Page 108 of CRUZ Book: ATIZADO VS.

PEOPLE
Characters:
Atizado and Monreal – accused, convicted (RTA AND CA)
Llona- deceased, shot victim
Mirandilla – one of the state witnesses, common-law wife of Llona
State Witnesses - Mirandilla, Major Gani, Dr. Abrantes, Lawrence, and Herminia.
Witnesses for the Defense - Monreal, Villafe, Lolos, Lorenzana, Jesalva, and Lagonsing.

Facts:
 April 18, 1994 – Mirandilla testified that they attended barangay fiesta. At 8pm went to Desder’s
house and (Mirandilla, Llona, Jesalva (Brgy. Kagawad) seated at the sala of Desder.
 Mirandilla heard thundering steps and two successive gunshots, then saw Atizado pointing a gun at
Llona, who was to shoot Llona again. The common law wife shouted STOP THAT’S ENOUGH!, she then
heard clicking sounds of the gun and she turned towards the source of that clicking sound and saw
Monreal point his gun at her while he was moving backwards and simultaneously adjusting the
cylinder of his gun. Petitioners fled the shooting scene and Llona was pronounced dead at the
hospital.
 May 18, 1994 - testified that the petitioners and Danilo were arrested on this date.
 Dr. Abrantes confirmed that Llona died due to two gunshot wounds in the back that penetrated
his spinal column, liver, and abdomen.
 Lawrence and Herminia stated that the Llona family spent ₱30,000.00 for the funeral expenses of
Llona.
D E F E N S E S….
 at the time of the commission of the crime, Atizado had been in his family residence in Barangay
Tomalaytay, Castilla: Sick of Influenza
 Monreal and Danilo had been in the house of a certain Ariel also in Barangay Tomalaytay, Castilla,
Sorsogon drinking gin
 petitioners had been implicated only because of their being employed by their uncle Lorenzana,
the alleged mastermind in the killing of Llona

ANTECEDENT JUDGMENTS:
 May 4, 2000, the RTC convicted the petitioners but acquitted Danilo
 December 13, 2005, the CA affirmed the conviction

ISSUE:
 WHETHER OR NOT, The RTC and the CA erred in finding them guilty of murder beyond reasonable
doubt based on the eyewitness testimony of Mirandilla despite her not being a credible witness;
 that some circumstances rendered Mirandilla’s testimony unreliable, namely:
 (a) she had failed to identify them as the assailants of Llona, because she had not actually
witnessed them shooting at Llona; (
 b) she had merely assumed that they had been the assailants from the fact that they had
worked for Lorenzana, the supposed mastermind;
 (c) the autopsy report stated that Llona had been shot from a distance, not at close
range, contrary to Mirandilla’s claim;
 (d) Mirandilla’s testimony was contrary to human experience; and
  (e) Mirandilla’s account was inconsistent with that of Jesalva’s.

SC Ruling:
 The conviction of the petitioners is affirmed, subject to modifications in the penalty imposed on
Monreal and in the amounts and kinds of damages as civil liability.
 Llona left no doubt whatsoever that they had conspired to kill and had done so with treachery.
 basic rule of appellate adjudication in this jurisdiction that the trial judge’s evaluation of the
credibility of a witness and of the witness’ testimony is accorded the highest respect because the
trial judge’s unique opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of the witness enables him to
determine whether the witness is telling the truth or not
 Since evaluation, when affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court unless facts or circumstances
of weight have been overlooked BUT petitioners have not called attention to and proved any
overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted circumstance SO the SC applied the rule.
 conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it, deduced from the mode and manner in which they had
perpetrated their criminal act, all the conspirators in a crime are liable as co-principals: CA held
that Mirandilla’s testimonial narrative "sufficiently established that treachery
attended the attack o[n] the victim" because Atizado’s shooting the victim at the
latter’s back had been intended to ensure the execution of the crime.
 concur with the CA on the attendance of treachery. The petitioners mounted their deadly assault
with suddenness and without the victim being aware of its imminence.
 be swift and unexpected, in order to deprive their victim of the opportunity to defend himself

IMPORTANT PART OF THE SC RULING RELATED TO

CRUZ BOOK:
 reclusion perpetua was not the correct penalty for Monreal due to his being a minor over 15 but
under 18 years of age. The RTC and the CA did not appreciate Monreal’s minority at the time of the
commission of the murder probably because his birth certificate was not presented at the trial.
 Monreal was a minor below 18 years of age when the crime was committed on April 18, 1994
 the police blotter recording his arrest mentioned that he was 17 years old at the time of his arrest on
May 18, 1994
 he was not over 18 years of age when he committed the crime
 Mirandilla described Monreal as a teenager and young looking at the time of the incident.32
 showing of Monreal’s minority was legally sufficient, for it conformed with
the norms subsequently set under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9344, also
known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006,33
Section 7. Determination of Age. - The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of
minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be
eighteen (18) years old or older. The age of a child may be determined from the child’s birth
certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these
documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other
persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the
age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.
  In all proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges and other government officials
concerned shall exert all efforts at determining the age of the child in conflict with the law.
 Pursuant to Article 68 (2) of the RPC,34 when the offender is over 15 and under 18 years of age, the
penalty next lower than that prescribed by law is imposed. Based on Article 61 (2) of the
RPC, reclusion temporal is the penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua to death. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 64 of the RPC, therefore, the range of the penalty of
imprisonment imposable on Monreal was prision mayor in any of its periods, as the minimum period,
to reclusion temporal in its medium period, as the maximum period.
 Monreal has been detained for over 16 years, that is, from the time of his arrest on May 18, 1994 until
the present. Given that the entire period of Monreal’s detention should be credited in the service of
his sentence, pursuant to Section 41 of Republic Act No. 9344,35 the revision of the penalty now
warrants his immediate release from the penitentiary.
 children in conflict with the law as granted under Republic Act No. 9344, which aims to promote the
welfare of minor offenders through programs and services, such as delinquency prevention,
intervention, diversion, rehabilitation and re-integration, geared towards their development, are
retroactively applied to Monreal as a convict serving his sentence. Its Section 68 Children Who Have
Been Convicted and are Serving Sentences expressly so provides:
 Shall likewise benefit from the retroactive application of this Act. They shall be entitled to appropriate
dispositions provided under this Act and their sentences shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be
immediately released if they are so qualified under this Act or other applicable laws.
 raised to ₱75,000.00 to accord with prevailing case law;37 and that exemplary damages of ₱30,000.00
due to the attendance of treachery should be further awarded
SUMMARY AGAIN OF THE COURT ORDERS:

WHEREFORE, the Court affirms the decision dated December 13, 2005 promulgated in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
01450, subject to the following modifications:

Salvador Monreal is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty from six years and one day
of prision mayor, as the minimum period, to 14 years, eight months, and one day of reclusion
temporal, as the maximum period;

(b) The Court orders the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City to immediately release Salvador
Monreal due to his having fully served the penalty imposed on him, unless he is being held for other
lawful causes; and

(c) The Court directs the petitioners to pay jointly and solidarily to the heirs of Roger L. Llona
₱75,000.00 as death indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages,
and ₱30,000.00 as actual damages.