THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EFREN GARUFIL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Regional
Trial Court of
Zamboanga City
which convicted Efren A. Garufil
for the crimes of murder and frustrated murder even as it acquitted his
co-accused Diosdado S. Tek
and Nestor R. Sitol of the same charges.

The informations against the three
accused persons alleged that the crimes were committed as follows:

“That on or about midnight of October 2, 1983, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused armed with a kitchen knife, conspiring
and confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting with one another, by
means of treachery and evident premeditation and with intent to kill, did then
and there wilfully, unlaw­fully and feloniously
assault, attack and stab at the person of RONILO DESANTA while the latter was
asleep, thereby inflicting mortal stab wound on the person of said Ronilo Desanta which directly
caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said victim”

“CONTRARY TO LAW.

“That on or about midnight of October 2, 1983, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused armed with a kitchen knife, conspiring
and confederating one another, by means of treachery and evident premeditation
and with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully,
unlaw­fully and feloniously assault, attack and stab at the person of ERINIO
BADIAN y ESPINOSA while the latter was asleep, therey
inflicting serious stab wound on the person of said Erinio
Badian y Espinosa which ordinarily would cause his
death thus performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the
Crime of Murder as a consequence,
but nevetheless, did 
not produce it by reason of some cause or causes independent of the will
of the above-named accused, that is, by the timely and proper medical attention
rendered to the said Erinio Badia
y Espinosa which prevented his death, to the damage and prejudice of said
offended party.”

“CONTRARY TO
LAW.”

(Original Records, pp. 195-196).

The dispositive
portion of the questioned decision reads as follows:

“There being no proof beyond reasonable doubt established by
the prosecution’s evidence to prove the culpability and responsibility of the
accused DIOSDADO TEK Y SAO and NESTOR SITOL Y ROBIN, this Court hereby ACQUITS
and EXONERATES both of them from the charges in both Criminal Case No.
1878(6835) for Murder and Criminal Case No. 1888(6835) for Frustrated Murder,
and orders their immediate release from custody unless they are being detained
for some other causes aside from these two (2) cases.” (Rollo, p. 15)

The incidents of the trial and the facts relied upon by the trial
court to support its judgment are summarized in the decision as follows:

“Upon arraignment, all the three above-named
accused pleaded Not Guilty to the charges in both the afore-quoted Informations. 
Thereafter, trial in both cases commenced jointly, considering that it
involved only one incident and that common witnesses were to be presented in
both cases.  In the course of the joint
trial, the prosecution presented four (4) witnesses and marked as exhibits five
(5) pieces of real and documentary evidence, with sub-markings.  The defense on the other hand presented five
(5) witnesses, to include the three (3) accused themselves, but did not offer
any real or documentary evidence.

“The prosecution’s version of the facts of both cases was
disclosed through the testimony of the lone eyewitness and who is at the same
time the surviving victim in Criminal Case No. 1888(6835) for Frustrated
Murder, Erinio Badian y Espinosa.

“According to this witness he is a laborer in the ‘bularan‘ (fish drying) business of Morito
Espinosa, at Tugbungan, Zamboanga
City, having been employed thereat since September 5, 1983, and that Ronilo Desanta, the
deceased-victim in Criminal Case No. 1878 (6827) for Murder was also a laborer
in the same establishment, but who was employed ahead of him.  Just like him, and Desanta,
the accused Efren Garufil, Diosdado Tek and Nestor Sitol were also laborers in Morito
Espinosa’s bularan, although the accused Diosdado Tek and Nestor Sitol worked ahead of him in such establishment, while the
accused Efren Garufil
started working thereat in a later date than him.

“At about 2:00 o’clock
midnight, both Erinio
Badian and Ronilo Desanta were lying at the back portion which is behind the drivers seat of a jeep belonging to their employer Morito Espinosa, which jeep was parked in front of the
bodega also owned by Morito Espinosa and that there
was a lighted flourescent light just obliquely above
the parked jeep.  It appears that Erinio Badian was lying on the
right side of the jeep with his head towards the driver’s seat while Ronilo Desanta was lying on the
side opposite him in the same jeep.  It
was while both Badian and Desanta
were in such positions, that according to Badian, he
felt something warm on his stomach, so he held his stomach and discovered that
there was blood on his stomach.  This
discovery of blood made Badian stand up and at this
point he saw the accused Efren Garufil
jumped from the jeep, still holding a knife which appeared white on both sides,
(Exh. “B”), and he also saw the accused Diosdado Tek and Nestor Sitol running towards the fence.  Then Ronilo Desanta shouted for help as he wanted to be brought to the hospital and Badian wanted to help but was too weak to do so.  So Badian went back
to the place he sat before, at the same time pressing the wound on his stomach
to stop the flow of blood.  Later, Morito Espinosa, their employer came and brought Badian and Desanta to the
hospital, and it was while Badian was still in the
hospital that he learned of Desanta’s death.

“The prosecution also presented Dr. Rodolfo Valmoria, the Chief Medical Officer of the Philip­pine
Constabulary Crime Laboratory of Region IX, at R.T.
Lim Boulevard, Zamboanga City.  He testified that upon the letter request (Exh. “C”) of Police Investigator Patrolman Tuble, he conducted a post-mortem Examination of the cavader of Ronilo Desanta at the Villa Funeral Homes, at about 9:00 o’clock
in the morning of October 3, 1983.  Upon
examination of the cadaver of Desanta, he discovered
two stab wounds, for which he prepared a sketch of a human body to show the
positions of these stab wounds (Exhs. “D”, “D-1” and “D-2”.  The first injury he found on the cadaver of Desanta was a stab wound on the upper chest or left infraclavicular region and this wound penetrated the lung,
while the second stab wound was found on the right upper front chest or right clavicular region. 
Both wounds according to Dr. Valmoria was caused by a sharp bladed instrument for which Exhibit
“B”, the knife could qualify as such. 
He also declared that he prepared a Medico-Legal Necropsy Report (Exhs. “E”, “E-1”, to
“E-6”) showing the results and findings of his post-mortem
examination of the cadaver of Desanta, including the
cause of death which is “Cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and
hemorrhage secondary to stabbed wounds chest.” Dr. Valmoria further said that he prepared and issued a death
certificate of Ronilo Desanta,
marked as Exhibits “A”, “A-1”, “A-2” and
“A-3″ for Criminal Case No. 1878(6827).” (Rollo,
pp. 4-5)

The accused-appellant admits having stabbed the two victims but
he claims that he acted in self-defense. 
The facts from the viewpoint of the appellant are given as follows:

“Efren Garufil
testified that he is from Jimalalud, Negros Oriental.  In
August of 1983 he came to Zamboanga
City and first worked with a
certain Tasio Arroyo at Tugbungan,
Zamboanga City
but after working for only twenty-five days thereat, he quit and then worked at
the Bularan of Morito
Espinosa also at Tugbungan of the same City.  At Espinosa’s Bularan,
he cooks his food and sleeps inside the bodega. 
That before the incident, he went only once to the City proper by riding
in the jeep of Mr. Espinosa in order to buy a pair of pants.  For this reason, he does not know where the Zamboanga City Hall
is located, or the Police Station, fire station or even the market place. 
Continuing further his testimony, he stated that at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of October 2, 1983, he took his supper
in the bodega together with his fellow workers, in the persons of Diosdado Tek and Nestor Sitol.  After supper,
both Diosdado Tek and
Nestor Sitol washed up and went to their sleeping
quarters in the bodega while he stayed, because he was making wooden boxes
which were to be used the following day to pack the dried fish and he had to
work late because he was working on a “pakiao”
(piece of work) basis.  At about 10:00 o’clock that same evening, he heard a
voice calling for him and he recognized the voice of Ronilo
Desanta who is a co-worker at Espinosa’s Bularan and the one in charge of the bodega.  Upon hearing Desanta’s
voice, he stopped working and laid down the hammer and the box he was holding
and went out of the bodega where he saw Desanta and Badian who were both about 6 meters to the door of the
bodega.  Upon approaching Desanta, he was immediately collared by Desanta
and then boxed.  Likewise Badian was holding a piece of wood 2 inches by 2 inches in
size and about a meter long, hit him with said piece of wood.  He then asked his two tormentors why they
were mauling him when he had no fault, to which the two answered in this way,
‘now, you cannot do anything.  You just
challenge us.’ He retorted that he will not challenge them as they are not enemies, beside he had no fault to them.  Despite of this, he was still being held by
the two until he reached the interior of the bodega where he shouted at his
employer twice for help as he was being mauled, but no help came as his
employer was fast asleep.  Neither did Diosdado Tek or Nestor Sitol helped him.  When no one came to help him, he continued to
move backward until he was pushed against a drum with the deceased victim Desanta holding his hair and continued to hit him with fist
blows.  As he tried to push the two back­wards,
his hand dropped and was able to take hold of something which he came to know
later as a knife.  So, he stabbed Desanta first but only once because he was the one holding
him by the hair.  After being hit, Desanta went out of the bodega while Badian
continued to hit him with fist blows, so he also thrust the knife at him.  Then he went to the sleeping quarters of Diosdado Tek and Nestor Sitol and woke them up and requested them to accompany him
to the Police Station to surrender as he killed a person.  At first Tek and Sitol refused but upon his insistence for the reason that
he does not know where the police station is located, they finally agreed.  He then brought his bag and his clothes
because he knew he will be imprisoned and that he cannot anymore work at
Espinosa’s Bularan. 
Therafter they left the place and followed the
road.  As they were on their way, they
flagged down a jeep and discovered that it ws the
jeep of their employer Espinosa who was then with P.C. soldier by the name of
Ramon Bautista who arrested the three of them and thereafter brought them to
the ACTS Center or check-point of Tugbungan.  Thereat, the ACTS members at the check-point
hit them with the butts of their rifles. 
Later, Ramon Bautista and some members of the ACTS brought the three of
them to the Police Station where a policeman upon learning that he (Garufil) killed a person, hit him on his back with a
chain.  His statement was then taken down
by a policeman without the assistance of counsel.  After he signed his written statement, all of
them were brought to the City Jail.  (TSN pp. 1 to 11, July 11, 1985).” (Appellant’s
brief, pp. 6-8. Rollo, p. 44).

The appellant has only one assignment of error, namely –

I

“THAT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT
GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT THAT HE INFLICTED THE
WOUNDS SUFFERED BY RONILO DESANTA AND ERINIO BADIAN IN SELF-DEFENSE.” (Rollo, p. 44).

The issue before the trial court and now raised
to us is one of
credibility.  All of the arguments raised
by the appellant in two pages of his rather sketchy brief are based on his
version of the facts.  They merely
discuss the elements of self-defense.

The conclusions of the trial court, on the other hand, are based on its finding that
the prosecution witnes­ses were telling the truth and that the self-defense
theory is without basis.

When a factual issue on appeal hinges on the relative credibility
of witnesses, on who among witnesses asserting contradictory or different
versions should be believed, this Court
as a rule, will not disturb the
factual findings of the trial
court.  The trial judge is in a much
better position to ascertain who
should be believed and whose testimony should
be rejected, considering that he saw and
heard the testimony and observed the deportment and manner of testifying of the witnesses
in the course of the trial. 
It is only when the trial court overlooks or disregards matters
of substance or value, which if considered might affect the results, that we
reject its appraisal of the relative credibility of witnesses.  (People v. Marzan,
128 SCRA 203; People v. Alcid, 135 SCRA 280; People v. Pelias
Jones, 137 SCRA 166; People v. Royeras, 130 SCRA 259;
People v. Tala, 141 SCRA 240; People v. Macayan,
126 SCRA 322; People v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 74953, June
30, 1987; and People v. Silfavan, G.R. No. 71510,
June 30, 1987).  We see no reason from
the records of the case or from the arguments raised on appeal why we should
depart from the established rule.  We
affirm the judgment of conviction.

The records sustain the findings of the lower court.  The two victims were asleep when they were
treacherously stabbed.  There could have
been no unlawful aggression on their part.

We agree with the Solicitor General’s*
assessment of the evidence:

“Appellant’s claim of self-defense, however, welters in
contradictions and un­believable circumstances which expectedly, implode upon
that claim.  Appellant insists that the
two victims simultaneously attacked him and mauled him, Desanta
with repeated fist blows while holding him by the hair and Badian
with the use of a meter long
2″ x 2″ piece of wood.  Under
the claimed sufferance, appellant would have been inflicted with certain
wounds, bruises, contusions or other physical injuries.  Surprisingly, no one, not the
police officer who investigated him about five hours after the commission of
the crime, nor even his own defense witnesses, his co-accused (Sitol and Tek) who were with him
immediately after the criminal incident transpired, testified on the battered
condition, if any, of his face and/or body or that he, indeed, was mauled.  Even less, no medical report or certificate
to that effect was ever presented in evidence by appellant to shore up his
claim of such brutal mauling.

“Again it is incredible to conceive that appellant so easily
succeeded in stabbing Desanta without Badian giving him a good fight if only for survival.  The ease with which appellant dealt his fatal
stabs on the chest of Desanta and stomach of Badian can more easily be
explained by the testimony of the latter that they were sleeping when pounced
upon by appellant.

“And consonantly with the finding of the trial court, it is
hard to believe that the fist blows and those dealt by a meter long, 2″ x
2” piece of wood did not at all weaken appellant.  On the contrary he succeeded in felling his
alleged attackers and dragging them to a distance of six (6) meters.:

xxx                                                                                                    xxx                                                                                                xxx

“Likewise, appellant’s claim that he shouted twice for help
when he was being attacked at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, fails to
elicit credence because that time of the night in Tugbungan,
Zamboanga City, would be relatively silent and any
extraordinary noise such as scuffles
between persons fighting and shouts for help would easily be heard.  As per the trial court’s finding:

‘The only reasonable explanation would be that no such fight took
place between the accused Garufil on one side and the
deceased-victim Desanta and surviving victim Badian on the other.’ (page 9, id)

“Finally, the trial court correctly deduced appellant’s flight
from the place of the incident from his actuations.  Although Tugbungan,
where the criminal incident took place, is only about five (5) kilometers to Zamboanga City
where the police station is located and the same could be negotiated in two (2)
hours by hiking, appellant and his co-accused did not reach the police station at the expected time.  Instead, they were arrested, and only by
accident, in another neighboring barangay, when they
flagged down a jeep which coincidentally had on board the
P.C. soldier sent to arrest them. 
Appellant and his co-accused were arrested in a place which was nearer
their point of departure than that of intended destinaion.  Moreover, when appellant was arrested, he was
bringing along all his packed belongings, evincing a flight from the scene of
the crime than a
surrender to the authorities.” (Plaintiff-Appellee’s
brief, pp. 9 -13).

The trial court noted that there were two pieces of evidence which
tended to support the conspiracy theory implicating
the two co-accused.  One was their presence at the scene with
appellant Garufil when the victims were stabbed. 
Another is their having left the crime scene together and their being also together in the attempt to flee.  However, there was no positive evidence of conspiracy because the victims were
asleep when stabbed.  We agree with the trial court that
“though there is a
semblance of proof to establish that a cons­piracy existed, yet such proof as existing in these cases do (sic) not meet the required quantum
of evidence.” (Rollo, p. 14).  At the same time, the presence of the three accused at the scene of the
crime negates the allegation of
the appellant that he acted in self-defense when, in his retreat, his back was supposedly against a drum and he could no longer
withdraw.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

* The Solicitor General was
assisted by Asst. Solicitor General Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and Solicitor Aurora Cortes­-Jorge.