G.R. No. 104596. November 23, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO ESPINOZA Y ALI, VICTOR ESPINOZA Y ALI AND JULIAN MAGBARIL Y OMBRADOR, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
PUNO, J.:
Accused-appellants were charged with and convicted of Murder by
the Regional Trial Court (Branch 9) of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, for hacking to
death a certain Renato Salvar.[1]
The facts are faithfully stated in the decision of the appellate
court which affirmed with modifications the conviction of the
accused-appellants, viz:
“On August 30,
1988, at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening,
prosecution witness Lucresio Croda was
in the living room of his house near the crossing of Kisawi and Anlawagan,
Barangay Payad, Pangatucan (sic), Bukidnon, when he heard cries for help. As he went down the stairs, he saw the appellants drag the victim away
from the road towards his house. At a
distance of approximately three fathoms
from his house, he positively
recognized the victim as Renato Salvar. He also witnessed the accused-appellant Rogelio and Victor Espinoza hack
the victim several times with their long bolos while appellant Magbaril (sic)
held back the victim who was lying
on his back. Overcome with fear, he rushed back to his
house. He then assisted his wife who
was in near-faint (sic) after witnessing the incident (tsn, April 10, 1989, pp.
4-7, 12-12 [sic]).
“Prosecution witness Charlito Guevarra[2] (sic) testified that on the night of
the incident, he was watching the coronation ceremonies of the fiesta queen at
the barrio hall when he received information from his brother, Raul, about a
hacking incident that took place at the crossing of Anlawagan and Kisawi. He immediately went to that place and there saw Renato Salvar, seriously wounded
and on his back. As witness Charlito
Guevarra (sic) testified:
“Q. When you
saw him on that condition what did you do?
“A. I asked him.
“Q. When you asked him what was your position in
relation to Renato Salvar who was lying on the ground?
“INTERPRETER:
“Witness demonstrating by squatting.
“WITNESS:
“A. I went near him and asked him who was
responsible for his condition and he answered.
”PROS. RECINA:
“Q. What was his answer?
“A. ‘They betrayed me’ (unay).
“Q. I want you to quote to the Court what actually
Renato Salvar said when you asked
him what happened to him?
“xxx xxx xxx
“WITNESS:
“A. He said, “I was betrayed by Rogelio Espinosa
(sic), Victor Espinosa (sic) and Julian
Magbaril (guiunay).” (tsn, April 10, 1989, pp. 21-22)
“Simplicio Salvar, Jr. who also proceeded at the crossing of
Anlawagan and Kisawi after being informed that his brother, Renato Salvar was the
victim of an attack, was able to talk to the latter who was then still
conscious and coherent in speech. The victim identified the three accused-appellants as his
assailants (tsn, January 16, 1990, pp. 30-32). The pertinent portion
of his testimony reads as follows:
“Q. Seeing your brother lying on the ground with
some wounds what did you do?
“A. I asked him a question.
“Q. What actually did you ask him?
“A. I asked him who was responsible for his
several wounds?
“Q. And did your brother Renato Salvar answer the
question?
“A. Yes.
“Q. What was his answer?
“A. That he was waylaid.
“Q. And who waylaid him, do you know?
“ATTY. OKIT:
“There is no basis for that
question.
“COURT:
He is asking as to
who waylaid his brother because his brother told him that he was waylaid.
“PROS. CHING:
“We will reform the question, Your
Honor.
“Q. What else did your brother tell you, if any,
as to who was responsible on his injuries?
“A. That the persons responsible were Rogelio
Espinosa (sic), Victor Espinosa (sic) and Julian Magbaril.” (Ibid., tsn,
p. 32)
“On the other hand, all three accused interposed the defense of alibi.
“Victor Espinoza and his brother Rogelio Espinoza alleged that
they were both in the house of Julian Magbaril earlier in the evening where they took their supper at approximately 7:30 in the evening. At around 8:30 same evening, both left to
return to their respective houses.
“The other accused, Julian
Magbaril, testified that he was in his house on the night of the incident. He testified that at around 7:30 in the
evening, the other two accused, Victor and Rogelio Espinoza, and another guests
(sic) Basilio Deconlay were in
his house in connection with the payment of the fighting cocks, the Espinoza
brothers bought from Deconlay. They all ate supper together. Afterwards, at around 8:30 o’clock, Victor and
Rogelio Espinoza left for their respective homes while Basilio Deconlay stayed
overnight in Julian Magbaril’s house.”
Simplicio Salvar, Jr., together with his father and other
companions who arrived at the scene, boarded Renato Salvar in a truck to seek
medical assistance in Don Carlos. Two
hours later, while they were on their way to Don Carlos, Renato expired. Upon noticing that Renato had died, the group did not proceed to Don Carlos. Instead, they returned to their house in
Payad, Pangantucan, Bukidnon. On
September 1, 1988, Renato Salvar
was buried.
The appellate court
imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to the accused-appellants, viz:[3]
“WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused having been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the
modification that the penalty of reclusion
perpetua is imposed and that
indemnity to the heirs of the victim is hereby increased to fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) in line with the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court
(People vs. Sison, G.R. No. 86455, September 14, 1990). Cost against the appellants.
“SO ORDERED.”
In this appeal,
accused-appellants raise the following:
“ASSIGNMENT OF
ERRORS
“FIRST ERROR: The
Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the
testimony of the lone alleged eye-witness Lucresio Crudo (sic);
“SECOND ERROR: The
Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erred in not acquitting all the appellants
based on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond a (sic) reasonable doubt.”
We find no cogent reason to reverse the ruling of the appellate
court.
Eyewitness Lucresio Croda, positively identified Rogelio
Espinoza, Victor Espinoza and Julian Magbaril as the assailants of Renato
Salvar. It is unrebutted that Lucresio’s
house is located at least three (3) fathoms[4] away
from the scene of the
crime. Moreover, during the hacking
incident, the place was illuminated by the moon. (TSN of Lucresio Croda, April 10, 1989, pp. 12-13). In People vs. Jacolo, et al., we held: Where conditions of visibility are favorable, and the witness
does not appear to be biased, his assertion as to the identity of the
malefactor should normally be accepted.[5] This is particularly true, in this case,
where the defense failed to impute any improper motive on the part of Lucresio
for testifying against the appellants.[6]
The accused himself, Rogelio Espinoza, admitted on
cross-examination that prosecution witnesses Lucresio Croda and Charlito
Gualderama, both residents of Payad, Pagantucan, Bukidnon, are his friends and
he could not think of any reason why they testified against him (TSN, June 26, 1990, pp. 59-60).
In addition, Lucresio
testified in detail how the accused-appellants, taking advantage of their superior strength, hacked to death the victim. He testified as follows:
PROS. RECINA:
Q: When
you heard Renato Salvar call for help what did you do?
LUCRESIO CRODA:
A: I
went downstairs and I met the person who was asking for help.
Q: When
you went down and you said you went to the person asking for help what did you
do?
A: I
saw Victor Espinosa (sic), Julian Magbaril
and Boy Espinosa (sic).
Q: When
you said Boy Espinosa (sic) you are referring to Rogelio Espinosa (sic)?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: When you saw them when you went down from
your house how far were they?
A: Three
fathoms, more or less.
Q: What did the three accused do when you saw
them?
A: They were hacking.
Q: Who were they hacking?
A: Renato
Salvar.
Q: What
did Rogelio Salvar use to hack Renato
Salvar?
A: A long bolo.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What did Victor Espinosa use to hack Renato
Salvar?
A: Also
a long bolo.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: How about Julian Magbaril what did he use?
A: He was not using any weapon he was just
holding.
Q: Who
was he holding?
A: Renato
Salvar.
Q: When Rogelio Espinosa (sic), according to
you, hacked Renato Salvar, what was the position of Renato Salvar?
A: Lying
on his back.
Q: How
about when Victor Espinosa (sic) hacked
Renato Salvar what was the position of Renato Salvar?
A: I
was not able to see his position because
he was blocked by the grasses, what I knew is he was already on the ground
lying.
(TSN, April 10, 1989, pp. 5-7)
The testimony of a witness, mentioning the minutiae of an
incident that could not easily be concocted, such as the murder in case at bar, deserves credence for
it indicates sincerity and truthfulness in the narration of events.[7]
The trial court correctly gave great weight to the testimony of Lucresio Croda. The probability that he committed a mistake
as to the identity of the appellants whom he had known for six (6) years is nil. (TSN, April 10, 1989, p. 15). The credible testimony of a lone witness can provide a rational basis for conviction. The
fight for truth is not necessarily won by the party with the more numerous witnesses. It is the quality and not the quantity of witnesses that counts in assessing their credence.
In an attempt to
discredit Lucresio as a witness, accused-appellants assert that he did not
volunteer as a witness
immediately after the crime was discovered that same fateful evening.[8] According to Lucresio, after
witnessing the incident he rushed back to his house for fear of his life and
opted to attend to his wife who had just given birth.
We take judicial
notice of the fact that people usually shy away from any involvement in
criminal cases due to its
inconvenience, if not the danger that it poses to their lives. The fact, therefore, that it takes them a
long time to decide whether or not to testify should not necessarily erode
their credibility. In this case,
Lucresio had just witnessed a gruesome, hacking incident. There is no standard form of behavior when
one is confronted with a shocking incident.[9] Lucresio’s
initial hesitation to report the crime to the authorities due to the shocking
experience should not be counted against his credibility.[10]
The failure of the prosecution to present the “bolos”
which were used in the commission of the crime did not weaken the evidence against accused-appellants. We note that there was no showing that the “bolos” were
recovered from the scene of the crime. It is not remote that these “bolos” were disposed by the
assailants to conceal the instruments of the crime. But even without the “bolos” as evidence, there can be
no doubt that the victim died due to hacking by means of “bolos” on
the part of accused-appellants Victor and Rogelio Espinoza. This was the testimony of Lucresio, viz:
LUCRESIO CRODA:
Q: What
did the three accused do when you saw them?
A: They
were hacking.
Q: Who
were they hacking?
A: Renato
Salvar.
Q: What
did Rogelio Salvar use to hack Renato
Salvar?
A: A long bolo.
Q: How long was this bolo?
A: Like this.
INTERPRETER:
Witness indicating a length
of two feet.
PROS. RECINA:
Q: What
did Victor Espinosa use to hack Renato Salvar?
A: Also a long bolo.
Q: How
long was that bolo you
demonstrate?
A: Just the same length.
(TSN, April 10, 1989, pp. 5-6)
It cannot also be doubted that the numerous wounds suffered by the victim
were due to hacking by means of sharp bladed instruments.
Appellants’ participation in the merciless killing of Renato
Salvar is further buttressed by the fact that before the victim
died, he disclosed to
witnesses GHARLITO GUALDERAMA AND SIMPLICIO SALVAR, JR. the name of his assailants (TSN, April 10, 1989, pp. 21-22; TSN,
January 16, 1990, p. 32). Utterances
made immediately after a startling occurrence and before the declarant had
an opportunity to fabricate a false statement can be considered as part of the res gestae pursuant to Section 42[11] of the Revised Rules of Evidence.[12]
Accused-appellants would like us to disbelieve the testimonies of
Charlito and Simplicio, Jr. on the ground that they are relatives of the
victim. This is a trite argument. We have
ruled that relationship of the witnesses to the victim per se does not
affect their credibility.[13]
Accused-appellants’ defense consists of alibi. It is established that the defense of alibi
cannot prevail over the positive identification by an eyewitness who had no
improper motive to falsely testify.[14]
Finally, as between the positive declarations of the prosecution
witnesses and the negative statements of the
appellants, the former deserve more credence and weight than the latter.[15]
In this case, we give full credit to
the factual findings of the trial court considering that it is
in the best position to weigh conflicting declarations of witnesses as it was
able to observe their demeanor and
conduct while giving their testimonies.[16]
The penalty Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal in
its maximum period to death. The
ruling case law is that in
the absence of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance, the proper penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua (the medium period of the penalty).[17]
Also, in conformity with the prevailing decisions of this Court,
the proper indemnity for the heirs of the deceased should be fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00).[18]
PREMISES GONSIDERED, the decision of the appellate court
finding accused-appellants ROGELIO ESPINOZA, VICTOR ESPINOZA and JULIAN
MAGBARIL guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED. Accordingly, they are sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Renato Salvar an
indemnity of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00).
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.
[1]
The Information against the accused-appellants reads:
“That on or about the 30th
day of August, 1988, in the evening, at crossing Anlawagan and Kisawi, barangay
Payad, municipality of Pangantucan,
province of Bukidnon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually
helping one another, with intent to kill by means of treachery and taking
advantage of their bladed weapons (bolos), did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and criminally attack,
assault, hack and stab Renato Salvar, inflicting upon his person mortal wounds, which caused his death thereafter, to
the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of Renato Salvar in such amount as
may be allowed by law.
“Contrary to and in
violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.”
[2]
Charlito Gualderama
[3]
The sentence modified the Decision of the trial court which imposed the penalty
of 12 years of prision mayor to 18 years of reclusion temporal and payment of
indemnity of P30,000.00.
[4]
Fathom implies a measuring in fathoms (units of six feet); see Webster’s New
Dictionary of Synonyms, 1978 ed, p. 327.
[5]
G.R. No. 94470, December 16, 1992, 216 SCRA 631; People vs. Bernat, G.R. No. 55176, February 28, 1983 120 SCRA
918.
[6]
People vs.
Wenceslao, G.R. No. 95583, August 12, 1992, 212 SCRA 560.
[7]
People vs. Bañez, G.R. No. 95456, September 18, 1992, 214 SCRA 109.
[8]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 15.
[9]
People vs. Danico, G.R. No. 95554, May 7, 1992, 208 SCRA 472.
[10]
People vs. Manansala, G.R. No. 88752, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 66.
[11]
Section 42, Rule 130, Revised Rule of Court provides:
Part of the res gestae. – Statement made by a person while a startling occurrence is
taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance,
may be received as part of the res gestae (30a).
[12]
People vs. Pajarit, G.R. No. 82770,
October 19, 1992, 214 SCRA 678.
[13]
People vs. Claudio, G.R. No. 100880, December 16, 1992, 216 SCRA 647.
[14]
People vs. Camahalan, G.R. No.
73535, December 18, 1992, 216 SCRA 687; People vs. Pomentel, G.R. No. 87781, December 11, 1992,
216 SCRA 375;
[15]
People vs. Arcega, G.R. No. 96319, March 31, 1992, 207 SCRA 681.
[16]
People vs. Moreno, Jr., G.R. No. 97408-09, September 2, 1992, 213 SCRA 450.
[17]
People vs. De La Cruz,
G.R. No. 100386, December 11, 1992, 216 SCRA 476, People vs. Pletado,
G.R. No. 98432, July 1, 1992, 210 SCRA 634; People vs. Sabornido, G.R.
No. 102141, September 18, 1992; Muñoz, et al. vs. People, G.R. Nos. L-38968-70,
February 9, 1989, 170 SCRA 107.
[18]
People vs. Serdan, G.R. No. 87318, September 2, 1992; People vs.
Pletado, G.R. No. 98432, July 1, 1992, 210 SCRA 634.