SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 227195. July 29, 2019.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FABIAN

MABALATO @ "BOY," JULIO CARTUCIANO and ALLAN
CANATOY @ "ALLAN EDWARD," accused,

ALLAN CANATOY @ "ALLAN EDWARD," accused-appellant.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J : p

On appeal is the Decision 1 dated May 31, 2016 (assailed Decision) of

the Court of Appeals, Twentieth (20th) Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
01861, which partly affirmed with modifications, the Judgment 2 dated June
28, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 18 (trial court) in
Criminal Case No. CBU-63753, which, in turn, found accused-appellant Allan
Canatoy (Canatoy) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as
defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Canatoy, along with accused Fabian Mabalato (Mabalato) and Julio
Cartuciano (Cartuciano), as well as one Luz Sato (Sato), were charged with
Murder qualified by the attending circumstances of treachery, evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength for killing Omega Barbas
(Barbas). The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That, on or about the 4th day of September, 2002, at about
9:30 o'clock in the morning, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
conniving and confederating together and mutually helping each
other, armed with rambo type knife, with deliberate intent, with intent
to kill with treachery and evident premeditation, with abuse of
superior strength, did then and there suddenly and unexpectedly
stab one Omega Barbas on the vital parts of her body, thereby
inflicting upon her physical injuries which as a consequence of said
injuries said Omega Barbas died few minutes later.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
On arraignment, Cartuciano, Canatoy and Sato, assisted by their
respective counsels, pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged. Mabalato, on
the other hand, represented by Atty. Gandhi Truya (Atty. Truya), pleaded
"guilty." However, after the prosecution rested its case, Mabalato,
represented by his new counsel, Atty. Earl Bonachita (Atty. Bonachita),
substituted his "guilty" plea with a "not guilty" plea.
The Facts

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Version of the Prosecution:

The prosecution presented witnesses Rebecca Tan (Tan), Mark Lester

Soliman (Soliman), Stephen Go (Go), Dr. Nestor Sator (Dr. Sator), P/Insp.
Nathan Alonsabe, Sr. P/Insp. Germano Mallari, PO1 Joseph Bucayan, SPO4
Mario Monilar (SPO4 Monilar), Atty. Truya, and Prosecutor Tolomeo Dinoy
(Pros. Dinoy), who testified that:
AIDSTE

On September 4, 2002, Barbas was inside her room at Ziega

Apartment, Barangay Talamban, Cebu City. At around 9:30 in the morning,
Tan, a tenant in the same apartment, saw two men enter the apartment's
gate. Afterwards, Soliman who was staying in the room adjacent to Barbas,
heard two men utter "Ayo, Ayo" in front of Barbas' room and told the latter
that they have something to deliver. Barbas told them to leave it beside the
door but they insisted for her to come out so that she could acknowledge the
item. After a short while, Tan and Soliman heard Barbas shouting "Ay!" three
times. Soliman went out of the room and saw two men fleeing from Barbas'
room towards the gate. Soliman called after them who looked back but then
continued to run. Tan, who was on the terrace, also shouted "Hoy!" at the
two men who likewise looked back. Both Soliman and Tan later identified the
two men as Canatoy and Mabalato. 4
Soliman and Tan then checked Barbas' room and they found her lying
face down, bathed in her own blood. They saw a bloodied knife and grey t-
shirt near Barbas' body. Tan recalled that one of the two men whom she saw
enter the apartment's gate was wearing a grey t-shirt, but when she later
saw him again fleeing from Barbas' room, he was already wearing a white
shirt. 5 Thereafter, Go, Barbas' boyfriend, as well as members of the
Emergency Rescue Unit Foundation (ERUF) and several police officers
arrived. 6 The police recovered, among others, the knife used in killing
Barbas from the crime scene. 7
Dr. Sator, a medico-legal officer, examined Barbas' body and stated in
his report that Barbas suffered incise wounds and one fatal stab wound at
the left shoulder, which pierced the aorta and the right lung, thereby causing
hemorrhage. 8
In the meantime, the police officers conducted a follow-up operation,
which led to the arrest of Mabalato, Cartuciano and Sato. Several days later,
they apprehended Canatoy by virtue of a warrant of arrest. 9 While in
detention, Mabalato and Cartuciano expressed their willingness to make a
confession, after they were apprised of their constitutional rights by SPO4
Monilar. Thereafter, they executed their extrajudicial confessions with the
assistance of Atty. Truya. 10
In his sworn statement, Mabalato admitted that he and Canatoy were
hired by Cartuciano to kill Barbas for a consideration. He then narrated how
they planned and executed the killing. 11 Cartuciano, on the other hand and
in his own sworn statement, implicated Sato, whom he claimed to be his
lover, as the person who contacted him more than a week from the incident.
According to Cartuciano, Sato asked him to hire two men to liquidate Barbas
and offered to give him P15,000.00 as consideration. Hence, he contacted
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Mabalato and Canatoy and the three accused devised the plan to kill Barbas.
According to Cartuciano, he only accepted P10,000.00 out of the
consideration offered by Sato and gave the same to Mabalato and Canatoy,
refusing to receive the P5,000.00 intended for him. 12
Both sworn statements were signed by Mabalato, Cartuciano and their
lawyer, Atty. Truya. Later on, they were brought to the Office of the City
Prosecutor, where they subscribed to their respective affidavits in the
presence of Atty. Truya and Pros. Dinoy, after the latter asked them if they
voluntarily executed their sworn statements to which they answered in the
affirmative. 13 AaCTcI

Barbas' boyfriend, Go, a businessman, testified that he financed the

latter's lending business. One of Barbas' clients was Sato. Barbas had
mentioned to Go that she was bothered of the P100,000.00 owed by Sato.
On September 4, 2002, Sato paid P20,000.00 and got into an argument with
Barbas. 14
Version of the Defense:

Mabalato, a "trisikad" driver, testified that on September 6, 2002,

several persons approached and arrested him while he was waiting for
passengers. The arresting officers pushed and kicked him and thereafter
took him to Mabolo Police Station. He was later transferred to Camp Sotero
Cabahug where the police made him sign an already prepared affidavit
stating that he killed Barbas. The police officers told him to implicate
Canatoy and Cartuciano, both of whom he did not know at that time. He
signed the affidavit upon the agreement that he would be released from
detention. 15
On cross-examination, Mabalato admitted having engaged the services
of Atty. Truya as his personal counsel and that he was not threatened when
he pleaded guilty during his arraignment. He also admitted that he did not
complain to Pros. Dinoy about his alleged injuries. 16
Cartuciano, on the other hand, narrated that on September 7, 2002,
several police officers apprehended him near a cockpit in Barangay Talaga,
Argao. He was brought to and detained in Camp Sotero Cabahug, where he
was likewise made to sign a prepared affidavit. He signed the affidavit upon
the promise of the police to release him. He, however, denied knowing his
co-accused nor instructing them to kill Barbas or that Sato hired him to kill
Barbas. He likewise denied knowing Atty. Truya and claimed that the latter
was not the counsel of his choice. 17
Sato testified that on September 6, 2002, the police went to her
workplace and invited her to go to Gorordo Police Station. She went there
the following day and therein, the police asked her if she knew Barbas which
she answered in the affirmative. Thereafter, she was not allowed to leave the
station and was informed that she was the suspected mastermind in the
killing of Barbas. She denied the accusation or that she knew Cartuciano. 18
The defense's last witness, Canatoy, narrated that he was in his
residence in Misamis Oriental the day before the incident took place. 19 On
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 September 3, 2002, two policemen went to his residence in Misamis Oriental
and invited him to Cebu. When they arrived at Cebu City, the police officers
brought him to Gorordo Police Station where they informed him of his
involvement in a crime. He denied any participation in the murder and
denied knowing Mabalato, Cartuciano and Sato. 20

Ruling of the trial court

In a Judgment 21 dated June 28, 2013, the trial court found Mabalato,
Cartuciano and Canatoy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with
all its accessory penalties, and to indemnify the heirs of the victim the
amount of P50,000.00 and to pay exemplary damages of P20,000.00. The
trial court admitted and gave credence to the extrajudicial confessions of
Mabalato and Cartuciano, both of which, the trial court found, were
voluntarily given and the safeguards to their admissibility, sufficiently
addressed. The trial court likewise found that, although no direct evidence
was presented, the circumstantial evidence offered, consisting of the
testimonies of witnesses Tan and Soliman, was sufficient for conviction.
Moreover, the trial court ruled that there was conspiracy amongst the
convicted accused and that the circumstances of treachery, evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength attended the commission of
the crime. 22 EcTCAD

On the other hand, the trial court acquitted Sato for insufficiency of
evidence, as the only proof which tied her to the crime is Cartuciano's extra-
judicial confession which, according to the trial court, should be binding only
on the confessant. The trial court likewise noted that the testimony of Go
that Barbas and Sato got into an argument on the day of the killing did not
tie with the testimonies of Mabalato and Cartuciano that they hatched the
plan of murder more than a week before its commission. 23
In the end, the trial court disposed of the case in this manner:
WHEREFORE[,] in view of the foregoing consideration, the court
finds the accused FABIAN MABALATO @ "Boy", JULIO CARTUCIANO
and ALLAN CANATOY also known as ALLAN EDUARD guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder penalized under Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences each of them to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all its accessory
penalties, to indemnify the heirs of the victim the amount of fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and to pay exemplary damages of
twenty thousand (P20,000.00).
On the other hand, Luz Sato is hereby acquitted and the case
against her dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The Jail Warden of
the Cebu City Jail (Female Dormitory) is directed to release her from
custody unless she is detained for some other legal cause or causes.
SO ORDERED. 24

Mabalato, Cartuciano and Canatoy filed separate appeals to the CA. All
three accused 25 as well as the People, 26 through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), filed their respective Briefs. Meanwhile, on January 27, 2016,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 accused Mabalato died inside the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City.
27

Ruling of the CA

In the assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the trial court's conviction

with modification as to the sentence and damages awarded. Deceased
Mabalato's criminal and civil liabilities were extinguished. The CA disposed of
the case, thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeals are DENIED. In view of Mabalato's
death prior to final judgment, his criminal and civil liability ex delicto
are declared EXTINGUISHED, and his conviction for the crime of
murder is SET ASIDE. The Judgment dated 28 June 2013 of the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 18, in Criminal Case No.
CBU-63753 is PARTLY AFFIRMED , insofar as Cartuciano and
Canatoy's convictions are concerned, but with the following
MODIFICATIONS:
(1) to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua to be
"without eligibility for parole"; (2) to increase the award of
civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P100,000.00; (3) to
increase the award of exemplary damages from
P20,000.00 to P100,000.00; (4) to award moral damages
in the amount of P100,000.00; (5) to impose the legal
interest rate of 6% per annum on all the damages
awarded from the finality of this Decision until fully paid;
and (6) to direct Cartuciano and Canatoy to pay, jointly
and solidarily, the foregoing damages to Omega Barbas'
heirs.
SO ORDERED. 28 HSAcaE

Hence, this Appeal 29 taken by Canatoy.

In lieu of filing supplemental briefs, Canatoy and the People filed
separate Manifestations dated May 3, 2017 30 and May 5, 2017, 31
respectively, foregoing their right to file supplemental briefs and adopting
the arguments in their respective Briefs filed before the CA.
Issues
In his Brief, Canatoy assigns the lone error that "the trial court erred in
convicting the accused-appellant [of] the crime charged despite the failure of
the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt." 32

The Court's Ruling

The Appeal lacks merit.

The evidence adduced sufficiently
establish Canatoy's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of
Murder

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 The prosecution's case rests mainly on: 1) the testimonies of witnesses
Soliman and Tan; and 2) the extrajudicial confessions of Cartuciano and the
deceased Mabalato.
The Court rules that these pieces of evidence were sufficient to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that Canatoy, along with his other co-accused and
in conspiracy with one another, committed the crime charged.
First, although the records show that there was no eyewitness to the
actual killing of Barbas, the testimonies of Soliman and Tan on collateral
facts of the crime, were properly given ample weight by the trial court and
the CA. It is settled that direct evidence is not indispensable for conviction in
criminal cases and that circumstantial evidence may be enough to support a
court's decision of guilt. 33
Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect or presumptive
evidence, consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which
the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and
common experience. 34 Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court,
circumstantial evidence will be sufficient to convict the offender if: 1) there
is more than one circumstance; 2) the facts from which the inference is
derived are proven; and 3) the combination of all circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. A conviction based on
circumstantial evidence can be upheld provided that the circumstances
proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the
guilty person. 35
Here, prosecution witnesses Soliman and Tan testified to the following,
as summarized by the trial court: HESIcT

x x x Rebecca Tan saw the two accused, Mabalato and Canatoy,

enter the gate of the apartment and saw them running away from the
crime scene immediately after the stabbing. Mark Lester Soliman,
who was in the adjoining room, heard the two calling upon Omega
Barbas to come out to sign something. The last sound he heard from
the room was Omega's shouts[, "Ay! Ay! Ay!"] When he came out of
the room to verify, he saw the two, Mabalato and Canatoy, leaving
the room of Omega Barbas in a hurry. 36
Thereafter, both Soliman and Tan immediately checked the room of
Barbas. They then saw the victim lying face down bathed in her own blood.
37 Likewise, Tan saw a grey t-shirt stained with blood near the leg of Barbas.
38 It was the same shirt color worn by one of the men whom Tan saw earlier

enter the gate of the apartment, and who was already wearing a white shirt
when Tan saw him again, this time running away from Barbas' room. 39 Both
Soliman and Tan identified in open court the two accused, Canatoy and
Mabalato, as the men running away from the crime scene. 40
The trial court gave credence to the foregoing testimonies and the
circumstances to which they pertain were ruled to have been proven by the
prosecution. Well-established is the rule that factual findings made by the
trial court, which had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 to determine the probative value of the testimonies, are entitled to great
weight and respect because the trial court is in a better position to assess
the same. 41 These circumstances proven lead to a fair and reasonable
conclusion that the accused were the authors of the crime, especially
considering that the same is corroborated by the extrajudicial confessions of
Mabalato and Cartuciano, as discussed below.
Second , the extrajudicial confessions of Mabalato and Cartuciano were
admissible in evidence and were credible. In their Briefs, they claimed that
these confessions were inadmissible in evidence as, among others, they
were prepared in advance and were extracted by the police officers through
violence, intimidation, torture and false representation. 42
Like the CA, the Court is not convinced. For an extrajudicial confession
to be admissible in evidence, it must be satisfactorily shown that the same
was obtained within the limits imposed by the Constitution, specifically
Sections 12 and 17, Article III thereof, 43 which state:
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him.
Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.caITAC

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this

or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.
These constitutional safeguards are reinforced in Republic Act No.
7438, 44 to wit:
SEC. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or under
Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. — a.) Any person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times
be assisted by counsel.
b.) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under
his order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person
for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language
known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own
choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the
person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such
person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be
provided with a competent and independent counsel x x x.
Thus, the Court, applying the foregoing standards, has settled that
extrajudicial confessions, to be admissible in evidence, must be: 1)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 voluntary; 2) made with the assistance of a competent and independent
counsel; 3) express; and 4) in writing. 45 TAIaHE

All these requirements obtain here.

First, the confessions were voluntarily and freely executed. The
allegations that they coerced Mabalato and Cartuciano are baseless and no
evidence was presented to support them. The confessants did not have
themselves examined by any physician nor did they institute any legal
action against their alleged abusers. Moreover, the confessants did not
complain to their then counsel, Atty. Truya, or Pros. Dinoy, even when the
latter inquired and ascertained from them the voluntariness of the execution
of their confessions. The rule is that where the defendant did not present
evidence of compulsion, where he did not institute any criminal or
administrative action against his supposed intimidators, where no physical
evidence of violence was presented, all these will be considered as
indicating voluntariness. 46
Moreover, the confessions of Mabalato and Cartuciano are replete with
details which could possibly be supplied only by the perpetrators of the
crime. They dovetail in their material respects, from the time Cartuciano
contacted Mabalato and Canatoy, to the time they devised the plan to
liquidate Barbas, to the time the plan was realized. As held by the Court, this
reflects spontaneity and coherence which psychologically cannot be
associated with a mind to which violence and torture have been applied. 47
These factors are clear indicia that the confessions were voluntarily given. 48
Second, Mabalato and Cartuciano, during the investigation, were duly
assisted by Atty. Truya — a competent and independent counsel, who
informed them of their constitutional rights and the consequences of their
confessions. 49 No evidence was presented to negate Atty. Truya's
competence and independence in representing the confessants. 50 Although,
Atty. Truya was a counsel offered by the police, the final choice was still
lodged with the accused-confessants who had the right to reject said counsel
and opt for another. 51 This, Mabalato and Cartuciano failed to do. A lawyer
provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he
never raised any objection against the former's appointment during the
course of the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribed to the
veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. 52
It has been held that a confession is presumed to be voluntarily and
validly made unless the contrary is proven and that the burden of proof is
upon the party who claims the contrary. 53 Evidently, the presumption must
stand here. Moreover, as the confessions of Mabalato and Cartuciano meet
the standards prescribed by the Constitution and the law, they constitute
evidence of a high order because it is presumed that no person of normal
mind will knowingly and deliberately confess to a crime unless prompted by
truth and conscience. 54
Against the extrajudicial confessions and the testimonies of its
witnesses as well as the other pieces of evidence presented by the
prosecution, the alibi of Canatoy cannot prevail. For alibi to prosper, the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was
committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to
have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate
vicinity at the time of its commission. 55 Here, Canatoy alleges that, on the
day before the crime was committed, he was in his residence in Misamis
Oriental, a mere 8-10 hours of travel time via boat away from Cebu City and
is likewise accessible by plane. 56 He likewise did not deny being in Cebu
City on the day of the commission of the crime. 57 Hence, his alibi must be
rejected.
In sum, the prosecution more than sufficiently established the guilt of
accused-appellant Canatoy of the crime of Murder. The Court affirms that the
evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that Canatoy, Mabalato and
Cartuciano, acting in conspiracy with one another, perpetrated the killing of
Barbas. 58 cDHAES

Treason did not attend the commission

of the crime.

Although the prosecution's evidence sufficiently establishes that the

accused perpetrated the killing of Barbas, the trial court and the CA erred in
appreciating the circumstance of treachery. In finding for treachery, the CA
quoted with approval the following findings of the trial court:
The essence of treachery is a swift and sudden attack on an
unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the
victim. As the evidence showed, the victim opened the door expecting
merely to acknowledge receipt of the letter or package brought by
the perpetrators, only to be held and stabbed with a knife by the
accused. The victim was never given a chance to defend herself. 59
The Court is not convinced that the evidence of the prosecution has
established these findings of the trial court. Soliman and Tan — the only
witnesses on the actual commission of the crime — did not testify that
Barbas was "held" when she was stabbed by the accused or that she was not
given a chance to defend herself. Instead, they merely heard Mabalato,
Canatoy and Barbas' exchange of words after which they heard Barbas shout
"Ay!" three times. As summarized by the trial court, Tan testified:
At 9 to 12 in the morning, the two of them were engaging in a
conversation in the terrace when she heard somebody opening the
gate. She knew that the gate was opened because it made a sound.
She looked down and saw two (2) men entered. The two men stared
at her and walked normally towards the room of the victim Omega
Barbas. They were at least ten (10) meters away from her. Shortly
thereafter she heard Omega shout "Ay", three times. She recognized
her voice because she was familiar with it since they greeted each
other whenever they met at the corridor or within the premises of the
apartment. After the three (3) shouts, she looked down and saw the
two (2) men escaping through the gate, She shouted "hoy" at the
same time pointing at them. The men looked at her and she saw their
faces. x x x She rushed downstairs to verify and when the room of
Omega was opened she saw that she was lying face down. There was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 blood all over her room. 60
Soliman, on the other hand, testified: ASEcHI

x x x he was inside the room of [his] girlfriend beside the room

of Omega Barbas when the crime took place. x x x He heard the gate
opened because of the noise it made and after that a knock on
Omega's room, he heard men's voices shout, "Ayo! Ayo!" Then
Omega answered back, "What's that?" The men told her she has to
receive something important. He heard Omega say, "Just put it
beside the door 'cause I am still doing my laundry." The men insisted
that she had to sign something important. Then he heard the lock of
the door being turned. Just a few seconds after, he heard Omega
shout "Ay" three times. When he heard Omega shout, he immediately
went out of his girlfriend's room and saw two (2) men getting out of
Omega's room running fast towards the gate. 61
Nothing in the foregoing testimonies suggests that Barbas was killed in
a treacherous manner. There is treachery 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. 62 For this circumstance to be appreciated, two elements must
be alleged and proved, namely: (1) that the means of execution employed
gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or herself, or
retaliate; and (2) that the means of execution were deliberately or
consciously adopted. 63 As the Court has explained:
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack without the slightest provocation on the part of the
person being attacked. A swift and unexpected attack on an
unarmed victim that insures its execution without risk to the
assailant arising from the defense of his victim is an
indication that treachery is present. What is decisive is that
the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim
to defend himself or to retaliate. In that sense, even attacks that
occur from the front may be considered treacherous if the attack was
so sudden and unexpected that the deceased had no time to prepare
for self-defense. The mode of attack must also be consciously
adopted. The accused must take some preparation to kill the
deceased in a manner as to insure the execution of the crime
or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to
defend himself or retaliate. The attack, then, must not spring from
the unexpected turn of events. 64 (Emphasis supplied)
Here, no witness or proof was presented by the prosecution on the
manner the killing was executed, particularly if Barbas was attacked
unexpectedly and suddenly or if she had any opportunity to defend herself
or if the means by which she was killed were consciously adopted. None of
these circumstances may be derived from the testimonies of Soliman and
Tan, both of whom testified on collateral facts which they merely heard
occur immediately before and after Barbas was stabbed — but not during. In
other words, the prosecution failed to present any proof that treachery
attended the killing of Barbas. ITAaHc

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to prove the aggravating
circumstance of treachery, the Court agrees with the findings of the trial
court and CA that the killing of Barbas was qualified by the circumstances of
evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. 65 Hence, the crime
remains to be Murder under Article 248 66 of the RPC, the elements of which
are: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him; (3) that the
killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art.
248; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 67
Thus, considering the foregoing, Canatoy's conviction of the crime of
Murder must stand.
Further, being that the crime is attended by two aggravating
circumstances, hence warranting the death penalty, 68 the CA correctly
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua "without eligibility for parole,"
pursuant to the Court's A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC. 69 Finally, the amount of
damages awarded by the CA — P100,000.00, each, for civil, moral and
exemplary damages — as well as the 6% interest rate per annum from
finality of the decision to its full satisfaction, is affirmed by the Court for
being in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, as set in the landmark
case of People v. Jugueta. 70
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DISMISSED
for lack of merit. The Decision dated May 31, 2016 of the Court of Appeals,
Twentieth (20th) Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01861, finding accused-
appellant Allan Canatoy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Murder is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Perlas-Bernabe, J.C. Reyes, Jr. and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1.Rollo , pp. 4-26. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, with Associate
Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Gabriel T. Robeniol concurring.
2.CA rollo, pp. 36-55. Penned by Judge Gilbert P. Moises.

3.Rollo , p. 5.
4.Id. at 6.

5.CA rollo, p. 37.

6.Rollo , pp. 6-7.

7.CA rollo, p. 39.

8.Rollo , p. 7.

9.Id.
10.Id.

11.Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 12.CA rollo, p. 42.

13.Rollo , p. 7.
14.CA rollo, p. 40.

15.Rollo , p. 8.

16.Id.
17.Id.

18.Id. at 8-9.
19.Id. at 12.

20.Id. at 9.

21.CA rollo, pp. 36-55.

22.Id. at 46-54.

23.Id. at 54.
24.Id. at 55.

25.Canatoy filed his own Brief dated January 5, 2015 (id. at 20-35) while Mabalato
and Cartuciano filed a joint Brief dated December 30, 2014 (id. at 57-71).

26.Id. at 98-117.
27.Per the Death Report dated January 27, 2016, id. at 126.

28.Rollo , pp. 24-25.

29.Via a Notice of Appeal dated June 17, 2016, id. at 27.

30.Id. at 47-49.

31.Id. at 42.
32.CA rollo, p. 22.

33.See Espineli v. People , 735 Phil. 530, 533 (2014).

34.People v. Nuyok , 759 Phil. 437, 451 (2015).

35.Espineli v. People , supra note 33 at 539-540.

36.CA rollo, p. 51.

37.Id. at 37-38.

38.Id. at 37.
39.Id.

40.Id. at 37-38.

41.People v. Quitola, 790 Phil. 75, 88 (2016).

42.Rollo , p. 17.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 43.See People v. Rapeza , 549 Phil. 378, 391 (2007).
44.Titled "An Act Defining Certain Right of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under
Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and
Investigating Officers, Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof."

45.See People v. Tuniaco , 624 Phil. 345, 352 (2010); People v. Bacor , 366 Phil.
197, 212 (1999).

46.People v. Tuniaco , supra note 45.

47.People v. Mojello , 468 Phil. 944, 956 (2004).

48.Id., citing People v. Dumalahay, 429 Phil. 540 (2002).

49.Rollo , p. 19.
50.Id.

51.See People v. Continente , 393 Phil. 367, 397 (2000).

52.Id.
53.People v. Bacor , supra note 45 at 219; see also People v. Uy , 508 Phil. 637, 650
(2005).

54.People v. Rapeza , supra note 43 at 393.

55.People v. Palanay , 805 Phil. 116, 127-128 (2017).

56.Rollo , p. 14.

57.Id.
58.Id. at 13-14.

59.CA rollo, p. 52.

60.Id. at 37.

61.Id. at 38.

62.REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 14, par. 16.

63.People v. Escarlos , 457 Phil. 580, 599 (2003); People v. Hugo , 457 Phil. 76, 99
(2003).

64.People v. Kalipayan , G.R. No. 229829, January 22, 2018, 852 SCRA 325-326.
65.Rollo , pp. 15-16.

66.ART. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article
246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by
reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:

  1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength , with the aid of
armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity;
  2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
   3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a
vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of
motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and
ruin;
  4. On occasion of any calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or
of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or
any other public calamity;
  5. With evident premeditation;

  6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of

the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. (Emphasis
supplied)
67.Ramos v. People , 803 Phil. 775, 783 (2017).

68.REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 248 in relation to Art. 63 (1).

69.Titled "Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase 'Without Eligibility for Parole'
in Indivisible Penalties."
70.783 Phil. 806 (2016).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com