This is an appeal from the decision1 [Per Judge Cipriano B. Alvizo, Jr.] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Butuan City, finding accused-appellant guilty of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim P10,000.00 as compensatory damages and P50,000.00 as indemnity.

The information against accused-appellant alleged:

Five witnesses were presented for the prosecution: the spouses Segundino and Millianita Senados, the parents of the victim, PO3 Bernabe Pedregosa, Paquito Garcia, and Sgt. Romeo Minerva.

Segundino and Millianita Senados testified that on March 20, 1989, at around 9:30 in the evening, they were in their house in Lingayao, Las Nieves, Agusan del Norte, with their eight children. They were on the second story of their house, lying on the floor about to sleep. The second floor was lit by a 10-watt fluorescent bulb. There were no partitions nor beds. Suddenly, they heard a gunshot which struck the light source, throwing the entire room in darkness. After about five minutes, four bursts of gunfire directed at their house followed. These were made at short intervals, each burst lasting for about five minutes. Segundino told his wife and children to lie on their stomachs. Millianita said that while the firing continued, she called on the assailants to stop. When she touched one of her children, she felt blood on one of them. She also felt blood on her right foot.

When the firing finally stopped, Segundino and Millianita went towards one side of their house and peeped through a hole on the wall. They saw accused-appellant armed with an M16 Armalite rifle looking at their house. The couple said that they saw the face of accused-appellant clearly and recognized him because there was light from a 50-watt incandescent bulb on the ground floor of their house. After about two minutes, accused-appellant left.

When Segundino checked on the members of his family, he found his wife and his child Junior Senados injured, while another child, Jerry Senados, was dead. With the help of Nestor Patombon and other neighbors, Segundino was able to take his wife Millianita and child Junior to the hospital. Patombon was the detachment commander of the Civilian Home Defense Force Unit (CHDFU) and a member of the 23rd Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army.

On March 27, 1989, seven days after the incident, Segundino went to the police station and executed an affidavit identifying accused-appellant as the assailant. He said that earlier, on March 23, 1989, he had gone to the police station to give to the chief of police a statement, although this was not reduced into writing. Segundino and Millianita said they wanted to give information to the police and no one else, and did not think of telling Patombon anything about what they knew. Moreover, Segundino said, he was more concerned about the safety of his family. On the other hand, Millianita said that she did not then point to accused-appellant as the assailant for fear that he might flee before the police could make an arrest.2 [TSN, pp. 3-15, Nov. 20, 1991; TSN, pp. 2-23, Jan. 30, 1992; TSN, pp. 3-14, Sept. 22, 1992; TSN, pp. 2-10, Nov. 5, 1992.]

Sgt. Romeo Minerva and PO3 Bernabe Pedregosa, station commander and member, respectively, of the Las Nieves police station, testified that, on March 24, 1989, at around 3:00 in the afternoon, they went to the town proper of Lingayao to investigate the strafing incident in the evening of March 20, 1989.

Sgt. Romeo Minerva testified that, based on information furnished by Segundino Senados the day before, he and Pedregosa looked for accused-appellant on March 24, 1989. They found accused-appellant in front of the house of Patombon and questioned him about the incident on March 20, 1989. Sgt. Minerva said that accused-appellant refused to talk in a public place but said he was willing to do so in his house. Accordingly, they proceeded to accused-appellant's house, about 50 meters away, where the latter allegedly confessed to the crime and said that he did it because of a land conflict with the Senados family.3 [TSN, pp. 2-4, June 22, 1992.]

PO3 Pedregosa, on the other hand, testified that he went with Sgt. Minerva to Lingayao in response to a report made by the barangay captain of Lingayao that a strafing incident took place days earlier. He said he did not know who the suspect was, but when he and Sgt. Minerva passed by the house of Patombon and asked the people around about accused-appellant,4 [TSN, p. 4, April 30, 1992.] the latter approached them and then and there confessed that he was the one who strafed the house of the Senadoses.5 [TSN, pp. 3-5, April 30, 1992.]

Both witnesses said they left accused-appellant and did not arrest him because they did not have any warrant for his arrest.

Paquito Garcia, a resident of Lingayao, testified that, on the night of March 20, 1989, he was in the house of a certain Esther Precioso in Barangay Lingayao when he heard gunshots. While he was walking home, he met one Cipriana Osinaga who asked him where the sound of gunshots came from. He answered that it seemed to have come from the direction of the Agusan River. While passing by the house of Francisco Olor, the latter also asked him where the gunshots came from, to which Garcia gave the same answer. About two minutes later, Garcia said he saw accused-appellant under the house of Francisco Olor. Accused-appellant was holding an M16 Armalite rifle. The house of Francisco Olor had a high flooring with no walls under it. Garcia said accused-appellant appeared agitated. When asked where the gunshots could have come from, accused-appellant answered that they might have come from the direction of the Agusan River. Garcia quoted accused-appellant as saying that he was on alert because he was marked for liquidation by the NPA. Garcia further testified that he had seen accused-appellant on previous occasions carrying an armalite rifle although he could not say the exact occasions.6 [TSN, pp. 3-10, June 4, 1992.]

The defense presented two witnesses: Nestor Patombon and accused-appellant Luisito Paglinawan.

Nestor Patombon was the detachment commander of the CHDFU in Las Nieves and a member of the 23rd Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army. He testified that on March 20, 1989, at around 9:00 in the evening, while he was watching television in his house, he heard gunshots which lasted for about five to seven minutes. When he went out of his house to investigate, he saw five members of his unit, including accused-appellant. After a while, one of the Senados children arrived asking for help because their house had been fired upon. Patombon said he and his men then proceeded to the house of the Senadoses about 300 to 400 meters away. Upon arrival there, he asked Segundino Senados if he had seen the person who had shot at their house, but Segundino did not know because it was dark. Patombon said he went inside the house and saw Jerry Senados dead and Millianita Senados wounded. He and his men then took the injured to the hospital. Patombon testified that the Senadoses never pointed to accused-appellant as the culprit.7 [TSN, pp. 4-11, April 30, 1993.]

Accused-appellant Luisito Paglinawan, on the other hand, testified that he was a member of the CHDFU in Lingayao, under Sgt. Nestor Patombon. In the evening of March 20, 1989, at around 9:30 p.m., he was sleeping in his house when he was awakened by the sound of gunfire. So, bringing with him his carbine, he went to the CHDF detachment half a kilometer away where his commander, Sgt. Nestor Patombon, and the other members of his unit were. They went to the place of the Senadoses and found Jerry Senados dead and Junior Senados and his mother Millianita Senados wounded. The injured victims were then taken to the hospital in Patombon's jeepney.

Accused-appellant confirmed that he was questioned by the two policemen for five minutes on March 24, 1989, but he denied he ever admitted that he committed the crime. He also denied being involved in any land conflict with the Senados family.

Several days after this incident, but before he was charged in court, accused-appellant went to Siquijor. After six months, he returned to Lingayao and it was then that he was arrested.

The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of murder qualified by treachery. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:

Accused-appellant assigns the following errors as having been allegedly committed by the trial court:

First. Accused-appellant points out that the Senados spouses did not immediately point to him as the culprit but only did so seven days after the incident. He argues that this fact is fatal to the case of the prosecution, because it casts doubt on his identification as the assailant.

The contention is without merit.

It is settled that the delay of a witness in revealing the identity of the perpetrator of a felony does not affect his credibility if such delay is adequately explained.8 [See People v. Flores, 217 SCRA 613, 621 (1993).] In the case at bar, Segundino Senados had good reason for not telling Patombon that he had seen accused-appellant holding an M16 Armalite shortly after the strafing of their house.

Accused-appellant was a member of the CHDFU under Sgt. Patombon. Considering this circumstance, the Senados spouses, in their desire to save their family, could have decided to keep mum about what they know until such time that they saw the police. The immediate concern of Segundino and Millianita Senados after the strafing of their house was their safety and that of their children. One child had already died, and it was understandable that they were concerned that no further lives would be lost. At the same time, they needed the help of Sgt. Patombon, because he had a vehicle which they could use to transport the injured to the hospital. So, they had of necessity to ask him for help. There is thus nothing strange in their decision not to tell him the identity of the suspect.

Segundino testified thus:9 [TSN, pp. 15-22, Jan. 30, 1992 (emphasis added).]

In the same manner, Millianita Senados testified:10 [TSN, pp. 9-15, Nov. 5, 1992 (emphasis added).]

Thus, the Senados spouses were justified in not pointing accused-appellant to Patombon. Moreover, there was no considerable delay in reporting the incident to the police. Segundino went to Sgt. Minerva three days after the incident to identify accused-appellant as the suspect. This was confirmed by Sgt. Minerva himself and that was the reason they looked for accused-appellant on March 24, 1989. The police officers acted on the lead furnished by Segundino. Accused-appellant himself admits that the two policemen questioned him on that day.

Second. Accused-appellant points to the fact that the assailant shot the 10-watt bulb on the second floor of the Senados house so that he would not be seen. If this were so, there was no reason he did not also shoot the incandescent bulb on the first floor.

There is no evidence to show that the assailant purposely shot the bulb on the second story of the house as to prevent his recognition. For aught that we know, the bulb was hit because the house was strafed. The purpose of the culprit was to kill the occupants of the house. It was only incidentally that the bulb also got hit.

Indeed, accused-appellant was positively identified as the culprit by the Senados spouses. The trial court correctly relied on the testimony of the Senados spouses that they saw accused-appellant in the premises of their house at the night of the incident. As the trial court said:

It is established that conclusions and findings of fact of the trial court, as well as the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are binding on us except when there are facts and circumstances of weight and influence overlooked by the lower court which could alter the result.11 [People v. Ganan, Jr., 265 SCRA 260, 279 (1996).] This case does not fall under the exception.

Moreover, there was motive for accused-appellant to commit the crime. As Millianita Senados testified:

Third. Accused-appellant went to Siquijor and did not return to Barangay Lingayao until six months later and it was only then that he was finally arrested. It is now claimed that he went to Siquijor to claim his father's share in the land of his grandparents. This explanation is unsubstantiated. Moreover, his claim is doubtful because the fact is that his father was still alive.

The inescapable conclusion is that he fled to Siquijor after he was questioned by the police. Hence, the rule that the flight of an accused is evidence of his guilt fully applies.12 [People v. Gomez, 251 SCRA 455, 471 (1995).]

Fourth. The claim of the defense that members of the New People's Army (NPA) could have committed the crime lacks basis. The supposed "notice" from the NPA, written on a brown cardboard which was found in the premises of the Senados house claiming responsibility for what happened and warning the Senadoses to leave the place, cannot prevail over the positive identification of accused-appellant.

On the other hand, we think the trial court correctly rejected the admissibility of the alleged confession of accused-appellant to Sgt. Minerva and PO3 Pedregosa. This extrajudicial confession was taken without observing the proper procedure under Art. III, § 12(1) of the Constitution. It is, therefore, inadmissible.

Fifth. The trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery and rejected the allegation of evident premeditation. For as held:

Finally, it is noteworthy that the information filed in this case is only for the murder of Jerry Senados, the seven-year old child of Segundino and Millianita Senados. Though the prosecution established in the testimony of its witnesses that Millianita Senados and Junior Senados were injured, the court cannot hold accused-appellant liable for said injuries since he was not properly charged therefor. The Constitution is clear that an accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.14 [CONST., Art. III, §14.] Hence, a person cannot be convicted of a crime for which he has not been charged, otherwise, he would be denied the due process of law.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Butuan City, is AFFIRMED.