Republic of the Philippines
We resolve in this Decision the appeal of appellant Romeo Anches from the March 25, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00205-MIN.
THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
On October 30, 1990, the appellant was accused of murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Iligan City, under the following Information:
That on or about the 30th day of May, 1990, at Bacolod, Lanao del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with Pat. Edgardo Gedo Cruz, whose case is now pending before the Office of the Judge Advocate General, Parang, Maguindanao, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery, evident premeditation, taking advantage of superior strength and nighttime, assault, attack and use personal violence upon one Vicente Pabalay by then and there shooting the latter with firearms thereby inflicting upon him multiple gunshot wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death soon thereafter.
CONTRARY to and in violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with the qualifying circumstance of treachery and attendance of the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, taking advantage of superior strength & nighttime.
On April 4, 2002, the appellant was arrested. He pleaded not guilty upon arraignment and was brought to trial.
Nida, who was awakened by the gunshots, saw the victim through her window and heard him shout – “Help, Martin, Andres.” Nida told her husband Olimpio to go and get the local Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF). When Olimpio returned minutes later with the CHDF members, Nida opened their front door. They saw the victim sitting on the floor of their foyer, bleeding from his shoulder, abdomen and thigh. Roger Paracale, the CHDF team leader, asked the victim – “Dong, who shot you?; the latter replied that it was the appellant who shot him. The victim was then brought to the Mercy Community Hospital. When Dr. Daniel Rigor performed an exploratory laparatomy on the victim on May 31, 1990, he found the victim’s small intestine severed and his liver injured by 9 gunshot wounds. The victim died 10 hours later.
The appellant, interposing alibi, claimed that he was at PC Camp in Kolambugan together with his fellow policemen on the night of the killing; they were not allowed to leave the camp because the replacement commanding officer was expected that day.
THE RTC RULING
THE CA RULING
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC, giving full respect to the RTC's assessment of the testimonies. However, it deleted the award of nominal damages and awarded P25,000 as temperate damages.
ARTURO D. BRION
(on wellness leave)
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTURO D. BRION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
* On wellness leave.
** Designated Acting Chairperson of the Third Division per Special Order No. 925 dated January 24, 2011.
***Designated additional Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 926 dated January 24, 2011.
 Decision penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Mario V. Lopez of the Special Twenty-Second Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 4-20.
 See REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 248.
 CA rollo, p. 14.
 TSN, June 23, 2002, pp. 17-18; CA rollo, p. 58.
 CA rollo, p. 59.
 CA rollo, pp. 60-64.
 Supra note 1.
 People v. Lacaden, G.R. No. 187682, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 784, 805; and Gandol v. People, G.R. Nos. 178233 & 180510, December 4, 2008, 573 SCRA 108, 124.
 People v. Lacaden, supra note 9, at 805; and People v. Gidoc, G.R. No. 185162, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 825, 837.