Republic of the Philippines to petitioner the amount of P17,060.

07 but this was applied to the unpaid balance

SUPREME COURT of his subscription in the amount of P95,439.93. Petitioner questioned the set-off
Manila alleging that there was no call or notice for the payment of the unpaid subscription
and that, accordingly, the alleged obligation is not enforceable.
FIRST DIVISION
In a decision dated April 28, 1987, the labor arbiter sustained the claim of
G.R. No. 80039 April 18, 1989 petitioner for P17,060.07 on the ground that the employer has no right to withhold
payment of wages already earned under Article 103 of the Labor Code. Upon the
appeal of the private respondents to public respondent NLRC, the decision of the
ERNESTO M. APODACA, petitioner, labor arbiter was reversed in a decision dated September 18, 1987. The NLRC held
vs. that a stockholder who fails to pay his unpaid subscription on call becomes a
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, JOSE M. MIRASOL and debtor of the corporation and that the set-off of said obligation against the wages
INTRANS PHILS., INC., respondents. and others due to petitioner is not contrary to law, morals and public policy.

Diego O. Untalan for petitioner. Hence, the instant petition.

The Solicitor General for public respondent. The petition is impressed with merit.

Barcelona, Perlas, Joven & Academia Law Offices for private respondents. Firstly, the NLRC has no jurisdiction to determine such intra-corporate dispute
between the stockholder and the corporation as in the matter of unpaid
subscriptions. This controversy is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities
and Exchange Commission. 1
GANCAYCO, J.:
Secondly, assuming arguendo that the NLRC may exercise jurisdiction over the
said subject matter under the circumstances of this case, the unpaid subscriptions
Does the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) have jurisdiction to resolve
a claim for non-payment of stock subscriptions to a corporation? Assuming that it are not due and payable until a call is made by the corporation for
payment. 2 Private respondents have not presented a resolution of the board of
has, can an obligation arising therefrom be offset against a money claim of an
employee against the employer? These are the issues brought to this court directors of respondent corporation calling for the payment of the unpaid
subscriptions. It does not even appear that a notice of such call has been sent to
through this petition for review of a decision of the NLRC dated September 18,
1987. petitioner by the respondent corporation.

What the records show is that the respondent corporation deducted the amount
The only remedy provided for by law from such a decision is a special civil action
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court based on jurisdictional grounds or due to petitioner from the amount receivable from him for the unpaid
subscriptions. 3 No doubt such set-off was without lawful basis, if not premature.
on alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
not by way of an appeal by certiorari. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, this As there was no notice or call for the payment of unpaid subscriptions, the same is
not yet due and payable.
petition is treated as a special civil action for certiorari.

Petitioner was employed in respondent corporation. On August 28, 1985, Lastly, assuming further that there was a call for payment of the unpaid
subscription, the NLRC cannot validly set it off against the wages and other
respondent Jose M. Mirasol persuaded petitioner to subscribe to 1,500 shares of
respondent corporation at P100.00 per share or a total of P150,000.00. He made benefits due petitioner. Article 113 of the Labor Code allows such a deduction from
the wages of the employees by the employer, only in three instances, to wit:
an initial payment of P37,500.00. On September 1, 1975, petitioner was appointed
President and General Manager of the respondent corporation. However, on
January 2, 1986, he resigned. ART. 113. Wage Deduction. No employer, in his own behalf or in behalf
of any person, shall make any deduction from the wages of his
On December 19, 1986, petitioner instituted with the NLRC a complaint against employees, except:
private respondents for the payment of his unpaid wages, his cost of living
allowance, the balance of his gasoline and representation expenses and his bonus (a) In cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the employer,
compensation for 1986. Petitioner and private respondents submitted their and the deduction is to recompense the employer for the amount paid by
position papers to the labor arbiter. Private respondents admitted that there is due him as premium on the insurance;
 (b) For union dues, in cases where the right of the worker or his union to G.R. Nos. 114931-33 November 16, 1995
checkoff has been recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by
the individual worker concerned; and
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
(c) In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued ANNIE FERRER, accused, ROMEO SISON, NILO PACADAR, JOEL TAN,
by the Secretary of Labor. 4 RICHARD DE LOS SANTOS, and JOSELITO TAMAYO, accused-appellants.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the questioned decision of the NLRC
dated September 18, 1987 is hereby set aside and another judgment is hereby
rendered ordering private respondents to pay petitioner the amount of P17,060.07
plus legal interest computed from the time of the filing of the complaint on PUNO, J.:
December 19, 1986, with costs against private respondents.
The case before us occurred at a time of great political polarization in the
SO ORDERED. aftermath of the 1986 EDSA Revolution. This was the time when the newly-
installed government of President Corazon C. Aquino was being openly
Narvasa, Cruz, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur. challenged in rallies, demonstrations and other public fora by "Marcos
loyalists," supporters of deposed President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Tension and
animosity between the two (2) groups sometimes broke into violence. On July
27, 1986, it resulted in the murder of Stephen Salcedo, a known "Coryista."

Footnotes
From August to October 1986, several informations were filed in court against
eleven persons identified as Marcos loyalists charging them with the murder
1 Section 5, Presidential Decree No. 902-A. of Salcedo. Criminal Case No. 86-47322 was filed against Raul Billosos y de
Leon and Gerry Nery y Babazon; Criminal Case No. 86-47617 against Romeo
2 Section 67, Corporation Code of the Philippines, B.P. No. 68. Sison y Mejia, Nilo Pacadar y Abe and Joel Tan y Mostero; Criminal Case No.
86-47790 against Richard de los Santos y Arambulo; Criminal Case No. 86-
3 Letter dated 8 February 1986 of private respondents to Untalan, Dula, Baares, 48538 against Joselito Tamayo y Ortia; and Criminal Case No. 86-48931
Viernes and Associates, counsels of petitioner, pages 36 and 37, Rollo. against Rolando Fernandez y Mandapat. Also filed were Criminal Cases Nos.
86-49007 and 86-49008 against Oliver Lozano and Benjamin Nuega as well
4 Article 113, Labor Code. as Annie Ferrer charging them as accomplices to the murder of Salcedo.

The cases were consolidated and raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Branch
XLIX, Manila. All of the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and trial
ensued accordingly. The prosecution presented twelve witnesses, including
Republic of the Philippines
two eyewitnesses, Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato Banculo, and the police
SUPREME COURT
officers who were at the Luneta at the time of the incident. In support of their
Manila
testimonies, the prosecution likewise presented documentary evidence
consisting of newspaper accounts of the incident and various photographs
SECOND DIVISION taken during the mauling.

The prosecution established that on July 27, 1986, a rally was scheduled to be
held at the Luneta by the Marcos loyalists. Earlier, they applied for a permit to
G.R. Nos. 108280-83 November 16, 1995 hold the rally but their application was denied by the authorities. Despite this
setback, three thousand of them gathered at the Rizal Monument of the
Luneta at 2:30 in the afternoon of the scheduled day. Led by Oliver Lozano
ROMEO SISON, NILO PACADAR, JOEL TAN, RICHARD DE LOS SANTOS,
and Benjamin Nuega, both members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
and JOSELITO TAMAYO, petitioners,
the loyalists started an impromptu singing contest, recited prayers and
vs.
delivered speeches in between. Colonel Edgar Dula Torres, then Deputy
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
Superintendent of the Western Police District, arrived and asked the leaders
for their permit. No permit could be produced. Colonel Dula Torres thereupon
gave them ten minutes to disperse. The loyalist leaders asked for thirty The mauling resumed at the Rizal Monument and continued along Roxas
minutes but this was refused. Atty. Lozano turned towards his group and said Boulevard until Salcedo collapsed and lost consciousness. Sumilang flagged
"Gulpihin ninyo ang lahat ng mga Cory infiltrators." Atty. Nuega added "Sige, down a van and with the help of a traffic officer, brought Salcedo to the
sige gulpihin ninyo!" The police then pushed the crowd, and used tear gas and Medical Center Manila but he was refused admission. So they took him to the
truncheons to disperse them. The loyalists scampered away but some of them Philippine General Hospital where he died upon arrival.
fought back and threw stones at the police. Eventually, the crowd fled towards
Maria Orosa Street and the situation later stabilized. 1 Salcedo died of "hemorrhage, intracranial traumatic." He sustained various
contusions, abrasions, lacerated wounds and skull fractures as revealed in the
At about 4:00 p.m., a small group of loyalists converged at the Chinese following post-mortem findings:
Garden, Phase III of the Luneta. There, they saw Annie Ferrer, a popular
movie starlet and supporter of President Marcos, jogging around the fountain. Cyanosis, lips, and nailbeds.
They approached her and informed her of their dispersal and Annie Ferrer
angrily ordered them "Gulpihin ninyo and mga Cory hecklers!" Then she
Contused-abrasions: 6.0 x 2.5 cm., and 3.0 x 2.4 cm., frontal region,
continued jogging around the fountain chanting "Marcos pa rin, Marcos pa rin,
right side; 6.8 x 4.2 cm., frontal region, left side; 5.0 x 4.0 cm., right
Pabalikin si Marcos, Pabalikin si Marcos, Bugbugin ang mga nakadilaw!" The
cheek; 5.0 x 3.5 cm., face, left side; 3.5 x 2.0 cm., nose; 4.0 x 2.1
loyalists replied "Bugbugin!" A few minutes later, Annie Ferrer was arrested by
cm., left ear, pinna; 5.0 x 4.0 cm. left suprascapular region; 6.0 x 2.8
the police. Somebody then shouted "Kailangang gumanti, tayo ngayon!" A
cm., right elbow.
commotion ensued and Renato Banculo, a cigarette vendor, saw the loyalists
attacking persons in yellow, the color of the "Coryistas." Renato took off his
yellow shirt. 2 He then saw a man wearing a yellow t-shirt being chased by a Abrasions: 4.0 x 2.0 cm., left elbow; 2.0 x 1.5 cm., right knee.
group of persons shouting "Iyan, habulin iyan. Cory iyan!" The man in the
yellow t-shirt was Salcedo and his pursuers appeared to be Marcos loyalists. Lacerated wounds: 2.2 cm., over the left eyebrow; 1.0 cm., upper lip.
They caught Salcedo and boxed and kicked and mauled him. Salcedo tried to
extricate himself from the group but they again pounced on him and Hematoma, scalp; frontal region, both sides; left parietal region; right
pummelled him with fist blows and kicks hitting him on various parts of his temporal region; occipital region, right side.
body. Banculo saw Ranulfo Sumilang, an electrician at the Luneta, rush to
Salcedo's aid. Sumilang tried to pacify the maulers so he could extricate
Salcedo from them. But the maulers pursued Salcedo unrelentingly, boxing Fractures, skull; occipital bone, right side; right posterior cranial
him with stones in their fists. Somebody gave Sumilang a loyalist tag which fossa; right anterior cranial fossa.
Sumilang showed to Salcedo's attackers. They backed off for a while and
Sumilang was able to tow Salcedo away from them. But accused Raul Billosos Hemorrhage, subdural, extensive.
emerged from behind Sumilang as another man boxed Salcedo on the head.
Accused Richard de los Santos also boxed Salcedo twice on the head and Other visceral organs, congested.
kicked him even as he was already fallen. 3 Salcedo tried to stand but accused
Joel Tan boxed him on the left side of his head and ear. 4Accused Nilo Pacadar
Stomach, about 1/2 filled with grayish brown food materials and
punched Salcedo on his nape, shouting: "Iyan, Cory Iyan.
fluid. 10
Patayin!" 5 Sumilang tried to pacify Pacadar but the latter lunged at the victim
again. Accused Joselito Tamayo boxed Salcedo on the left jaw and kicked him
as he once more fell. Banculo saw accused Romeo Sison trip Salcedo and kick The mauling of Salcedo was witnessed by bystanders and several press
him on the head, and when he tried to stand, Sison repeatedly boxed people, both local and foreign. The press took pictures and a video of the
him. 6 Sumilang saw accused Gerry Neri approach the victim but did not event which became front-page news the following day, capturing national
notice what he did. 7 and international attention. This prompted President Aquino to order the
Capital Regional Command and the Western Police District to investigate the
incident. A reward of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) was put up by
Salcedo somehow managed to get away from his attackers and wipe off the
Brigadier General Alfredo Lim, then Police Chief, for persons who could give
blood from his face. He sat on some cement steps 8 and then tried to flee
information leading to the arrest of the killers. 11Several persons, including
towards Roxas boulevard to the sanctuary of the Rizal Monument but accused
Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato Banculo, cooperated with the police, and on the
Joel Tan and Nilo Pacadar pursued him, mauling Sumilang in the process.
basis of their identification, several persons, including the accused, were
Salcedo pleaded for his life exclaiming "Maawa na kayo sa akin. Tulungan
apprehended and investigated.
ninyo ako." He cried: "Pulis, pulis. Wala bang pulis?" 9
For their defense, the principal accused denied their participation in the Temporal, as minimum, to TWENTY (20) DAYS, of Reclusion
mauling of the victim and offered their respective alibis. Accused Joselito Temporal, as minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS of Reclusion
Tamayo testified that he was not in any of the photographs presented by the Temporal, as Maximum;
prosecution 12 because on July 27, 1986, he was in his house in Quezon
City. 13 Gerry Neri claimed that he was at the Luneta Theater at the time of 3. In "People versus Richard de los Santos," Criminal Case No. 86-
the 47790, the Court finds the Accused Richard de los Santos guilty
incident. 14 Romeo Sison, a commercial photographer, was allegedly at his beyond reasonable doubt as principal for the crime of Murder defined
office near the Luneta waiting for some pictures to be developed at that in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no other
time. 15 He claimed to be afflicted with hernia impairing his mobility; he extenuating circumstances, the Court hereby imposes on him an
cannot run normally nor do things forcefully. 16 Richard de los Santos admits indeterminate penalty of from FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, TEN (10)
he was at the Luneta at the time of the mauling but denies hitting MONTHS and TWENTY (20) DAYS of Reclusion Temporal, as Minimum,
Salcedo. 17 He said that he merely watched the mauling which explains why to TWENTY (20) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as Maximum;
his face appeared in some of the photographs. 18 Unlike the other accused,
Nilo Pacadar admits that he is a Marcos loyalist and a member of the Ako'y
4. In "People versus Joselito Tamayo," Criminal Case No. 86-
Pilipino Movement and that he attended the rally on that fateful day.
48538 the Court finds the Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
According to him, he saw Salcedo being mauled and like Richard de los
principal, for the crime of "Murder" defined in Article 248 of the
Santos, merely viewed the incident. 19 His face was in the pictures because he
Revised Penal Code and hereby imposes on him an indeterminate
shouted to the maulers to stop hitting Salcedo. 20Joel Tan also testified that he
penalty of from FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and
tried to pacify the maulers because he pitied Salcedo. The maulers however
TWENTY (20) DAYS of Reclusion Temporal, as Minimum, to TWENTY
ignored him. 21
(20) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal, as Maximum;

The other accused, specifically Attys. Lozano and Nuega and Annie Ferrer
5. In "People versus Rolando Fernandez," Criminal Case No. 86-4893l,
opted not to testify in their defense.
the Court finds that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the
Accused for the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt and hereby
On December 16, 1988, the trial court rendered a decision finding Romeo acquits him of said charge;
Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan, Richard de los Santos and Joselito Tamayo guilty
as principals in the crime of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced
6. In "People versus Oliver Lozano, et al.," Criminal Case No. 86-
them to 14 years 10 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal as minimum
49007, the Court finds that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of
to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Annie Ferrer was likewise
the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged and
convicted as an accomplice. The court, however, found that the prosecution
hereby acquits them of said charge;
failed to prove the guilt of the other accused and thus acquitted Raul Billosos,
Gerry Nery, Rolando Fernandez, Oliver Lozano and Benjamin Nuega. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows: 7. In "People versus Annie Ferrer," Criminal Case No. 86-49008, the
Court finds the said Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as
accomplice to the crime of Murder under Article 18 in relation to
WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered in the aforementioned
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby imposes on her an
cases as follows:
indeterminate penalty of NINE (9) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS
of Prision Mayor, as Minimum to TWELVE (12) YEARS, FIVE (5)
1. In "People versus Raul Billosos and Gerry Nery," Criminal Case No. MONTHS and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of Reclusion Temporal, as Maximum.
86-47322, the Court finds that the Prosecution failed to prove the
guilt of the two (2) Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime
The Accused Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Richard de los Santos, Joel
charged and hereby acquits them of said charge;
Tan, Joselito Tamayo and Annie Ferrer are hereby ordered to pay,
jointly and severally, to the heirs of Stephen Salcedo the total amount
2. In "People versus Romeo Sison, et al.," Criminal Case No. 86- of P74,000.00 as actual damages and the amount of P30,000.00 as
47617, the Court finds the Accused Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar and moral and exemplary damages, and one-half (1/2) of the costs of
Joel Tan, guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principals for the crime suit.
of Murder, defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and, there
being no other mitigating or aggravating circumstances, hereby
The period during which the Accused Nilo Pacadar, Romeo Sison, Joel
imposes on each of them an indeterminate penalty of from FOURTEEN
Tan, Richard de los Santos and Joselito Tamayo had been under
(14)YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and TWENTY (20) DAYS, of Reclusion
detention during the pendency of these cases shall be credited to
 them provided that they agreed in writing to abide by and comply of the Court of Appeals against the four accused-appellants sentenced
strictly with the rules and regulations of the City Jail. to reclusion perpetua.

The Warden of the City Jail of Manila is hereby ordered to release the Before this court, accused-appellants assign the following errors:
Accused Gerry Nery, Raul Billosos and Rolando Fernandez from the
City Jail unless they are being detained for another cause or charge. I

The Petition for Bail of the Accused Rolando Fernandez has become THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT
moot and academic. The Petition for Bail of the Accused Joel Tan, NOTED THAT THE ACCUSED FAILED TO CITE ANYTHING ON RECORD
Romeo Sison and Joselito Tamayo is denied for lack of merit. TO SUPPORT THEIR AVERMENT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES
WHO HAVE COME FORWARD TO IDENTIFY THE PERSONS
The bail bonds posted by the Accused Oliver Lozano and Benjamin RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF STEPHEN SALCEDO.
Nuega are hereby cancelled. 22
II
On appeal, the Court of Appeals 23 on December 28, 1992, modified the
decision of the trial court by acquitting Annie Ferrer but increasing the penalty THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
of the rest of the accused, except for Joselito Tamayo, to reclusion perpetua. CREDENCE TO THE UNRELIABLE, DOUBTFUL, SUSPICIOUS AND
The appellate court found them guilty of murder qualified by abuse of superior INCONCLUSIVE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESS RANULFO
strength, but convicted Joselito Tamayo of homicide because the information SUMILANG.
against him did not allege the said qualifying circumstance. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:
III

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is hereby

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE ERRED IN FINDING
MODIFIED as follows:
THE ACCUSED GUILTY WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE
THAT ANY OF THE ACCUSED CARRIED A HARD AND BLUNT
1. Accused-appellants Romeo Sison y Mejia, Nilo Pacadar y Abe, Joel INSTRUMENT, THE ADMITTED CAUSE OF THE HEMORRHAGE
Tan y Mostero and Richard de los Santos are hereby found GUILTY RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED.
beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and are each hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua;
IV

2. Accused-appellant Joselito Tamayo y Oria is hereby found GUILTY

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide with the generic
THAT THERE EXISTS CONSPIRACY AMONG THE PRINCIPAL ACCUSED.
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and, as a
consequence, an indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS
of prision mayor as Minimum to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion V
temporal as Maximum is hereby imposed upon him;
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
3. Accused-appellant Annie Ferrer is hereby ACQUITTED of being an THAT THE CRIME COMMITTED IS MURDER AND NOT DEATH
accomplice to the crime of Murder. (HOMICIDE) CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY. 25

CONSIDERING that the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua has been In their additional brief, appellants contend that:
imposed in the instant consolidated cases, the said cases are now
hereby certified to the Honorable Supreme Court for review. 24 I

Petitioners filed G.R. Nos. 108280-83 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN REACHING
Court inasmuch as Joselito Tamayo was not sentenced to reclusion perpetua. A CONCLUSION OF FACT UTILIZING SPECULATIONS, SURMISES,
G.R. Nos. 114931-33 was certified to us for automatic review of the decision NON-SEQUITUR CONCLUSIONS, AND EVEN THE DISPUTED DECISION
 OF THE TRIAL COURT, TO UPHOLD THE VALIDITY OF THE VERY SAME The records show that Sumilang was admonished several times by the trial
JUDGMENT, ALL CONTRARY TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. court on the witness stand for being argumentative and evasive. 32 This is not
enough reason to reject Sumilang's testimony for he did not exhibit this
II undesirable conduct all throughout his testimony. On the whole, his testimony
was correctly given credence by the trial court despite his evasiveness at
some instances. Except for compelling reasons, we cannot disturb the way
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ADMITTING
trial courts calibrate the credence of witnesses considering their visual view of
EXHIBITS "D", "G", "O", "P", "V", TO "V-48", "W" TO "W-13", ALL OF
the demeanor of witnesses when on the witness stand. As trial courts, they
WHICH WERE NOT PROPERLY IDENTIFIED.
can best appreciate the verbal and non-verbal dimensions of a witness'
testimony.
III
Banculo's mistake in identifying another person as one of the accused does
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN not make him an entirely untrustworthy witness. 33 It does not make his
CONCLUDING THAT CONSPIRACY EXISTED IN THE CASE AT BAR whole testimony a falsity. An honest mistake is not inconsistent with a truthful
DISREGARDING ALTOGETHER THE SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE ON THE testimony. Perfect testimonies cannot be expected from persons with
MATTER. imperfect senses. In the court's discretion, therefore, the testimony of a
witness can be believed as to some facts but disbelieved with respect to the
IV others. 34

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING We sustain the appellate and trial courts' findings that the witnesses'
THAT THE CRIME COMMITTED WAS MURDER, NOT DEATH testimonies corroborate each other on all important and relevant details of the
(HOMICIDE) IN TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY SIDESTEPPING IN THE principal occurrence. Their positive identification of all petitioners jibe with
PROCESS THE FACTUAL GROUNDS SURROUNDING THE INCIDENT. 26 each other and their narration of the events are supported by the medical and
documentary evidence on record.
Appellants mainly claim that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining
the testimonies of the two in prosecution eyewitnesses, Ranulfo Dr. Roberto Garcia, the medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of
Sumilang and Renato Banculo, because they are unreliable, doubtful Investigation, testified that the victim had various wounds on his body which
and do not deserve any credence. According to them, the testimonies could have been inflicted by pressure from more than one hard object. 35 The
of these two witnesses are suspect because they surfaced only after a contusions and abrasions found could have been caused by punches, kicks
reward was announced by General Lim. Renato Banculo even and blows from rough stones. 36 The fatal injury of intracranial hemorrhage
submitted three sworn statements to the police geared at providing a was a result of fractures in Salcedo's skull which may have been caused by
new or improved version of the incident. On the witness stand, he contact with a hard and blunt object such as fistblows, kicks and a blunt
mistakenly identified a detention prisoner in another case as accused wooden instrument. 37
Rolando Fernandez. 27 Ranulfo Sumilang was evasive and
unresponsive prompting the trial court to reprimand him several Appellants do not deny that Salcedo was mauled, kicked and punched.
times. 28 Sumilang in fact testified that Salcedo was pummeled by his assailants with
stones in their hands. 38
There is no proof that Banculo or Sumilang testified because of the reward
announced by General Lim, much less that both or either of them ever Appellants also contend that although the appellate court correctly
received such reward from the government. On the contrary, the evidence disregarded Exhibits "D," "G," and "P," it erroneously gave evidentiary weight
shows that Sumilang reported the incident to the police and submitted his to Exhibits "O," "V," "V-1" to "V-48," "W," "W-1" to "W-13." 39 Exhibit "O" is
sworn statement immediately two hours after the mauling, even before the Joint Affidavit of Pat. Flores and Pat. Bautista, the police intelligence-
announcement of any reward. 29 He informed the police that he would operatives who witnessed the rally and subsequent dispersal operation. Pat.
cooperate with them and identify Salcedo's assailants if he saw them again. 30
Flores properly identified Exhibit "O" as his sworn statement and in fact gave
testimony corroborating the contents thereof. 40 Besides, the Joint Affidavit
The fact that Banculo executed three sworn statements does not make them merely reiterates what the other prosecution witnesses testified to.
and his testimony incredible. The sworn statements were made to identify Identification by Pat. Bautista is a surplusage. If appellants wanted to
more suspects who were apprehended during the investigation of Salcedo's impeach the said affidavit, they should have placed Pat. Flores on the witness
death. 31 stand.
Exhibits "V," "V-1" to "V-48" are photographs taken of the victim as he was An analysis of the photographs vis-a-vis the accused's testimonies reveal that
being mauled at the Luneta starting from a grassy portion to the pavement only three of the appellants, namely, Richard de los Santos, Nilo Pacadar and
at the Rizal Monument and along Roxas Boulevard, 41 as he was being Joel Tan could be readily seen in various belligerent poses lunging or hovering
chased by his assailants 42 and as he sat pleading with his behind or over the victim. 59 Appellant Romeo Sison appears only once and
assailants. 43 Exhibits "W", "W-1" to "W-13" are photographs of Salcedo and he, although afflicted with hernia is shown merely running after the
the mauling published in local newspapers and magazines such as the victim. 60Appellant Joselito Tamayo was not identified in any of the pictures.
Philippine Star, 44 Mr. and Ms. Magazine, 45 Philippine Daily Inquirer, 46 and the The absence of the two appellants in the photographs does not exculpate
Malaya. 47 The admissibility of these photographs is being questioned by them. The photographs did not capture the entire sequence of the killing of
appellants for lack of proper identification by the person or persons who took Salcedo but only segments thereof. While the pictures did not record Sison
the same. and Tamayo hitting Salcedo, they were unequivocally identified by Sumilang
and
The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented in evidence, Banculo 61Appellants' denials and alibis cannot overcome their eyeball
must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as to identification.
the circumstances under which they were produced. 48 The value of this kind
of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the Appellants claim that the lower courts erred in finding the existence of
original, 49 and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the conspiracy among the principal accused and in convicting them of murder
scene at the time of the crime. 50 The photographer, however, is not the only qualified by abuse of superior strength, not death in tumultuous affray.
witness who can identify the pictures he has taken. 51 The correctness of the
photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can Death in a tumultuous affray is defined in Article 251 of the Revised Penal
be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or code as follows:
by other competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to
impeachment as to its accuracy. 52 Photographs, therefore, can be identified
Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. When, while several
by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its
persons, not composing groups organized for the common purpose of
exactness and accuracy. 53
assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault
each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of
This court notes that when the prosecution offered the photographs as part of the affray someone is killed, and it cannot be ascertained who actually
its evidence, appellants, through counsel Atty. Alfredo Lazaro, Jr. objected to killed the deceased, but the person or persons who inflicted serious
their admissibility for lack of proper identification. 54 However, when the physical injuries can be identified, such person or persons shall be
accused presented their evidence, Atty. Winlove Dumayas, counsel for punished by prison mayor.
accused Joselito Tamayo and Gerry Neri used Exhibits "V", "V-1" to "V-48" to
prove that his clients were not in any of the pictures and therefore could not
If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries
have participated in the mauling of the victim. 55 The photographs were
on the deceased, the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
adopted by appellant Joselito Tamayo and accused Gerry Neri as part of the
maximum periods shall be imposed upon all those who shall have
defense exhibits. And at this hearing, Atty. Dumayas represented all the other
used violence upon the person of the victim.
accused per understanding with their respective counsels, including Atty.
Lazaro, who were absent. At subsequent hearings, the prosecution used the
photographs to cross-examine all the accused who took the witness For this article to apply, it must be established that: (1) there be
stand. 56 No objection was made by counsel for any of the accused, not until several persons; (2) that they did not compose groups organized for
Atty. Lazaro appeared at the third hearing and interposed a continuing the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other
objection to their admissibility. 57 reciprocally; (3) these several persons quarrelled and assaulted one
another in a confused and tumultuous manner; (4) someone was
killed in the course of the affray; (5) it cannot be ascertained who
The objection of Atty. Lazaro to the admissibility of the photographs is
actually killed the deceased; and (6) that the person or persons who
anchored on the fact that the person who took the same was not presented to
inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be
identify them. We rule that the use of these photographs by some of the
identified. 62
accused to show their alleged non-participation in the crime is an admission of
the exactness and accuracy thereof. That the photographs are faithful
representations of the mauling incident was affirmed when appellants Richard A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several
de los Santos, Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan identified themselves therein and persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course
gave reasons for their presence thereat. 58 of which some person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be
ascertained. 63
The quarrel in the instant case, if it can be called a quarrel, was between one regardless of the intent and character of their participation, because the act of
distinct group and one individual. Confusion may have occurred because of one is the act of all. 68
the police dispersal of the rallyists, but this confusion subsided eventually
after the loyalists fled to Maria Orosa Street. It was only a while later after The trial court awarded the heirs of Salcedo P74,000.00 as actual damages,
said dispersal that one distinct group identified as loyalists picked on one P30,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, and one half of the costs of the
defenseless individual and attacked him repeatedly, taking turns in inflicting suit. At the time he died on July 27, 1986, Salcedo was twenty three years old
punches, kicks and blows on him. There was no confusion and tumultuous and was set to leave on August 4, 1986 for employment in Saudi
quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression at this stage of the Arabia. 69 The reckless disregard for such a young person's life and the
incident. 64 anguish wrought on his widow and three small children, 70 warrant an
increase in moral damages from P30,000.00 to P100,000.00. The indemnity
As the lower courts found, the victim's assailants were numerous by as much of P50,000.00 must also be awarded for the death of the victim. 71
as fifty in number 65 and were armed with stones with which they hit the
victim. They took advantage of their superior strength and excessive force IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed and
and frustrated any attempt by Salcedo to escape and free himself. They modified as follows:
followed Salcedo from the Chinese Garden to the Rizal Monument several
meters away and hit him mercilessly even when he was already fallen on the
1. Accused-appellants Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan and
ground. There was a time when Salcedo was able to get up, prop himself
Richard de los Santos are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
against the pavement and wipe off the blood from his face. But his attackers
Murder without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance and are
continued to pursue him relentlessly. Salcedo could not defend himself nor
each hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
could he find means to defend himself. Sumilang tried to save him from his
assailants but they continued beating him, hitting Sumilang in the process.
Salcedo pleaded for mercy but they ignored his pleas until he finally lost 2. Accused-appellant Joselito Tamayo is found GUILTY beyond
consciousness. The deliberate and prolonged use of superior strength on a reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide with the generic
defenseless victim qualifies the killing to murder. aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and, as a
consequence, he is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of TWELVE
(12) YEARS of prision mayor as minimum to TWENTY (20) YEARS
Treachery as a qualifying circumstance cannot be appreciated in the instant
of reclusion temporal as maximum;
case. There is no proof that the attack on Salcedo was deliberately and
consciously chosen to ensure the assailants' safety from any defense the
victim could have made. True, the attack on Salcedo was sudden and 3. All accused-appellants are hereby ordered to pay jointly and
unexpected but it was apparently because of the fact that he was wearing a severally the heirs of Stephen Salcedo the following amounts:
yellow t-shirt or because he allegedly flashed the "Laban" sign against the
rallyists, taunting them into mauling him. As the appellate court well found, (a) P74,000.00 as actual damages;
Salcedo had the opportunity to sense the temper of the rallyists and run away
from them but he, unfortunately, was overtaken by them. The essence of (b) P100,000.00 as moral damages; and
treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest
provocation on the part of the person being attacked. 66
(c) P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the victim.
The qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was alleged in the
information against Joselito Tamayo. Evident premeditation cannot be Costs against accused-appellants.
appreciated in this case because the attack against Salcedo was sudden and
spontaneous, spurred by the raging animosity against the so-called SO ORDERED.
"Coryistas." It was not preceded by cool thought and reflection.
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
We find however the existence of a conspiracy among appellants. At the time
they were committing the crime, their actions impliedly showed a unity of Francisco, J., is on leave.
purpose among them, a concerted effort to bring about the death of Salcedo.
Where a conspiracy existed and is proved, a showing as to who among the
Footnotes
conspirators inflicted the fatal wound is not required to sustain a
conviction. 67 Each of the conspirators is liable for all acts of the others
1 TSN of April 20, 1988, pp. 7-10.
2 TSN of April 13, 1988, pp. 22-23. 26 Rollo, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, p. 207; Additional Brief for Appellants, p. 2.

3 Exhibits "NN" and "SS;" Records, pp. 295, 296-A. 27 TSN of April 13, 1988, pp. 32-33.

4 Exhibit "LL;" Records, p. 298. 28 Rollo, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, pp. 44, 67, 77; Petition, pp. 34, 57, 67.

5 Exhibits "OO" and "PP;" Records, pp. 296-A, 297. 29 Exhibit "I," Records, p. 258.

6 Exhibit "E;" Records, p. 254. 30 TSN of March 7, 1988, pp. 50-51, 77-78.

7 TSN of December 1, 1987, pp. 17-39. 31 Exhibits "L," "M," and "N;" Records, pp. 262-265.

8 Exhibit "QQ;" Records, p. 302. 32 TSN of December 1, 1987, p. 70; TSN of March 14, 1988, pp. 9, 29-30.

9 Exhibit "X-5;" Records, p. 329. 33 TSN of April 13, 1988, pp. 32-33.

10 Exhibit "B;" Records, p. 249. 34 People v. Caneja, 235 SCRA 328 [1994]; Lagunsad v. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA
596 [1994]; People v. Dulay, 217 SCRA 103 [1993].
11 Exhibit "4;" Records, p. 319.
35 TSN of February 13, 1987, pp. 55-56.
12 TSN of September 26, 1988, pp. 5-6.
36 Id., pp. 48-49.
13 Id., p. 15.
37 Id., pp. 42-44.
14 Id., pp. 83, 90.
38 Exhibit "I; Records, p. 258.
15 TSN of Oct. 3, 1988, pp. 33, 53.
39 Rollo, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, pp. 220-221; Additional Brief for Appellants, pp. 15-16.
16 Id., pp. 40, 47-48; Exhibit "2;" Records, p, 227.
40 TSN of April 20, 1988, pp. 4-15; Exhibit "O;" Records, pp. 276-278.
17 TSN of November 9, 1988, p. 25.
41 Exhibits "V," "V-1" to "V-23;" Records, pp. 292-301.
18 Id., pp. 25-27.
42 Exhibit "V-25;" Records, p. 302.
19 TSN of November 14, 1988, pp. 5-7.
43 Exhibits "V-24," "V-26," and "V-28;" Records, pp. 302-304.
20 Id., pp. 7-8; Records, pp. 297, 299.
44 Exhibits "W" and "W-6;" Records, pp. 313 and 319.
21 TSN of November 14, 1988, pp. 10-11.
45 Exhibit "W-2;" Records, pp. 314-315.
22 Records, pp. 426-428; Decision, pp. 59-61.
46 Exhibit "W-1;" Records, p. 316.
23 CA-G.R. CR Nos. 10501-10502, 10130-10131.
47 Exhibit "W-4;" Records, p. 317.
24 Rollo, G.R. Nos. 114931-33, pp. 654-655; Decision, Court of Appeals pp. 48-49.
48 City of Manila v. Cabangis, 10 Phil. 151 [1908]; 4 Martin, Revised Rules on Evidence,
61 [1989].
25 Rollo, G.R. Nos. 114931-33, pp. 15-16; Petition, pp. 5-6.
49 The Chamberlayne Trial Evidence, p. 617 cited in 4 Martin, supra; Tan v. Sun 61 Exhibits "E" and "L," "K" and "F;" Records, pp. 254 and 262, 255 and 260; TSN of
Insurance, 51 Phil. 212 [1927]. April 13, 1988, pp. 25-26; TSN of December 1, 1987, pp. 23-26.

50 1 Underhill, A Treatise on the Law on Criminal Evidence, 216-217 [1956]. 62 II Reyes, Revised Penal Code, 436 [1993].

51 Underhill, supra; VII Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, part 1, 63 United States v. Tandoc, 40 Phil. 954, 957 [1920].
107 [1973].
64 People v. Ribadajo, 142 SCRA 637 [1986].
52 Francisco, supra.
65 Exhibit "E," Records, p. 253.
53 City of Manila v. Cabangis, supra; cf. Vda. de Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA
393 [1978].
66 People v. Abapo, 239 SCRA 469 [1994]; People v. Buela, 227 SCRA 534 [1993];
People v. Alcantara, 206 SCRA 662 [1992].
54 TSN of July 29, 1988, p. 33.
67 People v. Galit, 230 SCRA 486 [1994]; People v. Pandiano, 232 SCRA 619 [1994].
55 TSN of September 26, 1988, pp. 2-3, 5-6.
68 People v. Timple, 237 SCRA 52 [1994]; People v. Labre, 239 SCRA 159 [1994];
56 Id., pp. 114-123; TSN of November 9, 1988, pp. 42-50. People v. Magalang, 217 SCRA 571 [1993].

57 TSN of November 9, 1988, p. 35. 69 TSN of June 25, 1987, pp. 12-15.

58 Id., pp. 38-50; TSN of November 14, 1988, pp. 6-10, 10-13. 70 TSN of June 25, 1987, pp. 10-13.

59 Exhibits "V-1," "V-2," "V-8," "V-9," "V-12," "V-13," "V-15" to "V-18." 71 Civil Code, Article 2206; People v. Dasig, 221 SCRA 550 [1993].

60 Exhibit "W-3;" Records, p. 314.