m. onwards and
never left their company; hence, had no inkling that Alberto had been stabbed near the
gate of the dance hall.5 He further alleged that he and his companions were drinking
around a table and left the plaza only when a commotion ensued. 6 He found out that he
had been charged with murder only on June 17, 1994, when policemen informed him
that the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Caramoran had issued a warrant for his arrest.
He, likewise, had no knowledge that Alberto had been manhandled by his sons, and
that Estemson was the one who stabbed the victim. He admitted having received the
warrant of arrest issued against him by the MTC on June 17, 1994.7 At the police
station, he was told that he would be allowed to get out of jail if he could produce his
son Estemson.8

Allan, likewise, denied the charge. He admitted that he and Alberto had an altercation
inside the dance hall; the latter had boxed him on the upper lip, and he retaliated by
punching Alberto on the stomach.9 He claimed that he went home after the incident. As
he was in front of the store of one Valentin Talion, Alberto and five to six companions
accosted him, and gave him fist blows on the forehead and neck. He was also kicked on
different parts of the body. Alberto even bit the upper part of his wrist. 10 Allan averred
that his injuries were evidenced by the medical certificate issued by Dr. Rico Lareza
dated June 7, 1994. Afterwards, he fled to the house of his uncle Rudy Frondero. He
told his father of the incident, but did not inform the police or barangay
authorities.11 He left for Legaspi City on June 10, 1994 and attended school as an
irregular student at the Polytechnic College Foundation. Upon his mother’s request,
Allan accompanied her to Manila on June 27, 1994 to locate his brother Estemson. It
was only then that he learned that his father was in jail for the death of Alberto. Allan
also confirmed that he was arrested by NBI agents on August 7, 1994.

The appellants presented Mariano Ereso, a barangay kagawad, to corroborate the

testimony of Jose Bulan. Another witness, Barangay Captain Magin Isuela, testified that
he did not notice any commotion before Irma Cabrera’s announcement at the dance
floor that somebody had been stabbed.12 He was so shocked that he went home.13

Dr. Lareza testified that considering the wounds of the victim, the assailant could not
have held the bolo with the tip of the blade pointed to the elbow, then lifted the arm
holding the bolo to the level of the victim’s head, before stabbing the latter on the right
middle portion of the back. The doctor averred that in such a case, the trajectory of the
wound would be downward and not horizontal.14 Moreover, Wound No. 2 could not
have been inflicted by one who held the bolo above the victim’s head, then thrusted it
downwards.15 The doctor also explained that the road from the plaza gate to the store
was stony; if the victim had been dropped on the road, face and chest down, it was
possible that he would have a blackeyed face or sustained abrasions.16 Considering that
there was a pool of blood where the body was found, the victim could have been
stabbed in front of the store.17
Rudy Tuqueño testified that he was drinking beer near the gate but did not witness any
stabbing incident. Apropriano Selsona, Jr. corroborated Tuqueño’s testimony.

After trial, the trial court rendered judgment convicting the accused of murder as
accomplices. The fallo of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Jose and Allan Bulan, considering the
Indeterminate Sentence Law in their favor, are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
of imprisonment ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of prision temporal as maximum
and to indemnify the heirs of the accused in the amount of ₱50,000.00. The period of
their detention is credited in full in their favor in the service of their sentence.

The case as against Estemson Bulan who remains at large up to present is hereby
placed in the archive till after his arrest.

SO ORDERED.18

The trial court declared that there was no conspiracy between the appellants and
Estemson.

On appeal to the CA, the appellate court rendered judgment on June 13, 2000 affirming
the decision of the RTC, with the modification that the appellants and Estemson were
guilty of murder as principals by indispensable cooperation. The appellate court
declared that as gleaned from the evidence on record, the three of them conspired to
kill the deceased. The fallo of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution which

provides:

"The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(d) all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher"

and Par. 2, Section 13, Rule 124, Rules of Court, which states:

"Whenever a Criminal Cases Division should be of the opinion that the penalty of death
or life imprisonment be imposed in a case, the said Division after the discussion of the
evidence and the law involved, shall render judgment imposing the penalty of death
or reclusion perpetua or higher as circumstances warrant, refrain from entering
judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate the entire record thereof to the
Supreme Court for review."
and finding the accused-appellants, Jose Bulan and Allan Bulan, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of conspiring in murdering Alberto Mariano, as penalized under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code by reclusion perpetua to death. We hereby certify this
case to the Honorable Supreme Court for final determination and proper action.

SO ORDERED.19

On March 22, 2001, the Court resolved to accept the case.20 The appellants opted not
to file a supplemental brief.21

The appellants aver that the trial court committed the following errors:

I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF

PROSECUTION WITNESS MARIANO LOPEZ THAT WITHIN TWO METERS FROM THE
GATE OF THE DATAG PLAZA WHERE A DANCE WAS BEING HELD, THE DECEASED
ALBERTO MARIANO WAS STABBED BY ESTEMSON BULAN WHILE BEING HELD BY
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS JOSE AND ALLAN BULAN WHO THEN ALLEGEDLY DRAGGED
HIM FROM THE GATE TOWARDS THE STORE OF VALENTIN TALION FORTY METERS
AWAY.

II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF

PROSECUTION WITNESS PERLITA MARIANO THAT WITHIN TWO METERS FROM THE
GATE OF THE DATAG PLAZA WHERE A DANCE WAS BEING HELD, THE DECEASED
ALBERTO MARIANO WAS STABBED BY ESTEMSON BULAN WHILE BEING HELD BY
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS JOSE AND ALLAN BULAN WHO THEN ALLEGEDLY DRAGGED
HIM FROM THE GATE TOWARDS THE STORE OF VALENTIN TALION FORTY METERS
AWAY.

III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF
ACCUSED ALLAN BULAN ALLEGING THAT HE WAS MAULED BY ALBERTO MARIANO
AND COMPANIONS IN FRONT OF VALENTIN’S STORE AND DENYING THE ALLEGED
HOLDING AND STABBING AT AND DRAGGING FROM THE GATE OF THE DATAG PLAZA.

IV. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF
ACCUSED-APPELLANT JOSE BULAN DENYING THE ALLEGED HOLDING AND STABBING
AT AND DRAGGING FROM THE DATAG PLAZA.

V. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.22

The appellants assert that the trial court erred in giving credence and probative weight
to the testimony of Mariano and Perlita that Alberto was stabbed about two meters
away from the gate of the plaza. They aver that the physical evidence on record even
negates their testimony, as to where and how the victim was stabbed. They point out
that the pool of blood was found in front of Talion’s store, and not within the vicinity of
the plaza gate where the dance was being held. Moreover, the deceased still had his
slippers on, and his feet and face bore no abrasions or hematoma; according to the
appellants, this proved that the victim was not dragged from near the plaza gate to the
place near Talion’s store as testified to by Mariano and Perlita. The appellants maintain
that the absence of any reaction from those in the dance hall and the vendors near the
gate negates their testimony – that Perlita saw her brother being stabbed near the
plaza gate. Moreover, the testimony of Mariano Lopez and Perlita Mariano were replete
with inconsistencies on material points; hence, are barren of probative weight. In
contrast, the testimony of appellant Allan Bulan is consistent with and corroborated by
his medical certificate,23 as well as Dr. Lareza’s post-mortem report.24

For its part, the OSG asserts that while Dr. Lareza’s testimony on the trajectory of the
wounds of the deceased did not jibe with that of Mariano, the undeniable fact is that
the deceased was stabbed twice at the back. The OSG posits that Mariano was not
expected to have a recorded memory of the incident. Moreover, the only evidence
relied upon by the appellants to prove the absence of blood trails from the plaza gate
going to the store where the stabbing occurred was their own testimony. The OSG
surmises that Mariano’s shouts for help went unnoticed; as such, the appellants still
managed to carry the deceased from the gate to the place near the store where he was
eventually found. The OSG further points out that the bolo the appellants used to stab
the victim remained embedded on his back. The bare fact that the victim did not suffer
any abrasions on the face and that one of his slippers remained on his left toe did not
negate Mariano and Perlita’s testimony (that the appellants carried the victim and
dropped him near the said store). The OSG avers that while there may have been
inconsistencies between the testimonies of Perlita and Mariano, their respective
accounts were still consistent on material points.

The Ruling of the Court

The general rule is that the factual findings of the trial court, including its assessment of
the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight thereof, as well as the
conclusions of the trial court based on its factual findings, are accorded high respect, if
not conclusive effect, especially if such findings are affirmed by the CA. This is so
because the trial court is able to observe at close range the demeanor and deportment
of the witnesses as they testify.25 However, the general rule does not apply if the trial
court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances which, if
considered, will warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.26

The prosecution is burdened to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Indeed, the testimony of a lone witness, if found positive and credible by the
trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction especially when the testimony bears the
earmarks of truth and sincerity. While the number of witnesses may be considered a
factor in the appreciation of evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessarily
with the greatest number. Conviction of the accused may still be had on the basis of the
credible and positive testimony of a single witness.27
It must be stressed that evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth
of a credible witness but it must also be credible in itself, such that common experience
and observation of mankind lead to the inference its probability under the
circumstances.28 On the other hand, inconsistencies as to minor details and peripheral
or collateral matters do not affect the credibility of witnesses nor the probative weight
of their testimonies. Such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen their
credibility as they negate any suspicion that their testimonies are fabricated or
rehearsed.29 Even the most candid of witnesses commit mistakes and make confused
and inconsistent statements. As the Court declared in People v. Alolod:30

… Not all persons who witness an incident are impressed in the same manner and it is
but natural that in relating their impressions, they disagree on the minor details and
that there be contradictions in their testimonies. Witnesses cannot be expected to
recollect with exactitude every minute detail of an event. This is especially true when
the witnesses testify as to facts which transpired in rapid succession, attended by flurry
and excitement. The testimony of each witness should not be expected to be identical
to and coinciding with each other. It is enough that the principal points covered by their
testimonies are established although they do not dovetail in all details – which would
even prove well-rehearsed and studied declarations. …31

Absent evidence showing any reason or motive for a witness to falsely testify against
the accused, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and the
testimony should be accorded full faith and credit.32

The testimony of a witness must be considered and calibrated in its entirety and not by
truncated portions thereof or isolated passages therein.33 It is perfectly reasonable to
believe the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it with
respect to other facts,34 as there is hardly a witness who can perfectly remember the
details of a crime. Human memory is not as unerring as a photograph. 35 Thus,
corroborative evidence in order to be credible need not coincide on all aspects.36

In this case, the prosecution relied on the collective testimonies of Perlita and Mariano,
who claimed to have seen Estemson stab Alberto; the prosecution also anchored its
case on the testimony of Dr. Lareza and his medico-legal report. The Court declares
that Perlita’s testimony, the medico-legal certificate and the expert testimony of Dr.
Lareza would have been enough to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable
doubt.

Perlita, the sister of the deceased, testified that Estemson stabbed her brother with a
small bolo at the back, about two meters more or less from the plaza gate. She
declared that Jose held the deceased by the right shoulder, while Allan held him by the
left; Estemson then appeared from behind the victim. Perlita was near her brother
when he was stabbed:
Q Please inform the court what happened afterwards?

A Immediately, a man came and went inside the dance hall, then held my brother and
told us that he would bring my brother outside, Sir.

Q And at that period of time, what was your reaction, if any?

A That man who came in was Edwin Solo and I asked him why he would bring my
brother outside and asked him he is doing so (sic) are you a barangay captain?

Q Then what was the reaction of Edwin Solo after you told him that?

A He did not mind me and dragged my brother out while I was embracing my brother,
Sir.

Q Was Edwin Solo able to drag your brother out of the gate?

A Yes, Sir.

Q And what happened after your brother and you had been dragged out of the plaza?

A Upon reaching outside, Jose Bulan and Allan Bulan immediately held my brother on
his shoulders, Sir.

ATTY. BERCES:

We just want to make it of record that the witness is crying and we request [that] we
be given little time to let her regain her composure, Your Honor.

COURT:

Alright, recess for five minutes.

(After five minutes, session was resumed.)

ATTY. BERCES:

Q So, you said upon reaching outside the gate, your brother was held by Jose Bulan
and Allan Bulan by the shoulders?

A Yes, Sir.

Q Before I proceed, when you mentioned about Jose Bulan, are you referring to Jose
Bulan who is one of the accused in this case?
A Yes, Sir.

Q Will you please point to him if he is inside the court room?

A (Witness pointing to the accused Jose Bulan.)

Q Can you tell the court, if you know, what relation has this Jose Bulan to the other
accused Allan Bulan and Estemson Bulan?

A Jose Bulan is the father of Allan and Estemson Bulan, Sir.

Q On what side did Jose Bulan hold your brother?

A At the right side of my brother, Sir.

Q What about this Allan Bulan?

A On the left side, Sir.

Q And where were you at that time?

A I was still near my brother and then somebody suddenly pulled me from my brother,
Sir.

Q And after that moment, what happened next, if any?

A Estemson Bulan immediately entered coming from behind and immediately stabbed
my brother, Sir.

Q Do you know the cardinal directions, North and South?

A Yes, Sir.

Q Now, using that as reference, from what direction did Estemson Bulan come?

A From the South, Sir.

Q And as you said upon appearing this Estemson Bulan stabbed your brother, was your
brother hit?

A Yes, Sir.

Q In what part of his body was your brother hit by Estemson Bulan?

A At the back, Sir.

Q After you saw Estemson Bulan stabbed (sic) your brother, what did you do?

A I shouted for help and no one came, Sir.

Q Can you tell the Court whether after the first stabbing by Estemson Bulan, was your
brother stabbed subsequently?

A When I cried for help and no one came, all of a sudden I saw Estemson Bulan ran
(sic) away, Sir.

Q By the way, what is the distance of the place where your brother is being held by
Jose Bulan and Allan Bulan and stabbed by Estemson Bulan in relation to the gate of
the plaza?

A More or less two meters, Sir.

Q Now, considering that it was nighttime, how were you able to see that incident?

A At the gate, there was a fluorescent lamp and the plaza was surrounded by light
bulbs, Sir.

Q What is found at the gate, were there fluorescent lamp at the same time light bulbs?

A Only fluorescent lamp, Sir.

Q And where were the bulbs installed?

A They were installed around the plaza and at the dance hall, Sir.37

After Estemson had fled, the appellants dragged the victim to the store of Valentin
Talion, about 40 meters away. They then dropped the victim on the ground and fled
from the scene. When she realized that no one was responding to her cries for help,
Perlita returned to the plaza to seek the aid of her relatives and the barangay
authorities:

Q After Estemson Bulan stabbed your brother and subsequently fled as you said, what
did this Jose Bulan and Allan Bulan do?

A Jose Bulan and Allan Bulan dragged my brother up to the place fronting the store of
Mang Enting.

Q What is the full name of this Mang Enting?

A Valentin Talion, Sir.

Q About how many meters is that place of Valentin Talion to the place where your
brother was stabbed?

A More or less forty meters, Sir.

Q Now, if we will use that place where you are seated now as the place where your
brother was stabbed, can you please point to a place which would correspond to the
extent of forty meters?

A (Witness pointed to a distance of about forty meters.)

Q When your brother was dragged towards the front of Valentin Talion’s store, what
happened next, if any?

A Somebody poked the light of his flashlight on them and that was the time the two
dropped my brother, Sir.

Q When you said they dropped your brother, you are referring to Jose Bulan and Allan
Bulan?

A Yes, Sir.

Q Were you able to identify the person who had a flashlight?

A Yes, Sir.

Q And after Allan Bulan and Jose Bulan dropped your brother in that place, what did
they do?

A They ran away, Sir.

Q Towards the North, South or what direction?

A They fled and ran towards the direction of the plaza, Sir.

Q Then what did you do at that moment?

A I was with my brother in the place where he was dropped and I kept on shouting for
help but then I thought I was not heard since the music and the dance was going on,
so I went back to the plaza and look for my relatives and I saw Tiya Corazon and Irma
Cabrera, Sir.

Q And what did you do upon seeing your Tiya Corazon and Irma Cabrera?
A I asked the help of the barangay captain and a kagawad and inform them that my
brother was already dead, Sir.

Q Was there anybody who responded to your call for help?

A Yes, Sir.

Q Who was that?

A It was policeman Nelson Rubio, Sir.

Q Can you give an estimate if how many minutes after did this policeman come to your
assistance after Jose and Allan Bulan dropped your brother near the place of the store
of Valentin Talion?

A About a few minutes, Sir.

Q And after Nelson Rubio arrived, what did you do?

A He tried to lift my brother and then a knife (palas or small bolo) fell on the ground,
Sir.

Q From where did this "palas" come?

A From the back of my brother, Sir.

Q What relation has that to the weapon that was used by Estemson Bulan in stabbing
your brother?

A That was the weapon that was used in stabbing my brother, Sir.

Q If that weapon is shown to you, would you be able to identify the same?

A Yes, Sir.

Q I am showing to you a small bolo which is marked already as Exh. C, kindly look at
this and inform the Court whether this was the same weapon which you saw dropped
from the body of your brother?

A Yes, Sir.38

On the other hand, Dr. Lareza testified that the victim was stabbed at the back with a
sharp and pointed instrument which he saw at the place where the victim lay:

Q Let us go to Item No. 1 which I read:

"Stabbed wound 6 cms. in length and 13 cms. in depth penetrating towards the heart
over the 5th intercostal space, with associated fracture of the rib bone on the right
middle back." Will you explain in layman’s term, what this means?

A In layman’s term, the stabbed wound was located at the back of the victim at the
level of the fifth intercostal space of the right middle back, penetrating towards the
heart.

Q What do you mean here with associated fracture of the rib bone?

A There is a broken rib bone.

Q What could have caused this stab wound?

A That stab wound may be (sic) caused by a sharp and pointed instrument, Sir.

Q So that it could be caused by the same instrument you saw at the place of the
incident?

A Maybe, Sir.

Q Showing to you a bladed instrument with wooden handle still stained with blood, to
your recollection, is this the bladed weapon which you saw at the scene of the incident?

A More or less the same, Sir.39

The Court is not impervious of the fact that while Perlita testified that she saw her
brother being stabbed only once, the medico-legal certificate issued by Dr. Lareza
shows that the victim sustained another stab wound at the back, less severe than the
first. This seeming inconsistency, however, does not detract from the verisimilitude of
Perlita’s testimony that she saw Estemson stab her brother. As Perlita recounted, she
was so shocked and horrified by the sudden appearance of Estemson and the
subsequent stabbing of her brother that she frantically shouted for help. It is possible
that it was at that precise moment when Estemson stabbed her brother anew at the
back, hence, Perlita failed to witness it. Indeed, this Court declared in People v.
Bihison40 –

Eyewitnesses to a horrifying event cannot be expected, nor be faulted if they are

unable, to be completely accurate in picturing to the court all that has transpired and
every detail of what they have seen or heard. Various reasons, mostly explainable, can
account for this reality; the Court has long acknowledged the verity that different
human minds react distinctly and diversely when confronted with a sudden and
shocking event, and that a witness may sometimes ignore certain details which at the
time might have appeared to him to be insignificant but which to another person under
the same circumstances, would seem noteworthy.41
The Court notes that the only evidence of the appellants to prove that there were no
traces of human blood from near the gate to the store of Talion was the testimony of
Dr. Lareza. However, the doctor did not testify that he investigated the condition of the
path from the gate to the store to ascertain the presence or absence of blood.

The appellants contend that Perlita’s testimony is incredible, since she claimed to have
shouted for help, but there was no reaction from the crowd. The Court rejects this
contention. It bears stressing that festivities were then ongoing at the plaza, the blaring
music thus drowned out Perlita’s shouts for help. Perlita must have realized this and
thus went back to the plaza from the store and informed her relatives that Alberto had
been stabbed. With the dancing and partying, no one in the plaza noticed the
appellants dragging Alberto towards the direction of the store. Perlita then managed to
talk to her cousin Irma Cabrera, the barangay captain and policeman Nelson Rubio
who, with the municipal mayor, responded to her report. When Perlita relayed the
stabbing to Irma Cabrera, the latter, in turn, hurriedly announced the incident over the
microphone; it was only then that the public became aware of the tragedy. Rubio then
recovered the palas (small bolo) when it fell from the victim’s back as he lifted the
lifeless body. The Court agrees with the following submissions of the OSG:

Moreover, it cannot be discounted that other people may have seen the stabbing of
Alberto but they chose not to volunteer and reveal what they had seen to the police
authorities. It must be pointed out that the natural tendency of most people not to get
involved in criminal cases is of judicial notice [People v. Tulop, 289 SCRA 316 (1998)]
and that "(i)t is of common human experience that people overcome by great fear, not
only for their lives but also of those of their loved ones, will choose to remain tight-
lipped about an incident and suffer in silence rather than expose to risk their own safety
and of those for whom they care" [People v. Dadles, 278 SCRA 393 (1997)].42

The pool of blood in the vicinity where the appellants dropped Alberto face down near
Talion’s store, and the absence of any traces of blood from the gate to the store cannot
be the basis of a conclusion that Alberto was stabbed in that place and not near the
plaza gate. Considering that the appellants dropped Alberto face down near the store
and the cadaver remained thereat for some time, it is but logical that a pool of blood
would have formed near the body. Thus:

Q And by the time that a person was carried at a distance of about 40 to 50 meters, the
bulk or the greater quantity of the blood will flow or ooze and dropped in that place
where he was rested?

Q Doctor, we will have the question reread to you and answer it accordingly. I am just
concentrating in the place where the pool of blood was found at the scene of the
cadaver. I am only focusing my question in this particular pool of blood as shown in the
picture. Assuming that the patient was stabbed in the gate of the plaza and was
brought to another site and assuming that the patient was dragged about 40 to 50
meters, naturally there will be a trail of blood along the way and on the place where he
was rested? But the greater quantity also of the blood be accumulated in that place
where he was rested, particularly he has been there for about an hour as depicted in
the picture?

A Yes, Sir.43

The appellants failed to adduce evidence that there was no pool of blood near the gate
of the plaza where Alberto was stabbed. In fact, even the absence of blood near the
gate would not negate Perlita’s claim that her brother was stabbed there. The evidence
on record shows that immediately after Estemson stabbed the victim, the appellants
dragged Alberto face down from the gate towards the store. It is entirely possible that
the blood from the victim’s wounds had not yet accumulated and dripped to the ground
before he was dragged:

ATTY. BERCES:

Q From your expert testimony, doctor, when a person is stabbed and subsequently the
bladed instrument is withdrawn from the body, the blood does not automatically ooze
from the wound?

A There are some blood in other wounds that will come out, Sir.

Q And after a certain distance, this blood that were, in the meantime, retained in the
body could be released after a few minutes?

ATTY. FERNANDEZ:

May I just comment that there are two stab wounds.

ATTY. BERCES:

I am referring now to both wounds. Anyway, they were inflicted within a split second.

Q Would that be possible that the blood would be emitted a little after?

A It depends on what portion of the body that was hit, Sir.44

That Estemson carried the palas (small bolo) to the plaza is not unlikely. The
inscrutable fact is that he stabbed the victim with a small bolo; where the assailant
secured the weapon is irrelevant.

The absence of any abrasions or bruises on the face and feet of the victim, and the fact
that his Spartan slipper was still hanging from his left foot, do not negate Perlita’s
testimony that he was dragged 40 meters away from the gate. We agree with the
following submission of the OSG:

(6) The fact that Alberto still had his "Spartan" slipper on his left toe and that his toes
and feet did not bear abrasions do not necessarily indicate that Alberto was not
dragged by appellants forty meters away from where he was stabbed. Moreover,
appellants’ assertion that Alberto’s face did not bear any abrasions does not necessarily
mean that he was not dropped by appellants face down on the ground in front of the
store.

It must be pointed out that the fact that Alberto still had his "Spartan" slipper on his left
toe (sic) could also indicate that he had been dragged for some distance before being
left in front of the store. In the process of being dragged, Alberto lost his right slipper
and his left slipper remained entangled on his left toe.

The fact that his toes did not bear abrasions could also indicate that his right slipper
was only dislodged as appellants were nearing Valentin Talion’s store and that his left
slipper, though partially dislodged as it remained on Alberto’s left toe, still afforded
minimum protection to Alberto’s left foot. Moreover, there was no official finding that
the terrain of the path through which Alberto had been dragged was rough and stony
as to damage Alberto’s feet.

As regards the absence of abrasions on Alberto’s face, it must be pointed out that the
height from which Alberto was dropped was never determined or established. It is
possible that Alberto may have been dropped by appellants with his face only a few
inches from the ground. Thus, when Alberto was dropped, the impact of the fall was
not enough to cause abrasions or bruises on his face.45

Significantly, the victim’s other slipper has not been accounted for by the police
investigators.

There is, likewise, no evidence that Perlita had any ill or devious motive to falsely
implicate Estemson and the appellants to the stabbing of her brother. Barely two days
after the incident (on June 8, 1994), Perlita gave her sworn statement to SPO4 Ruben
T. Sarmiento, naming Estemson as her brother’s assailant, with the appellants as
companions.46 Hence, the testimony of Perlita must be accorded full faith and credit.

The next issue is whether or not the appellants are guilty of the crime charged as
principals by direct participation as ruled by the CA, or, as ruled by the RTC, mere
accomplices to the crime of murder.

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is conspiracy when two or more
persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential
to prove conspiracy; it may be established by acts of the accused before, during and
after the commission of the crime charged, from which it may be logically inferred the
existence of a common purpose to commit the same.47 The prosecution must prove
conspiracy by the same quantum of evidence as the felony charged itself. Indeed, proof
of previous agreement among the malefactors to commit the crime is not essential to
prove conspiracy.48 It is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and
killed the victim; what is primordial is that all the participants performed specific acts
with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to
bring out the victim’s death.49 Once conspiracy is established, it is unnecessary to prove
who among the conspirators inflicted the fatal injury.50 If conspiracy is proved, all the
conspirators are criminally liable for the crime charged and proved. The act of one is
the act of all.

In this case, the appellants were waiting outside the dance hall near the gate when
Edwin Solo brought the victim towards them, onto the street. Jose held the victim by
the right shoulder, while Allan held him by the left. Estemson suddenly appeared from
behind the victim and stabbed the latter at the back with a small bolo. The appellants
continued holding the victim as Estemson stabbed him yet again. Even as Estemson
fled, the appellants dragged the victim from the gate, towards the store, where they
dropped the victim’s body and fled from the scene. Allan then left Catanduanes and hid
in Pasay City where he was arrested by the NBI on August 7, 1994.51

Considering the foregoing, the Court affirms the finding of the CA that the appellants
are guilty as principals by direct participation in the killing of Alberto Mariano.52

Indeed, the only defenses proffered by the appellants are denial and alibi, which are,
however, the weakest of defenses in criminal cases. The well-established rule is that
denial and alibi are self-serving negative evidence; they cannot prevail over the
spontaneous, positive and credible testimony of Perlita Mariano who pointed to and
identified the appellants as the two of the malefactors.53 Indeed, alibi is easy to concoct
and difficult to disprove.54 The Court notes that the appellants even admitted that they
were in the dance hall before the stabbing, and that Jose left only after the incident.
Moreover, Jose did not present any other witness to corroborate his alibi.

The crime committed by the appellants is murder qualified by treachery. Although there
was an altercation between Estemson and the victim shortly before the latter was
stabbed, treachery nevertheless attended the commission of the crime. As this Court
held in People v. Teston:55

We disagree with the trial court’s ruling that treachery did not attend the killing.
Treachery is present when the attack is sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of
any real chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring the commission of the crime
without risk to the offender. The lower court held that since Vladiner and FORCA fought
on the day of the killing, Vladiner was forewarned of the danger to himself. Also, it
considered the fight as evidence that the accused did not consciously adopt their mode
of attack "as their confrontation was coincidental."

That the victim and the accused had an altercation immediately before the attack upon
the victim does not negate the presence of treachery. In People v. Molina, we held that
"[t]reachery may also be appreciated even when the victim was warned of danger or
initially assaulted frontally, but was attacked again after being rendered helpless and
had no means to defend himself or to retaliate." Similarly, in People v. Villonez, this
Court declared that –

However, we do not share the assessment of the trial court that there was no treachery
in this case because the victim had engaged in a fight previous to the killing and was
thus forewarned of an attack against him. Treachery may still be appreciated even
when the victim was forewarned of danger to his person. What is decisive is that the
execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to
retaliate. The overwhelming number of the accused, their use of weapons against the
unarmed victim, and the fact that the victim’s hands were held behind him preclude the
possibility of any defense by the victim.

In the instant case, it has been established that while Vladiner was being held down by
GACO and OSORIO, FORCA stabbed him several times. However, despite Vladiner’s
helpless and vulnerable condition, TESTON still hacked him repeatedly, guaranteeing
that the victim would not survive the attack. This undoubtedly constitutes treachery for
the means employed by accused ensured the execution of their nefarious designs upon
the victim without risk to themselves arising from any defense which the offended party
might have made.56

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the felony, the appellants should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua,
conformably to Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The appellants are
also civilly liable to the heirs of the deceased in the amount of ₱50,000.00 by way of
civil indemnity, and ₱50,000.00 by way of moral damages.57

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR No. 22904 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Appellants Jose Bulan and Allan
Bulan are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder as defined in Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, qualified by
treachery. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances in the commission of
the crime, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
appellants are ORDERED to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of Alberto Mariano the
amount of ₱50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, and ₱50,000.00 by way of moral
damages. Costs against the appellants.
SO ORDERED.