PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.PEDRO PABLO, JR., ALIAS “INGGO” OR “DOMINGO”, GERRY PABLO Y DELFIN ALIAS “GERRY”, NONATO DANAO ALIAS “PANONG PABLO” AND EDWIN T…
REYES, B., J.:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the guilt of accused Pedro Pablo, Jr., alias “Domingo or Inggo”, and accused Nonato Danao, alias “Panong Pablo”, in all the instant cases having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, they are both convicted of all the charges against them, and are hereby meted the following penalties:
1. In Criminal Case No. Q-94-53476 – the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
2. In Criminal Case No. Q-94-53477 – the penalty of ONE (1) YEAR AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS of prision correctional, as minimum, and up to SIX (6) YEARS AND TWO (2) MONTHS of prision mayor, as maximum;
3. In Criminal Case No. Q-94-53478 – the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
4. In Criminal Case No. Q-94-53479 – the penalty of reclusion perpetua
And since a person criminally liable for an offense is also civilly liable, accused Pedro Pablo, Jr. and accused Nonato Danao are hereby directed to indemnify the heirs of Domingo Loveres, Lucita Loveres and Robert Loveres in the sum of P100,000.00 for their death and to pay them P60,000.00 by way of actual damages.
Accused Gerry Pablo is hereby acquitted of all the charges against him.” (Rollo, p. 70)
On March 8, 1992, between four to five in the afternoon, prosecution witness Jocelyn Loveres Cabigon saw Pedro Pablo, Jr., Nonato Danao, Gerry Pablo, Danilo Pablo, Edwin Trabuncon, Nicolas Compra, and others having a drinking session in front of the house of accused-appellant Pedro Pablo, Jr. Around 7:45 in the evening of the same day, the said prosecution witness together with Lucita Loveres, Robert Loveres, Edgar Loveres, Alma Loveres, and Aida Gertos were taking their supper in their house located at No. 5 Tampis St., Area 9, Luzon Ave., Quezon City. At that time, Domingo Loveres was resting in one of the rooms. While eating, they heard accused-appellant Nonato Danao calling the name of Lucita Loveres. Lucita Loveres, Edgar Loveres and Jocelyn Cabigon went out of their house to know what accused-appellant Nonato Danao wanted. The latter was with Pedro Pablo, Jr., Gerry Pablo, Edwin Trabuncon , Danilo Pablo, Nicolas Compra and a certain Rencio. The three accused-appellants Nonato Danao, Gerry Pablo and Pedro Pablo, Jr. were armed with bladed weapons and a gun. Accused-appellant Nonato Danao ordered Lucita Loveres to produce the person causing them trouble, and when Lucita Loveres answered that nobody was
causing him trouble, accused-appellant Nonato Danao shot Lucita Loveres, hitting her on her neck. Edgar Loveres tried to carry her mother but he was hacked by accused-appellant Pedro Pablo, Jr. on the arm and was hit by Edwin Trabuncon with a wood. Edgar Loveres left his mother and ran inside their house using the back door. Jocelyn Loveres-Cabigon, upon seeing her brother run inside their house, pulled her mother Lucita near the window of their house and shouted for help. Aida Gertos, Robert Loveres and Domingo Loveres rushed out of their house. Upon seeing Domingo Loveres and Roberto Loveres, the three accused-appellants and their companions held the hands of Domingo and Robert Loveres and dragged them towards the house of accused-appellant Pedro Pablo, Jr. Upon seeing her father and her brother being dragged, Jocelyn Loveres-Cabigon followed them. When the group was already in front of the house of Edwin Trabuncon, the rest of the group stabbed and hacked her father Domingo and brother Robert. Jocelyn Loveres-Cabigon shouted “tama na, tama na”, but her pleas were unheeded. Jocelyn Loveres-Cabigon tried to pull her father but accused-appellant Nonato Danao poked a gun at her and told her not to touch the dead bodies of her siblings if she wished to remain alive, so Jocelyn Loveres-Cabigon retreated and went back to their house with her two arms raised (TSN, August 29, 1995, pp. 3-22).
Aida Gertos, with the help of her nephews, brought Lucita Loveres to the Philippine Heart Center but she was pronounced dead on arrival. Likewise, Domingo Loveres and Robert Loveres died because of the multiple wounds they suffered from the hands of their assailants.
Jocelyn Loveres-Cabigon, Edgar Loveres, and Aida Gertos also testified that the names of Nonato Danao, Renato Danao and Panong Pablo refer to one and the same person. As for the accused-appellant Pedro Pablo, Jr. is also known in their place as Domingo or Inggo.
The defense countered the prosecution’s statement of facts in the following wise:
According to the witnesses for the defense, on March 8, 1992 at around 7:45 in the evening, Domingo, Edgar, Robert, all surnamed Loveres together with Maximo and Edwin Trabuncon and other construction workers were having a drinking spree. As testified to by defense witness Enrique dela Villa, he heard all of a sudden Renato Danao shouting. The latter came out to the street and fired a gun, aimed supposedly at Maximo Trabuncon, but which hit Lucita Loveres because the latter blocked the shot. On the other hand, Pedro Pablo, Jr., who was then standing in front of his store, ran towards their compound. He testified that accused-appellant Nonato Danao was not the one who shot Lucita. Nonato, allegedly, is known in their place as Nonie. Nonato and Renato Danao are not one and the same person (TSN, January 25, 1999, pp. 3-27).
Meanwhile, both accused-appellants insisted that they were someplace else during the time that the crime was being committed. Accused-appellant Nonato Danao, a jeepney driver plying the route Cubao-Divisoria, testified that on March 8, 1992 as early as six in the morning, he left their place to get his passenger vehicle at San Juan. From there, he plied his usual route until nine in the evening. Thereafter, he returned the jeepney and went home. He arrived at his house at around ten in the evening, afterwhich he ate supper and slept. Accused-appellant Nonato Danao said that he only learned of the killing when he got home. According to him, he and Renato Danao are not the same person, although the latter claimed that they are relatives. He is known by the name Nonie while Renato was known as Panong. The latter lived in the house of a neighbor named Rencio (TSN, February 18, 1999, pp. 58-78). Accused-appellant Nonato Danao’s wife, Edith, corroborated her husband’s statement. According to her, at the time of the killing, her husband was not yet home. That evening, when she bought vetsin at the store, she saw the Loveres family having a drinking spree. When got back to her house, she heard that a killing happened. Frightened, she closed the window of their house. She also testified that her husband is known as “Nonie” and not “Panong” (ibid, pp. 2-32).
As for accused-appellant Pedro Pablo, Jr., he claimed that he is a driver and that on March 8, 1992, he went home early because his jeepney broke down. He rested for a while before he fetched water at the back of Maximo Trabuncon’s house. On his way, he met Maximo having a drinking spree with Edgar, Domingo, Robert, all surnamed Loveres, and some other construction workers in the yard of the Loveres family. Maximo allegedly told the accused-appellant not to pass again or else his face will be smashed. He returned home and saw Edwin Trabuncon sitting in their store. He told Edwin, “ Edwin, wala bang ibang makursunadahan ang tiyo ninyo kundi tayong magkakapitbahay”. Edwin then confronted his uncle Maximo and accused-appellant Pedro Pablo, Jr., who was twenty meters away, saw Maximo push Edwin. The latter shouted back at his uncle. Thereafter, accused-appellant Pedro Pablo, Jr. saw Panong Redford come out of his house and conversed with Rencio, Yoyong, Popong and Edwin. On the other hand, Maximo continued shouting, going in and out of their yard. This irritated Renato Danao and told Maximo to stop. Edwin tried to push Maximo towards the house and Domingo and Edgar Loveres intervened. A commotion then started and Lucita came out and told them, “Tomorrow, we will just talk about these things”. Suddenly, Maximo held Lucita’s right shoulder and rushed toward Renato. Renato then shot Maximo, but the latter used Lucita as a shield. Thus, it was Lucita who got hit by the bullet. Upon seeing Lucita fall to the ground, the Loveres rushed towards their mother. He tried to help Lucita but Maximo’s drinking buddies rushed to the scene armed with knives and bottles. Thereafter, Domingo, Edgar, Robert, Maximo and the other construction workers pursued Edwin and Renato Danao who fled towards the back of accused-appellant Pedro Pablo, Jr.’s house. Maximo and his companions were able to catch up on Edwin and Renato. A rumble then ensued. According to the accused-appellant, he went and stayed in Cainta for some time at the house of his sister-in-law. This is because he was told that Maximo intended to take revenge against the Pablo family. The accused-appellant further denied having joined the rumble. Also, he insisted that he was not “Domingo Pablo” or “Inggo” (December 28, 2998, pp. 4-61).
Consequently, the accused-appellants were charged under four separate informations, save for the accused Edwin Trabuncon who was not impleaded in Crim.Case. No. Q-94-53477. The delictual allegations respectively read as follows:
“Crim. Case No. Q-94-53476:
“Crim. Case No. Q-94-53477:
That on or about the 8th day of March, 1992, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with Danilo Pablo y Malunes, and Nicolas Compra y Fernandez, accused in Crim. Case No. 92-29833, who were previously charged with the same offense at the Regional Trial Court Branch 107, Quezon City, and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, qualified by evident premeditation with the use of superior strength commence the commission of the crime of murder directly by overt acts upon the person of EDGAR LOVERES Y GERTOS, by then and there stabbing and hacking him with bladed weapon, hitting him on the body, however, said accused did not perform all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of murder by reason of some cause or accident other than their own spontaneous desistance, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Id., p.23)
“Crim. Case No. Q-94-53478:
That on or about the 8th day of March, 1992, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with Danilo Pablo y Malunes, and Nicolas Compra y Fernandez, accused in Crim. Case No. 92-29830, pending before Regional Trial Court Branch 107, Quezon City, and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, qualified by evident premeditation with the use of superior strength and treachery, assault, attack and employ personal violence upon the person of one DOMINGO LOVERES Y GERVOSO, by then and there stabbing and hacking him with knives and boloes, hitting him on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of DOMINGO LOVERES Y GERVOSO.
CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Id., p. 25)
“Crim. Case No. Q-94-53479:
That on or about the 8th day of March, 1992, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with Danilo Pablo y Malunes, and Nicolas Compra y Fernandez and Edwin Trabuncon y Gataque, accused in Crim. Case No. 92-29832, pending before Regional Trial Court Branch 107, Quezon City, and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, qualified by evident premeditation with the use of superior strength and treachery, assault, attack and employ personal violence upon the person of one LUCITA GERTOS DE LOVERES, by then and there shooting her with a gun, hitting her on her body, thereby inflicting upon her serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of LUCITA GERTOS DE LOVERES.
CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Id., p. 27)
On May 27, 1997, the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to amend the information in Criminal Case No. Q-96-53477. Accused Edwin Trabuncon was not charged under said information, it appearing from the resolution dated June 17, 1984 that he had been previously charged with the same offense by the City Prosecutor. Hence, Edwin Trabuncon is not an appellant in this case (Records, p. 106).
During arraignment, the accused-appellants all entered negative pleas. As elsewhere stated in this decision, the trial court eventually found the accused-appellants guilty as charged. A motion was filed to have the said adverse judgment reconsidered, to no avail since the court a quo stood pat on its decision.
This case was previously elevated the case before the Supreme Court via ordinary appeal. In the light however of the High Court’s ruling in the case of People vs. Mateo (GR Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004), the present controversy was transferred the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. The accused-appellants raised the following issues in support of their prayer for acquittal:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED APPELLANTS PEDRO PABLO, JR. AND NONATO DANAO GUILTY OF MULTIPLE MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE IDENTIFICATION BY THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES WERE TAINTED WITH CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES .
II.THE TRIAL COURT ALSO ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT PEDRO PABLO, JR. AND DOMINGO PABLO IS (SIC) NOT ONE AND THE SAME PERSON.
III.THE TRIAL COURT LIKEWISE ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT NONATO DANAO AND THE PERSON WHO SHOT LUCITA LOVERES KNOWN AS BANONG PABLO AND RENATO DANAO IS (SIC) NOT ONE AND THE SAME PERSON.
IV.THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS’ DEFENSE OF DENIAL AND ALIBI.
V.ASSUMING JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WERE GUILTY FORTHE DEATH OF LUCITA, ROBERT AND DOMINGO, ALL SURNAMED LOVERES AND WOUNDING OF EDGAR LOVERES, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THEM FOR THREE COUNTS OF MURDER AND ONE COUNT OF ATTEMPTED MURDER AS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE PRESENCE OF THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY. (Rollo, pp. 109-110)
One of the defense’s theory is that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish the identities of the culprits. As regards this matter, the trial court said thus:
“The prosecution alleged that the person who shot Lucita Loveres with a gun was accused Nonato Danao, alias “Panong Pablo”. The defense, however, averred that the person who shot Lucita Loveres was Renato Danao; that accused Nonato Danao and Renato Danao are two different persons; and that accused Nonato Danao was known as “Nonie” and not “Panong Pablo”. The said accused also put up the defense of alibi –that he was driving a passenger jeepney in the route Cubao-Divisoria when the killings occurred.
In the mind of the Court, there is no doubt that the person who shot Lucita Loveres was accused Nonato Danao, alias “Panong Pablo”. Accused Nonato Danao, alias “Panong Pablo”, was positively identified by Jocelyn L. Cabigon and Edgar Loveres as the person who shot their mother with a gun. There is no way that Jocelyn and Edgar would make a mistake in the identity of the killer of their mother. First, because they were in the company of their mother when she was shot; and second, the assailant was just in front of them; and third, Jocelyn stated that the assailant or accused Nonato Danao, alias “Panong Pablo”, has an identifying mark –a scar on the left cheek bone. The fact also that the name Nonato Donato was never mentioned by the prosecution witnesses in their Sworn Statements or in their testimonies before Branch 107 of this court is of no moment. It is true that the name Nonato Danao was never mentioned because accused Nonato Donato was identified by the prosecution witnesses therein as ”Panong Pablo” and he was described as someone who has a scar on his left cheek bone. The Honorable Court held that:
‘It does not follow that to be able to identify a person, one must first know his name.’ (People vs. Verzosa, 294 SCRA 266).
xxx
Accused Pdero Pablo, Jr., alias “Domingo” or Inggo” was identified by the prosecution witnesses. Jocelyn L. Cabigon and Edgar Loveres positively identified him as the person who hacked Edgar Loveres when he tried to lift his mother who was shot by accused Nonato Donato, alias “Panong Pablo”, and one of the assailants who dragged and repeatedly hacked and stabbed Domingo Loveres and Robert Loveres. There can be no mistake in the identity of the said accused considering that when he hacked Edgar Loveres, the witnesses were in front of accused Pedro Pablo, Jr. and when he participated in hacking/stabbing Domingo Loveres and Robert Loveres, Jocelyn L. Cabion was not more than a meter away from him.” (RTC decision, Id., pp. 136-137)
Suffice it to say that the identity of the authors of the crime is a question factual in character – a question, therefore, that is best submitted to the determination of the trial courts.
Indeed, it is a well entrenched jurisprudential instruction that factual findings of the trial court enjoy a badge of respect, unless patent inconsistencies are ignored or where the conclusions reached are clearly unsupported by evidence (People vs. Cabiles, 284 SCRA 199).
In this case, the apparent discrepancies and lapses in the identification of the accused-appellants’ real names vis-à-vis the aliases by which they were known in the community were satisfactorily explained in the following testimony:
“Q: Also in your statement, you never mentioned the name Pedro Pablo Jr., is that also correct?
A: Domingo Pablo Jr.
Q: But, never the name of Pedro Pablo Jr. You never mentioned that in the very first statement to the police?
A: No, sir, because I did not know the real name. So what I know, it was Domingo Pablo.
Q: Despite again the fact that you have known Pedro Pablo Jr. for more than a year, is that also correct?
A: From what I know, his name is Domingo. I do not know his real name.
Q: Also, Miss Witness, you never mentioned in this first statement the name of Renato Pablo?
A: I mentioned it.
xxx
A: Panong Pablo was the only name I know. It is not here. Panong Pablo only.Q: Who is this Panong Pablo, according to you, Madam Witness?
A: That Renato Pablo, sir.
xxx
Q: Are you saying that right at the very first time when it happened, you know the name Renato Pablo?
A: No, sir. I know that his name is Panong Pablo. When he was arrested, then I knew that his real name is Renato. (prosecution witness Jocelyn Loveres Cabigon on cross- examination, August 11, 1997, TSN, pp. 10-12)
We now come to the “denial” and “alibi” proffered by the two accused-appellants. While these are both valid and legitimate defenses, nevertheless, in the armory of arguments available to the accused hoping for an acquittal, plain “denials” and “alibi” have been obstinately found to be of least credibility.
Thus, “alibi” if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving and undeserving of weight in law, and are easily overruled by the positive identification (People vs. Lovedorial, 349 SCRA 402). Concededly, the same rule applies to the equally abused “denial”. Again, positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial (Barrera vs. People, 352 SCRA 207).
The foregoing discussion notwithstanding, we vary with the trial court as regards the nature and penalty of the crimes actually committed. In the present case, the prosecution insists that alevosia and abuse of superior strength visited the killings.
We demur.
Two conditions must concur for treachery to be present: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted (People vs. Caisip, 290 SCRA 451). Indeed, treachery is present when the means, method or form of execution gives the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation (People vs. Cabanero, 349 SCRA 297). The circumstance that an attack was sudden and unexpected to the person assaulted did not constitute the element of alevosia necessary to raise homicide to murder, where it did not appear that the aggressor consciously adopted such mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself. Treachery cannot be appreciated if the accused did not make any preparation to kill the deceased in such manner as to insure the commission of the killing or to make it impossible or difficult for the person attacked to retaliate or defend himself (People v. Unay, 97 Phil. 969 (1955); People v. Namit, 38 Phil. 926).
In this case, whether we adopt the defense’s version that a heated argument between the accused-appellant’s group and the Lovereses (who were then allegedly having a drinking spree) preceded the killing or whether we adopt the prosecution’s version that the victims were inside their house with the rest of the family when the accused-appellants shouted from outside, we are poised to rule out treachery. This is because in the defense’s version, it is shown that the attack on the victims was not premeditated or consciously adopted but was a violent aftermath of a previous heated altercation .
The same can be said as regards the people’s version. If we go by the prosecution’s statement of facts, the means employed by the accused-appellants cannot be deemed so sudden and surprising as to deny the victims the opportunity to defend their persons. As testified to by the witnesses, they were having dinner inside their house when the accused-appellants arrived, looking for someone who was allegedly causing them trouble. When the victims went out, they saw the irate accused-appellants all toting weapons (gun, knife, bolo, wood, etc.). Thus, the Lovereses were immediately apprised and forewarned of the sinister intent of the group and the impending prospect of danger.
When an altercation precedes the killing, there is no treachery (People vs. Bermudez, G.R. No. 129033, June 25, 1999).
We are similarly poised to rule out abuse of superior strength. Indeed, this qualifying circumstance means to use purposely excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked (People vs. Lucena, 356 SCRA 90). In this case, no solid evidence was tendered to conclusively say that there was a premeditated and deliberate intent on the part of the accused-appellants to employ excessive force against their victims. That the accused-appellants were greater in number, and that they were toting weapons do not perfunctorily translate into abuse of superior strength. As records would bear out, most of the victims’ family, three males included, were present when the altercation transpired. This suggests that defense-wise, the victims were not grossly outnumbered. Neither were weapons out of the victims’ reach at that time. Quite the contrary, weapons, were quite accessible to them, they being inside their house. After having been forewarned of the immediacy of danger, that is, after having allegedly seen the accused-appellants approach their house with weapons in hand, the victims as well as their other family members could have easily grabbed weapons of their own to protect their persons.
It must be stressed that due to the gravity of the resulting offense, qualifying circumstances must be proved as clearly as the crime of itself (People vs. Aguilar, 292 SCRA 349). A finding of any qualifying circumstance must be grounded on something more than supposition or sheer speculation; necessarily, proof beyond reasonable doubt is the quantum of evidence required to establish its existence (People vs. Mosquerra, 362 SCRA 473).
The penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal, while the penalty for attempted homicide pursuant to Article 51 of the same Code is prision correccional. There being no modifying circumstances proved by the prosecution or the defense, the penalties shall be imposed in the medium period. Since the accused-appellants are entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they can, for the homicide charge, be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty which minimum shall be within the range of prision mayor (the penalty next lower in degree to that provided in Article 249) and which maximum shall be within the range of reclusion temporal in its medium period. For the attempted homicide charge, they can be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty which minimum shall be within the range of arresto mayor and which maximum shall be within the range of prision correccional in its medium period.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the decision appealed from is hereby modified in that the accused appellants are hereby pronounced guilty of three counts of homicide and one count of attempted homicide. Thus, they are hereby sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of:
1. In Criminal Case No. Q-9453476 for homicide, from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum;
2. In Criminal Case No. Q-94-53477 for attempted homicide, from two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as maximum.
3. In Criminal Case No. Q-94-53478 for homicide, from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum;
4. In Criminal Case No. Q-94-53479 for homicide, from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum;
The assailed decision is affirmed in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
FERNANDA LAMPAS PERALTA
Associate Justice
MYRNA DIMARANAN VIDAL
Associate Justice