G.R. No. 149887 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. FERNANDO ALLAWAN Y LANDEZA, EDGAR ATOS Y LICAWAN, RUDY HERMOGENES, JUN-JUN SASAN @ HUSEIN, AND REY LAURON, ACCUSED. VS. FERNANDO ALLAWAN Y LANDEZA AND EDGAR ATOS Y LICAWAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of the accused Fernando Allawan and Edgar Atos to have been duly established beyond reasonable doubt, they are hereby adjudged GUILTY of the crime of MURDER for the killing of FELICIANO SABROSO, [SR.]. Accordingly, there being no aggravating circumstance present independent of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the accused FERNANDO ALLAWAN and EDGAR ATOS are hereby sentenced to suffer the indivisible penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties attendant thereto. They are further ORDERED to pay the heirs of Feliciano Sabroso, [Sr.]the amount of P116,100.00 as actual damages; P50,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Feliciano Sabroso, [Sr.]; and P60,000.00 as attorneys fees and the additional sum of P1,000.00 for every appearance in court of the private counsel. The immediate confinement of the accused Fernando Allawan and Edgar Atos in the national penitentiary is hereby ordered. Costs de oficio. [10] On appeal, the appellants assail the decision of the trial court contending as follows: I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF [THE] PROSECUTIONS ALLEGED EYEWITNESSES. II THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING TREACHERY AS ATTENDANT IN THE KILLING OF FELICIANO SABROSO, [SR.]. II THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING AND CONCLUDING THAT CONSPICY (SIC) EXISTED BETWEEN THE HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANTS FERNANDO ALLAWAN AND EDGAR ATOS. IV THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT, FERNANDO ALLAWAN GUILTY OF MURDER WITHOUT HIS GUILT HAVING BEEN PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. V ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY, THEY ARE GUILTY ONLY OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE FOR ALTHOUGH TREACHERY IS ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION, IT IS NOT ALLEGED WITH SPECIFICITY, I.E., AS A QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE. [11] The appellants assert that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt for the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of Dessie Sabroso and Carmen dela Cruz are barren of probative weight because Dela Cruz was a member of the victims household. Furthermore, despite their claim that they had a frightening experience as they witnessed the gruesome killing, Dela Cruz and Sabroso chose to remain at the situs criminis . The appellants contend that the failure of said witnesses to flee from the scene of the killing is contrary to ordinary human experience. As gleaned from Cordovas testimony, he saw only one assailant appellant Allawan. Cordova did not see appellant Atos shoot the victim. The trial court erred in not considering the testimony of Cordova and acquitting appellant Atos of the crime charged. Moreover, the appellant did not have a gun as evidenced by the fact that when he was arrested, no gun was found in his possession. Finally, according to the appellants, the trial court erred in finding that both appellants conspired to kill the victim. The appellants contentions do not hold water. In denying having shot an