PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SANCHO NEPOMUCENO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Nepomuceno

The Case

This is People versus Sancho Nepomuceno, an automatic review of a death sentence. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Sancho Nepomuceno for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, for the shooting death of Rolando Arayata at the Tanza Elementary School in Cavite on the day of the barrio elections in January 1972. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it is a clean illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the credibility of eyewitnesses who happen to be relatives of the victim, and it shows the Court affirming a conviction on the testimony of eyewitnesses even where another witness turned hostile and changed his story.

Procedural History

The information for murder was filed against Sancho Nepomuceno, together with Antonio Nepomuceno who remained at large, before the Circuit Criminal Court of the Seventh Judicial District at Pasig, Rizal. The accused entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment in November 1973. After trial, the circuit criminal court, in a decision promulgated in December 1974, found him guilty of murder, sentenced him to death, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of 12,000 pesos, to pay moral damages of 5,000 pesos and exemplary damages of another 5,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case came to the Supreme Court on automatic review.

Facts

On January 9, 1972, the municipality of Tanza, Cavite held its election for barrio captain and other barrio officials, with the precincts at the Tanza Elementary School. Sancho Nepomuceno was a candidate for re-election as barrio captain of Biwas. In the early afternoon, Asuncion Paras Arayata and her sister Angustia went to the school so that Angustia could vote; Asuncion did not vote because she was not yet a registered voter. Rosalinda Arayata and other members of the Arayata family were also at the porch of the school building.

At about a quarter to two in the afternoon, David dela Cruz saw Antonio Nepomuceno holding Rolando Arayata by the shoulder and leading him out of the precinct. A commotion broke out, and Antonio boxed Rolando, who fell down. Shots then rang out inside the school building. Asuncion saw Sancho Nepomuceno and his nephew Antonio shoot Rolando, who was then lying on the ground, using short firearms. Sancho fired from behind the victim while Antonio stood near the victim's head, both at a distance of about one meter. Rosalinda, after hearing two successive shots, glanced to her left, saw the victim on the ground, and saw both Sancho and Antonio pointing their guns at his body and then firing many more shots. She shouted that Rolly had been killed. The two assailants then went down from the school building and left.

Dr. Hernando Pulido examined the body at the family's house and prepared the death certificate, stating the cause of death as severe hemorrhage and shock. Dr. Roberto Garcia of the National Bureau of Investigation conducted the postmortem examination and found that gunshot wounds numbered one to four were entrance wounds that punctured vital organs, causing very immediate death; he opined that more than one forty-five caliber firearm probably caused the wounds. The ballistics examination confirmed that the recovered shell and slugs were forty-five caliber. The defense set up alibi, claiming that the appellant was inside the precinct classroom when the victim was shot at the porch.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of Asuncion Paras Arayata and Rosalinda Arayata, cousins of the victim, and in convicting the appellant of murder on the basis of those testimonies.
• Whether or not reasonable doubt exists in the evidence on record that should warrant the acquittal of the appellant.
• Whether or not the presiding judge manifested bias and prejudice against the defense and in favor of the prosecution, thereby failing to accord the appellant juristic impartiality.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the appellant was charged and convicted, provides:

Article 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 5. With evident premeditation. 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

The qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation alleged in the information are what raised the killing to murder and exposed the appellant to the death penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no merit in the appellant's attack on the credibility of the two eyewitnesses. Their spontaneous, clear and positive statements indubitably pointed to the appellant as the killer. The Court held that the fact that the witnesses were related to the victim did not necessarily vitiate their otherwise credible testimonies. The appellant was, in the Court's words, a man to reckon with in barrio Biwas, and it was natural and realistic that only close relatives of the victim would dare testify against him. The Court also stressed the settled rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are not to be disturbed, because the trial judge is in a better position to appreciate the same, having seen and heard the witnesses and observed their behavior and manner of testifying.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim of reasonable doubt. The attempt to discredit the eyewitnesses through the altered testimony of Daniel dela Cruz did not prevail, because his original written statement, given immediately after the incident, spontaneously answered that the appellant pointed his gun at Rolando Arayata. The Court held that even if the testimony of the principal eyewitnesses were not corroborated, it would still be sufficient to convict, since the testimony of a single witness which satisfies the court is sufficient. The appellant's alibi that he was inside the precinct was a shallow defense, because three witnesses positively testified that he was at the porch with the victim when the shooting occurred.

On the third issue, the Court found no basis to disturb the findings of the lower court and found the trial court's reaction to the appellant's demeanor logical and meriting conformity.

Doctrine

The relationship of a prosecution witness to the victim does not by itself render the witness biased, nor does it impair clear and positive testimony, especially where there is no showing of improper motive. The trial court's assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great respect on appeal, because the trial judge observed the demeanor of the witnesses firsthand. The testimony of a single witness, if it satisfies the court, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Alibi, being a weak defense, cannot prevail over positive identification by eyewitnesses who knew the accused. These rules, applied to a killing attended by treachery and evident premeditation under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, sustain a conviction for murder.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction of the circuit criminal court, finding the appellant guilty of murder and imposing the death penalty, with the civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages, and costs as ordered.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that mere relationship of a prosecution witness to the victim does not necessarily vitiate the witness's otherwise credible testimony. Examiners like to use this case in criminal law and evidence questions on the credibility of related eyewitnesses, the sufficiency of a single witness's testimony, and the weakness of alibi against positive identification.