VOL.

169, JANUARY 9, 1989 51

People vs. Trinidad

*
G.R. Nos. 79123–25. January 9, 1989.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. EMELIANO TRINIDAD, accused-appellant

Criminal Law; Murder; Evidence; The term point-blank

has no reference to the distance between the gun and the
target, it merely refers to the “aim directed straight toward a
target."—Nor is there basis for TRINIDAD to contend that
the absence of gunpowder burns on the deceased victims
negates TAN’s claim that they were shot “point-blank.”
Actually, this term refers merely to the “aim directed
straight toward a target” (Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary) .and has no reference to the distance between the
gun and the target. And in point of fact, it matters not how
far the assailant was at the time he shot the victims, the
crucial factor being whether he did shoot the victim or not.
Same; Same; Defenses; Alibi; Evidence; Witnesses,
Credibility of; Appellant’s defense of alibi cannot prevail over
the straightforward, detailed and unshaken testimony of the
prosecution witness.—TRINIDAD’s defense of alibi is
inherently weak and cannot prevail over the straightforward
and detailed descriptive narration of TAN, TAN’s testimony
remained unshaken even during cross-examination. No ill
motive has been attributed to him to prevaricate the truth.
He was in the vehicle where the killing transpired, was a
witness to the actual happening, and was a victim himself
who managed narrowly to escape death despite the weaponry
with which TRINIDAD was

________________

* SECOND DIVISION.

52

52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Trinidad

equipped.
Same; Same; Attempted Murder; Where the wounds
inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the
crime is only attempted murder, the accused not having
performed all the acts of execution that would have brought
about the death of the victim.—The defense is correct,
however, in contending that in the Frustrated Murder case,
TRINIDAD can only be convicted of Attempted Murder.
TRINIDAD had commenced the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts but was unable to perform all the acts
of execution which would have produced it by reason of
causes other than his spontaneous desistance, such as, that
the jeep to which TAN was clinging was in motion, and there
was a spare tire which shielded the other parts of his body.
Moreover, the wound on his thigh was not fatal and the
doctrinal rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim
is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only
Attempted Murder, the accused not having performed all the
acts of execution that would have brought about death
(People vs. Pilones, L-32754–5, July 21, 1978, 84 SCRA 167;
People vs. Garcia, L-40106, March 13, 1980, 96 SCRA 497).

APPEAL from the judgment of the Regional Trial

Court of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, Br. 7.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
          Citizens Legal Assistance Office for accused-
appellant.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

On the sole issue that the adduced evidence is

insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
of two crimes of Murder and one of Frustrated Murder
with which he has been charged, accused Emeliano
Trinidad appeals from the judgment of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 7, Bayugan, Agusan del Sur.
From the testimony of the principal witness,
Ricardo TAN, the prosecution presents the following
factual version:
The deceased victim, Lolito Soriano, was a fish
dealer based in Davao City. His helpers were TAN, a
driver, and the other deceased victim Marcial LAROA.
On 19 January 1983, using a Ford Fiera, they arrived
at Butuan City to sell fish. In the morning of 20
January 1983 SORIANO drove the Fiera to
53

VOL. 169, JANUARY 9, 1989 53

People vs. Trinidad
Buenavista, Agusan del Norte, together with LAROA
and a helper of one Samuel Comendador. TAN was left
behind in Butuan City to dispose of the fish left at the
Langihan market. He followed SORIANO and LAROA,
however, to Buenavista later in the morning.
While at Buenavista, accused Emeliano TRINIDAD,
a member of the Integrated National Police, assigned
at Nasipit Police Station, and residing at Baan,
Butuan City, asked for a ride to Bayugan, Agusan del
Sur, which is on the way to Davao City. TRINIDAD
was in uniform and had two firearms, a carbine, and
the other, a side-arm—a .38 caliber revolver.
SORIANO, LAROA, TAN, and TRINIDAD then left
Butuan on 20 January 1983 at about 5:20 P.M. bound
for Davao City. TAN was driving the Fiera. Seated to
his right was SORIANO, LAROA and the accused
TRINIDAD, in that order. When they reached the
stretch between El Rio and Afga, TRINIDAD advised
them to drive slowly because, according to him, the
place was dangerous. All of a sudden, TAN heard two
gunshots. SORIANO and LAROA slumped dead. TAN
did not actually see the shooting of LAROA but he
witnessed the shooting of SORIANO having been
alerted by the sound of the first gunfire. Both were hit
on the head. TRINIDAD had used his carbine in killing
the two victims.
TAN then hurriedly got off the Fiera, ran towards
the direction of Butuan City and hid himself in the
bushes. The Fiera was still running slowly then but
after about seven (7) to ten (10) meters it came to a
halt after hitting the muddy side of the road. TAN
heard a shot emanating from the Fiera while he was
hiding in the bushes.
After about twenty (20) to thirty (30) minutes, when
a passenger jeep passed by, TAN hailed it and rode on
the front seat. After a short interval of time, he noticed
that TRINIDAD was seated at the back. Apparently
noticing TAN as well, TRINIDAD ordered him to get
out and to approach him (TRINIDAD) but, instead,
TAN moved backward and ran around the jeep
followed by TRINIDAD. When the jeep started to drive
away, TAN clung to its side. TRINIDAD fired two
shots, one of which hit TAN on his right thigh. As
another passenger jeep passed by, TAN jumped from
the first jeep and ran to the second. However, the
passengers in the latter jeep told him to get out
54

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Trinidad
not wanting to get involved in the affray. Pushed out,
TAN crawled until a member of the P.C. chanced upon
him and helped him board a bus for Butuan City.
TRINIDAD’s defense revolved around denial and
alibi. He contended that he was in Cagayan de Oro
City on the date of the incident, 20 January 1983. At
that time, he was assigned as a policeman at Nasipit
Police Station, Agusan del Norte. He reported to his
post on 19 January 1983 but asked permission from his
Station Commander to be relieved from work the next
day, 20 January, as it was his Birthday. He left Baan,
his Butuan City residence, at about 3:00 P.M. on 20
January 1983 and took a bus bound for Cagayan de
Oro City. He arrived at Cagayan de Oro at around 8:00
P.M. and proceeded to his sister’s house at Camp
Alagar to get his subsistence allowance, as his sister
was working thereat in the Finance Section.
At his sister’s house he saw Sgt. Caalim, Mrs.
Andoy, one Paelmo, in addition to his sister. Sgt.
Caalim corroborated having seen TRINIDAD then.
Continuing, TRINIDAD claimed that he left
Cagayan de Oro for Butuan at lunch time on 21
January 1983 arriving at the latter place around 6:00
P.M., and went to his house directly to get his service
carbine. He was on his way to Nasipit to report for
duty on 21 January 1983 when he was arrested at
around 6:00 P.M. at Buenavista, Agusan del Norte.
After joint trial on the merits
**
and unimpressed by
the defense, the Trial Court sentenced the accused in
an “Omnibus Decision”, thus:

“WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court finds

Emeliano Trinidad GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder.
“In the Frustrated Murder, there being no mitigating
circumstance, and taking into account the provisions of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused Trinidad is meted out
a penalty of:

1) 8 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor

medium;
2) to indemnify the complainant the amount of
P5,000.00; and
3) to pay the costs.

_______________

** Likewise, in the two murder cases, Trinidad is accordingly

senPresided over by Judge Zenaida P. Placer.

55
 VOL. 169, JANUARY 9, 1989 55
People vs. Trinidad

tenced:

1) to a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua in each case;

2) to indemnify the heirs of Marcial Laroa and Lolito
Soriano the amount of P30,000.00 each; and
3) to pay the cost.” (p. 14, RTC Decision, p. 28, Rollo).

Before us now, TRINIDAD claims that the Trial Court

erred in giving full faith and credit to TAN’s testimony
who, TRINIDAD alleges, was an unreliable witness.
That is not so.
We find no variance in the statement made by TAN
before the NAPOLCOM Hearing Officer that when
TRINIDAD boarded the Fiera in Buenavista, he (TAN)
was not in the vehicle, and that made in open Court
when he said that he was with TRINIDAD going to
Butuan City on board the Fiera. For the facts disclose
that when TRINIDAD boarded the Fiera in
Buenavista, TAN was still in Langihan distributing
fish. The Fiera left for Buenavista, driven by
SORIANO, between 6:00 to 7:00 A.M., while TAN
followed only at 11:00 A.M. in another vehicle. So that
when TRINIDAD boarded the Fiera in Buenavista,
TAN was not yet in that vehicle although on the return
trip from Butuan City to Davao City, TAN was already
on board, In fact, TAN was the one driving, TAN’s
testimony clarifying this point reads:

“Q Did you not say in your direct examination that

you went to Buenavista, Agusan del Norte?
“A We were in Langihan and since our fishes were not
consumed there, we went to Buenavista.
“Q Now, what time did you leave for Buenavista from
Langihan?
“A It was more or less at 6:00 to 7:00 o’clock.
“Q You were riding the fish car which you said?
“A I was not able to take the fish car in going to
Buenavista because they left me fishes to be
dispatched yet.
“Q In other words, you did not go to Buenavista on
January 20, 1983?
“A I was able to go to Buenavista after the fishes were
consumed.
“Q What time did you go to Buenavista?
“A It was more or less from 11:00 o’clock noon.
“Q What transportation did you take?
“A I just took a ride with another fish car because
they were also going to dispatch fishes in
Buenavista.

56

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Trinidad

“Q Now, who then went to Buenavista with the fish

car at about 7:00 o’clock in the morning of January
20, 1983?
“A Lolito Soriano and Marcial Laroa with his helper.
  x x x      x x x
“Q Now, when this fish car returned to Butuan City
who drove it?
“A Lolito Soriano.
“Q Were you with the fish car in going back to
Langihan?
“A Yes, sir.” (TSN, December 6, 1985, pp. 53–54).

Felimon Comendador, also a fish vendor, and a

resident of Butuan City, testified that he saw
TRINIDAD riding in the Fiera on the front seat in the
company of TAN, SORIANO and LAROA, when the
Fiera stopped by his house at Butuan City (TSN,
November 5, 1985, pp. 32–33).
The other inconsistencies TRINIDAD makes much
of, such as, that TAN was unsure before the
NAPOLCOM Hearing Officer whether TRINIDAD was
wearing khaki or fatigue uniform but, in open Court,
he testified positively that TRINIDAD was in khaki
uniform; and that while TAN declared that TRINIDAD
was wearing a cap, prosecution witness Felimon
Comendador said that he was not but was in complete
fatigue uniform, are actually trivial details that do not
affect the positive identification of TRINIDAD that
TAN has made nor detract from the latter’s overall
credibility.
Nor is there basis for TRINIDAD to contend that
the absence of gunpowder burns on the deceased
victims negates TAN’s claim that they were shot
“point-blank.” Actually, this term refers merely to the
“aim directed straight toward a target” (Webster’s
Third New International Dictionary) and has no
reference to the distance between the gun and the
target. And in point of fact, it matters not how far the
assailant was at the time he shot the victims, the
crucial factor being whether he did shoot the victim or
not.
TRINIDAD’s defense of alibi is inherently weak and
cannot prevail over the straightforward and detailed
descriptive narration of TAN, thus:

“Q Now, from Butuan City, where did you proceed?

“A We proceeded to Davao.
“Q Did you in fact reach Davao on that date?

57

VOL. 169, JANUARY 9, 1989 57

People us. Trinidad

“A No, sir.
“Q Could you tell the Court why you failed to reach
Davao?
“A Because we were held-up.
“Q Who held-up you?
“A Emeliano Trinidad, sir.
“Q Are you referring to accused Emeliano Trinidad
whom you pointed to the Court a while ago?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q Will you tell the Court how did Emeliano Trinidad
holdup you?
“A When we reach between El Rio and Afga, Trinidad
advised us to run slowly because this place is
dangerous.
  Then suddenly there were two gun bursts.
“Q Now, you heard two gun bursts. What happened?
What did you see if there was any?
“A I have found out that Lolito Soriano and Marcial
Laroa already fall.
“Q Fall dead?
“A They were dead because they were hit at the head.
“Q You mean to inform the Court that these two died
because of that gun shot bursts?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q Did you actually see Trinidad shooting the two?
“A I did not see that it was really Trinidad who shot
Laroa but since I was already alerted by the first
burst, I have seen that it was Trinidad who shot
Soriano.
“Q What was the firearm used?
“A Carbine, sir.
  x x x      x x x
“Q Now, after you saw that the two fell dead, what did
you do?
“A I got out from the ford fiera while it was running.
  x x x      x x x
“Q From the place where you were because you said
you ran, what transpired next?
“A I hid myself at the side of the jeep, at the bushes.
“Q While hiding yourself at the bushes, what
transpired?
“A I heard one gun burst.
“Q From what direction was that gun bursts you
heard?
“A From the Ford Fiera, sir.
“Q After that, what happened?
“A At around 20 to 30 minutes, I moved out from the
place where I hid myself because I wanted to go
back to Butuan.
  Then, I boarded the jeep and sat at the front seat
but I

58

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Trinidad

  found out that Emeliano Trinidad was at the back

seat.
“Q When you found out that Trinidad was at the back,
what happened?
“A He ordered me to get out.
“Q Now, when you got down, what happened?
“A When I got out from the jeep, Trinidad also got
out.
“Q Tell the Court, what happened after you and
Trinidad got out from the jeep?
“A He called me because he wanted me to get near
him.
“Q What did you do?
“A J moved backward.
“Q Now, what did Trinidad do?
“A He followed me.
“Q While Trinidad followed you, what happened?
“A I ran away around the jeep,
“Q Now, while you were running around the jeep,
what happened?
“A The driver drove the jeep.
“Q Now, after that, what did you do?
“A I ran after the jeep and then I was able to take the
jeep at the side of it.
“Q How about Trinidad, where was he at that time?
“A He also ran, sir.
“Q Now, when Trinidad ran after you what happened?
“A Trinidad was able to catchup with the jeep and
fired his gun.
“Q Were you hit?
“A At that time I did not know that I was hit because
it was sudden.
“Q When for the first time did you notice that you
were hit?
“A At the second jeep.
“Q You mean to inform the Court that the jeep you
first rode is not the very same jeep that you took
for the second time?
“A No, sir.
“Q Now, when you have notice that you were hit,
what did you do?
“A At the first jeep that I took I was hit, so I got out
from it and stood-up at the middle of the road so
that I can catch up the other jeep.” (TSN,
December 6, 1985, pp. 44–49)

TAN’s testimony remained unshaken even during

cross-examination. No ill motive has been attributed to
him to prevaricate the truth. He was in the vehicle
where the killing tran-
59

VOL. 169, JANUARY 9, 1989 59

People vs. Trinidad

spired, was a witness to the actual happening, and was

a victim himself who managed narrowly to escape
death despite the weaponry with which TRINIDAD
was equipped.
The defense is correct, however, in contending that
in the Frustrated Murder case, TRINIDAD can only be
convicted of Attempted Murder. TRINIDAD had
commenced the commission of the felony directly by
overt acts but was unable to perform all the acts of
execution which would have produced it by reason of
causes other than his spontaneous desistance, such as,
that the jeep to which TAN was clinging was in
motion, and there was a spare tire which shielded the
other parts of his body. Moreover, the wound on his
thigh was not fatal and the doctrinal rule is that where
the wound inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to
cause his death, the crime is only Attempted Murder,
the accused not having performed all the acts of
execution that would have brought about death (People
vs. Pilones, L-32754–5, July 21, 1978, 84 SCRA 167;
People vs. Garcia, L-40106, March 13, 1980, 96 SCRA
497).
But while the circumstances do spell out the two
crimes of Murder, the penalty will have to be modified.
For, with the abolition of capital punishment in the
1987 Constitution, the penalty for Murder is now
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
perpetua (People vs. Lopez, et al. G.R. No. 71875–76,
January 25, 1988 citing People vs. Gavarra, No.
L37673, October 30, 1987; People vs. Masangkay, G.R.
No. 73461, October 27, 1987). With no attending
mitigating or aggravating circumstance, said penalty is
imposable in its medium period or from eighteen (18)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years. The penalty next lower in degree for purposes of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law is prision mayor,
maximum, to reclusion temporal, medium, or from ten
(10) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and
four (4) months (Article 61, parag. 3, Revised Penal
Code).
WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused Emeliano
Trinidad for the crimes of Murder (on two counts) and
Attempted Murder, having been proven beyond
reasonable doubt, his conviction is hereby AFFIRMED
and he is hereby sentenced as follows:

1) In each of Criminal Cases Nos. 79123–24 (Nos.

96 and 99 below) for Murder, he shall suffer the
indeterminate penalty of

60

60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reynoso IV vs. Commercial Credit Corp.

ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor,

as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8)
 months and one (1) day of reclu-sion temporal,
as maximum; to indemnify the heirs of Marcial
Laroa and Lolito Soriano, respectively, in the
amount of P30,000.00 each; and to pay the
costs.
2) In Criminal Case No. 79125 (No. 100 below) for
Frustrated Murder, he is hereby found guilty
only of Attempted Murder and sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and
one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum,
to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as maximum; to indemnify Ricardo Tan
in the sum of P5,000,00; and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

          Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ.,

concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Notes.—Manner victim was killed must be proved

to raise the crime to murder. (People vs. Vicente, 141
SCRA 347.)
Degree of proof is required for the defense of alibi to
prosper. (People vs. dela Cruz, 91 SCRA 525.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.