THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. LAZARO CLARIÑO, CONSTANTINO CLARIÑO, REYNALDO CLARIÑO, DANILO CLARIÑO, MARIANO COPE (AT LARGE), AGUINALDO CLARIÑO, (AT LARGE), QUIRICO CLARIÑO, JR. (AT LARGE), AVELINO COBETA @ "CUELA", (AT LARGE), ACCUSED

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused REYNALDO CLARIÑO, DANILO CLARIÑO, CONSTANTINO CLARIÑO and LAZARO CLARIÑO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER (Viol. of Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code) and hereby sentences each one of them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Jose Brosas the amount of P50,000.00 as civil liability. Issue an alias warrant for the arrest of accused Mariano Cope, Aguinaldo Clariño, Quirico Clariño, Jr. and Avelino Cobeta @ "Cuela" who are still at-large. In the meantime, let the records of this case with respect to the four above-mentioned accused who are at large be sent to the archives pending their arrest. [21] Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellants assail the trial court's decision on the following grounds- THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT IS PRACTICALLY AT WAR WITH THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED; THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT IS BASED ON A PERJURED TESTIMONY; THAT THE APPEALED DECISION WAS ISSUED BY THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF ITS JUDICIAL DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS AND LACK OF JURISDICTION. [22] Accused-appellants' contentions are without merit. First . Accused-appellants question the credibility of Rodolfo Consulta as a principal witness and his recollection of the events surrounding the death of Brosas. They claim that Consulta was merely instigated by Rodolfo Condat to implicate them in the crime because of a long-standing grudge held by the Condats against accused-appellants. It is incredible, they argue, for Consulta to choose the particular tabog tree near the hut where Brosas was killed in order to catch bats when there were other tabog trees closer to his house. Moreover, Consulta could not have seen what happened inside the hut because the hut was covered by a roof and Consulta himself said there was no light inside it. His testimony is insufficient to establish that they were the assailants he saw on the night of September 9, 1995 inside the makeshift hut. It does not prove that Brosas was the person attacked on that occasion because Brosas' body was found 150 meters away from the hut. The improbability of Consulta's testimony, they say, is underscored by his own testimony that the hut was just about 2 by 3 meters in area and there would be no room for the eight alleged assailants to all get inside the hut in attacking the victim. Finally, accused-appellants argue that the attack could not have taken an hour, as claimed by Consulta, "otherwise, it would be unimaginable [what would have] happened to Brosas." [23] There is no dispute that the moon was full on the night in question. According to the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), the moon at 11 a.m. of September 9, 1995 was 100% illuminated going on a southeast direction at an altitude of 70 degrees. This means that the moon on that particular night in Tiw