G.R. No. L-21419. September 29, 1966
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. NARCISO DE GRACIA AND RAYMUNDO SORIMA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Lanao del Norte, in its Criminal Case No. 598, finding accused Narciso
de Gracia and Raymundo Sorima both guilty of the crime of murder as
charged and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua,
with all the accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased, Ernesto Flores, in the amount of P6,000.00, and to pay the
proportionate costs.
On 31 May 1961, the Provincial Fiscal of Lanao del Norte filed in
the above-stated court an information charging accused Alfredo Salva,
Narciso de Gracia, and Raymundo Sorima with the crime of murder for the
killing of one Ernesto Flores. Said information reads:
“That on or about the 13th day of May, 1961, in the
Barrio of Tacub, Municipality of Kauswagan, Province of Lanao del
Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the said
accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one
another, conveniently armed with bladed weapons, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, treachery,
evident premeditation and taking advantage of the darkness of the
night, attacked, stab and wound therewith one Ernesto Flores,
inflicting upon him one mortal wound on the abdomen, penetrating with
eleven (11) perforation of the Gastro-Intestinal Tract, and as a direct
result thereof the said Ernesto Flores died few hours thereafter.“Contrary
to and in violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with the
qualifying circumstance of alevosia and the following generic
aggravating circumstances, to wit: (a) uninhabited place; (b) night
time; (c) superior strength; and (d) evident premeditation.”
On 16 June 1961, accused Alfredo Salva, assisted by a counsel de oficio,
was arraigned, and he entered a plea of guilty. Accordingly, the trial
court separately sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua),
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P6,000.00, with
no subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
For reasons not appearing on record, the other two accused, Narciso
de Gracia and Raymundo Sorima, were not simultaneously arraigned with
Alfredo Salva; however, on 3 January 1963, these two accused were
finally arraigned, and pleaded not guilty. Hence, trial proceeded
against them.
At the hearing, the prosecution established that: on 13 May 1961,
Paterno Silma and Esperidion Gac-ang, together with accused Alfredo
Salva and Raymundo Sorima, were working in the farm of one Pedro Lacida
which is situated in the mountain of Barrio Tacub, municipality of
Kauswagan, Province of Lanao del Norte. That afternoon, this group of
four men went down the mountain to Barrio Tacub proper where they
reside, arriving at around 2 o’clock of the same day.
At around 5 o’clock p.m., 13 May 1961, the same group of men met and
were joined by accused Narciso de Gracia in the store of one Peling
Landi in Barrio Tacub where Salva treated his companions to beer and
tuba. After rounds of drinks, the five men left and proceeded to the
store of Pedro Lacida where Sorima tried to secure rice on credit.
Lacida’s wife, however, refused. Seemingly resenting Mrs. Lacida’s
refusal, Sorima said that he will go on “paregla” (meaning he will kill
somebody). To avoid trouble, Silma and Gac-ang repaired to Gac-ang’s
house, leaving the three accused at the store.
Between the hours of nine and ten o’clock in the evening of the same
day, 13 May 1961, while Silma and Gac-ang were conversing in the
balcony of the latter’s house, they saw Salva, Sorima, and de Gracia
seated by a tree near the road a short distance away.
Some time later, Ernesto Flores passed by on his way to the nearby
seashore, and upon reaching the place where the accused were seated, he
greeted them “Good evening”. Without returning the salutation, de
Gracia suddenly held Flores’ left arm and Sorima the latter’s right
arm, Sorima ordering Salva to stab the passerby. Apparently recognizing
that Flores is not their intended victim, Salva said to his companions:
“He is not the one.” But Sorima replied: “Never mind. You said it is
“paregla”.” Salva then thrust his hunting knife, Exhibit “A”, into
Flores’ abdomen. Flores shouted for help, causing all three accused to
scamper away. Out of fear, Silma and Gac-ang went inside the latter’s
house and locked themselves in. [1]
Ernesto Flores rushed away in the direction of his father’s
(Santiago Flores) house, shouting for help (“tabang”). Kauswagan
Vice-Mayor Nemesio Agawin, who was then reading a newspaper in his
house, was attracted by these shouts. He immediately got his rifle,
went down and followed Flores, finally overtaking him in the back
stairs of his father’s house, sitting by the stairs but supported by
his two brothers, and with his intestines protruding out of his
abdomen. Upon Agawin’s inquiry as to what happened, Ernesto Flores
spontaneously declared that Alfredo Salva stabbed him while “Naring”
(de Gracia) and “Mundo” (Sorima) were holding his arms. Agawin ordered
his own brother to get his jeep and rush Ernesto to the hospital in
Iligan City, about 20 kilometers away. In the hospital, Dr. Felixberto
Abellanosa treated Ernesto’s wounds, but he died due to loss of blood
three hours after admission in the hospital (Exhibit “B”).
That very same night, Vice-Mayor Agawin reported the incident to
Tacub Barrio Lieutenant Lumipao Abanto. Both officials fetched accused
de Gracia and Sorima from their respective houses and brought them to
the municipal building of Kauswagan for investigation, during which
both accused executed their respective affidavits (Exhibits “C”, “C-1”,
“C-2”, and “D”, “D-1”). They also invited Paterno Silma and Esperidion
Gac-ang to go with them to the municipal hall to shed light in this
stabbing incident, and the duo executed affidavits in their turn
(Exhibits “2” and “3”). Alfredo Salva was not found that night, and he
was not immediately apprehended.
The day following, 14 May 1961, Vice-Mayor Agawin received the
information from a certain policeman named Santos that a man, who might
probably be the assailant of Ernesto Flores because his clothes were
stained with blood, had slept the previous night in the house of Santos
in Barrio Samburon of the neighboring municipality, Linamon, Lanao del
Norte. Agawin, together with Faustino Amodia (who first received the
information from Santos) and with other companions, immediately
proceeded to Santos’ place, where they apprehended Alfredo Salva.
Alfredo Salva admitted, upon Agawin’s questioning, that he stabbed
Ernesto Flores, and he even pointed to the roof of the nipa house where
he hid the hunting knife, Exhibit “A”, which he used in the stabbing.
Accused Salva pleaded to the arresting party not to maltreat him. He
also asked if de Gracia and Sorima were already arrested, to which
question Amodia answered that they are already in jail. Salva was then
brought to the municipal building of Kauswagan.
There is no substantial conflict between the evidence of the
prosecution and defense that, at around 5 o’clock in the afternoon of
13 May 1961, the five men, namely, accused Alfredo Salva, Narciso de
Gracia and Raymundo Sorima, witnesses Paterno Silma and Esperidion
Gac-ang, met and drank liquor in a store in Barrio Tacub.
The defense tried, however, to establish that: after drinking for
about an hour, accused Salva paid for the drinks and, alone, left his
four companions in the store. Later, the four men, who remained, also
left the store and, upon reaching the national road, accused de Gracia
and Sorima separated from Silma and Gac-ang and both accused proceeded
together to Lacida’s store where Sorima tried to obtain rice on credit
but Mrs. Lacida refused. Thereafter, they went to their respective
houses and slept. The accused further claimed that at around 11 o’clock
of the same evening, 13 May 1961, accused de Gracia and Sorima were
each awakened by Vice-Mayor Nemesio Agawin, who informed them that
Ernesto Flores was stabbed, and were invited to come along to the
municipal building of Kauswagan, to which request they readily agreed.
There, they executed their respective affidavits (Exhibits “C”, “C-1”,
“C-2”, and “D”, “D-1”).
Accused de Gracia and Sorima denied having known where their
co-accused Alfredo Salva went after leaving them in the store. They
also denied having conspired, gone or participated with Salva in
stabbing Ernesto Flores or having been at all in the scene of the
stabbing.
Accused de Gracia claimed that he was implicated in the stabbing of
Ernesto Flores upon the prodding of the victim’s parents who
erroneously suspected him of stealing coconuts in their plantation; and
that Faustino Amodia testified against him and Raymundo Sorima because
Amodia’s wife and Ernesto’s mother are relatives.
The defense also tried to show that after leaving the drinking party
accused Salva alone went around Barrio Tacub and, on his way to Barrio
Samburon where he intended to spend the night, he met Ernesto Flores
along the seashore; that without provocation whatsoever, he was
suddenly and continuously boxed by Flores; whereupon, he was forced to
use his hunting knife in stabbing the latter to defend himself. After
stabbing Flores, he proceeded to Barrio Samburon where Vice-Mayor
Agawin and his companions approached him the next day, 14 May 1961, and
invited him to go to the municipal building in Kauswagan. He
voluntarily went with the vice-mayor and there readily admitted that he
alone stabbed Ernesto Flores.
Giving credence to the testimony of prosecution’s eye-witnesses on
the stabbing of Ernesto Flores, as well as to Vice-Mayor Agawin’s
repetition in open court of the victim’s ante mortem statement;
rejecting accused Salva’s admission that he alone, without the
participation or presence of his co-accused, stabbed the deceased, and
not believing the alibi of accused de Gracia and Sorima, the
trial court, in a separate decision, convicted both accused of the
crime of murder as charged. Both accused appealed directly to this
Court.
Counsel de oficio for accused-appellants Narciso de Gracia
and Raymundo Sorima assigns five alleged errors of the trial court,
which boil down to one issue: the credibility of the witnesses.
Appellants contend that the testimonies of prosecution’s
eye-witnesses to the stabbing of deceased Ernesto Flores are highly
incredible, inherently improbable, absurd and inconsistent. Thus, they
claim that it is contrary to common sense and Filipino custom for these
witnesses and the three accused, who are common friends and whose
position between them immediately prior to the stabbing incident was
merely a few fathoms apart, not to have greeted and talked to one
another; that it is inexplicable for the accused to have chosen for the
stabbing a place where there were potential witnesses who could easily
identify them; that it is unnatural for said accused to have left their
victim still alive; that it is strange that the victim should have
sought assistance and refuge in his father’s house which is more
distant than Gac-ang’s house; that it is also improbable for these
witnesses to have allowed Flores, who was their friend, to proceed to
the seashore without even warning him of the imminent danger to his
life; and that these witnesses were inconsistent, not being sure who
among the two accused ordered their co-accused Salva to stab Flores or
whether it was Flores’ arms or hands which de Gracia and Sorima held,
and that these witnesses testified differently from what they stated in
their affidavits. Hence, it is insisted that the testimonies of Silma
and Gac-ang should not be given credence.
These alleged improbabilities strike us as more apparent than real,
and were duly explained in the record. Witnesses Silma and Gac-ang
testified that they became afraid of the appellants, who were reputed
to be killers and were facing charges for homicide in the local court
and also in Davao; so much so that when Sorima became angry at not
being given credit at Lacida’s store, and threatened to make “paregla”
(i.e., to kill someone), Silma and Gac-ang left the accused and went
home. This fear evidently motivated the latter’s subsequent passivity
during the stabbing, as well as their evasive affidavits on the day
after the killing.
The averred inconsistency in the testimonies of Silma and Gac-ang
appears only in minor details, and reinforces rather than weakens their
credibility, for it is usual that witnesses to a stirring event should
see differently some details of a startling occurrence. This has been
judicially taken notice of by the courts (Peo. vs. Limbo, 49 Phil. 94,
Peo. vs. De Otero, 51 Phil. 201; U. S. vs. Go Foo Suy, 25 Phil. 187).
Anent the conduct of the appellants on the fateful night, as
described by both eyewitnesses, it must be remembered that appellants
were under the influence of liquor, and thus their behavior and
reactions can not be measured by normal standards of conduct. Nor is
there anything unusual in the deceased’s rushing home upon being
stabbed, since his father’s house was not very far away, and it is not
shown that he was intimate enough with Silma and Gac-ang to seek refuge
in their house.
We find, therefore, no ground for altering the trial court’s
appreciation of the credibility of the eyewitnesses, Silma and Gac-ang,
specially since no improper motive on their part has been proved.
Appellants also contend that the testimony of Vice-Mayor Nemesio
Agawin regarding Ernesto Flores’ dying declaration had not satisfied
the requirements of an ante mortem statement since the
declarant had not made it under the conciousness of an impending death,
nor had the statement fulfilled the requirements of res gestae,
because said declaration was neither natural nor spontaneous, or
unreflective and instinctive, but rather it was made in reply to a
question asked from the declarant; and the prosecution not having
specified the purpose for which Agawin’s testimony was offered, the
same is inadmissible in evidence for being hearsay.
We are in accord with the trial court in admitting the testimony of
Vice-Mayor Agawin regarding Flores’ dying declaration, wherein he
identified appellants as his assailants. We believe that the
circumstances under which the victim made such identification have
fulfilled the requirements of either an ante mortem statement or as part of the res gestae.
Judged by the nature and extent of the injury inflicted (deep stab
wound on the abdomen, causing his intestines to protrude), Flores could
not ignore the seriousness of his condition, and it is safe to infer
that the deceased made the declaration under the consciousness of
impending death. The same identification may also be considered as part
of the res gestae, since it was made immediately after the
stabbing incident and appears to be natural and spontaneous, and made
before the deceased, who had no enmity toward appellants, could
contrive or devise a plan to incriminate them.
There was no necessity for the prosecution to specify the purpose
for which it offered Agawin’s testimony, for said purpose was
self-evident. Besides, the defense failed to object on time to its
presentation in the trial court. Hence, the trial court correctly
admitted said testimony.
Appellants urge that their co-accused Alfredo Salva’s voluntary
confession of guilt in which he acknowledged that he alone, without the
presence or participation of appellants, stabbed Ernesto Flores, and
their own sworn declarations in open court vehemently denying any
direct participation in the stabbing of deceased Ernesto Flores are
reliable, worthy of credence and belief. They finally contend that,
taking into consideration all circumstances, the prosecution had not
proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt; hence, they are entitled to
judgment of acquittal.
We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and find no
sufficient reason to warrant the disturbance of the factual findings
and conclusions of the trial court in convicting accused-appellants
Narciso de Gracia and Raymundo Sorima.
Salva’s attempts to exonerate his co-accused Sorima and de Gracia
appear fatally infirmed by his own unreliability, as demonstrated by
the record. His spontaneous question, when arrested by Vice-Mayor
Agawin, whether the two appellants herein had been detained contradicts
his assertions of sole authorship, for he had no reason for making such
a query if he had acted alone in killing Flores. Furthermore, Salva’s
testimony at the trial of Sorima and de Gracia, that Flores assaulted
him without provocation, is inconsistent with his conduct in pleading
guilty to the charge of murder as described in the information, without
any attempt to show extenuating circumstances in his favor.
As to the testimony of the appellants herein on their whereabouts at
the time their victim met his untimely end, the same is totally
uncorroborated by any one else, and can not prevail over the version of
disinterested eyewitnesses Silma and Gac-ang, which was, in turn,
confirmed by the statements of their victim to Vice-Mayor Agawin.
We concur, therefore, with the trial court in finding both
appellants guilty of the murder of Ernesto Flores, the crime being
qualified by alevosia or treachery. The immobilization of Flores by
these appellants while Salva stabbed him and the suddenness of the
attack on their unprepared victim, who had met them with a friendly
greeting just before being assaulted, leave no doubt that the culprits
took measures to forestall any danger to themselves.
However, treachery absorbs superior strength and nocturnity (U. S.
vs. Estopia, 28 Phil. 97; U. S. vs. Macalinao, 4 Phil. 407); evident
premeditation was not proved; while commission of the offense in an
uninhabited place is contradicted by the house of Silma and Gac-ang
being only a few fathoms away from the place of the attack. Thus, none
of the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information can be
appreciated. Upon the other hand, the record clearly shows that both
appellants were under the influence of liquor, and no habituality being
established, appellants appear entitled to the benefit of one
mitigating circumstance that would result in the application of the
minimum penalty for murder, i.e., reclusion temporal in its maximum degree.
WHEREFORE, the conviction of the accused, Raymundo Sorima and
Narciso de Gracia, for the crime of murder is upheld; but the penalty
is reduced, pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to not less
than twelve (12) years of prision mayor and not more than eighteen (18)
years of reclusion temporal. In all other respects, the judgment under appeal is affirmed. Costs against appellants.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., no part.
[1] The foregoing facts
were elicited from the testimony of Paterno Silma, who was presented by
the prosecution as its witness, and Esperidion Gac-ang, who was
presented by the defense as a hostile witness, but whose testimony had
been dispensed with by the prosecution for being merely corroborative
of Silma’s testimony.