PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JERRY DELA CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
LAMPAS PERALTA, J.:
THE ANTECEDENTS
On February 3, 2000, around 7:00 P.M., Rosita Tadal was inside her house in Barangay San Francisco, Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac when she heard her husband Pepito Tadal cry for help. She then saw Pepito Tadal who was sprawled on the ground outside the house and bathing in his own blood. Pepito Tadal told her that he was stabbed. His son-in-law Carlos Soriano came to help in bringing him to the hospital. On their way to the hospital, Carlos Soriano asked Pepito Tadal twice who his assailant was, to which he answered “Jerry”. Upon reaching the hospital, Rosita Tadal also asked Pepito Tadal the identity of his assailant, to which he replied “Jerry dela Cruz”. Pepito Tadal died on the following day due to massive loss of blood caused by eight (8) stab wounds.
The prosecution’s version of the incident, as synthesized in the People’s brief, is as follows:
“In the evening of February 3, 2000, around 7:30 o’clock in the evening, while inside their house in Brgy. San Francisco, Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac watching television, Rosita Tadal heard her husband outside the house crying for help. Checking on his plight, Rosita looked for a flashlight to no avail. She used a kerosene lamp instead (TSN, July 24, 2001, pp. 5-6).
Once outside their house, Rosita saw her husband sprawled on the ground bathed in his own blood while uttering “Help, I was stabbed, bring me to the hospital’ (TSN, July 24, 2001, p. 6).
Unable to carry her wounded husband, Rosita shouted for help prompting Carlos Soriano, her son-in-law, to come to her aid. They immediately brought the victim to the hospital. While on their way, the victim repeatedly said: ‘Help me my son.’ Carlos asked his father-in-law who his assailant was: ‘Sino ti nagkasta’ and the latter responded several times, saying ‘Jerry’ (TSN, July 24, 2001, p. 7; TSN, September 3, 2001, pp. 6-8, 10).
Rosita and Carlo first brought Pepito Tadal to the Camiling District Hospital. However, due to lack of necessary medical equipment, Rosita was advised to bring the victim to the Tarlac Provincial Hospital (TSN, July 24, 2001, pp. 7-8; TSN, September 3, 2001, pp. 14-15).
While in the hospital, Rosita asked Pepito Tadal for the identity of his assailant, The victim, while gasping for breath, replied: ‘isuda Jerry dela Cruz idiay talaytayan’ (it was Jerry dela Cruz in the bamboo bridge). Conscious of his impending death, the victim declared ‘diak sa makalasaten, matay akon’ (I may not survive, I’m dying) (TSN July 24, 2001, pp. 8-10; TSN, September 3, 2001, pp. 11-13).
As the victim had difficulty breathing, was pale and in severe pain, Dr. Eliseo Bungay instituted first aid measures by giving him IV fluid and prepared him for surgery. The victim was operated on the following day around 1:00 o’clock in the early morning. While undergoing treatment, the victim expired due to massive blood loss due to numerous internal injuries caused by eight (8) stab wounds (TSN, April 16, 2002, pp. 5-9; Records, p. 8; TSN, September 3, 2001, p. 15).
On February 4, 2000, Rosita reported the incident to the police station of Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac (Records, p. 7).”[1]
Thus, an information[2] was filed charging accused-appellant and two John Does with homicide, to wit:
“That on or about February 3, 2000, at around 7:30 o’clock in the evening in Barangay San Francisco, Municipality of Sta. Ignacia, Province of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring, confederating and helping with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab Pepito Tadal, inflicting upon him multiple stab wounds thereby injuring his liver, kidney and pancreas and other vital organs which caused his immediate death.
Contrary to law.”
After accused-appellant entered a plea of “not guilty”[3], trial ensued. Thereafter, the trial court rendered a Decision dated August 21, 2003, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court hereby finds accused Jerry dela Cruz GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt felony of HOMICIDE under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the indeterminate period of 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, and to pay the heirs of Pepito Tadal the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages; another sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto; and P50,000.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees.
As to the case against the two (2) ‘John Does’, the same is hereby ARCHIVED pending their arrest and investigation.
Camiling, Tarlac, 21 August 2003.
SO ORDERED.”[4]
Accused-appellant filed this appeal which is founded on the following assignment of errors:
I.
“THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES AS REGARDS THE ANTE MORTEM DECLARATION OF PEPITO TADAL.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”[5]
THE ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the dying declaration of Pepito Tadal.
THE COURT’S RULING
In convicting accused-appellant, the trial court gave weight and credence to the dying declaration of Pepito Tadal through the testimonies of his surviving spouse, Rosita Tadal and his son-in-law, Carlos Soriano.
However, accused-appellant argues that Pepito Tadal merely uttered in his dying declaration the name “Jerry” and not “Jerry dela Cruz”. Allegedly, both the Ilocano phrases “idiay talaytayen” (“at the bamboo bridge”) and “ballasiw iti karayan” (“at the other side of the river”) did not specifically describe and identify accused-appellant as the assailant.[6]
It is doctrinal that a dying declaration or an ante-mortem statement, is evidence of the highest order, for “when a person is at the point of death, every motive of falsehood is silenced. The mind is induced by the strongest of reasons to speak the truth — the declarant’s impending meeting with his Creator.”[7]
In order that a dying declaration may be admitted in evidence, the following requisites must be complied with:
“Under Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court, the declaration of a dying person with the consciousness of impending death may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and the surrounding circumstances of such death. There are four requisites which must concur in order that a dying declaration may be admissible: (1) it must concern the crime and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (2) at the time it was made, the declarant was under the consciousness of an impending death; (3) the declarant was competent as a witness; and (4) the declaration is offered in any criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide in which the declarant was the victim.”[8]
All the requisites of a dying declaration are present in this case. The dying declaration of Pepito Tadal concerned the stabbing and the circumstances surrounding his death. Pepito Tadal uttered accused-appellant’s name when he was asked by Carlos Soriano and Rosita Tadal as to who his assailant was. Pepito Tadal also referred to the location of accused-appellant’s house in his dying declaration. Pepito Tadal was then very much aware of his impending death as he uttered “diak sa makalasaten, matay akon” (“I may not survive, I’m dying”). There is also no question as to the competence of Pepito Tadal as a witness. Moreover, his dying declaration was offered as evidence in a criminal case for homicide in which he was the victim.
The following testimony of Rosita Tadal positively established Pepito Tadal’s dying declaration:
“Q. What have you talked about while you’re at the ICU?
A. I was asking, who did it to him, what is his name, and he told me, Sir.
Q What your husband told you?
A. He told me that ‘isuda Jerry dela Cruz’ meaning they were Jerry dela Cruz, sir.
Q. Who is this Jerry dela Cruz?
A. He is my neighbor, Sir, he is residing at the other side of the river.
Q. Will you relate the exact word which to identify the assailant?
A. I asked him, where did you go, he answered me, ‘idiay ballasiw iti karayan’; (who did it or who stabbed you? He answered ‘isuda Jerry dela Cruz idiay talaytayan’, but at that time, he could hardly talked (sic), Sir.
Q. How long have you been a resident of San Francisco?
A. I was born in that place, Sir or since birth, sir.
COURT:
Q. How do you know Jerry dela Cruz?
A. He is the only Jerry in our place, Sir.
Q. Who is this Jerry?
A. Jerry dela Cruz, sir, who is residing at the “balasiw iti karayan’, sir.
ATTY. QUILAS:
Q. Where is Jerry dela Cruz residing?
A. In that place also, Sir.
Q. What particular place?
A. Just opposite our house, Sir, “ballisiw iti karayan’.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. QUILAS:
Q. When your husband revealed the assailant, one of the assailant, what was the condition of your husband?
A. He told me that; diak sa makasalaten, matayakon, (meaning I may not survive, I’m dying), sir.”[9]
The testimony of Rosita Tadal was buttressed by the following testimony of Carlos Soriano:
“ATTY. QUILAS:
Q: After hearing repeatedly pleading words from your father-in-law, what did you do if any?
A: I carried him, Sir.
Q: Why did you carry your father-in-law?
A: To bring him to the hospital, Sir.
Q: Since you have seen your father-in-law blooded and sprawled on the ground, did you have any occasion to ask your father-in-law who as responsible for his injuries?
A: Yes, Sir. I asked him.
Q: How many times did you ask your father-in-law the identity of his assailant?
A: Twice, Sir.
Q: Did he respond to your query?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And what was his response, tell this Honorable Court?
A: He answered Jerry, Sir.”[10]
However, accused-appellant posits that when Pepito Tadal was asked by Rosita Tadal and Carlos Soriano as to who his assailant was, Pepito Tadal merely answered “Jerry”. Allegedly, there were four other persons with the same first name living within their barangay, including Pepito Tadal’s own son. Even if Pepito Tadal referred to the location of accused-appellant’s house when he mentioned “idiay talaytayen” (“at the bamboo bridge”) and “ballasiw iti karayan” (“at the other side of the river”) in his dying declaration, it did not necessarily point to accused-appellant as the one who stabbed Pepito Tadal.
It suffices to state that accused-appellant’s self-serving denial cannot prevail over the categorical testimony of Rosita Tadal that Pepito Tadal mentioned the complete name of accused-appellant, “Jerry dela Cruz” as his assailant. Moreover, Pepito Tadal must be referring to no other “Jerry” than accused-appellant because Pepito Tadal also referred to the location of accused-appellant’s house in his dying declaration.
There is no merit in accused-appellant’s further claim that during the trial, Rosita Tadal “made an adulterated testimony by adding the last name ‘dela Cruz’ contrary to her statement before the investigating police officers immediately after the death”[11] of Pepito Tadal. The purported inconsistency between Rosita Tadal’s declarations in her affidavit and those made on the witness stand did not necessarily discredit Rosita Tadal. For an affidavit is oftentimes incomplete and generally regarded as inferior to a testimony given in open court. As held in a long line of cases:
“Suffice it to state that inconsistencies between the sworn statement and direct testimony given in open court do not necessarily discredit the witness since an affidavit, being taken ex-parte, is oftentimes incomplete and is generally regarded as inferior to the testimony of the witness in open court. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that testimonies given during trial are much more exact and elaborate than those stated in sworn statements, usually being incomplete and inaccurate for a variety of reasons, at times because of partial and innocent suggestions or for want of specific inquiries. Additionally, an extrajudicial statement or affidavit is generally not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant’s statement, hence, omissions and misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent. Indeed, the prosecution witnesses’ direct and categorical declarations on the witness stand are superior to their extrajudicial statements.”[12]
There is no merit in accused-appellant’s claim that Carlos Soriano failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the one-week delay in giving his sworn statement to the police investigators, for Carlos Soriano nonetheless immediately went to the police station the day after the death of Pepito Tadal to report the incident.[13] Moreover, the alleged one-week delay in giving the sworn statement was not shown to be unreasonable. Well-entrenched is the principle that:
“Delay in reporting a crime to the authorities is not an uncommon phenomenon. The rule is, delay by a witness in divulging what he or she knows about a crime is not by itself a setback to the evidentiary value of such witness’ testimony, where the delay is sufficiently justified by any acceptable explanation. Thus, a well-founded fear of reprisal or the individual manner by which individuals react when confronted by a gruesome event as to place the viewer in a state of shock for sometime, is a valid excuse for the temporary silence of witnesses.”[14]
Accused-appellant also claims that Carlos Soriano and Jerry Tadal, son-in-law and son of Pepito Tadal, respectively, may be the possible perpetrators of the crime. This is plainly conjectural. As further pointed out in the People’s brief:
“xxx appellant failed to show ill-motives on the part of the witnesses for them to falsely testify or wrongfully accuse him of a grave crime. In the absence of any evidence to show that the witnesses were actuated by improper motive, their identification of appellant as the author of the crime shall be given full faith and credit (People vs. Garin, 432 SCRA 394, 406 [2004]). Moreover, the relationship of the witnesses to the victim strengthens their credibility for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit.”[15]
Thus, in giving credence to the dying declaration of Pepito Tadal, the trial court correctly noted:
“On the other hand, the claim of the accused that there are six (6) other persons in the same barangay named Jerry, including one of the children of the deceased, and should create some doubt on the identity of the assailant of Pepito Tadal holds no water. Even though there really are six (6) other persons named Jerry, the identity of accused Jerry dela Cruz was clearly stated by the victim in his dying declaration. There is no doubt, therefore, as to the identity of herein accused as the assailant of the victim. As earlier stated, a dying man, like Pepito Tadal, does not have reason to falsely implicate another person, in this instance Jerry dela Cruz, as the perpetrator of the crime committed against him. He must face his creator with a clean mind and conscience.”[16]
Notably, accused-appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming that at the time of the incident, he was inside his house in Barangay San Francisco, Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac.[17] But the crime happened inside the compound of Pepito Tadal’s house in the same barangay and no proof was presented to show that accused-appellant’s presence at the crime scene when it happened was physically impossible. Thus, as between the alibi of accused-appellant and the dying declaration of Pepito Tadal, the latter deserves weight and credence. It is axiomatic that:
“Anent accused-appellant’s defense of alibi, we find no reason to depart from the well-entrenched rule that alibi is unavailing as a defense where there is positive identification, or when there is an ante-mortem declaration received in evidence either as a dying declaration or as part of the res gestae or both.”[18]
In sum, the Court finds no justification to depart from the settled doctrine that appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court “since the trial court had the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness while on the stand” and “its findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.”[19]
However, as recommended by the Office of the Solicitor General, the award of attorney’s fees should be deleted as the heirs of Pepito Tadal are not entitled to exemplary damages.[20] Nevertheless, although actual damages were not proved, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be paid to the heirs of Pepito Tadal for burial and funeral expenses.[21]
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated August 21, 2003 of the trial court is affirmed, subject to the modification that the award of attorney’s fees is deleted and accused-appellant is further ordered to pay the heirs of Pepito Tadal P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
SO ORDERED.
De Los Santos, (Chairman) and Dimaranan-Vidal, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 78-80
[2] Records, p. 1
[3] Order dated May 16, 2001, Records, p. 72
[4] Records, pp. 220-221
[5] Rollo, p. 45
[6] Rollo, p. 53
[7] People of the Philippines vs. Emilio Comiling, 424 SCRA 698, March 4, 2004
[8] People of the Philippines vs. Emilio Comiling, 424 SCRA 698, March 4, 2004
[9] TSN, Rosita Tadal, July 24, 2001, pp. 8-10
[10] TSN, Carlos Soriano, September 3, 2001, pp. 9-10
[11] Rollo, p. 51
[12] People of the Philippines vs. Clarence Astudillo, 401 SCRA 723, April 29, 2003
[13] TSN, Carlos Soriano, December 5, 2001, pp. 4-5
[14] People of the Philippines vs. Jimmel Sanidad, 402 SCRA 381, April 30, 2003
[15] Rollo, pp. 86-87
[16] Rollo, p. 18
[17] TSN, Jerry dela Cruz, February 3, 2003, pp. 4-5
[18] People of the Philippines vs Job Cortezano, 375 SCRA 95, January 29, 2002
[19] People of the Philippines vs Conrado de Leon, 378 SCRA 495, March 6, 2002
[20] Article 2208 (1), New Civil Code; Albenson Enterprises vs. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 16, January 11, 1993
[21] People of the Philippines vs. Eufrocino Agudez, 428 SCRA 692, May 20, 2004