FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 119660-61. February 13, 2009.]
PAT. EDGARDO HERRERA y BALTORIBIO and PAT. REDENTOR MARIANO y ANTONIO, petitioners,vs.HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
AZCUNA, J p:
Petitioners Pat. Edgardo Herrera y Baltoribio and Pat. Redentor Mariano y Antonio, together with the other accused, Pat. Roberto Barrera and Pat. Rodolfo Alcalde, all members of the Parañaque Police Station, were charged with two (2) counts of murder, for the killing of Shi Shu Yang and George Go y Tan, before public respondent Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 16674 and 16675. CaDATc
The original informations, both dated December 4, 1990, against the petitioners and two other accused alleged:
In Criminal Case No. 16674:
That on or about the 28th day of December, 1989 in the Municipality of [Parañaque], Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused who were then public officers, being then members of the Parañaque Police Force, and armed with guns, and conspiring and confederating and mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to kill and with treachery and by taking advantage of their public positions as members of the Parañaque Police Force, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot one SHI SHU YANG on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting serious and mortal wounds upon said victim, which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said victim, in such amount as may be awarded to them under the provision of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 1
In Criminal Case No. 16675:
That on or about the 28th day of December, 1989 in the Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused who were then public officers, being then members of the Parañaque Police Force, [and] armed with guns, conspiring and confederating and mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to kill and with treachery and by taking advantage of their public positions as members of the Parañaque Police Force, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot one GEORGE GO Y TAN on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting serious and mortal wounds upon said victim, which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said victim, in such amount as may be awarded to them under the provision of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
During the arraignment on March 18, 1992, petitioners and the other accused pleaded not guilty. Petitioners then filed a Joint Petition for Bail and raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction for failure of the prosecution to allege in the Informations that they committed the crimes "in relation to their office",citing the case of Bartolome v. People. 3 On the same day, March 18, 1992, public respondent Sandiganbayan ordered the amendment of the Informations and stated that the evidence adduced during the pre-trial of the case and the hearing on the petition for bail shall be deemed automatically reproduced as evidence during the trial of the case on the merits.
The amended Informations, both dated July 15, 1992, against the petitioners and the two accused alleged: HEcaIC
In Criminal Case No. 16674:
That on or about the 28th day of December, 1989 in the Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused who were then public officers, being then members of the Parañaque Police Force, and armed with guns, and conspiring and confederating and mutually helping and aiding one another, committing the offense in relation to their public position or office, with intent to kill and with treachery and by taking advantage of their public positions as members of the Parañaque Police Force, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot one SHI SHU YANG on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting serious and mortal wounds upon said victim, which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said victim, in such amount as may be awarded to them under the provision of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
In Criminal Case No. 16675:
That on or about the 28th day of December, 1989 in the Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused who were then public officers, being then members of the Parañaque Police Force, and armed with guns, and conspiring and confederating and mutually helping and aiding one another, committing the offense in relation to their public position or office, with intent to kill and with treachery and by taking advantage of their public positions as members of the Parañaque Police Force, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot one GEORGE GO Y TAN on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting serious and mortal wounds upon said victim, which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said victim, in such amount as may be awarded to them under the provision of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Arraigned anew on September 18, 1992, petitioners Herrera and Mariano entered their pleas of not guilty 6 and withdrew their objections to the issue of lack of jurisdiction of public respondent Sandiganbayan over the case and moved that the proceedings and evidence presented during their Joint Petition for Bail be adopted in toto. Pat. Barrera 7 was later convicted for two (2) counts of murder. After filing a notice of appeal, Pat. Barrera did not file any further pleading. IEDHAT
During the pre-trial on March 30, 1993, the parties stipulated that petitioners were public officers at the time of the commission of the crimes. Whereupon, the cases were consolidated and a joint trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution's evidence consisted of the following:
Reynaldo Ong y Tan was the manager of Chow Chow Restaurant which was owned by Spouses George Go, one of the victims, and Edna Ong Go, his elder sister. The restaurant was located at 5 Country Homes Commercial Center, Dr. A. Santos Avenue, Parañaque, Metro Manila. At about 4:00 a.m. of December 28, 1989, Ong heard two explosions. He proceeded to the third floor of the restaurant to check on what had happened and as he looked down, he saw Pat. Roberto Barrera and his friend lighting firecrackers at the back of the restaurant. On descended the stairs toward the ground floor of the restaurant where he saw the victims, George Go and Shi Shu Yang. George Go asked for some firecrackers and proceeded to the kitchen to light the firecrackers. From a distance outside the restaurant, Pat. Barrera shouted, "Pare, meron pa ba"? (asking George Go if there are firecrackers) to which George Go responded, "Marami pa". ("There are plenty".) After George Go responded in the affirmative, Pat. Barrera went to the restaurant armed with a .38 caliber pistol tucked in his waist. George Go then went upstairs, took his .45 caliber pistol from an attaché case, tucked it in his waist, and went back to the kitchen. Moments later, Pat. Barrera approached George Go, introduced himself as a Parañaque policeman, and disarmed him (George Go) of his licensed .45 caliber pistol. Pat. Barrera then shouted at his (Barrera's) companion, a policeman, who was upstairs, "Pare, ilabas mo iyong mahaba",(ordering the companion to bring out the long firearm) while commanding George Go to come out as he had hid himself in the parking lot. Ong pleaded with Pat. Barrera and told him that George Go would surface only if he would not be shot. As soon as George Go emerged from the parking lot, Pat. Barrera said, "Tarantado kang Chekwa ka, ako 'yung nagbigay sa'yo 'nong sobre" (uttering invective upon the victim with the use of the pejorative term for Chinese as he referred to his Christmas solicitation from the victim who gave him P20 and two t-shirts). George Go did not retaliate nor respond. Ong admitted that he was the one who received the envelope from Pat. Barrera two days before the incident, and he placed P20 inside the envelope and handed it to Pat. Barrera along with the two t-shirts. Pat Barrera also demanded that George Go present the license of his firearm which the latter readily showed. Pat. Barrera then told George Go that he would bring the firearm to the police station for verification. He then called the police station informing them that he had just disarmed George Go. Ong felt tension and told Pat. Barrera to cool down. About 20 minutes later, two Parañaque policemen, Pfc. Gerry Biong and Col. Pureza, arrived. Pat. Barrera ordered George Go and his Taiwanese friend, Shi Shu Yang, to board the owner-type jeepney. 8
Edna Ong Go corroborated the testimony of Ong and declared that at about 6:00 a.m. of that same day, George Go and Shi Shu Yang were brought to the Parañaque Police Station. Ong proceeded to the precinct, but went back to the house to inform her to go to the police station. When she arrived at the police station, she saw Shi Shu Yang and her husband, George Go, making a telephone call. She heard Pat. Barrera demanding George Go to produce his license to carry a firearm. Pat. Barrera also told George Go to undergo medical examination, but the latter refused. Thus, Pat. Barrera, together with the petitioners and Pat. Alcalde, shoved George Go to the wall and made him and Shi Shu Yang ride a police car waiting nearby. They took the victims to the Parañaque Community Hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, the two were brought to Timothy Street, Multinational Village, Parañaque where they were killed. 9
Edna Go also testified that George Go was an agent of Stanley Work Sales with a monthly income of P5,000, exclusive of transportation and allowances. She declared that she and her husband own Chow Chow Restaurant and that said establishment was registered in the name of her husband with an annual income of P102,387, less 10% withholding tax. She said that she had spent for the wake and funeral of her husband and estimated the expenses for the wake to be at around P10,000 as she was not able to keep the receipts. However, she presented the receipt issued by La Funeraria Paz amounting to P11,500 as expenses for the casket and funeral services. She stated that she was in a state of shock and became frightened upon learning of the death of her husband. 10 cCESTA
Cristina Winterhalter y Siscar, a foreigner staying in a house along Saint Anthony Street, witnessed the killing of the two victims with the use of a pair of binoculars lent to her by a neighbor as she viewed it from a distance of about 80 to 90 meters. She testified that at around 11:00 a.m. of December 28, 1989, she was standing by the window of her house, waiting for her daughter and an Italian neighbor to come home, when she noticed a Ford Fiera patrol van, with "Parañaque Police Mobile" appearing on both sides, passed in front of her house and proceeded to Timothy Street which was parallel thereto. From a distance of between 80 to 90 meters, she saw seven persons inside the van, two seated in front while five stayed at the back. When the van was parked, she saw two men alight from the back seat, one was in civilian clothes (referring to Pat. Alcalde) and one in police uniform and carrying a rifle (referring to Pat. Barrera). They took out George Go and Shi Shu Yang who were both handcuffed seated at the back. The one seated at the front passenger side was petitioner Herrera while petitioner Mariano was the one driving the van. Petitioner Mariano went to the front area of the van and wrote something on a piece of paper. Pat Barrera hit George Go on the face and, together with petitioner Mariano, they fired about 20 successive shots at the victim. They also kicked Shi Shu Yang and fired about four times. Petitioner Herrera also fired at the victims lying on the pavement. They placed the bodies of the victims inside the van and headed for Fortunate Village. Winterhalter and a neighbor went to the crime scene and found bloodstains on the pavement, a set of dentures, and a pair of eyeglasses. Later, she executed a sworn statement before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to narrate what she witnessed. A diagram (Exhibits "L" and "L-1") was made to give a clear picture of the location of her house and that of the crime scene. 11
Dr. Roberto Garcia, Medico Legal Officer of the NBI, conducted an autopsy on the body of George Go at around 5:30 p.m. of December 28, 1989 at the Rizal Funeral Homes, Pasay City. The Autopsy Report No. 89-4195 (Exhibit "A") showed that George Go sustained eight (8) fatal gunshot wounds on his jaw, chest, abdomen, and arms, as follows: gunshot wound no. 1 had entry point (4 by 61/2 centimeters) on the right jaw with exit point (1.8 by 1.5 centimeters) on the left forehead; gunshot wound no. 2 had entry point (0.6 by 1 centimeter) on the upper left chest right with exit point (1.8 by 1.5 centimeters in diameter) on the upper left back; gunshot wound no. 3 had entry point (0.6 by 0.8 centimeter) below the left collar bone with exit point (3.2 by 2.8 centimeters) on the upper right back; gunshot wound no. 4 had entry point (0.5 by 0.7 centimeter) on the upper right chest with exit point (4 by 2.8 centimeters) on upper right back; gunshot wound no. 5 had entry point (0.7 by 1.3 centimeters) on the upper right abdomen with exit point (1.5 by 1.3 centimeters) on the upper right back; gunshot wound no. 6 had entry point (0.5 by 0.8 centimeter) on the abdomen area which was just above the navel with exit point (2.6 by 1.9 centimeters in diameter) on the lower right back; gunshot wound no. 7 had entry point (0.6 by 0.8 centimeter) on the lower left abdomen with exit point on the lower right (2.6 by 1.9 centimeters) on the lower right back; and gunshot wound no. 8 had entry point (0.5 by 0.7 centimeter) on the left arm with exit point (1.8 by 1.6 centimeters) on the left arm. He estimated that the probable distance from the muzzle of the gun to the victim was about an armslength of 24 inches. He prepared a diagram (Exhibit "B") indicating the different gunshot wounds sustained by the victim and issued a Certificate of Post-Mortem Examination (Exhibit "C"). With the trajectory of the bullet, he said that it was possible that after the first shot was fired, the victim assumed a kneeling position or was lying on the pavement as the assailant continued to fire the successive shots. The body of the victim was later identified by Edna Go, wife of George Go. 12 cSEaTH
At around 7:00 p.m., Dr. Garcia also conducted an autopsy on the body of Shi Shu Yang in the said funeral parlor. Autopsy Report No. 89-4196 (Exhibit "D") indicated that Shi Shu Yang sustained three gunshot wounds. He made a diagram (Exhibit "E") identifying the locations of the gunshot wounds and, likewise, issued a Certificate of Post-Mortem Examination (Exhibit "F"). Illustrating a distance of about 24 inches, the entry point of gunshot wound no. 1 was at the back of the head of the victim with no exit point as the deformed bullet was lodged therein. The entry point of gunshot wound no. 2 was on the left side of the neck of the victim (0.6 by 0.8 centimeter) and exit point on the right side of the neck (1.2 by 1 centimeters in cross diameter). He concluded that the assailant must have been at the left of the victim when the shot was fired. As for gunshot wound no. 3, the distance between the muzzle of the gun and the right arm could have been more than 24 inches and that the assailant was at the oblique front right of the victim. 13
Edwin Purificando, Senior Forensic Chemist of the NBI, examined the blood type of the victims, as follows, blood type "B" for George Go per Biology Report No. B-89-2490 (Exhibit "M-2") and blood type "A" for Shi Shu Yang per Biology Report No. B-89-2491 (Exhibit "M-1"). He also analyzed the specimen of the blood obtained by the NBI Duty Chemists, Aida Pascual and Bella Arriola, from the pavement located along Timothy Street, called "blood scraping", as shown Biology Examination Report No. B-89-2498 (Exhibit "M"), and found that it only yielded blood type "B" which matched with the blood type of George Go. He repeated the "blood scraping" procedure and no evidence of blood type "A" was found in Biology Examination Report No. B-90-15 (Exhibit "N" and "N-1"). 14
Aida Veloria y Magsipoc, Supervising Forensic Chemist of the NBI, testified that on December 28, 1989, acting upon the requests for paraffin test (Exhibits "I" and "I-1") by SPO4 Glenn Tiongson and SPO4 Jose Suarez, respectively, she conducted the diphenylamine-paraffin tests on the dorsal of the left and right hands of the victims and per Chemistry Report No. C-89-1605 for George Go (Exhibit "H") and Chemistry Report No. C-89-1606 for Shi Shu Yang (Exhibit "H-1"), they were found negative of nitrates which proved that the victims never fired a gun. 15
Teodoro Ubia y Janeo, a Medical Technologist of the NBI, testified that he took pictures of the cadaver of George Go (Exhibits "K to K-4") and an unidentified person, later known to be Shi Shu Yang (Exhibits "J" to "J-2"), to show the different locations where the victims were shot. 16
The prosecution presented its rebuttal witness, Atty. Leon Comea Evangelista, an agent of the NBI, who testified that on December 28, 1989, upon the request of Edna Go, he and the other NBI agents went to Timothy Street to conduct an investigation on the killing incident. He conducted an ocular inspection at the scene of the crime and made sketches (Exhibits "U" and "U-1") depicting the incident. 17 TcHEaI
On the other hand, the evidence for the defense, are as follows:
Rodolfo Ver y Foronda, Fingerprint Examiner II of the NBI, testified that in compliance with the subpoena duces tecum issued by public respondent Sandiganbayan, he confirmed that the NBI has in its custody the following documents relative to the shooting incident that resulted in the death of the two victims, to wit: Progress Report dated December 28, 1989 prepared by SPO4 Glenn F. Ticson, Officer-on-Case (Exhibits "1" and "1-a"); Initial Investigation Report dated December 28, 1989 signed by Col. Rogelio Pureza (Exhibit "2"); Request for Paraffin Test dated December 28, 1989 which was addressed to the Commanding Officer of the Philippine Constabulary (Exhibit "3"); Sworn Statements of Pat. Barrera, petitioner Mariano, Pat. Alcalde, and petitioner Herrera (Exhibits "4", "4-a", "5", "5-a", "6", "6-a", "7", and "7-a"); photocopies of the 8 pictures of Parañaque Police van No. 102 (Exhibits "8", "8-a" to "8-g"); and a photograph of the blood stains found on the pavement of Timothy Street (Exhibit "9"). 18
Col. Rogelio Pureza y Abutan, PNP District Director of the Northern Police District, CAMANABA, testified that he approved the Progress Report dated December 28, 1989 (Exhibits "1" and "1-a") of Rodolfo Ver as he was the Station Commander of the Parañaque Police Station and in such capacity, he ordered the investigation of the case. The said report addressed to the Regional Commander (Exhibit "11") was based on the investigation conducted on petitioners Herrera and Mariano, Pat. Alcalde, Pat. Barrera, and one Edwin Maquinay, also a police officer, and the report of the investigator, SPO4 Ticson, on the case. He narrated that at about noontime of December 28, 1989, Edna Go came to his office requesting him for assistance with regard to her husband's case, but he told her to await the outcome of the investigation as the cases for "Illegal Possession of Firearms and Resisting Arrest" were already filed with the Prosecutor's Office and it would be inappropriate for him to intercede in the case. While he was talking with Go, SPO4 Ticson called to inform him about a shooting incident involving the husband of Go. Since he was not sure if George Go was already dead when the call came in, he did not relay the information to Go. Thereafter, he came to know that George Go and Shi Shu Yang were brought to the Parañaque Community Hospital by petitioners, Pat. Barrera, and Pat. Alcalde. As a result of the investigation conducted, he and the other police officers filed a case for homicide against two of their policemen based on the evaluation report of their investigator. He turned over the petitioners and the accused to the NBI for investigation. The two (2) reports stated that one of the victims (referring to George Go) was carrying a caliber .45 firearm which was forwarded to the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory (now Philippine National Police [PNP] Crime Laboratory) for verification and also for the purpose of determining if it was previously involved in a crime and to the Firearms and Explosive Unit for the issuance of a certification as to the veracity of its license. 19
SPO4 Glenn Ticson y Fuentes testified that on December 28, 1989, he was assigned as Duty Investigator at the Complaints and Investigation Division, Parañaque Police Station and was tasked to investigate the criminal cases referred to him by their Desk Officer or immediate supervisor. On December 28, 1989, Cpl. Antonio Batola, Duty Officer, reported to him about a shooting incident whereby the victims were brought to the Parañaque Community Hospital. He and Pat. Oscar dela Cruz immediately proceeded to the said hospital and, upon arrival, the hospital personnel informed them that the victims were pronounced dead on arrival. The victims were identified through their identification cards as Shi Shu Yang and George Go. The bodies of the victims sustained multiple gunshot wounds and were bathed in blood. When he was informed that the victims were brought by four policemen, he interviewed two of them (Pat. Barrera and Pat. Alcalde) and they admitted having shot the victims but claimed self-defense. He called up their Station Commander to inform the latter about the shooting incident involving the Parañaque policemen. He retrieved the service firearms belonging to the two and proceeded to the scene of the crime at about noontime. The people within the vicinity told him that while they did not see the actual shooting incident, they heard successive gunshots. The patrol van used by the petitioners and the other two was parked at the hospital and, later, brought to the police station. Ticson declared further that after the incident, he instructed his co-investigator on the case to get the statement of Edna Go, wife of the victim, George Go, at the Chow Chow Restaurant. Prior to the shooting incident, he was informed that George Go was previously arrested by Pat. Barrera in connection with a case for "Illegal Possession of Firearm". On the same day of the shooting incident, he requested the NBI to conduct an autopsy on the cadavers. Thereafter, he prepared two (2) reports which he submitted to Col. Pureza at about 9:00 pm. of December 28, 1989. The pictures of the police van used in transporting the victims to the hospital were taken at about 3:00 p.m. at the police station but he was not the one who took the shots. He said that Col. Pureza assigned Pat. De la Cruz and Pat. Octavio to assist him in the investigation of the case. As Head Investigator, his duties included responding to requests for autopsy and paraffin tests, but he did not recommend that paraffin test be conducted on the two victims. Before the turnover of this case to the NBI, he did not subject the firearms involved in this case for ballistic examination. The caliber .45 firearm recovered from George Go was in the custody of Col. Pureza which was turned over by Pfc. Biong but he did not know if Col. Pureza signed any receipt for said firearm. He saw the tampered serial number of said firearm at the office of Col. Pureza in the afternoon of December 28, 1989. 20 EHTISC
SPO3 Gil Labay y Cantor testified that on January 8, 1990, he was assigned at the Physical Identification Division of the PNP Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame, Quezon City and one of his duties was to perform macro-etching on firearms and motor vehicles. On January 8, 1990, he examined one (1) caliber .45 firearm bearing Serial No. 198842 which was subpoenaed by public respondent Sandiganbayan. Per Physical Identification Report No. PIR-037-90 (Exhibit "16"), his findings showed that there were signs of filing and grinding on the metal surface where the serial number was located. His examination was based upon the letter-request of the Station Commander of the Parañaque Police Station (Exhibit "17"). He did not know if said firearm was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory and received by one Pat. Bustillo (Exhibit "18-a"). He said that the serial number of the firearm was tampered and he did not see the original serial number of the said firearm. In the course of his examination, he could not also determine the approximate period of time when the alleged tampering of the firearm was made because of the superimposition on the number. He did not verify from the Firearms and Explosive Unit whether the firearm was licensed or not. 21
Testifying in his defense, petitioner Redentor Mariano y Antonio declared that on December 28, 1989, he was assigned to the Mobile Patrol Division of the Parañaque Police Station and his duty was from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. At about 5:30 a.m. of December 28, 1989, he received a radio message instructing him to proceed to the police headquarters to assist Pat. Barrera in bringing some persons for medical examination. Upon arrival at the police headquarters, Pat. Alcalde and Pat. Barrera alighted from the mobile patrol van while he stayed behind. At about 10:30 a.m. of the same day, he, together with Pat. Alcalde, Pat. Barrera, and petitioner Herrera, brought the victims, George Go and Shi Shu Yang, to the Parañaque Community Hospital, passing by Fortunate Village and Multinational Village. On their way back to the Parañaque Police Station at about 11:00 a.m.,he heard Pat. Alcalde saying "George, ano ka ba, bitiwan mo ang baril mo". ("George, put the gun away".) and not long after, he heard successive shots. When he looked back, he saw George Go grappling for the possession of a firearm with Pat. Alcalde. He stopped the van and alighted in order to pacify the trouble inside the van but he again heard successive shots and, thereafter, saw the two Chinese nationals bloodied. He told his companions to bring the victims to the hospital and later informed their Chief of Police about the incident. Upon arrival at the hospital, he told his companions to request the hospital personnel to get the two dead persons inside the van. After the incident, he was investigated and was asked to execute a sworn statement. 22
On cross-examination, he declared that the reason why the two Chinese nationals were brought to the hospital in the morning of December 28, 1989 for medical examination was because he learned that there was a case filed against George Go. He said that on their way to the hospital, he was seated in front of the van beside the driver, while Pat. Alcalde, Pat. Barrera, George Go and the latter's companion (referring to Shi Shu Yang) were seated at the back. He and the driver were both armed with caliber .38 while Pat. Alcalde was armed with an M-16 armalite rifle and Pat. Barrera was armed with a caliber .38. While inside the van, George Go was handcuffed while his companion was not Pat. Alcalde and Pat. Barrera were seated facing the two Chinese nationals. The distance from where Pat. Alcalde and Pat. Barrera were seated to the two victims was about two feet. From the time he heard the first shot up to the time the police van stopped, they had traveled for about 5 to 10 meters. He was shocked when he heard the first shot and when he looked back, he saw George Go trying to grab the armalite of Pat. Alcalde. He did not see Pat. Alcalde pull the trigger of the latter's armalite after he heard the series of shots. While at the police headquarters, he asked Pat. Alcalde and Pat. Barrera about what had happened, and they told him that George Go tried to grab the firearm of Pat. Alcalde but he was not able to ask them who shot George Go. In the morning of December 21, 1989, they were required to undergo paraffin tests at the PNP Crime Laboratory. He said that as to him, the result was negative but he did not know what was the result of the findings on Pat. Barrera and Pat. Alcalde. They left the hospital before 1:00 p.m. and arrived at Multinational Village. He also said that in the night of March 3, 1990, Edna Go came to see him at Camp Bicutan and asked him why the other policemen did not meet with her as agreed upon by them so that the case would be settled before the National Police Commission. 23 cTADCH
Dr. Frederic Singson y Soliven, Resident Physician of the Parañaque Community Hospital, testified that on December 28, 1989, he examined George Go and found out that the latter was positive for alcohol but he had no signs of physical injuries. He said that at about 11:45 a.m. of the same day, George Go, who sustained six gunshot wounds, was brought back to the hospital and was declared dead on arrival (Exhibit "11-a"). He treated petitioner Herrera on the same day and found that said patient was negative of alcohol and had a linear abrasion of 1 cm. (Exhibit "20-a"). He was not the one who prepared the entries in Exhibit "11-a" and there was no initial of the person who made the handwritten notations therein. He stated that George Go was brought to the hospital by the policemen and one of them was petitioner Herrera, but he did not ask the policemen the purpose why George Go had to be examined. He did not take the blood chemistry of George Go to determine whether alcohol existed in his blood. He admitted that he was not the one who wrote the notations of the dorsal portion of Exhibit "20". The first part of the medical report on George Go was written by Dr. Bautista and while the lower portion was written by him (Exhibits "X" and "Y"). He also said that the abrasion on the neck of petitioner Herrera was due to scuffle with somebody, but there was also a possibility that said injury could also be self-inflicted. 24
SPO2 Armando Octavio y Halili, a member of the Parañaque Police Station, testified that on December 28, 1989, he was instructed to take the statement of Pat. Barrera (Exhibits "21", "21-a" and "21-b"). He also received an Investigation Report from the office of the Criminal Investigation Division duly signed by SPO4 Ticson and Col. Pureza. Aside from these reports, he was also furnished with copies of the Certification from the Firearms and Explosive Unit and Investigation Report regarding the charge for "Illegal Possession of Firearm" against George Go. 25
Testifying in his defense, petitioner Edgardo Herrera declared that he was a member of the Parañaque Police Station. On December 28, 1989, he reported for work at the police headquarters and his duty was from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.,together with petitioner Mariano and Pat. Alcalde. At about 6:00 a.m. of December 28, 1989, they received a radio message from their headquarters which directed them to report to the Chief of Police. Upon arrival at the police headquarters, their Desk Officer ordered them to bring a certain George Go to the Parañaque Community Hospital for medical examination. Petitioner Herrera stated that while being brought to the hospital, George Go was very unruly and refused to be brought to the hospital. On their way to the hospital, they took the Sucat Road route and negotiated along Fortunate Village and Multinational Village to avoid the traffic. After the examination of George Go, they brought him back to the police headquarters but upon reaching Timothy Street in Multinational Village, a shooting incident happened. He was seated in front when he heard Pat. Alcalde saying "George, bitiwan mo ang baril ko" ("George, put my gun down"), and later heard a gunshot. He looked back and saw that the muzzle of an armalite was poked at his back, so he parried it but it resulted in successive shots being fired. He immediately jumped out of the vehicle and as he pulled out his firearm, he saw the two bloodied Chinese nationals already lying on the pavement. He immediately drove the police van and brought the victims back to the Parañaque Community Hospital. After the incident, he was investigated and executed a sworn statement (Exhibits "7" and "7-a"). He was also subjected to paraffin test which yielded negative results. 26 ISEHTa
On cross-examination, he declared that he did not see who placed the handcuffs on George Go. He said that when he saw George Go seated at the back of the police van, he was not handcuffed. Before they brought George Go to the hospital, he saw Go's wife who was insisting to go with them but George Go did not allow her and, instead, took along his Taiwanese friend, Shi Shu Yang. Apart from George Go and Shi Shu Yang, there were four of them who boarded the police van and alighted at the hospital. All of them, except Maquinay, were armed. Having driven the police van for almost a year, he was familiar with the different roads coming from the police station to the Parañaque Community Hospital. He said that there were two routes in traversing to the said hospital, one was from Dr. Santos Avenue up to Sucat Road and other was through Fortunate Village and then to Multinational Village. There were houses and business establishments along Dr. Santos Avenue while there were a few houses and unfinished structures along Timothy Street in Multinational Village. He was the one who decided to take Multinational Village in going back to the police headquarters to avoid traffic. He claimed that George Go and Shi Shu Yang were not forced to alight from the police van by Pat. Barrera and Pat. Alcalde when they passed by Timothy Street. After hearing the gunshots, they went back to the scene of the crime and saw blood stains on the sidewalk. 27
On December 13, 1994, public respondent Sandiganbayan 28 convicted the petitioners each for two (2) counts of murder. The dispositive portion of its Decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, after joint trial on the merits in the above-numbered cases, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
I. In Crim. Case No. 16674 [should be No. 16675] — accused Edgardo Herrera y [B]altoribio and Redentor Mariano y Antonio are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the offense of Murder, as defined and penalized by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by treachery and with the generic aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of their public positions, abuse of superior strength, in band and use of a motor vehicle, without any mitigating circumstance in offset, and each of the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in said case, with the accessory penalties of imposed by law; to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the late George Go in the amounts of P11,500.00 as actual damages, plus P500,000.00 in the form of unrealized earnings and income.
II. In Crim. Case No. 16675 [should be 16674] — accused Edgardo Herrera y [B]altoribio and Redentor Mariano y Antonio are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the offense of Murder, defined and penalized by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by treachery and with the generic aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of their public positions, abuse of superior strength, in band and use of a motor vehicle, without any mitigating circumstance in offset, and each of the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in said case, with the accessory penalties of [i]mposed by law; to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the late Shi Shu Yang in the amounts of P50,000.00; HIAcCD
III. Both accused to pay their proportionate share of the costs of these actions. 29
On March 28, 1995, public respondent Sandiganbayan denied petitioners' Joint Motion for Reconsideration. On April 3, 1995, petitioner Herrera filed a notice of appeal. Thereafter, on May 30, 1995, he and petitioner Mariano filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court alleging the following grounds.
1. PUBLIC RESPONDENT SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS FOR MURDER UNDER THE AMENDED INFORMATIONS;
2. PUBLIC RESPONDENT SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN REFUSING TO ALLOW THE PETITIONERS TO CONDUCT FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION ON PROSECUTION WITNESS WINTERHALTER;
3. PUBLIC RESPONDENT SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN NOT FINDING AND CONCLUDING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF ALLEGED EYEWITNESS WINTERHALTER WAS WANTING IN CREDIBILITY;
4. PUBLIC RESPONDENT SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN NOT FINDING AND CONCLUDING THAT PROSECUTION WITNESS NBI MEDICO-LEGAL OFFICER AND HIS REAL EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE;
5. PUBLIC RESPONDENT SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN NOT FINDING AND CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS TOTAL ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONSPIRACY;
6. PUBLIC RESPONDENT SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN NOT FINDING AND CONCLUDING THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL ACTS; AND
7. PUBLIC RESPONDENT SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN NOT FINDING AND CONCLUDING THAT THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONERS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Petitioners raise the procedural infirmities that attended the proceedings of the case and seek their acquittal. Public respondents Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintain that the convictions of the petitioners for two (2) counts of the crime of murder under the amended Informations by public respondent Sandiganbayan were in order as the prosecution has sufficiently established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. ScTaEA
The Court affirms the convictions.
First.Petitioners insist that public respondent Sandiganbayan erred in convicting them for the crime of murder under the amended Informations as they had earlier been arraigned under the original Informations for murder and their rearrangement under the amended Informations placed them in double jeopardy.
The rule on double jeopardy does not apply. Public respondent Sandiganbayan ordered the amendment of the Informations and made it of record that the evidence adduced during the pre-trial of the case and the hearing on the petition for bail shall be deemed automatically reproduced as evidence during the trial of the case on the merits. Double jeopardy did not attach by virtue of petitioners' plea of not guilty under the amended information. For a claim of double jeopardy to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there is a complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the same is filed before a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) there is a valid arraignment or plea to the charges; and (4) the accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is otherwise dismissed or terminated without his express consent. 30
In the present case, petitioners and the two accused pleaded not guilty to the two original Informations for the crimes of murder. Thereafter, in their Joint Petition for Bail, petitioners raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the prosecution failed to allege in the informations that the crimes were committed "in relation to their office".On the same day, public respondent ordered the amendment of the Informations accordingly. Thus, the first requirement for double jeopardy to attach, i.e.,that the Informations against the petitioners were valid, has not been complied with.
Likewise, the fourth element was lacking. Petitioners cannot be validly convicted on the basis of the original Informations as the prosecution failed to allege in the Informations that the crimes were committed "in relation to their office".Thus, petitioners were not placed in danger of being convicted when they entered their pleas of not guilty to the two original Informations which were insufficient in form and substance to sustain their conviction. There was also no dismissal or termination of the cases.
Furthermore, it was well-within the power of public respondent Sandiganbayan to order the amendment of the two original Informations. Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure states that if the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or Information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made. If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or Information still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment. cSTHaE
Second. Petitioners make much of the fact that public respondent Sandiganbayan should have allowed their counsel to conduct further cross-examination on prosecution witness Winterhalter.
Section 6, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matter stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. The cross-examination of a witness is a right of a party against whom he is called. Section 14 (2), Article III of the Constitution states that the accused shall have the right to meet the witnesses face to face. Section 1 (f), Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure also states that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. In the present case, petitioners' counsel has conducted an extensive cross-examination of prosecution witness Winterhalter on the scheduled dates of hearing. Petitioners, therefore, cannot belatedly claim that they were deprived of the said opportunity and, thus, anchor their theory on the procedural infirmities in the proceedings.
Moreover, the trial court has the power to direct the course of the trial either to shorten or to extend the direct or cross-examination of a counsel. Under Section 6, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution. Thus, it is within the prerogative of public respondent Sandiganbayan to determine when to terminate the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution or the defense.
Third. Petitioners' attempt to destroy the credibility of prosecution witness Winterhalter fails. Public respondent Sandiganbayan had the opportunity to observe first-hand the demeanor and deportment of the witnesses and, therefore, its findings that the witnesses for the prosecution are to be believed over those of the defense are entitled to great weight. Winterhalter recognized the petitioners as the ones who cooperated with Pat. Barrera in killing the victims. She saw the events unfolding with the use of her binoculars 80 to 90 meters away. She established the identity of the petitioners as the companions of Pat. Barrera when they killed the victims. It has been ruled that findings of fact of the trial court on credibility of witnesses should be accorded the highest respect. The Court has refrained from interfering with the judgment of the trial court in passing on the credibility of witnesses unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misapprehended or misinterpreted. 31 None exists in this case. DTAcIa
After the incident, Winterhalter and her neighbor, also a foreigner, had been receiving death threats, but she voluntarily testified in order to shed light on the commission of the crime. In fact, she did not even know the two victims. Indeed, where there is nothing to indicate that a witness was moved by improper motives, the positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand, made under solemn oath, should be given full faith and credence. 32 It has not been shown that Winterhalter had any reason to falsely implicate the petitioners.
Winterhalter narrated that Pat. Barrera and Pat. Alcalde, together with the petitioners, were the ones responsible for the death of the victims. This fact dovetailed with the post mortem report prepared by Dr. Roberto Garcia, NBI Medico Legal Officer, showing the gunshot wounds on the different parts of the victims' bodies.
Fourth. Petitioners persuade the Court that the testimony of prosecution witness Dr. Roberto Garcia, NBI Medico Legal Officer, supports the theory of the defense that they acted in self-defense.
This argument cannot stand. The accused who invokes self-defense thereby admits having killed the victim, and the burden of evidence is shifted on him to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, the confluence of the following essential elements: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 33
To proceed with the argument that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the two victims as they were trying to get the pistol tucked in the waist of one of the police officers, petitioners should prove that they used reasonable means in repelling the supposed aggression. Considering that both victims were handcuffed and unarmed and, therefore, had restricted movements, it could only mean that the perceived threats to petitioners' lives were not sufficiently serious, in which case they were not justified in shooting the hapless victims who were unarmed. Petitioners could have simply subdued the two victims in a manner as to engage them in a fight without necessarily killing them.
Moreover, the nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as important indicia which disprove a plea of self-defense or defense of stranger because they demonstrate a determined effort to kill the victim and not just defend oneself. 34 The victims were repeatedly shot at close range and on vital parts of their bodies. The autopsy report showed the extent of the wounds sustained by the victims and, therefore, proved the fact that the two were intended to be killed.
Fifth. Petitioners assert that there was total absence of evidence to prove that conspiracy attended the commission of the crime. EITcaH
Conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the accused which clearly manifest a concurrence of wills, a common intent or design to commit a crime. The familiar rule in conspiracy is that when two or more persons agree or conspire to commit a crime, each is responsible, when the conspiracy is proven, for all the acts of the others, done in furtherance of the conspiracy. 35 In this case, petitioner Mariano drove the vehicle to Timothy Street which was a place less conspicuous to passersby. There, Pat. Alcalde, Pat. Barrera, and petitioner Herrera brought out the two victims from the back portion of the van in order to perpetuate the killing. Petitioner Herrera alighted from the front passenger side of the van and, together with Pat. Alcalde and Pat. Barrera, began shooting the victims. According to Winterhalter, petitioner Mariano even appeared to be writing something on a sheet of paper immediately before the shooting, although it cannot be determined with certainty as to whether he was making an inquiry or merely noting the names of the victims. Petitioner Mariano also fired at the two victims. The evidence showed a common design on the part of the petitioners and the two accused to effect the killings. After the killing, petitioners even helped carry the two victims into the van. Thus, conspiracy in the commission of the crime of murder can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.
Sixth.Intertwined with their argument that they were acting in self-defense, petitioners want this Court to appreciate the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official acts.
This contention has no merit. In order to consider the defense of fulfillment of a duty, it must be shown that: (1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and (2) the injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of a right or office. 36 Petitioners need not resort to inflicting injuries and even to the extent of killing the victims as there was no resistance at all from there when they were apprehended. The two victims were handcuffed and unarmed while the petitioners and the other police officers were armed with pistols and a rifle. Aida Viloria Magsipoc, NBI Supervising Forensic Chemist, per Chemistry Report No. C-89-1606, conducted the paraffin tests on George Go and Shi Shu Yang which yielded negative results, and, thus, pointed to the fact that the victims never fired a gun and were totally defenseless in the face of the fully armed police officers. Clearly, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties on the part of the petitioners does not apply. SHECcT
Seventh.Petitioners maintain that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On the contrary, the crime of murder was sufficiently established as the killing of the two victims was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. 37
Petitioner Mariano parked the patrol van along Timothy Street which was a practically deserted area, isolated from traffic and pedestrians. Pat. Alcalde, Pat. Barrera, and petitioner Herrera brought out the two handcuffed victims from the back portion of the patrol van in order to eventually salvage them. Petitioner Mariano appeared to be faking an alleged interrogation and was trying to get the name of Shi Shu Yang, whose identity was then not yet immediately known. Later, petitioner Mariano also participated in shooting at the unarmed victims.
Hence, the elements of murder have been proven: (1) that the two victims were killed; (2) that petitioners and the two other accused killed the victims; (3) that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery committed by the petitioners and the two other accused who conspired together in killing the victims; and (4) that the killing was not parricide or infanticide.
Eighth.Public respondent Sandiganbayan did not grant the proper award of damages in favor of the heirs of Shi Shu Yang and George Go y Tan.
Even if the heirs of the deceased failed to seek the affirmative relief of damages on appeal, the Court can, nonetheless, grant the award of damages as the fact of death of the two victims had been established. When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delito for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages. 38
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. Under prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000 to the heirs of the victims as civil indemnity is in order. 39 In cases of murder and homicide, moral damages may be awarded without need of allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs, other than the death of the victim, since the emotional wounds from the vicious killing of the victims cannot be denied. Thus, the award of P50,000 is proper. 40
As to the award of actual damages, Edna Go testified that she incurred funeral expenses of P11,500. 41 She also testified that at the time of his death, George Go, then 38 years old, was earning an annual income of P102,387, less 10% withholding tax. 42 The computation of loss of earnings in the amount of P1,433,418 is as follows: cACEHI
Life expectancy:
= 2/3 x (80-38 [age of the victim George Go at the time of his death])
= 2/3 x 42
= 28 life expectancy
In the absence of proof of his living expenses, his net income is deemed to be 50% of his gross income. 43
Net earning capacity:
= Life expectancy x (P102,38 7 — P51,193.50)
= 28 x P51,193.50
= P1,433,418 loss of earnings
Moreover, the award of exemplary damages of P25,000 is proper since the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing of the victims. Article 2230 of the Civil Code allows the award of exemplary damages as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The term aggravating circumstance as used therein should be construed in its generic sense since it did not specify otherwise. 44
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Decision dated December 13, 1994 of public respondent Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 16674 and 16675 finding petitioners Pat. Edgardo Herrera y Baltoribio and Pat. Redentor Mariano y Antonio guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals for two (2) counts of murder, for the killing of Shi Shu Yang and George Go y Tan, and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties of civil interdiction during the time of their sentence and perpetual absolute disqualification for public office is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that petitioners are ORDERED to pay the heirs of Shi Shu Yang and George Go y Tan each in the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages. Petitioners are further ORDERED to pay the heirs of George Go y Tan the amount of P11,500 for actual damages and P1,433,418 in the form of unrealized earnings and income.
Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J.,Carpio, Corona and Leonardo-de Castro, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Records, Vol. II, p. 6.
2. Id. at 8.
3. G.R. No. L-64548, July 7, 1986, 142 SCRA 459. In this case, therein accused, Rolando Bartolome y Perez, Senior Labor Regulation Officer and Chief of the Labor Regulations Section, and Elino Coronel y Santos, Labor Regulation Officer, both of the Ministry of Labor (now Department of Labor and Employment [DOLE]), were charged with the crime of falsification of official document penalized under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code (i.e.,Bartolome made untruthful statements in his Personal Data Sheet [Civil Service Form No. 212] by making it appear that he was a 4th Year AB student at the Far Eastern University (FEU) and that he had taken and passed the "Career Service (Professional) Qualifying Examination" on May 2, 1976 in Manila even if his rating was 73.35%).The Court declared the proceedings in the Sandiganbayan to be null and void ab initio on the ground that said court had no jurisdiction over the case. It explained that there was no showing that the alleged falsification was committed by therein accused, if at all, as a consequence of, and while they were discharging, official functions. The information set forth therein did not allege that there was an intimate connection between the discharge of official duties and the commission of the offense. Therefore, since the alleged falsification was not an offense committed in relation to the office of the accused, it did not come under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
4. Records, Vol. II, p. 1.
5. Id. at 4.
6. Records, Vol. I, pp. 105-106.
7. Pat. Roberto Barrera was later apprehended and trial of the case against him proceeded. In a Decision dated January 15, 2004, per Justice Diosdado M. Peralta (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (Chairperson and now a Member of this Court) and Justice Gregory S. Ong, the Sandiganbayan convicted him of two (2) counts of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay civil indemnity and damages. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in the following:
(1) In Crim. Case No. 16674, the Court finds the accused Pat. Roberto Barrera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder defined in and penalized by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties of civil interdiction during the time of his sentence and perpetual absolute disqualification for public office.
(2) In Crim. Case No. 16675, the Court finds the accused Pat. Roberto Barrera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder defined in and penalized by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties of civil interdiction during the time of his sentence and perpetual absolute disqualification for public office. SaCIDT
Accused Barrera is further ordered to pay the legal heirs of George Go and Shi Shu Yang the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) each for moral damages and fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) each as indemnity for death; and, to pay eleven thousand five hundred pesos (P11,500.00) as actual damages and one million four hundred thirty three thousand four hundred eighteen pesos (P1,433,418.00) for loss of earnings to the heirs of George Go. The period within which the accused Roberto Barrera was detained at the City Jail shall be credited to him in full as long as he agrees in writing to abide by and follow strictly the rules and regulations of the said institution.
Costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, pp. 273-274).
8. TSN (Reynaldo Ong),July 14, 1993, pp. 3-16.
9. TSN (Edna Go),June 10, 1992, pp. 4-22.
10. TSN (Edna Go),March 31, 1993, pp. 4-10.
11. TSN (Cristina Winterhalter),April 3, 1992, pp. 2-36.
12. TSN (Dr. Roberto Garcia),March 25, 1992, pp. 3-16.
13. Id. at 16-24.
14. TSN (Edwin Purificando),April 1, 1992, pp. 37-46. SIcTAC
15. TSN (Aida M. Viloria),April 1, 1992, pp. 4-18.
16. TSN (Teodoro J. Ubia),April 1, 1992, pp. 18-25.
17. TSN (Leon C. Evangelista),June 14, 1994, pp. 3-7.
18. TSN (Rodolfo F. Ver),September 29, 1993, pp. 4-12.
19. TSN (Rogelio A. Pureza),September 29, 1993, pp. 14-18.
20. TSN (Glenn F. Ticson),September 30, 1993, pp. 4-19.
21. TSN (Gil C. Labay),October 27, 1993, pp. 4-11.
22. TSN (Redentor A. Mariano),January 12, 1994, pp. 3-10.
23. Id. at 11-36.
24. TSN (Frederic S. Singson),April 15, 1994, pp. 3-14.
25. TSN (Armando H. Octavio),April 15, 1994, pp. 15-21.
26. TSN (Edgardo Herrera y Penturibio),April 15, 1994, pp. 22-30.
27. Id. at 30-47.
28. Per Justice Romeo M. Escareal (Chairperson, Second Division) and concurred in by Justice Augusto M. Amores and Justice Minita Chico-Nazario (now an Associate Justice of this Court).
29. Rollo,92-93.
30. Amadore v. Romulo,G.R. No. 161608, August 9, 2005, 466 SCRA 397; Lasoy v. Zenarosa,G.R. No. 129472, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 360.
31. People v. Felipe, G.R. No. 142505, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 146.
32. People v. Sara, G.R. No. 140618, December 10, 2003, 417 SCRA 431.
33. People v. De Los Reyes,G.R. No. 140680, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 166.
34. Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan,G.R. No. 148431, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 324.
35. People v. Masagnay, G.R. No. 137364, June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA 572.
36. Angcaco v. People, G.R. No. 146664, February 28, 2002, 378 SCRA 297. HaSEcA
37. People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008, 546 SCRA 671.
38. People v. Beltran, Jr.,G.R. No. 168051, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 715.
39. People v. Dumadag,G.R. No. 147196, June 4, 2004, 431 SCRA 65.
40. People v. Villa,G.R. No. 179278, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 480.
41. TSN (Edna Go),March 31, 1993, supra at 8.
42. Id. at 6-7.
43. People v. Aspiras,G.R. No. 121203, April 12, 2000, 330 SCRA 479.
44. People v. Eling, G.R. No. 178546, April 30, 2008.