Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. Nos. L-67803-04

July 30, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
Pat. RICARTE MADALI and ANNIE MORTEL MADALI, defendantsappellants.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Juan B. Soliven for defendants-appellants.

and each is also ordered to pay in solidum to the heirs of Felix

Gasang, the sum of P12,000, as death indemnity.
(3)
For the murder of Cipriano Gasang and the mortal (sic)
wounding of Merlinda Gasang (which has been converted into a
complex crime of murder with frustrated murder) each accused is
sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua together with the
accessory penalties provided for by law and to indemnify in
solidum the heirs of Cipriano Gasang the sum of P12,000.00 and
each is also ordered to pay in solidum, Merlinda Gasang the sum of
P6,000 for reimbursement of medical and hospitalization expenses.
Each of the accused is likewise ordered to pay in solidum the heirs
of deceased, Cipriano Gasang and Felix Gasang, the sum of
P50,000.00, which amount represents the value of the loss (sic)
earning capacity of deceased Cipriano and Felix, both surnamed
Gasang, and the sum of P30,000.00 as moral damages, and the
sum of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages.

FERNAN, C.J.:
Husband and wife Patrolman Ricarte Madali and Annie Mortel
Madali appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Romblon, Branch LXXXI 1 finding them guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of killing father and son Cipriano and Felix Gasang, and
seriously wounding Agustin Reloj and Cipriano's daughter,
Merlinda. The dispositive portion of the decision states:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds the guilt of accused Ricarte
Madali and Annie Mortel Madali beyond reasonable doubt of the
following offenses and sentences each of them as follows:
(1)
For the frustrated murder of Agustin Reloj, each accused is
meted an indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS of prision
correccional, as minimum to TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY
of reclusion temporal, as maximum. (E)ach of them is also
sentenced to suffer all the accessory penalties provided for by law,
and each is ordered to pay in solidum the offended party, Agustin
Reloj, the sum of P200.00 as reimbursement of medical and
hospitalization expenses.
(2)
For the murder of Felix Gasang, each accused is sentenced
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and each of them is likewise
sentenced to suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law,

The sentences of reclusion perpetua and the indeterminate penalty

imposed upon each accused should be served successively, with
proportionate costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2
According to the prosecution, said crimes stemmed from an
altercation between the son of the Madali spouses, Ramon, and the
group of Felix Gasang, who was twenty years old when he was
killed. 3 It appears that on October 26, 1979, Felix figured in a fistfight with someone who was a friend of Ramon. The latter
interceded and mauled Felix with a "chako" 4 One of Felix's
companions then was Agustin Reloj. 5
The following day, the police summoned Felix to the municipal
building. Felix's mother, Desamparada Gasang, went with him. 6 At
the police station, Ricarte Madali, a police officer, angrily scolded
Felix and his cousin, Arnaldo Fadriquilan, and told them that
because they were "very brave", he would put them in jail for
twelve hours. Madali added after asking about Felix's age that he
would "sow bullets" in the body of Felix. 7 According to witness
policeman Aristeo Fetalino, Madali also uttered, "Kailangan sa imo
lubongan bala" which means, what you need is a bullet embedded
in you. 8 Madali's father-in-law, Agustin Mortel, who arrived at the
police station, agreed with Madali that Felix and his group must be

"sown with bullets" to eradicate them. 9 Another group mate of

Felix was detained at the municipal jail but Felix was sent home
with his mother. 10
At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of October 31, 1979, Felix
and his cousin, Agustin Reloj, went home together from the town
plaza. Their houses were located near each other in sitio Marawi,
barangay Cagbo-aya, San Agustin, Romblon.
Felix and Agustin parted ways at the Marawi bridge. Felix dropped
by the store of Coroy Mangao to buy cigarettes while Agustin
proceeded home. Around fifteen meters from the house of Ricarte
Madali, the latter accosted, him, held him by his arm and said, "So
you are here, you devil, now you are finished. I have been waiting
for you. I have been watching for you for three nights already. 11
Then Madali dragged Agustin towards the gate of his (Madali's)
house. When Agustin asked Madali why he was dragging him,
Madali said that the reason was because Agustin helped in fighting
his son.
As one of Agustin's feet stepped over the knee-high fence at the
gate of the Madali residence, he was clubbed by Annie Madali with
a piece of wood. Annie struck him first on the left shoulder and
would have given him another blow had not Agustin freed himself
from Madali's hold. Annie landed that blow on Madali instead. 12
Agustin was looking back as he ran away when Madali shot him. He
was hit below his right hip. He fell to the ground and did not get up
fearing that Madali might shoot him again. Agustin was still lying
down on the ground with his eyes focused on Madali when Felix
Gasang arrived. He saw Annie beamed her flashlight at Felix and
she said, "Here comes another." 13
Agustin saw Felix raising his hands as Annie focused her flashlight
on Felix. Felix told Madali that he would not fight with him but then
Madali shot Felix twice. Felix fell to the ground. Madali was still
near the gate of his house when Cipriano Gasang arrived. Annie
beamed her flashlight at Cipriano and she said, "Here comes, here
comes another, fire upon him. 14 Madali shot Cipriano who fell to
the ground. Merlinda Gasang, who was with her father Cipriano,
clung to the fence nearby and shouted that she was also hit. Then
Desamparada Gasang arrived and shouted for help. One Romeo
Manes came and carried away Merlinda. Agustin slowly stood up
and as he walked towards his house, he saw Roman Galicia

(Galicha) and the Madali spouses who were then entering their
gate. 15
Merlinda Gasang * was at home when she heard an explosion. Her
father, Cipriano, was also at home then but after the second shot,
he went out of the house towards the direction of the source of the
gunfire. There was a minute interval between the first and the
second shots but only a second elapsed between the second and
the third shots. The fourth shot came about two minutes later. 16
Cipriano was "beyond the gate" of the Madali residence when he
was shot by Madali. Merlinda was around three meters from her
father. 17 She saw Annie focused her flashlight at Cipriano and she
heard Annie say, "Yara pa, yara, pa, barila" meaning "Here comes
another one, here comes another one, shoot." 18 That was when
the fourth explosion occurred and Merlinda heard her father
exclaim that he was hit. Merlinda felt that she was also hit. 19 She
did not fall to the ground because she was able to take hold of the
wooden fence. 20 She saw both her brother Felix and Agustin lying
flat on the ground with the latter's head turned to one side. 21
Merlinda shouted for help. Romeo Manes came and brought her to
the Tablas Island Emergency Hospital. 22 She did not notice
anymore where Ricarte Madali was at that time because she was
looking towards the direction of their house. She saw her mother
running to her. 23
Desamparada Gasang was washing the dishes after supper when
she heard the first shot. After the fourth shot, she became
apprehensive because a policeman was mad at her family. 24 She
proceeded to where she heard the gunbursts and she met her
daughter Merlinda who informed her that she was shot by Madali
and that she saw Annie focused a flashlight on her. Then
Desamparada saw her husband crawling on the ground. She asked
him to stand up but he could not do so. Cipriano told her, "Ging
iwagan ako ni Annie Madali cag ging baril ako ni Ricarte Madali"
(Annie focused a light on me and Ricarte Madali shot me.) She then
went back to her daughter and shouted for help.
The bodies of Cipriano and Felix Gasang were not removed from
the road until around midnight. They were brought to the Gasang
residence for autopsy. 25 The rural health physician who conducted
the postmortem examinations on both Cipriano and Felix found
that Cipriano sustained a gunshot wound at the right lower

quadrant of the abdomen along the mammary line. From that point
of entry, the bullet followed an obliquely downward course
penetrating the small and large intestines and the urinary bladder,
and exited at the middle of the left buttock. Cipriano's death was
caused by hemorrhage due to the gunshot wound. 26
Felix also died of hemorrhage resulting from the gunshot wound at
the right second intercostal space within the mid-clavicular line of
the chest. The bullet veered backwards towards the left hitting the
right lung, its blood vessels and the fourth cervical vertebra. The
second gunshot wound was at the right side of the abdomen at
about the level of the navel and within the right anterior axillary
line. The bullet hit the subcutaneous tissues and exited at the
posterior axillary line. 27
Merlyn (Merlinda) Gasang sustained a gunshot wound at the
anterior upper third portion of her right leg with no exit wound and
which would incapacitate her for ten to fifteen days 28 However,
she stayed for treatment at the emergency hospital in San Agustin
for 39 days. Later, she was brought to the hospital in Romblon for
extraction of the slug lodged in her leg. For the treatment of her
wound, Merlinda spent P6,200.00. She could not go to school for
three months. 29
Agustin Reloj suffered a gunshot wound at the glutael region of the
right thigh. The bullet entered the lateral aspect of the upper third
of the right thigh and exited at the posterior aspect of the gluteus
maximus muscle. The attending physician certified that Agustin's
injury would incapacitate him for seven to nine days, 30 Agustin,
who was then a laborer, stayed one week at the hospital and spent
P200 for the treatment of his wound. For his pain and anxiety he
stated, that he should be compensated in the amount of P500.00.
31
Madali voluntarily surrendered to the San Agustin police. 32 He
handed his .38 caliber service revolver to the policemen who
arrived at the scene of the crime and they noted that there were
only two remaining bullets in the revolver. 33 He was placed under
technical arrest by the provincial commander of the Philippine
Constabulary. 34
After the investigation, on February 1, 1980, two informations were
filed against Patrolman Madali and his wife, Annie Mortel Madali. In
Criminal Case No. 981, said spouses were charged with multiple

murder for the killing of Felix and Cipriano Gasang. The information
alleged that they conspired, confederated and mutually helped
each other in killing Felix and Cipriano treacherously, with evident
premeditation and with the use of a .38 caliber revolver. 35
In the separate information for multiple frustrated murder in
Criminal Case No. 982, conspiracy, treachery and evident
premeditation were also alleged as having attended the felonious
assault with the use of a .38 caliber revolver on Merlinda Gasang
and Agustin Reloj which could have resulted in the crime of murder
had not timely and able medical assistance intervened. 36
At the trial, both Madali and his wife, who had pleaded not guilty to
the crimes charged, testified in their own defense. According to
Madali, at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of October 31, 1979,
he and his family were about to sleep when a stone was hurled at
their house. His wife said that it could have been a stray stone. But
then, three other stones landed on the GI sidings, and the lawanit
and bamboo walls of their house. Madali went to their porch where
he noticed a person crouching near their gabi plants. He could not
identify the person because of the fog so he went inside their room
and dressed up in his fatigue trousers and jacket. He went down
the house and noticed that there was no one in the gabi plants
anymore.
Madali was behind their kitchen and about to go back to his house
when someone hit his left shoulder. The person struck him again
but he was able to catch the club aimed at him and strike the
person with his nightstick. Madali was about to give him another
blow with his nightstick but the person caught it. They tried to get
each other's club.
They were in that position when Madali's foot stepped into a low
canal, causing him to fall down flat on his back. The intruder fell
with him and landed on Madali's stomach. The person shouted at
someone in the vicinity what the latter was tarrying about. As
Madali tried to get up, he heard his wife call, "Carte, Carte." Just
then he kicked the intruder on the stomach and the latter fell to
the ground.
Madali hurriedly stood up, pulled his gun and fired at the intruder.
He noticed two other persons approaching him. One person had a
club and the other had what looked like a knife. He warned them,
"This is a policeman. Do not come near." One of the persons

proceeded to strike him and Madali was hit on his forehead by the
man with the club. Madali in turn dealt him with a blow by swinging
back his left forearm. The man with a club fell down.
When the man with the knife was about to stab him, Madali fired
his gun at him. As that man was still closing in on him, Madali shot
him again. The man with the knife retreated to the gate and fell
just outside of it.
After firing two shots, Madali turned sideward and saw the man
with the club about to strike him. So, Madali shot him. The man
walked away. Madali later identified the man crouching amidst their
gabi plants as Agustin Reloj. 37
Annie Mortel Madali corroborated her husband's testimony from
the stoning of their house until he dressed up, got his gun and
nightstick, and went out of the house. When she heard Madali
opening the door to the stairs, Annie got up and went to their
balcony to peep. She saw her husband going around their house in
a clockwise direction. When he was near their kitchen, Annie saw
him grappling with someone over the possession of a club. Her
husband and his protagonist fell into a canal, trampling the gabi
plants. She heard the man say, "Hay, naga tanga pa kamo dira!"
meaning "What are you still waiting for!"
Annie then saw two persons rushing inside their premises. One
person was holding a club while the other one had something
which he appeared to thrust forward. Losing her composure, Annie
warned her husband by calling out his name, "Carte, Carte!" Then
she heard a gunshot and the person holding a club who grappled
with her husband ran out of the premises.
Annie heard her husband say, "Pulis ini, ayaw maglapit" meaning
"This is a policeman do not come near." After that, she heard three
more gunshots. The two who came rushing inside their premises
scampered away and out of their fence. She could not recognize
the three intruders. Madali then walked towards her and asked her
to call the police. Annie went inside their sala and told her
daughter Agnes to summon the police. 38
Policeman Numeriano Galang who heard the gun reports, met
Agnes on his way to sitio Marawi. When he arrived at the Madali
residence, he found Madali with his face and jacket smeared with
mud and with a swollen forehead. 39 Galang asked Madali what

happened but he did not put his investigation in writing. 40 At the

yard, he found stones, two slippers and a nightstick. 41 He did not
find bloodstains in the yard because it was drizzling. 42 Neither did
he find bloodstains outside the yard because he inspected only the
areas surrounding the Madali house. 43
Policeman Antonio Morales arrived at the scene of the crime with
two other policemen. He found Felix Gasang lying flat on his belly
about one foot from the gate. 44 To identify him, they turned Felix's
body face up and found that his right hand was holding a knife. 45
Later, that knife was turned over to police investigator Pfc. Ernesto
Solano. 46 The other victim (Cipriano) was found about five to six
meters from the body of Felix. 47 Like Galang, Morales saw pieces
of stones which were different from the stones found in Madali's
yard which were mere corals or "boga," two pairs of slippers and
the gabi plants which appeared to have been trampled upon. 48
To prove aggression on the part of his victims, Madali presented a
medical certificate stating that on November 1, 1979, he was
examined at the Tablas Island Emergency Hospital for a vertical
contusion (hematoma) on his left forehead and another contusion
on the left deltoid region. 49
The lower court gave full faith and credit to the evidence of the
prosecution, especially the testimonies of eyewitnesses-victims
Agustin Reloj and Merlinda Gasang. It found that the concerted
acts of Madali and his wife while committing the crimes proved
conspiracy between them thereby making their criminal
responsibility collective. While finding that the prosecution failed to
prove evident premeditation, the lower court positively appreciated
treachery to qualify as murder the killing of both Cipriano and Felix
Gasang. It noted, however, that the prosecution erred in charging
as the separate crimes of murder and frustrated murder the killing
of Cipriano and the wounding of Merlinda. Observing that only one
bullet hit Cipriano and his daughter, Merlinda, the lower court
concluded that the Madali spouses should have been charged with
the complex crime of murder and frustrated murder. Accordingly, it
imposed the penalties set out above for the crimes of frustrated
murder, murder and the complex crime of murder and frustrated
murder.
In this appeal, the Madali spouses pray for their acquittal arguing
that the lower court erred in: [a] finding Annie Mortel Madali guilty
as principal by direct participation; [b] not finding that the Gasangs

and their kins were motivated by revenge; [c] not finding that
Ricarte Madali acted in self-defense; and [d] in giving credence
and/or adopting the theory of the prosecution instead of that of the
defense.
The prosecution of these cases was highlighted by notable
developments. Firstly, before the defense could present its
evidence, on September 6, 1980, the capitol building of Romblon
was razed to the ground. All court records were lost. The records of
Criminal Cases Nos. 981 and 982 were, however, reconstituted and
the accused arraigned anew. 50 Secondly, prosecution eyewitness,
Roman Galicia recanted his testimony and appeared for the
defense claiming that he did not see the gunwielder. 51 He alleged
that he testified for the prosecution for fear that the special
prosecutor would revive the rape case against him. 52 The lower
court thereafter disregarded his entire testimony inasmuch as only
the transcript of his cross-examination as prosecution witness
could be reproduced. 53 Thirdly, only the testimony of Ricarte
Madali was heard by the ponente below as the previous presiding
judge was transferred to another sala. 54
In view of the disqualification of Roman Galicia as a witness, the
issue of the credibility of the eyewitnesses has gained importance
in this case. Significantly, it is the word of the accused Madali
spouses as against that of the surviving victims, Agustin Reloj and
Merlinda Gasang. Both prosecution and defense failed to present
corroborative witnesses to buttress their testimonies.
Matters of credibility are ordinarily addressed to the discretion and
discernment of the trial court which is presumed to have observed
the demeanor of the witnesses at the stand. While the ponente of
the decision below was able to hear only the testimony of accused
Ricarte Madali, the Court sees no reason for not giving sufficient
weight to his factual findings considering that he took pains in
thoroughly studying the case even to the extent of conducting an
ocular inspection of the scene of the crimes and hearing part of the
cross-examination of Madali thereat. 55
The defense is anchored on the justifying circumstance of selfdefense. In order that such plea can prosper, it must be positively
shown that there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked attack
that placed the defendant's life in danger and forced him to inflict
more or less severe wounds upon his assailant, employing therefor
reasonable means to resist the said attack. 56

The defense miserably failed to pass said test. Its allegation that
the Madali residence was hurled with stones before Madali
confronted the Gasang group, was not credibly established. No one
was able to positively identify the stone-throwers. Not even Madali
and his wife, Annie. There is no proof that the stones found in the
Madali yard were indeed the stones thrown at their house. It is
interesting to note that even defense witness Antonio Morales, a
fellow policeman of Madali, testified that he did not have personal
knowledge on where the stones were discovered because he was
only informed by Galang (another policeman) "who in turn was only
told by Ricarte that the latter was stoned. 57
Indeed, the defense story is riddled with contradictions and
loopholes which the appellants failed to rectify. At the trial, Agustin
Reloj sketched a map of the neighborhood and placed Felix
Gasang's body on a spot across the road from the Madali gate. 58
The defense tried to discredit Reloj's sketch and his testimony
thereon by presenting policemen Morales and Galang who testified
that Felix's body was found close to the gate of the Madali
residence. However, the testimonies of said policemen clashed
with each other. Morales testified that both the two dead bodies
were found close to the gate while Galang swore that while one
body was near the gate, the other body was five meters away from
the Madali fence. 59 It should be noted that ten days after the
alleged commission of the crime, police investigator Fetalino found
blood stains in the middle of the street indicating that a blooddrenched body had been dragged across the
street. 60
If it were really true that both Agustin and Cipriano were armed
with clubs, at least Cipriano's club would have been found as he
died on the spot. The nightstick found by the police could not have
been the one used by any of the victims. According to defense
witness policeman Galang, the nightstick was similar to that of a
policeman. 61 Hence, it could have been the same nightstick which
Madali admittedly used in striking one of the intruders. 62
Granting that Agustin Reloj and Felix and Cipriano Gasang were
armed with clubs and a knife, Madali's means of resisting them was
unreasonable under the circumstance. Having known that an
interloper was inside his yard, Madali, being a policeman, should
have first fired a warning shot to deter said intruder from executing

whatever vicious plans he had. As it were, he fired directly at his

victims and all four shots hit their targets.
Moreover, if Agustin, Felix and Cipriano were the intruders, then
they should be credited for their extraordinary bravery in entering
the Madali yard. They were neighbors and they must have known
that as a policeman, Madali possessed a service revolver. The
lower court, which saw for itself the Madali yard considered it
"rather inconceivable" for people like the victims to ever dare go
inside the premises armed only with a knife and clubs. 63
The lower court is correct in characterizing the felonious assault on
Agustin Reloj as frustrated murder. While Agustin Reloj was hit only
below his right hip, Madali's act of shooting was plainly attended
by an intent to kill. This is evidenced by the revealing statements
of Madali while accosting Agustin Reloj some fifteen (15) meters
from Madali's house, thus: "So you are here, you devil, now you are
finished. I have been waiting for you. I have been waiting for you
for three nights already. 64 The statements "now you are finished"
and "I have been waiting for you for three nights already"
sufficiently show that Madali not only intended to do away with
Agustin Reloj but also that the crime had been premeditated. They
satisfactorily prove that Madali had formed a determination to
commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution; that he had
clung to his determination and that there was sufficient interval of
time between the determination and the execution of the crime to
allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. 65
Moreover, after uttering those damaging statements, Madali
dragged Reloj towards his gate. Annie then clubbed Reloj who,
however, succeeded in freeing himself from Madali's hold. Reloj
was running away when Madali shot him, hitting him below the
right hip. 66
Indeed, firing at his fleeing victim and subsequently shooting to
death two (2) other persons on the same occasion, to our mind,
evince quite clearly the intent to kill being then entertained by
Madali.
There is likewise no doubt that Madali committed murder when he
shot Felix Gasang twice in the body. Treachery qualified the killing
to murder punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
There was treachery because of the suddenness of the attack. Felix
was raising his hands, 67 and saying that he would not fight back

when Madali feloniously fired at him twice. Annie Madali's uttering

"Here comes another" before Madali shot Felix may not be
considered sufficient warning so as to rule out suddenness of the
attack. 68 However, no generic aggravating circumstance has
been sufficiency proven.
We agree with the trial court that with respect to the killing of
Cipriano Gasang and the wounding of Merlinda Gasang, the crime
committed was the complex crime of murder with frustrated
murder inasmuch as a single shot hit them both. 69 It is immaterial
that Merlinda Gasang was wounded on the leg and not on a vital
part of her body. What is of primordial consideration is the fact that
the criminal act which killed Cipriano also caused Merlinda's injury.
70 As in the kiling of Felix, treachery qualified the killing of Cipriano
to murder because of the suddenness of the attack.
Annie Mortel Madali's defense strategy is to deny participation in
the commission of the crimes and to interpose an alibi. She insists
that like any other wife, her natural reaction to situations which
involve risk is "to stay away, meditate and to shout and warn her
husband of the intruders rushing towards him. 71 She bewails the
fact that the prosecution has pictured her as "a brave, pugnacious
and aggressive wife like the heroine of the pre-war movie "Annie of
the Indies". 72 Indeed, Annie's role in the commission of the crimes
may appear to be straight out of an action picture were it not for
the fact that her denials and uncorroborated alibi cannot stand
against the categorical declarations of prosecution eyewitnesses
Agustin Reloj and Merlinda Gasang on her participation therein. 73
She should have presented witnesses to support her story. As she
herself admitted, she and her husband were not alone in their
house when they were allegedly stoned. Six of their children were
home then. 74 Some of them must have been within the age of
discernment inasmuch as their eldest child was 21 years old and
therefore, any one of them could have corroborated her story.
Nevertheless, the Court finds that proof beyond reasonable doubt
has not been established as to the existence of conspiracy
between the Madali spouses. While direct proof is not essential to
prove conspiracy as it may be shown by acts and circumstances
from which may logically be inferred the existence of a common
design among the accused to commit the offense(s) charged, the
evidence to prove the same must be positive and convincing
considering that conspiracy is a facile devise by which an accused
may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold. 75 With this and

the principle that in criminal prosecution, doubts must be resolved

in favor of the accused, as guides, the Court rules that the liability
of Annie Mortel Madali with respect to the crimes committed
herein, is only that of an accomplice.itc-asl
Annie's participation in the shooting of the victims consisted of
beaming her flashlight at them and warning her husband of the
presence of other persons in the vicinity. By beaming her flashlight
at a victim, Annie assisted her husband in taking a good aim.
However, such assistance merely facilitated the commission of the
felonious acts of shooting. Considering that, according to both of
the Madali spouses, "it was not so dark nor too bright 76 that night
or that "brightness and darkness were equally of the same
intensity. 77 Ricarte Madali could have nevertheless accomplished
his criminal acts without Annie's cooperation and assistance.
Neither may Annie's shouts of "here comes, here comes another,
shoot" be considered as having incited Ricarte to fire at the victims
to make Annie a principal by inducement. There is no proof that
those inciting words had great dominance and influence over
Madali as to become the determining cause of the crimes. 78 The
rapidity with which Madali admittedly fired the shots 79 eliminated
the necessity of encouraging words such as those uttered by
Annie.
The fact that Annie dealt a blow on Agustin while he was being
dragged by Madali to their yard does not make her a principal by
direct participation. Annie's act, being previous to Madali's act of
shooting Agustin, was actually not indispensable to the crime
committed against Agustin. 80
Proof of motive is unnecessary where there is a clear identification
of the accused. 81 More so in this case where the principal accused
does not deny having fired the fatal shots. But the Madali spouses
must have harbored a deep resentment against the Gasang family
to put into action Madali's threat of "sowing bullets" on them. What
makes Madali's crimes even more reprehensible is the fact that he
claims to have committed them in the pursuit of his task as a
peace officer. He even went to the extent of wearing his fatigue
jacket and trousers to create a facade of performance of an official
function. Sadly, he misused his authority and his wife, harboring an
improper sense of connubial cooperation, did not even try to
dissuade him.

Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a

complex crime shall be the maximum period of the penalty for the
most serious crime. The death penalty being the maximum period
of the penalty for murder of reclusion temporal maximum to death
under Article 248 of the same Code, the death penalty should be
imposed for the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder
considering that under Article 63, an indivisible penalty cannot be
affected by the presence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance. It should be noted that under the ruling in People v.
Muoz, L-38968-70, February 9, 1989, Article III, Section 19(1) of
the 1987 Constitution does not change the period of the penalty
for murder except only insofar as it prohibits the imposition of the
death penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua. Hence, the
lower court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on
Ricarte Madali for said complex crime.
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which was
proven but not appreciated in favor of Ricarte Madali by the trial
court, should be considered in imposing on him the penalty for the
murder of Felix Gasang. The presence of this mitigating
circumstance without any aggravating circumstance to offset the
same justified the imposition of the minimum period of the penalty
for murder pursuant to Article 64(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
Accordingly, the proper penalty should be the indeterminate
sentence of not less than ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum and not more than twenty (20) years of
reclusion temporal as maximum. 82
The same mitigating circumstance should be considered in the
imposition of the penalty on Ricarte Madali for the crime of
frustrated murder committed against Agustin Reloj. The penalty for
frustrated murder in accordance with Article 50 in relation to
Article 248 is prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
temporal in its medium period. Taking into consideration the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty imposed on Ricarte
Madali is four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional as minimum to 12 years of prision mayor as
maximum.
As an accomplice, Annie Mortel Madali should be imposed the
penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felonies. 83 For the complex crime of murder and
frustrated murder, like her husband, she shall be imposed the

penalty of reclusion perpetua, 84 considering that the penalty

prescribed by law for Ricarte Madali is the death penalty. For the
murder of Felix Gasang, the penalty imposable on her is prision
mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium, 85 and there
being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the penalty
should be reclusion temporal minimum. 86 Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, Annie Mortel Madali should therefore
be meted the penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of
reclusion temporal as maximum. For the crime of frustrated
murder committed against Agustin Reloj, Annie Mortel Madali shall
be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from six (6) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years
and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
Ricarte Madali and Annie Mortel Madali shall also be liable to the
heirs of Cipriano and Felix Gasang for indemnity in the total
amount of sixty thousand pesos (P60,000) in the proportion of 2:1
(2 shares for Ricarte Madali as principal and 1 share for Annie
Mortel Madali as accomplice), with each accused-appellant being
subsidiarily liable for the other in case of insolvency. The Court
sees no reason to disturb the lower court's findings on the
reimbursement of hospitalization and medical expenses in favor of
Merlinda Gasang and Agustin Reloj as well as the award of
damages, except to clarify that payment thereof shall likewise be
in the proportion of 2:1 as above stated and with each accused
being subsidiarily liable for the other in case of insolvency.
WHEREFORE, except as hereinabove modified, the decision of the
lower court is hereby affirmed. Costs against the appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

G.R. No. L-27031

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LORETO RENEGADO y SENORA, accused-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor
General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Alicia V. Sempio-Diy for
plaintiff-appellee. Roberto C. Alip as counsel de oficio for accusedappellant.
, J.:
p
On September 4, 1966, Mamerto de Lira, a teacher of the "Tiburcio
Tancinco Memorial Vocational School," died at the Calbayog City
General Hospital from a stab wound inflicted upon him a few days
before, more particularly, on August 29, within the premises of the
school by Loreto Renegado, an employee of the same institution.
As a result, the City Fiscal of Calbayog City filed with the local
Court of First Instance an Information against Loreto Renegado for
"Murder with assault upon a person in authority," which, as
amended, reads:
That on or about the 29th day of August, 1966, at about 9:30 A.M.,
in Calbayog City, Philippines, and within the premises of the
Tiburcio Tancinco Vocational School and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court; the above-named accused armed with a
sharp-pointed double bladed weapon, with decided intent to kill,
with assault upon a person in authority; the deceased being at the
time a public school teacher of the Tiburcio Vocational School and
therefore a person in authority; and at the time was in the lawful
performance of his duties as such or on the occasion of such
performance and, with treachery and evident premeditation, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and stab with his weapon Mamerto de Lira, who, as a result
thereof, sustained stab wound on his abdomen which caused his
death. (p. 11, original record)

EN BANC
DECISION
May 31, 1974

The Hon. Jesus N. Borromeo who conducted the trial of the case
found the accused guilty as charged and pursuant to Articles 148
and 248 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 48 thereof,
sentenced him to "suffer the supreme penalty of death; to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Mamerto de Lira in the amount

of P6,000.00; and to pay the costs." (p. 94, ibid) The case is now
before Us on automatic review.
We find the following facts duly established by the evidence of the
prosecution: .
The Tiburcio Tancinco Memorial Vocational School is run by the
national government in the City of Calbayog, and for the school
year 1966-67 its principal was Mr. Bartolome B. Calbes, and in his
absence, Mr. Felix U. Tingzon was authorized to act as officer-incharge (Exhibit E). The deceased Mamerto de Lira was a classroom
teacher of mathematics in said school with daily classes from
Monday to Friday, starting at 7:10 o'clock in the morning till about
4:00 o'clock in the afternoon with vacant periods in-between
(Exhibit D) while accused-appellant, Loreto Renegado, was a clerk
in the same institution whose duties included the following:
1. To type correspondence, memorandum, circulars of the Head of
the school.
2. To help type test questions of teachers for every periodical test.
3. To help type reports of the schools.
4. To help type handout of the teachers.
5. To file and account records of the school.
6. To mail some reports, prepared form like Form 137 and mail it,
etc. (Exhibit F)
A periodical test was scheduled on September 2, 1966, and the
teachers were instructed to submit their questions for approval and
cutting of the stencil for mimeographing purposes by August 25
and 26. 1
At about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of Friday, August 26, 1966,
appellant Renegado was in the school canteen and other persons
present at the time were teachers Natividad Boco, Mrs. Alviola, and
Mrs. Benita Tan, and some students. On that occasion Lira entered
the canteen and seeing Renegado he requested the latter to type
the stencil of his test questions for the examination set for
September 2. Renegado answered that he had much work in the
principal's office and that typing test questions was not among his

duties. Lira reminded Renegado of the instructions of the principal

that he could be asked by the teachers to type their test questions
especially if the teacher concerned had no knowledge of typing,
and Lira finished his remark stating: "you can finish your work if
you only will sit down and work." At this remark, Renegado became
angry and as he stepped out of the canteen he boxed with his fist a
cabinet which belonged to Mrs. Alviola. Seeing the hostile attitude
of Renegado, Lira followed the latter outside of the canteen and
asked Renegado if he was challenging him. Renegado did not
answer but quickly left the place. 2
On his way out of the school premises, later that afternoon,
Renegado passed by the guardhouse where he met security guard,
Primitivo Velasco, and Renegado told the latter: "Friend, I will be
sad if I could not kill somebody," and having learned about the
altercation between Renegado and Lira, Velasco placed his arm
around the shoulder of Renegado and pacified him with these
words: "Loreto, do not do that because that is a little trouble, you
might be able to kill someone and you will be separated from your
family." 3 Also on that afternoon before leaving the school,
Renegado met Basilio Ramirez, another employee, to whom he
recounted his altercation with Lira and ended up saying: "I am
going to kill him." Basilio Ramirez, however, advised Renegade:
"Padi, do not take that to the extent because to kill a person is not
good, think of your family, you have many children." 4
In the evening of that Friday, August 26, there was a dance at the
school premises and on that occasion Renegado was seen cycling
around the school several times, 5 and Renegado inquired from
security guard, Nicomedes Leonor, if Lira was at the dance. Leonor
informed Renegado that the teacher was not around and at the
same time advised Renegado thus: "Choy, do not attend to that
small trouble and we have families. Have patience because we
have families." 6 Another teacher, Arturo Querubin, likewise saw
Renegado that evening acting in a suspicious manner and sensing
the state of mind of Renegado because of the incident which
happened earlier in the afternoon, Querubin approached
Renegado, advised him to "calm his temper," and told him
"remember, you have plenty of children, please be calm." 7
Came Monday morning, August 29, and at around 9:00 o'clock,
Erlinda Rojo, a bookkeeper in the school, met accused Renegado in
the office of the principal. Renegado inquired from Erlinda about
his salary loan, and during their conversation, the school janitor

called the attention of the two to some boys quarreling near the
school's shop building and Renegado remarked: "stab him"; to
those words Erlinda replied: "That is the case with you. Your
intention is to stab. If that is your attitude, there will be nobody left
on earth, they will all die," to which Renegado countered: "So that
the bad persons will be taken away and eliminated," and after that
exchange of remarks Renegado left the room. 8
That same morning, past 9:00 o'clock, which was his vacant
period, Lira went to the school canteen, seated himself at the
counter, and ordered a bottle of "pepsi cola" from the girls who
were then serving, namely, Venecia Icayan and Lolita Francisco. At
about 9:30 while Lira was drinking his "pepsi cola" Renegado
entered the canteen and seeing Lira with his back towards him, he
immediately and without warning stabbed Lira with a knife hitting
the latter on the right lumbar region. The wounded Lira turned
around holding his abdomen and raised a chair to ward off his
assailant who was poised to stab him for the second time.
Renegado tried to reach Lira but he was blocked by Mrs. Tan who
shouted "Stop it, Loreto, don't anymore." Because of the
intervention of Mrs. Tan and the screaming of the girls inside the
canteen, Renegado desisted from continuing with his attack and
left the canteen. 9 During that incident, Felix Tingzon was also in
the canteen having a snack with a guest and although he did not
actually see the very act of stabbing, he saw however that when
Renegado entered the canteen Lira was beside the counter and
had his back towards appellant Renegado. 9a
Lira was brought to the Calbayog City General Hospital and was
attended by Dr. Erlinda Ortiz who performed an operation on him.
Dr. Ortiz found that the weapon of the assailant entered through
the right lumbar region of the victim and penetrated the right
lower lobe of the liver. Notwithstanding the medical attention given
to Lira, the latter died on September 4, 1966, from "hepatic
insufficiency" caused by the stab wound which perforated the right
lower lobe of the liver resulting in internal hemorrhage. 10
Appellant Renegado asks Us not to believe the above-given
narration of the witnesses for the prosecution and submits instead
his own version of the incident as follows:
At about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon of Friday, August 26, he was
in the school canteen for a snack and on that occasion Lira arrived
and approached him with a bunch of papers and told him to type

the stencil of his test, questions; he answered that he could not do

the work because he was busy in the principal's office; Lira got
mad and pointing his finger at him said: "The question with you is
that the work that you can do in a day you finish it in so many
days, because you stroll only in the office and keep on sleeping.";
scared by the aggressive mood of Lira, he went out of the canteen,
but Lira followed him and, overtaking him near the door, boxed him
on his stomach; he told Lira that he was not fighting back,
however, Lira angrily shook his fingers at him and said: "don't show
yourself to me, I will kill you with maltreatment"; he proceeded to
the office of the principal and informed the latter about the
incident but the principal advised him not to mind Mr. Lira and to
go ahead with his work; later, in the afternoon he went home; the
following morning, Saturday, he was in his house repairing the
"pantao" or wash stand and on that occasion spouse Lourdes and
Feling Renegado came to the house and they talked about the
incident between him and Lira; Lourdes Renegado suggested the
filing of a complaint against Lira but he replied he was not taking
the matter seriously and, at any rate, he was resigning from his
job; on Monday, August 29, at about 7:30 o'clock in the morning he
went to his work in the school as usual; upon reaching the school,
he proceeded to the room of Miss Rojo to get some papers on
which he was working, and then he returned to his room; at about
9:30, he went to the canteen for a snack and on the way, he was
"singing, whistling, and tossing a coin in his hand"; before reaching
the canteen, he saw Lira and Manuel Cordove conversing and when
the two parted, Lira went to his room; upon reaching the canteen,
he went to the counter (see Exhibits 3 and 3-A), and while he was
there standing, Lira arrived, stood beside him, elbowed him, and
said in a loud voice: "Ano ka?"; he turned around to face Lira and
the latter banged on the counter the folders he (Lira) was carrying;
Lira then placed his right hand inside his pocket, pulled with the
other hand a chair and pushed it at him; he became confused and
remembered that on Friday afternoon Lira threatened to kill him if
he (Lira) would meet him again; after a while he saw Mrs. Tan
standing before him and heard her say: "Loreto, don't do that";
upon hearing those words, "he regained his senses" and only then
did, he realize that he had wounded Lira; he became panicky, left
the canteen, proceeded home, and informed his wife that he had
wounded a person; he then called for a tricycle, looked for a
policeman, and surrendered to the
latter. 11

To corroborate his testimony that in the morning of the stabbing

incident he was ahead of Lira in the school canteen, appellant
called to the witness stand Manuel Cordove who declared that on
Monday morning after he and Lira had conversed and parted, Lira
proceeded to his (Lira's) office while he went to his own room and
on the way he passed by Renegado who was then standing by the
door of the canteen and greeted him; after a short while he heard
shouts from the canteen and he learned that Renegado had
stabbed Lira. 12 Another witness, Lourdes Renegado, testified on
the conversation between her and her brother-in-law, the herein
appellant, on Saturday morning, and she tried to impress the court
that appellant Renegado had dismissed from his mind his
altercation with Lira and as a matter of fact on the following day,
Sunday, she met Renegado who had just come from church and
was on his way to attend a cockfight. 13 Appellant's wife, Elena de
Guia, also took the witness stand and declared inter alia that when
her husband returned home on Friday afternoon and narrated to
her the occurrence at the canteen she suggested that a complaint
be filed against Lira but her husband said: "never mind"; in the
evening of that same day, Friday, her husband invited her to go
with him to the school dance, however, she excused herself
because of the children; on Monday morning, August 29, her
husband reported for work at the school as usual and before
leaving the house he told her that he was returning about 9:00
o'clock for his "merienda"; her husband returned later in the
morning only to tell her that he had stabbed someone; upon
hearing the news she cried out: "Oh my God what have you done
to us?", and he replied: "I would not have done that had he not
bullied me, he purposely did it to me, that is why I was hurt."; after
that, her husband left the house to surrender to the police. 14

produced "ill-effects" because since that particular occurrence

appellant would have fits of violent temper such as maltreating his
wife and children for no reason at all, and for which he would ask
forgiveness from his wife because "he lost his head." 17

On the basis of the testimony of appellant, his counsel-de-oficio,

Atty. Roberto C. Alip, in his well-written brief pleads for an acquittal
with the argument that accused should be exempt from criminal
liability "because at the precise time that the prosecution claims de
Lira was stabbed, accused lost his senses and he simply did not
know what he was doing." 15 To bolster his argument on the
mental condition of appellant, defense counsel directs Our
attention to that portion of the evidence showing that sometime in
June of 1950 Renegado was "clubbed" on the forehead by Antonio
Redema and was treated by Dr. J.P. Rosales for head injuries (Exh.
4-A), and as a result of that incident Redema was charged with and
convicted of "frustrated murder" in the Court of First Instance of
Samar on July 21, 1950; 16 that the head injury of appellant

By his testimony appellant wants to convey that for one brief

moment he was unaware or unconscious of what he was doing,
that he "regained his senses" when he heard the voice of Mrs. Tan
telling him: "Loreto, don't do that," and only then did he realize
that he had wounded Lira. That, to Us, is incredible. For it is most
unusual for appellant's mind which was in a perfect normal state
on Monday morning, August 29, to suddenly turn blank at that
particular moment when he stabbed Lira. Appellant himself
testified that he was acting very sanely that Monday morning, as
shown by the fact that he went to the canteen in a jovial mood
"singing, whistling, and tossing a coin in his hand"; he saw the
persons inside the canteen namely Venecia Icayan, Lolita
Francisco, Benita Tan, Felipe Tingzon and a guest of the latter (all of

For purposes of disposing of appellant's defense it becomes

necessary to restate certain basic principles in criminal law, viz:
that a person is criminally liable for a felony committed by him; 18
that a felonious or criminal act (delito doloso) is presumed to have
been done with deliberate intent, that is, with freedom,
intelligence, and malice 19 because the moral and legal
presumption is that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal
condition of a person in the absence of evidence to the contrary;
20 that one of the causes which will overthrow this presumption of
voluntariness and intelligence is insanity in which event the actor
is exempt from criminal liability as provided for in Article 12,
paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code.
In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing act, that is, the accused is
deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment because
there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there
is a total deprivation of freedom of the will, mere abnormality of
the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. 21 The onus
probandi rests upon him who invokes insanity as an exempting
circumstance and he must prove it by clear and positive evidence.
22
Applying the foregoing basic principles to the herein appellant, his
defense perforce must fail.

whom, except the last one, testified for the prosecution); he

noticed the arrival of Lira who banged his folders on the table,
elbowed him, and said in a loud "ano ka"; he saw Lira put his right
hand inside his pocket and with the other hand push a chair
towards him; he became "confused" because he remembered that
Lira threatened to kill him if he would see him again; at this point
he "lost his senses" and regained it when he heard the voice of
Mrs. Tan saying: "Loreto, don't do that", and he then found out that
he had wounded Lira. If appellant was able to recall all those
incidents, We cannot understand why his memory stood still at that
very crucial moment when he stabbed Lira to return at the snap of
finger as it were, after he accomplished the act of stabbing his
victim. His is not a diseased mind, for there is no evidence
whatsoever, expert or otherwise, to show that he is suffering from
insanity or from any other mental sickness which impaired his
memory or his will. The evidence shows and the trial court did find
that appellant is a perfectly normal being, and that being the case,
the presumption is that his normal state of mind on that Monday
morning continued and remained throughout the entire incident..

surrender his weapon, and he came to know that he had wounded

his wife, his mother-in-law and sisters-in-law. The Court sustained
the conviction of the accused holding:

The testimony of appellant's wife, Elena, that her husband at times

manifests unusual behaviour, exempli gratia: lashing at his children
if the latter refuses to play with him, tearing off the mosquito net if
not properly tied, "executing a judo" on her person, boxing her, and
so on and so forth, is not the evidence needed to prove a state of
insanity. At most such testimony shows that appellant Renegado is
a man of violent temper who can be easily provoked to violence for
no valid reason at all. Thus in People vs. Cruz, this Court held that
breaking glasses and smashing dishes are simply demonstrations
of an explosive temper and do not constitute clear and satisfactory
proof of insanity; they are indications of the passionate nature of
the accused, his tendency to violent fits when angry, and inasmuch
as the accused was not deprived of the consciousness of his acts
but was simply obfuscated by the refusal of his wife to live with
him, his conviction for parricide was proper. 23

The next point raised by the defense is that the testimonial

evidence of the prosecution comes from "biased, partial, and
highly questionable sources," and is not to be believed. 23

Very relevant to the case now before Us in U.S. vs. Ramon

Hontiveros Carmona, 18 Phil. 62, where the appellant was accused
of serious physical injuries committed on his wife, mother-in-law,
and sisters-in-law. The accused Hontiveros pleaded insanity as a
defense, and claimed that immediately before the incident he had
intermittent fever at intervals of a few hours during which he lost
consciousness and after he regained consciousness he found
himself outside of the house and heard voices commanding him to

Appellant also contends that the prosecution witnesses are biased

and partial. We find that contention unjustified. The mere fact that
the witnesses of the People were employees, students, and
teachers in the school is no reason to consider their declarations
biased in the absence of satisfactory proof that any of them had
personal motives if his own either to favor the deceased or
prejudice the herein appellant. In assessing the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses, the trial judge found no sufficient evidence

In the absence of proof that the defendant had lost his reason or
became demented a few moments prior to or during the
perpetration of the crime, it is presumed that he was in a normal
condition of mind. It is improper to conclude that he acted
unconsciously in order to relieve him from responsibility on the
ground of exceptional mental condition, unless his insanity and
absence of will are proven .... Acts penalized by law are always
considered to be voluntary, unless the contrary be shown, and by
this rule of law Ramon Hontiveros, by inflicting upon the offended
parties the respective wounds, is considered to have been in a
normal, healthy, mental condition, and no weight can be given to
the defendant's allegation of insanity and lack of reason, which
would constitute an exceptional condition; nor, for lack of
evidence, can his state of mind be deemed to have been
abnormal." (p. 65, emphasis supplied)

Appellant claims that it is highly improbable for a person who

intends to kill someone to reveal his plan to others such as what
the prosecution witnesses Velasco and Ramirez testified that
Renegado told them on Friday afternoon that he was going to kill
Lira. It may be true that ordinarily one would keep to one's self
such a hideous plot, but the workings of the human mind are at
times mysteriously incomprehensible, and to a man like the herein
appellant who is pictured by his own evidence to be one of violent
disposition, it was natural for him to blurt out his outraged feelings
and his evil design to his two co-employees in the school because
the incident with Lira was still fresh in his mind at the time.

proving hostility towards the herein appellant or any notable

relationship of friendship with the deceased, and We see no valid
reason for discrediting His Honor's findings in this regard. Time and
again this Tribunal has stated that the findings of the trial court on
the credibility of witnesses are not to be disturbed for the trial
judge is in a better position to appreciate the same, having seen
and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behaviour
and manner of testifying during the trial, unless there is a showing
that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied
some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would
have affected the result of the case; in the case at bar, there is no
such showing. 24 The rule is so, because as rightly said, the
opportunity to observe the demeanor and appearance of witnesses
in many instances is the very touchstone of credibility. 25
As a last issue, appellant claims that the court a quo erred in
holding the appellant guilty of "murder with assault upon a person
in authority." 26
The zeal of appellant's counsel-de-oficio in pursuing all possible
lines of defense so as to secure the acquittal of his client or at least
to minimize his liability is truly laudable. However, predicated on
the credible and impartial testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
the judgment of the trial court finding the accused guilty as
charged is to be sustained for the following reasons:
First, the killing of Mamerto de Lira is qualified by evident
premeditation. The circumstance of evident premeditation is
present because on that very Friday afternoon immediately after
the incident at the canteen appellant Renegado, giving vent to his
anger, told his co-employee, Ramirez, and the security guard,
Velasco, that he was going to kill Lira. That state of mind of
appellant was evident once more when he went to the school
dance that same Friday evening and was seen cycling around the
school premises several times, and he asked another security
guard, Nicomedes Leonor, if Lira was at the dance. On the
following day, Saturday, appellant met Mrs. Benita Tan to whom he
confided that had he seen Lira the night before he would surely
have killed him. And on Monday morning, knowing the time of Lira
for a snack (tsn, Nov. 17, 1966, p. 307), appellant armed himself
with a knife or some bladed weapon which by his own admission
on cross-examination was his and which he used for "cutting bond
paper" (tsn. ibid, p. 299), proceeded to the canteen at around 9:30
o'clock, and seeing the teacher Lira with his back towards him,

without much ado, stabbed Lira from behind hitting the victim on
the right lumbar region. Appellant's attempt to show that he does
not remember how the weapon reached the canteen is of course
futile, preposterous as it is. (tsn. ibid, pp. 299-300) There is no
doubt that the act of appellant in bringing with him his knife to the
canteen on Monday morning was the culmination of his plan to
avenge himself on Lira for the remark made by the latter on Friday
afternoon. Evident premeditation exists when sufficient time had
elapsed for the actor to reflect and allow his conscience to
overcome his resolution to kill but he persisted in his plan and
carried it into effect. 27 Here, appellant Renegado had more or less
sixty-four hours from the Friday incident up to 9:30 o'clock of
Monday morning within which to ponder over his plan and listen to
the advice of his co-employees and of his own conscience, and
such length of time was more than sufficient for him to reflect on
his intended revenge.
Second, treachery attended the killing of Lira because the latter,
who was unarmed, was stabbed from behind, was totally unaware
of the coming attack, and was not in a position to defend himself
against it. There is treachery where the victim who was not armed
was never in a position to defend himself or offer resistance, nor to
present risk or danger to the accused when assaulted. 28
Third, the killing of Lira is complexed with assault upon a person in
authority. A teacher either of a public or of a duly recognized
private school is a person in authority under Art. 152 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 578.
29
The defense claims, however, that while it is true that Mamerto de
Lira was at the time of his death a teacher of the Tiburcio Memorial
Vocational School run by the national government, he was not
stabbed while in the performance of his duties nor on the occasion
of such performance. According to the defense counsel, the motive
of the assault is important to determine whether or not the assault
falls under Art. 148 of the Revised Penal Code; 30 in the instant
case it is clear that the underlying motive for the assault was not
that Renegado was asked to type the test questions of the teacher
Lira but that the latter made insulting and slanderous remarks to
the herein appellant. This contention of the defense is incorrect.
The assault or attack on Lira was committed on the occasion of the
performance of the duties of the latter as a teacher because: as
narrated in the early part of this Decision, Lira was scheduled to

give a periodical test on September 2, 1966, and was required to

submit his, test questions for approval and mimeographing by
August 25 and 26; Lira asked appellant Renegado to prepare the
stencil of his questions inasmuch as he was not versed with typing;
appellant was duty bound to type said stencil under the
memorandum-circular enumerating his duties as a clerk of the
school; appellant refused the request of Lira under pretext that he
had much work in the principal's office and furthermore that typing
test questions for teachers was not among his duties; Lira
reminded Renegado that the principal gave necessary instructions
for that purpose, and ended up with the remark: "you can finish
your work if you only will sit down and work"; Lira's remark was
neither insulting nor slanderous but more of a reminder to
Renegado that if he would sit down and work he could finish all the
work that had to be done; as a teacher of the school, Lira had the
authority to call the attention of an employee of the institution to
comply with his duties and to be conscientious and efficient in his
work; it was Renegado's violent character, as shown by his own
evidence, which led him to react angrily to the remark of Lira and
conceive of a plan to attack the latter. Under these enumerated
facts, We conclude that the impelling motive for the attack on
Mamerto de Lira was the performance by the latter of his duties as
a teacher.
In Justo vs. Court of Appeals, wherein the offended party was a
district supervisor of the Bureau of Public Schools, the Court held

that the phraseology "on occasion of such performance" used in

Art. 148 of the Revised Penal Code signifies "because" or "by
reason" of the past performance of official duty, even if at the very
time of the assault no official duty was being discharged, inasmuch
as the evident purpose of the law is to allow public officials and
their agents to discharge their official duties without being haunted
by the fear of being assaulted or injured by reason thereof. 31
Inasmuch as the crime committed is murder with assault upon a
person in authority and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender is offset by the aggravating circumstance of treachery,
the penalty of DEATH imposed by the trial court is pursuant to
Article 48 in relation to Articles 148 and 248 of the Revised Penal
Code. The court a quo, however, in its decision recommends to the
President of the Republic the commutation of the death penalty to
reclusion perpetua, and the Solicitor General * concurs with such
recommendation. On the part of the Court, for lack of ten votes for
purposes of imposing the death sentence, the penalty next lower in
degree, reclusion perpetua, is to be imposed.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, We affirm the conviction of appellant
Loreto Renegado for murder with assault on a person in authority
and We sentence him to suffer reclusion perpetua and to indemnify
the heirs of the deceased Mamerto de Lira in the sum of twelve
thousand (P12,000.00) pesos 32 and to pay the costs. Decision
modified.