People Vs Ibanez

4/29/2021 G.R. No.
197813 - Reader Mode
G.R. No. 197813
Today is Thursday, April 29, 2021
People of the Philippines v. Ibañez, G.R. No. 197813, 25 September

2013
♦ Decision, Perez [J]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Leonen [J]
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 197813 September 25, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
EDWIN IBANEZ y ALBANTE and ALFREDO (FREDDIE) NULLA y
IBANEZ, Accused-appellants.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before us is an appeal via a Notice of Appeal from the Decision of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04051.1 The appellate
court a rmed in toto the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch18, Malolos, Bulacan which convicted accused-
appellants Edwin Ibañez y Albante (Edwin) and Alfredo Nulla y
Ibañez (Alfredo) of Murder in Criminal Case No. 3517-M-2004.
Appellants Edwin and Alfredo, with Jesus Monsillo y Taniares

(Jesus), were all charged in an Information for Murder under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:
chrome-distiller://29ec84d7-63f6-4270-8f01-468427b26cb5_5609a0b999c5160eccd2e9cff5dc0580346e71624b78b6593c05fd275ccfc66f/?title=G.R.+… 1/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
The undersigned Asst. Provincial Prosecutor accuses Jesus

Montisillo y Taniares @ Dodong, Edwin Ibañez y Albante and
Alfredo(Freddie) Nulla y Ibañez of the crime of murder, penalized
under the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
committed as follows:
That on or about the 29th day of August, 2004, in the municipality

of Bocaue, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
armed with a soil digger (bareta) and with intent to kill one Wilfredo
Atendido y Dohenog, conspiring, confederating and helping one
another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength and treachery,
attack, assault and hit with the said soildigger (bareta) the said
Wilfredo Atendido y Dohenog, hitting the latter on his head, thereby
in icting upon him serious physical injuries which directly caused
his death.3
During arraignment, Edwin and Alfredo pleaded not guilty. Jesus,

on the other hand, remained at large; the case against him was
archived. Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution’s version was testi ed to by the victim’s wife and

daughter, in succession.
On that fateful day, Wilfredo Atendido y Dohenog (Wilfredo) was

invited by Alfredo to a drinking session with Jesus and Edwin
making them a party of four. Rachel, Wilfredo’s daughter, an
adolescent at the time, was underneath the house (silong in the
vernacular) of a neighbor, three (3)meters away from the place
where Wilfredo and his companions were ostensibly in
merrymaking.
Rachel saw her father step away from the group to urinate. While
Wilfredo relieved himself, Edwin snatched a t-shirt from a nearby
clothesline, and hooded the t-shirt over the head and face of
Wilfredo. Robbed of vision as his head was fully covered, Wilfredo
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
was wrestled and pinned down by Edwin, while Alfredo boxed the
left side of Wilfredo’s chest. Jesus, armed with a long iron bar,
swung at and hit Wilfredo in the head. Terri ed, Rachel stood
immobilized as she watched the attack on father. Thereafter, she
saw her mother running out of their house and crying for help.
On that same auspicious date, 29 August 2004, Rowena, Wilfredo’s

wife and Rachel’s mother, was inside their house taking care of
their youngest daughter. She heard a commotion coming from the
neighboring house, about eight (8) steps away, so she rushed in
that direction. Once outside their house, she saw Wilfredo
prostrate on the ground covered with blood on his face and
forehead. Upon reaching Wilfredo, Rowena saw accused Jesus,
standing one meter away from Wilfredo, holding an iron bar. Edwin
and Alfredo stood beside Jesus; Edwin held a white shirt.
Forthwith, Jesus and Alfredo ran away while Edwin went home.
Rowena asked for help to bring Wilfredo to the hospital. However,
Wilfredo did not reach the hospital alive and was pronounced dead
on arrival.
Expectedly, the defense mainly of Edwin and Alfredo, proffered an

altogether different version of the events.
The two accused-appellants pointed to Jesus as the sole culprit,

proclaimed their innocence and professed to being at the scene of
the crime only because of their curiosity for what had occurred.
Allegedly, on that day, the two buddies were having their regular
drinking session at Edwin’s house when they heard a commotion
outside. Curious about the ruckus, they approached and saw
Wilfredo prostrate on the ground; Jesus, held an iron bar and was
being held back by his sister who was shouting, "Tama na! Tama
na!." Edwin then called for a tricycle so Wilfredo could be brought
to a hospital and given medical attention. Alfredo stood by and
merely watched as events transpired.
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
To corroborate their claim of innocence, the defense called Aniceta

Dosil (Aniceta) to the witness stand who testi ed as follows:
(1) She sold doormats for a living which she peddled on the road;
(2) On 29 August 2004, Rachel helped her in selling the doormats;
(3) On that day, they nished at around 6:00 p.m. and headed to
their respective residences along the railroad track;
(4) Upon arriving at their vicinity, Aniceta witnessed the immediate

aftermath of the purported ght between Jesus and Wilfredo;
(5) At that juncture, Jesus was being embraced by his sister,

Marilou, and the two were two meters away from the body of
Wilfredo;
(6) Marilou recounted to Aniceta that Jesus had hit Wilfredo with
an iron bar, a preemptive move because Wilfredo was about to stab
Jesus;
(7) While Aniceta and Marilou discussed the incident, Rachel stood
and listened to them;
(8) At that time, only the four of them, Jesus, Marilou, Aniceta and
Rachel, were at the place of the incident;
(9) After learning the entirety of what had transpired, Aniceta, who
was afraid to get involved, and Rachel, ran to their respective
houses;
(10) For the duration of the day, Aniceta did not step out of her
house, neither did she volunteer information to the police when the
case was investigated in the following days; and
(11) Aniceta only came forward to testify at the request of Adela

Ibañez, wife of Edwin.
As previously adverted to, the trial court convicted Edwin and

Alfredo of Murder. It disposed of the case, to wit:
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
WHEREFORE, accused Edwin Ibañez y Albante and Alfredo

(Freddie) Nulla y Ibañez are hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and are hereby sentenced
to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the
heirs of Wilfredo D. Atendido in the amount of:
a) Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) as civil indemnity;
b) Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (₱25,000.00) as temperate

damages;
c) Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) as moral damages;
d) Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (₱25,000.00) as exemplary

damages; and
e) One Million Nine Hundred Forty-Six Thousand and One Hundred

Eighty Pesos (₱1,946,180.00) for the unearned income of Wilfredo
Atendido.4
On appeal, Edwin and Alfredo found no reprieve. The Court of

Appeals did not deviate from the RTC’s ruling and a rmed in toto
its nding of guilt.
In this appeal, Edwin and Alfredo assign the following as errors:
THE LOWER COURTS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULLWEIGHT

AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THEALLEGED
PROSECUTION EYEWITNESS.
II
THE LOWER COURTS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVINGWEIGHT

AND CREDENCE TO THE DEFENSE‘S EVIDENCE.
III
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
THE LOWER COURTS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING

THEACCUSED-APPELLANTS WHEN THEIR GUILT WAS NOT
PROVENBEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.5
In sum, the issue is whether the accused are guilty of murder.
Edwin and Alfredo maintain their innocence and point to Jesus as

the sole perpetrator of the crime. They insist that they were at the
scene of the crime only because they wanted to know what the
commotion was all about. They claim that, in fact, Edwin called for
a tricycle so Wilfredo could be brought to a hospital. To discredit
the eyewitness testimony of Rachel, they presented Aniceta who
testi ed that she and Rachel were out on that day selling doormats
and only returned at 6:00 p.m. Thus, Rachel could not have
witnessed the murder of Wilfredo.
Both lower courts, however, found the testimony of Rachel credible:
This Court nds the testimony of Rachel clear and convincing. The
testimony ows from a person who was present in the place where
the killing occurred. They are replete with details su cient to shift
the burden of evidence to appellants. We have no reason to doubt
Rachel’s credibility. Her candid account of the incident, standing
alone, clearly established the components of the crime of murder.
Appellants’ defense of denial, not su ciently proven, cannot
overcome the conclusions drawn from said evidence. We nd no
cogent reason to deviate from the ndings and conclusions of the
trial court. Rachel’s testimony was delivered in a rm, candid, and
straightforward manner. There is no showing that Rachel wavered
from the basic facts of her testimony, even when she was
subjected to a rigorous examination.
Rachel was only ten (10) years old when she witnessed the murder
of the victim. She testi ed in open court two (2) years later. Thus,
she cannot be expected to give an error-free narration of the events
that happened two years earlier. The alleged inconsistencies
between her sworn statement and testimony referred to by
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
appellants do not affect her credibility. What is important is that in

all her narrations she consistently and clearly identi ed appellants
as the perpetrators of the crime. Inconsistencies between the
sworn statement and the testimony in court do not militate against
witness’ credibility since sworn statements are generally
considered inferior to the testimony in open court.6
We nd no error in the lower courts’ disposal of the issue.
Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is that the trial court's evaluation

of the testimony of a witness is accorded the highest respect
because of its direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the
stand and to determine if they are telling the truth or not.7 This
opportunity enables the trial judge to detect better that thin line
between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a
mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court.
Thus, the trial judge's evaluation of the competence and credibility
of a witness will not be disturbed on review, unless it is clear from
the records that his judgment is erroneous.8
We have scrutinized the testimony of lone eyewitness, Rachel.

Throughout her testimony, in her direct, cross and re-direct and re-
cross examinations, she candidly recounted the events
surrounding the killing of her father as follows:
PROS. LAGROSA:
Your Honor please, may we invoke the right of the child the
provisions (sic) under the child witness wherein we can ask leading
questions and in Tagalog.
COURT:
Anyway, the questions can be interpreted.
PROS. LAGROSA:
Only the leading questions, your Honor.

4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
Q: You said that your father came from sleeping in your house, did
you know what time of the day your father went to sleep?
A: I do not know because I do not know how to read time.
xxxx
Q: But do you know whether or when your father went to sleep? It

was morning, noon or afternoon or nighttime or daytime?
A: "Hapon po." (In the afternoon.)
Q: Early afternoon, late afternoon or mid-afternoon?
A: Late in the afternoon, Your Honor. ("bandang hapon-hapon po.")
Q: Was it already dark?
A: Not yet, your Honor.
PROS. LAGROSA:
Q: According to you, your father went to sleep, where were you

when your father went to sleep?
A: I was in the house, ma’am.
xxxx
Q: And when your father woke up, were you still in the house?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Also inside the house?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: When your father woke up, what did he do?
A: All of us ate rice, ma’am. ("Kumain po kaming lahat ng kanin.")
Q: Can you tell us if that is already dark or still daytime?
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
A: It was still daytime, ma’am.
xxxx
Q: After eating rice, will you tell us what happened, if you still
remember?
A: My father was called by his compadre, ma’am.
Q: And who was that compadre who called your father?
A: Freddie, ma’am.
Q: Do you know the full name of this Freddie?
A: Freddie Nulla, ma’am.
Q: Why do you know Freddie Nulla?
A: He is a compadre of my father, ma’am.
Q: Did you often see him in your place?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Is Freddie Nulla now here in court?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Will you look around and point to him?
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointed to a detention prisoner (sic) when asked to

identify himself answered FREDDIE NULLA.Q: Now, you said that
Freddie Nulla, the compadre, called your father, do you still
remember how he was called?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: How?
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
A: "Pare. Pare."
Q: And when your father was called, what did your father do?
A: My father followed Freddie at the back of the house of Kuya

Edwin.
Q: At the time your father followed Freddie at the back of the house
of your Kuya Edwin, where were you?
A: I was under the house of Kuya Unyo, ma’am.
Q: Now, you mentioned that your father followed Freddie at the

back of the house of Kuya Edwin, who is this Kuya Edwin?
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointing to a detention prisoner who identi ed himself as

EDWIN IBAÑEZ.PROS. LAGROSA:
Q: You said that at that time you were under the house of Kuya
Unyo, what is the full name of this Kuya Unyo, if you know?
A: I do not know, ma’am.
Q: What were you doing under the house of Kuya Unyo?
A: I was throwing stones, ma’am.
Q: And this house of Kuya Unyo, is that near or far from your
house?
A: Just near our house, ma’am.
Q: Can you point a place here where you are now sitted (sic) up to
this courtroom to show the distance between your house and the
house of Kuya Unyo?
PROS. LAGROSA
The witness pointed up to the wall.
chrome-distiller://29ec84d7-63f6-4270-8f01-468427b26cb5_5609a0b999c5160eccd2e9cff5dc0580346e71624b78b6593c05fd275ccfc66f/?title=G.R.… 10/19
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
ATTY. MALLILLIN:
Can we estimate, your Honor.
A: Just near, ma’am, 3 to 4 meters.9
xxxx
Q: Rachel, last time you testi ed that your father followed Freddie
Nulla at the back of the house of Kuya Unyo and at that time you
were under the house of Kuya Unyo, do you remember having
stated that last time?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: While you were at the house of Kuya Unyo, do you remember

anything unusual that happened at that time?
A: When my father was being killed, ma’am.
Q: You said that your father was being killed or "pinapatay na po si

papa ko," who killed your father?
A: Kuya Edwin, Kuya Freddie and Kuya Dodong, ma’am.
Q: You said that Kuya Freddie, Kuya Edwin and Kuya Dodong were
killing your father, how did Kuya Edwin, how was he killing your
father as you said?
A: "Pinuluputan po sa mukha ng damit ni Kuya Edwin." (Kuya Edwin

put around a piece of cloth).
Q: You said that Kuya Edwin put around a piece of cloth on your
papa, in what part of your father’s body (sic) that cloth being put
around by Kuya Edwin?
A: He put it around all over the face and the head, ma’am.
PROS. LAGROSA:
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
The witness was demonstrating by making a circling movement or

motion of her hand all over the head and the face.
Q: And then what happened when Kuya Edwin put around that
piece of cloth all over the head and face of your papa?
A: "Itinumba po siya."
Q: You said "itinumba po siya," who caused your father to tumble

down?
A: After Kuya Edwin had put around the piece of cloth on my father,
he tumbled him down.
Q: And when your father tumbled down, what else happened?
A: Kuya Freddie boxed him, ma’am.
Q: Did you see in what part of your father’s body was he boxed by
Kuya Freddie?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: What part of his body was boxed?
A: On the left portion of the shoulder blade, ma’am.
Q: And how about Kuya Dodong when Kuya Edwin put around a
piece of cloth and when Kuya Freddie boxed your father, where was
Kuya Dodong at that time?
A: He was also there, ma’am.
Q: And what was he doing, if he was doing anything at that time?
A: "Binareta na po ‘yong papa ko sa ulo."
COURT:
Q: What did he use noong" binareta"?
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
A: It is a long iron bar used in digging soil?
PROS. LAGROSA:
Q: Now, what happened after Kuya Dodong " binareta" (sic) your
father on the head?
A: "Nandoon pa po ako sa silong nila Kuya Unyo nakita ko nalang

ponandoon na po ang nanay ko pati po mga kapatid ko tsaka na
poako lumabas."10
As the lower courts have done, we accord full faith and credence to
Rachel’s testimony. She was young and unschooled, but her
narration of the incident was categorical, without wavering. It has
no markings of a concocted story, impressed upon her by other
people.
The defense, accused-appellants herein, tried to further discredit

Rachel’s testimony by arguing that Rachel was a mere child who
had studied only until the rst grade of elementary school and
could barely read, and did not know how to tell time.
We cannot take Rachel’s testimony lightly simply because she was

a mere child when she witnessed the incident and when she gave
her testimony in court. There is no showing that her mental
maturity rendered her incapable of testifying and of relating the
incident truthfully.
With exceptions provided in the Rules of Court,11 all persons who

can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to
others, may be witnesses. That is even buttressed by the Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness which speci es that every child is
presumed quali ed to be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the
burden of proof lies on the party challenging the child's
competence. Only when substantial doubt exists regarding the
ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate,
distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the
truth in court will the court, motu proprio or on motion of a party,
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
conduct a competency examination of a child.12 Thus, petitioners’

imsy objections on Rachel’s lack of education and inability to read
and tell time carry no weight and cannot overcome the clear and
convincing testimony of Rachel as to who killed her father.
We likewise note that the line of questioning of the defense during

cross-examination on the competency of Rachel to read and tell
time did not distract her in recollecting how her father was
attacked by accused-appellants. From her position underneath the
house of her "Kuya Unyo," she saw her father, Wilfredo, attacked by
accused-appellants. Although she was astonished as the
happening unfolded, her ability to perceive, remember, and make
known her perception was not diminished.
As regards Aniceta’s version of the events that Jesus was the sole
perpetrator of the crime who attacked Wilfredo only in self-defense,
we easily see the fatal aw: Aniceta arrived after the supposed
ght between Wilfredo and Jesus, and what transpired was merely
relayed to her by Jesus’ sister, Marilou.
Quite apparent from Aniceta’s narration of events is that she has

no personal knowledge of Wilfredo’s killing. Aniceta’s testimony is
mainly hearsay, specially on the purported ght between Wilfredo
and Jesus that ended in Wilfredo’s death. Aniceta’s testimony as
such carries no probative weight. At best, Aniceta’s testimony is an
independent relevant statement: offered only as to the fact of its
declaration and the substance of what had been relayed to Aniceta
by Marilou, not as to the truth thereof.13
Section 36 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides:
SEC. 36. Testimony generally con ned to personal knowledge;

hearsay excluded. – A witness can testify only to those facts which
he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived
from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these
rules.
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
We detect a clever, albeit transparent ploy, to pin Jesus who had

already ed and is temporarily out of reach of the law. Thus, with
Jesus temporarily shielded from punishment, accused-appellants
freely accuse and point to him as the sole perpetrator of the crime.
This cannot trump the solid testimony of Rachel on accused-
appellants’ direct participation in killing Wilfredo.
We likewise a rm the lower courts’ appreciation of the

aggravating circumstance of treachery:
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by

an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the
victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself,
thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor.
Treachery attended the killing of the victim because he was
unarmed and the attack on him was swift and sudden. He had not
means and there was no time for him to defend himself. Indeed,
nothing can be more sudden and unexpected than when
petitioners Edwin and Alfredo attacked the victim. The latter did
not have the slightest idea that he was going to be attacked
because he was urinating and his back was turned from his
assailants. The prosecution was able to establish that petitioners’
attack on the victim was without any slightest provocation on the
latter’s part and that it was sudden and unexpected. This is a clear
case of treachery.14
Finally, we a rm the lower court’s award of damages consistent

with jurisprudence:15 (1) ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2)
₱25,000.00 as temperate damages; and (3) ₱50,000.00 as moral
damages. Consistent with current jurisprudence, we increase the
award of exemplary damages from ₱25,000.00 to ₱30,000.00.16
However, we delete the award of ₱1,946,180.00 representing the
unearned income of Wilfredo.
To obviate confusion on the award of loss of earning capacity, we

reiterate herein that compensation for lost income is in the nature
of damages and as such requires due proof of the damages
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
suffered; there must be unbiased proof of the deceased’s average

income.17 In this case, we only had he testimony of Wilfredo’s
spouse, Rowena, who claimed that Wilfredo earned ₱400.00 to
₱500.00 daily as a doormat vendor.
On more than one occasion, we have held that the bare testimony
of a deceased’s mother or spouse as to the income or earning
capacity of the deceased must be supported by competent
evidence like income tax returns or receipts.18
In People v. Caraig,19 we have drawn two exceptions to the rule that

"documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the
claim for damages for loss of earning capacity," and have thus
awarded damages where there is testimony that the victim was
either (1) self-employed earning less than the minimum wage
under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the
fact that in the victim's line of work no documentary evidence is
available; or (2) employed as a daily-wage worker earning less than
the minimum wage under current labor laws."
Although Wilfredo’s occupation as a doormat vendor may fall

under the rst exception, the minimum wage for Region III, which
includes the province of Bulacan, is below ₱400.00 as per the
National Wages and Productivity Commission Regional Daily
Minimum Wage Rates as of August 2013.20 Regrettably, except for
the bare assertion of Rowena, Wilfredo's spouse, we have nothing
to anchor the award for loss of earning capacity. Thus, we delete
the award for loss of earning capacity in the amount of
₱1,946,180.00.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decisions of the Court

of Appeals in CA-G.R. H.C. No. 04051 and the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 18, Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 3517-M-2004 are
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The award of exemplary damages
is increased from ₱25,000.00 to ₱30,000.00 and we delete the
award for loss of earning capacity in the amount of ₱1,946,
180.00.
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate JusticeESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
See separate concurring and dissenting opinion
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN**
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been

reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
Footnotes
* Per Special Order No. 1560 dated 24 September 2013.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon with
Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Rodil V. Zalameda,
concurring, Rollo, pp. 2-16.
2 Penned by Presiding Judge Victoria C. Fernandez-Bernardo,

Records, pp. 271-290.
3
Id. at 2.
4
Id. at 289-290.
5
CA rollo, p. 42.
6
Rollo, p. 12.
7
People v. Cawaling, G.R. No. 157147, 17 April 2009, 586 SCRA 1,
23-24.
8
Id.
9
TSN, 26 April 2006, pp. 4-9.
10
TSN, 10 May 2006, pp. 2-4.
11
Rules of Court, Rule 130, Secs. 20 and 21.
12
People v. Hermosa, 417 Phil. 132, 144-145 (2001).
13
See People v. Silvano, 431 Phil. 351, 363 (2002).
14
Rollo, p. 14.
15
People v. Molina, G.R. No. 184173, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA
519, 542-543.
16
People v. Barde, G.R. No. 183094, 22 September 2010, 631 SCRA
187, 220.
4/29/2021 G.R. No. 197813 - Reader Mode
17
People v. Ereño, 383 Phil. 30, 46 (2000).
18
Id.
19
448 Phil. 78, 97 (2003).
20
See Wage Order No. 17, effective on 11 October 2012:
SUMMARY OF CURRENT REGIONAL DAILY MINIMUM WAGE

RATES
Non-Agriculture, Agriculture
As of August 2013
(In pesos)
NON-AGRICULTUREAGRICULTURE

People Vs Ibanez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Ibanez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Ibanez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/29/2021 G.R. No.

197813 - Reader Mode

G.R. No. 197813

Today is Thursday, April 29, 2021

People of the Philippines v. Ibañez, G.R. No. 197813, 25 September

G.R. No. 197813 September 25, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Before us is an appeal via a Notice of Appeal from the Decision of

Appellants Edwin and Alfredo, with Jesus Monsillo y Taniares

The undersigned Asst. Provincial Prosecutor accuses Jesus

That on or about the 29th day of August, 2004, in the municipality

During arraignment, Edwin and Alfredo pleaded not guilty. Jesus,

The prosecution’s version was testi ed to by the victim’s wife and

On that fateful day, Wilfredo Atendido y Dohenog (Wilfredo) was

On that same auspicious date, 29 August 2004, Rowena, Wilfredo’s

Expectedly, the defense mainly of Edwin and Alfredo, proffered an

The two accused-appellants pointed to Jesus as the sole culprit,

To corroborate their claim of innocence, the defense called Aniceta

(2) On 29 August 2004, Rachel helped her in selling the doormats;

(4) Upon arriving at their vicinity, Aniceta witnessed the immediate

(5) At that juncture, Jesus was being embraced by his sister,

(11) Aniceta only came forward to testify at the request of Adela

As previously adverted to, the trial court convicted Edwin and

WHEREFORE, accused Edwin Ibañez y Albante and Alfredo

a) Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) as civil indemnity;

b) Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (₱25,000.00) as temperate

c) Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) as moral damages;

d) Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (₱25,000.00) as exemplary

e) One Million Nine Hundred Forty-Six Thousand and One Hundred

On appeal, Edwin and Alfredo found no reprieve. The Court of

In this appeal, Edwin and Alfredo assign the following as errors:

THE LOWER COURTS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULLWEIGHT

THE LOWER COURTS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVINGWEIGHT

THE LOWER COURTS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING

In sum, the issue is whether the accused are guilty of murder.

Edwin and Alfredo maintain their innocence and point to Jesus as

Both lower courts, however, found the testimony of Rachel credible:

appellants do not affect her credibility. What is important is that in

We nd no error in the lower courts’ disposal of the issue.

Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is that the trial court's evaluation

We have scrutinized the testimony of lone eyewitness, Rachel.

Anyway, the questions can be interpreted.

Only the leading questions, your Honor.

A: I do not know because I do not know how to read time.

Q: But do you know whether or when your father went to sleep? It

A: "Hapon po." (In the afternoon.)

Q: Early afternoon, late afternoon or mid-afternoon?

A: Late in the afternoon, Your Honor. ("bandang hapon-hapon po.")

Q: Was it already dark?

A: Not yet, your Honor.

Q: According to you, your father went to sleep, where were you

A: I was in the house, ma’am.

Q: Also inside the house?

Q: When your father woke up, what did he do?

A: All of us ate rice, ma’am. ("Kumain po kaming lahat ng kanin.")

Q: Can you tell us if that is already dark or still daytime?

A: It was still daytime, ma’am.

A: My father was called by his compadre, ma’am.