A.C. No. 5573 - Tumbaga vs. Teoxon

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5573)

Factual Background

On December 24, 1991, Rogelio Alvendo, his brother Rodrigo Alvendo, and their cousin Vicente Alvendo were at the carnival ground betting on the rollets. While Rogelio was talking with a lady/attendant, Ronald Estorco approached and told him that talking with the lady was prohibited. The lady answered that it was not prohibited, and Rogelio continued talking.

Estorco became angry. He drew a fan knife and intimidated the group of Rogelio. Estorco called up a companion, and both threatened Rogelio. After Estorco left and returned after a few minutes, he had two more companions with him. One companion boxed Rodrigo, and another companion, Butch Ballesteros, stabbed Rodrigo. Estorco’s companions then converged on Rodrigo. The prosecution evidence showed that Rogelio could not help Rodrigo because Estorco held his arm and poked the fan knife at him. Rodrigo, after freeing himself, ran; Rogelio also extricated himself. However, while Rogelio followed Rodrigo, Rodrigo fell. Rogelio touched Rodrigo’s pulse and found it no longer beating. Rogelio then ran toward the police station and reported that his brother had been stabbed. Three policemen went with him to the stabbing site, and when Rogelio pointed to Estorco who was still standing there, Estorco was apprehended. Rodrigo was brought to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.

Information, Arraignment, and Trial Posture

By Amended Information, Ronald Estorco y de Luna, together with Butch Ballesteros, Henry Juguilon y Narvasa, and Peter Doe, was charged with murder. The information alleged that the accused acted with treachery, abuse of superior strength, and with intent to kill, and that the stabbing caused death shortly thereafter due to cardio respiratory arrest, massive intrathoracic and intra-abdominal hemorrhage, and multiple stab wounds, as reflected in the autopsy report.

Upon arraignment, Estorco pleaded not guilty. Since the other accused remained at large, a separate trial was conducted against Ronald Estorco.

Prosecution Evidence and Medical Findings

The trial court relied on the testimony of Rogelio Alvendo, who narrated the initial warning about talking with the lady, Estorco’s anger, the drawing of the fan knife, the arrival with additional companions, and the coordinated assault in which Rodrigo was boxed and stabbed by Estorco’s companion. Rogelio further testified that Estorco held his arm and poked a knife at him, preventing him from assisting Rodrigo.

Vicente Alvendo corroborated that a man approached and warned that talking to the girl was not allowed, then returned with a companion, threatened by drawing fan knives, returned again with two companions, made a stabbing sign by positioning his hand forward, boxed his cousin Rogelio, and that another stabbed Rodrigo while the first man poked a fan knife at the side of Rogelio. Vicente testified that Rodrigo extricated himself and ran away, and that after their cousin was stabbed, they brought him to the hospital.

The prosecution also presented the autopsy evidence through Dr. Tomas G. Cornel. The autopsy report reflected multiple stab and incised wounds and internal findings of massive intrathoracic and intra-abdominal hemorrhage, including perforation of the heart (left auricle), lungs, liver, and small intestine. The stated cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest, due to massive intrathoracic and intra-abdominal hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds. Dr. Cornel testified that stab wounds involving vital organs were fatal and that survival chances were very remote.

Defense Theory: Alibi and Supporting Testimony

Estorco interposed alibi. He testified that he was a show boy. At around 5:00 p.m. on December 24, 1991, his employer, Bebot de Luna, told him to buy fish and firewood, so he went to the Centromart. After returning, he delivered the items to the cook Cristina Coquia. He claimed he noticed people near a dead person located about 212 meters from where he stood and was immediately apprehended. He maintained that at 5:30 p.m., he was still buying fish and firewood.

Defense witnesses Merlin Prado, Cristina Coquia, and Esperanza Burguillos, all co-workers of Estorco at the carnival, corroborated that at about 5:30 p.m., Estorco was not at the carnival grounds because he was buying fish and firewood.

Trial Court Ruling

After trial, the RTC found Estorco guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of murder qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with indemnification and damages as stated in the dispositive portion. The RTC appreciated the generic aggravating circumstances of superior strength and cruelty, and found no mitigating circumstance.

Issues Raised on Appeal and Appellant’s Contentions

Estorco assigned five errors, which in substance challenged (a) his conviction as principal; (b) the credibility of Rogelio and Vicente Alvendo; (c) the trial court’s purported failure to credit defense witnesses and his alibi; (d) the appreciation of aggravating circumstances; and (e) the supposed lack of basis for acquittal.

He argued that the prosecution did not establish treachery and abuse of superior strength, citing alleged prior altercation between him and Rogelio concerning the lady at the game, and contending that the attack was not executed in a manner making him “impossible” to retaliate. He also contended that the prosecution evidence failed to prove conspiracy.

On credibility, he claimed that testimonies of Rogelio and Vicente were inconsistent as to who was stabbed. He also raised discrepancies between Rogelio’s affidavit and his testimony in court, asserting that Rogelio previously stated only one person stabbed Rodrigo, yet later claimed that Henry Juguilon was one of those who stabbed him. He argued that his participation was negated by his presence immediately after the killing and by his claim that he was buying fish and firewood at the time. Lastly, he challenged the RTC’s appreciation of superior strength and cruelty as generic aggravating circumstances.

The Court’s Treatment of Treachery and Liability as Principal

The Court held that the RTC correctly found Estorco guilty as principal in murder qualified by treachery. It explained that although a victim may have been warned of danger, what remained decisive for treachery was the manner of execution of the attack in a way that made it impossible for the victim to retaliate. The Court found that the coordinated attack was executed in sudden fashion and in a manner that prevented Rodrigo from defending himself. It emphasized that when Estorco and companions returned, one man boxed Rodrigo and stabbing followed immediately, while Estorco held Rogelio and poked the fan knife at him, preventing Rogelio from helping Rodrigo or retaliating. The Court also reasoned that Rodrigo, being unarmed, had to fight at least two armed men with fan knives, and that Rodrigo was totally unable to defend himself due to the suddenness of the attack.

On the theory of conspiracy, the Court ruled that conspiracy was sufficiently shown. It stated that even if Estorco had not personally stabbed Rodrigo, he remained equally guilty because, where there was conspiracy, the act of one was the act of all and each conspirator was liable as a principal. The Court relied on the following coordinated acts: Estorco prohibited and warned Rogelio against talking with the lady; when Rogelio continued, Estorco summoned the other accused; Estorco instigated the stabbing by making a signal to stab Rodrigo; Estorco held Rogelio and poked the knife at him, preventing assistance; and Estorco’s companions converged on Rodrigo, resulting in multiple stab wounds. From these coordinated movements and common design, the Court concluded that conspiracy existed.

Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses; Handling of Alleged Inconsistencies

The Court addressed the alleged inconsistencies between Rogelio and Vicente Alvendo. It found the contradiction to be clerical or typographical, apparent on the transcript pages, and noted that it had been properly corrected and initialed by the stenographer. Regardless, the Court held it was clear that Rogelio was not stabbed, and that Rodrigo was the one who died of stab wounds.

The Court also rejected the contention that Rogelio contradicted himself due to alleged differences between his affidavit and his testimony. It reiterated the rule that when there was inconsistency between an affidavit taken ex parte and testimony given in court, the court testimony carried greater weight. It observed that affidavits were often incomplete and inaccurate due to partial suggestions or lack of specific inquiry. Accordingly, the discrepancy did not discredit Rogelio’s testimony.

Alibi and Non-Flight

The Court also rejected the defense of alibi. It noted the long-established rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove both that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time. Applying this to the evidence, the Court found that Estorco claimed he left to buy fish and firewood around 5:00 p.m., but from Estorco’s own admission, the distance or travel time between the place where he allegedly bought the items and the carnival grounds could be reached in only thirteen (13) minutes. The Court therefore ruled that it was not physically impossible for him to have been at the scene at the time of the commission of the crime, rendering his alibi unavailing.

The Court further held that Estorco’s argument that his participation was negated by his presence immediately after the killing could not defeat the prosecution evidence. It stated the doctrine that non-flight was not conclusive proof of innocence.

Weight of Evidence and Identification over Negative Defenses

The Court accorded full respect to the trial court’s assessment of credibility, particularly because the RTC had

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 5573)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines appealed from the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 44 decision in Crim. Case No. D-10756 convicting Ronald Estorco y de Luna for murder.
The RTC found Ronald Estorco y de Luna guilty as principal and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
The RTC ordered Ronald Estorco y de Luna to pay indemnity, actual expenses, moral damages, and attorney’s fees.
The appealed case proceeded against accused-appellant Ronald Estorco y de Luna alone because the other accused were at large and were tried separately.

Key Factual Allegations

On December 24, 1991 at 5:30 p.m., Rodrigo Alvendo, Rogelio Alvendo, and Vicente Alvendo were at the carnival ground in Dagupan City betting on a rollets game.
Rogelio Alvendo testified that while speaking with a lady/attendant, Ronald Estorco told him it was prohibited to talk with the lady.
Rogelio Alvendo said the lady answered that it was not prohibited, after which he continued talking.
Ronald Estorco allegedly became angry, drew a fan knife, and intimidated the group.
Rogelio Alvendo testified that Ronald Estorco called a companion and both threatened them, after which Ronald Estorco left and later returned with two more companions.
According to the prosecution witnesses, one companion boxed Rodrigo Alvendo, and then Butch Ballesteros stabbed Rodrigo.
Rogelio Alvendo stated that he could not help Rodrigo because Ronald Estorco was holding his arm and poking the fan knife at him.
Vicente Alvendo testified that when Ronald Estorco returned with companions, he made a sign of stabbing by positioning his hand forward.
Vicente Alvendo confirmed that during the attack, one companion boxed Rogelio and another stabbed Rodrigo, while Ronald Estorco poked a knife at the side of Rogelio.
Rodrigo Alvendo ran after the attack began, but then fell, and Rogelio Alvendo checked his pulse and found it no longer beating.
The victims’ account stated that Rogelio ran to the police station and reported that his brother was stabbed.
Three policemen went to the scene, where Rogelio pointed to Ronald Estorco, who was apprehended while the other companions were no longer at the place.
Rodrigo Alvendo was brought to the hospital and was pronounced dead on arrival.

Medical Findings and Cause of Death

Dr. Tomas G. Cornel testified and reduced the autopsy report to writing after examining the corpse of Rodrigo Alvendo.
The autopsy report listed multiple external stab wounds and incised wounds, including penetrating stab wounds to the chest and associated internal trauma.
The autopsy report described massive intrathoracic and intra-abdominal hemorrhage and perforation of vital organs.
The report attributed the cause of death to cardio respiratory arrest, due to massive intrathoracic and intra-abdominal hemorrhage and multiple stab wounds.
Dr. Cornel testified that certain stab wounds were fatal because they involved the heart and lungs and that internal findings made survival very remote.

Defense Theory: Alibi

Ronald Estorco testified that he worked as a show boy and left at about 5:00 p.m. to buy fish and firewood at the Centromart on instructions from his employer.
Ronald Estorco claimed he returned to the carnival grounds and delivered the fish and firewood to cook Cristina Coquia.
He testified that when he noticed many people near a dead person about 212 meters from where he stood, he was immediately apprehended.
Defense witnesses Merlin Prado, Cristina Coquia, and Esperanza Burguillos, all co-workers, corroborated that Ronald Estorco was not in the carnival grounds at 5:30 p.m. because he was buying fish and firewood.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The appellant challenged the RTC’s finding of guilt as principal, arguing that the evidence did not establish treachery or abuse of superior strength.
The appellant contended that the alleged prior altercation and the group’s awareness negated treachery.
The appellant argued that the “suddenness” or “unexpectedness” required for treachery was not shown by the prosecution narrative.
The appellant assailed the RTC’s credibility findings, particularly the testimonies of Rogelio Alvendo and Vicente Alvendo.
The appellant argued that the prosecutions witnesses gave inconsistent versions regarding who was stabbed.
The appellant claimed the RTC failed to give weight to defense witnesses and his alibi.
The appellant argued that the trial court erred in appreciating the generic aggravating circumstances of superior strength and cruelty.
The appellant sought reversal and acquittal.

Treachery and Impossibility of Retaliation

The Court held that while a victim may have been warned of danger, the decisive element for treachery was whether the attack was executed in a manner that made retaliation impossible.
The Court found that upon the accused’s return with companions, one man suddenly boxed Rodrigo, immediately followed by stabbing by Ronald Estorco’s companion.
The Court treated Ronald Estorco’s act of holding Rogelio while poking a fan knife as rendering Rogelio unable to help Rodrigo or retaliate.
The Court found that Rodrigo, being unarmed, could not retaliate because he had to fight at least two armed men using fan knives.
The Court also relied on the manner and suddenness of the assault to show that Rodrigo was totally unable to defend