PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMERVITO REGOROZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

It was shortly before one o’clock in the morning of April 28,
1987, at Barangay Poblacion in Iligan City. Pablo Balando, a barangay tanod, was watching Alejandro Unabia
and a woman companion, who were seated on the pavement some 30 meters
away. If they were conversing, he did
not hear them. It was none of his
concern, anyway. The scene was perfectly
peaceful and it seemed that all was well with the world.

Then the men came. There
were six of them. One of them
approached and suddenly stabbed Unabia who, as he ran, was pursued by the other
four. They also took turns in stabbing
him. The sixth man stayed behind and
restrained Balando with a knife pointed at his abdomen. Balando saw everything that happened because
of the light from a mercury lamp and a fluorescent tube nearby. He also had a flashlight which he had used
as the men passed by him. He could not
tell, however, what happened to the woman.^[1]

Later that same morning, Balando was investigated by P/Sgt.
Daniel N. Espiritu. When asked if a
suspect then in police custody was the man who restrained him with a knife, he
declared in Tagalog: “Hindi ang taong ito, at saka mas
matangkad at ang buhok ay hindi ganitong kulot at ang style ay seven­seven.”^[2] He was referring to Regoroza, whom he
subsequently identified at the station^[3] and
later during the trial^[4] as
the man who first stabbed Unabia. Balando’s sworn statement during the investigation was reduced to
writing.^[5]

Dr. Regino A. Gaite, the NBI medico-legal officer who autopsied
Unabia’s corpse, testified that he found twelve stab wounds on the body, six of
which were at the back and fatal.^[6] From
the location of the wounds, he concluded that the assailants were behind the
victim at the time of the stabbing.^[7]

To provide a possible motive for the killing, the prosecution
also presented Juanita Closas, Unabia’s stepmother. She declared that at around 10:00 o’clock of April 27, 1987, her
husband and Unabia were at their yard drinking with Regoroza’s wife. Regoroza arrived about an hour later and
told his wife to go home, but she refused. He went home angry, and after a while his wife followed him.^[8]

Regoroza denied any participation in the stabbing and claimed
that at the time of the commission of the offense, he was sleeping in the house
of Guillerma Cagula, with Ronnie and Bert Cagula. He and his wife had already separated long before because of her
excessive drinking. He said that he met
Balando for the first time when they were both being investigated at the police
station, where Balando failed to identify him as the killer of Unabia.^[9]

The Cagulas were not presented to confirm Regoroza’s alibi. Instead, Cpl. Antonio Lubang, an
investigator at the homicide section of the Iligan police, testified that when he
questioned Balando on May 2, 1987, the latter was not able to identify Regoroza
as the killer. The investigation,
however, was not taken down as required by standard police procedure. The defense also did not present CSU Victor
Pagaling, who was allegedly present during the investigation.^[10]

Another witness called to discredit Balando was Guillermo
Barimbad, a security guard detailed at the Uy Building near the place where the
stabbing occurred. He said that the
place was dark because the mercury lamp was already flickering and the
fluorescent light was only 20 watts. In
fact, he had to use his flashlight to see the blood traces on the ground. He added that Balando himself admitted not
recognizing the assailants.^[11]

On November 8, 1991, Judge Federico V. Noel of the Regional Trial
Court of Iligan City, Branch II, rendered his decision after taking over from
retired Judge Tago M. Bantuas, who had conducted the trial. The dispositive portion found Regoroza
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentenced him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. He was also ordered to indemnify the
heirs of Alejandro Unabia in the amount of P50,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

Regoroza now stresses in his brief that Balando could not have
witnessed the killing, let alone see the face of the assailants. Not only was the place dark but he himself
was preoccupied with the man who was pointing a knife at his abdomen. To emphasize the inadequacy of the light in
the area at that time, the defense argues that Balando had to use his
flashlight to see the face of Regoroza as the latter passed by him.

By so arguing, the defense in effect admits that Balando did use
his flashlight on Regoroza’s face and so identified him. That is a damaging admission. In any case, it appears that the place of
the incident was well-lit by the fluorescent tube and the mercury lamp; it was
the spot where Balando was stationed that was not. That is why he had to use his flashlight when the six men passed
by before they stabbed Unabia.

The man who threatened him with a knife did so after the
stabbing, to prevent him from interfering. It is therefore wrong to assume that Balando was not able to see the
entire occurrence because he was gripped with fear over the knife at his
abdomen. The threat on his life came
only after he witnessed the killing and it did not last long because all the
six men fled soon afterwards.

It is also argued that Balando was merely persuaded by the police
to identify Regoroza as the killer, but there is no evidence to support this
conjecture. On the contrary, Balando’s
testimony was clear and positive and does not appear to have been vitiated by
any improper pressure or personal motive of harassment or revenge.

Judge Noel did not commit any reversible error in rendering
judgment in the case although he did not preside at the trial and merely relied
on the transcript of stenographic notes in weighing the testimonial
evidence. We have held often enough that
a decision is not necessarily flawed by the circumstance that the judge who
wrote it did not himself conduct the trial. Thus:

It is also contended that the decision itself lacks credibility
because the judge who wrote it had not heard the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses. This circumstance alone
would not enfeeble his decision. After
all, he had the full record before him, including the transcript of
stenographic notes, which he could study. The efficacy of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the fact that
its writer only took over from a colleague who had earlier presided at the
trial. (People vs. Sadiangabay, 220
SCRA 551, 555 [1993], citing Ayco vs. Fernandez, 195 SCRA 328 [1991]).

Balando’s description of Regoroza at the police station, which he
confirmed at the trial, was especially telling compared to Cpl. Lubang’s
testimony of an alleged investigation he made which had no testimonial or
documentary support.

Against the positive identification of an impartial witness whose
testimony has not been successfully challenged, Regoroza’s uncorroborated
defense of denial and alibi must perforce fail. The absence and silence of Ronnie and Bert Cagula, who were
supposed to be with him at the time of the killing, have only weakened
Regoroza’s plea. The defense has not
even questioned Balando’s motive short of saying, without proof, that he was
persuaded by the police to perjure himself.

Treachery qualified the
killing to murder. Balando testified
that Unabia was sitting when stabbed by Regoroza from behind. The victim was caught unaware and his
attackers were able to perpetrate the offense without risk to themselves of any
defense the victim might otherwise have made. Unabia tried to flee but they kept stabbing him until he fell and
died. There was abuse of superior
strength, but this cannot be appreciated as an independent aggravating
circumstance because it is deemed absorbed in alevosia.^[12]

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the appealed
decision dated November 8, 1991, is AFFIRMED, with costs against the
appellant. It is so ordered.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Quiason, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
TSN, Dcember 9, 1987, pp. 9-11.

^[2]
TSN, January 13, 1988, p. 22.

^[3]
Sworn statement of Pablo Balando dated April 28, 1987, taken by P/Sgt. Daniel
N. Espiritu, Records, pp. 7 and 7-A.

^[4]
TSN, January 13, 1988, p. 23.

^[5]
Records, pp. 7 and 7-A.

^[6]
TSN, May 25, 1988, p. 3.

^[7]
Ibid.

^[8]
Id., pp. 8-9.

^[9]
TSN, October 10, 1988, pp. 2-10.

^[10]
TSN, September 7, 1988, pp. 5-6.

^[11]
TSN, July 6, 1988, pp. 3-11.

^[12]
People v. Jamino, 3 Phil. 102; People v. Abletes, 58 SCRA 241.