Title
People vs. Factao
Case
G.R. No. 125966
Decision Date
Jan 13, 2004
Fernando Sardoma was shot dead in a hut by Juan Factao, aided by Albert Labroda, while Tirso Servidad was acquitted due to insufficient evidence. Factao and Labroda’s alibi was rejected; treachery and dwelling were proven.
murder
positive identification
alibi

Case Summary (G.R. No. 125966)

Factual Background

On the evening of August 23, 1991, the victim Fernando Sardoma lay in a kamalig near the seashore in Barangay Sirawagan, San Joaquin, Iloilo, in the company of Eduardo Sardoma, Rolando Nierves, Noel Serrano and Vicente Manolos. While Vicente Manolos relieved himself beside a boat some four or five meters from the hut, he saw Juan Factao and Albert Francis Labroda approach the kamalig, and he identified Factao as carrying a garand rifle. Manolos testified that Factao peeped into the hut, aimed through a hole in its bamboo wall and fired, after which Factao and Labroda ran toward the Sirawagan River. Jose Manuel Sermona also testified that he saw Factao, Labroda and Tirso Servidad pass his hut and that Factao carried a garand; Sermona stated that Servidad separated from the two after the shooting. Eduardo Sardoma heard the shot, went outside, saw Servidad bent forward and moving his head, and then observed Factao and Labroda running away. Fernando was rushed to Pedro Trono Memorial Hospital but was dead on arrival.

Medical Evidence and Cause of Death

The autopsy by Dr. Irene Escanlar, Medical Officer III at Pedro Trono Memorial Hospital, revealed a gunshot entry at the eleventh left intercostal space with exit at the right hypochondriac area. The bullet perforated the left lower lobe of the lung, the pancreas, the whole lobe of the liver and the right diaphragm, and fractured the right tenth and eleventh ribs. Dr. Escanlar concluded that hypovolemic shock secondary to rupture of the liver was the immediate cause of death and noted that the victim probably had his side toward the assailant when shot. She reduced her findings in a Post Mortem Report admitted in evidence.

Arrest, Charge and Plea

Following police investigation, the three accused were apprehended and charged with Murder in an Information alleging conspiracy, deliberate intent to kill, use of a garand rifle, treachery and evident premeditation. All three pleaded not guilty at arraignment and proceeded to trial.

Trial Evidence and Defenses

The prosecution presented the testimonies of Jose Manuel Sermona, Eduardo Sardoma, Vicente Manolos and Dr. Irene Escanlar, among others. The accused each invoked the defense of alibi. Appellants Factao and Labroda, both CAFGU members, claimed they attended Labroda’s birthday party at Labroda’s house on the night of August 23, 1991, a party that ended at around 10:00 p.m.; Noel Lupase corroborated their attendance and said he spent the night at Labroda’s house. Appellant Servidad, also a CAFGU member, presented a different account: he said he met Barangay Captain Faustino Nierves at about 8:30 p.m., heard the explosion, was instructed to investigate, found people at the scene, assisted in summoning help and helped carry the victim, and then returned home. Servidad’s version was corroborated by Barangay Captain Nierves and by Senior Inspector Bonifacio Servano’s testimony regarding Servidad’s presence at a location some distance from the site after the shooting.

RTC Judgment and Sentence

On July 14, 1995, the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 25, convicted all three accused of Murder and sentenced them to suffer reclusion perpetua, with accessory penalties and awards of P50,000.00 indemnity, P10,000.00 for the coffin, P10,000.00 for funeral and wake expenses, attorney’s fee of P9,000.00 and costs. The trial court found the killing qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and appreciated aggravating circumstances including nighttime and the victim’s dwelling.

Issues on Appeal

On appeal, the critical issues were whether the prosecution proved the guilt of each appellant beyond reasonable doubt, whether the defenses of alibi advanced by the accused had been disproved, whether the killing was attended by treachery and/or evident premeditation, which aggravating circumstances were properly recognized, and the proper imposition of penalties and civil damages.

The Court’s Assessment of Evidence Against Factao and Labroda

The Court found no doubt that appellants Juan Factao and Albert Francis Labroda were guilty of the killing. It relied principally on the unhesitating positive identifications by prosecution witness Vicente Manolos and the corroborative testimony of Jose Manuel Sermona and Eduardo Sardoma. The Court explained that conspiracy under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code may be inferred from the mode and manner of the crime and from acts showing a common purpose; it concluded that the contemporaneous acts of Factao and Labroda — Labrado looking around while Factao peeped and fired, and their immediate flight together in the same direction — evidenced a common design sufficient to render them co-principals. The Court also applied the rule that alibi, being easily concocted, cannot prevail over positive identification and that an accused asserting alibi must show that he was so far away that physical presence at the scene was impossible; Factao and Labroda failed to prove physical impossibility because Labroda’s house was just over one kilometer from the crime scene and within walking distance.

The Court’s Assessment of Evidence as to Servidad

By contrast, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of Tirso Servidad beyond reasonable doubt. Vicente Manolos initially identified only Factao and Labroda and expressly said he did not see Servidad at the time of the firing; his subsequent mention of Servidad occurred only after the private prosecutor brought up the name. Jose Manuel Sermona’s testimony that he saw Servidad with the others contradicted Manolos’s account and placed Servidad at a point closer to Manolos, a contradiction the Court deemed significant. The Court also found improbable Eduardo Sardoma’s claim that he grabbed Servidad peeping into the hut while the alleged co-conspirators fled, reasoning that a conspirator would likely flee with his companions rather than linger. Senior Inspector Servano’s testimony that Servidad was walking and saluted him at a location about 200 meters from the national highway after the killing reinforced the improbability that Servidad was a conspirator. The Court emphasized that mere presence at the scene does not make a person criminally liable and that the prosecution offered no evidence of acts by Servidad from which conspiracy could be deduced. Given the contradictions and the corroborated alibi elements, the Court found Servidad’s alibi to assume significance and sustained his acquittal.

Legal Characterization of the Offense and Aggravating Circumstances

The Court affirmed that the killing constituted Murder as defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and that the killing was attended by treachery. The Court explained that treachery exists where the offender employs means or methods that directly insure execution of the crime without risk to himself from the victim’s defense; it found treachery present because Factao peeped through the bamboo wall, inserted the rifle and shot the sleeping or defenseless victim lying on his side. The Court held, however, that evident premeditation was not proven because there was no evidence when or how a plan to kill was conceived nor of a sufficient interval of cool reflection before execution. The trial court’s appreciation of nighttime as an aggravating circumstance was deemed absorbed by treachery and therefore inapplic

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms