Facts:
On the night of April 27, 1976, in the municipality of Quirino, Isabela, Florante Agtang, along with Apolonio Villanueva and Oscar Viernes, visited ladies in Barangay Vintar. As they were returning home at 10 p.m., they were accosted by two armed individuals who frisked them for weapons, taking a “paltik” gun from Agtang. Near a cornfield, four more individuals, including Tomas Agnir, appeared, and when Villanueva escaped, shots were fired but missed him.
Agtang and Viernes were beaten, ferried across a river, and near the Magsaysay-Quirino boundary, they were ordered to undress and were tied with their clothes. Agnir, acting as a state witness, recounted that Agtang was struck with a gun butt by Domingo, then Ferrer and Reyes took turns stabbing him as Galasi watched. They left Agtang dead, warned Viernes, and forced Agnir to remain silent.
The following morning, Viernes reported the incident, leading to the discovery of Agtang’s body, brutally stabbed multiple times, the cause of death being acute hemorrhage. Based on statements from Villanueva and Viernes, charges for murder were filed against Ferrer, Reyes, Agnir, and others. Agnir’s cooperation as a state witness led to the inclusion of Ferrer and Reyes as defendants.
In the trial court, Ferrer and Reyes pleaded denial and alibi, claiming to have been elsewhere at the time of the crime. However, the state witness testimony along with corroborating evidence and a lack of credible alibi led to their conviction for murder. They received reclusion perpetua and were ordered to pay civil indemnity to Agtang’s family.
Issues:
1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting Ferrer and Reyes based on the testimony of their co-accused, Agnir.
2. Whether the inconsistencies in prosecution witness Apolonio Villanueva’s statements affect the credibility of the testimonies.
3. Whether the qualifying and aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, nocturnity, and cruelty were correctly appreciated in the judgment.
Court’s Decision:
1. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to convict based on Agnir’s testimony despite being a former co-accused, as his testimony was credible and not materially contradicted.
2. The Court held that minor inconsistencies in Apolonio Villanueva’s statements did not materially affect his credibility or the trial court’s decision, as they were mostly explainable, and his testimony was corroborative in nature.
3. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court on the appreciation of treachery but found that the trial court improperly considered nocturnity due to lack of evidence that the cover of night was deliberately sought, and denied cruelty due to lack of evidence that injuries were inflicted to extend suffering. The sentence of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court remained appropriate due to treachery qualified the killing to murder.
Doctrines:
– A state witness is one whose testimony is of absolute necessity, who has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and whose discharge promotes interests of justice.
– The presence of treachery requires proof that the victim was attacked in a sudden, unexpected manner rendering him defenseless.
– Nocturnity or cruelty as aggravating circumstances must be proven to have been utilized purposefully or committed with the intent to increase the victim’s suffering.
Class Notes:
– “State Witness” doctrine – Can discharge an accused with his consent if their testimony is necessary for prosecution (Sec. 9, Rule 119, Rules of Court).
– Treachery – Qualifying circumstance in murder if proven that the attack was so sudden, making the victim defenseless.
– Evident Premeditation requires proof of a deliberate plan to commit the crime.
– Alibi requires proof of physical impossibility to be at the crime scene.
– Nighttime (Nocturnity) and Cruelty – Must prove deliberate intent to use nighttime for concealment and inflict unnecessary pain beyond that required to consummate the crime.
Historical Background:
The context of this case acts as a telling illustration of the challenges faced by Filipino courts in ensuring justice through the testimony of state witnesses. The phenomenon of politically or personally motivated violence, particularly in rural areas, often leaves witnesses apprehensive of testifying, making the role of state witnesses crucial yet procedurally complex. The Supreme Court’s analysis illuminates the thorough process required in the Filipino judicial system to distinguish and properly appreciate conspiracy, treachery, nocturnity, and cruelty in murder cases. The case also underscores the systemic issue of delayed justice given the period between the commission of the crime and the resolution in court.
Leave a Reply