PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PO2 ORLANDO FRIGILLANA ENTINES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT,

Entines versus People

The Case

This is the appeal of PO2 Orlando Frigillana Entines, a police officer, against his conviction for murder by the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan, for the shooting death of Eli Laya on December 26, 2005. The case matters because it is a compact lesson in the hierarchy of evidence in criminal appeals: the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, the weight of a positive identification by an eyewitness, the weakness of alibi and denial, and the appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. It also illustrates the Supreme Court's power to modify the award of damages even as it affirms a conviction.

Procedural History

An Information for murder was filed against the accused-appellant on February 15, 2006. When arraigned, with the assistance of private counsel, he entered a plea of not guilty. After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 83 of Malolos City, Bulacan, rendered its Decision on February 8, 2013, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, aggravated by treachery and evident premeditation, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and costs. Not satisfied, the accused-appellant interposed an appeal before the Supreme Court, assigning several errors, chiefly the alleged failure of the prosecution witnesses to positively identify him, the alleged suggestiveness of the out-of-court identification, and the alleged improbability and inconsistency of the testimonies of Perlita Tria and Claudia Honey Gonzales.

Facts

At around half past twelve in the afternoon of December 26, 2005, Perlita Tria was in the house of her brother-in-law, Eli Laya, in Marilao, Bulacan, talking with her father Armando, her maid Liza, and Liza's child in front of the gate. Eli Laya was at the window of the house, smoking a cigarette. Suddenly, the accused-appellant, PO2 Orlando Frigillana Entines, approached the gate and shot Eli Laya four times, hitting him on different parts of his body and causing his instantaneous death. Perlita witnessed the shooting at close range.

Earlier that noon, Claudia Honey Gonzales testified that the accused went to her store in Marilao and bought cigarettes, leaving at around half past twelve. She then heard four gunshots, went out, and along the way met the accused walking fast with a gun tucked under his waist. The medico-legal officer, Dr. Reynaldo Dave, Jr., testified that Eli Laya sustained four gunshot wounds, with no bullets recovered as all had exit points, and that the immediate cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to a gunshot wound.

For his part, the accused claimed alibi: that from noon to one o'clock that day he was on duty as investigator at the Pasay Traffic Investigation Unit in Pasay City, having reported at seven in the morning and staying until nine in the evening, going out only twice to attend to vehicular accidents. His fellow policemen corroborated that he was on duty in Pasay City at the time of the killing.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the eyewitness Perlita Tria, are credible enough to be worthy of belief and sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• Whether or not the accused-appellant's defense of alibi should be appreciated in his favor.
• Whether or not the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Applicable Provisions

The decision defines treachery in the language of the Revised Penal Code:

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

This definition governs whether the killing is murder rather than homicide, and the Court found that the sudden and unexpected firing at an unarmed victim insured the killing without risk to the offender.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court sustained the conviction. It held that the issue of credibility is resolved primarily by the trial court, which heard the witnesses and observed their deportment, and its findings are entitled to the highest respect absent a showing that it overlooked or misapplied facts of weight and substance. Perlita Tria positively identified the accused in open court, pointing to him inside the courtroom. The Court held that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of Perlita and Claudia were of no moment, since slight inconsistencies and variances hardly weaken probative value, and immaterial details do not discredit a testimony on the very act of the accused. Absent any showing of improper motive, the presumption is that the witness was not so moved, and her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.

On the second issue, the Court found the alibi inherently weak. The trial court noted that the evidence did not demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused being at the scene, since the witness placed him in the office only at around ten thirty to eleven in the morning, and he failed to account for his whereabouts after eleven until the earliest entry of his signature in the police blotter at five thirty in the afternoon. It was therefore physically possible for him to be present at the scene, where he was positively identified.

On the third issue, the Court held that the killing was attended by treachery, which was duly alleged in the Information. The mode and manner of attack insured the accomplishment of the purpose, the killing of the victim without giving him any opportunity to defend himself or resist, the firing being so sudden and unexpected that the unarmed victim was caught totally unprepared to defend himself or retaliate.

Doctrine

First, the credibility of witnesses is a question resolved primarily by the trial court, whose findings are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result. Second, minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses do not destroy their credibility so long as they corroborate one another on material points bearing on the very act of the accused. Third, where there is nothing to show that a prosecution witness was moved by improper motive, the presumption is that she was not so moved, and her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. Fourth, alibi is inherently weak and must be rejected where it does not demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused being at the scene of the crime. Fifth, treachery, as defined in the quoted provision, qualifies the killing to murder where the means employed insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from any defense the victim might make.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied and dismissed the appeal, affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder with the modification that the exemplary damages were increased from 25,000 pesos to 30,000 pesos, and decreed that all monetary awards earn interest at the legal rate of six percent per annum from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the trial court's credibility findings bind the appellate court absent grave misapprehension of facts, and that alibi crumbles against a positive identification. Examiners like to use this case to test the standard of review on credibility, the treatment of minor inconsistencies, and the requisites of treachery as a qualifying circumstance.