Title
People vs. Sabalones
Case
G.R. No. 123485
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1998
A 1985 ambush in Talisay, Cebu, resulted in two deaths and three injuries. Accused Sabalones and Beronga were convicted of murder and frustrated murder based on credible witness testimonies, rejecting their alibi defenses. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, modifying penalties and awarding indemnity.
murder
frustrated murder
shooting incident

Case Summary (G.R. No. 123485)

Factual Background

On June 1, 1985 two vehicles approached the residence of Stephen Lim in Mansueto Compound, Bulacao, Talisay: an owner-type jeep carrying Glenn Tiempo, Alfredo Nardo, and Rey Bolo, and a car some three to four meters behind carrying Nelson Tiempo, Rogelio Presores, and others. Witnesses testified that a volley of gunfire struck the jeep first, felling occupants, and that assailants then fired at the trailing car, seriously wounding its occupants; Glenn Tiempo and Alfredo Nardo died. Eyewitnesses, notably Edwin Santos and Rogelio Presores, identified persons later shown to be appellants as among the gunmen. Medical and necropsy reports described multiple gunshot wounds and recovered slugs; trajectories and absence of powder burns were noted but did not controvert identification. Testimony also suggested that the assailants proceeded from a nearby compound and that the attackers may have mistaken the victims for rival or avenging elements connected to the killing of a radio commentator, Nabing Velez.

Procedural History

After preliminary investigation, five amended Informations were filed in the RTC of Cebu City charging two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated murder against four John Does later identified as the four accused. Alegarbes died during trial and Cabanero remained at large; Beronga and Sabalones were arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and were jointly tried. The RTC convicted both appellants of two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated murder and imposed terms and specified indemnities. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed guilt but modified penalties by imposing reclusion perpetua for each murder and altering the terms for frustrated murder, and, pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124, certified the case to the Supreme Court without entering judgment.

Issues Presented

The Court distilled appellants’ assignments into three principal issues: (1) whether the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence supported conviction, (2) whether the defenses of denial and alibi should have produced acquittal, and (3) whether the characterization of the crimes and the penalties imposed were correct and properly computed.

Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution relied principally on eyewitness testimony from survivors Edwin Santos and Rogelio Presores who described the approach of two vehicles, an initial volley that struck the jeep, observation of four persons with long firearms behind a concrete wall, and positive identification of appellants as among the shooters. Medical testimony and necropsy reports established fatal and grievous wounds consistent with gunfire, and other witnesses, including Jennifer Binghoy, corroborated the presence of rifles at the wake of a Sabalones family member and recounted conduct and utterances that the trial court regarded as consistent with preparation to confront an anticipated revenge group.

Defense’s Case

Appellants interposed denial and alibi. Beronga testified that he attended a cockfight and returned home to sleep well before the shooting, while Sabalones maintained he was at his brother’s wake, lying nearby, and that he left Cebu for fear of reprisals. Defense witnesses sought to show the compound was dark because the municipal electrical connection had been disconnected months earlier and to portray coercion in custodial interrogation and arrest. The trial record also contained evidence of threats and of Sabalones’ temporary flight, as well as testimony explaining the accused’s use of an alias and earlier employment history.

Trial Court Findings and Ruling

The trial court credited the prosecution witnesses, rejected the defenses, and found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated murder. The court sustained the qualifying circumstance of treachery, characterized the incident as involving mistake in identity or aberratio ictus in its narration of motive, and ordered individual terms of reclusion temporal for the murders at the medium period ranges it computed, awarded P50,000 indemnity to heirs of each deceased, and fixed P20,000 indemnities for each injured victim.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s factual findings as to guilt but modified the penalty for each murder to reclusion perpetua and adjusted the penalties for the three frustrated murder counts to ten years of prision mayor (medium) to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal (medium). The CA upheld indemnities for the victims of frustrated murder but did not alter the trial court’s P50,000 award to the heirs; the CA refrained from entering judgment and certified the record to the Supreme Court under Section 13, Rule 124.

Supreme Court Disposition

The Supreme Court denied appellants’ appeal, affirmed the convictions, corrected the penalty computation for the frustrated murder counts to conform to Art. 50, Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law—namely eight years of prision mayor (minimum) to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal (maximum) for each frustrated murder—and affirmed reclusion perpetua for each murder under Art. 248, Revised Penal Code with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The Court ordered payment of P50,000 indemnity to the heirs of each murdered victim and rejected the trial court’s fixed P20,000 awards for frustrated murder, instead awarding actual proven medical expenses to the injured: P21,594.22 to Nelson Tiempo, P5,412.69 to Rogelio Presores, and P9,431.10 to Rey Bolo. Costs were imposed on appellants.

Credibility and Positive Identification

The Court reiterated its settled rule to defer to trial courts on credibility determinations unless there was grave abuse or overlooked material facts, and it found no basis to depart from the trial court’s and the Court of Appeals’ acceptance of the eyewitness identifications. The Court explained that the witnesses viewed the assailants during intervals in firing and at short distances of approximately four to ten meters, that headlights and other ambient illumination could permit accurate recognition, and that minor inconsistencies in non-essential details did not discredit the core identification evidence.

Extrajudicial Statement and the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule

Appellants challenged the admissibility and voluntariness of Beronga’s extrajudicial statement and invoked the res inter alios acta principle. The Court held the statement was taken in compliance with constitutional safeguards, that counsel and a custodian investigator testified to proper advisals of rights and presence of counsel, and that, in any event, the conviction rested on eyewitness identification rather than solely on the extrajudicial declaration. The Court further noted that a co-accused’s confession may be used circumstantially against a co-accused when corroborated by independent evidence.

Alibi, Flight, and other Defenses

The Court applied the established test for alibi, requiring proof not only that the accused was elsewhere but that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the locus criminis. It found appellants’ proofs inadequate because Beronga’s asserted location was not shown to be remote and Sabalones’ whereabouts were proximate to the shooting and therefore consistent with opportunity. The Court also treated Sabalones’ post-incident flight and his having jumped bail as admissible circumstantial evidence pointing to consciousness of guilt,

...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