G.R. No. 109769. November 28, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUAN TAÑOTE, SALVADOR DELA CRUZ, SALVADOR TORRENTE AND RODRIGO TAOC, ACCUSED. SALVADOR TORRENTE, ACCUSED- APPELLANT.
REGALADO, J.:
Accused-appellant Salvador Torrente, together with Juan Tañote,
Salvador dela Cruz and Rodrigo Taoc were charged with the crime of robbery with
homicide before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Virac, Catanduanes,
allegedly committed as follows:
“That on or about the 22nd day of August, 1987 at more or less
7:30 o’clock in the evening, at barangay Inalmasinan, municipality of
Caramoran, province of Catanduanes, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
helping one another for a common purpose, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously by means of violence and intimidation forcibly enter
the house and store of one Pastor Verano, Sr. and once inside, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, with intent to gain and against the consent of said owner
Pastor Verano, Sr., take, steal and carry away, Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00), Philippine Currency to the damage and prejudice of his heirs in
the said sum; that on the occasion of the robbery and for the purpose of
enabling them to take, steal, and carry away the above mentioned amount, herein
accused in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and with evident premeditation and taking advantage
of their superior number and strength as a band, and with intent to kill,
treacherously attack, assault, sho(o)t and use personal violence upon the
persons of Pastor Verano, Sr. and Pastor Verano, Jr. who were fatally wounded which resulted to their instant
death, and during the struggle Jesus Tapanan, a member of the said band was
also killed.
That this offense is aggravated by
nighttime, by a band, superior strength, dwelling and with the use of an
unlicensed firearm.
ALL ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.”[1]
Three of the accused, Juan Tañote, Salvador dela Cruz and Rodrigo
Taoc, initially pleaded not guilty but, upon re-arraignment, pleaded guilty to
the offense charged. Herein appellant
Salvador Torrente was not apprehended and remained at large. Considering, however, the gravity of the
offense, the trial court ordered the prosecution to present its evidence
against the accused in custody.[2]
On August 22, 1988, the trial court rendered judgment finding the
aforesaid three accused guilty of robbery with homicide and disposing in this
wise:
“In the light of all the foregoing, the Court finds all three
accused JUAN TAÑOTE, SALVADOR DELA CRUZ and RODRIGO TAOC guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, with the aggravating circumstance
of having used an unlicensed firearm, but with the mitigating circumstance of
plea of guilty, for which they are each hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua
and to jointly and severally pay the heirs of the deceased father and son
Pastor Verano, Sr., and Pastor Verano, Jr.
(a) P15,000.00 as actual
damages;
(b) P60,000.00 for the
death of the said deceased father and son; and
(c) moral and exemplary
damages in the total sum of P40,000.00.
Costs de o(f)icio.”[3]
Sometime in 1990, appellant was eventually arrested in
Manila. Upon arraignment with the
assistance of counsel, he pleaded not guilty.[4] On
November 27, 1990, after trial on the merits, judgment was rendered finding him
guilty as charged, and with the following dispositive portion:
“ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Salvador Torrente guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide,
defined and penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code,
and is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
In line with the Decision dated August 22, 1988, finding Torrente’s
co-accused Juan Tañote, Salvador dela Cruz and Rodrigo Taoc equally guilty of
the same offense, he is also hereby adjudged jointly and severally liable with
the aforementioned accused, to pay the heirs of the deceased Pastor Verano, Sr.
and Pastor Verano, Jr., the sum of P15,000.00 as actual damages; P60,000.00 for
the death of said victims; and moral and exemplary damages in the sum of
P40,000.00.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.”[5]
Appellant is now before us, impugning his conviction and
assailing the trial court for allegedly having erred:
1. In finding that
appellant was one of the men who robbed and killed Pastor Verano, Sr. and
Pastor Verano, Jr.;
2. In not giving
credence to appellant’s defense of alibi;
3. In holding that
the accused fled after the commission of the offense; and
4. In not acquitting
appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt.[6]
The People’s version of the factual antecedents of this case is presented
in this Counter-Statement of Facts in the brief filed by the Solicitor General,
with page references to the transcript of the stenographic notes taken at the
trial of this case:
“About 7:00 o’clock in the evening of August 22, 1987, Pastor
Verano, Sr. and his wife, Nery Verano, were preparing to take their dinner at
their residence at Inalmasinan, Caramoran, Catanduanes. With them were Lilia Braga and Pastor
Verano, Jr., both children of Verano, Sr. by his first marriage. Verano, Jr. came in order to get some money
for his trip abroad (TSN, October 14, 1991, pp. 5-6).
“That same evening, at a house adjoining the compound of the
Veranos, Miguel Solero, a farmer, was preparing to bring some splitted rattan
to Verano, Sr., who regularly bought his (Solero’s) rattan. About 7:00 o’clock P.M., Solero reached the
residence of the Veranos where they had a store, but was prevented from
entering the gate by Rodrigo Taoc, who poked a gun at him (Solero) and told him not to shout. Appellant stood beside Taoc, holding a
flashlight. Solero recognized appellant
for he had stayed with Solero at his hut in Maycamagong, Maraubos for a week,
sometime in July, 1987 while gathering rattan. Nearby, Juan Tañote, Salvador dela Cruz, and Jesus Tapanan stood by the
main door of the Veranos’ store. When
Tañote, dela Cruz and Tapanan began pushing the front door of the store, Taoc
and appellant left Solero who went towards the house of Dioscoro Clavano
nearby, and told Clavano and his companion, Domingo Burac, that the Veranos
were being robbed (TSN, August 30, 1991, pp. 35-41, 45-46, 50-55).
“Alarmed by the barking of dogs and the commotion outside,
Verano, Sr. opened the kitchen door, went to their adjoining store and got a
flashlight. Thereafter, he went to the
sala and opened the main door of the house. He heard somebody say,
‘hold-up.’ The same was also heard by Nery Verano and Verano, Jr. who stood
(up) from the dining table at the kitchen and proceeded towards the door to the
sala. They saw Verano, Sr. being held
by Jesus Tapanan and Salvador dela Cruz. Before Nery Verano and Verano, Jr. were able to enter the sala to
assist Verano, Sr., they were
stopped by Juan Tañote who entered the house through the kitchen door, and
threatened them with a gun. Then, a
shot was heard coming from the
sala. Seeing that his father was
bleeding, Verano, Jr. struggled
with Juan Tañote, enabling Nery Verano to run back to the kitchen. Then two gunshots were heard coming from
where Verano, Jr. was, and Nery Verano saw Verano, Jr., slum(p) to the
floor. Before Nery Verano could hide in
the kitchen, appellant came through the door and poked a gun at her (TSN,
October 14, 1991, pp. 7-11, 2-23; Exh. ‘F,’ p. 184 of Record).
“Jesus Tapanan, who
was severely wounded during the fray, was brought outside the house by Juan
Tañote and Salvador de la Cruz. Thereat, Tapanan subsequently died. After that, Juan Tañote returned to the kitchen where Verano, Jr.’s fallen body was and fired at
it. After appellant and his companions
had fled, Nery Verano saw that her husband and stepson were dead. She also found that the sales for the day in
the sum of P500.00, which was kept in a locker at the store, and the P10,000.00
for Verano, Jr.’s trip, were gone (Exh. ‘E-3,’ p. 188 of Record: TSN, October 14, 1991, pp. 11-13, 18-23).
“In the morning of the
following day, August 23, 1987, Francisco Padayao, a farmer of Inalmasinan, was
at his hut by the river in Maraubos, Iraya, splitting rattan. With him were his common-law wife, Conchita Padayao,
Junior Torrente and his wife, Jovita, and Juan Torrente. At around 5:30 a.m., Rodrigo Taoc arrived at
Francisco Padayao’s hut. About twenty
minutes after, appellant, Salvador dela Cruz and Juan Tañote also arrived at
Francisco Padayao’s hut. Appellant
asked for some food from Francisco Padayao and the latter gave him
some. While appellant’s group was
eating by the edge of the river, Francisco Padayao observed that Salvador de la
Cruz’ hand was dripping with blood. Padayao also saw that appellant had two guns, one was a long firearm
while the shorter one was tucked on his left waist. After eating, Padayao overheard appellant and Juan Tañote say
that their trip was unlucky. Appellant
said, ‘never mind, if our trip is (sic) unlucky, we got two and we lost one,’
while gesturing by running his forefinger across his neck from right to
left. Thereafter, about 7:30 A.M., the group prepared to leave. Before leaving, appellant told Padayao not
to tell anyone that they had passed by (TSN, August 30, 1991, pp. 5-12).
“Padayao’s group went back to Inalmasinan on August 24, 1987
and learned that Verano, Sr. and Verano, Jr. were killed two days earlier. At 6:30 o’clock that evening, Francisco
Padayao went to the wake of the Veranos and told Nery Verano about the four (4)
men who passed by his hut in Maraubos (TSN, August 30, 1991, pp. 30-a, 30).
“The bodies of Verano, Sr. and Verano, Jr. were autopsied by
Dr. Santelices. In his medico-legal
report dated August 26, 1987, he found that Verano, Sr. died of ‘C-R arrest,
exsanguinating hemorrhage gunshot and stabbed (sic) wounds, chest’ (Exh. ‘A’
and ‘A-2’, p. 30 of Record), while Verano, Jr.’s death was due to ‘C-R arrest,
exsanguinating hemorrhage, gunshot wound, head’ (Exh. ‘B’ and ‘B-2’, p. 32 of
Record). (TSN, August 30, 1991, pp.
2-3; TSN, October 14, 1991, pp. 28-29).”[7]
On his part, appellant interposed the defense of alibi and
mistaken identity. He claims that he
could not have been one of the perpetrators because on August 22, 1987, when
the alleged incident took place, he was in the forest of Maraubos gathering
rattan, together with his wife and daughter and several other persons, namely,
Francisco Padayao and his common-law wife, Conchita; Jose Torrente, Jr. and his
wife, Jovita; Juan Torrente and his wife, Vilma; and Pio Torrente and his wife,
Shirley. They stayed in that place from
August 13, 1987 until August 25, 1987.
On August 25, 1987, appellant went home to Coripdas, San Miguel,
Catanduanes. On August 27, 1987, he and
his wife went to Mulanay, Quezon after receiving a telegram, informing them of
the death of his father-in-law. Appellant stayed in Quezon for five months and thereafter went to Manila
where he worked in a construction firm.
Appellant further testified that sometime in June, 1991, Mrs.
Verano went to the Provincial Jail and, upon seeing him, commented that
“he seems not to be the person.” This fact was corroborated by the
testimony of the jail guard, Leo Tatel.
A thorough review of the records convinces us that a judgment of
conviction is in order.
The assigned errors hinge on the issue of credibility. The Court cannot detach this case from the
settled rule that when the issue of credibility of witnesses is involved, the
appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court considering
that the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard
the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless
certain facts of value have been plainly overlooked which, if considered, might
affect the result of the case.[8]
We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of record to ferret
out any possible bases for misperception or oversight on the part of the court
below but we have found none. Indeed,
there is no reason to doubt the identification of appellant by the prosecution
witness. Contrary to his claim, the
identification was positive and unmistakable.
Mrs. Nery Verano, the wife of one of the victims, gave this
testimony:
“Q And
you said you went towards the kitchen, where you able to reach the kitchen?
A No, sir.
Q Why were you not able to
reach the kitchen?
A I did not reach the
kitchen, because another man with a gun entered.
COURT
Q Where
did that man enter?
A That
man passed thru the kitchen door.
PROSECUTOR
Q By
the way, was your kitchen lighted?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
kind of lamp or light?
A Pressure
lamp (Petromax).
Q And
when you met that man with a gun as you were going to the door of your kitchen,
what happened?
A That
man poked his gun at me.
Q And
then, what did you do?
A I
went to the place where we cooked.
Q Could
you recognize that man who poked that gun at you while you were going to the
kitchen door?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Will
you please look around and tell us if that man is present in court?
A (Witness
pointing to accused Salvador Torrente).”[9]
The relationship of this witness with the victim does not
discredit her testimony. On the
contrary, the fact that the principal witness is the victim’s wife even lends
more credence to her testimony as her natural interest in securing the
conviction of the guilty would deter her from implicating persons other than
the culprits for, otherwise, the latter would thereby gain immunity.[10]
Appellant would also like to make capital of the alleged
inconsistency between the description of the assailant given by the victim’s
wife in her sworn statement and his actual physical features. He claims that the witness described the
assailant as one with curly hair and of regular build, whereas appellant stands
5 feet and 1 inch tall and has straight hair. The supposed inconsistency is more apparent than real.
A person who measures a little above 5 feet is customarily
considered as being of a normal and average height for a Filipino. The slight change in hairstyle, which could actually
be varied as often as one desires, is of negligible effect when viewed against
the positive identification of herein appellant as one of the malefactors who
committed the crime, obviously by reason of his facial features and appearance
which are indisputably the most common and ordinarily reliable means of
ascertaining identity.
Appellant was also identified by the other prosecution witness,
Miguel Solero, who declared that:
“PROSECUTOR
Q You said you were poked with a gun while you were in the gate of the
house of Pastor Verano, did you see the person who poked his gun at you?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Who
poked a gun at you?
A Rodrigo
Taoc.
Q When
you were poked with a gun, was there any person around?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Who
were they?
A Juan
Tañote, Salvador dela Cruz, Jesus Tapanan and Salvador Torrente.
PROSECUTOR
Q Where
was Salvador Torrente at that time?
A He
was beside a man who is poking the gun at me.
Q How
about Juan Tañote, Salvador Dela Cruz and Jesus Tapanan, where were they?
A They
were in front of the main door of the store.
Q How
far were they from you?
A More
than two (2) arms length.
Q When
you said it was Rodrigo Taoc who poked the gun at you, and beside him (was)
Salvador Torrente, how far (was) Salvador Torrente from you?
A (Witness
demonstrating a distance of three [3] feet).
Q If
this Salvador Torrente which you said is in court, can you point to him?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Please
point to him?
A (Witness
pointing to the accused).”[11]
Miguel Solero could not have been mistaken. He already knew appellant even prior to the
time of the incident, since appellant had even stayed in his hut in Maycamagong
for one week while gathering rattan.[12]
The contention of appellant that the behavior of Miguel Solero in
not telling anybody about the incident is not in accord with the common
experience and observation of mankind, hence it seriously impairs his
credibility, is decidedly bereft of merit. Pertinent portions of his testimony reveal that he actually told Domingo
Burac and Dioscoro Clavano about what happened. Thus, he testified as follows:
“COURT
Q What
did you do after Rodrigo Taoc and Salvador Torrente left you?
A I
ran.
Q Where
did you go?
A I
went to the house of Dioscoro Clavano.
Q How
far was that from the store of the Verano.
A It
is the house next to our house.
Q Why
did you go there instead (of) your own house?
A Because
that is the place where I saw people drinking.
Q Proceed.
PROSECUTOR
Q And
what did you do when you reached the Clavano’s house.
A I
told them that there were robbers in the house of Pastor Verano.
Q And
then, after that, what did you do?
A I
went home.”[13]
x x x
“ATENCIA
Q When
you were in the house of Clavano when you said you heard the first shot, did it
not occur to you to mention to any person there that the shot could have come
from the direction of the house of Verano?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
yet, you did not make any comment on that to the people who are drinking in the
house of Dioscoro Clavano?
A Yes,
sir, I even told them that Pastor Verano is being held up.
COURT
Q What
was told them was that the store of Pastor Verano was being robbed, not Pastor
Verano, himself?
A Yes,
sir.
ATENCIA
Q To
whom did you say that, name the person?
A Domingo
Burac and Dioscoro Clavano.
Q There
were only two of them, drinking?
A Yes,
sir.
Q They
were drinking gin?
A Tuba,
sir.
Q What
did Burac and Clavano say when you told them that the store of Verano is about
to be robbed?
A They
did not go out, because they were also afraid, since they heard the shot.
Q Did
they tell you that they were afraid, because of the shot they heard?
A That
is what I observed from them, because they were not even able to go out of the
place when they heard the gunshot.”[14]
The credibility of Miguel Solero and Nery Verano is further enhanced
by the fact that these eyewitnesses had no ill feelings against appellant. When the witness does not appear to be
biased against the accused, his or her assertions as to the identity of the
malefactor should be given full faith and credence.[15]
On the other hand, the ill motives imputed by herein appellant to the other
prosecution witnesses, that is, Francisco Padayao and his common-law wife, Conchita, even if true is
inconsequential considering that their testimonies are merely corroborative.
It is also worth noting at this point that Rodrigo Taoc, a
co-accused of herein appellant executed an affidavit before the Philippine
Constabulary wherein he categorically named appellant as one of the
perpetrators of the crime charged.[16]
Evidently, in the face of these established facts, appellant’s defense of alibi
cannot succeed. It is well settled that
alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses and
their clear identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[17]
Furthermore, appellant failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to
be at the Verano residence at the time the crime was perpetrated. It is elementary that for alibi to be
believed, credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility for the accused
to be at the scene of the crime is indispensable. In its absence, the defense of alibi cannot be sustained.[18]
Alibi is admittedly and consistently
considered the weakest defense an accused can concoct. In order to prosper, it must be so convincing as to preclude any doubt that the accused could not
have been physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity
at the time of its commission.[19]
Finally, appellant’s
flight is a clear and positive indication of his guilt. His claim that he left Catanduanes solely
for the purpose of attending the burial of his father-in-law, is not worthy of
belief. He stayed away from Catanduanes
for three years until his arrest in 1990. Despite the fact, that he is a farmer, instead of going back to
Catanduanes he went to Manila to work as a construction worker. In addition, he left Catanduanes immediately
after the arrest of his co-accused.
It is a well-entrenched doctrine that an accused’s flight from
the scene of the crime and his act of hiding himself until he was arrested are
circumstances highly indicative of his guilt, for, as has long been wisely
said, the wicked flee even when no man pursueth but the righteous are as bold
as a lion.[20]
We cannot perceive how appellant can be exempted from that verity.
The penalty prescribed for the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death.[21]
Considering, however, that at the time of the commission of the offense the
imposition of the death penalty was proscribed,[22] the
trial court was correct in meting out only the penalty of reclusion perpetua
notwithstanding the aggravating circumstances attending the commission of the
crime.[23]
However, consonant with our present jurisprudential policy, the
death indemnity to be awarded to the heirs of each of the victims should be
increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, or the total sum of P100,000.00. Considering that the judgment against Juan
Tañote, Salvador dela Cruz and Rodrigo Taoc, the other convicted felons, had
become final and executory as of February 28, 1991,[24]
they are solidarily liable with Salvador Torrente only up to the amount awarded
and for which they have been held liable in the said decision. Any amount in excess of said prior award is
the sole liability of appellant Salvador Torrente.[25]
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that
the civil indemnity for the death of each of the victims is increased to
P50,000.00, or the total sum of P100,000.00 for both. Accused-appellant Salvador Torrente shall be jointly and
severally liable with his three co-accused for P60,000.00 of said amount, and
for the remaining P40,000.00 he shall be exclusively liable.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Puno,
and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
[1]
Original Record, 61-62.
[2]
Ibid., 143.
[3]
Ibid., 155; per Judge Silvestre S.
Felix.
[4]
Ibid., 163.
[5]
Ibid., 238; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Eduardo Israel Tanguanco.
[6]
Appellant’s Brief, 1-2; Rollo, 43-44.
[7]
Brief for the Appellee, 5-10; Rollo, 92-102.
[8]
People vs. Puloc, et al., G.R. No. 92631, September 30, 1991, 202
SCRA 179; People vs. Lagario, et al., G.R. No. 92000, July 5, 1993, 224
SCRA 351; People vs. Balanag, et al., G.R. No. 103225, September 15,
1994.
[9]
TSN, October 14, 1991, 10-11.
[10]
People vs. Alcantara, et al., L-26867, June 30,
1970, 33 SCRA 812; People vs. Radomes, G.R. No. 68421, March 20, 1986,
141 SCRA 548; People vs. Villalobos, et al., G.R. No. 71526, May 27, 1992, 209 SCRA 304.
[11]
TSN, August 30, 1991, 36-37.
[12]
Ibid., id., 38-39.
[13]
Ibid., id., 41.
[14]
Ibid., id., 54-55.
[15]
People vs. Alcantara, et al., supra; People vs. Santito,
Jr., et al., G.R. No. 91628, August 22, 1991, 201 SCRA 87; People vs.
Bolado, et al., G.R. No. 105375, September 28, 1993, 226 SCRA 800.
[16]
Original Record. 18.
[17]
People vs. Garcia, et al., L-26105, February 18, 1986, 141 SCRA 336;
People vs. Clores, G.R. No. 82362, April 26, 1990, 184 SCRA 638; People
vs. Java, G.R. No. 104611, November 10, 1993, 227 SCRA 668.
[18]
People vs. Sambangan, L-44412, November 25, 1983, 125 SCRA 726; People
vs. Pielago, et al., L-42256, December
19, 1985, 140 SCRA 418; People vs. Angeles, G.R. Nos. 104285-86, May 21,
1993, 222 SCRA 451.
[19]
People vs. Perante, Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 63709-10, July 16, 1986, 143
SCRA 56; People vs. Santillan, G.R. No. 68331, January 29, 1988, 157
SCRA 534; People vs. Cinco, et al., G.R. No. 79497, February 27, 1991,
194 SCRA 535.
[20]
U.S. vs. Sarikala, 37 Phil. 486 (1918); People vs. Castor, G.R.
No. 93664, December 11, 1992, 216 SCRA 410; People vs. Iran, G.R. No. 88915,
December 14, 1992, 216 SCRA 575.
[21]
Art. 294, par. (1), Revised Penal Code.
[22]
Sec. 19, Art. III, 1987 Constitution.
[23]
People vs. Servillon, G.R. No. 92154, September 12, 1994; People vs.
Balanag, et al., supra.
[24]
Original Record, 158.
[25]
People vs. Lee, et al., G.R. No. 66848, December 20, 1991, 204 SCRA 900.