Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40355:g-r-no-130655-august-9,-2000-people-of-the-phil-vs-leo-macaliag,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:54:54+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEO MACALIAG, JESSE TORRE and JULIVER CHUA, Accused, JESSE TORRE and JULIVER CHUA, Accused-Appellants.
For his part, Accused Juliver Chua argued that he could not have become in the vicinity of the crime because he was then dancing at a disco in Tambacan, Iligan City; that he only returned to Villaverde, Iligan City in the early hours of the morning of April 17, 1995; that he even met prosecution witness Moste along the way, where the latter allegedly asked him (Chua) if he knew the whereabouts of Leo Macaliag and Jesse Torre.
After carefully evaluating all the conflicting testimonies and evidence adduced by the opposing parties, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision finding all the accused guilty of the murder of Brian Jalani.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME OF MURDER DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AND IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
In particular, the accused-appellants found it hard to believe that Moste, knowing that the assailants were supposedly "police characters", could summon the courage to shout at them, and even contemplate running after them. To the accused-appellants, such a show of bravery runs counter to the ordinary course of human experience. Secondly, they pointed out that Moste’s testimony did not agree with the medical findings that the victim sustained only six (6) stab wounds, which in their opinion was too few considering that some amount of time had elapsed since a certain David first witnessed the stabbing until Moste’s arrival at the scene. Furthermore, Moste’s testimony that there were no policemen or bodyguards during the political rally at Purok Rosal is not to be believed since it is public knowledge that there are always bodyguards or police escorts protecting the candidates during rallies.
Consequently, it is of no moment that eyewitness Moste did not see any policemen or bodyguards of the candidates at the political rally. This argument is too trivial to be entertained. It has no bearing at all on the crime committed, and it is obvious that the accused-appellants are merely clutching at straws to bolster a very tenuous attack on the eyewitness’ credibility.
We note that when faced with the indubitable evidence of the prosecution, it became "every man for himself" for the Accused-Appellants. Juliver Chua testified that it was Macaliag and Torre who killed Jalani, while Macaliag countered by testifying that it was Chua who did the victim in. As most guilty conspirators are prone to do, when caught between a rock and a hard place, they turn on each other in the vain hope that blame is shifted to someone else. All these accusations and counter-accusations only tend to prove that they had personal knowledge of the crime. It is clearly a desperate ploy to escape culpability. It is not too difficult to see this tactic as a last-ditch attempt to pin the guilt on the other accused to bolster a sagging defense. The courts are not easily swayed by such conflicting testimonies, especially when the obvious motive is to distort the truth and frustrate the ends of justice.
Finally, the accused-appellants assail the trial court’s finding that the offense was committed with treachery as manifested by their taking advantage of their weapon and superiority in number. The accused-appellants contend that the trial court should not have convicted them for murder considering that the lone eyewitness did not see how the fatal incident started.
Consequently, the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty of the crime of murder and penalizing them under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Under the circumstances, they can only be convicted of the lesser crime of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
3.	TSN, May 21, 1996, pp. 6-21.
4.	TSN, September 3, 1996, pp. 12-18.
5.	TSN. July 17, 1996. pp. 8-9.
6.	TSN, November 20, 1996, pp. 21-38.
8.	Id., at, pp. 11-20.
9.	TSN, November 21, 1996. pp. 3-13.
11.	TSN, February 6, 1997. pp. 3-15.
12.	TSN. March 11, 1997. pp- 2-5.
14.	People v. Ganan, Jr., 265 SCRA 260, 279 (1996) citing People v. Aguilar, 222 SCRA 394, 405 (1993); People v. Frago, 232 SCRA 653 (1994); People v. Dismuke, 234 SCRA 51(1994); People v. Pastores, 227 SCRA 424 (1993).
16.	TSN, May 21, 1996. p. 6.
17.	TSN. September 3. 1996. p. 5.
18.	People v. Laceste, 293 SCRA 407 (1998); People v. Matubis, 288 SCRA 210, 220 (1998).
19.	TSN, September 3, 1996. p. 15.
20.	People v. Gargor, 300 SCRA 542, 553 (1998); People v. Grefaldia, 298 SCRA 337, 347 (1998).
21.	People v. Ibalang, 286 SCRA 387, 399 (1998); People v. Ebroda, 296 SCRA 353, 363 (1998); People v. Llaguno, 285 SCRA 124, 140 (1998); People v. Ramos, 296 SCRA 559, 569 (1998).
22.	People v. Manuel, 298 SCRA 184, 194 (1998).
23.	People v. Sabalones, 294 SCRA 751, 781 (1998).
24.	People v. Burce, 289 SCRA 445, 463 11998); People v. Cabebe, 290 SCRA 543, 555 (1998).
25.	People v. Villamor, 292 SCRA 384, 395 (1998).
26.	Bautista v. CA, 288 SCRA 171, 178 (1998); People v. Correa, 285 SCRA 679, 689 (1998); People v. Daraman, 294 SCRA 27, 44 (1998).
27.	People v. Magpantay, 284 SCRA 96, 101 (1998); People v. Taneo, 284 SCRA 251, 271 (1998).
28.	People v. Cabanela, 299 SCRA 153, 163 (1998).
29.	People v. Mendoza, 292 SCRA 168, 179-180 (1998); People v. Araneta, 300 SCRA 80, 95 (1998).
30.	People v. Bibat, 290 SCRA 27, 39 (1998); People v. Ravanes, 284 SCRA 634, 639 (1998); People v. Siguin, 299 SCRA 124, 139 (1998).
31.	People v. Jerez, 285 SCRA 393, 402 (1998).
33.	People v. Albao, 287 SCRA 129, 155-156 (1998).
34.	People v. Demonteverde, 290 SCRA 175, 185 (1998); People v. Aguilar, 292 SCRA 349, 358 (1998).
35.	People v. Sambulan, 289 SCRA 500, 515 (1998): People v. Solis, 291 SCRA 529, 541 (1998).
36.	People v. Amamangpang, 291 SCRA 638, 653 (1998), citing People v. Salvador, 224 SCRA 819 (1993) and People v. Cordero, 217 SCRA 1 (1993).
37.	G.R. No. 123325, 288 SCRA 404, 419-420 (1998).
38.	G.R. No. 114263-64, 255 SCRA 514, 529-530 (1996).
39.	People v. Araneta, supra.
40.	People v. Galapin, 293 SCRA 474. 491 (1998); People V. Castillo, supra. People v. Solis, supra.
41.	People v. Pallarco, 288 SCRA 151, 170 (1998); People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411, 429 (1998).
42.	Article 64, Section 3, Revised Penal Code.
43.	People v. Caballes, 274 SCRA 83, 100 (1997), citing Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court; Ladino v. Garcia, 265 SCRA 422, 427-428 (1996); People v. Ganan, Jr., supra.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.