People of the Philippines vs. Gerry Sabangan and Noli Born Asal

A killing is qualified by treachery when the assailant, without provocation, suddenly and unexpectedly attacks an unsuspecting victim from behind, depriving the victim of any real chance to defend himself; such finding, supported by positive identification by disinterested eyewitnesses, prevails over alibi and denial. An out-of-court identification complies with due process under the totality of circumstances test, and an independent in-court identification cures any flaw in the out-of-court identification.

Abe Felonia was the barangay captain of Duroloman, Arakan, Cotabato. Gerry Sabangan and Noli Bornasal were charged with Felonia’s murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which defines murder and imposes reclusion perpetua to death when the killing is attended by qualifying circumstances such as treachery. The offense is subject to Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.

On December 27, 1999, at about 1:30 p.m., Abe Felonia, the barangay captain of Duroloman, Arakan, Cotabato, was inside Flora Navales’s school supplies store at Mega Market, Kidapawan City. Eden Allado was also inside the store waiting for her husband, and she and Felonia were chatting. Navales was tending the store with a helper. A young man later identified as Gerry Sabangan entered and left the store about three times, asking the price of a binder. Navales saw Sabangan position himself behind Felonia, pull a revolver from his left waist, and shoot Felonia three times—first at the head and then at the back—from a distance of about one and a half meters. Felonia fell, and Sabangan grabbed his bag. Allado grappled with Sabangan for the bag, but he pointed the gun at her and ran toward Serquina Store. Felonia was brought to Kidapawan Hospital, where he expired.

Prosecution witness Marlon Cordero, a street sweeper near Serquina Store, heard the gunshots and saw two men fleeing from the Arakan terminal. The first man, armed with a gun, bumped him and made eye contact; the second, wearing a chaleco-type jacket and also armed, asked where the first had run. Cordero pointed toward Talisay, and the second man followed. Cordero later identified Sabangan as the first man and Noli Bornasal as the second. Police Chief Roberto Badian investigated the shooting. Allado and Navales initially hesitated to give statements out of fear but later executed sworn statements. On February 7, 2000, Allado and Navales recognized Sabangan from photographs shown by the police. On February 18, 2000, at a police outpost, they identified Sabangan in person as the shooter. Cordero likewise identified Sabangan from photographs and at the outpost on February 18, 2000, and identified Bornasal at the police station in June 2002.

Felonia’s daughter, Helen Felonia Galladora, testified on the expenses incurred by the family. These included ₱68,000.00 for embalming, coffin, and funeral services; ₱10,650.00 for the tomb; ₱27,714.00 for groceries for refreshments during the wake; and ₱23,050.00 for rice during the wake, for a total of ₱234,080.00. She also committed to pay ₱100,000.00 in attorney’s fees.

Sabangan denied involvement and claimed alibi. He testified that on December 27, 1999, he was in Barangay Luhong, Antipas, Cotabato, helping relatives prepare a makeshift structure for the wedding of Ricky Castillo, about 40 kilometers from Kidapawan City. He was arrested on February 17, 2000. Defense witnesses, mostly relatives and neighbors, corroborated his presence in Luhong. Bornasal also denied involvement, claiming he was in Arakan Valley tending his sister’s store on December 27, 1999, and that he was arrested on June 20, 2002. He denied knowing Sabangan.

The RTC and the Court of Appeals gave credence to the prosecution eyewitnesses’ positive identification of Sabangan as the shooter and to Cordero’s account of seeing him flee the scene. Both courts rejected Sabangan’s alibi, noting that Luhong was only about an hour away from Kidapawan City and that his corroborating witnesses were mostly relatives and neighbors. The courts also found that the out-of-court identification by Allado and Navales was preceded by their recognition of Sabangan from photographs and was later confirmed by their categorical in-court identification.

• Alibi: Sabangan maintained that at about 1:30 p.m. on December 27, 1999, he was in Barangay Luhong, Antipas, Cotabato, helping relatives prepare a makeshift structure for the wedding of Ricky Castillo on December 29, 1999; because Luhong was approximately 40 kilometers from Kidapawan City, it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Sabangan argued that the RTC gravely erred in convicting him despite the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Actual Damages: Sabangan asserted that the award of ₱234,080.00 as actual damages was excessive; only ₱68,000.00 for the coffin, embalming, and funeral services, ₱27,714.00 for food during the wake, and ₱10,650.00 for the tomb were sufficiently proven.
• Suggestive Out-of-Court Identification: In his Supplemental Brief, Sabangan protested that the investigating police officers conducted the out-of-court identification in a grossly suggestive manner: he was made to sit outside a police outpost while the witnesses were fetched from their homes and boarded in a heavily tinted vehicle that passed by the outpost, after which they were asked to confirm whether he was the assailant; this allegedly planted the idea in the witnesses’ minds and rendered the identification unreliable and inadmissible.

• Proof of Guilt: The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, insisted that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Sabangan and Bornasal for Felonia’s murder.
• Positive Identification: The People argued that prosecution witnesses Allado and Navales, who were present at the time and place of the shooting, positively identified Sabangan as the shooter.
• Conspiracy: The People maintained that prosecution witness Cordero established conspiracy when he testified that Bornasal, also armed with a gun, was running right behind Sabangan away from the crime scene.
• No Supplemental Brief: The People manifested that it had already exhausted its arguments before the Court of Appeals and would no longer file a supplemental brief.

• Guilt and Alibi: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Sabangan killed Felonia, notwithstanding Sabangan’s alibi and denial.
• Treachery: Whether the killing of Felonia was qualified by treachery.
• Evident Premeditation: Whether evident premeditation attended the killing.
• Out-of-Court Identification: Whether the out-of-court identification of Sabangan by the prosecution witnesses was valid and admissible under the totality of circumstances test.
• Actual Damages: Whether the award of actual damages was proper and supported by evidence.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua without parole and the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were proper.

• Guilt and Alibi: Yes. The conviction was affirmed; positive identification by disinterested eyewitnesses prevails over alibi and denial, and Sabangan’s alibi failed because it was not physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery qualified the killing because Sabangan suddenly and unexpectedly attacked an unsuspecting, unarmed Felonia from behind, depriving him of any real chance to defend himself.
• Evident Premeditation: No. Evident premeditation was not proven; the prosecution presented no evidence of the time of determination, an act showing persistence in that determination, and a sufficient interval to reflect.
• Out-of-Court Identification: Valid. The out-of-court identification complied with the totality of circumstances test, and the independent in-court identification was categorical, candid, and positive.
• Actual Damages: Yes. The award of ₱106,354.00 actual damages was proper, being supported by receipts for funeral and burial expenses.
• Penalty and Damages: Yes. Reclusion perpetua without parole was proper under Article 248 and Republic Act No. 9346; civil indemnity was increased to ₱75,000.00 and exemplary damages to ₱30,000.00, while moral damages of ₱50,000.00 were correct.

• Guilt and Alibi: The essential elements of murder are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any qualifying circumstance under Article 248; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. The parties stipulated that Felonia was shot to death on December 27, 1999. Allado and Navales, who were inside the four-by-six-meter store, positively identified Sabangan. Navales saw him enter and leave about three times, then step behind Felonia and shoot him at the back of the head and back. Allado came face to face with him when he grabbed Felonia’s bag. Their testimonies were candid and detailed. Sabangan’s alibi placed him in Luhong, about 40 kilometers away, but travel time was only about an hour, so it was not physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. His alibi witnesses were mostly relatives and neighbors, and alibi is weak when corroborated mainly by relatives and confronted by positive identification. Positive identification, categorical and consistent and without ill motive, prevails over denial and alibi.
• Treachery: Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make. Its essence is a sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the victim of any real chance to defend himself, ensuring commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation from the victim. Felonia was at a store chatting with Allado, unarmed and with his guard down. Sabangan went in and out of the store about three times, apparently waiting for the right opportunity, then positioned himself behind Felonia and shot him once in the head and twice in the back without provocation. The attack was sudden and unexpected, deliberately adopted to give Felonia little or no chance to defend himself or retaliate. Treachery was therefore proven.
• Evident Premeditation: Evident premeditation requires proof of (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to that determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and execution to allow reflection on the consequences. It must be established by clear and positive evidence showing planning and preparation. The prosecution’s evidence covered only the actual commission of the crime; it did not prove that Sabangan previously determined to kill Felonia, that he performed an act showing he clung to that determination, or that there was sufficient time to reflect. Mere presumptions and inferences, however logical, do not suffice. Evident premeditation was not appreciated.
• Out-of-Court Identification: In resolving the admissibility of and reliance on out-of-court identification, courts apply the totality of circumstances test, considering (1) the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of any prior description; (4) the level of certainty at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. The affidavits of Navales and Allado showed that before identifying Sabangan in person on February 18, 2000, they had already recognized him from photographs on February 7, 2000. They had clear opportunities to view his face and were attentive during the incident. Their in-court identification was categorical, candid, and positive. Even assuming an irregularity in the out-of-court identification, the independent in-court identification cured any flaw. No irregularity was found.
• Actual Damages: When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: civil indemnity ex delicto, actual or compensatory damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages in lieu of actual damages. Civil indemnity is mandatory upon proof of the crime; moral damages are mandatory in murder without need of allegation and proof other than the death. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good under Article 2229 of the Civil Code. The actual damages of ₱106,354.00 for funeral and burial expenses were supported by receipts. The moral damages of ₱50,000.00 were correct under recent rulings. The Court increased civil indemnity to ₱75,000.00 and exemplary damages to ₱30,000.00 in accordance with latest jurisprudence.
• Penalty and Parole: Murder under Article 248 is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. With the prohibition against the death penalty under Republic Act No. 9346, the only imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. Under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346, persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The penalty imposed was therefore correct, and Sabangan was not eligible for parole.

• Treachery (Alevosia) — Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Its essence is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, depriving them of any real chance to defend themselves, ensuring commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims. In this case, Felonia was unarmed and chatting with Allado; Sabangan positioned himself behind Felonia and shot him in the head and back without provocation, so treachery qualified the killing as murder.
• Evident Premeditation — To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. It must be established by clear and positive evidence showing the planning and preparation stages prior to the killing; mere presumptions and inferences will not suffice. The Court did not appreciate evident premeditation because the prosecution proved only the actual commission of the crime.
• Alibi — For alibi to prosper, it must not only appear that the accused was at some other place at the time of the crime but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Alibi is weak when established mainly by the accused and his relatives and is confronted by positive identification by credible prosecution witnesses. Sabangan’s alibi failed because Luhong was only about an hour from Kidapawan City and his witnesses were mostly relatives and neighbors.
• Out-of-Court Identification and the Totality of Circumstances Test — In resolving the admissibility of and reliance on out-of-court identification, courts consider: (1) the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. An out-of-court identification does not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court identification; even assuming an out-of-court identification was tainted with irregularity, the subsequent identification in court cured any flaw. The out-of-court identification of Sabangan complied with the test, and the in-court identification was categorical, candid, and positive.
• Positive Identification vs. Denial and Alibi — Positive identification that is categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness prevails over a denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. The positive identification of Sabangan by Allado and Navales prevailed over his alibi and denial.
• Damages in Murder — When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages. Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime; moral damages are mandatory in cases of murder without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim; exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good under Article 2229 of the Civil Code. The Court affirmed actual damages of ₱106,354.00, moral damages of ₱50,000.00, and increased civil indemnity to ₱75,000.00 and exemplary damages to ₱30,000.00.
• Reclusion Perpetua and Ineligibility for Parole under RA 9346 — Under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346, persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences are reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of the Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. Because murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death and the death penalty is prohibited, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, and Sabangan is not eligible for parole.

• "Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." — This passage states the statutory definition of treachery as a qualifying circumstance in murder and supplies the rule applied to Sabangan’s attack on Felonia.
• "The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims." — This formulation distills the rationale for finding treachery and is the doctrinal language applied to the facts: Felonia was unarmed, off guard, and shot from behind without provocation.
• "In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure." — This passage sets out the totality of circumstances test used to uphold the out-of-court identification of Sabangan.
• "Positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter prevails over a denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law." — This passage states the evidentiary rule that defeated Sabangan’s alibi and denial in light of the eyewitnesses’ positive identification.

• People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640 — Cited as the basis for the Supreme Court’s referral of the direct appeal to the Court of Appeals, in accordance with the Court’s ruling in that case.
• People vs. Teehankee, Jr., 319 Phil. 128, 180 (1995) — Cited as instructive on the conduct of and test for a valid out-of-court identification, including the totality of circumstances test.
• People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 738, 746 — Cited for the essential elements of murder.
• People vs. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 188602, February 4, 2010, 611 SCRA 633, 644 — Cited for the essence of treachery.
• People vs. Torejas, 150 Phil. 179, 195-196 (1972) — Cited for the rule that the circumstance must be evident premeditation, not merely premeditation.
• People vs. Tigle, 465 Phil. 368, 382-383 (2004) — Cited for the requisites of evident premeditation.
• People vs. Aytalin, 411 Phil. 863, 879 (2001) — Cited for the requirement that evident premeditation be established by clear and positive evidence showing planning and preparation.
• People vs. Lumanog and Santos, G.R. Nos. 182555, 185123, and 187745, September 7, 2010, 630 SCRA 42, 125 — Cited for the rule that an out-of-court identification does not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court identification, and that the in-court identification cures any flaw in the out-of-court identification.
• People vs. Tadah, G.R. No. 186226, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 744, 747 — Cited for the rule that persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua are not eligible for parole under Republic Act No. 9346.
• People vs. Escleto, G.R. No. 183706, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 149, 160-161 — Cited for the damages that may be awarded when death occurs due to a crime.
• People vs. Malicdem, G.R. No. 184601, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 193, 206-207; People vs. Lauria, G.R. No. 182523, September 13, 2012, 680 SCRA 560, 572-573 — Cited for the amount of moral damages awarded in murder cases.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended — Defines and penalizes murder, imposing reclusion perpetua to death when the killing is attended by any qualifying circumstance, including treachery. Applied because the killing of Felonia was qualified by treachery.
• Paragraph 16, Article 14, Revised Penal Code, as amended — Defines treachery as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. Applied to Sabangan’s sudden attack from behind.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Section 3 provides that persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences are reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of the Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. Applied to impose reclusion perpetua without parole.
• Act No. 4180, Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended — Referred to in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 as the parole law under which persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua are not eligible for parole. Applied to deny Sabangan parole eligibility.
• Article 2229, Civil Code — Provides that exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. Applied to award exemplary damages.
• Section 13, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Requires the Chief Justice to certify that the conclusions in the decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion. Mentioned in the certification.

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chief Justice and Chairperson), Lucas P. Bersamin, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Bienvenido L. Reyes.