10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Villonez

*
G.R. Nos. 122976-77. November 16, 1998.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

REGANDO VILLONEZ y PASCASIO, RUEL SANTOS y
LAPADA, JOHN DOE, PETER DOE, ELMER DOE, and
ROY DOE, accused,

vs. EDUARDO N. SANTOS @ “EDDIE,” REYNALDO N.

SANTOS @ “REY,” FERNANDO N. SANTOS @ “DEDE,”
EMERLITO N. SANTOS @ “ELMER,” and RUDY N.
SANTOS @ “BUDDA,” accused,

vs. REGANDO VILLONEZ y PASCASIO, EMERLITO N.

SANTOS, and RUEL SANTOS, accused-appellants.

Criminal Law; Murder; Evidence; Credibility of Witnesses; It

is settled that the trial judge’s findings on the credibility of
witnesses will not generally be disturbed unless said findings are
arbitrary, or facts and circumstances of weight and influence have
been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied by the trial judge
which, if considered, would have affected the result of the case.—
As often happens in criminal cases on appeal, we are asked to
disregard the testimony of a prosecution witness for being
incredible, and to give full credence to those of the defense and
decree accused-appellants’ acquittal. Among the discrepant
accounts of the same incident, we choose to believe the one
certified by the trial judge to be credible, in this case, the
testimony of Edgar Jimenez. The judge had the distinct
advantage of having personally heard the testimonies of Edgar
and the witnesses for the defense, and observed their deportment
and manner of testifying during the trial. It is settled that the
trial judge’s findings on the credibility of witnesses will not
generally be disturbed unless said findings are arbitrary, or facts
and circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked,
misunderstood, or misapplied by the trial judge which, if

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

considered, would have affected the result of the case. None of the
exceptions have been shown to exist in the instant case.

________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

567

VOL. 298, NOVEMBER 16, 1998 567

People vs. Villonez

Same; Same; Same; Same; It must be noted that a criminal

record does not necessarily make one an incredible witness.—
Indeed, our perusal of the transcript of the testimony of Edgar
Jimenez confirms his trustworthiness. He told a consistent story
throughout his two turns at the witness stand. He corrected
misimpressions by the trial judge and examining counsel, and he
satisfactorily explained the apparent lapses in his testimony. He
was frank about his dark history as a drug user who was once the
subject of a criminal case in court. It must be noted that a
criminal record does not necessarily make one an incredible
witness. Edgar’s honesty in revealing his past without hesitation
bolsters his credibility.

Same; Same; Same; Same; An affidavit taken ex-parte is

generally considered to be inferior to testimonies made in open
court.—The inconsistencies between Edgar’s testimony and sworn
statement given to the police were likewise adequately explained.
In any case, a sworn statement or affidavit, being taken ex parte
by a person other than the witness, is almost always incomplete
and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion or for
want of suggestions and inquiries. Omissions and
misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent, particularly
under circumstances of hurry and impatience. The infirmity of
affidavits as a species of evidence is a matter of judicial
experience. As such, an affidavit taken ex-parte is generally
considered to be inferior to testimonies made in open court.

Same; Same; Same; Alibi; The alibi which is sufficient to

acquit an accused of a criminal charge must be that which shows
it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the
time of the commission of the crime.—The bromidic defense of alibi
cannot benefit accused-appellants. In the face of the positive
identification of the accused by Edgar, such defense is worth
nothing. Besides, accused-appellants were unable to prove that it
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene at the

time the crime was committed. On the contrary, REGANDO and
RUEL admitted that in just a short time they were able to get to
the crime scene by walking. For his part, EMERLITO
acknowledged his involvement in a fight which preceded
LONGASA’s killing, and he conceded that he was able to return to
the crime scene, or near the crime scene, at or about the time of
the commission of the offense. The alibi which is sufficient to
acquit an accused of a criminal charge must be that which shows
it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at
the time of the commission of the crime.

568

568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Villonez

Same; Same; Same; Conspiracy; For conspiracy to exist, it is

not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period
prior to the occurrence.—As to the trial court’s finding of
conspiracy among the accused, we find the same to be supported
by evidence. For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there
be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence.
It is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense,
the accused had the same purpose and were united in its
execution. The agreement to commit a crime may be gleaned from
the mode and manner of the commission of the offense or inferred
from the acts of the accused which point to a joint purpose or
design, concerted action, and community of intent. In this case,
the accused simultaneously attacked LONGASA, with two of
them holding the victim’s hands or arms. Some struck LONGASA
with a piece of wood or bottles and two others stabbed him. The
attack continued until LONGASA fell dead. These acts clearly
point to a joint purpose to accomplish the desired end.

Same; Same; Same; Aggravating Circumstance; Treachery;

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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

that the victim’s hands were held behind him preclude the
possibility of any defense by the victim.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Manila, Br. 170.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.
          Gerardo L. Dean and Wilfredo I. Imperial for R.L.
Santos.
569

VOL. 298, NOVEMBER 16, 1998 569

People vs. Villonez

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

1
Accused-appellants
2
REGANDO VILLONEZ, RUEL
SANTOS, and EMERLITO SANTOS pray for a reversal of3
their conviction for MURDER decreed in a Joint Decision
rendered on 23 November 1995 by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Malabon, Metro Manila, Branch 170, in Criminal
Cases Nos. 14943-MN 4
and 15506-MN.
The information in Criminal Case No. 14943-MN
charged REGANDO and RUEL with the crime of murder
allegedly committed in the following manner:

That on or about the 3rd day of May 1994 in Malabon, Metro

Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused [Regando Villonez y Pascasio, Ruel Santos y
Lapada, John Doe, Peter Doe, Elmer Doe and Roy Doe],
conspiring together and mutually helping one another, without
any justifiable cause, with deliberate intent to kill, with
treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, and being
armed with bladed weapons, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one
GERARDO LONGASA on the different parts of the body, thereby
inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries, which caused
his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

________________

1 His surname is alternately spelled Villones and Villonez in the

various issuances by the lower court and the transcripts of stenographic
notes but Villonez in the Information in Criminal Case No. 14943-MN
(Original Record [OR], Criminal Case No. 14943-MN, 1) and the Joint
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

Decision (id., 331-341). However, he signed his name as R. Billones in his

motion for reinvestigation (id., 7-8) and notice of appeal (id., 347).
2 He is referred to as Ruel in all the pleadings; however, in his
certificate of live birth (id., 117), his first name is spelled Rowell.
3 OR, Criminal Case No. 14943-MN, 331-341, Rollo, 21-31. Per Judge
Benjamin T. Antonio. Henceforth, all references to the original record are
to that in Criminal Case No. 14943-MN, unless otherwise specified.
4 Id., 1.

570

570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Villonez

The case was assigned to Branch 170 of the RTC of

Malabon, Metro Manila.
Upon arraignment,
5
REGANDO and RUEL entered a
plea of not guilty.
Meanwhile, accused-appellant EMERLITO, together
with Eduardo, Reynaldo, Fernando, and Rudy, all
surnamed Santos,
6
was likewise charged with murder in an
information, which was later docketed as Criminal Case
No. 15506-MN. The crime was allegedly committed as
follows:

That on or about the 3rd day of May, 1994, in the Municipality of

Malabon, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused [Eduardo N.
Santos @ Eddie, Reynaldo N. Santos @ Rey, Fernando N. Santos @
Dede, Emerlito N. Santos @ Elmer, and Rudy N. Santos @
Budda], conspiring, confederating with Regando P. Villonez and
Ruel Santos who were already charged for the same crime under
Criminal Case No. 14943 and without any justifiable cause, with
deliberate intent to kill, with treachery taking advantage of
superior strength and being armed with a [sic] bladed weapons,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and stab one GERARDO LONGASA on the different parts
of the body, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical
injuries, which caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

Only EMERLITO was arrested; his co-accused have

remained at large.
Evidently, the killing involved in Criminal Case No.
14943-MN was the same as that in Criminal Case No.
15506-MN. Hence, the second case was transferred from
Branch 72 to Branch 170 of the RTC of Malabon, Metro

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

Manila, and was consolidated 7and jointly tried with the

first case pursuant to the Order of 22 March 1995.

________________

5 OR, 25.
6 Id., Criminal Case No. 15506, 1.
7 OR, 7.

571

VOL. 298, NOVEMBER 16, 1998 571

People vs. Villonez

At his8 arraignment, EMERLITO entered a plea of not

guilty.
The witnesses for the prosecution were Edgar Jimenez
and Dr. Ronaldo Mendez, a Medico-Legal Officer of the
National Bureau of Investigation; and the witnesses for the
defense were the accused-appellants, as well as Arthur
Aquino and Conrado Gungon.
Edgar Jimenez testified that on 3 May 1994, at around
9:00 p.m., while he was resting inside his store at Hulo,
Malabon, Metro Manila, a certain Tonton informed him
that his close friend GERARDO LONGASA
9
had a fistfight
with one “Rudy,” alias “Dede,” at Liwayway Street,
Baritan, Malabon. Edgar proceeded to the area to mediate,
since LONGASA and Rudy were both his friends. Edgar
passed through Javier II Street in going to Liwayway
Street. At Javier II Street, a group of seven armed men,
including accused-appellants, attacked Edgar. RUEL hit
Edgar on his forehead and back with a bottle. Edgar was
able to escape from his attackers. While fleeing, he ran past
LONGASA, who seemed drunk. When Edgar called 10
LONGASA, the attackers were already upon LONGASA.
While he was about eight arms’ length away from
LONGASA, Edgar saw EMERLITO hit LONGASA with a 2
x 2 inches piece of wood. Simultaneously, REGANDO and
RUEL struck LONGASA with bottles. Rudy Santos and
Eddie Santos then stabbed LONGASA seven and eight
times, respectively, even as two other persons named Rey
and Budda held LONGASA’s arms. LONGASA fell to the
ground. Edgar saw all these because the scene of the
incident was illuminated by a big fluorescent lamp located
about three arms’ length away.

________________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

8 Id., 16.
9 Witnesses for the defense, however, stated that Dede Santos was the
alias of Fernando Santos (TSN, 18 July 1995, 3; TSN, 1 August 1995, 4).
10 TSN, 8 November 1994, 2-13; TSN, 10 November 1994, 2-5, 9-15.

572

572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Villonez

Edgar rushed to LONGASA’s 11

house and reported the
incident to the latter’s parents.
Dr. Ronaldo Mendez conducted an autopsy on
LONGASA’s corpse. His findings are as follows:

Abrasions: 1.0 x 0.6 cms., forehead, left side; 6.0 x 4.0 cms.,
zygomatic area, left; 3.6 x 1.1 cms., nasal area, right side; 4.0 x 2.0
cms., maxillary area, left; 2.0 x 0.6 cms., infranasal area, left side;
0.5 x 0.4 cms., mandibular area, left side; 6.6 x 4.2 cms., left upper
quadrant, abdomen, 5.0 x 3.0 cms., anterior aspect, upper third,
arm, left; 2.5 x 1.3 cms., left lumbar area; 5.0 x 2.5. cms., elbow,
left.
Contusions, purplish: 7.4 x 6.2 cms., anterior chest wall, left
side; 4.4 x 2.3 cms., anterior aspect, upper third, arm, right.
Lacerated wounds: 1.1 cms., supraorbital ridge, right; 1.2 cms.,
posterior aspect, upper third, forearm, left.
Stab wounds:

1) 3 in number, sizes ranging from 0.5 to 1.6 cms., elliptical

clean-cut edges, with one extremity sharp and the other
blunt, located at the anterior chest wall, left side, over an
area of 15.0 cms., x 7.0 cms., the farthest is located 10.0
cms., from the anterior median line, while the nearest is
located 3.0 cms., from the anterior median line, directed
backwards, upwards, downwards and medially, involving
the soft tissues, perforating the right ventricle and
penetrating the lower lobe of the left lung with an average
depth of approximately 7.5 cms.
2) 1.4 cms., elliptical, clean-cut edges, with sharp me-dial
extremity and blunt lateral extremity, located at the
posterior chest wall, left side, 7.0 cms., from the posterior
median line, directed forwards, upwards and laterally,
involving the soft tissues only with an approximate depth
of 3.0 cms.
3) 1.5 cms., elliptical, clean-cut with sharp medial extremity
and blunt lateral extremity, located at the posterior chest
wall, left side, 9.0 cms., from the posterior median line,
directed forwards, upwards and medially, involving the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

soft tissues, from the 6th intercostal space, into the left
thoracic cavity penetrating the upper lobe of the left lung
with an approximate depth of 5.0 cms.

________________

11 Id., 5-17.

573

VOL. 298, NOVEMBER 16, 1998 573

People vs. Villonez

4) 1.6 cms., elliptical, clean-cut edges, with sharp lateral

extremity and blunt medial extremity, located at the
anterior chest wall, right side, 3.0 cms., from the posterior
median line, directed forwards, upwards and medially,
involving the soft tissue only with an approximate depth
of 2.0 cms.

     Hemopericardum, 230 cc.

     Hemothorax, left, 1095 cc.
     Other visceral organs, pale.
     Stomach is almost empty.

CAUSE OF DEATH:
12
     STAB WOUNDS.

Dr. Mendez explained that the abrasions were caused by

hard, rough surface, possibly cement or a piece of wood.
The contusions and lacerations were caused by a blunt
object, which could have been a piece of wood, a bottle, a
pipe, or any other hard object. The incise wounds or stab
wounds were caused by a sharp-bladed or sharp-edged
instrument. Of the six stab wounds suffered by LONGASA,
stab wounds numbered 1 13
and 3 on LONGASA’s chest
caused the latter’s death. The testimony of LONGASA’s
mother was dispensed with after the State and the defense
agreed that
14
LONGASA’s family incurred P8,500 in funeral
expenses.
REGANDO interposed alibi and denial. He claimed that
on 3 May 1994, between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m., he was having
a conversation with Arthur Aquino at the premises of
RUEL’s house. Someone passed by the house and reported
a slaying incident at Javier II Street. Curious, REGANDO
and Aquino went to the scene of the incident and there
found LONGASA lying in a pool of his own blood.
REGANDO recognized LONGASA because the latter was a
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

barber at REGANDO’s neighborhood. He believed that the

victim was already dead, since the latter did not seem to be
breathing. When policemen ar-

________________

12 OR, 70.
13 TSN, 24 November 1994, 5-12.
14 Id., 12-13.

574

574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Villonez

rived, REGANDO moved away from the scene; he did not

want to be asked about the incident, as he knew nothing
about it. On 7 May 1994, he was arrested by Malabon
policemen after Edgar Jimenez identified him as one of the
assailants. He opined that Edgar implicated him in the
crime because they had an altercation during a basketball
game, which altercation could
15
have erupted into a fistfight
had they not been pacified.
Arthur Aquino, REGANDO’s “gangmate,” corroborated
the latter’s testimony and declared that it was impossible
for REGANDO to have taken part in the killing, since he
was with REGANDO before and after the incident. When
they arrived at Javier II, they saw many people, none of
whom were known to him. He asked the people milling
around LONGASA’s
16
body who the killer was, but no one
could tell him.
RUEL, who was 16 years old at the time the crime in
question was committed, also put up the defense of alibi.
According to him, when the incident was taking place he
was at his grandmother’s house in Javier II changing
clothes, for he had just taken a bath. He heard screams
from outside of the house reporting that a killing had
occurred at the corner of Javier II Street. Out of curiosity,
he immediately went to the reported scene of the incident.
There he saw a bloodied body lying on the ground, which he
later found to be LONGASA’s cadaver. RUEL was not
questioned by the authorities during the investigation.
However, on 7 May 1994, while he and co-accused
REGANDO were watching television at his grandmother’s
house, they were arrested by the police on the basis of
Edgar’s information
17
that they were among LONGASA’s
assailants.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

EMERLITO also relied on alibi for his defense. He

declared that at the time of the incident he was at Javier II
to borrow P500 from his mother. On his way to his mother’s
place,

________________

15 TSN, 6 February 1995, 2-15.

16 TSN, 9 February 1995, 2-7.
17 TSN, 13 February 1995, 3-15.

575

VOL. 298, NOVEMBER 16, 1998 575

People vs. Villonez

someone informed him that his brother Fernando Santos,

alias Dede, was involved in a fight at Liwayway Street. He
rushed to the scene of the reported fight. There, he found
his brother being ganged up on by Edgar Jimenez and
another person. EMERLITO grabbed Edgar and boxed him,
but the latter retaliated. They exchanged punches until
Edgar ran towards a nearby alley. EMERLITO gave chase
but failed to catch Edgar, as the latter jumped into a river.
EMERLITO waited for Edgar to come up for air. After ten
to fifteen minutes, EMERLITO got impatient and went
back to Liwayway Street. After seeing no one in the area,
he went to Javier II Street. Along the way he saw people
running, and then someone shouted: “Mang Emer, iyong
kapatid ninyo nakasaksak namatay” (Mang Emer, your
brother stabbed and killed a man). Another person advised
him not to proceed to the scene of the incident and to go
home instead. EMERLITO followed the advice. He did not
take his brother to the authorities because not one of his
brothers was at home when he got there. Neither did he go
to the police to18 “explain” the incident, as he did not know
much about it.
Conrado Gungon attempted to bolster EMERLITO’s
account by claiming that at the time of the incident, he saw
Fernando Santos and a certain Rey chasing LONGASA at
Javier II. He followed the three to a corner near General
Luna Street. There he saw Fernando and Rey stab
LONGASA; after which the assailants ran towards General
Luna Street. The two attackers had 19 no other companion.
Conrado went home after20the incident.
In its Joint Decision, the trial court found Jimenez’s
testimony to be credible and supportive of the theory of
conspiracy among the accused. It found the following
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

circumstances to be more than sufficient to prove that the

accused-appellants and their co-accused had common
design to kill LONGASA and were united in its execution:
(1) their simul-

________________

18 TSN, 18 July 1995, 2-10.

19 TSN, 1 August 1995, 2-5.
20 Supra note 3.

576

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Villonez

taneous acts and concerted effort in surrounding the

victim; (2) all of them carried weapons, which they used
against the victim; (3) they took turns in disabling the
victim with blows administered with a piece of wood and
bottles; (4) the victim’s arms were restrained when the
death blows were inflicted; (5) none of the accused-
appellants tried to dissuade their companions from
delivering fatal wounds on the victim; as a matter of fact,
they continued attacking the victim until the latter was
already down and gasping for breath; and (6) the number of
wounds inflicted on the victim was a mute testimony of the
vengeful fury and brutality of the deadly attack upon him.
Conspiracy having been established, the act of one was the
act of all.
The trial court ruled against the presence of treachery,
since LONGASA was engaged in a fight with the accused
before the fatal attack and was, therefore, sufficiently
warned of the assault against him. However, it appreciated
against the accused the qualifying aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength
because of the superior number of the accused, most of
whom were armed with weapons; while the victim was
alone, with his arms held behind him by two of the
assailants.
The trial court rejected the defense of alibi for failure of
accused-appellants to prove that they were so far away
from the scene of the crime as to be physically impossible
for them to be there when the crime was committed.
The trial court thus ruled that the crime committed was
murder and decreed; thus:
WHEREFORE, all considered, the Court finds all the
three (3) accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

crime of MURDER and sentences each of them as follows:

a) Accused REGANDO VILLONES y PASCASIO and

EMERLITO N. SANTOS, there being no
aggravating and mitigating circumstance, to suffer
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA;
b) Accused RUEL N. SANTOS, appreciating the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority in
his favor, being 16 years old at the time of the
commission of the offense, to

577

VOL. 298, NOVEMBER 16, 1998 577

People vs. Villonez

suffer an indeterminate penalty of TEN (10)

YEARS of prision mayor as minimum, to
SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS of reclusion temporal as
maximum.

Likewise, all the accused are hereby ordered to indemnify, jointly

and severally, the heirs of GERARDO LONGASA in the amount
of P8,500.00 as actual damages, and the additional sum of
P50,000.00, as civil indemnity for the death of the said victim, and
the costs of suit.

Accused-appellants REGANDO,21
RUEL, and EMERLITO
seasonably appealed to us.
In their Brief, accused-appellants REGANDO and
EMERLITO, represented by the Public Attorney’s Office,
contend that the trial court committed the following errors:

. . . IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE

OTHERWISE UNCORROBORATED, INCREDIBLE AND
FABRICATED TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS
EDGARDO JIMENEZ.

II

. . . IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT REGANDO

VILLONES GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIME CHARGED.

III

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

. . . IN FINDING THAT THERE EXISTS CONSPIRACY IN

THE CASE AT BAR.

In his separate Brief, accused-appellant RUEL imputes

upon the trial court the following errors:

________________

21 OR, 346, 347.

578

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Villonez

I.

. . . IN NOT HOLDING THAT EDGAR JIMENEZ IS NOT

COMPETENT TO TESTIFY ON THE PARTICIPATION OF
RUEL SANTOS CONSIDERING HE WAS NOT AN
EYEWITNESS AND HIS TESTIMONY IS, THEREFORE,
HEARSAY.

II.

. . . IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED RUEL SANTOS WAS IN

CONSPIRACY AMONG THE OTHER ACCUSED IN THE
KILLING OF GERARDO LONGASA.

III.

. . . IN DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF EMERLITO

SANTOS.

IV.

. . . IN DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF CONRADO

GUNGON.

All accused-appellants attack the credibility of lone

eyewitness Edgar Jimenez. REGANDO and EMERLITO
wonder why Edgar took a longer route through Javier II
Street to get to Liwayway Street instead of just crossing
the bridge that separated Duhat from Liwayway Street,
which was shorter route. Another thing which they find
illogical was Edgar’s failure to shout for help and to do
anything to save his friend LONGASA. As to Edgar’s
testimony that he was mauled by the accused, accused-
appellants theorize that Edgar could have been a
participant in “the rumble,” which made him a biased and

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

unreliable witness. Moreover, Edgar could not have

witnessed the crime, as he was then running away from the
scene to escape further injuries. Additionally, no one
corroborated Edgar’s testimony; hence, it is self-serving.
RUEL claims that Edgar Jimenez committed
inconsistencies on material points, especially on who
actually stabbed LONGASA and how many times he was so
stabbed. Edgar was, likewise, unable to make up his mind
whether he was
579

VOL. 298, NOVEMBER 16, 1998 579

People vs. Villonez

running away from the crime scene or staying at a safe

distance from the incident. RUEL finds illogical and
incredible the story of Edgar that accused attacked him
when he was merely looking for LONGASA, and that while
Edgar was originally the target of the accused’s aggression,
they inexplicably vented their ire on LONGASA and
allowed Edgar to witness everything and walk away
untouched. RUEL also stresses that the prosecution did not
disprove EMERLITO’s testimony that Edgar was in a river
near Liwayway Street while the incident was taking place;
hence, he could not have witnessed the crime. Besides,
Edgar’s testimony was disproved by Gungon, who testified
that Reynaldo and Fernando Santos were the ones who
stabbed LONGASA, and that the said assailants had no
other companions.
Accused-appellants insist on the credibility of the
testimony of the defense witnesses. They further claim that
they were able to explain their whereabouts during the
perpetration of the offense, and that they had other
witnesses to corroborate their respective versions.
Finally, accused-appellants assert that there is no
sufficient proof of conspiracy. The short interval between
the attack on Edgar and the attack on LONGASA
precluded the existence of a preconceived plan among the
accused to so assault LONGASA. Additionally, if there was
indeed conspiracy among the accused, all should have
stabbed LONGASA, not just that some of them hit the
victim with bottles or a piece of wood.
In the Consolidated Brief for the Appellee, the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that the alleged
lapses in Edgar Jimenez’s testimony were duly explained
and the alleged inconsistencies were too trivial to impair
his straightforward account of the crime. His failure to help
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

his friend while the latter was under attack was

understandable considering that the aggressors had the
strength of number. At any rate, the trial court found
Edgar credible. It is well-settled that a trial court’s
assessment of a witness’s testimony is entitled to great
respect on appeal.

580

580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Villonez

As to RUEL’s claim of lack of logic in the version of Edgar,

the OSG argues that it is of judicial knowledge that
persons have 22
been assaulted for no apparent reason
whatsoever.
The OSG considers Gungon’s testimony undeserving of
consideration. Gungon failed to explain why he gave his
account of the crime only on 1 August 1995 or fifteen
months after the incident in question. His long unexplained
silence makes one suspicion 23of his motives; hence his
testimony is unworthy of belief.
Finally, the OSG agrees with the trial court’s rejection of
accused-appellants’ defense of alibi and with the finding of
conspiracy. It argues that there was no showing of physical
impossibility for the accused to be at the crime scene when
the crime was committed; besides, they were positively
identified by Edgar Jimenez as among LONGASA’s
attackers. As to conspiracy, the same can easily be deduced
from the manner of the commission of the offense and from
the concerted
24
acts of the accused to obtain a criminal
objective.
As often happens in criminal cases on appeal, we are
asked to disregard the testimony of a prosecution witness
for being incredible, and to give full credence to those of the
defense and decree accused-appellants’ acquittal. Among
the discrepant accounts of the same incident, we choose to
believe the one certified by the trial judge to be credible, in
this case, the testimony of Edgar Jimenez. The judge had
the distinct advantage of having personally heard the
testimonies of Edgar and the witnesses for the defense, and
observed their deportment and manner of testifying during
the trial. It is settled that the trial judge’s findings on the
credibility of witnesses will not generally be disturbed
unless said findings are arbitrary, or facts and
circumstances of weight and influence have been
overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied by the trial judge
which, if considered, would have affected the result of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

________________

22 Citing People v. Ilaoa, 233 SCRA 231 [1994].

23 Citing People v. Ompad, 233 SCRA 62 [1994].
24 Citing People v. Silong, 232 SCRA 487 [1994].

581

VOL. 298, NOVEMBER 16, 1998 581

People vs. Villonez

25
the case. None of the exceptions have been shown to exist
in the instant case.
Indeed, our perusal of the transcript of the testimony of
Edgar Jimenez confirms his trustworthiness. He told a
consistent story throughout his two turns at the witness
stand. He corrected misimpressions by the trial judge and
examining counsel, and he satisfactorily explained the
apparent lapses in his testimony. He was frank about his
dark history as a drug user who was once the subject of a
criminal case in court. It must be noted that a criminal
record does
26
not necessarily make one an incredible
witness. Edgar’s honesty in revealing his past without
hesitation bolsters his credibility.
The inconsistencies between Edgar’s testimony and
sworn statement given to the police were likewise
adequately explained. In any case, a sworn statement or
affidavit, being taken ex parte by a person other than the
witness, is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate,
sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of
suggestions and inquiries. Omissions and
misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent,
particularly under circumstances of hurry and impatience.
The infirmity of affidavits as a species of evidence is a
matter of judicial experience. As such, an affidavit taken
ex-parte is generally27considered to be inferior to testimonies
made in open court.
Furthermore, as the OSG correctly opined, the findings
of medico-legal officer Dr. Ronaldo Mendez served to
corroborate Edgar’s testimony. LONGASA’s injuries,
recorded in Dr. Mendez’s report, reflected the severe
beatings LONGASA suffered at the hands of the accused as
narrated by Edgar.
The bromidic defense of alibi cannot benefit accused-
appellants. In the face of the positive identification of the

________________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

25 People v. Leoterio, 264 SCRA 608, 617 [1996]; People v. Balamban,

264 SCRA 619, 629 [1996].
26 See Sec. 20, par. 2, Rule 130, RULES OF COURT.
27 People v. Ong Co, 245 SCRA 733, 742-743 [1995]; People v. Bayani,
262 SCRA 660, 680 [1996].

582

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Villonez

28
accused by Edgar, such defense is worth nothing. Besides,
accused-appellants were unable to prove that it was
physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene at
the time the crime was committed. On the contrary,
REGANDO and RUEL admitted that in just a short time
they were able to get to the crime scene by walking. For his
part, EMERLITO acknowledged his involvement in a fight
which preceded LONGASA’s killing, and he conceded that
he was able to return to the crime scene, or near the crime
scene, at or about the time of the commission of the offense.
The alibi which is sufficient to acquit an accused of a
criminal charge must be that which shows it was physically
impossible for him to be at 29the crime scene at the time of
the commission of the crime.
As to the trial court’s finding of conspiracy among the
accused, we find the same to be supported by evidence. For
conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an
agreement for an appreciable period prior to the
occurrence. It is sufficient that at the time of the
commission of the offense, the accused had the same
purpose and were united in its execution. The agreement to
commit a crime may be gleaned from the mode and manner
of the commission of the offense or inferred from the acts of
the accused which point to a joint purpose 30
or design,
concerted action, and community of intent. In this case,
the accused simultaneously attacked LONGASA, with two
of them holding the victim’s hands or arms. Some struck
LONGASA with a piece of wood or bottles and two others
stabbed him. The attack continued until LONGASA fell
dead. These acts clearly point to a joint purpose to
accomplish the desired end.
However, we do not share the assessment of the trial
court that there was no treachery in this case because the
victim

________________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

28 People v. Alshaika, 261 SCRA 637, 646 [1996]; People v. De Guzman,

265 SCRA 228, 245 [1996].
29 People v. Quijada, 259 SCRA 191, 214 [1996]; People v. Balamban,
supra note 25, at 631.
30 People v. Sequiño, 264 SCRA 79, 101-102 [1996]; People v. Tabag,
268 SCRA 115, 127 [1997].

583

VOL. 298, NOVEMBER 16, 1998 583

People vs. Villonez

had engaged in a fight previous to the killing and was thus

forewarned of an attack against him. Treachery may still
be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of
danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution
of the attack made it 31impossible for the victim to defend
himself or to retaliate. The overwhelming number of the
accused, their use of weapons against the unarmed victim,
and the fact that the victim’s hands were held behind him
preclude the possibility of any defense by the victim.
The other qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength, which the trial court appreciated, will no longer
be taken against
32
accused-appellants, for it is absorbed in
treachery.
The penalty for the murder is reclusion perpetua to
death pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by R.A. No. 7659. There being no mitigating or
aggravating circumstance proved in favor of or against
EMERLITO and REGANDO, the trial33 court correctly
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
As to RUEL, who was only 16 years old when the offense
in question was committed, the trial court correctly
appreciated in his favor the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of
Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty next
lower to that prescribed by law shall be imposed;
34
in this
case the penalty shall be reclusion temporal. Again, there
being no proof of any modifying circumstance,
35
said penalty
shall be imposed in its medium period. Since RUEL is
entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
he shall be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty
whose minimum shall be within the range

________________

31 People v. Landicho, 258 SCRA 1, 28 [1996]; People v. Tobias, 267

SCRA 229, 255-256 [1997].

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

32 People v. De Leon, 248 SCRA 609, 624 [1995]; People v. Landicho,

supra note 31, at 29.
33 Art. 63, par. 2, REVISED PENAL CODE.
34 Art. 61, par. 2, REVISED PENAL CODE.
35 Art. 64, par. 1, REVISED PENAL CODE.

584

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Villonez

of prision mayor and whose maximum shall be within the

range of reclusion temporal. The penalty imposed upon him
by the trial court, i.e., ten years of prision mayor as
minimum to seventeen years of reclusion temporal as
maximum, is therefore correct.
The awards of P50,000 as indemnity for the death of
LONGASA and of actual damages of P8,500 are in
conformity with current case law and with the agreement
of the parties, respectively.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal and AFFIRM
the challenged Joint Decision of 23 November 1995 of
Branch 170 of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Metro
Manila, in Criminal Cases Nos. 14943-MN and 15506-MN
convicting accused-appellants REGANDO P. VILLONES,
EMERLITO N. SANTOS, and RUEL L. SANTOS of the
crime of murder and sentencing the first two accused to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the third
accused, to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of
prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years of
reclusion temporal as maximum; and ordering all accused-
appellants to pay the heirs of the victim GERARDO
LONGASA P50,000 as death indemnity and P8,500 as
actual damages.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

     Bellosillo, Vitug, Panganiban and Quisumbing, JJ.,

concur.

Appeal dismissed, judgment affirmed.

Note.—Affidavits are generally considered to be inferior

to the testimony given in open court. (People vs. Conde, 252
SCRA 681 [1996])

——o0o——

585
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/20
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 298

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e461d84515a1dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/20