This  appeal ^[1]   assails  the Decision^[2] dated  19  December  2017  by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02161, which affirmed with modifications  the Joint Decision^[3]    dated 16 November  2015 of Branch 31, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete  City in Criminal  Case Nos. 14617, 14900, 14902 and 14903, finding Cresenciano Enojo (accused appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for three (3) counts of murder, for the killing of three (3) children, namely:  Delfred A. Cuevas, nine (9) years old; Alfred A. Cuevas,  six (6) years old; and Chrocila A. Cuevas, two (2) years old; and one (1) count of frustrated murder, for the wounding of their mother, Carmen A. Cuevas.


The separate Informations filed against accused-appellant read:

Criminal Case No. 14900

That on November 20, 1999, at about 5:30 in the afternoon at Sitio Dumanon, Barangay Nasig-id, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Honorable  Court,  the  above-named accused with treachery and abuse of superior strength the victim being a minor and of tender age and unarmed, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with the use of a bolo, assault, attack and hack DELFRED A. CUEVAS, a 9 year old, inflicting upon the said victim the following mortal wounds x x x which caused the instantaneous death of the victim.

Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659.^[4]

Criminal Case No. 14902

That on November 20, 1999, at about 5:30 in the afternoon at Sitio Dumanon, Barangay Nasig-id, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Honorable  Court,  the  above-named accused with treachery and abuse of superior strength the victim being [a] minor and of tender age and unarmed, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with the use of a bolo, assault, attack and hack CARLFRED A. CUEVAS,^[5] a 6 year old, inflicting upon the said victim the following mortal wounds x x x which caused the instantaneous death of the victim.

Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659.^[6]

Criminal Case No. 14903

That on November  20, 1999, at about 5:30 in the afternoon at Sitio Dumanon, Barangay Nasig-id, Zamboanguita,  Negros Oriental, Philippines, and  within  the  jurisdiction   of  this  Honorable   Court,  the  above-named accused with treachery  and abuse of superior  strength  the victim being [a] minor  and  of  tender   age  and  unarmed,   did  then  and  there   willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with the use of a bolo, assault, attack and hack CHRESELA A. CUEVAS,^[7]   a 2 year old, inflicting  upon the said victim the following  mortal wounds  x x x [w]hich caused  the instantaneous  death of the victim.

Contrary  to Article 248 of the Revised  Penal Code as amended  by RA 7659.^[8]

Criminal Case No. 14617

That on or about November 20, 1999, at about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon at Sitio Dumanon, Barangay Nasig-id, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental,  Philippines,  and within the jurisdiction  of this  Honorable  Court, the  above-named   accused,  with  intent  to  kill,  with  treachery,  abuse  of superior  strength  and  disregard  of  the respect  due  the  offended  party  on account of her sex, the victim being a woman, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously  attack, assault and hack three (3) times Carmen Cuevas  with the use of a bolo the accused  was then armed  and provided, thereby inflicting upon the victim the following injuries x x x which injuries could have caused the death of the victim, thus performing all the acts of execution   which   could   have   produced   the   crime   of   Murder,   as   a consequence, but neve1iheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent  of  the  will  of  the  accused,  that  is,  by  the  timely  medical assistance given to said victim that prevented her death.

Contrary  to Article  248  of the  Revised  Penal  Code  in relation  to Articles 6 and 250 of the said (sic) code.^[9]

When arraigned, accused-appellant  pleaded not guilty to the charges. Upon  termination  of pre-trial,  trial  ensued  where  the  prosecution  and the defense presented their respective versions of the facts.


The  prosecution  presented  the  following  as  its witnesses:  (1) Felix Montiil (Montiil), the victims' neighbor; (2) Carmen Cuevas (Carmen); and, (3) Dr. Clemente  Hipe IV (Dr. Hipe).    Montiil testified  that he overheard one of the child victims, Delfred, saying he hit accused-appellant's dog with a slingshot.   At that exact moment, accused-appellant was passing by, and in a fit of rage, he told Delfred, "tirador ka  rang  bataa ka nga akong iro dako man ug samad sa kilid.  Buk-on nya   nako na   imong ulo bataa ka. Bisan musugilon ka sa   imong  ginikanan iapil nako ug buak ang ulo. "^[10] The RTC translated this to mean:

Slingshot you juvenile child, my dog has  a big wound on its side, it even went home to my house.  I might break  your head you juvenile child. Even if you will tell your parents I will also break their heads.^[11]

Upon hearing this, Delfred rushed home. Moments later, his mother, Carmen, came looking for accused-appellant to confront him on what he told her son.  However, accused-appellant emerged and hacked Carmen twice on the  head  and  once  on  the  back,  causing  the  latter  to  fall  to the  ground. Accused-appellant  then made his way to Carmen's house, giving Carmen the opportunity to seek Montiil's help.^[12]

In  her  testimony,  Carmen  recounted  how  she  heard  her  children, Alfred  and Chrocila,  calling  out to her  after she fell to the ground.    She yelled for them to run to their house, but accused-appellant  followed them.^[13] Carmen  claimed  she  witnessed  how  accused-appellant  hacked Alfred  and Chrocila  to  death.^[14]     As  for  Delfred,  she  maintained  that  her son  almost escaped, but accused-appellant  caught up with him and hacked him on the head twice. ^[15]

Finally, Dr. Hipe, the physician who medically examined Carmen, testified that the injuries she suffered were fatal, and should have resulted in her death, but which nevertheless did not produce it by reason of a cause independent of the will of the accused: the timely medical attention provided to Carmen.^[16]

Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied having hacked to death Carmen's three (3) minor  children.    He  narrated  that  while  plowing  his  neighbor's  field,  he heard children crying from a distance, but the sound died down.  Accused appellant continued with his errands and chanced upon Carmen, then armed with  wooden  club  with  clothes  drenched  in  blood.    When  asked  what happened, Carmen angrily retorted she would break his head if he continued asking her questions.  Carmen then attacked and hit him.  When the attack continued, accused-appellant  swung his bolo, accidentally hitting Carmen on the head.  He was surprised for being considered the suspect in the killing of Carmen's three children.^[17]

Ruling of the  RTC
After trial, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of three (3) counts of murder and one (1) count of frustrated murder.  The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE,   all  the  foregoing  considered,  judgment  is  hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 14617, the court finds accused Cresenciano Enojo  @ "Olpok"  GUILTY beyond  reasonable doubt of the crime  of Frustrated Murder under Article 248 as amended by R.A. 7659 of the  Revised  Penal  Code in  relation to Article  6 and  50 also of the  Revised  Penal  Code  and hereby sentence[s] him to suffer 13 years of cadena temporal with the accessories of the law as well as sentence[s]  him to pay temperate  damages in the amount of Php25,000.00    in   lieu   of   actual   damages considering  that some pecuniary loss was suffered but its amount cannot be proven with certainty during trial.

2. Considering that deceased minor victims Delfred Cuevas, Calfred (actually Alfred) Cuevas and Chrosela (actually Chrocila) Cuevas in  Criminal  Case  Nos.  14900,  14902,  14903,  were  children  of tender   years,   and   since   killing   a  child   is  characterized   by treachery  even if the manner of the assault is not shown because of the weakness of the victim due to her tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused, the court finds accused Cresenciano   Enojo  GUILTY  beyond   reasonable doubt  for three  (3) counts  of the crime  of Murder under Article  248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7559 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.

The penalty of Death should have been imposed to the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 14900, 14902 & 14903, however, with the enactment of R.A. No.  9346  on June 24, 2006, this court has to reduce  the penalty  of death to reclusion perpetua each in all said cases.  This, notwithsating (sic), accused  should  not  be eligible  for  parole  under Act No.  4103,  otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

Finally, [the] accused is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the aforesaid three (3) children the amounts ofPhp50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00  as moral damages, Php30,000.00  as exemplary  damages and Php25,000.00   as  temperate   damages   for  each  child-victim,   plus  legal interest  on  all damages  awarded  at the  rate  of  6%  from  the  date  of  the finality of this decision.

SO ORDERED.^[18]   (Citations omitted)

The trial court found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to sustain accused-appellant's conviction of the crimes charged.  After affording itself the opportunity to observe the witnesses'  demeanor  on the stand, the RTC found  no reason  to doubt  their credibility.   Moreover,  accused-appellant's claim of self-defense  failed to persuade since his version of what transpired was uncorroborated by any other witness and no medical certificate was presented to prove the alleged injuries sustained. ^[19]     The RTC, however, was convinced  that  Carmen  only saw  the  killing  of  her  son  Delfred,  and  not Alfred and Chrocila.   Nevertheless,  the RTC found sufficient circumstantial evidence pointing at the conclusion that accused-appellant  killed the two (2) other children as well.^[20]

In convicting accused-appellant of the children's  murder, the RTC appreciated the circumstance of treachery considering the age of the victims. As for Carmen's  wounding, the trial court found abuse of superior strength and treachery to be present.^[21]

Ruling of the CA
In its Decision  dated 19 December  2017, the CA affirmed accused appellant's conviction and disposed of his appeal in this manner:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the 16 November 2015 Joint Decision  rendered by the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch  31,  Dumaguete  City  convicting  accused-appellant   Cresenciano Enojo, a.k.a. "Olpok" of Murder in Criminal Case Nos. 14900, 14902, and 14903   and   of   Frustrated   Murder   in   Criminal   Case   No. 14617   is AFFIRMED, with the following MODIFICATIONS:

For the killing of the minors Delfred A. Cuevas, Alfred A. Cuevas and  Chrocila  A.  Cuevas,  accused-appellant   is  sentenced  to  suffer  the penalty of reclusion perpetua, together with all its accessory penalties, for EACH COUNT of Murder.  Appellant is ordered to pay the following amounts, as his civil liability: Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages. Accused-appellant  is likewise ordered to pay the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as temperate damages.

For his conviction for Frustrated Murder, appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of 8 years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum of the indeterminate  penalty, to (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, the  medium  period  of  reclusion temporal,  as  maximum.  Appellant  is likewise ordered to the following[:] to pay the amounts of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages.

An  interest  at the  rate  of  six  percent  (6%)  per  annum  shall  be imposed  on  all  damages  awarded  from  the  date  of  the  finality  of  this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.^[22]

The CA did not find merit in accused-appellant's claim that fatal inconsistencies plague the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.  If at all, the  appellate  court  found  these  inconsistencies  to  be  trivial  and inconsequential.   The CA also agreed with the trial court's  appreciation of the  circumstance  of  treachery  in qualifying  the  killing  of the children  to murder, and abuse of superior strength and treachery in the wounding of Carmen.    The  appellate  court,  nevertheless,  ruled  that  abuse  of  superior strength was already absorbed by treachery.^[23] Finally, the award of damages was modified to conform with recent jurisprudence.^[24]     Hence, this appeal.

Issues
In his appellant's  brief, accused-appellant insists that abuse of superior strength and treachery were not present to qualify the crime against Carmen to frustrated murder.  Also, the inconsistencies in Carmen's and Montiil's recollection  of the events surrounding  the children's  attack  cast doubts on their credibility and on their identification of the accused-appellant as the assailant.

Ruling of the Court
The appeal is without merit.

At the onset, We affirm accused-appellant's conviction for the murder of  Delfred,  Alfred,  and  Chrocila.     Accused-appellant's  defense,  which centers  on  his  challenge  to  the  credibility  of  the  prosecution  witnesses, cannot   be   sustained   considering   that   the   RTC's   assessment   of  these witnesses were affirmed by the CA.  As such, these findings are now given great respect and conclusiveness.  It is settled that trial courts are in the best position to decide issues of credibility of witnesses, having themselves heard and   seen   the   witnesses   and   observed   firsthand   their   demeanor   and deportment  and  the  manner  of  testifying  under  exacting  examination,^[25] making  their  assessment   of  a  witness's   credibility   far  superior  to  that of appellate tribunals.

The CA and RTC were also correct in appreciating the qualifying circumstance   of   treachery.   "The   killing   of   a   child   is   characterized by treachery even   if  the   manner   of  the   assault   is  not   shown   in  the Information,  as the weakness  of the victim due to his tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused.^[26]     Hence, the mere allegation of the victim's minority is sufficient to qualify the crime to murder.

Treachery was not  present    when
accused-appellant attacked  Carmen

It is well to point out that the Information  for the crime of frustrated murder committed against Carmen is insufficient for failure to allege factual averments constituting treachery.^[27]    We take this as an opportunity to remind our   public   prosecutors   that   general   allegations   of   the   existence   of aggravating  or qualifying circumstances  in the Information  are not enough. Factual averments constituting not only the offense charged, but also the circumstances that may increase the accused's  liability, must be made in the Information  in order  to ensure  that the accused  is fully  afforded  his right to  be  apprised  of  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  accusation  against  him.^[28] Failing  in  this  regard  would  prevent  the  Court  from  appreciating   the circumstances insufficiently alleged.

Even  assuming   the  sufficiency   of  the  Information   for  frustrated murder, We remain unconvinced that accused-appellant  employed treachery when he attacked Carmen. "Treachery is present when the attack was carried out in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, the purpose of which is to deny the victim of any opportunity to defend himself or herself.  To sustain a finding of treachery, it must be shown that the offender must have planned the  mode  of  attack  to  ensure  its  execution  without  exposing  himself  to any danger which may come from the victim's act of retaliation or self defense.^[29]

Here, Carmen was aware of accused-appellant's hostile intentions.  In fact, upon learning about accused-appellant's threat, she sought to confront him.  While accused-appellant's attack on Carmen was described as sudden, there is no treachery when the suddenness was not preconceived and deliberately adopted, but is just triggered by a sudden infuriation on the part of the accused  as a result of a provocative  act of the victim, or when the killing is done at the spur of the moment.^[30]

Accused-appellant ™s abuse   of   his
strength over Carmen qualifies his
crime to frustrated murder

We rule that abuse of superior strength is present and could be appreciated  as  a  qualifying  circumstance  against  accused-appellant, considering   that   it   is   no   longer   absorbed   by   the   now   nonexistent circumstance  of treachery.   In several  cases, We consistently  held that an attack  made  by  a  man  with  a  deadly  weapon  upon  an  unarmed  and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself.^[31]   The pieces of evidence show that at the time of her attack, Carmen was unarmed and without any means to fend off accused-appellant's attacks with his bolo.

In this regard, the CA still correctly adjudged accused-appellant's criminal liability for the commission of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder.  Resultantly, We find proper the imposition of penalty and award of damages by the CA.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated 19 December 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02161 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Leonen, J., (Chairperson), Gesmundo,* Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, ** and Zalameda, JJ., concur.

---

*On leave.

** Designated as Additional Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 2728.

^[1] Rollo, pp. 24-26.

^[2] Id. at 4-23;  penned  by Associate  Justice Geraldine  C. Fiel-Macaraig,  with   Associate  Justices  Pamela  Ann Abella Maxino and Louis P. Acosta, concurring.

^[3] CA rollo, pp. 43-96; penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Mercedita U. Sarsaba.

^[4] Rollo,  pp. 6-7.

^[5] See Records, p. 361; the RTC indicated that the name of the child should be "Alfred."

^[6] Rollo, pp. 7-8.

^[7] See Records, p. 361; the RTC indicated that the name of the child should be "Chrocila."

^[8] Rollo, pp. 8-9.

^[9] Id  at 9-10.

^[10] Id. at 11.

^[11]   Records, p. 322

^[12]   Rollo, p. 11.

^[13] Id.

^[14] Records, p. 317.

^[15] Id.

^[16] Id. at 13, TSN dated 30 January 2014.

^[17] Id. at 14.

^[18] Records, pp. 363-364.

^[19]    ld. at 358-359.

^[20]   Id. at 361-363.

^[21] Id. at 364.

^[22] Rollo, pp. 22-23.

^[23] Id. at 18-19.

^[24] Id. at 21-22.

^[25]   Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 166441, 08 October 2014, 737 SCRA 567, 580.

^[26] People v. Pantoja, G.R. No. 223114,29 November 2017, 847 SCRA 300, 318.

^[27] See People v. Dasmari as, G.R. No. 203986, 04 October 2017, 842 SCRA 39.

^[28] See People v. Petalino,  G.R. No. 213222,  24 September  2018; People  v. Detector, G.R. No. 200026, 04 October 2017, 841 SCRA 647; People v. Mercado. G.R. No. 218702, 17 October 2018.

^[29] People v.  Reyes, G.R. No. 227013, 17 June 2019.

^[30] People v. Ca averas,-G.R.  No. 193839, 27 November 2013, 711 SCRA 1, 12.

^[31] People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 215320,28 February 2018, 856 SCRA 610,623.