People vs Saragina : 128281 : May 30, 2000 : J. Gonzaga-Reyes : Third Division

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 128281. May 30, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLITO SARAGINA @ "CARLING", accused-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

This is an appeal interposed by accused Carlito Saragina @ "Carling" from the Decision[1] dated January 17, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalookan City, Branch 127 in Criminal Case No. C-40993 finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

An Information for Murder was filed against accused Carlito Saragina @ "Carling" (CARLITO) and William Langcuyan (at large) as follows:

"That on or about the 1st day of April, 1992 in Kalookan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping with each other, without any justifiable cause, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and stab with the use of two (2) butcher knives one ANTONIO VULPANGCO Y HULATON on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries, which injuries eventually caused his death."[2]

Upon arraignment, accused CARLITO with the assistance of counsel entered a plea of not guilty.[3]

The RTC summarized the facts as culled from the testimonies of the witnesses presented by the prosecution as follows:

"That at around 5:45 p.m. of 1 April 1992 Victim ANTONIO VULPANGCO Y HULATON (Victim for short) was at his barbecue stand located in Purok IV, Kawal St., Dagatdagatan, preparing the charcoal for his barbecue and beside him was his wife herein Private Complainant PELAGIA TRIGO-VULPANGCO (Private Complainant for short) watching TV when the Accused CARLITO SARAGINA (Accused for short) suddenly appeared from nowhere and simultaneously asked his companion, herein Accused WILLIAM "BONG" LANGCUYAN "Sino ang nakaaway ng nanay mo", to which the latter responded by pointing to the person of Victim with the motion of his lips. Thereupon Accused SARAGINA armed with knives in both hands rushed to the direction of victim and at this precise moment MERCEDITA MARTIN who was then nearby watching basketball game was able to see the event and sensing what was forthcoming warned the Victim by shouting "Tiyong takbo" prompting the latter to run but was overtaken after a brief chase by Accused SARAGINA who forthwith stabbed Victim at right side of his back below the armpit . Despite his injuries, Victim was able to run a short distance to the nearby alley where he fell down fact up to the ground. Accused pursued Victim and was about to enter the door of a certain house on the mistaken belief that Victim took refuge thereat if not for the warning shout of his co-Accused WILLIAM LANGCUYAN "hindi diyan Tiyong" prompting Accused to proceed to the alley which was the direction pointed to by his cohort and finding victim thereat lying prostrate on the ground hacked the latter on the face causing his instantaneous death. Forthwith both Accused SARAGINA and LANGCUYAN fled from the crime scene right after the latter had uttered "Tiyong takbo na".[4]

On January 17, 1997, the RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder the dispositive portion of the decision reads:

"WHEREFORE premises considered and the prosecution having established beyond an iota of a doubt the guilt of the accused CARLITO SARAGINA of the crime of Murder, this Court hereby sentences said Accused to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of the late ANTONIO VULPANGCO the amount of P50,000.00 without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.

The period of Accused’s preventive imprisonment shall be credited in full in the service of his sentence pursuant to Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

Let the case against Accused WILLIAM LANGCUYAN be archived without prejudice to its revival if he would be arrested later on.

SO ORDERED."[5]

Hence the present appeal where the accused-appellant assigns the following errors allegedly committed by the trial court:

I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING EXCULPATORY WEIGHT TO THE DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE ITS ATTENDANCE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED.[6]

The accused-appellant contends that the RTC erred in not giving weight to his claim that he acted in self-defense when he stabbed Antonio Vulpangco (VULPANGCO). He maintains that when he confronted VULPANGCO regarding the complaint of his sister, VULPANGCO got angry and picked up a knife to stab him. He was able to grab VULPANGCO’s hand and they grappled for possession of the same. After he was able to successfully wrest the knife away from VULPANGCO, he stabbed the latter in defense. The accused-appellant maintains that it was necessary for him to stab VULPANGCO in order to repel the aggression against him.

It is further contended by the accused-appellant that the witnesses of the prosecution namely, Pelagio Trigo Vda. De Vulpangco and Editha Trigo were biased and not credible witnesses. The RTC should not therefore have given full weight and credence to their testimonies.

The accused-appellant claims that, assuming for the sake of argument that he stabbed the victim not in the act of legitimate self-defense, the RTC erred in convicting him of the crime of murder in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that treachery attended the commission of the crime. In finding the presence of treachery, the RTC merely inferred the attendance thereof since the attack on the victim was sudden and unexpected. The accused-appellant prays that the decision of the RTC be reversed and that he be acquitted of the crime charged.

The appellee, on the other hand, posits that the guilt of the accused-appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt and that he is guilty of the crime of murder.

The Solicitor General argues that the claim of the accused-appellant that he acted in self-defense is untenable considering that it was incumbent on the accused-appellant to prove clearly and convincingly that the killing of VULPANGCO was justified and that he incurred no liability therefor. This he failed to do. Moreover, self-defense is an affirmative allegation all the elements of which must be established with certainty. The accused-appellant’s reliance on his sister’s testimony which aside from being self-serving, only proves provocation on the part of VULPANGCO and does not prove self-defense. Besides, the fact that the accused fled the scene of the crime negates the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Further, evidence reveals that when the accused-appellant stabbed VULPANGCO the first time, VULPANGCO managed to run away but the accused-appellant, resolute in his purpose to kill him, chased and stabbed him again. Clearly, this negates self-defense.

The appellee however agrees with the accused-appellant that treachery was not proved and that the RTC based its finding on inferences and not on conclusive proof. Moreover, the assault on VULPANGCO cannot be characterized as sudden and unexpected inasmuch as he was forewarned of the impending danger against him and that he was able to run from the accused-appellant. The appellee submits however that the crime committed by the accused-appellant is still murder since evident premeditation, which was alleged in the information, was sufficiently proved. It was established that the accused-appellant learned that VULPANGCO was harassing his sister, Ester Langcuyan (ESTER), by uttering malicious remarks against her and showing his private part to her when he was drunk a week before he assaulted VULPANGCO. One week was more than sufficient time for him to think and reflect upon his determination to carry out his criminal intent. The appellee therefore recommends that the decision of the RTC be affirmed.

After a careful and meticulous review of the evidence on record, we resolve to affirm the RTC’s judgment of conviction.

The accused-appellant admits that he stabbed and killed VULPANGCO but claims that he acted in self-defense. Because of this claim, the burden of proof was shifted to the accused-appellant to establish by clear and convincing evidence the elements thereof, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent and repel it; and, (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[7]

Foremost of the above requisites is that the victim was guilty of unlawful aggression; the absence of this requisite negates the existence of self-defense.[8] Evidence must positively show that there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked attack on the person of the accused which placed him in danger and justified him in inflicting harm upon his assailant through the employment of reasonable means to repel the aggression.[9]

In the present case, the evidence clearly establishes that VULPANGCO was not guilty of unlawful aggression. On the contrary, it was the accused-appellant who was guilty of the sudden and unprovoked attack. Principal prosecution witness, Mercedita Martin (MARTIN), a Barangay Kagawad, narrated the events leading to the killing Of VULPANGCO and positively identified the accused-appellant as the assailant in her testimony the pertinent portions of which are quoted as follows:

"PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Do you recall where were you on April 1, 1996 at about 5:45 p.m.?

WITNESS:

In the Plaza of Purok 4.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Do you recall if there was untoward incident that happened on that date?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

What was that?

WITNESS:

Carlito Saragina stabbed Antonio Volfangco.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

You said that the accused Carlito Saragina stabbed Antonio Volfangco, is that correct?

ATTY. BASA:

Leading, Your Honor.

COURT:

Sustained.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

You testified that you witnessed the stabbing incident of Antonio Volfangco, is that correct?

ATTY. BASA:

Leading also, Your Honor.

COURT:

He is asking whether the previous statement of the witness is correct or not to the effect that he saw the stabbing of the victim by the accused.

ATTY. BASA:

Still leading, Your Honor.

COURT:

He is asking if that is true a follow-up of the previous answer?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Do you know the accused personally stabbed Antonio Volfangco?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Is he present right now?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Will you please point to him?

INTERPRETER:

Witness standing and point to a person who rose and gave his name as Carlito Saragina.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

What is your relative distance from the stabbing incident?

WITNESS:

Two arms length.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Did you see what instrument the accused used?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Can you tell the Honorable Court?

WITNESS:

A knife with yellow handle measuring a ruler and another knife more than one (1) foot long.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Can you tell the Honorable Court how the accused stabbed the victim?

WITNESS:

He used his right hand.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Did you see which part of the body of the victim was hit?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Where?

WITNESS:

Below the right armpit.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

After he was hit below the right side of his body below the armpit, what happened?

WITNESS:

He faced up and then he was able to enter the house of our neighbor. When he heard the shout of Bong "Not in there Tiyong? (Hindi diyan Tiyong) and then I saw him re-entered the alley where Volfangco was lying and he hacked Volfangco on his face.

COURT:

Why the victim was able to run after the first stabbing.

WITNESS:

He was able to walk about three steps before he fell down.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

What did the accused Carlito Saragina do after the victim was able to run three (3) feet from the first stabbing?

WITNESS:

He followed in the alley and when he saw the victim lying face down he hacked him on the face.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

After the accused hit the victim on the face what happened?

WITNESS:

He and Bong ran away.

ATTY. BASA:

Who is Bong?

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Is he around?

WITNESS:

He is not here.

COURT:

What is the full name of that Bong?

WITNESS:

William Langcuyan.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Do you know the reason why the accused stabbed the victim?

WITNESS:

The only reason I know the sister of Carlito Saragina and the victim engaged in a verbal tussle.

ATTY. BASA:

We moved for the striking out of the answer as it is asking for an opinion.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

How did you learn about that fact?

WITNESS:

While I was in plaza I heard about it.

COURT:

Let it remain in the record as part of the narration.

xxx xxx xxx

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Going back to the incident when the victim was hacked on the face, what happened?

WITNESS:

Carlito ran followed by Bong.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

What happened then after that?

WITNESS:

When later on the barangay of Barangay 35 arrived and informed us that they accompanied a person. We thought all along they were using Bong.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

So what did you do when you learned that it was Bong that was arrested?

WITNESS:

We told someone to call the police and we attended to Bong.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Did the police arrive?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

Then what happened?

WITNESS:

We took Bong to them and investigate the incident.

PROSECUTOR UBALDO:

What about you, what did you do?

WITNESS:

I went with the family of Volfangco to the Funeraria National."[10]

On cross-examination, she further elaborated that:

"ATTY. BASA:

On April 1, 1992 at around 5:45 in the afternoon before the stabbing incident, what was Antonio Volfangco doing?

WITNESS:

Fanning the charcoal for the barbecue.

ATTY. BASA:

And where is that barbecue stand located?

WITNESS:

Plaza of Purok 4.

ATTY. BASA:

Are you saying that the barbecue place is fronting the plaza?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. BASA

And where were you at that time?

WITNESS:

I was there in the plaza watching the basketball play.

ATTY. BASA:

So the barbecue stand was not in front of the street but in front of the plaza?

WITNESS:

Also in front of the street.

ATTY. BASA:

If the barbecue stand is fronting the street so it is not fronting the plaza because the plaza and the street are different thing.

WITNESS:

Also fronting the plaza. The barbecue stand is across the street facing the plaza.

ATTY. BASA:

So it turns out now that there is a street between the plaza and the barbecue stand?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

And how wide is that street?

WITNESS:

4 meters wide.

ATTY. BASA:

Are you sure of that?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

And at that time you were in the plaza?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

Did your husband know of your whereabouts?

WITNESS:

He was the one playing basketball that is why I was watching.

ATTY. BASA:

So you were in the plaza watching your husband playing basketball, Antonio Volfangco was fanning the charcoal in his barbecue stand, there was a street between the two of you measuring 4 meters in width?

WITNESS:

Between me and Antonio Volfangco no, sir. I was in front of the store and Antonio Volfangco was on the other side of the street. We were facing the plaza. I was also across the street where Volfangco was. I was at the corner while he was at the door of the store.

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. BASA:

Now, what happened or how did the stabbing began?

WITNESS:

Then Carlito Saragina arrived. He was met by Bong who was on the other side by the plaza.

ATTY. BASA:

When Carlito arrived, does he carry any bladed weapon?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

And how many bladed weapon was he carrying?

WITNESS:

Two, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

And were you not alarm or became apprehensive?

WITNESS:

No, I was not. He and Bong talked for a while.

ATTY. BASA:

Where did Carlito and Bong talk?

WITNESS:

At the other side of the plaza in the end of an alley.

ATTY. BASA:

How far was the place where they talked from you?

WITNESS:

Three arms length.

ATTY. BASA:

And of course you could hear what they were saying?

WITNESS:

No, sir. I only saw Bong pointed by means of his lips.

WITNESS:

Was it noisy at that time?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir, because of the basketball play.

ATTY. BASA:

Who are noisy the basketball player or the crowd.

WITNESS:

The crowd.

ATTY. BASA:

Were there many watcher?

WITNESS:

Not many.

ATTY. BASA:

Around how many?

WITNESS:

8 to 10 persons excluding the players.

ATTY. BASA:

Did you hear what Carlito and Bong talked about?

WITNESS:

No, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

What happened next after that?

WITNESS:

Carlito Saragina approached the place where Antonio Volfangco was together with Bong.

ATTY. BASA:

How far was the place where Carlito and Bong talked from the place of Antonio Volfangco?

WITNESS:

Five arms length.

ATTY. BASA:

Alright. So Carlito Saragina walked towards Antonio Volfangco with both hands carrying the weapons, am I correct?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

What happened next?

WITNESS:

Words uttered by Carlito Saragina was "Ano Pare umpisahan na natin?"

ATTY. BASA:

To whom were those words addressed?

WITNESS:

To Antonio Volfangco.

ATTY. BASA:

What else did you hear?

WITNESS:

I then shouted "Tiyong takbo.

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. BASA:

Now what happened to Antonio Volfangco?

WITNESS:

Before he entered the alley he was stabbed on the right side.

ATTY. BASA:

When Antonio Volfangco was hit and stabbed did he fell down the ground?

WITNESS:

No, sir, he was able to walk at least three steps.

ATTY. BASA:

Are you very sure of that?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

Tell the Court again how many steps he was able to walk before he finally fell down?

WITNESS:

More or less three steps.

WITNESS (sic):

And according to you the accused Carlito Saragina after hitting Antonio Volfangco attempted to enter a residence, is that correct?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

Whose residence was that?

WITNESS:

My neighbor.

ATTY. BASA:

And Carlito could see where Antonio was running or walking after that Antonio was stabbed?

WITNESS:

He did not know whether Volfangco was able to enter the alley because it was only at the entrance of the alley where he was able to stab.

ATTY. BASA:

Why, was Carlito the one who stabbed Antonio?

WITNESS:

After stabbing Volfangco Carlito turned around face us and he was able to enter the house where he was warned by Bong "Tiyong, hindi diyan".

ATTY. BASA:

The alley which Antonio entered is opposite from the house that Carlito tried to enter?

WITNESS:

Beside not opposite.

ATTY. BASA:

So Carlito was trying to enter the door of the house?

WITNESS:

No only the fence.

ATTY. BASA:

And it was only the reminder of Bong with the word "Hindi diyan Tiyong" that Carlito did not enter the house?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

When Bong said "Hindi diyan Tiyong", what happened?

WITNESS:

He said "where".

ATTY. BASA:

Pointing to the alley?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

At that time Antonio Volfangco was still walking?

WITNESS:

No, sir, he was lying down.

ATTY. BASA:

How was he lying down?

WITNESS:

Face up.

ATTY. BASA:

Where were you at that time?

WITNESS:

Alongside of the street.

ATTY. BASA:

You were not in front of the alley?

WITNESS:

No, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

So you could not see the interior of the alley?

WITNESS:

No, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

Are you sure of that?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

Very very sure of that?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

What happened next?

WITNESS:

Carlito entered the alley and he found Antonio Volfangco lying down he hacked him on the face.

ATTY. BASA:

Which hand did Carlito use?

WITNESS:

Right, sir.

ATTY. BASA:

You were able to see that also?

WITNESS:

I was able to peep.

ATTY. BASA:

You are not afraid?

WITNESS:

I was afraid.

ATTY. BASA:

Although afraid you did not attempt to run away? At the time of what happened did you not attempt to run away?

WITNESS:

I never thought of running.

ATTY. BASA:

What happened after that?

WITNESS:

When we saw Carlito Saragina coming out of the alley we scampared on the side."[11]

Her testimony was corroborated by the testimonies of Pelagia Vulpangco[12] and Editha Trigo[13] who testified to the same effect and whose testimony was consistent with her testimony on material points.

The established facts reveal that the second element of self-defense is also lacking. The nature, location and number of wounds inflicted on the victim belie and negate the accused-appellant's claim of self-defense.[14] The autopsy report shows that the victim sustained two wounds. The postmortem findings of the autopsy report read:

"Pallor, generalized.

Hack wound, Elliptical, in shape, edges clean cut, 11.0 cms. both extremities sharp, oriented vertically at the face extending from the right alas of the notes to the circumoral area, right side, directed backward, involving the skin and soft tissues, axillary bone and mandible, approximate dept 5.0 cms.

Stab wound, Elliptical edges clean cut, 6.0 cms., oriented almost horizontally, medial extremity sharp, lateral extremity blunt, at the chest, left side, along the anterior axillary line, 21.0 cms., from the anterior median line, directed backward, upward and medially, thru the 5th intercostal space, into the thoracic cavity, perforating the lung left, upper lobe, approximate depth of 8.0 cms.

Hemotherax, left 600 c.c.

Brain and other visceral organs, pale.

Stomach, empty."[15]

If there was any truth to the accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense, he would not have run after VULPANGCO and stabbed him again in the face after VULPANGCO ran away considering that he was already able to wrest the knife away from VULPANGCO and stab him on the chest. At that point, there was no longer any need for him to continue to defend himself inasmuch as his alleged assailant already ran away from him.

Another factor that negates accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense is the fact that the accused-appellant eluded arrest from the time of the issuance of the RTC’s Order of Arrest on September 25, 1992 up to the time when he was finally arrested on January 12, 1996.[16] Flight is a strong indication of guilt when it is done to escape from the authorities or to escape prosecution.[17]

It is our conclusion that the claim of self-defense is not tenable for it is clear from the established facts, the physical evidence and his conduct that the accused-appellant was determined to kill VULPANGCO and did not just act to defend himself. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is no longer necessary to discuss the third element, i.e. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

In finding the accused-appellant guilty of murder, the RTC appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery considering that the attack on VULPANGCO was sudden and unexpected. Both the accused-appellant and the appellee agree that treachery cannot be appreciated when the victim was forewarned of the impending danger against him.

After a careful scrutiny of the evidence, we agree with the accused-appellant and the appellee. MARTIN testified that prior to the stabbing of VULPANGCO, the accused-appellant confronted VULPANGCO and addressed him saying "Ano pare, umpisahan na natin?" Moreover, MARTIN was also able to forewarn VULPANGCO regarding the impending assault of the accused-appellant when she shouted "Tiyong Takbo". He was thereafter able to run away from the accused-appellant who unfortunately was able to catch up with him and stab him. Treachery cannot be appreciated when the victim was aware of the attack against him and was even able to flee even though briefly from his attacker.[18]

We disagree with the ratiocination of the appellee that despite the absence of treachery, the accused-appellant is still guilty of murder due to the existence of evident premeditation. For evident premeditation to be properly appreciated, the prosecution must prove the following requisites: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and (c) a lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof sufficient to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[19]

In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence showing when and how the accused-appellant planned and prepared to kill VULPANGCO. The mere fact that the accused-appellant learned that VULPANGCO was pestering his sister a week before the killing is insufficient to prove evident premeditation beyond reasonable doubt. It would be stretching one’s imagination to conclude that during said period, the accused-appellant planned to kill VUPANGCO; the conclusion would be highly speculative. The mere knowledge that VULPANGCO had a misunderstanding with the accused-appellant’s sister does not suffice to prove that the accused-appellant planned to kill him.

Since both treachery and evident premeditation cannot be appreciated to qualify the crime into murder, the accused-appellant can only be convicted of the crime of homicide.[20] Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Since there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in favor of the accused-appellant, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum with all the accessories prescribed by law.[21]

We affirm the award of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the loss of VULPANGCO’s life as this is in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[22]

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby MODIFIED, and the accused-appellant, Carlitos Saragina, is found GUILTY OF HOMICIDE and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The accused-appellant is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as death indemnity.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, and Purisima, JJ., concur.

Panganiban, J., on leave.

[6] Brief for Accused-appellant, p. 1; Rollo, p. 38.

[7] People vs. De La Cruz, G.R. No. 130608 at p. 14, August 26, 1999.

[8] People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 96092 at p. 8, August 17, 1999.

[10] T.S.N., February 19, 1996, pp. 4-9; 10-12.

[11] T.S.N., February 19, 1996, pp. 15-17; 20-23; 26-30.

[15] Exhibit C, Exhibits for the prosecution, p. 3.

[17] People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 118423, June 16, 1999 at p. 21.

[18] People vs. Mejos, 265 SCRA 689 at p. 699 [1996].

[19] People vs. Platilla, 304 SCRA 339 at p. 354 [1999].

[21] People vs. Mangahas, G.R. No. 118777, July 28, 1999 at p. 22.

[22] People vs. Silvestre, 307 SCRA 68 at pp. 90-91 [1999].