This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision1 [Per Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria and concurred in by Justices Salome A. Montoya and Roberto A. Barrios of the Eleventh Division of the Court of Appeals.] of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Aparri, Cagayan, of petitioner Eligio Madrid2 [Also referred to as Eulogio, Melecio or Melencio Madrid in the records.] and his co-accused Arsenio Sunido of the crime of homicide, for the killing on May 21, 1992 of Angel Sunido in Buguey, Cagayan.

The information against them charged ¾

When arraigned on October 6, 1992, petitioner and Arsenio Sunido pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged,3 [Records, p. 87.] whereupon trial ensued. The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely: Remedios Sunido, wife of the victim; Merdelyn Sunido, the victim’s daughter; and Dr. Teddy Unida, medico-legal examiner.

Remedios Sunido adopted as her testimony on direct examination, the affidavit executed by her at the Buguey Police Station on June 1, 1992. In said affidavit, she narrated that Arsenio and Angel Sunido were brothers who, previous to May 21, 1992, had a quarrel over a fighting cock which Arsenio claimed was his. At around 12 noon of May 21, 1992, Angel Sunido and Jerry Escobar had drinks in the former’s house. Under the influence of alcohol, Angel provoked a fight with Arsenio. As a result, as Angel was walking back to his house after taking Escobar home, he was stopped by Arsenio and two companions, one of whom was petitioner. Arsenio’s companions held Angel by the arms as Arsenio stabbed him several times on different parts of the body. Arsenio and his companions afterwards fled using petitioner’s tricycle.4 [Exh. 1; Id., p. 7.]

Remedios Sunido was cross-examined on the basis of her affidavit. She testified that Arsenio did not pass by their house on May 21, 1992. On further questioning, however, she testified that Arsenio came to their house at around seven o’clock in the morning of that day as Angel and some friends were having drinks. It was during that visit that Angel provoked a quarrel with Arsenio concerning the fighting cock.5 [TSN, pp. 5-15, Nov. 18, 1992.] On re-direct examination, it was stipulated that the family of Angel incurred P4,000.00 as expenses for his death.6 [Id., p. 18.]

Merdelyn Sunido also executed an affidavit before the police on June 2, 1992.7 [Exh. A; Exh. 2.] She stated that her father, her uncle Arsenio, and some visitors were drinking in their house on May 21, 1992. The brothers quarrelled over a fighting cock which she claimed Arsenio took from their yard. Angel then accompanied Jerry Escobar to his home. Because of the bad blood between the brothers, on his way back from Escobar’s house, Angel was attacked by Arsenio Sunido, with the help of petitioner and an unidentified man, and stabbed Angel to death.8 [Ibid.] On the witness stand, Merdelyn testified that at around noon of May 21, 1992, her father Angel and the latter’s friends, Jerry Escobar and a certain Rudy, were in their house having drinks.9 [TSN, pp. 7-8, Nov. 19, 1992.] At 12 noon, Angel took Jerry Escobar home. Either on the way to or back from Escobar’s house, Angel was stopped by Arsenio Sunido who was with petitioner and another person. Petitioner and his companion held Angel’s hands, raising them upwards, with petitioner holding him by the right hand, while his companion held Angel by the left hand. And then, Arsenio started attacking Angel with a knife. After seriously wounding Arsenio, the three fled. Merdelyn said she witnessed the incident because she was just approximately five meters away from the place where it happened.10 [TSN, pp. 8-13, Nov. 19, 1992.]

The other witness for the prosecution was Dr. Teddy A. Unida, municipal health officer of Buguey, who conducted the autopsy on the body of Angel Sunido. His findings were embodied in a medical certificate,11 [Exh. C; Records, p. 2.] which showed the following wounds suffered by Angel Sunido:

Dr. Unida testified that based on these wounds, it could be concluded that the assailant was in front of the victim and that he used a sharp-edged instrument, like a bolo with a pointed tip, in killing the latter. It is possible that either the assailant and the victim were in a standing position facing each other or the victim was lying on the ground with his face upwards. Stab wound nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were fatal injuries causing the victim’s death in the absence of medical attendance. As to how many assailants were responsible for the wounds, he said that judging from the variance in the size and shape of the wounds, it was possible that there was more than one assailant or that more than one weapon was used. However, Dr. Unida stressed that there was no certainty as to this because the elasticity of the skin makes it difficult to conclude exactly what type of instrument was used on the basis of the length of the stab wounds alone.12 [TSN, pp. 5-19, March 23, 1993.]

On the other hand, the defense presented as witnesses Jerry Escobar,13 [Also referred to as Gerry Escobar in the records.] petitioner, Arsenio Sunido and Alipio Valdez.

Jerry Escobar was the person who, according to the wife and daughter of the victim, the latter took home after having drinks in their house. Jerry testified that he dropped by the house of Angel Sunido between six and seven o’clock in the morning of May 21, 1992, on his way to buy chicken feeds. According to Jerry, he and Angel had drinks until 12 o’clock noon with another persons whom Angel introduced as guests from the Ilocos province. At around 10 o’clock in the morning, Arsenio Sunido and petitioner arrived in Arsenio’s house in a Tamaraw vehicle. Angel’s house was located behind that of Arsenio, approximately 10 meters away. Upon seeing his brother and his companion, Angel provoked Arsenio to a fight over a fighting cock which Angel claimed belonged to him. He drew a line on the ground with his knife as he continued to provoke Arsenio. The two brothers then grappled with each other and fell to the ground. Arsenio was able to land on top of Angel and from this vantage point was able to wrest the knife with which he stabbed Angel several times. Jerry said he then ran away. Petitioner was near the Tamaraw vehicle at the time of the incident. Jerry denied Remedios Sunido’s claim that Angel accompanied him (Jerry) to his house. He said Angel was too drunk to have done so. He further belied Remedios’ claim that petitioner held Angel by the arm while Arsenio stabbed Angel. Jerry said that he was bothered in his conscience by allegations of other witnesses that Angel took him home.14 [TSN, pp. 5-13, May 4, 1993.] When cross-examined, Jerry clarified that neither Arsenio nor petitioner drank liquor with them. He only saw Arsenio and petitioner at around 10 o’clock in the morning when they went to Arsenio’s house on their way to haul palay. It was then that Angel challenged Arsenio to a fight as Angel took out his knife. Several people witnessed the fight between the two brothers, but no one intervened because of fear. Jerry further clarified that petitioner ran to the Tamaraw vehicle when the brothers started fighting. Jerry said that he did not report what he witnessed to anyone because he was not directly involved in the case. But he decided to testify and relate what he witnessed as his conscience bothered him.15 [Id., pp. 14-24.]

Petitioner testified next. He said he was a businessman with seven children, all of whom finished college. His business consisted of three rice mills, one located in Maddalero and two in Cabanbunan, Gonzaga. The manager of the Maddalero rice mill was Arsenio Sunido. On May 21, 1992, at around 10 o’clock in the morning, Arsenio informed him that they needed to buy palay, for which reason they got into his Tamaraw jeep, with Arsenio driving. They proceeded to Arsenio’s house in Maddalero. Arsenio parked the vehicle in front of his house. When Arsenio alighted from the vehicle, Angel ran towards him with a knife. When he saw this, petitioner said he ran away from the scene and toward the farm. While in hiding, he heard the brothers arguing. Petitioner denied that he held Angel’s hands as Arsenio stabbed Angel.16 [TSN, pp. 4-13, May 5, 1993.] During cross-examination, petitioner explained that he only knew Angel as the brother of Arsenio. He reiterated that he ran away because he was frightened by the sight of the knife. He never saw what happened to the brothers. Nor did he inquire about the incident. He just heard from other people what had happened since he did not return to Maddalero until a month later. 17 [Id., pp. 14-23.]

The other defense witness was Arsenio Sunido, who testified that he managed the rice mill of petitioner in Maddalero, Buguey, Cagayan. On May 21, 1992, at around 10 o’clock in the morning, he left his house to see petitioner. He noticed several persons, including Angel, drinking gin in the yard outside the latter’s house. Angel saw him and began challenging him to a fight. It appears that Arsenio had lost a fighting cock about two weeks before. He claimed that the fighting cock in Angel’s yard belonged to him. Despite provocation from his brother, Arsenio simply went about his way and left the house to fetch petitioner in Gonzaga, Cagayan where the latter was residing. Upon arriving in petitioner’s house, Arsenio informed him that they needed money to buy palay. For this reason, petitioner dispatched his Tamaraw jeepney and accompanied Arsenio to Sta. Teresita where they bought palay. They then proceeded to Arsenio’s house in Maddalero, arriving there at around 11 to 12 o’clock noon. They were met by Angel Sunido who was drunk. Armed with a knife, Angel rushed towards Arsenio with intent to kill the latter, saying "I will kill you now." When Angel was around two meters away from him, Arsenio alighted from the vehicle and charged toward Angel.

On cross-examination, Arsenio testified that he did not see petitioner anymore during the incident because the latter ran away. After alighting from the Tamaraw, Arsenio slipped and fell. A struggle ensued and Arsenio was able to wrest the knife away from Angel. Arsenio then stabbed Angel several times. When he realized what he did, Arsenio dropped the knife, wanting to embrace his dead brother for he never really intended to kill him. He immediately surrendered to Alipio Valdez, the vice mayor, who brought him to the police precinct of Buguey.18 [TSN, pp. 5-26, May 6, 1993.] On further cross-examination, Arsenio explained that the misunderstanding between him and his brother arose out of a fighting cock then in Angel’s possession. He claimed that the fighting cock, a breeder, was his but he no longer paid any attention to his brother’s claim, being aware of the latter’s temperament. However, on the date in question, Angel challenged him to a fight as he was leaving his house. When Arsenio returned to his house, together with petitioner, Angel met them and threatened to kill Arsenio as the latter was about to alight from the vehicle. With his back against the Tamaraw jeepney, Arsenio lost his balance and fell down. Angel jumped on him. After taking the knife away from his brother, Arsenio stabbed Angel. Angel ran towards a mango tree and died there. Arsenio then went to Vice Mayor Valdez’ house and told Valdez that he stabbed his brother. Upon request of Arsenio, Vice Mayor Valdez accompanied him to the police station. On re-direct examination, Arsenio reiterated that his brother was an ex-convict, having been convicted of rape with homicide. He, on the other hand, had never been charged of any crime before the present case.19 [TSN, pp. 3-20, Sept. 22, 1993.]

Alipio Valdez, vice mayor of Buguey, Cagayan, testified that Arsenio went to his house on May 21, 1992, informing him that he stabbed someone. Since Arsenio was willing to surrender himself to the proper authorities, hence, Vice Mayor Valdez accompanied him to the Buguey Police Department.20 [TSN, pp. 10-12, Sept. 21, 1993.] When cross-examined, Valdez repeated that Arsenio asked for his protection and, thus, he personally accompanied him to the police station.21 [Id., pp. 16-17.]

For purposes of rebuttal, Remedios Sunido denied Arsenio’s claim that the knife used in killing Angel belonged to the latter. She explained that it could not have been her husband’s knife because Angel did not carry a knife when he accompanied Jerry home.22 [TSN, pp. 8-11, Jan. 11, 1994.]

After trial, the lower court rendered a decision convicting Arsenio Sunido and Eligio Madrid of the crime of homicide. The dispositive portion reads:

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered a decision, dated September 17, 1997, affirming the trial court’s decision, subject to modifications, viz.:

Petitioner assigns the following issues in his petition:

As is often the case, the question here is whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt petitioner’s guilt. In general, we adhere to the principle that the assessment made by the trial judge of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.26 [People v. Barellano, G.R. No. 121204, Dec. 2, 1999.] Having heard the testimony of the witnesses and observed their demeanor on the witness stand, the judge is in a better position to determine the issue of credibility.27 [People v. Durado, G.R. No. 121669, Dec. 23, 1999.] However, where there is a showing that some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case have been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied, we will not hesitate to make our own evaluation of the evidence.28 [People v. Barellano, supra.] Such is the case here.

First. The trial court’s decision, for all its length - 23 pages - contains no analysis of the evidence of the parties nor reference to any legal basis in reaching its conclusion. It contains nothing more than a summary of the testimonies of the witnesses of both parties. The only discussion of the evidence is be found in the following paragraphs:

Their testimony convinced the Court. On the other hand, accused’s evidence bears the indicia of fabrication. Defense witnesses from their demeanor, manner of testifying and evasive answers were far from credible.

From the evidence on record, the Court believes and so hold that the prosecution has satisfactorily proved the accused [guilty] beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution’s witnesses testified in a straightforward manner.

Considering the circumstances immediately prior to the commission of the crime, and the manner the same was committed, the Court believes that the aggravating circumstances of evidence premeditation and abuse of superior strength, as well as availment of means to prevent the deceased from defending himself were sufficiently established. The severality, location and severity of the injuries inflicted as well as their nature, proved that there were more than one assailants. Murder should have been the proper offense charged. However, we can only convict the accused for homicide.29 [Records, p. 245; RTC Decision, p. 23.]

The decision does not indicate what the trial court found in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to consider the same "straightforward" when, as will presently be shown, they are in fact contradictory and confused. Nor does the decision contain any justification for the appreciation of aggravating circumstances against the accused, much less some basis for finding conspiracy among them.

In view of the weight given to its assessment of a witness’ credibility on appeal, the trial court should exert effort to ensure that its decisions present a comprehensive analysis or account of the factual and legal findings which would substantially address the issues raised by the parties.

Art. VIII, §14 of the Constitution provides:

In the same vein, Rule 120, §2 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

The decision fails to comply with these constitutional and statutory requirements. As we said in our decision in People v. Bugarin:30 [339 Phil. 570, 580 (1997). See also People v. Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, Feb. 2, 2000.]

Second. The Court of Appeals sustained petitioner’s conviction on the strength of the testimonies given by Remedios and Merdelyn Sunido. No independent evidence, however, incriminating petitioner on the death of Arsenio Sunido has been presented by the prosecution. Although they claimed that petitioner held the victim’s right hand while Arsenio stabbed him, their testimony should have been given the strictest scrutiny in view of the fact that Remedios and Merdelyn Sunido are the wife and daughter, respectively, of the victim.31 [People v. Gil, 284 SCRA 563 (1998).]

In fact, Merdelyn Sunido gave contradictory accounts of how her father was stabbed by Arsenio while petitioner allegedly held the victim. These contradictions raise doubts on whether she really witnessed the incident and on the part allegedly played by petitioner. More specifically, the contradictions and inconsistencies relate to the following questions: Did Arsenio go to the victim’s house in the morning of May 21, 1992? Did the victim provoke his brother Arsenio into a quarrel? Was there or was there not a quarrel? When was the victim attacked by Arsenio and the latter’s companions, which allegedly included petitioner, while allegedly taking Jerry Escobar to his house or after he had done so and the victim was returning to his house? After the incident, what vehicle did the assailant use while fleeing, Arsenio’s Tamaraw vehicle or a tricycle?

In her affidavit before the Buguey police which formed her direct examination, Merdelyn stated:

However, Merdelyn also testified and her testimony is shot through and through with contradictions and inconsistencies, as the following portions of the transcript of stenographic notes show:

But when on cross-examination, Merdelyn testified:

On whether Arsenio went to the victim’s house in the morning of May 21, 1992 and the brothers had an altercation, Merdelyn made statements even more irreconcilable from the previous ones she made, manifesting a tendency to improvise and embellish her story when confronted with her inconsistencies. To quote:

Thus, in her affidavit dated June 2, 1992,36 [Exh. A; Exh. 2.] Merdelyn testified that her uncle, Arsenio Sunido, joined Angel Sunido, Jerry Escobar and a certain Rudy in drinking liquor at Angel’s house. But, several times during her cross-examination, Merdelyn testified that her uncle was not present during her father’s drinking session with his friends.37 [TSN, pp. 20-21, Nov. 19, 1992; TSN, p. 9, Dec. 8, 1992.] When confronted with the discrepancy in her affidavit and her testimony, Merdelyn answered that her statement in her affidavit was the truth, that her uncle was indeed in their house in the morning of May 21, 1992,38 [TSN, p. 7, Dec. 8, 1992.] only to deny later that her uncle was in their house from six o’clock to 11 o’clock in the morning.39 [Id., p. 9.] That was not the end of her answer to the question. In the next breath, Merdelyn asserted her uncle was present at the drinking session, although he stayed for a short while only at around 10:30 in the morning of that date.40 [Id., pp. 9-10.]

Merdelyn showed the same tendency to vacillate between two contradictory statements with regard to the quarrel which arose between her father and her uncle. In her affidavit, Merdelyn stated that during the drinking session, her father inquired about the rooster which Arsenio had taken, thus provoking a quarrel between the two brothers.41 [Exh. A; Exh. 2.] But when asked later whether her father and uncle had an altercation over the same subject matter, Merdelyn denied that they had. When asked again whether her father and uncle quarrelled, Merdelyn later replied that they, in fact, quarrelled for a long while.42 [TSN, pp. 8-9, Dec. 8, 1992.]

Even the vehicle allegedly used by Arsenio Sunido and petitioner in fleeing from the scene of the crime is uncertain. Merdelyn narrated in her affidavit that after the incident, petitioner took a tricycle to escape.43 [Exh. A; Exh. 2.] However, nowhere in her testimony did she mention the tricycle. Instead, she said she saw petitioner’s Tamaraw jeepney parked in front of Arsenio’s house.44 [TSN, pp. 13-14, Dec. 8, 1992.] Considering that Merdelyn testified that she was only five meters away from the place where her father was allegedly stabbed,45 [TSN, p. 13, Nov. 19, 1992.] she could not have failed to notice that petitioner alighted from a jeepney.

Even more telling is the inconsistency in Merdelyn’s testimony when Arsenio Sunido, allegedly with the assistance of petitioner and another companion, attacked Angel. In her affidavit, Merdelyn narrated that her father was attacked while returning to their house after accompanying Jerry Escobar home.46 [Exh. A; Exh. 2.] However, on the stand, Merdelyn changed her story and testified that it was on the way to Jerry Escobar’s house that her father was assaulted.47 [TSN, p. 10, Nov. 19, 1992.] Several times more after this in her testimony, Merdelyn vacillated as to the actual time her father was attacked, whether before or after Angel allegedly brought Jerry Escobar home.48 [See TSN, p. 25, Nov. 19, 1992; TSN, pp. 15-16, Dec. 8, 1992.]

Inconsistencies on negligible details do not destroy the truth of a witness’ testimony, so long as they refer only to collateral or incidental matters. But by no means can the inconsistencies and contradictions in Merdelyn’s testimony be characterized as trivial or insignificant. Her propensity to make contradictory statements reflects her own uncertainty as to the actual events leading to her father’s death. It is clear that she speaks not from memory or experience. She cannot even give a definite chronology of the events that transpired before her father was killed. We are convinced that she was simply fashioning her story and making spur-of-the-moment improvisations in an attempt to render her testimony credible. Instead of so doing, she exhibited a disposition to fabricate that makes her testimony unworthy of belief and credence.

We have held that sworn statements executed before police officers are usually incomplete and, therefore, contradictions in the sworn statement of a witness and her testimony are frequently brushed aside as inconsequential so long as they refer to minor and reconcilable matters. But this rule does not apply when the discrepancies touch on substantial matters as in the case at bar.49 [People v. Maongco, 230 SCRA 562 (1994).]

Further eroding Merdelyn’s testimony is her recital of petitioner’s participation in the killing of her father. She claimed that petitioner and another person held the victim by raising his arms, with petitioner holding the right hand while his companion held the left hand of the victim.50 [TSN, pp. 10-11, Nov. 19, 1992.] Petitioner is an old man, almost 64 years old.51 [TSN, p. 3, May 5, 1993.] It taxes one’s credulity to be told that petitioner could hold the much younger victim so that the latter could be more easily attacked by Arsenio. It is noteworthy that no attempt was even made to identify the third person who allegedly held the other arm of the victim to facilitate the attack by Arsenio. Merdelyn did not even describe his appearance. Indeed, the information52 [See Records, p. 1.] only mentions Arsenio Sunido and Eligio Madrid as having conspired to kill Angel Sunido. No mention was made of this mysterious man, even as a John Doe, leading us to think that he exists only as a figment of Merdelyn and Remedios Sunido’s imagination.

Evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a trustworthy witness but must likewise be credible in itself. While there is no hard and fast rule to determine the truthfulness of one’s testimony, that which conforms, however, to the quotidian knowledge, observation and experience of man is often deemed to be reliable.53 [People v. Niño, 290 SCRA 155 (1998).]

Nor can the testimony of Remedios Sunido be given credence any more than Merdelyn’s testimony can be believed. In lieu of direct examination in court, the prosecution presented the affidavit which Remedios executed before the police on June 1, 1992.54 [Exh. 1.] In said affidavit, Remedios stated:

When further questioned during her re-direct examination, Remedios Sunido related:

As can be seen, Remedios Sunido’s testimony, like that of her daughter Merdelyn, is replete with inconsistencies and contradictions that render its veracity doubtful. Her answers oftentimes are not responsive to the questions propounded to her. She even committed a mistake as to the date when the provocation was made by her husband, stating a date which is a day after he died.

Moreover, in her affidavit, she stated that petitioner took a tricycle in escaping after the incident. But, as stated earlier, it has already been proven that petitioner used a Tamaraw jeepney for transportation. Considering that Remedios testified that she was only seven to 10 meters away from the place where her husband was attacked, she could not have failed to notice what type of vehicle petitioner was using if she actually witnessed the event. Remedios’ dubious narrative of her husband’s killing fails to convince us. The tenor of her testimony suggests that it is based not on what she remembers but more on what she imagines to have occurred at the time her husband was killed. In People v. Lucero, we held that the unnatural and contradictory testimony of a witness, coupled with substantial discrepancies between his testimony and his sworn statement, makes him unreliable as a witness. 58 [People v. Lucero, Jr. 197 SCRA 717 (1991).]

Likewise, the considerable length of time which lapsed before Merdelyn and Remedios Sunido made their statements before the police puts into question the claim that they actually witnessed the killing of Angel Sunido. It is true that delay in reporting a crime, if adequately explained, is not sufficient to cast doubt on the truthfulness of a witness’ testimony as, for instance, the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case.59 [People v. Paraiso, G.R. No. 127840, Nov. 29, 1999.]

But the eyewitnesses involved in this case are the wife and daughter of the victim. One would naturally expect that they would not be anxious to help the police arrest the person or persons responsible for the killing of their loved one. Instead of doing so, however, Remedios and Merdelyn Sunido only made their statements to the police on June 1, 199260 [Exh. 1.] and June 2, 1992,61 [Exh. A.] respectively, more than one week after the incident they allegedly witnessed. This fact is made even more strange by the statements of Remedios and Merdelyn Sunido that not long after the incident, Barangay Councilman Amor de los Santos arrived followed by members of the Buguey Police.62 [Exh. 1; Exh. A.] In a similar case where a daughter delayed in reporting to the proper authorities who was responsible for her father’s death, the Court held:

The testimonies of Merdelyn and Remedios Sunido do not prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner participated in the killing of Angel Sunido. We cannot accept such testimonies as establishing the guilt of petitioner. As we said in People v. Comesario:64 [306 SCRA 400, 405 (1999).]

Indeed, Arsenio Sunido admitted that he was solely responsible for the death of his brother Angel Sunido. Thus, he testified:

Arsenio Sunido’s testimony is credible. There was animosity between him and the deceased concerning the loss of a fighting cock. The deceased provoked him and he reacted by stabbing the victim. The quarrel was thus between brothers. There is nothing in the record to suggest that petitioner had any part in that quarrel. He was Arsenio’s employer. He had no reason to feel aggrieved by the loss of the fighting cock. And if, as the prosecution tried to prove, Arsenio had merely been provoked by the deceased who was then drunk, how could Arsenio and petitioner have conspired to commit the crime? The fact is that petitioner and Arsenio happened to drop by Angel’s house because they were buying palay to mill. Petitioner was the owner of three rice mills, and Arsenio was the manager of one of the rice mills. Whatever business ties existed between Arsenio and petitioner have no bearing on the fight between the brothers Angel and Arsenio. Not having participated in any manner in the fight between the brothers, petitioner cannot be held responsible for Angel’s death.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of homicide.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), and Buena, JJ., concur.

Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., on leave.