PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROEL DE LA PENA Y RECILLAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

In an information dated 30 September 1991, Roel de la Pena was charged
before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172, in
Criminal Case No. 583-V-91, with having committed the crime of murder in the
following manner:

“That on or about the 27th day of September 1991 in
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any justifiable cause, with
treachery and evident premeditation and with deliberate intent to kill, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab
with a double bladed dagger one GERMAN PINEDA Y DIOKNO, hitting the latter on
the left upper portion of his back, thereby inflicting serious physical
injuries which directly caused his death.

Contrary to law.”1

Upon arraignment on 4 October 1991, accused-appellant pleaded not
guilty to the offense charged. Trial on
the merits thereafter ensued.

The following facts, culled from the testimonies of five (5)
prosecution witnesses, established their version of how the offense was committed.

The lone eyewitness to the actual stabbing was Alfredo P. Dizon,
a friend and neighbor of the victim German Pineda. He testified that on 27 September 1991, he happened to pass by
the corner of M. H. del Pilar and Duque Streets (in Malanday, Valenzuela, Metro
Manila) after buying some gas (kerosene) at a nearby Petron gasoline
station. Near the corner of the two (2)
streets was a bank where he chanced upon German Pineda seated on a bench about
five (5) meters away from the said bank. He stopped and sat beside German to exchange a few pleasantries. German told him that he was waiting for his
brother who was coming home from school to provide him with a pair of rubber
boots because their place was then flooded.

While they were engrossed in talking, Alfredo noticed a man on
the other side of the street facing them headed in their direction. He paid no attention to the man as the
latter passed by them, thinking that the man was just searching for a corner to
urinate. All of a sudden, the man came
from behind them and without provocation stabbed German Pineda at the
back. Almost simultaneously, Alfredo
turned his head back and saw the face of accused-appellant whom he saw then for
the first time.

As the assailant immediately fled from the scene, German Pineda,
although wounded and injured, was still able to run towards a nearby chapel and
shouted “Tay, may tama ako”, before he fell down which caught the
attention of his father and the other people who happened to be nearby. Alfredo said he also ran towards the other
side of the road to ask for help.2

Joselito Dizon, a brother of Alfredo, was near the vicinity of
the crime scene at that time. He was at
a certain Adang Lorenzo’s store, near the corner of M. H. del Pilar and Duque
Streets together with one Jojo Marcelo and seven (7) other neighbors when he
saw his brother Alfredo and German Pineda suddenly running away from the corner
of the aforementioned streets and heard the latter shouting, “Tay, may
tama ako.”3

Joselito further testified that he saw accused-appellant running
away from the scene of the crime for which reason he and his companions,
hearing Pineda’s shout, immediately gave chase and apprehended
accused-appellant in R.P. Buluran St. along McArthur Highway (still in
Malanday). On cross-examination, he
stated that it was a police aide named Chito Espiritu who arrested the accused
and confiscated a double bladed knife from his person.

Joselito also declared that he did not know the accused
personally, although he had seen him previously, about three (3) to four (4)
times, walking along M. H. del Pilar Street.4

Arsenio Pineda, the victim’s father, testified that at the time
of the incident, he was eating in a lugawan store near the chapel of Malanday
near M. H. del Pilar and I. Fernando Streets. He had just finished his meal when he heard the voice of his son
German, calling him, “Tay, may tama ako,” after which he saw him fall
down near the chapel.

Arsenio then saw a man running away tucking under his waistband
what appeared to him as a long instrument. Instinctively, he followed the man. When he passed by the nearby Petron gas station in Malanday, he chanced
upon Chito Espiritu, a police aide from Obando, Bulacan filling his jeep with
fuel. He sought the help of Espiritu as
he informed him about the man who had just stabbed his son. Together they rode on Espiritu’s jeep and
continued to follow the suspected assailant.

At Buluran street, near the McArthur Highway, they saw
accused-appellant being apprehended by the other people who also chased him
from M. H. del Pilar Street. They
arrived at the scene and Police Aide Chito Espiritu announced his presence to
pacify the townsfolk who were then mauling accused-appellant. The accused was arrested and he went with
Chito Espiritu to the Police Headquarters in Valenzuela where he gave his
statement to the police.5

Chito Espiritu corroborated the testimony of Arsenio Pineda. He confirmed that it was he who was
responsible for the arrest of the accused; that when he was approached by
Arsenio Pineda at the Petron gasoline station to ask for help, the latter
pointed to him the accused whom he saw running. Taking his jeep, they chased the accused and when they drew near
him, he saw accused-appellant throw the bladed weapon he was carrying into a
flower pot. By then, the other persons
caught up with accused-appellant and they started to maul him. He pacified these persons, dragged the
accused inside his jeep, and brought him to the Valenzuela Police Station.6 He
also instructed a person who was present there, to get the bladed weapon from
the flower pot where he saw it thrown by the accused. When he recovered it, he recounted that it was still wet with
fresh blood. Before the court a quo,
Chito Espiritu identified the weapon presented to him as the same murder weapon
recovered from accused-appellant.7

The prosecution also presented the report of autopsy8
conducted on German Pineda. Dr. Renato
C. Bautista, an NBI-Medico Legal examiner, testified that German suffered only
one stab wound located at the back on the left side of the body perforating the
upper and lower lobes of the left lung, causing severe hemmorhage which
eventually caused German Pineda’s death. He opined that the weapon used in inflic­ting the wound on the victim could
have been a sharp pointed single bladed instrument. On cross-examination, he admitted that he was not able to examine
the murder weapon and that he just based his opinion on the stab wound itself.9

The defense presented only two (2) witnesses, the accused
himself, and his mother Lucita de la Pena.

Lucita de la Pena averred that on 27 September 1991, his son
arrived home from work at about 5:30 P.M. At that time, the relatives of her husband were in their house on a
visit prior to their departure for the province the following day. She said that her guests bought some six (6)
bottles of beer and invited her son to drink. Her son obliged. Her guests left
the house at about 8:00 P.M. and her son accompanied them to the Petron station
at Malanday to get a ride. She was
watching television when a neighbor knocked at her door and informed her that
her son was arrested by the police. She
waited for the following day and when she went to the police headquarters to
verify the news, she saw her son at the police headquarters, his face swollen
and bleeding. He allegedly told her
that the police mauled him after he was apprehended for being a suspect in a
stabbing incident in Malanday.10

Accused-appellant corroborated his mother’s story except that he
stated that he and his relatives drank two (2) round bottles of gin.11
He added that he was suddenly picked up by Police Aide Chito Espiritu for no
apparent reason and who said “Tigil, mga pulis kami!” He averred that
Espiritu tore up his shirt and when he was brought to the police station, he
was already half-naked.

Accused-appellant further testified that Chito Espiritu and
Arsenio Pineda were on board a passenger jeep not an owner type vehicle. He did not know German nor Arsenio Pineda
and harbored no grudge against them.

When he was brought to the police precinct, accused-appellant
told the court that he was not investigated but just told to sit down. He professed complete innocence of the crime
that he was being charged with as he intimated to the court that one of the
prosecution witnesses, Joselito Dizon, was not really present at the crime
scene but was only coached by Arsenio Pineda to point and identify him
(accused-appellant) as his son’s murderer.12

From these two (2) different factual versions, the court a
quo rendered a judgment* of conviction on 14 February 1992,
the dispositive part of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused Roel Dela Pena guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, and hereby sentences him to
suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA (People vs. Munoz 170 SCRA 107); to
indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay the
costs.

SO ORDERED.”13

Aggrieved, accused-appellant interposed the present appeal
assigning the following errors to the trial court:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE OTHERWISE DOUBTFUL VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION AND IN
DISREGARDING THAT OF THE OFFENSE, (DEFENSE).

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S
UTTER FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

The defense asseverates that while it adheres to the settled rule
that with regard to the credibility of witnesses, the trial court’s findings
and conclusions are binding upon appellate courts, the case at bench should
fall under one recognized exception to said rule and that is, where the trial
court has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that if
considered, might affect the result of the case.

The defense claims that the testimonies of Alfredo Dizon,
Joselito Dizon, Arsenio Pineda and Chito Espiritu were fraught with
irreconcilable inconsistencies and patent improbabilities. Accused-appellant heavily relies on the
affidavit14
of Alfredo Dizon to show that witnesses Joselito Dizon and Arsenio Pineda were
not in the vicinity of the crime scene when the incident occurred.

In People vs. Villanueva,15 we ruled that:

“An affidavit taken ex-parte is about always incomplete and
often inaccurate sometime from partial suggestion and sometimes from want of
suggestion and inquiries without the aid of which the witness may be unable to
recall the connected collateral circumstances necessary for correction of the
first suggestion of his memory and for his accurate recollection of all that
belongs to the subject. Moreover,
affidavits are frequently not complete productions of what the declarant had in
mind considering that affidavits are frequently prepared by administering officer
and couched in the latter’s language or the latter’s understanding of what the
affiant had said while the affiant simply signs that affidavit after the same
has been read to him.”

Accused-Appellant further belittles the testimonies of Joselito
Dizon and Arsenio Pineda who “categorically admit­ted that they did not
actually see the stabbing incident”, viz:

“x x x. Joselito
Dizon’s testimony was to the effect that he only saw Alfredo Dizon and German
Pineda suddenly running away from the bench of the bank and the appellant
tucking in his waist a one foot long double-bladed knife (tsn, p. 6, October
25, 1991). Arsenio Pineda claimed, for
his part, that he was called by his son German saying, ‘Tay, may tama ako’ and
whereupon saw appellant across the street tucking in his waist a double-bladed
weapon and as if waiting for a ride (tsn, p. 10, November 11, 1991).” (p.
10 Appellant’s Brief)

At the same time, however, he conveniently forgets that these are
the very same circumstances, duly proven at the trial, which “tied the
loose ends of the prosecution’s case.”16 Evidentially, it is not essential
that an eye­witness saw appellant in the act of stabbing German Pineda. Direct evidence was not necessary to sustain
appellant’s conviction. In conjunction
with Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules of Court17, the circumstances cited by
appellant constitute but “a part of an UNBROKEN CHAIN which leads to but
one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to appellant, to the exclusion of
all others as the guilty person.”18

Further, accused-appellant casts aspersion as to why Alfredo
Dizon did not immediately respond in bringing his friend German to the hospital
or why he did not join the others in chasing appellant and reporting the
incident immediately to the police authorities.

In People vs. Biago,19 we recognized that “the
working of the human mind when placed under emotional stress is
unpredictable.” There is no standard form of behavior when one is
confronted by a shocking occurrence.20 In fact, we have ruled that even a
delay in reporting the incident does not negate the credibility of witnesses.21

Accused-appellant also places much emphasis on the alleged
discrepancy of whether Police Aide Espiritu used his service jeep or rode in a
jeepney in chasing the accused. Suffice
it to say that the alleged inconsistency is but a natural thing and even
enhances witness Espiritu’s credibility as this minor discrepancy could also
indicate that the response given by him was honest and unrehearsed.22

The paucity of evidence as to any improper motive, bias or
interest to falsely testify against the accused further reinforces the
proposition that witnesses do not falsely impute to an accused a serious
criminal offense were it not the untarnished truth.

In rejecting his defense of alibi and that he was only arrested
as a “fall-guy”, the Court agrees in full with the finding and
conclusion of the trial court; viz:

“Of vital importance and very credible is the statement (Exh.
D) given by Arsenio Pineda, father of the victim given to the police about two
hours after the stabbing of his son, a time when the incident was still fresh
in his mind, and he had no time to concoct or fabricate a story. The con­tents of this statement tally with
the oral testi­mony of said Arsenio Pineda in Court, especially those
statements that show that he was at M.H. del Pilar Street where his son shouted
to him that he was stabbed and hit and that he saw the accused tucking a bladed
weapon at his back and was attempting to escape from the scene by running away;
that he chased the man with the help of Police Aide Chito Espiritu and with the
townfolks who succeeded in catching said man, the accused herein Roel Dela Pena
who was even mauled by said townpeople that he was mauled was admitted by the
accused himself in Court, resulting in the tearing off of his shirt. All these were corroborated by the Police
Aide Chito Espiritu in his Sinumpaang Salaysay (Exh. L, L-1). This witness even testi­fied on his act of
recovering the bladed weapon (Exh. F) which the accused upon being about to be
caught pulled out the bladed weapon from his waist and threw it away and which
landed in a flower pot still wet with blood.

The testimonies of two eyewitnesses in the actual stabbing,
Joselito and Alfredo Dizon were clear, straight forward, and credible. The oral testimonies of Joselito Dizon tally
with his statement given on the same night a few hours after the stabbing. Alfredo Dizon testified that he was with the
victim when he actually saw Roel Dela Pena stab the victim at the back and
heard the victim say ‘Tay may tama ako’.

The fact is unrebutted – that the accused, right after he stabbed
the victim, ran away but was chased and caught. The accused admitted the people caught him and tore his
shirt. This admission runs counter to
his defense that he was at home at the time. His testimony that he was at home at the time runs counter to his
testimony that the time of the night he accompanied his two visitors to the
‘Petron’ where they could get a ride for home. The stabbing happened in that vicinity.”23

WHEREFORE, We AFFIRM the appealed judgment in toto,
the same being in conformity with the evidence and the law.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Regalado, and Puno, JJ., concur.

1
Rollo, p. 3

2
TSN, 11 October 1991, pp. 3-9

3 TSN,
25 October 1991, pp. 3-11

4 TSN,
November 28, 1992, p. 9

5 TSN,
11 November 1991, pp. 3-11

6
TSN, 18 December 1991, pp. 3-8

7
TSN, 13 January 1992, p. 4; Exh. “F” for the prosecution.

8
Exhibit 6.

9
TSN, 22 January 1992, pp. 2-13

10 TSN, 5 February 1992, pp. 3-11

11 TSN, 12 February 1992, p. 7

12 Ibid. pp. 9-13

* Penned by Judge Teresita Dizon Capulong

13 Rollo, p. 21

14 Exhibit “A” for the prosecution.

15 G.R. No. 96469, 21 October 1992, 215 SCRA 22, 28-29

16 Appellee’s Brief, Rollo, p. 92

17 Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient – Circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction if:

a) There is more than one
circumstance;

b) The facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; and

c) The combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

18 Supra, Footnote 16

19 G.R. No. 54411, 21 February 1990, 152 SCRA 411

20 People vs. Salufrania, G.R. No. 50884, 30
March 1988, 159 SCRA 401

21 People vs. Conciller, G.R. No. 97296, 4
March 1992, 206 SCRA 827

22 People vs. Motante, G.R. Nos. 86492-94, 20
December 1994, 192 SCRA 483.

23 Decision p. 6, Rollo, p. 26