PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CRISOSTOMO PACULBA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, Branch IV, convicting the accused, Crisostomo Paculba, of the crimes
of Murder and Frustrated Murder.

The accused, Crisostomo Paculba, was charged with the crimes of Frustrated Murder
(Criminal Case No. S-123) and Murder (Criminal Case No. S-122) in two (2)
separate informations, filed before the Court of
First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, Branch IV,
committed as follows:

1.   Crim. Case No. S-123

“That in the evening on or about the 12th day of July, 1972,
in the municipality of Salug, Zamboanga
del Norte, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused conspiring and confederating together with one JOHN DOE who is still at
large, armed with a firearm and with intent to kill by means of treachery and
evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shot one TARIOCA RINGGUIT
thereby inflicting upon him a gunshot wound at the medial aspect of the right
leg; thus performing all the acts of execution that would have produced the
crime of Murder as a consequence but nevertheless did not produce it for reason
of causes independent of the will of the accused, that is the timely and able
medical assistance rendered to the victim which save his life.

“CONTRARY TO LAW, with the aggravating
circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation.^[1]

2.   Crim. Case No. S-122

“That in the evening on or about the 12th day of July, 1972,
in the municipality of Salug, Zamboanga
del Norte, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused conspiring and confederating together and helping one another with one
JOHN DOE who is still at large, armed with a firearm and with intent to kill by
means of treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot one MADJID
RINGGUIT, thereby inflicting upon him a gunshot wound at the supra sternal area directing dorsally which caused his death. That
as a result of the criminal acts of the herein accused the heirs of the victim
suffered the following damages:

“CONTRARY TO LAW with the aggravating circumstances
of treachery and evident premeditation.”^[2]

The cases were tried jointly and judgment was thereafter
rendered, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the
accused Crisostomo Paculba,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and Frustrated Murder,
and hereby sentences the accused for the crime of Murder, to serve a penalty of
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased Madjid Ringuit
in the sum of P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and for the crime of Frustrated Murder, to serve an indeterminate penalty of
four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional as minimum to twelve (12) years,
five (5) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal as maximum,
and to pay the costs in both cases.

“The accused is given the full benefit of his preventive
imprisonment in accordance with law.

“IT IS SO ORDERED.”^[3]

Not satisfied with the judgment, the accused appealed to this
Court.

Before filing his brief, the accused-appellant filed before this
Court, an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings of the case on the ground of
a pending application for amnesty filed by him, under P.D. No. 206 with the
Fifth Amnesty Commission, stationed in Dipolog City.^[4]
This Court, however, required the appellant to file his brief without prejudice
to whatever action the appellant might take after the final resolution of his
application for amnesty.^[5]

The People’s version of the facts is as follows:

“At about 6:30 o’clock in the evening of July 12, 1972, Taricon Ringuit left his house in
barrio Lanawan, Municipality of Salug,
Zamboanga del Norte, together with his wife, Miriam Ringuit, his nephew, Madjid Ringuit, his brother, Misal Ringuit, and one Madji Ansaw to catch fish and gather river shells for their
supper in a nearby river with the use of a petromax
light. (tsn, pp. 15-16, 22,
23, 25, Oct. 26, 1972). After
gathering enough shells, they decided to return home around 8:00 o’clock in the evening. (tsn, p. 23, Oct.
26, 1972). Upon their arrival thirty minutes later, Taricon Ringuit, with the petromax light on hand, proceeded to ascend the backstairs
of his house leading to the kitchen followed behind by his nephew Madjid Ringuit. (tsn, pp. 16-18, 20, 23, Oct. 26, 1972). As Taricon was about to climb the third step of the stairs
with Madjid still on the ground behind him, Taricon saw accused Crisostomo Paculba sitting under the house be­low the kitchen floor
holding a long gun which was pointed at them. (tsn, p. 18, Oct.
26, 1972). Suddenly, the accused fired a shot, hitting Madjid Ringuit at the base of the
neck and killing him, instantaneously. (Id). After the
shooting, the accused and his unidentified companion ran away (tsn, p. 19, Oct.
26, 1972). Taricon Ringuit
was also wounded on his right leg and tried to go after the assailant but could
not do so because of his injury. (tsn,
pp. 18-19, Oct. 26, 1972).
Misal Ringuit, who was
still in the yard of the house about to take the front stairs lead­ing to the
porch, upon witnessing the shooting, immediately ran to the fallen Madjid Ringuit and held him with
his two hands and, together with his brother Taricon,
brought the victim upstairs. (tsn, pp. 23-24, Oct. 26, 1972). Meanwhile, Nicanor
Lantao, a municipal clerk of Salug
and a neighbor of the Ringuits, upon hearing a gun
report followed by screams coming from their house, repaired thereto. Upon
seeing Madjid Ringuit
wounded on the leg, Lantao requested the barrio captain
who was with him to report the matter to the local police authorities. Shortly
thereafter, the Municipal Mayor, the Chief of Police and several policemen and
PC soldiers, arrived at the scene of the crime. (tsn, pp. 31-32, Dec. 19, 1972). After conducting an on-the-spot investigation
of the incident, the peace officers proceeded to the house of the accused some
300 meters away from the house of the deceased and inquired from him if he
owned any firearm. The accused pointed to two home-made guns, one of which was
taken by the peace officers together with three bullets. (tsn, pp. 20-27, 29, 32, May 7, 1973). Crisostomo Paculba was forthwith arrested and brought to the municipal
building of Salug where he was investigated by the
Chief of Police of Salug. His statements given during
the investigation were reduced into writing and signed by the accused. (Exh. G, pp.
4-5, rec.).

“Rural Health Officer Dr. Carmencita
Pangasinan conducted a post-mortem examination of the
deceased and found a ‘gunshot wound about 5″ deep by 1″ diameter
located at the supra sternal area directing
dorsally.’ Cause of death was severe internal hemorrhage secondary to gunshot
wound (Exh. A, p. 6, rec.). A
slug was recovered from the body of the victim. She also physically examined
and treated Taricon Ringuit
of a gunshot wound about 4″ deep located at the medical aspect of the
right leg. A slug was also re­covered from his injured leg. (tsn, pp. 5-6, Oct. 26, 1972).

“The left and right hands of the accused and Taricon Ringuit were likewise
subjected to paraffin tests, by NBI Senior Chemist Renato
G. Mababa. The paraffin cast taken of the left hand
of the accused showed positive results of the presence of nitrates, while those
taken of the hands of Taricon Ringuit
yielded negative results. (Exhs.
C & F, pp. 57, 58, rec.; tsn,
pp. 40, 44-45, Feb. 6, 1973).”^[6]

The appellant’s defense is an alibi. He denied that he committed
the offense complained of and assailed the trial court for convicting him of
the charge based upon the evidence of the prosecution which is weak,
insufficient, incompetent and inconclusive. His testimony is summarized by the
trial court, as follows:

“On July 12, 1972,
he was the whole day plowing the land of his mother at Lanawan,
Salug, Zamboanga del Norte. After his work at about 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon, he proceeded to the house
of his father-in-law at Liguac, Salug,
where he and his family transferred sometime ago, arriving thereat at 7:00 o’clock that evening. He took his supper
alone because his wife ate ahead of him. At about 8:00
o’clock the same evening, he heard two gun reports at an interval
of 30 minutes coming from the direction of the house of the Ringuit
family. He did not mind what he heard. At about 12:00
o’clock midnight, he was
awakened by the arrival of a PC soldier and some Salug
policemen who inquired from him whether he has a pistol. He admitted that he
owns two homemade shotguns (pali-untod),
one of which was owned by his brother-in-law, which they purchased from a
certain subano for the purpose of self-protection. The
two homemade shotgun were taken by the peace officers
and the accused was forthwith arrested and brought to the municipal building of
Salug, Zamboanga del Norte.
Upon his inquiry, he was told that he was a suspect of having shot Madjid Ringuit and Taricon Ringuit. He was
investigated by the Chief of Police of Salug. The
investigation was re­duced to writing and signed by him. (Exh. “G”, Crim. Case No. S-122).

“He claims that he never had any misunder­standing with the Ringuit family. They were friends since childhood”^[7]

The appellant presented his wife, Regina Banglus,
Anatolio Ortiz and his mother Anastacia
Paculba to corroborate his testimony:

“Corroborating his theory, his wife, Regina Banglus, testified that her husband (Crisostomo),
who was out the whole day of July 12, 1972, arrived from the farm at about 7:00
o’clock in the evening. After taking his supper alone, they slept together and
he (Crisostomo) never left the house that evening. At
about 12:00 o’clock midnight, the policemen arrived and arrested her
husband who was brought to the municipal building of Salug.
Upon her inquiry from the policemen why her husband was being arrested, she was
informed that her husband was the one who shot the muslims. She could not believe that Crisostomo did it because he was with her in the house of
her father at Liguac, some 300 meters away from the
scene of the crime. She, however, admitted having heard two (2) gun reports
that evening.

 “To further reinforce
his defense, the accused presented Anatalio Ortiz who
declared that in the evening of July
12, 1972, at about 8:00 o’clock,
he heard two (2) gun reports coming from the direction of the house of the Ringuit family. The two gun reports had an interval of 30
minutes. He personally knows that the accused and the deceased never had any
misunderstanding prior to the incident. Their relationship was harmonious.

“Anastacia Paculba,
mother of the accused Crisostomo, also declared that
in the evening of July 12, 1972
she heard two (2) gun reports at an interval of 30 minutes each coming from the
direction of the house of the Ringuit family. The
following morning, when she went to the municipal building of Salug to pay her taxes, she was informed that her son was
in jail. She corroborated the story of her son.”^[8]

We find no merit in the appeal. The question raised by the
appellant involves the credibility of witnesses and it is a settled rule that
when the question raised refers to the credibility of witnesses, this Court
will not disturb the findings of the lower court unless there is a clear proof
of misappreciation of evidence.^[9]
Such is not the case at bar. The inconsistencies in the testimony of Taricon and Misal, witnesses for
the prosecution, pointed out by the appellant in his brief refer to minor
details and do not affect their credibility.^[10]
On the other hand, such inconsistencies are badges of truth for only the
testimony of rehearsed witnesses will tally on every point. Also, the
inconsistencies in the affidavit of Taricon and his
testimony in open court do not render his testimony incredible. It has been
ruled that affidavits as species of evidence usually suffer from infirmities,
as shown by judicial experience.^[11]

The defense of alibi cannot be given full faith and credit since
the appellant had been positively identified^[12]
as the one who fired the shot that killed the deceased Madjid
Ringuit and wounded Taricon
Ringuit. The prosecution witnesses could not have
been mistaken in their identity as the place was illuminated by the petromax lamp carried by Taricon Ringuit and the appellant was well known to them. Besides,
for an alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the appellant was
somewhere else when the crime was committed, but he must, likewise, demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to
have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.^[13]
In the instant case, the appellant was allegedly in the house of his
father-in-law at the time the crime was committed. The said house, however, is
only 300 meters away from the house of the deceased so that it was not
physically impossible for the appellant to be at the scene of the crime when it
was committed.

Moreover, the appellant had not shown any reason why the
witnesses for the prosecution would testify against him and implicate him in
the commission of a grave felony unless the appellant is really guilty thereof.
Witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense testified that there was
never any misunderstanding between the victims and the appellant and their
relationship was harmonious.

Furthermore, the act of appellant in filing an
application for amnesty under P.D. No 206 with the Fifth Amnesty
Commission constitutes an implied admission of guilt. This Court has ruled that
amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime, and when an accused maintains
that he has not committed a crime, he cannot have any use for amnesty. The
invocation of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession which means that
the pleader admits the allegations against him.^[14]

The crime committed is qualified by treachery, in that appellant
armed with a shotgun suddenly fired a shot at his unarmed victims at close range
as the victims were just about to ascend the stair, taking the victims by
surprise and leaving them with no means to defend themselves.^[15]

Evident premeditation, however, cannot be appre­ciated because of
the absence of proof that the appellant had planned the killing of the deceased
and had coolly reflected upon its commission. For evident premeditation to be
appreciated, it must be shown that the accused premeditated the killing; that
he clung to his premeditated act; and that there was sufficient interval of
time between the premeditation and the execution of the crime to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act.^[16]

The single shot from a shotgun that appellant aimed at the
victims resulted in the death of Madjid Ringuit and the infliction of mortal wounds on Taricon Ringuit which would have
caused his death were it not for timely medical assistance.

The crime committed is a complex crime of Murder with Frustrated
Murder since the death of Madjid Ringuit
and the wounding of Taricon Ringuit
arose out of the single act of the appellant in firing a shot.^[17]
Consequently, only one penalty should be imposed upon the accused. The
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as
minimum, to twelve (12) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, imposed upon the accused for the frustrated murder of
Taricon Ringuit (Crim. Case No. S-123) should be, accordingly, eliminated.

Under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code,
the penalty to be imposed upon the accused in a complex crime shall be that for
the most serious crime, which is Murder in this case, the same to be applied in
its maximum period or Death. However, for lack of the necessary votes, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby
imposed upon the appellant.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is
hereby MODIFIED, and the accused Crisostomo Paculba is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the decased, Madjid Ringuit, in the sum of P12,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, and
Escolin, JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., on official leave.

De Castro, J., on sick leave.

^[1] Rollo, p. 3.

^[2] Id.,
p. 4.

^[3] Id.,
p. 21.

^[4] Id.,
pp. 27-28.

^[5] Id.,
p. 40.

^[6] Id.,
p. 73.

^[7] Id.,
pp. 16-17.

^[8] Id.,
pp. 17-18.

^[9] People vs. Binsol, et al., 100
Phil. 713; People vs. Jardiniano, et al., No.
L-37191, March 30, 1981, 103 SCRA 530.

^[10] People vs. Palencia,
et al., L-38957, April 30, 1976, 71 SCRA 679;
People vs. Abrogar, et al., No. L-24310, October 19, 1976, 73 SCRA 466.

^[11] People vs. Flores, et al., L-17077, April 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 309;
People vs. Timbang, et al., 74 Phil. 295.

^[12] People vs. Arpon, et al., 100
Phil. 765.

^[13] People vs. Divinagracia, 105 Phil.
281.

^[14] People vs. Llaneta, et al., 86
Phil. 219.

^[15] People vs. Aleta, G.R. No. L-40694, Aug. 31, 1976, 72 SCRA 542.

^[16] People vs. Corpus, 107 Phil. 44.

^[17]
Art. 48, Revised Penal Code.