G.R. No. L-48255. September 30, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANIELITO DEMETERIO, ET AL., ACCUSED, DANIELITO DEMETERIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
This is an appeal by
Danielito Demeterio from the judgment of the then Court of First Instance of
Marinduque, in Criminal Case No. 135, convicting him of Murder, qualified by abuse of superior
strength, and sentencing him to suffer
reclusion perpetua.
On June 28, 1971, Jeremias BRUIT and Danielito DEMETERIO were
charged with Murder under the following Information:
“That on or about the 27th day of March 1971, at about 3:00
o’clock in the afternoon thereof, in barrio Antipolo, municipality of Gasan,
province of Marinduque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
one another, with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously hack with a
bolo and stab with a sharp pointed iron bar one Rodolfo Saludes thereby causing
upon the latter multiple fatal wounds in the different parts of his body which
caused his instantaneous death.
“That the accused Jeremias Bruit was formerly convicted by
final judgment by the Court of First Instance of Marinduque for Homicide in
Criminal Case No. 2210 on May 22, 1963 and was sentenced to one (1) year, 2 months and 1 day to 7 years and 1 day
imprisonment and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P6,000.00.
“That by reason of the untimely death of Rodolfo Saludes, his
heirs suffered the following damages:
1.
P12,000.00 for death indemnity;
2.
P10,000.00 for moral damages; and
3. P61,608.00
for loss of earning capacity of the deceased Rodolfo Saludes who was killed at
the age of 28 years and was earning an average of P6.00 a day as a lawyer.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Upon
arraignment, BRUIT entered a plea of guilty to the lesser crime of Homicide and
was sentenced accordingly. He died while
serving sentence. Trial proceeded only
against DEMETERIO after he pleaded not guilty.
From the testimony of
Teresita Motol, widow of the deceased, the prosecution synthesized the facts as
follows:
“On March 27, 1971, at around 2:30 in the afternoon, in Gasan,
Marinduque, while Teresita Motol, her mother-in-law, Ines Sarmiento, Cirila
Maac and Emarita Samanta were washing clothes in the Antipolo river, Teresita
and her mother-in-law heard a noise (‘kalampugan’) in the latter’s house, which
was some distance away. Teresita heard
her husband Rodolfo Saludes shout ‘Nanay, Nanay, Nanay, nahan po si Tatay?’ At
the moment, Jeremias Bruit and Danielito Demeterio were chasing Rodolfo Saludes
(‘Habol ng taga at saksak’). Upon seeing
what was happening, Teresita picked up stones and hurled them at Bruit and
Demeterio. In pursuing Saludes, Bruit
had a bolo and Demeterio had a 7-inch long pointed iron bar (TSN, pp. 2-7, June
4, 1973).
“The assailants caught up with Saludes in the deeper part of
the river (‘libtong’) (Exh. F-4, p. 99, rec).
Bruit got hold of Rodolfo’s hand.
As Saludes fell into the ‘libtong’, Bruit boloed him, while Demeterio
stabbed him. Teresita frantically
shouted for help. Her brother-in-law,
Venus, and her father-in-law Demetrio Saludes arrived and pursued Bruit to no
avail (TSN, pp. 8-12, June 4, 1973). The
victim instantly died (Exhs. F-5, G-1, p. 99, rec.).”[1]
Demetrio Saludes, the
father, reported the incident to the
police.
Dr. Wilfredo Sore
conducted the post-mortem examination on the same day and submitted the
following findings:
‘Post-mortem Certificate of Death
“I hereby certify that I have this 27th day of March 1971
performed an autopsy upon the body of the deceased, Rodolfo S. Saludes, and
that the cause of death was as follows:
1. Large open wound at the back penetrating the
right lung; plural cavity half-filled with clotted blood;
2. Large open wound of the chest, right-side,
penetrating the right lung anteriorly;
3. Large open wound of the
chest, left side;
4. Large open wound of the
left arm;
5. 2 stab wounds at the back
rt. penetrating the pleural cavity;
6. 1 stab wound at the left
forearm, post;
7. One incise wound at the
left wrist;
8. 1 stab wound at the left
arm lateral side.
(SIGNED)
Wilfredo L. Sore, MD
Municipal Health
Officer
Gasan, Marinduque.[2]
The accused denied any
participation in the commission of the crime and interposed the defense of
alibi. He claimed that he was implicated
because he had informed BRUIT about the attempt of the deceased to rape the
wife of the former (Lerma Seda). The
accused insisted that he was at home when the incident occurred
detailing that at about 7:30 in the morning, he was repairing their
balcony. About 10:00 o’clock, he cooked
their lunch. After cooking, he ate with
his mother and his niece. Then, he took
a nap. At about 1:30 in the afternoon,
he resumed his work. At 2:00, his
sister, Leticia Guevarra, arrived from ‘tianggehan’ in Libtangan. After his work, he was about to go to the
town proper, but was informed by a certain Thelmo Selda that the Saludeses were
looking for him, so he did not proceed to town but stayed at home. About 7:30 in the evening, he saw the
Saludeses in the vicinity of his home with boloes. On March 29, 1971, policeman Faeldo asked him
to see the Chief of Police. But because the Chief of Police was not in
the police station, he stayed thereat of his own desire because he was afraid
of the Saludeses. The next day he
informed the Chief of Police that he had nothing to do with the crime but because he was afraid to
go home, he requested that he be detained until the case was resolved.
Leticia Guevarra, sister
of the accused corroborated the testimony of the latter by stating that between
1:30 to 3:00 in the afternoon, she was in the house of her mother where her
brother was repairing their balcony.
Additionally, the defense
relies on the testimonies of its witnesses, Sgt. Felino Uy and Barrio Captain
David Siena to the effect that only BRUIT was reported by the Saludeses as the
culprit, and the declaration of Cirila Maac that BRUIT was alone in chasing the deceased.
Specifically, Sgt. Felino
Uy testified that at about 3:50 in the afternoon of March 27, 1971, Demetrio
Saludes, father of the victim, reported to the Gasan Police
Headquarters that Rodolfo Saludes was hacked to death by one Jeremias Bruit,
which information he entered in the police blotter (Exh. 4-A).
Barrio Captain David
Siena also said that he was informed by the victim’s widow and her in-laws that the
deceased was hacked and stabbed to death by BRUIT; that the same information
was relayed to the Chief of Police when they were investigated and that aside from BRUIT no other person was implicated or mentioned.
Cirila Maac, who was with
the widow and the mother of the victim washing clothes at the Antipolo river
between 2:00 and 2:30 in the afternoon of March 27, 1971 stated that BRUIT
alone chased the victim and stabbed him.
When Demetrio and Venus Saludes arrived, she went home because she was
scared. And as she also became confused,
she left her laundry and did not return to get it.
The Trial Court found
appellant’s guilt established beyond doubt and sentenced him thus:
“Wherefore, the guilt of Danielito Demeterio of the crime of
murder, as charged in the Information and as qualified by the circumstance of
abuse of superior strength, has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He is hereby sentenced, there being no
modifying circumstance, to the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to
indemnify the heirs of Rodolfo Saludes the amounts of P12,000 for death indemnity,
P10,000 for moral damages and another P6,000 for loss of earning capacity of
deceased, or a total of P28,000, all without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency; and to pay the costs. The
accused shall be credited for his preventive imprisonment, which commenced on
April 6, 1971, under the terms and conditions of Republic Act 6127 amending
Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
SO ORDERED.”[3]
In this appeal, appellant
assigns the following errors:
1.
The lower court erred in giving credence to the
theory of the prosecution and the testimony of its lone witness, Teresita Motol, the wife of the
victim.
2.
The lower court erred in holding that the guilt
of accused-appellant has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The
lower court erred in convicting the accused of murder and sentencing him to
suffer imprisonment for life instead of
acquitting him.
The issues raised are
without merit. The participation of appellant in the commission of the crime has been established beyond
reasonable doubt.
There can be no question
as to the positive identification of appellant by TERESITA Motol, the widow of the deceased. She could not have
been mistaken for she had known appellant for some time,[4] and the incident occurred early in the
afternoon on a clear day.[5] She graphically described to every grim detail
how the attack was made by BRUIT and by appellant including the weapon each was
carrying. BRUIT carried a bolo, while
appellant carried a pointed iron bar about six inches long with wooden handle
and with a circumference like that of her small finger. Both assaulted the victim. When her brother-in-law (Venus Saludes) and
father-in-law (Demetrio Saludes) came in response to her cries for help, they chased appellant but when they could not catch up with him,
they tried to go after BRUIT instead.[6]
The fact that TERESITA is
the wife of the deceased does not detract from her testimony. The rule is well-established that a
witness’ relationship does not, by itself, impair her credibility.[7] On the contrary, it would be unnatural for
such persons interested in seeing retribution exacted for the crime to impute
the same to any person other than those responsible for the crime.[8] It is not to be lightly supposed that
relatives of the deceased would callously violate their conscience to avenge the death of a dear one by blaming
it on persons whom they believed to be innocent thereof.[9]
Even if her testimony, as the principal
eyewitness, were not properly corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses,
it is still sufficient to warrant the conviction of the accused, since it is
well-settled that the testimony of a single witness, which satisfies the Court in a given case, is sufficient
to convict.[10]
The inconsistencies in
her testimony referred to by the defense, such as the exact description of the weapon that
appellant was carrying, and the exact location of her husband’s wounds are
details that do not impair her identification of appellant. The most candid witnesses sometimes make
mistakes and fall into apparently confused and inconsistent statements, which,
however, should not affect their credibility,[11] where such discrepancies do not reflect that
the witnesses were animated by a desire to falsify the facts.[12]
The separate testimonies of Sgt. Uy, and Barrio
Captain David Siena summarized previously, declaring that TERESITA and
Demetrio Saludes, the victim’s father,
reported to the police only the name of BRUIT soon after the incident, and the
testimony of Cirila Maac that she saw only BRUIT chasing the victim, cannot
prevail over the physical fact that the wounds sustained by the victim,
consisting of incised and stab wounds, indicate that there was more than one
assailant and that more than one weapon was used.[13] Physical evidence is evidence of the highest
order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.[14] As testified to by Dr. Sore, the sharpened
instrument, not the bolo, which
was carried by BRUIT, caused the other wounds of the deceased. He said:
“Q. And considering the width and length of said
wound (referring to Wound No. 5), could it have been possible that this same
sharp-bladed bolo (which admittedly BRUIT was carrying) have caused that stab
wound?
“A.
Considering the size and shape, it is not possible.
“Q.
So, if not possible that this same
sharp-bladed bolo have caused that stab wound, what could have caused that
wound?
“A. Maybe sharp-pointed instrument other
than this.
xxx xxx xxx
“Q.
And that second stab wound, could it have been caused by this
sharp-bladed instrument the bolo?
“A.
No, sir.
“Q.
If this sharp-bladed bolo could not have caused the stab wound, what
could have caused it?
“A.
A sharp-pointed instrument.”[15]
xxx xxx xxx
“Q. These stab wounds already
marked Exhibits ‘E-2’ and ‘E-3’, what could have caused these stab wounds?
“A.
Due to a sharp pointed instrument.”[16]
And clarifying his
statement, Dr. Sore continued:
“Q.
Last time, on January 20, 1972, did you testify that wounds 5-A and 5-B
in your post-mortem certificate of death marked Exhibits- B-2 and B3 on one of
the pictures shown to you, could have been caused by a pointed instrument?
“A.
May I see the picture, (After looking).
Yes, it is possible.
“Q
And did you state that it could also be caused with or by a bolo?
“A No, I did not say that.”[17]
It was appellant who was
carrying that sharp-pointed instrument,
a pointed iron bar with wooden
handle, about six inches long, and with
which he stabbed the deceased. As
TERESITA had described, it was a “kantuhan, apat na kanto,
magkabi-kabila” its tip sharpened and pointed like an icepick, the bar as
big as the forefinger (which the parties stipulated as 3/4 of an inch in
diameter).[18]
Moreover, in TERESITA’s
affidavit taken on March 31, 1971, or four days after the incident, and sworn
to before Municipal Judge Pe on April
2, 1971, she had already mentioned appellant as one of the culprits (Exhibit
“J”.). So also did Ines
Saludes, the victim’s mother, in her own affidavit taken on April 1, 1971
(Exhibit “K”).
The credibility of the
police blotter (Exhibit “4”), which did not record appellant’s
identity, is seriously put to test by the circumstance that, from appellant’s
own testimony, policeman Faeldo asked him to see the Chief of Police as early
as March 29, 1971, two days after the incident (the defense refuses to call it arrest), and even before TERESITA’s affidavit dated March 31,
1971. Which only goes to show that
previous information regarding appellant’s participation had been received
by police authorities.
Furthermore, despite the
absence of appellant’s identity from the police blotter, the Warrant of Arrest
issued on April 6, 1971 (Exhibit “5”) included both appellant and
BRUIT. And if, in fact, the victim’s
father failed to mention appellant’s identity, it could have been due to’ his
extreme anxiety due to the death of his son. So also with Cirila Maac, who was in a
“confused” condition, as she
described herself.
It will also be recalled that even in the evening of the day
itself, appellant, according to his own testimony, was in fear of his life from
the Saludeses for which reason he stayed home[19],
and thereafter sought shelter at the police station beginning March 29, 1971.[20]
He would have had nothing to fear if, in fact, he had no participation in the
offense.
Appellant’s contention
that he was implicated merely because he had revealed to BRUIT the deceased’s attempt to molest his (BRUIT’s) wife is entitled
to no credence, there having been witnesses to the alleged act besides the fact
that according to appellant himself, a complaint had been filed before the
barangay.[21]
Appellant also argues
that the record does not disclose any motive on his part to kill the
deceased. Suffice it to state that
motive need not be established where the accused has been
positively identified[22] and there is no doubt as to the identity of
the culprit.[23]
Neither will appellant’s
defense of alibi prosper. No doctrine
has been more settled than that the posture of alibi cannot stand against
positive identification. Neither can it
succeed when, as in the instant case, appellant’s house was only more or less ½
kilometer away from the crime scene and therefore, it was not physically
impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it was being
perpetrated.[24] Two kilometers from the scene of the crime
is a weak alibi.[25]
The crime committed
beyond reasonable doubt was Murder qualified by the circumstance of abuse
of superior strength. In the absence of
other modifying circumstances the penalty is imposable in its medium period, or
reclusion perpetua,[26] as imposed by the Trial Court.
WHEREFORE, as the judgment appealed from is in
accordance with and the evidence,
it is hereby affirmed in toto, with costs.
SO ORDERED.
Abad Santos, Plana, Escolin, and
Relova, JJ., concur.
[1]
Pp. 2-3, Appellee’s Brief.
[2]
Exh. A-6.
[3]
p. 20, Rollo
[4]
T.s.n., June 4, 1973, p. 13.
[5]
Ibid., p. 15.
[6]
Ibid., p. 11.
[7]
People v. Lagario, et al.,
G.R. No. L-37483, June 24, 1983 citing People v. Villalba, 17 SCRA 948;
People v. Bautista, 6 SCRA 522; People v. Valera, 5 SCRA 910.
[8]
People v. Lagario, et al., ibid. citing People v. Bagasican, 6 SCRA 400; People v. Reyes,
17 SCRA 309; People v. Tagaro, 7
SCRA 187.
[9]
People v. Libed, 14 SCRA 410; People v. Fetalvero,
1 SCRA 1089.
[10]
People v. Lagario, et al., ibid., citing People v. Sope, et al., Phil. 810.
[11]
People v. Soriano, et al., G.R.
No. L-32244, June 24, 1983 citing 6 Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., p. 138; People v. Resayaga, 54 SCRA 350.
[12]
People v. Macaram, et al., G.R. No. L-8438, Aug. 30, 1957, Supreme Court
Decisions – August 1957.
[13]
See People v. Hermosilla, et al., G.R. No. L-58414, June 24, 1983.
[14]
People vs. Sacabin, 57 SCRA 707
(1974).
[15]
T.s.n., Oct. 13, 1971, pp. 8-9.
[16]
T.s.n., Jan. 20, 1972, p. 6.
[17]
T.s.n., January 31, 1972, p. 10.
[18]
T.s.n., June 13, 1974, pp. 14-15.
[19]
T.s.n., March 3, 1977, p. 13.
[20]
T.s.n., ibid., p. 16.
[21]
T.s.n., March 29, 1977, pp. 3-6.
[22]
People vs. Araja, 105 SCRA 133 (1981) and other cases
[23]
People vs. Solana, 6 SCRA 60; People vs. Indic, 10 SCRA 130;
People vs. Romawak, 12 SCRA 332; People vs. Raquel, 12 SCRA 441;
People vs. Reyno, 13 SCRA 647; People vs. Ner, 28 SCRA 1151.
[24]
People vs. Bermoy, 105 SCRA 106 (1981)
[25]
People vs. Dereje, 56 SCRA 554 (1974); People vs. Pingol, 33 SCRA
73 (1970).
[26]
Article 248 (1), in relation to Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code.