Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=30499:g-r-no-79451-may-14,-1990-people-of-the-phil-v-dante-p-flores,-et-al&amp;catid=1263&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:43:31+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANTE FLORES y PONCE, LARRY PONCE y BUNGABONG and OLIVER GUERRERO y DAVIS, Accused-Appellants.
Benigno P. Pulmano for Accused-Appellants.
2.	ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT AFFECTED BY MINOR INCONSISTENCIES. — The alleged inconsistencies and errors in Palabay’s testimony appear too minor to be considered explicitly and they do not affect the credibility of said witness. Minor discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses are but natural and to be expected. They enhance their credibility because these discrepancies tend to indicate that the answers were unrehearsed.
3.	CRIMINAL LAW; CONSPIRACY; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. — The evidence submitted by the prosecution did not show who apart from Dante Flores, of the three (3) accused had weilded a knife and inflicted knife wounds upon the victim. It must, therefore, be noted that the element of conspiracy was present since all the three (3) accused had acted in a concerted manner in attacking and chasing the deceased victim. It follows that all three (3) may be held liable for the stabbing and killing of the victim.
4.	ID.; MOTIVE; NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A CRIME; CASE AT BAR. — The defense of the accused consisted of the simple denial that anyone of them had attacked and stabbed at the victim. All three (3) testified that not one of them had felt upset or angry when the deceased Catbagan had urinated on the leg of Dante Flores and that the deceased victim had unaccountably started to run away. The trial court clearly found this defense unworthy of serious consideration — "The accused have a motive in committing the crime charged. While they were at the park, the deceased who was then drunk approached them and urinated on the leg of Dante Flores. According to the three accused, after urinating on the leg of Dante Flores, he asked the accused one after the other if they had hurt feelings because of what he had done, but all of them simply answered "none manong." The act of the deceased in urinating on the leg of Dante Flores is indeed very provocative which must have angered the accused to stab him. As a matter of fact, the three accused all testified that after urinating on the leg of Dante Flores there is a commotion ensued which was but the result of the act of the deceased in urinating on the leg of Dante Flores." (Emphasis in the original) The trial court thus found provocation on the part of the deceased and that the accused must have responded in anger by attacking and stabbing the deceased. Motive, of course, is not an essential element of a crime. Thus, extreme moral perversion could lead a person to commit a crime without a motive that could be appreciated or understood by an ordinary man. It is settled that where the identity of a person accused of having committed a crime is not in dispute, the motive that may have impelled the commission of the crime is not very relevant. In the instant case, there are at least two (2) eyewitnesses to the crime as earlier noted, whose testimonies were, in addition, corroborated by at least four (4) other witnesses: Juanito Go, Luzviminda Nigos and two (2) police patrolmen, Patrolmen Felipe Martinez and Reynaldo Biares, all of whom testified that the accused were present at the scene of the crime chasing after the deceased, and fleeing from the scene after the Barangay Captain and the police had begun to converge upon them, and were arrested immediately after fleeing from the fatal mauling and stabbing of the victim. There was, in other words, no need for the prosecution to prove motive on the part of the Accused-Appellants. Even so, the explanation of the trial court being quite in line with ordinary human behavior, that explanation appears useful in understanding what happened that night of 3 June 1984 when Salvador Catbagan, to all appearances drunk and in a belligerent mood, had the misfortune of coming across and inflicting himself upon the three (3) accused-appellants who had themselves been drinking beer.
5.	ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. — It remains only to note that the killing of Salvador Catbagan was attended by the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The three (3) accused-appellants obviously outnumbered and ganged up on Salvador Catbagan. The multiplicity of the abrasions and contusions, incised wounds and the deep and deadly stab wounds sustained by Catbagan indicated the overpowering nature of the violent attack directed against him.
The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, San Fernando, La Union, convicting the accused Dante Flores y Ponce, Larry Ponce y Bungabong and Oliver Guerrero y Davis of the crime of murder and sentencing each of them to suffer reclusion perpetua, is before us on appeal.
"That on or about the 3rd day of June, 1984, in the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with each other, and mutually helping one another, being then armed, with deliberate intent to kill and without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of treachery and abuse of superior strength, attack, assault, stab several times, and hit SALVADOR CATBAGAN in several parts of his body, inflicting upon him wounds that directly caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Salvador Catbagan.
4.	the lower court erred in not acquitting the Accused-Appellants.
Juanito Go, Barangay Captain of Barangay 1, was patrolling the vicinity at around 10:00 o’clock p.m. that evening and was at a vacant lot near the Nancy Theater when he became aware of a commotion taking place at the corner of Don Chen Ja. He ran towards the situs of the commotion. He saw Catbagan fleeing from the scene of the commotion with three (3) individuals chasing after him. Catbagan lost his balance and fell to the ground and when he attempted to get up and run, he was caught by appellant Dante Flores. Catbagan fell to the ground again and Juanito Go noted that Catbagan was bleeding. 2 The three (3) accused began running northward along the highway. Patrolmen Felipe Martinez and Reynaldo Biares, having also noticed the commotion and the scuffling, chased the three (3) accused in a tricycle. They were able to catch up with the accused about half a kilometer away and apprehended them and brought them to the police station for questioning.
At the police station, Dr. Llavore was able to scrape at some stains on the fingers of Dante Flores. The scrapings, upon laboratory examination, turned out to be dried human blood of the AB type, which was the same blood type of the victim Salvador Catbagan.
A	There were three men and the fourth one is Salvador.
Q	What did these three men do if any?
A	I just saw them, they boxed Salvador, sir.
Q	How did they box Salvador?
There were three men, the question is vague.
Q	Will you please demonstrate what you saw?
A	Witness demonstrating straight thrust.
Q	What else did you see?
A	When I saw that the three men boxed Salvador he fell down then Salvador kicked them, sir.
Q	What was the position of Salvador when he kicked the three men?
A	He was lying down, sir.
Q	What else did these three men do to Salvador?
A	I do not know because I run inside the restaurant, sir.
Q	Where did Salvador fall?
A	Near the Wimpis Meal Station, sir.
Q	What part of the Wimpis Station?
Q	How far away from the Wimpis Station?
A	Around one meter, sir.
Q	Was it already along the side walk or on the street?
A	Along the side walk, sir.
Q	You said three persons boxed Salvador Catbagan?
Q	Do you know the full name of this Salvador.
Q	You said that three persons boxed Salvador Catbagan, will [you] be able to recognize those three persons?
Q	If they are in court will you please point to them?
A	Witness pointing to a man in the courtroom who answered in the name of Dante Flores and the other person who answered by the name of Larry Ponce.
Q	What about the third person will you be able to recognize him?
A	Yes, sir, he is not here.
Q	Will you please describe him?
A	He is dark with curly hair and he is tall, sir.
Still on direct examination. With the permission of the Honorable Court.
When you testified the last time, you were asked to point out the three (3) persons whom you saw attacked and boxed Salvador Catbagan and you pointed to the person Larry Ponce and Dante Flores, while the third person was then absent, my question today is, will you now please look at the person in the court room and point to that person if he is here?
A	T here is, sir.
Q	Will you please point to him?
A	(Witness pointing to a man in the court room who answered by the name of Oliver Guerrero.).
Q	Now, in your direct examination, you said that you saw the victim Salvador Catbagan being boxed by the three (3) persons, now, who was that person whom you saw boxed Salvador Catbagan?
Already answered, the three persons she identified.
Will you please explain what you mean, when they boxed Salvador Catbagan?
Already answered. She demonstrated that the persons delivered a punch.
In the interest of justice, she should explain because we want the witness to testify how those three persons boxed Salvador Catbagan.
But the witness has already demonstrated, what more, action speaks more than words.
A	I already said it before, sir.
Q	Whom did you see boxed Salvador Catbagan.
Already answered. The three (3) persons.
Precisely, the three persons, she only demonstrated one box.
Q	Was it at the same time?
That is better, we will withdraw our objection if that is the case.
Q	Alright, how did they box him? Was it only one time?
A	I only saw one who boxed Salvador, sir.
Q	Who was that person?
A	I do not know who among them because I am far away. I cannot identify.
Q	After boxing Salvador Catbagan what did these three (3) persons do?
Already answered, Your Honor. She said I do not know anymore. The question is, what did the three persons do after boxing Salvador Catbagan and the question is not yet translated.
A	They tried to go near him again, sir.
Q	When you said they, to whom do you refer?.
A	The three (3) of them, sir. (Witness pointing to the three accused).
Q	Were they able to get near Salvador Catbagan?
The witness already answered, she does not know because she went already to the restaurant.
The second eyewitness, prosecution witness Romeo Palabay corroborated Norma Ucol’s testimony. Romeo Palabay was also able to identify Dante Flores as having stabbed at the victim with a knife.
Q	While you were there was there anything unusual that happened?
A	Bobby was being mauled, sir.
Q	Who is this Bobby who was being mauled?
Q	Where was this Bobby when he was being mauled?
A	He was in the Petron, sir.
Q	What did you do when Bobby was being mauled?
A	I run immediately, sir.
A	I went to see Bobby who was being mauled, sir.
Q	And were you able to reach that place where Bobby was being mauled?
A	I saw three persons, sir.
I move to strike the answer of the witness, Your Honor, it is not responsive. The question is were you able to reach the place?
A	I reach the place, sir.
Q	What did you see?
A	I saw three men, sir.
Q	What were those three men doing?
A	They were mauling Bobby, sir.
Q	Will you demonstrate how they were mauling Bobby Catbagan?
A	Witness demonstrating a thrust downward with his right hand.
Q	What was the position of Salvador Catbagan when he was being mauled?
A	He was lying down his face upward, sir.
Q	Where were the three who were mauling Salvador Catbagan?
A	The two were north of Salvador Catbagan and the other one was on the south of Salvador Catbagan, sir.
Q	Those three persons who were mauling Salvador Catbagan will you please look at those persons inside the courtroom and point to us those persons if they are here?
A	They are here sir. Witness pointing to the three accused seated on the bench.
Q	Will you please go down and pat their shoulder?
The witness pointed to the three persons even moving his finger towards his left.
Q	Will you go down and tap the shoulder of the persons whom you saw in that incident who mauled Salvador Catbagan?
Q	What did you observe the three persons holding if any?
The same objection, not premised it assumed the fact not fully established.
A	There was a knife, sir.
Q	And who was holding that knife?
A	Witness pointing to a man at the northern most of the bench and when asked his name he answered that he is Dante Flores.
Q	When you reached near the persons what did you do?
A	They moved a little bit far, sir.
Q	And what did you do?
A	I went to carry Bobby Catbagan.
Q	When you were able to carry Bobby Catbagan what did the three (3) persons do if any?
A	He came again to stab me, sir.
Q	Who was that person who went to stab you?
Q	Was he able to stab you?
A	I was able to evade, sir.
"At least two knives were used in the inflicted wounds sustained by the deceased because the entrance of stubbed wound No. 1 and 2 are longer than the stabbed wound No. 5. [In] stabbed wound No. 2, the entrance is 2.7 cms. longer while stabbed wound No. 4 is only 7 cms. longer.
The number of wounds and their sizes would mean that more than one knife had been used in the commission of the crime and that more than one person had inflicted them. The prosecution witnesses had actually seen the three accused delivering blows to the deceased immediately before the deceased run away from them and fell on the road bleeding. There is but only one inescapable conclusion therefore that the three accused were all armed with knives with which they inflicted the several wounds sustained by the deceased, and that conspiracy attended the commission of the crime.
It is also claimed that the testimony of Romeo Palabay that he saw the three (3) accused gang up on the victim in the premises of the Petron gasoline station was inconsistent with his statement that the three (3) accused were Dante Flores, Larry Ponce and Oscar Pimentel, the last named not being one of the accused. We find no serious contradiction in the foregoing statements. Attention must be directed to the fact that Romeo was able to point out 15 to the trial court the three (3) accused who were then sitting on a bench inside the court room as the culprits. The alleged error occurred when Romeo named the three (3) accused in this case: the name Oscar Pimentel which was not a name used by any of the accused, came up. The record offers no explanation how the name "Oscar Pimentel", rather than "Oliver Guerrero", came up. Defense counsel did not object at the time to what is now on appeal, alleged to be an error in identification. It is, however, pertinent to note that witness Palabay was not previously acquainted with any of the accused before the killing of Catbagan and that he (like Norma Ucol) Learned their names only when he saw them at the police station. 16 It must also be noted that the presence of all the accused (including Oliver Guerrero) at the time and place of the crime was properly established by the testimony of the other witnesses for the prosecution.
Appellants further claim that the testimony of Romeo Palabay to the effect that he saw accused Dante Flores holding a knife which said accused used in trying to stab him was diametrically opposed to the testimony of Barangay Captain Go that he did not take any knife from the accused Flores. There appears nothing mutually contradictory between these two (2) statements. Assuming that Flores was really armed with a knife at the time of his encounter with Catbagan, Flores certainly had the opportunity to drop or get rid of the knife by the time Barangay Captain Go caught up with him.
The trial court thus found provocation on the part of the deceased and that the accused must have responded in anger by attacking and stabbing the deceased. Motive, of course, is not an essential element of a crime. Thus, extreme moral perversion could lead a person to commit a crime without a motive that could be appreciated or understood by an ordinary man. 20 It is settled that where the identity of a person accused of having committed a crime is not in dispute, the motive that may have impelled the commission of the crime is not very relevant. 21 In the instant case, there are at least two (2) eyewitnesses to the crime as earlier noted, whose testimonies were, in addition, corroborated by at least four (4) other witnesses: Juanito Go, Luzviminda Nigos and two (2) police patrolmen, Patrolmen Felipe Martinez and Reynaldo Biares, all of whom testified that the accused were present at the scene of the crime chasing after the deceased, and fleeing from the scene after the Barangay Captain and the police had begun to converge upon them, and were arrested immediately after fleeing from the fatal mauling and stabbing of the victim. There was, in other words, no need for the prosecution to prove motive on the part of the Accused-Appellants. Even so, the explanation of the trial court being quite in line with ordinary human behavior, that explanation appears useful in understanding what happened that night of 3 June 1984 when Salvador Catbagan, to all appearances drunk and in a belligerent mood, had the misfortune of coming across and inflicting himself upon the three (3) accused-appellants who had themselves been drinking beer.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding the accused-appellants Dante Flores, Larry Ponce and Oliver Guerrero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P30,000.00 plus the amount of P5,980.00 incurred for burial and funeral expenses of the deceased and to pay the costs, is hereby AFFIRMED.
Fernan (C.J., Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.
1.	TSN, 21 May 1986, pp. 6-8; Record, pp. 323-325.
2.	TSN, 30 January 1986, pp. 9-14; Record, pp. 233-238; TSN, 3 December 1986, pp. 9-15; Record, pp. 212-218.
3.	TSN, 13 May 1986, pp. 5-7; Record, pp. 285-287; TSN, 3 December 1985, p. 7; Record, p. 7.
4.	Decision of the trial court, Rollo, pp. 53-55.
5.	TSN, 10 December 1984, pp. 4-6; Record, pp. 68-70. Italics supplied.
6.	TSN, 20 December 1984, pp. 2-6; Record, pp. 73-77. Italics supplied.
7.	TSN, 13 November 1984, pp. 3-6; Record, pp. 42-45. Italics supplied.
8.	Id., pp. 7-8; Record, pp. 46-47. Italics supplied.
9.	Decision of the trial court, Rollo, p. 55. Italics supplied.
10.	Id., Rollo, p. 63. Italics supplied.
11.	People v. Valdez, Et Al., 159 SCRA 152 (1988); People v. Sarol, 139 SCRA 125 (1985).
12.	People v. Valdez, supra.
13.	TSN, 20 December 1984, p. 9; Record, p. 80.
14.	People v. Tamba, 147 SCRA 427 (1987); People v. Tala, 141 SCRA 240 (1986).
15.	TSN, 13 November 1984, p. 5; Record, p. 44.
16.	See in this connection, People v. Magdueño, 144 SCRA 210 (1986).
17.	People v. Bautista, 147 SCRA 500 (1987); People v. De las Piñas, 141 SCRA 379 (1986); People v. Valentino, 141 SCRA 379 (1986).
18.	People v. Roxas, 147 SCRA 169 (1987); People v. Jusep, 151 SCRA 248 (1987); People v. Garcia, 141 SCRA 336 (1986); People v. Arhis, 144 SCRA 684 (1986).
19.	Decision of the trial court, Rollo, p. 59.
20.	People v. Arcilla, G.R. No. 11792, 30 June 1985; People v. Del Rosario, 105 Phil. 591 (1959).
21.	People v. Ramilo y Sangalang, G.R. No. 52230, 15 December 1987; People v. Ibal y Yakap, 143 SCRA 317 (1986).

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