Division (GR No. 101022, Feb 27, 1992) People V. Eduardo Andasa

DIVISION
[ GR No. 101022, Feb 27, 1992 ]

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO ANDASA +
DECISION
G.R. No. 101022
PADILLA, J.:
Accused-appellant, Eduardo Andasa, was convicted of the crime of murder in a

decision, dated 22 November 1989, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXVIII of
Iloilo City.[1] He was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment, ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day
of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by
law; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Martin Andea, in the amount of
Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos, and to pay the costs.
The accused appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals, raising
the sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in finding the accused
guilty of the crime of murder. On 28, June 1991, the Court of Appeals
promulgated a decision[2] affirming the judgment of the court a quo but
modifying the penalty to reclusion perpetua and increasing the civil indemnity
from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. Considering that the penalty determined by the
Court of Appeals is reclusion perpetua, the case has been referred to us for
final review.[3]
The facts are as follows:
"At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of 3 May 1987, while a

dance was going on in celebration of the May Flower Festival at
Barangay Bungol, Poblacion Alimodian, Iloilo, Martin Andea was
drinking whiskey together with accused-appellant Eduardo
Andasa, Nicanor Cablada, Jr., Adimas Hipalin and Jimmy Quiraos
about a meter outside the dancehall. They were all squatting side
by side except accused-appellant who was squatting behind
Martin Andea.
"Accused-appellant who was about less than an arm's length
behind Martin Andea and without uttering a word, shot the latter
once in his back. As the victim fell to the ground, accused-
appellant put the gun under his right armpit and walked casually
to the dancehall.
"The Chief of the Barangay Tanod of Bungol, Santiago Maganto,
and other barangay tanods who witnessed the shooting of the
victim by the appellant did not arrest the latter because they
were not armed and besides, accused-appellant was reputed to
be a member of the N.P.A.
"The incident was immediately reported to the police authorities
of Alimodian by Eddie Alipunga but he did not reveal the identity
of the accused for fear of reprisal from the NPA.
"Pat. Angelo Anglacer of the INP of Alimodian conducted an
investigation only in June 1987, a month after the incident was
reported by Eduardo Alipunga, because barangay, Bungol,
Alimodian, was an NPA infested area. It was after the Philippine
Army cleared the area of NPA that he conducted an "on the spot"
investigation, and also took the sworn statement of Eduardo
Alipunga and Nicanor Cablada, Jr. while he told the other
witnesses just to testify in court.
"The post-mortem examination on the cadaver of the victim
conducted by Dra. Maria Winefreda Cainoy, the Rural Health
Physician of Alimodian, Iloilo reveals that the victim sustained a
gunshot wound at the back which penetrated the internal organs
piercing through the diaphragm, the lower lobe of the left lung
and the posterior left cardia ventricle.
"Dr. Cainoy testified that the victim's assailant was at the back
considering that "the wound was straight", "the character of the
wound and the entry of bullet" and the position of the assailant is
on the same level of the victim.
"Accused-appellant Eduardo Andasa testified that between 9:00
and 10:00 in the evening of 3 May 1987, he went to Brgy. Bungol,
Alimodian to attend the dance party. Upon reaching the place, he
sat near the stall of Norma Alipuangan and Fely Ortiz situated
near the entrance of the dancehall.
"He saw Martin Andea outside the dancehall roaming around with
a glass of whisky on his hand. Martin Andea offered him a drink
and when he was about to receive the whisky, he heard a gunfire
coming right in front of them, and then he saw Martin Andea fall
down with his head on Andasa's feet. He shoved the head of
Martin Andea aside, and helped his companions gather their
goods and accompanied them in going home.
"Accused-appellant denied having a gun during the incident.
"Witness Fely Ortiz testified that on the night of 3 May 1987 she
was also at the place where the dance was held as she peddled
and sold her goods beside the dancehall, together with other co-
vendors, namely, Dolores and Norma.
"At around 9:00 in the evening, accused Eduardo Andasa, whom
she knew as a conductor of a jeepney, was seated and was
conversing with them at her stall; while Martin Andea, whom she
knew as a caretaker of the Alimodian cockpit, was drinking
liquor together with his other companions, about an arm's length
away from her stall.
"A few moments later, she saw Martin Andea stand up in front of
Eduardo Andasa and offered the latter a glass of wine, but before
he could hand it over, a shot was fired and Martin Andea fell to
the ground between Dolores and Eduardo Andasa. She saw blood
flowing at his back.
"She recalled that after the shot, Eduardo Andasa merely stood
up and helped her gather her goods, and they transferred to a
safer place and after which, they all went home while Eduardo
Andasa went towards the garage of his employer at the downhill
portion of the Alimodian Public Market.
"Witness Norma Alimpuangan corroborated the testimony of her
friend, Fely Ortiz. She testified that it was not Eduardo Andasa
who shot Martin Andea because she did not see the accused
commit the act nor was he armed with a gun when the incident
took place. She further testified that she heard the shot coming
from the uphill portion of the dancehall." [4]
After carefully deliberating upon the evidence on record, we are fully convinced
that the lower court committed no error in finding the accused Eduardo Andasa
guilty as charged. The issue raised by accused-appellant is basically factual and
involves essentially the credibility of the witnesses.
Appellant capitalizes on the fact that the crime which took place on 3 May 1987
was reported and entered in the police blotter of the PNP in Alimodian, Iloilo as
having been committed by an unknown person or persons, and that it took more
than one (1) month after the crime was committed before the case was filed in
court, naming herein appellant as the assailant of Martin Andasa. He contends
that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that they immediately knew the
identity of the accused appellant as the assailant contradicts the police report
that the assailant was unidentified or unknown. Thus, according to him, the
theory of the prosecution is not convincing and is contrary to human nature. This
contention of appellant is without merit.
As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, and we quote:
"x x x The reason why the assailant is unidentified in the police

blotter is established by the evidence to be due to the fact that
the prosecution witnesses believed that the accused was a
member of the NPA and they were afraid of the reprisal by the
NPA (TSN, 10 May 1988, p. 5)."[5]
Such initial reaction of the prosecution witnesses in refusing to identify the
assailant whom they believed to be an NPA member is understandable when we
consider the fact that they are simple farmers. Their fear of the NPA is entirely
human and quite expectable and should not detract from their credibility. The
fear of the NPA by civilians is a matter of judicial notice. It is noteworthy,
however, that once they (witnesses) were assured that the accused was not a
member of the NPA, they immediately reported the identity of the assailant to
the police authorities and thereafter an information against the appellant was
filed with the proper court.
On the other hand, the bare denial of the accused that he committed the crime is
not sufficient to overcome the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
who positively identified the accused as the person who shot Martin Andea on
3 May 1987. Well-settled is the rule that greater weight is given to the positive
identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than to the accused's
denial and explanation concerning the commission of the crime. [6]
Accused-appellant's other arguments, such as, that the prosecution witnesses

are either related to the victim or were his friends and that there was no motive
for him to kill the victim, are likewise without merit. As ruled by the Court of
Appeals, to which we agree:
"There is however no evidence that the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses are biased.
"Relationship of the prosecution witnesses to the victim does not
necessarily disqualify them as biased (People vs. Legaspi, 151
SCRA 670, 678)."
xxxxx
"Motive is, however, important in cases where there is doubt as
to whether the defendant is or is not the person who committed
the offense (Ebajan vs. Court of Appeals, 170 SCRA 178).
"The eye-witnesses for the prosecution clearly and positively
identified the accused-appellant as the assailant." [7]
In a long line of decided cases, we have ruled that where the accused is
positively identified as the culprit, motive is not essential to conviction. [8]
The appellate court correctly held that there was treachery in the commission of
the crime.
"Considering that the appellant suddenly shot the victim from

behind, treachery as defined in Article 248, par. 1 of the Revised
Penal Code qualified the killing to murder."[9]
Finally, we agree with the Court of Appeals that -
"As no aggravating and mitigating circumstances were proven in

this case, the penalty for murder should be imposed in its
medium period or reclusion perpetua (People vs. Norberto
Clores y Coral, G.R. No. 82362, 26, April 1990)." [10]
As aforestated, the issue raised by appellant is one that questions the credibility
of the prosecution witnesses. In a long line of cases, this Court has held that
where the issue is on the credibility of witnesses, generally the findings of the
court a quo will not be disturbed on appeal since it was in a better position to
decide the question, having heard and observed the demeanor of the witnesses,
unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if
considered; could affect the result of the case. We find no exception to this rule
in this case that would justify us to overturn the factual and legal conclusions of
the lower courts.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the appellate court dated June 28, 1991 is hereby
AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.

Division (GR No. 101022, Feb 27, 1992) People V. Eduardo Andasa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Division (GR No. 101022, Feb 27, 1992) People V. Eduardo Andasa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Division (GR No. 101022, Feb 27, 1992) People V. Eduardo Andasa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DIVISION

[ GR No. 101022, Feb 27, 1992 ]

Accused-appellant, Eduardo Andasa, was convicted of the crime of murder in a

The facts are as follows:

"At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of 3 May 1987, while a

As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, and we quote:

"x x x The reason why the assailant is unidentified in the police

Accused-appellant's other arguments, such as, that the prosecution witnesses

"Considering that the appellant suddenly shot the victim from

"As no aggravating and mitigating circumstances were proven in

You might also like