G.R. No. 101314. July 01, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOHN AMET BAELLO Y GUINTIVANO @ “TOTONG,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
In an Information filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Pasig, Metro Manila, on 18 October 1990, accused John Amet Baello @
“Totong” was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide. The accusatory portion of the information
reads as follows:
“That on or about the 10th day of October, 1990 in the
Municipality of Pasig, Metro-Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating
with one @ ‘Jerry’; whose true identity and present whereabout is still
unknown, and mutually helping and aiding with one another, with intent to gain,
without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, entered the house of
one Eustaquio Borja y Reyes thru the window at the second floor of the said
house, an opening not intended for ingress or egress, and once inside the same,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry
away the following items, to wit:
One (1) 20″ colored
television set marked
‘Sharp’ worth …………………… P11,269.00
One (1) stereo cassette
recorder colored black
worth …………………………… 2,500.00
One (1) camera worth ……….. 1,000.00
Assorted jewelries (sic)
of still undetermined
amount __________
P14,769.00
belonging to Eustaquio Borja y Reyes, to
the damage and prejudice of the owner thereof in the total amount of
P14,769.00; and that by reason and on the occasion of the robbery, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill, armed with bladed instrument, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab one Veronica Borja y
Ramos on the vital parts of her body, thereby inflicting upon her mortal wounds
which were the direct and immediate cause of her death thereafter.”[1]
The case was docketed as Criminal Case
No. 84253 and was raffled off to Branch 156 of the said court.
At his arraignment on 13 November 1990, the accused entered a
plea of not guilty.[2]
Trial on the merits commenced on 18 December 1990.
After due trial, the RTC promulgated its decision[3]
on 19 July 1991 finding the accused guilty as charged. The adjudicatory portion thereof reads as
follows:
“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused
JOHN AMET BAELLO y Guintivano @ ‘TOTONG’ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of ‘robbery with homicide’ under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal
Code with the aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry and hereby
sentences said accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
with all its accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of Veronica Borja y
Ramos in the amount of P50,000.00, to pay the sum of P50,000.00 by way of
reparation of the stolen cassette, camera and assorted jewelries (sic), to pay
the further sum of P41,672.00 by way of reimbursement of the burial and other
related expenses and the additional sum of P20,000.00 and P10,000.00 as moral
and exemplary damages, respectively, all without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
In the service of his sentence, the accused shall be credited in
full with the period of his preventive imprisonment.”[4]
From this adverse decision, the accused interposed an appeal
which this Court accepted in a resolution dated 30 September 1991.[5]
The factual antecedents of this case, as culled from the records,
are as follows:
On 10 October 1990, at about five 5:00 o’clock in the morning,
Barangay Captain Eustaquio R. Borja awoke to find out that the front door of
his residence at No. 164 Evangelista Street, Barangay Santolan, Pasig,
Metro-Manila, was open and that their television set in the sala was
missing. Eustaquio told his wife about
what he saw and together they proceeded upstairs to the second floor to check
on their 22-year old daughter, Veronica Borja. They noticed that the door to her room was open. Upon entering the room, they were shocked to
find the bloodied corpse of their daughter lying in bed. The window of her room was open. Eustaquio instructed his wife not to touch
the body while he summoned the authorities. He proceeded to the Barangay Hall from where he called the police. The couple later discovered that a cassette
player, a camera, and various pieces of jewelry in their daughter’s cabinet,
all worth about P50,000.00, were likewise missing.[6]
On the same day, P/Capt. Florante F. Baltazar, Medico-Legal Officer
of the PC/INP Crime Laboratory Services, performed an autopsy on the body of
the victim. He concluded that the cause
of death was “cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage
secondary to multiple stab wounds.”[7]
He stated in his autopsy report that the victim suffered a total of four stab
wounds; that the stab wound inflicted on the victim’s neck, which severed her
jugular vein, was a fatal one; and that at the time of the autopsy (3:25 p.m.),
the victim had been dead for more or less ten to twelve hours.[8]
At 6:00 p.m., the police were able to recover the missing
television set from the house of Eugenio Tagifa (or Tadifa), the husband of the
accused’s sister.[9]
Tagifa was brought to the police station for questioning. On 11 October 1990 at 10:55 a.m., Tagifa
executed a “Sinumpaang Salaysay” wherein he pointed to the accused
as the person who had placed the television set under the stairs of his house.[10]
On 13 October 1990 at 5:30 p.m., the accused was captured in
Bangkal, Makati by elements of the Intelligence and Special Operations Unit
(ISOU) of the Pasig Police and brought to the police station.[11]
He made an oral admission of his participation in the commission of the crime.[12]
He was then endorsed to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) for formal
investigation.[13]
The accused was asked if he could understand, read and write
Tagalog, and he replied that he could.[14]
The accused was likewise asked if he could afford the services of counsel; he
answered that he could not.[15]
Upon being asked if he was willing to avail of the services of Atty. Eber
Generoso of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), the accused replied in the
affirmative.[16]
Atty. Generoso then brought the accused away from the police investigators so
that the two of them could talk privately.[17]
Atty. Generoso inquired from the accused whether or not he had any
participation in the crime and told him that if he had none, he must not make
any admission or statement as this would be prejudicial to him. The accused, however, said, “Attorney,
aaminin ko na ho total ginawa ko naman.” The accused then told Atty.
Generoso that he was the one who took the television set but denied having
killed Veronica Borja.[18]
Afterwards, the police started the formal investigation of the accused in the
presence of Atty. Generoso. The accused
gave his statement before the police and this was reduced into writing and
marked at the trial as Exhibit “L.” Atty. Generoso read the statement
to the accused and then let the accused read it himself.[19]
The accused then signed Exhibit “L,” after which Atty. Generoso also
signed the same.
The body of the said document reads as follows:
“Tanong: Ikaw ba ay marunong sumulat at umunawa ng Wikang Tagalog na atin
gagamitin sa pagsisyasat na ito?
Sagot: Opo.
Pasubali: Bago ko simulan and imbestigasyong ito, nais
kong ipabatid sa iyo na ikaw bilang isang mamayang Pilipino alinsunod sa ating
Binagong Saligang Batas ay may mga karapatan, gaya ng mga sumusunod:
Na, karapatan mong
manatiling tahimik at huwag sagutin and alin man aking mga katanungan;
(Sgd.) (Sgd.)
Atty.
Eber Generoso John
Amet Baello
Na, karapatan mo
ring kumuha ng isang piling abogado na maaring tumulong sa iyo sa oras ng
imbestigasgong ito;
(Sgd.) (Sgd.)
Atty.
Eber Generoso John
Amet Baello
Na, kung ikaw ay
wala pang isang piling abogado, ikaw ay bibigyan para sa iyong kapakanan ng
libre;
(Sgd.) (Sgd
)
Atty.
Eber Generoso John
Amet Baello
Na, ikaw ay muli
kong pinalahanan na ang lahat ng iyong sasabihin dito ay maaaring gamitin pabor
O’ laban sa iyong panig;
(Sgd.) (Sgd.)
Atty.
Eber Generoso John
Amet Baello
01.
t: Kung gayon ay turan mong muli
ang iyong tunay na pangalan, idad, katayuan sa buhay at iba pang maaaring
pagkakakilanlan sa iyo?
s: JOHN AMET BAELLO y GUINTIVANO, 20
anyos, binata, figthing (sic) cock caretaker, tubong Liganes, Ili-Ilo (sic) at
nakatira sa may Nr. 145-B Interior, Evangelista St., Santolan, Pasig, MM.
02.
t: John Amet G Baello,
ipinakikilala ko sa iyo si Atty. Eber Generoso na abogado ng CLAO, at siya ang siyang
tutulong sa iyo, nais mo ba siyang maging abogado mo?
s: Opo.
03.
t: Bibigyan ko muna kayo ng ilang
minuto para kayo mag-usap ni Atty. Generoso upang maintindihan mo ang ibibigay
mong salaysay. Sige magusap muna kayo
(at this juncture this prober allowing the affiant and the Attorney to talk).
04.
t: G. Baello, nais kong ipbatid
(sic) sa iyo na ikaw ay nasasngkot (sic) sa kasong Robbery with Homicide and
Rape, ano ang masasabi mo tungkol dito?
s: Robbery po lamang ang alam ko.
05. t: Saan at kailan naman nangyari itong sinasabi mong Robbery
kung iyong natatandaan?
s: Sa bahay po ni Bgy. Captain Borja sa
may Santolan, Pasig, MM.
06. t: Anong oras ninyo ba naman ginawa itong sinasabi mong
nakawan?
s: Mga humigit kumulang alas 4:00 ng mdaling
(sic) araw ika-10 ng Oktubre 1990.
07. t: Sino O’ sino-sino ba naman ang kasama mo ng nakawan ninyo
ang bahay ni Bgy. Capt. Borja?
s: Si Alias GERRY po lamang dalawa.
08. t: Papaano naman ninyo pinagnakawan ang bahay nina Bgy. Capt.
Borja?
s: Kami po nitong si Gerry ay nagdaan sa
may bintana ng second floor ng bahay sa may harap ng basketball court.
09. t: Ano-ano ba naman ang
kinuha ninyo sa loob ng bahay nina Bgy. Capt. (sic) Borja?
s: Ang kinuha ko po ay isang television,
pero hindi ko po alam kung ano ang mga kinuha ni GERRY.
10:
t: Mayroon akong ipapakita sa iyong
isang television, ano ang masasabi mo tungkol dito (declarant at this
juncture this prober pointing a colored Television set marked Sharp in the
course of investigation).
s: Iyan po ang television na aking
ninakaw sa bahay nina Capt. Borja (at this juncture suspect/declarant was
pointing to a colored TV Sharp placed on top of the investigating room in the
course of investigation).
11:
t: G. Baello, nais kong ipa-alam sa
iyo na sa bahay na inyong pinag-nakawan ay mayroon napatay na si Veronica Borja
na anak na babae nuong may-ari ng bahay, alam mo ba kung sino ang pumatay dito?
s: Opo, si GERRY po na aking kasama nang
magnakaw kami.
12: t: Papaano mo
naman nasiguro na itong si Gerry ang pumatay kay Veronica?
s: Dahil
po sa siya lamang ang naiwan sa itaas ng bahay.
13. t: Nasaan ba naman itong Veronica Borja ng pasukin ninyo ang
bahay nina Bgy. Capt. Borja?
s: Siya po ay nakiya (sic) ko sa isang
kuwarto sa itaas ng bahay.
14. t: Papaano ba naman pinatay ni Berry (sic) si Veronica Borja
kung nalalaman mo?
s: Hindi ko po nakita dahil sa nauna akong
umalis sa kanya.
15. t: Bukod sa inyong dalawa ni Gerry, mayroon pa bang ibang taong
pumasok sa bahay nina Bgy. Capt. Borja?
s: Wala na po, kaming dalawa lamang.
16: t: Nalaman mo ba kung saan ma-aaring matagpuan itong si Gerry?
s: Sa may Nueva Ecija po, pero hindi ko
alam kung saang lugar duon.
17. t: Wala na muna akong itatanong sa iyo may nais ka pa bang
idadagdag O’ babawasin sa iyong salaysay?
s: Wala na po muna.
18. t: Ikaw ba ay tinakot, sinaktan, binayaran O’ pinangakuan upang
magbigay ng iyong salaysay dito?
s: Hindi po, kusang loob ko po ito lahat.
(Sgd.)
John Baello
19. t: Handa mo bang panumpaan at lagdaan ang
iyong salaysay bilang patotoo sa lahat ng iyong mga sinasabi dito?
s: Opo.
x
—————————————————————————-
wakas ng Salaysay ni
————————————————————-x
15 Oktubre
1990
Pasig,
Metro-Manila
Pinabasa,
pina-unawa (Sgd.)
at
Pinapirmahan John
Amet Baello
ni
: (Sgd.) Atty. Eber Generoso”
On the other hand, the defense presented only two witnesses, viz.: the accused, testifying pro se, and
his mother, Anita Baello.
The version of the accused is as follows:
He was born in Leganes, Iloilo but resides with his mother at No.
145 Evangelista Street, Santolan, Pasig, Metro Manila. He only reached the fourth grade of
elementary school. He was at the house
of his cousin after having watched a movie when the police came. They handcuffed him and then brought him to
the Pasig Police Headquarters. He was
immediately detained and not subjected to any investigation. Afterwards, he was mauled inside the jail by
Antonio Gabriel, the nephew of Capt. Borja, and two of Gabriel’s
companions. These persons beat him up
by kicking and punching his stomach and back, and striking his back and
buttocks with a “baston.” He was unable to recall the day when
his statement was taken down, though he remembers it was in the afternoon. On that particular afternoon, he was taken
downstairs and told that he would be given a lawyer to assist and defend
him. However, Atty. Generoso, the
lawyer assigned to him, simply sat down and stared at him without doing
anything. Atty. Generoso told him that
he would be going somewhere and then left for about an hour. When Atty. Generoso came back, the statement
was already typewritten and Atty. Generoso merely signed it after which the
accused was asked to sign, which he did as he was promised that he would be
released after signing.
While he was downstairs, a policeman asked him to carry a
television set. At first, the accused
refused to do so, but then the policeman shouted at him. Since he got scared, he carried the
television set. His picture was then
taken and presented as Exhibit “O-6” by the prosecution. All the time downstairs, the police only
asked him for his name, age, civil status and nothing more.[20]
Anita Baello testified thus: When she visited her son, the accused, in jail a week after his arrest,
she saw contusions on his body; he complained to her of chest pains because of
the beatings he had received. She
visited her son every other day and when she visited him sometime in the first
week of January 1991, he told her that he could not bear anymore the beatings
he received from Antonio Gabriel. Their
lawyer then wrote a letter to the jail warden and after that, her son was not
hurt anymore. When she visited him
later, she was surprised to see Gabriel in the same cell with her son; the
latter told her that he was not able to sleep for three nights because he was
being pricked with a needle, so she complained to the police after which her
son was separated from Gabriel.[21]
In his brief,[22]
the accused submits the following assignment of errors:
“1
THE LOWER COURT ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS FULLY AND DULY ASSISTED BY A COUNSEL
ENGAGED BY HIM AND IN FUTHER [sic]’ HOLDING THAT HIS EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION
DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE
2
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT CONSPIRACY EXISTS IN THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME
3
THE LOWER COURT ERRED
IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION NAMELY, EUGENIO
TAGIFA AND PRUDENCIO BAGASINA FOR IN TRUTH AND IN FACT THESE WERE INCONSISTENT,
HIGHLY IMPROBABLE AND EXAGGERATED
4
THE LOWER COURT ERRED
IN HOLDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY AND CONVICTING HIM OF THE CRIME CHARGE
[sic] CONSIDERING THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT”
In his first assigned error, the accused maintains that he was
not “fully and duly assisted by a counsel engaged by him.” Hence, his
extra-judicial confession is constitutionally infirm and inadmissible in
evidence.
The records of the case, however, clearly belie this allegation
of the accused. While it is true that
Atty. Generoso was not initially his counsel of choice, the fact remains that
after the accused was asked if he could afford the services of counsel and he
answered in the negative, he was informed that he would be provided with one —
Atty. Generoso of the PAO — to assist him during the investigation. He then voluntarily accepted the services of
Atty. Generoso. This was in compliance
with paragraph (1), Section 12, Article III of the Constitution which provides
that:
“Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and
to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.”
Apropos is the case of People vs. Parojinog.[23]
Parojinog was arrested for triple murder. Before the start of the investigation, the police apprised Parojinog of
his constitutional right to counsel of his own choice and told him that if he
did not have one, a certain Atty. Fernando Fuentes III of the Citizens Legal
Assistance Office (CLAO) would be engaged to assist him. He agreed to have Atty. Fuentes as his
lawyer. Atty. Fuentes assisted
Parojinog during the entire investigation after which Parojinog signed his
extra-judicial confession. Atty.
Fuentes also signed the document. Later
on, Parojinog assailed the confession, contending that Atty. Fuentes was not
his counsel of choice. This Court
refuted him thus:
“Anent his claim that Atty. Fuentes was not his choice,
Section 12(1) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:
‘Sec. 12(1). — Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his
own choice. If the person cannot afford
the services of counsel he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.’
It is very clear from the aforequoted provision that a person under
investigation for the commission of an offense may choose his own counsel but
if he cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. While the initial choice of the lawyer in
the latter case is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused
really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask
for another one. In the instant case,
the records show that no objection was voiced by the accused throughout the
entire proceedings of the investigation and afterwards when he subscribed to
its veracity before City Prosecutor Luzminda V. Uy. Thus, he apparently acquiesced to the choice of the
investigators. He complained for the
first time that Atty. Fuentes was not his choice only during trial. Thus, it was too late.”
Likewise, in People vs. Masongsong,[24]
we dismissed a similar plaint in this wise:
“To accept the appellant’s contention that he was in effect
denied justice since the counsel assigned to him was not really his choice is
ridiculous. As correctly stated by the
Solicitor General, every lawyer is presumed to have knowledge of the law as
well as the training in procedure sufficient to enable him to protect his
client. Furthermore, the accused was
given sufficient time to choose his own counsel had he opted to so. His failure, therefore, to request for
another counsel negates his claim of denial of the right to choose his
lawyer.”
And in People vs. Pinzon,[25]
this Court made the following disquisition:
“There is no merit in the above argument. We agree with the Solicitor General’s view
that:
`x x x the entire process of custodial investigation was conducted
in the manner required by the Constitution. Atty. Saldivar informed appellant of the latter’s right to remain
silent, as anything he says in said investigation could be used against him. Appellant was likewise informed of his right
to counsel and that if he could not afford to pay [for] the services of one, he
could avail of the free legal services of the CLAO, which offer appellant
accepted. By said acceptance, Atty.
Saldivar became appellant’s counsel of choice, and the fact that appellant had
no previous acquaintance with Atty. Saldivar did not render null and void
appellant’s otherwise valid extra-judicial confession. Atty. Saldivar was present from the time
appellant’s statements were taken up to the time appellant affixed his
signature thereon. In fact, Atty.
Saldivar’s signature appears on the statement. Plainly, the admission in evidence of appellant’s sworn statement does
not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.”
Exhibit “L” completely belies the allegation that the
accused was not fully assisted by Atty. Generoso during the investigation. Said document discloses that the accused was
informed of his constitutional rights by Atty. Generoso in extenso. Atty. Generoso conferred with the
accused, warned the latter of the consequences of his confession and even
advised him not to make any; however, the accused insisted on going ahead with
his confession, although he only confessed to the robbery.
It was only after the said conference that the accused gave a
statement. After it was completed,
Atty. Generoso again explained to him the contents and the adverse effects of
his confession, but the accused found himself at ease with his conscience by
voluntarily affixing his signature therein. If, indeed, he had any objections to his statement, he should not have
signed Exhibit “L,” or he should have at least voiced out such
objections to Atty. Generoso. Atty.
Generoso, as an officer of the PAO, would not have affixed his signature in the
extra-judicial confession as counsel for the accused had he known of any
infirmity in its execution.[26]
If he did so, he would have been remiss in the performance of his duty and
unfaithful to his office. But there
must be convincing proof of that for he has in his favor the presumption of
regularity in the performance of his duty.
The accused likewise assails what he perceives to be “a
pre-condictioned (sic) of the mind on the part of the investigator as well as
the counsel that an admission was about to take place and for that the accused
must be assisted only in this aspect.”[27]
He then labors under a misconception. In People vs. Layuso,[28]
we stated:
“This Court denounces in the strongest terms possible the
widespread misconception that the presence of a lawyer under the ‘right to
counsel’ provision of the Constitution is intended to stop an accused from
saying anything which might incriminate him. The right to counsel is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as
would lead the accused to admit something false. The lawyer, however, should never prevent an accused from freely
and voluntarily telling the truth. Whether it is an extra-judicial statement or testimony in open court,
the purpose is always the ascertainment of truth.”
The accused jointly discusses the remaining assigned errors. He contends that there was no evidence of
conspiracy with respect to the crime of robbery with homicide, and faults the
trial court for giving full credence to the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses Eugenio Tagifa (his brother-in-law) and Prudencio Bagasina. He alleges that Eugenio Tagifa testified
against him because the former was threatened with arrest and prosecution.[29]
The accused likewise impugns the testimony of Prudencio Bagasina as
“inconsistent, highly improbable and exaggerated.”
These contentions are as hollow as those offered to support the
first assignment of error.
Anent his claim of lack of evidence of conspiracy for the crime
of robbery with homicide, the accused has absolutely nothing but vague
conclusions in between which is the theory, which he fears to openly express,
that since he confessed only to robbery and that since it was only Jerry, his
companion, who killed Veronica Borja, he could only be held liable for robbery
but not for robbery with homicide. Indeed, the accused deliberately and carefully confined his
participation to the robbery, and the prosecution had no direct evidence that
the accused took part in the killing of Veronica. But the accused is not thereby absolved from any liability for
her death. Once conspiracy is
established between the accused and Jerry in the commission of the crime of
robbery, the accused would be equally culpable for homicide committed by Jerry
on the occasion of the robbery, unless the former proved that he endeavored to
prevent Jerry from committing homicide. In People vs. de la Cruz,[30]
we said: “The rule is likewise
settled that when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of a
robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals of the
crime of robbery with homicide unless proof is presented that the accused tried
to prevent the killing.” Accused offered no such proof.
The conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery was sufficiently
and convincingly established in this case. As admitted by the accused in his sworn statement, he and Jerry had a
prior agreement to commit robbery in the house of Eustaquio Borja. Together they went to the latter’s house at
4:00 o’clock in the morning of 10 October 1990, entered the house through the
window at the second floor, and once inside, he got the television set while
Jerry got the other items, and then, together again, they left the house with
their loot. These acts taken as a whole
are more than sufficient to establish a common design between Jerry and the
accused to commit robbery; such acts eloquently showed nothing less than a
joint purpose and design, and a community of interest which established beyond
doubt the existence of a conspiracy.[31]
It is axiomatic that direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy; it may
be shown by acts and circumstances from which may logically be inferred the
existence of a common design[32]
or may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense is perpetrated.[33]
Accused’s claim that his brother-in-law, Eugenio Tagifa, testified
against him because “he was intimidated with arrest and prosecution” is
purely conjectural. It is to be noted
that the accused does not, in the main, dispute the prosecution’s evidence that
he was the one who placed the television set under the stairs of Tagifa’s house
and that he was seen carrying it on his shoulders in the early morning of 10
October 1990. All that the accused
could do was to raise a feeble and unsubstantiated denial.
On the witness stand, Tagifa identified the sworn statement he executed
on 11 October 1990 (Exhibit “A”) and openly admitted that it was the
accused who brought the television set, thus:
“Q Who
brought the TV set under your stairs if you were not the one?
A My
brother in law, sir.
Q Could
you identify him, Mr. witness?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Will
you point to him now?
A Yes,
sir. (witness pointing to a person who
identified himself as John Amet Baello, the accused in this case).”[34]
The due execution of Tagifa’s sworn statement was not put in
doubt during his cross-examination by the counsel for the defense. The impression then that Tagifa leaves us is
that he was telling the truth. The
trial court, which was obviously in a better position to decide the question of
his credibility, having heard him and observed his deportment and manner of
testifying, gave full faith and credit to Tagifa’s testimony. We accord it the highest respect, especially
considering that we find no fact or circumstance of value in the said testimony
that it had overlooked or misappreciated and which if considered, may alter the
result.[35]
Prudencio Bagasina’s testimony deserves
a separate treatment. He had the
temerity to testify in open court that he was just brought to the police
station and then made to sign a prepared statement, which was marked as Exhibit
“P.” He denied having been investigated at all. In the said sworn statement, he declared that in the early
morning of 10 October 1990, he saw the accused along Daang Kalabaw at Santolan,
Pasig, Metro Manila, carrying a television set — the same television set
identified by Tagifa. The trial court
immediately perceived that he was lying through his teeth and held him in
contempt, thus:
“COURT:
The witness is hereby cited in contempt for
making untruthful statements until further orders from this Court. Send him to the provincial jail, for
twenty-four hours. Let the hearing be
continued on another date.”[36]
In short, the trial court gave full faith
and credit to Bagasina’s sworn statement. We find no compelling reason to disagree with the trial court.
The aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry[37]
was properly appreciated against the accused as he and his companion, Jerry,
had entered the Borja residence through the second-floor window, a way not
intended for ingress. The evidence
likewise shows that the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity[38]
was present in the commission of the crime as the darkness was taken advantage
of by the malefactors and such circumstance facilitated their evil designs.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction of the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig (Branch 156), Metro Manila in Criminal Case No. 84253 is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs
against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ., concur.
[1]
Original Records (OR), 1-2; Rollo 3-4.
[2]
OR, 8.
[3]
Id., 152-161; Rollo, op. cit., 16-25. Per Judge Martin S. Villarama, Jr.
[4]
OR, 161; Rollo, 25.
[5]
Rollo, 26.
[6]
TSN, 30 January 1991, 2-11.
[7]
Exhibit “E.”
[8]
TSN, 8 February 1991, 4-7.
[9]
Exhibit “K.”
[10]
Exhibit “A.”
[11]
Exhibit “K.”
[12]
TSN, 26 February 1991, 8.
[13]
Id., 4.
[14]
TSN, 11 March 1991, 15.
[15]
Id., 16.
[16]
Id.
[17]
TSN, 3 May 1991, 4.
[18]
TSN, 3 May 1991, 12.
[19]
Id., 18.
[20]
TSN, 28 May 1991, 2-10.
[21]
TSN, 3 June 1991, 2-15.
[22]
Rollo, 49, et. seq.
[23]
203 SCRA 673 [1991].
[24]
174 SCRA 39 [1989].
[25]
206 SCRA 93 [1992].
[26]
See People vs. Aquino, 186 SCRA 851, 860 [1990].
[27]
Appellant’s Brief, 12-13.
[28]
175 SCRA 47 [1989].
[29]
Appellant’s Brief, op. cit., 18.
[30]
G.R. No. 102063, 20 January 1993, citing People vs. Garillo, 84 SCRA 537
[1978] and People vs. Bernales, 94 SCRA 604 [1979].
[31]
People vs. Lunar, 45 SCRA 119 [1972]; People vs. Custodio, 47
SCRA 289 [1972].
[32]
People vs. Tingson, 47 SCRA 243 [1972].
[33]
People vs. Alonzo, 73 SCRA 484 [1976].
[34]
TSN, 18 December 1990, 5-6.
[35]
People vs. Garcia, 89 SCRA 440 [1979]; People vs. Bautista, 92
SCRA 465 [1979]; People vs. Florida, G.R. No. 90254, 24 September 1992.
[36]
TSN, 3 April 1991, 11.
[37]
Article 14(18), Revised Penal Code.
[38]
Article 14(6), Id.