G.R. No. 109770. June 28, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANDION YANGAN, JIMMY YANGAN, JOHN DOE, PETER DOE, RICHARD DOE, AND JAMES DOE, ACCUSED. ANDION YANGAN AND JIMMY YANGAN, ACCUSE…
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
For the death due to stab and hack wounds of Pepito Castillo on
15 October 1991, accused Andion Yangan, Jimmy Yangan and others designated as
John Doe, Peter Doe, Richard Doe, and James Doe were charged with murder in an information[1] filed
with the Regional Trial Court of Mati, Davao Oriental.
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2219 and raffled to
Branch 5 of the said court.
Only the accused Andion and Jimmy Yangan, who are brothers, were
arrested. Their co-accused have
remained unidentified and at large. The case proceeded only as against the
Yangans who pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
During the trial, the prosecution presented Remelita and Maria
Pontillas as its witnesses. It also
offered in evidence the death certificate[2] of the
victim, Pepito Castillo. On the other
hand, the defense presented accused Andion and Jimmy Yangan as its witnesses.
On 21 January 1993, the trial court promulgated its decision[3]
finding accused Andion and Jimmy Yangan guilty of the crime of murder. Its dispositive portion reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby finds
the accused Andion Yangan and Jimmy Yangan ‘GUILTY’ beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, and hereby
sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA,
to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased Pepito Castillo
the sum of P50,000.00, and to pay the costs of the proceeding.
The case as against the other accused, namely: John Doe, Peter Doe, Richard Doe and James
Doe is archived pending their identification and arrest.
SO ORDERED.”[4]
The conviction is based on the finding of the trial court that
the prosecution’s evidence
“established that Pepito Castillo,
victim herein, on October 15, 1991, in the Municipality of San Isidro, Province
of Davao Oriental, died as a result of multiple hacked wounds inflicted upon
him in his stomach and back (Exhs. “A”, “A-1”,
“A-2”, “A-3”, “A-4”, “A-5”,
“A-6”, and “A-7″). Prosecution witnesses Remelita Pontillas and Maria Pontillas positively
declared that it was the accused Andion Yangan and Jimmy Yangan who hacked with
their bolos the said victim hitting the latter in the stomach and at the
back.”[5]
The trial court considered the defense of alibi put up by the
accused as “very weak” because the
“accused were in the vicinity of the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission. They were positively identified by prosecution witnesses who have
no motive to falsely implicate the herein accused. [The] alibi of the accused cannot prevail over their positive
identification by the prosecution witnesses.”[6]
The testimonial evidence for the parties is summarized by the
trial court in this wise:
“Remelita Pontillas, 24 years old, married, farmer and
resident of Panabsaban, Dugmanon, San Isidro, Davao Oriental, declared that at
about 2:00 o’clock dawn of October 15, 1991, she was in the house of her
mother-in-law, Maria Pontillas, at Panabsaban, Dugmanon, San Isidro, Davao
Oriental; that there were persons who are knocking the door but they did not
open the door, so that what they did was to peep through the holes of the
walling of the house and they saw the accused Andion Yangan and Jimmy Yangan,
brothers, who were bringing her uncle, Pepito Castillo, who was hogtied; that
because they did not open the door, both accused brought Pepito down and built
fire using dried coconut leaves near the house; that she saw the two accused
hacked with their bolos her uncle Pepito who still was able to run about 25
meters away; that she heard gunshot; that because they were afraid they did not
immediately go down until about 5:00 o’clock in the morning and looked for her
uncle Pepito whom they found lying already dead with several big wounds on the
stomach and at the back; that the incident was reported to the barangay captain
and the detachment commander; and thereafter Mayor Alfredo Leones and two (2)
policemen arrived and examined the scene of the crime and the body of the
victim Pepito Castillo; and that she was able to recognize the accused because
of the light emanating from the fire of the burning dried coconut leaves.
Maria Pontillas, 33 years old, housewife, married and residing at
Panabsaban, Dugmanon, San Isidro, Davao Oriental, declared that she worked as
laborer of the land owned by one Juanito Lim; that while she was in her house
at Panabsaban, Dugmanon, San Isidro, Davao Oriental, while she was in her house
at about 2:00 o’clock dawn of October 15, 1991, there was knocking in the
house; that she did not open the door but peeped through the holes of the
walling of the house made of bamboo split and thereat saw the accused Andion
Yangan and Jimmy Yangan bringing her brother Pepito Castillo who was hogtied at
the back; that because she did not open the door, the accused went down with
Pepito and built fire using dried coconut leaves; that thereafter the two
accused Andion Yangan and Jimmy Yangan hacked Pepito with their bolos and the
latter was able to ran about 25 meters away but was pursued by the accused; t hat she was able to recognize the accused
because of the light produced by burning of the dried coconut leaves put up by
the accused; that they were afraid to go down the house but at about 5:00
o’clock in the morning they went down to look for Pepito and found him lying
dead about 25 meters away with many wounds on his body; that Pepito was already
naked with only his brief; and that thereafter the Mayor and policemen arrived
in their house to investigate the incident. The witness further declared that she was able to identify the accused
Andion Yangan and Jimmy Yangan because of the light produced by the fire by
burning the dried coconut leaves put up by the accused; that she knows the
accused because she used to see them at Manikling together with their mother
who was selling viand; and that at that time Pepito, her brother, slept at the
copra drier because he came from the dance and was not able to go up the house.
In his defense, Andion Yangan declared that he is 20 years old,
residing at Manikling, San Isidro, Davao Oriental and a farmer; that he has
been residing at Manikling for a long time; that he has been living with his
parents; that on October 15, 1991, he was at Bacong, San Isidro working in the
land of Senon Pleños weeding grasses; that they were four working thereat,
namely: Rogelio Yangan, Jimmy Yangan,
Resco Capul and himself; that they started working on October 12, 1991 and went
home only on November 1, 1991; that he and his brother Jimmy Yangan were
arrested on December 20, 1991 by certain Opong Calumbay, a CAFGU, without a
warrant of arrest, who told them they would be taken to Dugmanon; that they
were taken to the Barangay Captain for investigation, and he denied the charges
against him.
Accused Jimmy Yangan, on his part, declared that he is 15 years
old, and resident at Manikling, San Isidro, Davao Oriental, with his parents;
that on October 15, 1991, he was at Bacong, San Isidro, working in the land of
Senon Pleños with his elder brother Andion and other persons; they started
working on October 12, 1991 up to November 1991; that on December 20, 1991,
they were arrested by Opong Calumbay, a CAFGU, and were brought to Dugmanon,
San Isidro, to the Barangay Captain for investigation, but denied the charge
against them.”[7]
Insisting upon their innocence, the accused filed a notice of
appeal wherein they manifested their intention to appeal to the Court of
Appeals.[8]
In view of the penalty imposed, the appeal should have been made to this Court.[9]
The trial court erroneously directed the elevation of the records of the case
to the Court of Appeals. The latter,
however, on 12 March 1993 transmitted the records to this Court which accepted
the appeal in its Resolution of 21 June 1993.[10]
In their Brief,[11] the
accused-appellants raise this lone assignment of error:
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED
APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE
THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”[12]
and allege in support thereof that
prosecution witnesses Remelita and Maria Pontillas did not categorically state
that they saw the accused-appellants hack and kill Pepito Castillo. They point out that Remelita made the
following admissions upon questioning by the trial court:
“Q. When you saw your uncle being hog tied
what happen?
A. He was hacked.
Q. Hack by whom?
A. I did not
see when he was hacked because there
was no more fire.
Q. Since you did not see him
being hacked how can you say that he was hacked?
A. Through the sound, his
voice, because everytime he was hacked
we can hear his voice.
Q. You
only concluded that Pepito was hacked because of his voice?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was he saying that you hear?
A. Moaning with pain.”[13]
and that Maria also made the following
admissions in answer to the court’s question:
“Q. You did not actually
see who hack and who was hacked?
A. I did not see sir because
the light was put out.”[14]
To further engender doubt on their actual complicity in the
killing of the victim, the accused-appellants cite the testimony of Maria that
there were other men in the premises aside from the accused-appellants.[15]
In the Brief for the Appellee,[16]
the Office of the Solicitor General concedes that no eyewitness testified to
having seen the accused-appellants hack the victim. It maintains, however, that the following circumstances point to
no other conclusion than that the accused-appellants perpetrated the crime
charged:
“First, the verbal warning made by the appellants at
around 2:00 A.M. on October 15, 1991 directing the members of the Fontillas
household to open the door otherwise they would all be killed (TSN, May 19,
1992, p. 65).
Second, the spontaneous utterances of the victim, Pepito
Castillo, immediately prior to his death, pleading for the members of the
Fontillas household to open the door for him because he was told by the
appellants that he would be killed if he would not request Maria Fontillas and
her family to open the door for them (TSN, April 29, 1992, p. 21).
Third, the spontaneous utterance made by Andion and Jimmy
Yangan immediately prior to the hacking of the victim that due to the failure
of the Fontillas and her family to open the door, they would kill Pepito
Castillo (TSN, May 19, 1992, p. 50).
Fourth, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Remelita
Fontillas and Maria Fontillas who corroborated each other positively
identifying the perpetrators as Andion Yangan and Jimmy Yangan after the
appellants together with Pepito Castillo descended the stairs and lit a fire
near the door of their bodega for three minutes. (TSN, April 29, 1992, pp. 19, 24-25; TSN, May 19, 1992, pp.
50-51, 67-68).
Prosecution witness Maria Fontillas further described the
appellants as wearing black T-shirt and black pants armed with a bolo about 1/2 meters long who were facing the fire
some two and a half meters away from the wall of her house together with Pepito
Castillo (TSN, May 19, 1992, pp. 52, 67-68).
Prosecution witness Remelita Fontillas testified that she saw
appellants both armed with long bolo (TSN, April 29, 1992, p. 25, 40) and saw
them hogtie her uncle Pepito Castillo and one of them looked up expecting the
window to be opened (TSN, April 29, 1992, pp. 34-35) while her uncle pleaded
for their help (TSN, April 29, 1992, pp. 30-31).
Fifth, the repeated pleadings of Pepito Castillo to the
family of Maria Fontillas, immediately after he was hogtied and before he was
hacked, asking for their help because he might die (TSN, April 29, 1992, p.
31.)
Sixth, the act of appellants in extinguishing the fire they
lit inside the bodega of Maria Fontillas immediately before they hacked and
killed the victim (TSN, April 29, 1992, p. 36; TSN, May 19, 1992, p. 68).
Seventh, the spontaneous utterance of the victim while
moaning in pain while he was repeatedly hacked and calling the name of his
sister Maria Fontillas and informing her that he was being hacked (TSN, May 19,
1992, p. 70; TSN, April 29, 1992, p. 27).
Eight, the flight of the appellants from the scene of the
crime immediately after a gunshot was fired and Pepito Castillo fell to the
ground (TSN, April 29, 1992, pp. 7-8; TSN, May 19, 1992, pp. 54-55).
Ninth, the residue of the fire lit by the appellants
downstairs inside the bodega of Maria Fontillas shown by prosecution witness
Remelita Fontillas to the responding policemen (TSN, April 29, 1992, p. 32).
Tenth, the dead body of Pepito Castillo sprawled on the very
same spot where he fell bearing several stab and hack wounds on his breast,
stomach, side and back as evidenced by the Certificate of Death (Exhibit
“A”) (TSN, April 29, 1992, pp. 8, 10; TSN, May 19, 1992, p.
56).”[17]
The chief issue in this case is whether the accused-appellants
were positively identified as the perpetrators of the offense charged. If they were, then the circumstantial
evidence pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General would be enough to
establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-appellants for it
would satisfy the requirements of Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court on
the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence as it would constitute an unbroken
chain which would lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the
accused-appellants are guilty.[18] The
thesis then of the accused-appellants would necessarily fail, for it confines
itself to one particular circumstance, viz., the actual hacking of the
victim which the prosecution witnesses did not actually see and whose
statements to the contrary on direct examination could only be mere
speculation. Such a thesis would thus
be flawed by its failure to fully grasp the rule on circumstantial evidence.
A meticulous evaluation of the evidence for the prosecution,
however, does not support the conclusion suggested by the appellee. Serious doubts are cast on the alleged
positive identification of the accused-appellants. The testimonies of Remelita and Maria Pontillas on this point do
not inspire belief and the holding of the trial court that the
accused-appellants were positively identified failed to consider vital facts
and circumstances brought out during the cross-examination and during their
questioning by the trial court which exposed their failure to identify the
perpetrators of the crime and heightened the witnesses’ tendency to exaggerate
their testimony.
Prosecution witness Maria Pontillas claimed to have recognized
the accused-appellants as the persons who knocked at the door because of the
fire they lit before they knocked. On
cross-examination, she stated:
“Q. You testified further that you already
knew and hearing the knock, of Andion Yangan and Jimmy Yangan?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why? Did they introduce themselves?
A. I know their faces.
Q. When
for the first time did you see their faces, at the time of the knocking?
A. I saw their faces
downstairs when they were setting the fire downstairs.
Q. Which
was ahead, the setting of the fire or the knocking?
A. The setting
was first and after that they went
up stairs.”[19]
Maria also declared that there was “a little light”
from the moon. Thus:
“ATTY. DIUYAN:
Q. You said, in answer to the query of the
Court there was no fire yet?
A. Yes, when they went
upstairs.
Q. What
was the condition of the place?
A. There was a little light
at that time, there was a moon.
Q. Can
you remember what was the position of the moon?
A. The moon was already at
the west.”[20]
These assertions of Maria are unconvincing. Firstly, her answers to the questions of the
trial court clearly disclose that the fire was lit after the knocking:
“COURT:
Q. Which is correct was the setting of
the fire before or after the knocking?
A. After
the knocking, while they were knocking we did not open the door and what they
did they bring my brother and hogtied him.
Q. Is
it not the fact, when you woke up there was already fire downstairs?
A. While
they were knocking because we did not open, then they brought my brother downstairs
and they set up fire.”[21]
Secondly, Remelita positively declared
that there was no moonlight when the incident occurred. Thus:
“COURT:
x x x
Q. During that time it was 2:00 o’clock in
the early morning, how is the condition of the night was it dark or moonlight?
A. There
was no moon.
Q. So
it was totally dark?
A. No,
they made a fire downstairs.”[22]
Assuming arguendo that the assailants had built the fire
before knocking at the door of the house of the Pontillas, we are still unable
to believe the story of Remelita and Maria that through the hole in the wall of
the second storey of their house and
aided by the light produced by the fire, they were able to see the faces of the
accused-appellants who were then facing the fire.[23]
This could have been possible only if the fire was built in front of the house. But, as admitted by Maria on cross-examination, the fire was built under
the house:
“ATTY. DIUYAN:
x x x
Q. You
said they set fire downstairs, how far is that fire to your house?
A. They
set up the fire under the house and they were thinking we will come out.”[24]
This is confirmed by the testimony of Remelita that the traces of
the fire were located “[r]ight inside the bodega.” Thus:
“COURT:
x x x
Q. By the way, in what particular area
within the premises of the house that the traces of fire located?
A. Right
inside the bodega.”[25]
The bodega is the lower portion of the Pontillas’ two-storey
house.[26]
Maria and Remelita and the rest of the occupants of the house were at the
second storey.[27]
Since the fire was under the house, it was impossible for Remelita and Maria to
see the accused-appellants around or near the fire through the use of the hole
in the wall of the second storey of the house. As admitted by her, what one would see if he peeped through the hole is
the “outside”:
“Q. And when you peeped what area did you
see inside or outside the house?
A. Outside.
x x x
Q. What
part of the house did you see when you peeped, was it at the side, the front or
at the back of the house?
A. In
the side of the house.”[28]
Remelita impliedly admitted this
impossibility when, upon questioning by the trial court, she offered the
explanation that the accused-appellants went out from the bodega. Specifically, she said:
“COURT:
x x x
Q. So
you cannot see the fire while you are peeping from upstairs?
A. Because
after they build the fire when they were already lighted they also got out from
the bodega.”[29]
This explanation suggests that if they
were inside the bodega where the fire was built, they could not be seen by
peeping through any hole or opening in the wall on the second storey, and it
was only after they got out of the bodega when Remelita saw them. This explanation further suggests that the
accused-appellants immediately tried to avoid identification by getting out of
the bodega “when they were already lighted.” Obviously, however, this
is pure speculation on the part of Remelita in the light of her implied admission that she could not see
from the hole in the wall the place where the fire was built. In any event, it was only after they had
gone out of the bodega that they could have been possibly seen by Remelita. Nevertheless, they could not have been
identified because it was dark outside and they precisely sought darkness by
getting away from the light of the fire.
Moreover, Maria Pontillas admitted that she had seen the
accused-appellants prior to 15 October 1991 because they lived at the interior
part of Manikling and they were always with their mother who is a fruit vendor,[30]
and to a question of the trial court, she admitted that on the day of the
incident she already knew the names of the persons who killed her brother
Pepito Castillo. Thus:
“COURT:
Q. On that date October 15, 1991, did you
already know the names of the persons you saw who could be responsible for the
death of your brother?
A. Yes, your Honor.”[31]
Yet when investigated by the police
authorities immediately after she reported the killing of Pepito following the
discovery of his body at 5:00 a.m. of 15 October 1991, she did not reveal their
names to the investigator; she just told them that Pepito was killed by members
of the “Toktok” gang. Thus:
“Q. Did the police further ask you who hack
your brother?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was your answer?
A. I told the police that
he was hacked by the persons who knock the door.
Q. So that is the only information you
give to the police that he was killed by the Toktok gang? And do you know who are the Toktok gang
members?
A. I do not know but I only
know these two persons.
Q. In telling the police,
the one responsible is the toktok gang, did you not inform the police the name
of the persons responsible?
A. I did not tell them yet.
Q. Can
you explain with the Honorable Court, why at that time you did not tell him?
A. I did not reveal the
name.
Q. Can you tell us why did
you not tell the police?
A. I did not reveal the
name because if those persons will be apprehended and I will identify them.
Q. So at that time you are
not sure?
ATTY. BALDOZA:
We
object your Honor, misleading.
COURT:
Reform
the question.
Q. So
you did not ask the police to apprehend the persons responsible?
A. Not yet. I did not tell.
Q. So you are giving the problem to the police?
A. Yes, sir.”[32]
She also admitted that she did not go to the police to reveal the
names of Pepito’s assailants until 28 December 1991 when she was informed that
the accused-appellants were arrested by the CAFGU.[33]
When pressed for an explanation by the trial court on why she did not reveal
the identities of the assailants,[34]
Maria was quick to realize the implication and now stated that she did reveal
them to her neighbor. Still the trial
court proceeded to confront her on why she revealed such information to a
neighbor yet withheld it from the authorities. This time, she offered the lame excuse that she was afraid because
“I keep on going out and they might kill us,”[35]
which we find to be unacceptable considering that if she knew the assailants,
and was afraid of them because she was always going out, then she should have
immediately disclosed their names to the police authorities so that they could
have been arrested and detained. Then
too, neither she nor any member of her family disclosed to the barangay captain
the identities of the assailants despite her assertion that she told them about
their identities, including her son Ruel who reported the incident to the
barangay captain.[36]
Besides, if Maria and Remelita knew that Pepito was hacked five
times as shown by Maria’s testimony:
“Q. Could
you hear the hacking?
A. Yes, I could hear the
sound is clear.
Q. How many sound of hacking
you hear [sic]?
A. Five (5) times.”[37]
then after the assailants had left they
should have immediately looked for Pepito. Nonetheless, it was only at 5:00 a.m., or three hours later, when they
did so. The darkness which Maria
alleged[38]
is not a justifiable reason for their inaction and unconcern. Their conduct in this regard is contrary to
ordinary human experience.
Finally, we observe the tendency of the prosecution witnesses to
exaggerate. For one thing, although
Remelita could not have seen the
faces of those knocking at the door and the taking and hogtying of Pepito, she
made it appear in her testimony that she knew them and saw the taking and
hacking. Thus, on direct examination
she explicitly declared:
“Q. Can
you tell this Honorable Court what was that untoward incident on that
particular date and time?
A. There were people knocking
the door and we did not open the door.
Q. And
what happen next since you did not open the door?
A. Our uncle Pepito was
brought down and they hogtied him and after hogtying they hack him.”[39]
Later, she admitted that she actually did
not see the hacking but only heard the “moaning with pain.”[40]
Maria imagined no less when she claimed, on the basis alone of
the sound she heard, that her brother Pepito was hacked five times.
In fine, we find the evidence for the prosecution to be
insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants with moral
certainty. The presumption of their
innocence enshrined in the Bill of Rights[41]
therefore stands.
WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of Branch 5 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao
Oriental in Criminal Case No. 2219
is REVERSED and, on ground of reasonable doubt, accused-appellants ANDION YANGAN and JIMMY YANGAN are ACQUITTED. Their immediate
release from detention is hereby ordered, unless any other lawful cause
warrants their further detention.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, (Chairman), Bellosillo, Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
[1]
Original Records (OR), 1-2; Rollo, 6-7.
[2]
Exhibit “A.”
[3]
OR, 131-137; Rollo, 13-19. Per
Judge Ricardo M. Berba.
[4]
Id., 136-137; Id., 18-19.
[5]
Id., 135; Id., 17.
[6]
OR, 136; Rollo, 18.
[7]
OR, 132-135; Rollo, 14-17.
[8]
Rollo, 20.
[9]
Section 5 (2) (d), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution; Section 3(c), Rule 122,
Rules of Court; Section 17, Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended.
[10]
Rollo, 22.
[11]
Id., 33-40.
[12]
Id., 35.
[13]
TSN, 29 April 1992, 27 (emphasis supplied).
[14]
TSN, 19 May 1992, 69 (emphasis supplied).
[15]
Id., 69-70.
[16]
Rollo, 59-77.
[17]
Rollo, 69-72.
[18]
People vs. Tiozon, 198 SCRA 368 [1991].
[19]
TSN, 19 May 1992, 63-64 (emphasis supplied).
[20]
TSN, 19 May 1992, 71-72.
[21]
Id., 65-66.
[22]
TSN, 29 April 1992, 18-19 (emphasis supplied).
[23]
Id., 19; TSN, 19 May 1992, 67-68.
[24]
TSN, 19 May 1992, 74.
[25]
TSN, 29 April 1992, 33.
[26]
TSN, 29 April 1992, 16.
[27]
TSN, 19 May 1992, 48.
[28]
TSN, 29 April 1992, 24.
[29]
Id., 33.
[30]
TSN, 19 May 1992, 53-54.
[31]
Id., 92.
[32]
TSN, 19 May 1992, 85-86.
[33]
Id., 88.
[34]
Id., 91.
[35]
Id., 93.
[36]
Id., 87.
[37]
TSN, 19 May 1992, 69.
[38]
Id., 55.
[39]
TSN, 29 April 1992, 7.
[40]
Id., 27.
[41]
Section 14(2), Article III.