. PEOPLE VS.

ABAGON

PEOPLE VS. ABAGON

Issue:
Accused-appellant, thru their counsel, raise the following
assignments of error: (i) The Honorable Regional Trial Court
erred in finding that the prosecution’s evidence consisting of the
testimony of its witnesses sufficiently established the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt of the accused for the killing of ones
Celis Lupango, which killing was qualified to murder by
treachery, (ii) The Honorable Regional Trial Court erred in
holding that the defense of alibi on the part of the accused
Mateo Abagon and of self-defense on the part of Abner
Ongonion will no lie, (iii) The Honorable Trial court erred in
declaring that conspiracy had been sufficiently established, and
(iv) The Honorable Regional Trial Court erred in finding both
accused guilty of the crime of murder considering that their guilt
were not established beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts: (1) About 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon of April 17,
1981, at Barangay Pinamarubuhan, Mobo, Masbate, while the
herein victim Celis Lupango and companions Isabelo Radaza,
Jr., Benjamin Bergado and Nilo Lalaguna were inside the store
of Corazon Cana to celebrate the birthday of Isabelo Radaza, Jr.,
two persons, later identified as Mateo Abagon and Abner
Ongonion, entered and stabbed Celis Lupango. First to enter was
Abner Ongonion, followed closely behind Mateo Abagon, and
with a six-inches double bladed knife stabbed Celis Lupango
three or four times. Mateo Abagon, in turn, with a seven-inch
knife also stabbed Celis Lupango ‘several times.’
(2) After Celis Lupango fell to the ground the two accused left.
At this point Terisito Lupango, brother of Celis Lupango,
arrived and he carried Celis Lupango, with the help of Benjamin
Bergado and Nilo Lalaguna whom he found inside the store,
outside the store intending to bring him to the hospital. Outside
the store, the waiting Abner Ongonion, who was with Mateo
Abagon, Julio Ongonion, Alejandro Ongonion, Romulo
Barruga, Antonio Danao and Arnel Onarosa, he drew his firearm
and fire two shots at them. Upon being fire at, Benjamin
Bergado and Nilo Lalaguna ran away while Teresito Lupango
sought cover. Abner Ongonion and his companions approached
and they took turns in stabbing the prostate body of Celis
Lupango with bolos and knives. Terisito eventually able to
report the incident.
(3) “The cause of death was established to be shock, secondary
to massive external. Hemorrhage caused by multiple stabs and
incised wounds.” Testifying, Dr. Quemi admitted the possibility
that the wounds were afflicted the possibility that the wounds
were inflicted by one or two assailants.
(4) “The defense presented both accused to deny the charges.
“For his defense, accused Mateo Abagon claims that at the time
of the incident he was in his house at the seashore of
Pinamarubuhan about 100 meters away from the scene of the
incident. He went out of the house only he learned of the
stabbing incident when he saw many persons running towards
the scene. After seeing the lifeless body of the victim, he
returned home immediately. He did not see his co-accused
Abner Ongonion at the scene. In fact he did not see any other
person there. “On the other hand, accused Abner Ongonion
claims that at that particular time he left his house to fetch his
mother at the Tugbo River where she washed clothes. On his
way he passed by the store of Corazon Cana to buy cigarettes.
At the store he was pulled inside by Celis Lupango, where the
latter was drinking with others, among who was June Radaza.
He was asked to drink but he refused because of a headache.
Celis then asked him “why are you brave” and then he pulled his
knife, but at as he did so the knife bumped the edge of the table
and fell to the ground. As Celis recovered the knife from the
ground, Ongonion was able to get hold of Celis’ hand and they
grappled for the knife. While grappling he succeeded in
thrusting the knife to the left breast of Celis and again thrust it to
the stomach. After he was able to get possession of the knife he
kept on stabbing Celis, being by then angry. In the meantime, as
they grappled, the companions of Celis Lupango jumped out of
the window, while June Radaza who was there watching ran
away when he saw Celis was stabbed. Eh then went out and
proceeded to the PC Headquarters at Masbate and surrendered.
Benjamin Bergado and Teresito Lupango were not seen by him
in the store. He then stated that his co-accused Mateo Abagon
was in the store.

Ruling:
Wherefore the judgment appealed from is affirmed
except that the penalties are modified. Appellant Mateo Abagon
is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
from twelve years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to
eighteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal
as maximum. Appellant Abner Ongonion is sentenced to suffer
an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from ten years and
one day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years, four
moths and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The two
accused-appellants shall pay jointly the amount of, thirty
thousand pesos to the heirs of Celis Lupango as indemnity
Rationale: (i) Appellant Ongonion’s theory of self-defense is
untenable. According to the testimonies of Bergado, Radaza,
and Lupango, the attack by the assailant was unprovoked. The
sudden attack on the victim with knives drawn indicates that the
stabbing was unintentional. No other conclusion can likewise be
surmised from their gunshots fired by the assailants at those who
tried to bring Celis to the hospital, while the victim’s body lay
helpless i=on the street, the appellants kept on stabbing the
victim, thereby ensuring his death. (ii) Having admitted the
killing Ongonion must clearly establish that he acted in self-
defense, the burden of proof is now shifted to him, he must,
therefore, rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on
the weakness of the prosecution (People vs.’ Sandie, 149 SCRA
240; and People vs. Regulacion) for even if the latter’s evidence
is weak, it could not be disbelieved after the appellant admitted
the killing. The number and nature of the stab wounds inflicted
by more than one person beloved Ongonion’s theory of self-
defense. These and the testimonies of two eyewitnesses and one
peace officer further serve to destroy Ongonion’s statement.
Moreover it is a well settled rule that the findings of the fact of
the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally
accorded the highest respect by the appellee court (People vs.
Traya, 147 SCRA 381) for these courts have the privileges of
examining the deportment and demeanor of witnesses, and
therefore, can discern if such witnesses, and therefore, can
discern if such witnesses are telling the truth or not (People vs.
Ramilo, 147 SCRA 102). (iii) Ongonion’s claim of self-defense
is likewise negated by the physical evidence and other
circumstances, such as his failure to present the knife upon
surrender, his failure to tell the police authorities that he killed
the deceased in self-defense and the absence of any injury on the
body of Ongonion while the deceased suffered eleven wounds
when, according to the appellant, there was supposedly a
struggle that tool place. For self-defense to prosper, the
following elements should have been proven by appellant: (a)
unlawful aggression, (b) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of provocation on the part of the one
defending himself. On the contrary, all the
evidence on record shows that not one of the elements of self-
defense is present. (iv) Appellant Abagaon’s defense on the
other hand, is alibi, an inherently weak defense especially when
it can be proved that it was not physically impossible for him to
be at the scene of the crime. In order to be given full faith and
credit, alibi must not leave any room for doubt as to its
plausibility and veracity. The appellant at the time of the crime
was allegedly in a place which approximately only 100 meters
away from the scene of the crime, renders his defense of alibi
not credible. (v) More important, Abagon and his companion
were positively identifies by eyewitnesses Bergado and
Lalaguna. The records show that the appellants took turns at
stabbing the victim inside and outside the store. The presence
and location of the eleven stab wounds, as testified by Dr.
Quemi also indicate that the same were inflicted by more than
one person. (vi) The assailants acted in concerted efforts with
community of criminal purpose to ensure the death of the victim
is indicative of conspiracy between them. Conspiracy is
established by concerted action It may be noted that even if
conspiracy had not been established, the liability of the two
appellants would not change for each inflicted on his own,
multiple stabbing blows on the victim resulting in mortal
injuries. They acted as principals by direct participation. (vii)
Treachery was likewise proven by the evidence presented. The
attack was immediate, sudden and unexpected. Treachery exists
when the offender commits any crime against person, employing
means, methods or forms in the execution, without risk to him
arising from any defense which the offended party might make.