R. No.

L-30612 May 3, 1983

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
BONIFACIO ALISON, JUANITO ALERTA, ENRICO CABATINGAN, AQUINO ALVAREZ, PABLO
MENDOZA, ROMULO CABATINGAN, PEDRO GALUPO, IdOLES CORO, NAZALITO SUBING -
SUBING GERARDO SANTIAGO and DOMINADOR ALERTA, defendants-appellants.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Manuel & Tonogbanua counsel de oficio for defendants-appellants.

RELOVA, J.:

This case is before Us for the review of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch
IV, in Criminal Case No. C-351, dated January 3, 1969, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the four (4) accused AQUINO ALVAREZ,
ENRICO CABATINGAN, JUANITO ALERTA and PABLO MENDOZA are hereby
CONVICTED with the crime as charged, because their guilt has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt, and they are hereby punished to death by electrocution, pursuant
to Art. 299 in relation with Arts. 248, 6, 48 and 51 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Acts Nos. 12 and 18; while the seven (7) other accused,
namely: DOMINADOR ALERTA, BONIFACIO ALISON, IdOLES CORO, NASALITO
SUBING-SUBING, ROMULO CABATINGAN, GERARDO SANTIAGO and PEDRO
GALUPO, considering their lesser degree of participation and their guilt equally
proven beyond reasonable doubt, are hereby CONVICTED and to suffer
imprisonment for life or cadena perpetua.; hereby ordering the eleven (11) accused
to indemnify the heirs of SGT. GREGORIO CALNEA, and CPL. ALFREDO
LLANTINO, the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00) PESOS for each
victim, or a total of TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND (P24,000.00) PESOS, to be
divided pro rata among them, but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency; and, to reimburse Juanito Uy the amount of FOUR THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED THIRTY (P4,330.00) PESOS, and the heirs of Sgt. Gregorio Calnea as
well as Capt. Plaridel M. Abaya himself the amount of NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY
(P980.00) PESOS, or a grand total of FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TEN
(P5,310.00) PESOS, in Philippine currency, (representing the cash and articles
robbed), with costs de oficio.

On February 20, 1979, this Court issued a resolution as follows: "The motion of accused-appellants
Nasalito Subing-Subing and Dominador Alerta, withdrawing their appeal in this case, is GRANTED."

Likewise, on September 22, 1970, this Court issued this resolution: "The motion of appellants Idoles
Coro and Gerardo Santiago praying that they be allowed to withdraw their appeal in this case, is
GRANTED."

And, on April 27, 1972, the case against appellant Bonifacio Alison was dismissed on the ground
that on January 26, 1972, he died. "The death of accused-appellant Bonifacio Alison having been
established and considering that there is as yet no final judgment in view of the pendency of the
appeal, the criminal and civil liability of said accused-appellant Alison was extinguished by his death
(Resolution, G.R. No. 30612, April 27, 1972).

" Thus, this appeal concerns Juanita Alerta, Enrico Cabatingan, Aquino Alvarez, Pablo Mendoza,
Romulo Cabatingan and Pedro Galupo only.

Records show that on May 3, 1966, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon filed an amended
information for the crime of robbery in band with double murder and attempted murder against
twelve (12) persons, namely: Juanito Alerta, Dominador Alerta, Enrico Cabatingan, Bonifacio Alison,
Idoles Coro, Aquino Alvarez, Pablo Mendoza, Nazalito Subing-Subing, Romulo Cabatingan, Gerardo
Santiago, Pedro Galupo and Valeriano Jimenez. The last named accused, Valeriano Jimenez, was
discharged with his consent from the information, upon motion of the prosecuting fiscal and made a
state witness.

On March 17, 1966, the abovenamed defendants met together in Burias Island and there planned to
rob Juanito Uy, who was known to be wealthy. Valeriano Jimenez was to guide the group of the Uy's
residence in San Narciso, Quezon because, being a tenant of the latter, he knew the place.

The plan was, Aquino Alvarez, Enrico Cabatingan, Juanito Alerta, and Pablo Mendoza would enter
the house of the intended victim, and execute the robbery; and the rest were to form an armed
cordon around the premises.

The group left in a pump boat of Pablo Mendoza from Burias Island to San Narciso at about 6:00 in
the afternoon of March 17, 1966. They reached San Narciso about midnight of the same day. On the
way, Enrico Cabatingan distributed the firearms which would be used in the commission of the
crime. Upon reaching San Narciso, the group went to the Uy's residence, leaving Pedro Galupo at
the wharf to guard the boat.

As Valeriano Jimenez was familiar with the place because he had been there several times before,
he, together with the group, climbed over the fence and he pointed to them the backdoor of the
house through the stairs. They drilled a hole on the door of the kitchen and, thereafter, Juanito Alerta
told Jimenez to return to the boat so that he would not be Identified.

It was about 1:00 in the morning of March 18, 1966 when Juanito Uy was awakened by persons who
said: "Gising, gising, PC ito," following which one of the armed men asked him: PC ka ba?" Uy
answered: "Hindi po." The armed men then tied up Uy's hands and he was asked where his guests,
the PC men, were sleeping. Threatened and coerced, he pointed the room, which was then lighted
with a native gas lamp, of PC Lt. Plaridel Abaya, PC Sgt. Gregorio Calnea and PC Cpl. Alfredo
Llantino. Pushing the door open, one of the armed men shouted: "Huwag lalaban, huwag kikilos,"
and immediately Enrico Cabatingan, Aquino Alvarez, Pablo Mendoza and Juanito Alerta
commenced firing. Aquino Alvarez then approached Lt. Abaya's bed and said: "Ito PC rin? Papatayin
ko na. " Juanito Alerta replied: " Huwag."

Lieutenant Abaya's hands, like Juanito Uy's were hogtied, after which they were taken down the
ground floor of the residence where the safe was located. Uy was ordered to open it and then
ordered to lie face down on the cement floor. The men got the money and even remarked that the
amount was not much.

The men brought Uy outside his residence and was ordered to go with them to the wharf. As they
ran, Juanita Uy was directed to shout, repeatedly: "I am Juanito, policemen, PC, don't fight." Upon
reaching the wharf and before the men boarded the boat, Juanito was made to lie face down.
Upon his return to his residence, Juanito found papers scattered on the floor, one of the PC men
already dead and the other hovering between life and death. He discovered that the group had taken
P3,500.00 from the safe, his .22 caliber magnum revolver and wallet containing personal papers and
some cash.

Philippine Constabulary Sgt. Gregorio Calnea and Cpl. Alfredo Llantino died of severe hemorrhage
due to multiple gunshot wounds in the chest, abdomen, head and other parts of the body, all of
which according to Dr. Ziegfredo Cabungkal and Dr. Hilarion Tan, Jr. were caused by different
weapons.

Herein appellants were arrested in Masbate in the last week of April 1966. Their extra judicial
statements, wherein they admitted their participation in the incident, were taken and sworn to before
City Judge Aquilino Villanueva.

The defense is alibi, the appellants c g that on March 17, and 18, 1966 they were in Masbate and
therefore had nothing to do with the robbery and death of the two (2) PC soldiers in San Narciso,
Quezon; that upon their arrest they were hogtied and maltreated by the PC soldiers who forced them
to sign prepared statements; and that the arresting officers were accompanied by Valeriano Jimenez
from whom they inquired why he pointed to them and Jimenez answered that he could no longer
endure the punishment inflicted upon him by the PC soldiers.

After consideration of all the evidence presented and relying on the testimonies of eyewitnesses
Juanito Uy, PC Lt. Plaridel Abaya and Valeriano Jimenez, the trial court disregarded the alibi
interposed by the appellants and convicted them of the crane charge, saying:

With the foregoing principles as our guidelines, may we register our observation that
practically all witnesses for the accused have invoked the defense of alibi and that
their affidavits or extrajudicial confessions were allegedly extracted thru
maltreatment, so that may we quote the following doctrines: 'Alibi is one of the
weakest defenses that can be resorted to by an accused. Either or both of the
following reasons were used by the Supreme Court in rejecting the defense of alibi.
(1) the place where the accused claimed he was at the time of the commission of the
offense was not of such a distance from the place of commission as to make it
impossible for him to be at the latter place at or about the tune of the commission of
the crime; and (2) positive Identification of the accused by witnesses.

Illustrating the first is the case of People vs. Secapuri, which held that 'for the
defense of alibi to succeed, it should be shown to the satisfaction of a prudent mind
that the distance between the places where the accused claimed to be and where
the crime was committed is such that it would have been clearly impossible for him to
be at the latter at the time of the crime. (G. R. No. 21419, September 29, 1966, et al.
In this case the place of origin of the accused is Masbate, an island that is about 4 to
5 hours to traverse up to San Narciso, Quezon by pump-boat of Pablo Mendoza.

An extra-judicial confession made by an accused, shag not be sufficient ground for

conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.

G.R. No. L-32074 May 3, 1983

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ERNESTO MAGNAYON y SANTOS, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee,

Bernoli P. Arquero and Petronilo De la Cruz for defendant-appellant.

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

Automatic review of the decision rendered by the defunct Circuit Criminal Court of Manila which
sentenced Ernesto Magnayon y Santos to suffer the penalty of DEATH.

On October 16, 1969, an information was filed with the aforesaid court charging Hernando Abuyo y
de la Merced, Ernesto Magnayon y Santos, Rogelio Barrientos y Ascano and Elmer Monica of the
crime of murder alleged to have been committed as follows:

That on or about June 13, 1969, at nighttime purposely sought to better accomplish
their criminal design, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring
and confederating together with two others whose true names, Identities and present
whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, by means of treachery and
with evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon one WILFREDO
GUERRA Y RAMIREZ by then and there shooting him with a firearm, thereby
inflicting upon the latter a mortal gunshot wound on the right eyebrow which was the
direct and immediate cause of his death several hours thereafter.

Magnayon alone was tried because his co-accused had not been apprehended. After trial, the court
rendered a decision dated January 6, 1970, with the following dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, accused is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal

of the crime of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength and there being proven
the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and nighttime, offset only by
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, sentences him to DEATH; to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased as follows: (P12,00.00 for the death of the
deceased; P10,000.00 for exemplary damages; P10,000.00 for moral damages, all
amounts to bear interest until they shall have been fully paid; and to pay the costs.

Exhibit F-1, the firearm in question, is hereby confiscated in favor of the State.

Magnayon's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with the following prayer:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed that the decision rendered

by this Honorable Court dated 6 January 1970, promulgated 10 January 1970, be
reconsidered and set aside, and that another decision be made in lieu thereof,
acquitting the accused from the offense charged.

On March 6, 1970, the trial court issued an amended decision this time with the following dispositive
portion:

WHEREFORE, accused is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal

of the crime of murder qualified by evident premeditation and there being proved the
aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and nighttime, offset only by
 the litigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, sentences him to DEATH; to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased as follows: P12,000.00 for the death of the
deceased; P10,000.00 for exemplary damages; P10,000.00 for moral damages, all
amounts to bear interest until they shall have been fully paid; and to pay the costs.

Exhibit F-1, the firearm in question, is hereby confiscated in favor of the State.

It should be noted that in the original decision abuse of superior strength was cited as the qualifying
circumstance, whereas in the amended decision the qualifying circumstance is evident
premeditation; in the original decision the aggravating circumstances were evident premeditation
and nighttime, whereas in the amended decision they are superiority and nocturnity.

The People's version of the facts is as follows:

Bad blood existed between the accused on the one hand and Wilfredo Guerra and
Constancio Canaries, Jr., on the other hand, as a result of which the latter two, on
several occasions before June 13, 1969, chased the former with dart and slingshot
(Exh. F; p. 31, t.s.n., Dec. 5, 1969). In retaliation, the accused conspired with one
Hernando Abuyo to kill Guerra. At a basketball game held on June 12, 1967, the
accused pointed Guerra to Abuyo. (pp. 32-34, t.s.n., Dec. 5, 1969) As the accused
related in his statement (Exh. F) of July 15, 1969 to the police:

31. T: Ikaw ba ay may nalalamang kagalitan o samaan ng loob nitong

si Nini [Hernando Abuyo] at Willie [Wilfredo Guerra]?

S: Wala po akong alam.

32. T: Ito ba namang si Willie ay kakilala si Nini?

S: Nakikilala po ni Nini si Willie pero si Willie ay hindi kakilala ni Nini.

33. T: Bakit nangyari ang gayon?

S: Dahil po sa nuong magkaruon ng laro ng basketball sa Sulucan,

nuong independence Day, June 12, 1969, ay malay nuon si Willie
na makita ko, kung kaya naman itinuro ko kay Nini na iyon ika ko si
Willie at si Tanchong [Constancio Canarias, Jr.]

34. T: Bakit mo naman naituro kay Nini sila nuong pagkakataon na

iyon?

S: Dahil po sa madalas gawin sa akin nina Tanchong at Willie na ako

ay habulan nila ng pana.

The following day, June 13, 1969, at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening, the accused,
together with Diosdado Barrientos and Hernando Abuyo went to De Jesus St. in
Pandacan, Manila where they found Wilfredo Guerra. With stones in his hand the
accused challenged Guerra and Constancio Canarias, Jr. to a gun duel ("Lumaban
na kayo nang barilan"). A shot then rang and Guerra fell on the ground. (t.s.n., pp.
13-22, Dec. 4, 1969) Thereafter, the accused and his two companions ran toward a
waiting vehicle and fled.
 There appears an uncertainty as to the Identity of the gunman. Constancio Canarias,
Sr., after much prodding, Identified the gunman as Diosdado Barrientos. (Id., p. 23).
So did Lelio Pedrigosa, another prosecution witness, Identify Barrientos, as the one
who shot Guerra. (Id., pp. 42-43). On the other hand the accused Id it must be
Hernando Abuyo because he saw Abuyo draw a gun and he later heard gunshots.
The accused claimed that he did not know Abuyo had a gun and that when he saw
Abuyo pull the gun he turned away. (t.s.n., pp. 14-17, 37-38, Dec. 5, 1969). But the
Identity of the gunman is of secondary concern as the appeal here concerns only the
liability of the accused, the other parties responsible for the crime still being at large.
At any rate, the evidence for the prosecution is to the effect that the companions of
the accused Ernesto Magnayon were Diosdado Barrientos and an unidentified
person (t.s.n., p. 19, Dec. 4, 1969), while the evidence for the defense is to the effect
that Magnayon's companions were Hernando Abuyo and an unidentified person
nicknamed Pedong. (t.s.n., p. 23, Dec. 5. 1969). As the trial court pointed out
"whoever was the actual gunwielder, the fact remains that accused Magnayon was
with him." (p. 168, rec.)

On the basis of these facts, Ernesto Magnayon, Hernando Abuyo, Rogelio

(Diosdado) Barrientos and Elmer Mojica were accused of murder. The information
charged that the accused purposely seeking nighttime to facilitate the commission of
the crime and "conspiring and confederating together with two others whose true
names, Identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and helping one
another, by means of treachery and with evident premeditation, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill, attack, assault and use of
personal violence upon one Wilfredo Guerra y Ramirez by shooting him with a
firearm, thereby inflicting upon the latter a mortal gunshot wound on the right
eyebrow which was the direct and immediate cause of his death." Trial proceeded
with respect to accused Magnayon only inasmuch as all his co-accused are still at
large. (Brief, pp. 2-5.)

Appellant's counsel assigns the following errors in respect of the trial court's decision:

1. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF

"CONSPIRACY" AMONG THE ACCUSED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

2. THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO SHOW THAT NIGHTTIME WAS PURPOSELY

SOUGHT TO INSURE THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OR FOR THE
PURPOSE OF IMPUNITY, HENCE, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
CONSIDERING NIGHTTIME AS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.

3. THAT THE INTERVAL OF TIME BETWEEN THE "CHASING" AND THE

'SHOOTING' WAS CONTINUOUS AND SO SHORT THAT THERE WAS NO TIME
OR SUFFICIENT PERIOD FOR MEDITATION AND REFLECTION, HENCE, THE
LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THE PRESENCE OF EVIDENT
PREMEDITATION AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.

4. THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO SHOW THAT ACCUSED WERE PHYSICALLY

STRONGER AND THERE WAS AN ABUSE OF SUCH SUPERIORITY, HENCE,
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THE PRESENCE OF ABUSE OF
SUPERIOR STRENGTH AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
 5. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING ACCUSED- ,APPELLANT'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED 24 JANUARY 1970.

6. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT WHEN ON JUNE 12, 1969
ACCUSED-APPELLANT POINTED THE DECEASED TO HIS CO-ACCUSED
ABUYO AS THE PERSON WHO USE TO CHASE HIM, SUCH ACT AMOUNTED
TO EVIDENT PREMEDITATION.

7. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF

THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES WERE INHERENTLY IMPROBABLE AND
INCONSISTENT WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCE.

8. THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES WERE

INHERENTLY IMPROBABLE AND INCONSISTENT WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCE,
HENCE, THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN GIVING DUE CREDENCE TO THE SAID
TESTIMONIES INSTEAD OF DISREGARDING THE SAME.

9. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THE TESTIMONY OF

CONSTANCIO CANARIAS, SR., CARRIES THE TRADE MARK OF PERJURED
TESTIMONY AND MOTIVATED BY AN EVIL MOTIVE.

10. THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO DECLARE THE

TESTIMONY OF THEMISTOCLES CELMAR ON THE ALLEGED DECLARATION
(DYING) AS IMPOSSIBLE AND THAT THIS WITNESS WAS BRANDED A LIAR BY
THE MEDICO LEGAL EXPERT.

11. THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE

LOWER COURT THAT:

(a) when the deceased saw the barrel of the gun facing his assailants
including the accused, he immediately made a right turn in order to
evade the shooting and in the course of the turning, he was
immediately fired upon hence, hitting him on the left occipital region
of his head.

(b) what really happened was that accused Magnayon in order to

avenge himself for having been always chased by the deceased and
Canarias, Jr. (Exhibit F) conspired with his co-accused to kill the
deceased

HENCE, ERRED IN MAKING THE SAID CONCLUSION.

12. THE LOWER COURT ERRED INCONVICTING THE ACCUSED- APPELLANT,

HIS GUILT NOT HAVING BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Encapsulating the numerous errors attributed to the trial court, the main issue in this appeal is the
participation of the appellant in the killing of Wilfredo Guerra. We have to affirm the finding of the trial
court not only because it is supported by the evidence on record but also because it was in a better
situation to ascertain the truth considering that it observed directly the demeanor of the witnesses
while they were testifying and noted the subtle nuances of their voices. Thus the trial court said, in
appreciating the appellant's testimony: "But the very thing that discredit's Magnayon's testimony is
the manner it was given. It lacks the candor, sincerity and spontaneity of a credible testimony. "

Very briefly, We shall discuss the errors assigned seriatim:

The trial court found the accused to have conspired in the killing of Wilfredo Guerra. It said: "It is
clear, therefore, that conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of Magnayon and his co-accused for
all their acts point to a joint purpose and design as adjudged by what they have done which is the
best index of their intention (People vs. Elmer Estrada, L-26103, January 17, 1968 [22 SCRA 111])."

Counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, quotes People vs. Mahlon, 92 Phil. 883 (1953) to the
effect "that in order to sustain a conviction for conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation, rather than
mere cognizance, acquiescence or approval of an unlawful act is required. " (At p. 889.)

But in the instant case there was more than cognizance, acquiescence or approval; there was actual
cooperation. The appellant had been feuding with the deceased Wilfredo Guerra and Constancio
Canarias, Jr. as shown in his affidavit, Exhibit F, as follows:

34. T: Bakit mo naman naituro kay Nini [Hernando Abuyo 1 sila

[referring to Wilfredo Guerra and Constancio Canarias, Jr.] nuong
pagkakataon na yon?

S: Dahil po sa madalas gawin sa akin ni Tanchong at Willie na ako ay

habulan nila ng pana.

The deceased who was armed with a slingshot and a dart, according to the appellant, had even
challenged him to a fight prior to the shooting. (TSN, Dec. 6, 1969, pp. 20-21.)

Upon the other hand, Hernando Abuyo who was Identified by the appellant as the gunman did not
know the deceased. For Abuyo to have shot the deceased could only be due to a common design
between Abuyo and the appellant.

The appellant claims that nocturnity should not have been considered as an aggravating
circumstance because there was no proof that night-time was purposely sought to facilitate the
Commission of the crime. Upon the other hand, the design against Wilfredo and Constancio had
been hatched as early as June 12, 1969 but the conspirators purposely waited until night-time of the
next day to carry out their plan. Here is what the appellant said in Exhibit F:

32. T: Ito ba namang si Willie [Wilfredo Guerra] ay kakilala ni Nini

[Hernando Abuyo]?

S: Nakilala po ni Nini si Willie, pero si Willie ay hindi kakilala si Nini.

33. T: Bakit nangyari ang gayon?

S: Dahilan po sa nuong magkaruon ng laro ng basketball sa Sulucan,

nuong Independence Day, June 12, 1969, ay malayo nuon si Willie
na makita ko, kung kaya naman itinuro ko kay Nini, na yon ika ko si
Willie at si Tanchong [Constancio Canaries, Jr.].
 34. T: Bakit mo naman naituro kay Nini sila nuong pagkakataon na
yon?

S: Dahil po sa madalas gawin sa akin nina Tanchong at Willie na ako

ay habulan nila ng pana.

35. T: Kayo ba naman nitong kamag-anak mong si Willie at

Tanchong ay mayruon samaan ng loob?

S: Kami po ni Tanchong ang may samaan ng loob pero si Willie po ay

wala, ngunit dahilan sa kami ni Tanchong ay magkagalit kung kaya si
Willie ay galit din sa akin dahil sa sila ay magkaibigan. Ang totoo po
nuon ay minsan ang aking jeep na minamaneho ay binato nila at
nabasag ang salamin.' .

36. T: Sinabi mo dito na ikaw ay nasa likuran lamang ni Nini nuon ng

barilin niya si Willie, nasaang lugar kayo nuon?

S: Duon po sa kanto ng Obrero at Jesus Ext., Pandacan.

37. T: Si Willie naman nasaan nuon?

S: Nanduon po sa may harapan ng bahay ni Aling Belang, bahay din

ni Editha na kanyang nililigawan.

38. T: Anong oras nuon, ng barilin ni Nini si Willie?

S: Humigit kumulang po ay pasado alas 10:00 ng gabi, nuong ika 14

[13] ng Hunyo, 1969.

The appellant faults the trial court for stating that the murder was qualified by evident premeditation.
He claims that the interval between the chase and the shooting was continuous and so short that
there was no time or sufficient period for meditation and reflection. It suffices to state that the
conspiracy to kill had been hatched one day earlier as shown in the above-quoted portion of the
appellant's sworn statement. Hence between June 12 and 13, the appellant and Abuyo had sufficient
time to reflect on their action.

The appellant further faults the trial court for appreciating superiority. He claims that the prosecution
failed to show that the accused were physically stronger and took advantage of their superior
strength. The appellant's claim is not tenable. For pitted against the deceased and his lone
companion were three men - the appellant, Abuyo and Barrientos and one of them was armed with a
.38 caliber Smith and Wesson snub nosed nickel-plated revolver.

The motion for reconsideration dated January 24, 1970, asked the trial court, as stated earlier in this
decision, to set aside its judgment of conviction.

As We have also earlier stated We have to affirm the action of the trial court. Accordingly, the error
which is attributed to the trial court - that it erred in denying the motion for reconsideration-has no
merit.
The 6th assignment of error which raises again the issue of evident premeditation has been
discussed in the third assignment of error.

The 7th to the 12th assignments of error relate to the appreciation of the evidence by the trial court
which upon examination of the record does not justify revision. They relate to minor details and
ancillary matters given by prosecution witnesses which tend to show that their evidence is not
completely congruent. But such lack of complete congruency in fact strengthens and fortifies their
respective testimony.

An order of arrest with no bail was issued against the appellant on October 17, 1969. He
surrendered voluntarily on October 23, 1969. He has been under preventive detention for more than
thirteen (13) years. Some members of this Court including the ponente regard such prolonged
detention as