Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
TUESDAY
JUDGE DELA ROSA
Sections 26-42; 47-51 Rule 130
1. People vs. Badilla 48 Phil 718
2. People vs. Antonio L-25845 ( August 25, 1970)
3. People vs. Siscar GR No. 55649 ( December 3, 1985)
4. People vs. Pascua GR No. 130963 ( November 27, 2001)
Sections 10-18, Rule 132
1. People vs. Dela Cruz, GR No. 135022 ( July 11, 2002)
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-25845. August 25, 1970.]
DECISION
CONCEPCION, J.:
Appellant Bruno Antonio maintains that, when the members of his group
decided to rest under the shade of a tree, in the barrio of Baloy, about two
kilometers from the place where Semana had been, in effect, wrested from
Angellanos custody, they noticed that Semana was dead already; that,
thereupon Bruno and his companions took their lunch; that thereafter, they
brought the body of Semana to the aforementioned junction, for the
purpose of going to Cuyapo, 14 to 16 kilometers away; that, upon reaching
the junction, Bruno Antonio and Cornelio Sumangil boarded a jeep and
proceeded to Cuyapo in order to report to the authorities and find a truck
that could pick up the body of Semana; that about two hours later, Bruno
and Sumangil came back, together with some policemen and Dr. Alberto,
who performed the autopsy; and that Semana must have died merely of
shock in consequence of the loss of blood due to the injuries he had when
they forcibly took him at the place above referred to.
Upon the other hand, Alfonso Dasalla would have the Court believe that he
was in his house, in the barrio of Baloy, up to about 3:00 oclock p.m. of
December 5, 1962, when Sumangil allegedly went to his (Alfonso Dasallas)
place and asked him to help carry the body of Semana: that, accordingly,
he joined, in Baloy, the group headed by Bruno Antonio, and assisted its
members in bringing said body to the aforementioned junction; and that he
had no participation whatsoever in the infliction of Semanas injuries or in
his death.
The lower court, presided over by Honorable Judge Placido Ramos,
accepted, however, the version of the prosecution, as well as gave no
credence to the evidence for the defense, and, accordingly, rendered
judgment, not only convicting and sentencing appellants herein, as pointed
out at the beginning of this decision, but, likewise, directing the Provincial
Fiscal of Nueva Ecija to conduct an investigation of the participation of
Alberto Agpalo, Tomas de la Cruz. Cornelio Sumangil, Marcos Anselmo and
Pedro Dasalla, and to file the corresponding information against them, for
the death of Benjamin Semana, should the evidence so warrant.
The first question raised by appellants herein refers to the admissibility in
evidence of the statement made by Semana to Eugenio Angellano
concerning the circumstances under which the former had been injured.
Appellants maintain that the trial court has erred in considering said
statement as a dying declaration, for, upon being asked how he felt,
Semana answered that he would not die if treated, and was then still
"strong," according to some witness. Said answer of Semana indicated,
however, an awareness of the danger of death on his part, should he not
be seasonably given the necessary medical treatment. Moreover, the
records show that he was so weak that several people had to help him, in
order that he could ride the sledge that brought him to Baloy. Again,
testifying for the defense Cornelio Sumangil explained that Semana was
strong, because he was "still breathing" and could answer some questions,
apart from asking for, and drinking, some water. Neither singly nor
collectively do these circumstances show that Semana was "strong" at the
time. Said factors may indicate that he was then neither dead nor
unconscious. Upon the other hand, Brunos failure to ask Semana about
the cause of his injuries suggests that the former did not feel he (Semana)
was strong enough to undergo an interrogation. Indeed, Bruno stated that
Semanas injuries were "serious." In fact, he had been bleeding profusely,
from at least midnight of December 4, or for over 8 hours. One can
imagine, therefore, the considerable amount of blood lost and the
weakness resulting therefrom. This explains, also, why Semana was unable
to take the food given to him and had been groaning perhaps in a state
of coma, coupled by stertorous breathing, which may have been mistaken
for groans since the group of appellant Bruno Antonio had taken him.
The fact that he expired one hour later strongly indicates the seriousness
of his condition when Angellano took his statement.
The defense cites the testimony of Dr. Alberto to the effect that none of the
wounds of Semana was fatal. No matter how true this may have been
when the injuries were inflicted, it is not necessarily so over 8 hours later.
during his interrogation by Angellano. In fact, Dr. Alberto qualified his
aforementioned testimony of adding that said injuries could cause bleeding
and produce a shock. Hence, the circumstances pointed out by the defense
do not sufficiently show that the lower court had no reasonable ground to
conclude that Semanas statement was made under the belief that he was
in imminent danger of death in consequence of said injuries as he died
soon thereafter-unless the same were treated soon enough.
In any event, that statement was made in the course of the unfortunate
odyssey of Semana that started on December 4, 1962 at about 7: 00 p.m.,
and ended with his death on December 5, around noon time. The aforesaid
statement formed part, therefore, of the res gestae and is competent
evidence in this case. 1
The next and most important question for determination is the sufficiency
of the proof of appellants guilt. In this connection, the following
circumstances deserve special attention:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. The witnesses for the prosecution testified that, in answer to questions
propounded by Eugenio Angellano, Semana said that he had recognized
only two of his assailants, namely, appellants Bruno Antonio and Ponyong
or Alfonso Dasalla; and that, when Brunos party showed up soon
thereafter, Semana asked Angellano not to deliver him to them, because
they might kill him. These facts were established by the testimony of
Ignacio Antonio and Simplicio Tolentino, who were corroborated
substantially by Eugenio Angellano, although the latter affirmed that
Semana had merely named Bruno and Ponyong the nickname of Alfonso
Dasalla without mentioning their respective surnames. Such affirmation
was, however contradicted by Angellanos statement, Exhibit "C"
subscribed and sworn to by him, on December 7, 1962. or two (2) days
after the occurrence, before the Justice of the Peace of Guimba, Nueva
Ecija in which he said that Semana had named, among his aggressors,
appellants herein, not only with their respective surnames, but, also,
adding that Bruno Antonio is the barrio captain of Baloy, and that Ponyong
Dasalla, likewise, hails from the same barrio.
The defense would have Us believe that, upon reaching the place where
Semana was found by Angellano, Bruno Antonio inquired from the latter
whether or not he had investigated Semana, and that Angellano answered
in the affirmative and allegedly revealed that Semana had not recognized
any of his assailants. Suffice it to say that his Honor, the trial Judge, found
the testimony thereon of the witnesses for the defense unworthy of
credence, and that the records before Us do not justify our disturbing such
finding.
2. It is not disputed that Angellano was unwilling to yield the person of
Semana to Bruno Antonio, who insisted on being entitled to take Semana,
alleging that he was in a territory subject to his (Brunos) jurisdiction as
Barrio Captain of Baloy. Said reluctance of Angellano and this insistence of
Bruno are, to be sure, quite significant. Indeed, Bruno had announced his
intention to take Semana to a hospital in Cuyapo, and both Bruno and
Angellano must have known that the most urgent matter at the moment
was to provide medical treatment for Semana. Moreover, in order to bring
Semana to the clinic in Talugtog, as Angellano wanted to, he and his men
would have had to carry him afoot 5 or 6 kilometers away, using therefor a
footpath, since there was no road to Talugtog from the place where
Semana had been found by Angellano. One would, therefore, expect him to
welcome the opportunity to avoid the trouble and the responsibility that
went with it. Angellanos willingness to take said trouble and to assume
this responsibility bear out his testimony, and that of Ignacio Antonio and
Simplicio Tolentino, to the effect that Semana had previously mentioned
Bruno Antonio as one of his assailants and had pleaded to Angellano not to
let Bruno Antonio and his men take him (Semana), because they may kill
him.
This version of the witnesses for the prosecution is further borne out by
Brunos attitude on that occasion. As a private citizen, and in the official
capacity in which he claimed to act, Bruno had no reason either to be
angry at Angellano for trying to take Semana to the health clinic in
Talugtog or to engage in an altercation with Angellano and forcibly take
possession of the person of Semana. He was, according to the very
evidence for the defense, 1-1/2 to 2 kilometers or one-hour walk from
Baloy. In other words, the place was not part of Baloy or within Brunos
jurisdiction. Appellants own witness, Cornelio Sumangil, confirmed
Angellanos assertion to the effect that said place is within the barrio of
Tibag, which is part of the municipality of Talugtog. Why, then, was Bruno
so anxious to take Semana, to the point of asserting falsely that he (Bruno)
had jurisdiction over the place where Semana was? And why was Bruno
Antonio so eager to undertake the inconvenient and difficult task of
carrying Semana along a footpath from said place to Baloy, about 2
kilometers or one hour walk away, thence to the junction, requiring
another one-hour walk, and thereafter to Cuyapo, 14 to 16 kilometers
away? Considering that Talugtog was less than half that distance from the
scene, of the occurrence; and that having reminded Angellano of the
responsibility that he would bear should Semana remain and die in his
(Angellanos) custody he (Bruno) assumed that responsibility, in taking
Semana with him, why was the former so keen about having the latter
under his custody, as to resort not only to threats, but, also, to force, in
order to attain his purpose? In short, Brunos aforementioned behavior
dovetails with the theory of the prosecution and reveals the artificiality of
the theory of the defense.
3. It appears from the testimony of Ignacio Antonio that, when Bruno
forcibly took Semana, he had the following injuries: two wounds at the left
rear portion of the neck, two at the left front portion of the neck, and one
on the upper left portion of the buttocks. Simplicio Tolentino testified that
Semana had a wound about one (1) centimeter below the left ear, another
on the left side of the neck, near the left jaw, two wounds at the lower left
portion of the neck, and still another on the upper part of the left thigh. Dr.
Alberto, however, found in the body of Semana an additional wound,
namely, an irregular circular wound, about 1 inch in diameter, on the left
fronto-parietal region, exposing the skull, probably caused with a semibladed instrument. Evidently Semana sustained this injury after he had
been forcibly taken by Bruno and when the former was under the latters
control. Considering that it was midway between the forehead and the
temple, and, hence, more visible than the injuries in the neck, said
witnesses for the prosecution could not have failed to notice said frontoparietal wound, were the theory of the defense true.
4. We have not overlooked that Semana had, according to Angellano, a
wound on the left portion of the head two inches above the left ear. This
witness had, however, turned hostile to the prosecution, thereby
compelling the latter to produce his aforementioned affidavit, Exhibit "C,"
and make him admit that he had informed the Provincial Fiscal that he
(Angellano) had transferred his residence from the barrio of Tibag to the
town of Talugtog, "because I was afraid of the threats of (to) my life," were
he to give evidence for the prosecution; and that many people including
Ignacio (Antonio) and Simplicio (Tolentino) had informed him about said
threats. It is, likewise, interesting to note that said reference to the alleged
wound above the left ear was made, on cross examination by counsel for
the defense, upon the latters request that the injuries of Semana be
described, a request made without anything to suggest its relevance to the
questions preceding the same. In other words, the surrounding
circumstances suggest that the one making the request knew beforehand
what Angellano would do or say in connection therewith. At any rate,
Semana did not have the injury described by Angellano, two inches above
the ear. This goes to show that he never saw either such injury or the one
found by Dr. Alberto at the fronto-parietal region; that Semana had neither,
when Angellano conferred with him; and ,that, having heard later about
said additional injury found by Dr. Alberto in the body of the deceased,
Angellano merely imagined the one the first he described on the
witness stand, apparently to help the defense. Indeed, in the affidavit
(Exhibit "C") made before the justice of the peace of Guimba on December
7, 1962, he claimed to have seen no such injury.
In an evident effort to offset the implications of the foregoing
circumstances, appellants intimated that there had been, between
So modified, with respect to the civil liability of Bruno Antonio, and the
absolution of Alfonso Dasalla, as well as the dismissal of the case against
him, the decision appealed from is, accordingly, affirmed in all respects,
with one half of the costs de oficio. It is so ordered.
and seated on a chair with its back toward the door of the kitchen
where the defendants Segundo Badilla, Restituto Tupas, Agaton DyCayco, Catalino Gonzalez alias Mack Gonzalez, Julian
Domingo alias Julian Bongol and Quirino Araez had previously
placed themselves obeying the instruction and orders of the
defendant Epifanio Tupas given under the circumstances
aforementioned for the purpose of successfully killing said justice
of the peace Pedro Ferrer, and taking advantage of the fact that
the latter was unaware of the treacherous plot against him and had
no means of defense, the aforementioned Segundo Badilla,
Restituto Tupas, Agaton Dy-Cayco, Catalino Gonzalez alias Mack
Gonzalez, Julian Domingo alias Julian Bongol and Quirino Araez and
one Jovito Carmales, previously provided with daggers and canes
and other deadly weapons and cooperating with one another did
wilfully, unlawfully and criminally through craft, premeditation and
treachery and with abuse of superior strength and taking the law in
their own hands assault beat and attack said justice of the peace
Pedro Ferrer, inflicting the following bruises and injuries to wit: (1)
One penetrating wound, mortal by necessity, in the epigastric
region of the abdomen, 14 inches wide and 4 1/2 inches deep; (2)
one contusion on the back of the left hands; (3) one contusion on
the sides of both knees; (4) one contusion in the right iliac region;
and (5) several contusions on the superior and inferior parts of
both knees; as a result of which he died a few minutes later.
Contrary to article 403 of the Penal Code with the concurrence of
the sixth, eight, ninth, twelfth, fourteenth, fifteenth and twentieth
circumstances of article 10 of the same Code.
To this information the defendants pleaded not guilty but upon trial, the
court below found them guilty as charges and sentenced each of them to
suffer the penalty of cadena perpetua and to jointly and severally
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000 with their
proportional shares of the costs. From this sentence all of the defendants
appealed.
It appears from the evidence that at the time the crime was committed
there were two secret societies or associations in the municipality of Sagay
of which one was called Kusug Sang Imol and the other Mainawaon; that
bitter feeling existed between the two associations which sometimes
resulted in personal violence; that the deceased was a "protector" of the
Mainawaon and was accused of favoritism by Kusug Sang Imol of which
society all of the defendants were members; that late in the afternoon of
March 7, 1924, while on his way to the house of one Bernabe Nunez to
and overpowered and held him while Badilla, with the aid of the flashlight,
lifted up the undershirt of the deceased and stabbed him with the dagger
in the abdomen near the navel; that after having done so, Segundo Badilla
handed Leocadia the knife Exhibit G, and told her to cry out; that Leocadia
did so, whereupon the defendants made their escape, some of them
passing through the main door of the house and the others through the
kitchen; that after having left that house of Leocadia Desamparado the
defendants again went to the house of Epifanio Tupas to give him an
account of the result of their expedition and, upon arriving there, Segundo
Badilla said to Epifanio Tupas: "I doubt that he will survive."
It appears from the testimony of the other witnesses that after the
deceased was wounded he was with some difficulty able to walk to his own
house near by, where he expired in about six minutes after his arrival.
Leocadia Desamparado was also presented as a witness against the
accused, but, to the apparent surprise of the prosecuting attorney,
retracted her confession and testified that while she was sleeping in her
house on the evening in question she was awakened by the deceased who
attempted to force her to have intercourse with him and that in the
ensuing struggle, she remembered that she had a knife Exhibit G in her
bed and that seizing the knife she stabbed the deceased.
Though the testimony of Carmales seems straightforward and convincing
and remained unshaken by a very lengthy and ably conducted crossexamination, we are mindful of the fact that it is the testimony of a
coconspirator and accomplice and, as such, must be received with great
caution. As to the defendant Julian Domingo it is fully corroborated by the
latter's confession with which it is substantially in accord. In the appellant's
brief some stress is placed on the fact that Domingo began his commission
of the crime and that it was not until he had been examined at some
length that he admitted his participation therein and implicated most of his
codefendants. In our opinion, this fact, so far from weakening the
confession, rather strengthens it and tends to show that it was not
obtained by improper means; had it been the purpose of the investigating
authorities to extort a false confession from Domingo the first part of his
statement would hardly have been reported in full.
At the trial of the case the confession of Leocadia Desamparado was
admitted in evidence to contradict her testimony and the appellants assign
as error that the court below apparently took her confession and that of
Julian Domingo into consideration upon certain points affecting the whole
case. The general rule is that extrajudicial declarations of a coconspirator
made before the information of the conspiracy or after the accomplishment
judgment of the court below. It is abundantly proven that there was a very
bitter feeling on the part of the defendants against deceased and strong
motives for the commission of the crime. It is also sufficiently established
by additional evidence that several persons took part in the crime; the
widow of the deceased an apparently reliable witness, testifies that he, on
his arrival at his house after having been wounded said, "me han
traicionado" (they have betrayed me) and that he instructed her to close
the doors and windows because they were going to kill him. We have also
the testimony of the witness Teofilo Alvarado that he heard several persons
run away from Leocadia's house immediately after the wounding of the
deceased and the witness Tomas Rodriguez states that he about 9 o'clock
in the evening, saw Restituto Tupas and Agaton Dy-Cayco with two
companions in front of the house of Leocadia.
Another corroborating circumstance is that according to the testimony of
the two physicians who examined the body of the deceased the fatal
wound was inflicted by a double edged weapon such as the dagger Exhibit
O, the width of the blade of which was found to correspond to the length of
the lips of the wounds. This dagger was found hidden behind a post in the
house of Epifanio Tupas. The palma brava clubs in regard to which
Carmales testified were found in the same house hidden behind a trunk
and covered with rugs. The flashlight Exhibit L was also found in Epifanio's
house. The statement of Carmales that the deceased was sitting at the
table in Leocadia's house when attacked by the defendants is corroborated
by the facts that his cigarette holder together with ashes of cigarettes were
found on the table and that his slippers were found under the same table
together with his folded raincoat.
The theory of the defense that Ferrer was killed by Leocadia Desamparado
in defense of her honor is contradicted by the fact the he came to her
house at her invitation as testified to by Buenaventura Rodriguez. It is also
to be noted that her bed located in a portion of the house separated from
the sala by a curtain was found undisturbed and that the small knife with
which she claimed to have inflicted the wound is one edged and was found
on the floor of the sala; and that it was covered with an oily substance and
had no blood on it. This fact also corroborates the testimony of Carmales
that the knife was not used in wounding the deceased but was handed to
Leocadia by Segundo Badilla in the sala of the house. Another
circumstances which also corroborates Carmales testimony is that two
benches in the sala were overturned indicating that a struggle had taken
place in that part of the house.
It is also suggested by the defense that the crime might have been
committed by Jose Lobaton, a policeman with whom Leocadia was living
and who was the father of her two children. It appears however that
Lobaton was not in the town of Sagay on the evening in question.
Moreover, he was a member of Mainawaon society and probably on
friendly terms with the deceased. If, as we think has been clearly proven,
Leocadia and the deceased were merely sitting at the table in the sala of
the house conversing with each other. Lobaton could hardly have had
sufficient motive to resort to physical violence. That fact that the deceased
on his arrival at his house after being wounded asked his wife to close the
doors and windows and send for the police because they were going to kill
him is also strong argument against this theory and so is the fact that
when the fatal wound was inflicted upon the deceased the dagger
penetrated the lower hem of his undershirt thus showing that the garment
was pulled up to his waist at that time a fact which corroborated Carmales'
testimony and could not very well have occurred if there had been only
one assailant.
The case for the defense has been very ably argued and our attention has
been called to several apparent flaws in the evidence for the prosecution
but after a painstaking examination of the voluminous record we cannot
find that the judge of the court below erred in his appreciation of the
evidence and have no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. It
may well be that Carmales in describing what occurred in the house of
Leocadia drew to some extent of his imagination in regard to details which
could hardly have been accurately observed in the darkness and
considering that he probably was anxious to exculpate himself as far as
possible, we need not necessarily believe that he was the last of the
conspirators to enter the room in which the crime was committed; but one
cannot read the transcript of his testimony without becoming impressed
with his apparent sincerity and without feeling that he in the main told the
truth.
There are certain things which have not been satisfactorily explained and
in regard to which the record leaves us more or less in the dark but which
are not of decisive importance. There is for instance, no explanation of the
fact that while there was blood on the undershirt and drawers of the
deceased, there were no signs of it on the trousers alleged to have been
worn by him on the occasion in question and it is quite possible that he did
not wear them at the time the dagger wound was inflicted. There is also
room for the suspicion that he did not visit Leocadia with the purest of
motives at such a late hour and that he in view of her invitation
entertained expectations which do not appear to have been fulfilled. In
these circumstances he may have felt reluctant to inform why he did not
give her any details when she asked him how he was wounded but limited
himself to saying "me han traicionado; me han traicioando." It is, of course
also possible that he at that time was too feeble to think coherently and to
describe what had taken place.
Counsel for the defense strenuously argue that the statement of Carmales
as to the manner in which the crime was committed is so improbable as to
be unworthy of belief. We do not think so; the facts narrated are unusual
but considering the situation as a whole, the story told by the witnesses for
the prosecution is not improbable, though it may suffer from minor
inaccuracies.
It is insisted that it had been the intention to kill Ferrer, all of his assailants
would have been armed. But when it is considered that the plan evidently
was to have it appear that the killing was done by Leocadia in self defense
the reason that for arming only one of the defendants with a cutting
instrument becomes quite apparent; had more then one of them been so
armed, it would perhaps have been difficult to control them and several
wounds might have been inflicted which would have rendered Leocadia's
theory less credible. There would also, in the deep darkness have been the
danger of wounding each other, Badilla seems to have taken special care
to place the wound in a vital spot and the persons who planned the crime
undoubtedly knew that a single deep dagger wound in that spot would
mean certain death and would serve their purpose.
Counsel also scout the idea the small knife Exhibit G was handed to
Leocadia by Badilla after he had wounded the deceased with the dagger
Exhibit O but we see nothing unreasonable or improbable therein. Exhibit G
is a small knife which might be used for peeling or cutting vegetables and
which a woman would be likely to have within reach and use, whereas her
possession of a dagger such as the Exhibit O might be more difficult to
explain. Badilla could, of course, have used the small knife in stabbing the
deceased, but naturally preferred to use the large weapon as the more
effective and sure.
The various assignments of error on legal points are in our opinion of little
merit. The court below unquestionably erred in allowing the fiscal, over the
objection of the defense, to have the alleged oath of the Kusug Sang
Imol read to the witness Carmales and then to ask the witness if that was
the oath he had taken. The question was leading and should not have been
allowed but as there is other evidence as to the main features of the oath
the error is of comparatively little importance and is non-prejudicial.
Neither is the failure of the court to make specific findings of fact in regard
to the defenses of alibi reversible error. Such defenses are frequently relied
on in criminal cases but oral evidence tending to prove alibi is so easily
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Oriental
Mindoro (Criminal Case No. C-1080) convicting the appellant for murder
and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua in the absence of any
modifying circumstance, aside from P12,000.00 civil indemnity.
The necropsy report prepared by the Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Alberto
C. Montelibano, listed the cause of Moises' death as "Internal Hemorrhage
and shock due to the Gunshot Wound." It reads:
POST MORTEM FINDINGS
Wound, gunshot, thru and thru, thorax, perforating lobe of
right lung.
Wound of entrance, scapular region, right, level of the 2nd
intercostal space, 1 inch from the vertebral column. Wound
measures I inch at its longest diameter with powder burns
around.
Wound of exit, eight (8) in number. chest, right, scattered
around the 2nd and 3rd intercostal space, with seven (7) of
the wound Nos. 1 to 7 measuring about 2 inch at its
longest diameter while one of it, wound No. 8, measures
about 1/2 inch at its longest diameter.
Rolando Siscar put up the defense of alibi. According to him, on July L2
1972, at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning, he, together with his mother
Dionisia Capio and others, went to Calapan, Oriental Mindoro; that they
arrived at Calapan at about 8:00 o'clock in the morning, after which his
companions proceeded to the municipal building where they had an scheduled court hearing, while he boarded a tricycle and proceeded to
Calapan pier on his way to Batangas City; that he reached Batangas City
on the same day from where he proceeded to Taliba, San Luis, Batangas,
arriving there at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. (t.s.n., Oct. 16, 1979,
pp. 7, 9 & 5.) Appellant also stated that at about 5:00 o'clock P.M. of July
12, 1972, he received news of his uncle Moises' death; that . he went back
to Camansihan, Calapan Oriental Mindoro, arriving there on the next day,
that after the burial of his uncle, he again went to Taliba, San Luis,
Batangas to work at a sugarcane plantation, returning to Camansihan once
in a while to give money to his mother; that in one of his visits to
Camansihan, he was told by his mother that police authorities were looking
for him but he did not give himself up because "it was martial law" and he
was afraid, having been informed that he could be subjected to
punishment. During the hearing, Rolando Siscar Identified the pair of pants
in the brown paper bag as own, but claimed that he had previously lost
them. He stated that he did not know any reason why the crime was
imputed to him. (Ibid., pp. 12, 22-23, 25 Rolando's mother, and his uncle,
Doroteo, corroborated Rolando's alibi.
Albino Manalo testified that while he was tilling his land in the morning of
July 12, 1972 at Camansihan, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, he heard three
successive shots after which, looking at the direction from where the shots
came, he saw appellant Rolando Siscar running towards the road carrying a
shotgun. Thereafter, a certain Roberto Viaa came to him (Manalo) and
informed him that Moises Capio had been shot. He then went to see
Moises. Manalo further testified:
Q. And did you see Moises Capio?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Do you know the house of Moises Capio?
The shooting of Moises, the res gestae or the principal act, was a startling
occurrence. Almost immediately thereafter or before any opportunity to
contrive, Moises told his wife Mercedes and Albino Manalo that it was his
nephew, the appellant, who shot him. There was thus full compliance with
the requirements for the admission of the testimonies of Mercedes and
Manalo as evidence of res gestae. (See People vs. Alban, 1 SCRA 931;
People vs. Tiongson, 47 SCRA 279; People vs. Putian, 74 SCRA 133.)
No adverse implication can be drawn from the failure of the prosecution to
present as witness Juana Caringal, who witnessed the perpetration of the
crime. As pointed out in the People's Brief, Juana Caringal died in
November, 1972, some five months after the incident in question.
Therefore she could not have testified when the case was heard in 1978.
Appellant impugns the credibility of prosecution witnesses. He has however
failed to adduce any compelling reason why the factual findings of the trial
court should be overturned. We therefore affirm those findings in line with
the settled rule on the matter.
We have held in a long line of cases that when the issue is
one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will
generally not disturb the finding of the trial court,
considering that it is in a better position to decide the
question, having heard the witnesses themselves and
observed their deportment and manner of testifying during
the trial, unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance and value that, if considered, might effect the
result of the case. (People vs. Mercado, 97 SCRA 232.)
In assailing the credibility of the state witnesses,
appellants, unfortunately, are up against the formidable
wall protective of the validity of the findings of the trial
court. The well-established doctrine is that findings of trial
court relative to the credibility of the testimony of the
witnesses, as well as of the witnesses themselves, are
entitled to high respect, and, therefore, generally sustained
by the appellate court. The only exception arises when it
could be shown that the trial judge has overlooked or
misinterpreted any fact or circumstance of weight and
value as to impeach his findings or call for a different
finding. No such showing has been made by appellants, as
demonstrated convincingly by the Solicitor General who
refuted appellant's arguments intended to show the
incredibility, for being allegedly contradictory and
Alibi is the weakest defense that an accused can avail of, and cannot
prosper, even where proof thereof is corroborated by defense witnesses,
when the Identity of the defendant as the person who committed the crime
is fully established by clear, explicit and positive testimony (People vs.
Yutila, 102 SCRA 264.)
The trial court did not err in taking flight as evidence of guilt. At the latest,
Siscar learned that the police was looking for him one week after Moises'
burial. According to Dionisia Capio, she went to Batangas to inform his son
that "he was wanted" (t.s.n., July 16, 1979, p. 41; Records p. 166). While it
may be true that since then, appellant used to go back once in a while to
Camansihan, Calapan to bring money to his mother, the fact is that, for
over five years, he never gave himself up to the police until he was
apprehended on January 19, 1978. Appellant's explanation that he did not
surrender because it was martial law and he was afraid of punishment, did
not justify his flight from justice. As stated in the People's brief, appellant
could have surrendered through intermediaries if he was really innocent.
That he did not, indicates consciousness of guilt. (People vs. Vengco, 127
SCRA 242, 248; People vs. Millape, 134 SCRA 555; People vs. Hecto, 135
SCRA 113.)
Appellant assails the admission of some documentary evidence presented
by the prosecution in the absence of a statement of the purpose for which
they were offered. The defect was, however, subsequently corrected when
the trial curt allowed the prosecution to state the purpose of the offer of
evidence. At any rate, the defense was not prejudiced thereby. For even in
the absence of documentary evidence, there would be enough evidentiary
support to sustain appellant's conviction.
Notwithstanding that appellant has been proven beyond doubt to be the
killer of Moises, his conviction for murder cannot be affirmed. The
information against him alleged treachery and evident premeditation; but
there has been failure of proof in this regard. Nowhere in the records is
there evidence of treachery or evident premeditation. Hence, appellant can
only be convicted for homicide. (People vs. Ramolete, 56 SCRA 66; People
vs. Putian, 74 SCRA 133.)
Accordingly, the appealed decision is modified and the appellant Rolando
Siscar y Capio is convicted of homicide. He is sentence to an indeterminate
penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to
fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as
maximum. The civil indemnity due the heirs of the victim is increased to
P30,000.00, Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
PASCUA, JR. PEDRO & JOHN DOES, accused.
MARIANO
Upon entering the house, Sanita was surprised to see three other
armed men pointing their guns at her two children. One of them, whose
face was covered with a bonnet, spoke and Sanita was startled when she
heard the voice because it sounded familiar. For a moment, Sanita
surreptitiously stared at the man with the bonnet and she became
apprehensive when she recognized him to be herein accused-appellant
because of the eyes, eyelids, nose, mouth, and beard which were not
covered. She knows accused-appellant well because they have been
neighbors ever since he was a child. Sanita also knows accused-appellant
as the person who threw a hand grenade at Ernesto during a barangay
meeting. However, she pretended not to recognize accused-appellant.
The man who approached Sanita in the yard told her that they want to
get the .38 caliber gun of Ernesto. When she told him that she did not
know anything about it, herein accused-appellant got angry, insisted that
Ernesto had a gun and forced her to bring it out. At this point, two of the
Quiming children, Aileen and Elizabeth, arrived from the prayer meeting.
The two were almost near the fence of the house when they heard
somebody whistle from behind. When they looked back, a man poked a
gun at them and ordered them to go inside the house and keep quiet.
Aileen recognized accused-appellant though he was wearing a bonnet
since his face was not totally covered. She has known accused-appellant
from childhood and the latters house is only 300 meters away from them.
Not long after, her brother Jonathan followed and was likewise forced into
the house by one of the armed men.
Knowing that her husband Ernesto would not be far behind, Sanita
stood up and peeped through the jalousy of the window. They were still
being heavily guarded by the four men inside the house. It was then that
she saw Ernesto walking towards the house, around ten meters away from
where she was standing. A man coming from the waiting shed located
along the road going to their house followed Ernesto and suddenly shot
him on the right arm. Ernesto fell to the ground facing downward. Upon
seeing this, accused-appellant and his three companions immediately ran
outside. One of them shot Ernesto a second time. Accused-appellant fired
the third shot that hit Ernesto on the head. Ernestos shoulder shook and
then his body turned limp. Sanita was so stunned that she kept jumping
helplessly. The five malefactors hurriedly ran away. Thereafter, Sanita and
her children rushed to Ernesto but he was no longer moving. They brought
him to the Quirino Provincial Hospital where he was declared dead on
arrival.
A few hours after the incident, several barangay officials and
members of the PNP went to the house of Sanita to investigate. When
asked if she knew the identity of the assailants, she said nobody had
killed my husband except the one who threw a hand grenade at my
husband. It was on November 26, 1992 that she gave her sworn
statement[3] to the police and disclosed the name and identity of accusedappellant as one of the assailants. According to Sanita, she was afraid that
accused-appellant might escape and hide if she immediately revealed his
Q:
Is it not a fact that aside from gun powder nitrate, there are other
particles which also gave (sic) positive nitrates like for instance
fertilizers?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: or matches?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: and also cigarettes?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Is there a different characteristic on blue reaction coming from
fertilizers and gun powders?
A: Yes, sir. A nitrate/gun powder nitrate produced blue reaction with
dot with tail; while in the other source like fertilizers, matches and
cigarettes, it only reacts blue reaction but without dots or tail.
Q: Did you indicate the appearance of blue reaction with tails in your
findings?
A: No, sir.
In an attempt to discredit the accuracy of the paraffin test conducted
on him, accused-appellant testified that while waiting for his paraffin test,
he smoked a cigarette which he lighted with a match. We are not
convinced.
Accused-appellant failed to recite the complete testimony of the
forensic chemist relevant to the issue. Such selective quotation is unethical
and will not exculpate accused-appellant. We quote the relevant testimony
of the forensic chemist to avoid its distortion, viz.:
Q: How many casts were given to you for examination, Mrs. Witness?
A: Two paraffin casts, sir.
Q: This (sic) paraffin casts were given to you for laboratory
examination, is it not?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And before you proceeded to the laboratory examination, did you
conduct also a physical examination on this case?
A: No, sir.
Q: In other words, you did not try to find out the presence of gun
power nitrate through physical examination, you did not do that?
A: No, sir.
Q. Because what you resulted to was the chemical test/diphenylamine
test?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you only concluded that the casts contains (sic) gun powder
nitrate?
A: No, sir.
Q: And you concluded, madam Witness, that because of the presence
of gun powder nitrate that produces blue reaction, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, you concluded madam Witness that the casts contains (sic)
gun powder nitrate just because of the blue reaction?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Is it not a fact that aside from gun powder nitrate, there are other
particles which also gave (sic) positive nitrates like for instance
fertilizers?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: or matches?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: and also cigarettes?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, when a person who have (sic) been contacted with this (sic)
particles is examined, is it not a fact that a blue reaction will also
take place?
A: They would only give positive result for nitrate but not gun powder
nitrate, sir.
Q: But it remains, Madam Witness, that a gun powder nitrate create
blue reaction, is it not?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In the same manner like fertilizers, matches and cigarettes?
A: There is blue reaction but different characteristic, sir.
Q: Is there a different characteristic on blue reaction coming from
fertilizers and gun powders?
A: Yes, sir. A nitrate/gun powder nitrate produced blue reaction with
dot with tail; while in the other source like fertilizers, matches and
cigarettes, it only reacts blue reaction but without dots or tail.
Q:
Did you indicate the appearance of blue reaction with tails in your
findings?
A:
When Ernesto fell to the ground, accused-appellant came out of the house
where he and his companions were hiding, and shot the victim on the
head.
Considering the number of armed assailants against the lone unarmed
victim, there was also abuse of superior strength. [20] In a long line of cases,
we have held that abuse of superior strength and aid of armed men, when
present with treachery, are absorbed in the latter. [21] There being no
mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the trial court correctly imposed
the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The trial court ordered accused-appellant to indemnify the heirs of the
victim the sum of P120,000.00 as and for actual and moral damages. This
is
erroneous.
Prosecution
witness
Sanita
testified
that
she
spent P20,000.00 for the wake of her husband, but there were no receipts
presented to support the same, It is axiomatic that a party seeking the
award of actual damages must produce competent proof or the best
evidence obtainable to justify such award. [22] Since no receipts of expenses
were presented, actual damages should be disallowed. [23]
On the other hand, the heirs of the victim are entitled to receive moral
damages in the amount of P50,000.00. This award is mandatory and does
not require proof other than the death of the victim. [24] Under prevailing
jurisprudence, civil indemnity should be awarded in the amount
of P50,000.00.[25]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cabarroguis,
Quirino, Branch 32, in Criminal Case No. 993 finding accused-appellant
MARIANO PASCUA, JR. @ PEDRO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby
AFFIRMED subject to the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is hereby
ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Ernesto Quiming the amount
of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.
had difficulty in expressing herself, the trial court decided to suspend the
proceedings to give the prosecution sufficient time to confer with her. [4]
At the next hearing, the trial court allowed the prosecution to put on
the witness stand Dr. Cecilia Tuazon, Medical Officer III of the National
Center for Mental Health, Mandaluyong City. Dr. Tuazon testified that she
conducted a psychiatric examination on JONALYN on 12 July 1996. She
found that JONALYN was suffering from a moderate level of mental
retardation and that although chronologically the latter was already 20
years of age (at the time of the examination), she had the mental age of
an 8-year-old child under the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Dr.
Tuazon also found that JONALYN could have attained a higher degree of
intelligence if not for the fact that she was unschooled and no proper
motivation was employed on her, and that she had the capacity to make
her perception known to others. She, however, observed that she had to
prompt JONALYN most of the time to elicit information on the sexual
harassment incident. She then narrated that JONALYN was able to relate to
her that she (JONALYN) was approached by a tall man named Jun-Jun who
led her to a house that supposedly belonged to her cousin, and that Jun-Jun
disrobed JONALYN and raped her twice.[5]
After said testimony or on 11 March 1997, the trial court issued an
order[6] allowing leading questions to be propounded to JONALYN in
accordance with Section 10(c), Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence. [7] Thus,
JONALYN took the witness stand. She again identified her signature and
that of her aunt on herSinumpaang Salaysay. She also identified
BIENVENIDO as the person against whom she filed a complaint for
rape. She declared in open court that BIENVENIDO raped her twice inside
the house of a certain Mhel located at Barangay Gatbuca, Calumpit,
Bulacan. She stated that BIENVENIDO placed himself on top of her and
inserted his private part into her womanhood.[8]
Dr. Edgardo Gueco, Chief and Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory, Camp Olivas, Pampanga, testified that he
examined JONALYN on 8 July 1996, and the results of the examination were
indicated in his Medico-Legal Report. [9] He found that she was in a nonvirgin state physically, as her hymen bore deep fresh and healing
lacerations at 3, 8 and 11 oclock positions. He then opined that the
hymenal lacerations were sustained a week before the examination and,
therefore, compatible with the time the rapes were allegedly committed. [10]
Carmelita Borja, aunt of JONALYN, testified that on 5 July 1996, she
accompanied JONALYN to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Office in
Calumpit, Bulacan, to lodge a complaint against BIENVENIDO. With them
complaint she filed. He adds that the defect in the complaint was not
cured by his failure to interpose a motion to quash nor by the assistance
lent by JONALYNs aunt, which contravened Article 344 of the Revised Penal
Code. Consequently, BIENVENIDO asserts that the trial court had no
jurisdiction to try the case.
BIENVENIDO also stresses the incompetency of JONALYN as a trial
witness for the reason that the prosecution failed to prove her competency.
Further, JONALYN was merely asked to affirm the legal and factual
conclusions of the prosecution which evinced quite clearly the girls lack of
comprehension of the court proceedings and the nature of her oath.
Besides, her statements concerning the alleged sexual penetration were
elicited a month after her initial offer as a witness, which reinforces the
rehearsed and coached nature of her testimony.
Finally, he wonders why he was convicted in Criminal Case No. 1275M-96 but acquitted in Criminal Case No. 1274-M-96 when it was a joint trial
and the evidence was the same. He insists that he should also be
acquitted in the case at bar.
In the Appellees Brief,[18] the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
counters that the trial court had jurisdiction over the case, since the
complaint and information filed were valid. JONALYNs mental retardation
does not render her incompetent for initiating the prosecution of the crime
committed against her and for testifying in court. If minors are allowed not
only to initiate the prosecution of offenses under Article 344 of the Revised
Penal Code and Section 5, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure, but also to testify under the Rules on Evidence, JONALYN, who
had the mentality of an 8-year-old child, was competent to sign the
criminal complaint and to be a witness in court. JONALYNs competency as
a court witness was aptly proved when she was able to answer the leading
questions asked of her as allowed by Section 10(c), Rule 132 of the Rules
on Evidence. Moreover, the OSG asseverates that JONALYNs testimony on
the fact of rape is corroborated by medical and physical evidence. As to
BIENVENIDOs quandary that he should be acquitted also in this case, it is
convinced that he should have been convicted for two counts of rape, as
JONALYN
expressly
testified
that
she
was
raped
twice
by
BIENVENIDO. Finally, the OSG seeks an award of moral damages in the
amount of P50,000 for JONALYN, as well as a reduction of the award of civil
indemnity to P50,000 in conformity with current jurisprudence.
We shall discuss the issues in seriatim.
I.
We agree with the disputation of the OSG that the trial court validly
took cognizance of the complaint filed by JONALYN. The pertinent laws
existing at the time the crimes were committed were Article 344 of the
Revised Penal Code (prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 8353 [19] otherwise
known as The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which took effect on 22 October
1997[20]) and Section 5 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Article 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction,
abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. --
so upon grounds other than her minority. Where the offended party who is
a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents or guardian
may file the same. The right to file the action granted to the parents,
grandparents or guardians shall be exclusive of all other persons and shall
be exercised successively in the order herein provided, except as stated in
the immediately preceding paragraph.
A complaint of the offended party or her relatives is required in crimes
against chastity out of consideration for the offended woman and her
family, who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go
through with the scandal of a public trial. The law deems it the wiser
policy to let the aggrieved woman and her family decide whether to
expose to public view or to heated controversies in court the vices, fault,
and disgraceful acts occurring in the family.[21]
It has been held that [w]hen it is said that the requirement in Article
344 (that there shall be a complaint of the offended party or her relatives)
is jurisdictional, what is meant is that it is the complaint that starts the
prosecutory proceeding. It is not the complaint which confers jurisdiction
on the court to try the case. The courts jurisdiction is vested in it by the
Judiciary Law.[22]
The complaint in the instant case has complied with the requirement
under the Revised Penal Code and the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which
vest upon JONALYN, as the offended party, the right to institute the
criminal action. As signed by JONALYN, the complaint started the
prosecutory proceeding. The assistance of JONALYNs aunt, or even of her
mother, was a superfluity. JONALYNs signature alone suffices to validate
the complaint.
We agree with the OSG that if a minor under the Rules of Court can
file a complaint for rape independently of her parents, JONALYN, then 20
years of age who was found to have the mentality of an 8-year-old girl,
could likewise file the complaint independently of her relatives. Her
complaint can be rightfully considered filed by a minor.
The overriding intention of BIENVENIDO is to challenge the validity of
the complaint by assailing the competency of JONALYN to file the
complaint. But even he admits in his Demurrer to Evidence that the
complaint is proper and valid on its face for which reason he did not move
to quash the information. Thus, even he admits and recognizes the futility
of his argument.
II.
And the nature of your complaint was that you were abused or you
were raped by the herein accused Bienvenido de la Cruz y
Santiago, is that correct?
Yes, sir.
Court: Where?
Fiscal: Where?
Witness: On top of the wooden bed, sir.[27]
Q
And do you know in what place where you raped by the accused,
Bienvenido dela Cruz y Santiago?
Whose house?
How many times were you raped by the herein accused Bienvenido
dela Cruz y Santiago alias Jun Jun?
You said you were raped twice by the herein accused, Bienvenido
dela Cruz alias Jun-Jun on a papag inside the house of Mhel at
Barangay Gatbuca, Calumpit, Bulacan, how did Jun Jun the herein
accused rape[] you?
Court:
After you were layed [sic] on the bed what happened next?
Last time, you stated that the herein accused whom you called
Jun laid you on top of a bed and after that, he went on top of
you. My question is, when he went on top of you, what did he do
to you, if any?
A:
Pumaloob sa akin.[29]
...
Q
Twice, sir.
Now, when the accused, which you called Jun, pumaloob sa iyo,
what did you feel at that time?
Now since you said it [was] a hard object, you could now tell the
Court, what that hard object [was]?
I cannot remember.[30]
Public Prosecutor:
Q
When you said the last time around, you were asked about, what
you mean by pumaloob siya sa akin and then you said that there
was a hard object inserted and after that, the follow-up question
was asked on you, you said you cannot remember, what is that
hard object, what do you mean when you say I cannot
remember?
Atty. Pamintuan:
Leading.
Court:
But there was an answer a while ago. Witness may
answer.
Witness:
Yes, sir.
Public Pros.:
Q
And, when you say he did the same to you, he inserted his penis to
your vagina?
Yes, sir.
Public Pros.:
Court:
III.
In so few a word, complainant has made herself clear about the sexual
molestation she suffered in the hands of the accused. Plain and simple her
testimony may have been, unembellished, as it is, with details, yet, it is in
its simplicity that its credence is enhanced. Certainly, we cannot expect
complainant, in her present state of mind, to come out with a full account
of her misfortune with all its lurid details. That, to this Court, is simply
beyond the reach of her enfeebled mind. She came to talk on her sad
plight from the viewpoint of an 8-year-old child, and she must, by all
means, be understood in that light. [35]
Absent any cogent reason warranting a disturbance of the findings of
the trial court on the credibility and competency of JONALYN, this Court has
to give these findings utmost respect, if not complete affirmation. Settled
is the rule that the trial courts evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses is
accorded the highest respect, for it has an untrammeled opportunity to
observe directly the demeanor of witnesses on the stand and, thus, to
determine whether they are telling the truth.[36]
IV.
Atty. Pamintuan:
I stand correct[sic].
Witness:
Yes, sir.
Fiscal:
(to the witness)
Q
Now, this Bienvenido dela Cruz y Santiago alias Jun Jun, which was
the person whom you are filing the complaint of [sic], will you
kindly look around to this Court and tell us whether or not he is
inside.
Yes, sir.
Interpreter:
Witness pointing to a man wearing orange T-shirt and when asked
his name answered Bienvenido dela Cruz.[39]
V.
Since the information charges BIENVENIDO with simple rape only and
no other modifying circumstances has been proved, the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, which is the lesser of the penalties prescribed by
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, was
correctly imposed by the trial court.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
We rectify the error of the trial court in granting JONALYN the amount
of P60,000 as civil indemnity. In conformity with current jurisprudence, we