G.R. No. L-49069. June 22, 1983
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PROTACIO AMONCIO AND FLORENCIO VALLESPIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
Protacio Amoncio and Florencio Vallespin
were charged with the crime of murder in an information
filed with the Court of First Instance of Bohol. The crime was allegedly committed in the
following manner:
x x
x x
x x x x x
“That on or about the 12th day of June, 1976 at about 9:00
o’clock in the evening, more or less, in barrio San Isidro, municipality of Mabini, province of Bohol,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other,
with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously club
the back and stab several times by
the use of a sharp-pointed bolo
one Vicente Vallespin thereby inflicting upon the
vital parts of the body of the latter various serious physical injuries which caused his immediate
death; to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the deceased; the crime
having been committee with the aggravating circumstance of purposely seeking or
taking advantage of nighttime to facilitate the commission of the crime.
“Acts committed
contrary to the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.” (Original Records, p. 26).
Upon arraignment the
accused assisted by counsel pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
The trial court summarized
the conflicting evidence of the parties
as follows:
x x x x x x x x x
“The theory of the prosecution is
that having previously decided to take away the life of deceased Vicente Vallespin, the two accused waylaid him in that isolated spot marked by the madre cacao tree where he used to pasture his carabao. Exactly as
expected he went to the place at 7:30 p.m. on June 12, 1976 to fetch his carabao and while he was untying it from the madre cacao tree accused Protacio
Amoncio attacked him from behind by hitting him at
the back of his head with a piece of wood about two inches in diameter and one
fathom long, then followed with a bolo hack by accused Florencio
Vallespin.
From thence, the two took turns in mangling him even in death. From that spot the dead body of the deceased
was dragged by the accused to the
bamboo groove fifteen meters from the house of accused Amoncio obviously in preparation
of their present defense.
“The theory of the defense, on the
other hand, is that the deceased, taking advantage of the absence of Protacio Amoncio who was then two kilometers away attending a barrio
fiesta, entered the latter’s house and into the bedroom where Amoncio’s wife and seven-year old son (should be daughter) were sleeping and right then and
there commenced to rape her. But before
he could consumate his lewd design Amoncio arrived and
surprised him in the act. Amoncio took no time
in taking his bolo and in hacking him
with it. After sustaining ten gaping
stab wounds, the deceased jumped from the house to the ground then ran away.
He was only able to run fifteen
meters. He fell on the ground
dead.” (Original Records, pp-167-168)
In its decision dated August
25, 1978, the trial court found the accused guilty as charged. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
court declares accused Protacio Amoncio
and Florencio Vallespin
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, and after considering
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender as a set-off to the
aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of night time, condemns each one
of them to Reclusion Perpetua, to indemnify jointly and severally, the
heirs of the deceased the amount of P12,000.00 and to pay the costs. (Original Records, pp-171-172)
The accused appealed the
decision to this Court and assigned the following errors:
I
“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE TESÂTIMONIES OF THE WITNESSES FOR THE ACCUSED
WHICH ARE CREDIBLE AND NATURAL, BESIDES BEING CORROBORATED SUBSTANTIALLY WITH
THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION; and
II
“THE LOWER
COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME
OF MURDER, CONDEMNING EACH ONE OF THEM TO RECLUSION PERPETUA,
ORDERING THEM TO INDEMNIFY JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED THE
AMOUNT OF P12,000.00
AND TO PAY THE
COSTS.”
The two assigned errors
challenge the factual findings of the trial court.
The medical certificate
issued by Dr. Nestor Ayag, the Municipal Health
Officer of Mabini, Bohol who performed the post mortem examination on
the body of Vicente Vallespin, reveals the following
significant findings:
“1. Incised wound, clean-cut, gaping, located at
the anterior aspect of the neck, at the level of the thyroid cartilage, directed
posteriorly upwards, measuring 7″ long,
involving the sternohyoid muscles, sternomastoid muscles, sternothyroid
muscles, trachea, common carotid artery, internal jugular veins, esophagus and
1/2″ of the anterior aspect of the 3rd cervical vertebra.
“2. Stab wound, penetrating, located at the right
anterior chest wall, at the first intercostals space, along the mid-clavicular line, measuring 1″ long, involving the
right lung.
“3. Stab wound, penetrating, located at the left
anterior chest wall, at the level of the 3rd rib, 2″ from the sternal border, measuring 4″ along, involving the 3rd
rib (out) and the left lung.
“4. Incised wound, curcilinear,
located at the anterior aspect of the right shoulder, measuring
4″x1″.
“5. Stab wound, located at the anterior aspect of
the left arm, upper 3rd, measuring 1″x1″.
“6. Stab wound, located at the proximal 3rd,
clavicle, measuring 1/2″x1/2″.
“7. Stab wound, located at the posterior lumbar
region at the level of the 10th rib, 2″ from the midline, measuring
4″x1 1/2″.
“8. Stab wound, located at the posterior axillary line, at the level of the 7th rib, measuring
3″x2 1/2″.
“9. Stab wound, located at the medial aspect of
the right arm, upper 3rd, measuring 2″x2 1/2″.
“10. Stab wound, located at the left iliac crest,
directed laterally upwards measuring 4″x1 1/2″.
“11. Contusion, measuring 2″x1″, located
at the occiput.
Cause of Death: Hemorrhage,
severe, secondary to multiple incised and stab wounds.”
The testimony of Dr. Ayag,
belies the appellant’s version of the killing.
The doctor testified that as
municipal health officer of Mabini, Bohol he was with the
chief of police, two patrolmen, and a civil defense employee when they examined
the victim’s body, which they initially saw near the bamboo grove about 30 meters
from the house of Protacio Amoncio. Dr. Ayag explained that the wounds sustained by Vicente Vallesin were caused by more than one instrument. He distinguished between the wounds caused by a sharp edged instruments and
the wounds caused by the pointed instrument.
He further explained that the contusion at the ocÂciput
was caused by a blunt instrument and that a severe blow to that part of the
head above the nape of the neck or to the medulla oblongata would cause
unconsciousness. Explaining wound No. 1,
the doctor stated:
x x
x x
x x x x x
“ATTY. PAULIN
CLARIN:
Q. Under
the first finding it says: “Incise
wound, clean-cut, gaping, located at the anterior
aspect of the neck. Where is this place,
Doctor?
A. This
one. (Witness pointing
to his Adams apple).
Q. What
is meant by incise wound, Doctor?
A. That
is an open wound caused by a sharp instruments.
Q. And
what is meant by a gaping wound?
A. Open.
A. The
findings continues:
At the level of the
thyroid cartilage, directed posteriorly upwards.
What do you mean by that, Doctor?
A. That
is, going backward and upward (Witness pointing to a portion below his adams apple with the direction going upward towards the
right side).
“COURT:
Q. In
other words, in layman’s language, wound number 1 in your findings is a wound
across the throat of the victim?
A. Yes,
your Honor.
Q. Did
the wound cut obliquely the throat of the victim?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Also
the globular vein was cut?
A. Yes,
your Honor.”
and later added
that wound No. 1 was fatal and would cause the immediate death of Vicente Vallespin. Asked if
a person sustaining ten wounds with his esophagus “almost being cut”
could travel 30 meters, the doctor stated that with the wound in the neck
alone, he could not walk that far. He
could not walk ten meters because both lungs had been hit and if a wound
penetrates into the lungs of a person, he would collapse. According to the defense version, the victim
received the ten wounds, especially the seven inches wound that cut his neck up
to and including the esophagus and the wounds that penetrated the right lung
and the left lung, in the sala of the house and inspite of these ten wounds, was able to get out, go
downstairs, and proceed to a grove thirty meters away.
There are other
circumstances evidenced by the records:
“1. The supposed scene of the incident as
theorized by the defense, which was the sala in the
house of accused-appellant Protacio Amoncio was not spattered with blood which, owing to the ten
gaping stab wounds inflicted on the victim necessarily would have been
noticeably seen as a result of the bloody enÂcounter between Protacio and the
latter.
“2. An ocular inspection conÂducted by the
Municipal Health Officer, the barangay captain and the
Chief of Police at about 3:00 o’clock in the morning of June 13, 1976, a few hours after the incident, of the premises
near where the victim’s body was found, reveals that about 100 meters away from
the victim’s body, more specifically near a madre
cacao tree where the carabao was tied, there was a
pool of blood. The victim’s body was
found in a bamboo grove, more or less 30 meters away from the house of
accused-appellant Protacio Amoncio.
“3. Samples of the blood found near the madre cacao tree, and among the surrounding grass were
taken as well as from the bamboo grove and these samples fitted the victim’s
type of blood.”
There is furthermore the
testimony of the eyewitness Leopoldo Vallespin, the son of the victim, who described how his
father was struck by a piece of wood from behind by Protacio
Amoncio while the victim was untying the rope of the carabao from the madre cacao tree
causing his father to fall face downward on the ground and how this was
followed by appellant Florencio Vallespin’s
stabbing his father with a bolo. (TSN January 30, 1978, pp. 114-115). The witness was able to recognize the appelÂlants
because both were his neighbors and during the incident the “moon was
round”. (TSN January 30, 1978 p. 113).
The fact that Dr. Ayag found some smudges of blood described by him as
“not very many” on the second step of the stairs of the house, on the
floor of the kitchen, and in one of the pillows in the bedroom (TSN September 24, 1976, pp. 21-24) does not destroy the
prosecution’s theory of the incident. It
is possible that Protacio Amoncio
went up his house just after the incident and considering the nature and number
of wounds inflicted on the victim could have brought the blood inside the
house. The Chief of Police testified
that there was no blood under the house.
The house had bamboo slats for flooring.
The blood on the bamboo handle bar of
the stairs consisted of smudges as if caused by the hands.
The appellants assert that
Leopoldo Vallespin, the
lone eyewitness to the crime made some inconsistencies in his testimony. Leopoldo’s story about the incident which he related
consistently all throughout his testimony was substantiated by the material
evidence on record. We do not find his
reaction of going home immediately and upon reaching home lying down and
covering himself with a blanket (TSN January 30, 1978
p. 116) without waking up his mother and brothers and sisters to inform them
about the incident he just witnessed, as necessarily incredible. There is no standard form of behavior when
one is confronted by a shocking incident.
In this case, Leopoldo who was fourteen (14)
years old in 1976, rationalized his behavior after
witnessing the incident in the following manner:
x x
x x
x x x x
x
Q. Upon
reaching your house what did you do?
A. I
lay down and covered my body with a blanket.
Q. Why
did you do that?
A. Because
I was afraid.
Q. When
you arrived home where was your mother?
A. She
was there in the house.
Q. What
was she doing when you arrived?
A. She
was asleep.
Q. How
about your elder brother Rogelio, where was he when you arrived home?
A. He
was out of the house.
Q. How
about your elder sister Angelina, where was she when you arrived home?
A. He
was out of the house.
Q. How
about your elder sister Angelina, where was she when you arrived home?
A. She
was in Manila.
Q. How
about your younger brothers and sisters, where were they when you reached home?
A. They
were there in the house sleeping.
Q. You
said, you lie
down and covered yourself with the blanket.
Were you able to sleep?
A. No. I was not able to sleep.
Q. Why?
A. Because
I was afraid.
Q. What
were you afraid of?
A. I
was afraid because supÂposed the criminals will come to my house.
x x
x x
x x x x
x
Q. You
said that after seeing your father stabbed by accused Florencio
Vallespin, you ran
towards your house. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And your mother
was in your house sleeping?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you not
wake up your mother to tell her about what happened to your father?
A. No. I did not wake up my mother because she is
suffering of a heart disease.
Considering that the issue raised by the appellants refers to the
credibility of Leopoldo Vallespin
as a witness, we rely on the trial court’s findings that:
x x x Aware of the gravity of this case involving, as it does, capital punishment, the
court observed closely the behaviour of the prosecution’s star witness’ stand. The court however failed to discern any sign
of falsehood in his testimony. Not only
did he demonstrate genuine sincerity but all his material assertions were
confirmed by the court’s subsequent findings.
Hence the court could not but believe his allegations.
We apply the well-settled rule that trial courts’ findings of facts carry great weight
for the courts have the privilege of examining the demeanor of a witness while
on the witness stand, and, therefore, can discern if such witness is telling
the truth or not.
Moreover the
“attempted rape” theory of the defense is not substantiated by any
creÂdible evidence. The medical report,
Exhibit (1) which states:
June 23, 1976
TO WHOM THIS MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that MRS. BIBIANA V. AMONCIO, 39 year old, female, married, a resident of San
Isidro, Mabini, Bohol, was physically examined by the
undersigned and found her
suffering from the following injury.
Contusion: Brownish black in color, 1 1/2″x1″
located at the anterior aspect kneejoint left. Complains of pain in the neck – but there is
no apparent appreciable sign or symptom referrable to the comÂplaints.
That the above stated
physical injury will require medical attendance for a period of 3-5 days more
or less.
Date Examined: June
14, 1976.
NESTOR C. AYAG, M.D., CPH
Municipal Health Officer
was secured
to bolster the appellants’ defense but it does not in any way insinuate
that Bibiana Amoncio, the
wife of appellant Protacio Amoncio,
was a victim of an attempted rape. The
choice as to who should be believed, the appellants or the appellee,
is not a difficult one. The records show
beyond reasonable doubt that the lower court did not err in convicting the
accused-appellants.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed with costs against the appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez,
and Relova, JJ., concur.