Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50715:gr-172834-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:17:40+00:00

Document:
JUN MUPAS and GIL MUPAS, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment declaring both accused JUN MUPAS and GIL MUPAS @ "Banjo" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE as defined and penalized in Art. 249 in relation with Art. 6 of the Revised Penal Code, and thereby sentenced EACH of the accused to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS PRISION CORRECCIONAL as Minimum to TEN (10) years PRISION MAYOR as maximum and the accessory penalties provided for by law and to indemnify jointly the private complainant the reasonable amount of P5,000.00 for hospital expenses and other miscellaneous expenses.
The preventive imprisonment suffered by the accused is counted in his favor.
That on or about the 18th day of February 1993, in the Municipality of Bangar, Province of La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another and with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, maul with fist and stones and stab with a knife Rogelio Murao y Sibayan hitting the latter and inflicting injuries on his face and head thus performing all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of Homicide as a consequence but which nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused, that was the timely and able medical assistance rendered to the offended party which saved his life to his damage and prejudice.
During the arraignment, petitioners, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge.6 Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely: Rogelio Murao (Rogelio), Flaviano Murao (Flaviano) and Dr. Arsenio B. Martinez (Dr. Martinez).
Jun and Gil were found guilty as charged and the judgment of conviction was elevated to the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from convicting accused-appellants JUN MUPAS and GIL MUPAS alias BANJO MUPAS of the crime of Frustrated Homicide is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that appellants are ordered to pay ROGELIO MURAO in the amount of P4,000 as temperate damages.
The trial court solely hinged its judgment of conviction on the victim Rogelio's lone and uncorroborated testimony. While it is true that the testimony of one witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction if such testimony establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court rules that the testimony of one witness in this case is not sufficient for this purpose.26 Apart from Rogelio's testimony, the Court observes that the prosecution's version of events has no leg to stand on.
In his Sworn Statement27 dated 23 February 1993, Rogelio admitted that he had a companion with him on that fateful incident named Eduardo Murao, Jr. He also stated that there were other persons who may have witnessed the assault namely, "Josephine Mendoza, Terisita Mico and one Mario Olpindo, the driver of the tricycle." On the witness stand, Rogelio likewise testified that there had been others who may have witnessed the incident including Eduardo Murao, Jr. and Teresita Monis.28 Interestingly, Josephine Mendoza testified for the defense that she had only witnessed a fistfight between Jun and Rogelio while Teresita Monis, also for the defense, testified that she had only seen a hand reach inside the tricycle to hit Rogelio.
It appears then that Rogelio had at his disposal many witnesses who could have supported his allegations but curiously and without any explanation, none of these so-called witnesses were presented. It is thus Rogelio's word against the attestations of others. Such omission already raises a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the petitioners.
In contrast, the defense was able to present three (3) other witnesses than the petitioners themselves. In the Court's view, Danilo Olpindo, one of the defense witnesses, could hardly be called a biased witness contrary to the appellate court's opinion. He may indeed be Jun's second cousin but the appellate court failed to consider that Danilo is likewise Rogelio's third cousin29 which fact, in the Court's estimation, cancels the supposed partiality based on kinship.
Danilo Olpindo, Josefina Mendoza together with Jun and Gil are in agreement that a fistfight occurred between Jun and Rogelio. In addition, Jun admitted that the fighting continued inside a tricycle. Teresita Monis attested that this latter detail did occur but was not able to identify whose hand it was that reached in the tricycle and hit Rogelio.
Juxtaposing the testimonies of the witnesses, it can be safely deduced that a fistfight occurred only between Jun and Rogelio which continued inside a tricycle. Rogelio's allegations of Banjo's participation in the incident and that Jun carried with him a bolo are uncorroborated and bereft of any proof. Absent proof of Gil alias Banjo's involvement in the incident, his acquittal is in order.
A I gave the necessary injections and medicines preliminary in suturing the wound and treating the wound, sir.
A Regularly a patient who will undergo the kind of operation [sic] we gave novaine injection[.] [T]hen after ten minutes we gave the local anesthesia for suturing, sir.
A After rushing and preparing the operative area and after giving the novaine injection [sic] and I will now examine the kind of wound, it was a two to three cms. long on the parietal area and partially cut and after cleaning the wound, we put anesthesia and suture the wound, sir.
A I referred to injuries, damages tissues, we removed unnecessary tissues, sir.
A I have to suture, sir.
A We used the chromic sutures and followed by the skin suture which is made of silk, sir.
A No, not penetrating wound, sir.
In sum, absent competent proof, Jun should be held liable only for the crime of less serious physical injuries under Article 26539 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Gil, alias Banjo, must be absolved from any liability for failure of the prosecution to conclusively prove that he had conspired with Jun in the commission of the crime or that he had any participation in it.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED IN PART and the Decision dated 23 January 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA - G.R. CR. No. 27768 is MODIFIED. Petitioner Jun Mupas is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries, and sentenced to suffer a straight prison term of four (4) months and ten (10) days of arresto mayor in its maximum period, and to pay Rogelio Murao the amount of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) as temperate damages, and Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) as moral damages.
Petitioner Gil Mupas is ACQUITTED and the bail bond posted for his provisional liberty is cancelled and released.
Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, , Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
1 Interchangeably referred to as Gil or Banjo.
2 Rollo, pp. 18-21; penned by Hon. Senecio O. Tan.
5 Id. at 1; dated 25 May 1993.
7 Id. at 169. Sworn Statement of Rogelio Murao dated 23 February 1993, TSN, 4 December 1994, pp. 2-4.
8 Id. at 168; dated 22 February 1993.
9 TSN, 4 December 1994, pp. 4-5, 7-9.
10 TSN, 4 April 1995, pp. 2, 6.
11 TSN, 14 March 2000, pp. 2-5.
13 TSN, 20 June 2001, pp. 3-5; 21 June 2001, p. 5.
14 TSN, 16 August 2001, pp. 2 - 3.
15 TSN, 4 June 2002, pp. 3-4.
16 TSN, 20 August 2002, pp. 3-4.
17 CA rollo, p. 31.
19 Id. at 52-65; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao with the concurrence of Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Edgardo F. Sundiam.
25 People v. Uy, 392 Phil. 773, 782-783 (2000).
26 See United States v. Sy Quingco and De Jesus, 16 Phil. 418 (1910).
28 TSN, 4 December 1994, p. 2.
29 TSN, 16 August 2001, p. 4.
30 Aradillos v. Court of Appeals, 464 Phil. 650, 669-670 (2004).
31 TSN, 4 December 1994, p. 4.
32 People v. Pagador, 409 Phil. 338, 351 (2001).
33 TSN, 4 December 1994, p. 5.
35 TSN, 19 August 1993, pp. 5-7.
37 People v. Pagador, 409 Phil. 338, 351-352 (2001).
38 See People v. Vicente,423 Phil. 1065, 1078 (2001).
39 ART. 265. Less serious physical injuriesâ€•Any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not described in the preceding articles, but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
40 Civil Code, Art. 2219.
41 Aradillos v. Court of Appeals, 464 Phil. 650, 679 (2004).

References: v. 
 Art. 249
 Art. 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 ART. 265
 Art. 2219
 v.