G.R. No. 113018. June 05, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GABRIEL CIPRIANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
REGALADO, J.:
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6-A, of Palo, Leyte, finding him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder for the violent death of
Cresencia Mirasol.
In an information[2]
filed on August 15, 1990 and docketed as Criminal Case No. 90-08-339,
appellant was charged with murder allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 3rd day of February, 1990, in the City of
Tacloban, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused with deliberate intent to kill and with
treachery and evident premeditation, armed with a gun, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and shoot CRESENCIA
MIRASOL with said gun hitting and wounding her on the body, thereby
inflicting upon said Cresencia Mirasol gunshot wound which caused her
death.
At his arraignment with the assistance of counsel, appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged[3]
and, thereafter, the trial of the case proceeded. Presented as
witnesses by the prosecution were Emma Balo, Geronimo Mirasol, Arnulfo
Reyes, Dr. Angel Cordero, Pat. Federico Tan, Pat. Alberto Modesto, Ruben
Espeleta, SPO1 Jose Talagtag, T/S Teodoro Fornillo, and Vicente de
Vera. Their testimonies, with the documentary evidence adduced in the
course of the proceedings, presented the case for the People.
Emma Balo, a subordinate of victim Cresencia Mirasol in the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), testified that
at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening of February 3, 1990, she was at
the residence of the victim. While seated across each other at a table
in the carport and working on the final deployment of personnel of the
DENR, they were startled by a loud explosion which sounded like a
firecracker.
She heard victim Mirasol ask, “Ano adto, Em?” (What was
that, Em?). She could not immediately answer the victim as she was
stunned by that strong burst of sound. She then heard Mirasol utter, “Agi, agi,”[*]
and saw her hold her chest while slowly reclining her head forward on
the table. Seeing blood flowing out of the back of the victim, she
placed her hand on the wound in an attempt to stanch the bleeding. At
the same time, she called Geronimo Mirasol, the victim’s brother who
lived next door and, together, they thereafter brought the victim to the
hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival.[4]
Geronimo Mirasol testified that he was awakened by his wife who
heard a gunshot and noticed a commotion in the house of Cresencia. When
he arrived there, he saw his sister lying on the floor near the carport,
bathed in her own blood. He asked Emma Balo as to who shot his sister
and she replied that she saw a man wearing a black jacket in the
immediate vicinity. The following morning, he went behind the house of
his deceased sister and noted several footprints and tire marks near the
wall.[5]
He further revealed that prior to February 3, 1990, there were
altercations between him and herein appellant. Their quarrels started
sometime in June 1988 when the son of appellant broke the jalousies of
his house with a slingshot. When appellant learned that his son was
being blamed for the broken jalousies, he went out of his house bringing
with him his .38 caliber revolver and challenged Geronimo Mirasol to a
fight, which provocation the latter prudently ignored.
The same incident again happened in October 1989, this time with
appellant firing his armalite rifle in the air. Cresencia Mirasol who
heard the gunshots, went out of her house, confronted the appellant and
tried to pacify him, but he arrogantly replied, “Malabad kamo”
(You are both troublesome.) In December 1989, the jalousies of the house
of victim Mirasol were hit and broken by a slingshot. She did not
complain but she suspected that it was committed by the same person
responsible for the previous incidents.[6]
Prosecution witness Arnulfo Reyes testified that at around 10:30
in the evening of February 3, 1990, while coming from Hollywood Street
on his way to his aunt’s house, he heard a gunshot emanating from Texas
Street. While looking for a safe place to hide in the corner of Texas
and San Francisco Streets, he saw appellant coming out from the gutter
near the house of victim Mirasol. Appellant, who was holding a gun in
his right hand, then got hold of the steering bar of a bicycle, tucked
the gun in his waist, and rode away on the bicycle. This witness easily
recognized herein appellant because he was just five meters away from
him, the place was well lighted, and the witness knew him well since
they were distant relatives.[7]
Arnulfo Reyes also testified that at around 8:00 o’clock in the
evening of February 11, 1990, during the fiesta celebration at V&G
Subdivision, he was on his way on board a pedicab to the grounds of the
fair being held there when he heard somebody calling him, “Ongkong.”
When he looked back, he saw appellant pointing a gun at him. He
immediately jumped out of the pedicab and ran but he was hit in the back
by a bullet. Appellant tried to shoot him again but, luckily, this time
he was not hit. He hurriedly proceeded to his house and was later
brought to the hospital for medical treatment.[8]
He further declared that the reason why appellant tried to kill
him was because he had knowledge of the killing of Cresencia Mirasol,
and that he had executed a sworn statement implicating herein appellant
as the assailant.[9]
Dr. Angel Cordero,[10]
who conducted a necropsy examination on the body of deceased Cresencia
Mirasol on February 4, 1990, affirmed in court that the cause of her
death was shock due to massive hemorrhage caused by a gunshot wound in
the chest, lacerating the heart.[11]
He opined that the assailant could have been standing on an elevated
level behind the victim, as the point of entry of the slug was at her
back.[12]
Patrolman Federico Tan, a member of the Pastrana Police Station
since May 1988, was assigned as police officer of the day on February 3
and 4, 1990. He testified that herein appellant was assigned as a market
guard from 6 o’clock in the evening of February 8, 1990 to 8 o’clock in
the morning of the following day, but appellant did not report for duty
on that day and during the scheduled hours of his assignment.[13]
Patrolman Alberto Modesto, also a member of the Pastrana Police
Station since 1978, testified that sometime in February 1990, appellant
talked to him about his desire to pledge his .45 caliber pistol, the
proceeds of which he planned to use in the forthcoming fiesta
celebration. The witness referred appellant to his nephew-in-law, Ruben
Espelita, who was residing in Barangay Astorga. Appellant met him again
after the fiesta and told him that he needed additional money as he was
involved in a shooting incident in their subdivision. Witness Modesto
also confirmed that prior to February 1990, he often saw appellant in
possession of that same pistol in the Pastrana Police Station.[14]
In open court, while testifying as a prosecution witness therein,
he was able to identify that firearm which he saw in the possession of
appellant, and was later pledged to Ruben Espelita, as an Ithaca .45
caliber pistol bearing Serial No. 1233458.[15]
Prosecution witness Ruben Espelita, Barangay Captain of Barangay
Astorga, Alang-alang, Leyte, corroborated the testimony of Patrolman
Modesto about the .45 caliber pistol that was pledged to him by
appellant. He testified that said appellant went to see him thrice:
first, on February 9, 1990, when the appellant pledged the pistol to him
for P3,500.00; second, on February 28, 1990, when appellant asked for
additional money but was not able to get any; and, third, in the third
week of March 1990 when he was able to get an additional amount of
P2,000.00 from this witness.[16]
On April 5, 1990, by virtue of a search warrant, a Criminal
Intelligence Service (CIS) team went to Espelita’s house to search for
that pistol, and his wife voluntarily surrendered the gun in question.
He was investigated in the CIS headquarters in Tacloban City and was
informed that said firearm had been used as a murder weapon.[17]
Witness Espelita further averred that, in connection with the
pledge of that gun to him, he requested appellant to sign a receipt but
the latter refused by calling attention to the fact that they had after
all entered into a gentlemen’s agreement. Espelita did not insist
anymore on a receipt from appellant because of their supposed agreement
and the fact that appellant had been referred to him by his own
relative.[18]
SPO1 Jose P. Talagtag, a member of the Philippine National Police
(PNP)-CIS in Ormoc City, took the stand and narrated that he was
assigned to investigate the death of Cresencia Mirasol. A certain
Patrolman Jun Reyes approached and informed him that his brother,
Arnulfo Reyes, had knowledge about the incident. He interrogated Arnulfo
Reyes and a sworn statement[19]
was executed and signed by the latter. He also learned from Dr. Cordero
that a slug was taken from the body of the victim and marked with an
initial “CM.” That slug had been turned over to the Philippine
Constabulary (PC) Crime Laboratory for safekeeping.[20]
He further testified that it was his team which applied for and
secured a search warrant from Judge Pedro S. Espina for the recovery of
the getaway bicycle, the jacket allegedly worn by the assailant, and the
.45 caliber pistol used in the shooting of Cresencia Mirasol. Said
bicycle and jacket were found in and recovered from the residence of
herein appellant, while the pistol was found in and retrieved from the
residence of Ruben Espelita in Alang-alang, Leyte.[21]
He also made the clarification that when that pistol was confiscated,
he immediately turned over the gun to T/Sgt. Fornillos of the PC Crime
Laboratory for ballistic examination.[22]
T/Sgt. Teodoro Fornillos, who was assigned as Chief Clerk of the
PC/PNP Crime Laboratory Service Station in Palo, Leyte, confirmed that
he was the one who received and supervised the ballistic test fire
examination on the .45 caliber Ithaca pistol with Serial No. 1233458. He
informed the trial court that said pistol, together with the test-fired
bullets and the slug taken from the body of Cresencia Mirasol, were
brought to Camp Crame for ballistic examination.[23]
Vicente de Vera, Chief of the Ballistic Branch of the PNP Crime
Laboratory at Camp Crame, testified that he personally received and
conducted the ballistics examination on the subject gun and slug. Based
on his examination he concluded that the slug marked with an initial
“CM” was fired from the .45 caliber Ithaca pistol with Serial No.
1233458, the same gun that was allegedly pledged to Ruben Espelita by
appellant and subsequently confiscated by police authorities.[24] He accordingly issued Ballistic Report No. B-1-179-90[25] setting out those findings.
Appellant, on the other hand, denied killing Cresencia Mirasol
and raised an alibi as his defense. He contended that in the evening of
February 3, 1990, he was at the Gov. Jaro Coliseum for a scheduled
cockfight derby, hence he failed to report for duty as a market guard.
He met Reginaldo Rosalio, who had a gamecock entry which participated
and won in the derby, while the latter was drinking in one of the
canteens of said coliseum. He was invited by Rosalio to join him at
their table. They waited for the prize money until 11:00 o’clock in the
evening and then proceeded to Rosalio’s house in Phase 5, V&G
Subdivision for an extended celebration. He did not stay long, but went
ahead of the group and proceeded to the so-called shed house to buy some
fish.
He met Asterio Colipano in the shed house and requested the
latter to bring him home. Colipano agreed to do so after he shall have
delivered the twelve “bañeras” of fish to the market.
Thereafter, they proceeded from the market to Phase 4 of V&G
Subdivision. Appellant alighted at the waiting station of the
subdivision and then walked all the way home. Arriving at the gate of
their house at around 2:00 o’clock in the morning of February 4, he
noticed several persons in the house of Cresencia Mirasol. He was
informed that Mirasol had been shot and was rushed to the hospital.[26]
The defense also presented Reginaldo Rosalio and Asterio Colipano
to corroborate the alibi of herein appellant. Rosalio further asserted
that herein appellant was with their group from the time they met at the
canteen up to 12:00 o’clock midnight of February 3, 1990 when he left
for home.[27]
Unimpressed by appellant’s defensive version, the trial court
rejected appellant’s defense and accordingly found him guilty as
charged, pronouncing on him this condemnatory judgment:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, GABRIEL CIPRIANO, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as defined and penalized
under the Revised Penal Code and is thereby sentenced to reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Cresencia Mirasol,
(in) the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.[28]
Hence, this appeal, with appellant faulting the trial court as having
erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
murder. He bases his appeal mainly on the alleged insufficiency of the
circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution to sustain his
conviction, considering that nobody saw who actually shot Cresencia
Mirasol.
He argues that the prosecution failed to establish his alleged
possession or ownership over the .45 caliber pistol used in the killing
of the victim as no documentary evidence was presented to prove that he
pledged that gun to Espelita.
He likewise assails the trustworthiness and credibility of the
prosecution witnesses by ascribing ulterior motives to them. He
particularly rails against Pat. Alberto Modesto whom he claims testified
as he did in order to protect his relative, Ruben Espelita, from whom
the pistol was seized and for which he could be held liable for its
illegal possession; and Arnulfo Reyes whom he charges was actuated by
ill motives to falsely testify against him because of previous incidents
between them,[29] as earlier narrated.
Appellant’s appeal is without merit. Ergo, we affirm.
It is a settled rule that direct evidence of the commission of a
crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its
conclusion and finding of guilt.[30]
Trial courts are allowed to rule on the bases of circumstantial
evidence, and judgments of conviction based on such species of evidence
can be upheld if (1) there are more than one circumstance; (2) the facts
from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.[31]
In the case at bar, several items of circumstantial evidence were
presented, and all of which conduced to the identification of the
culprit, to wit:
(1) There had been previous altercations or unpleasant incidents between the victim and herein appellant;
(2) Witness Emma Balo, who was with the victim at the time of the incident, saw that the assailant was wearing a black jacket;
(3) Appellant was seen by witness Arnulfo Reyes as he came out from
Texas Street wearing a black jacket and tucking a gun in his waist,
just after Reyes heard a gunshot coming from said street where the
victim’s house is located;(4) Appellant shot witness Arnulfo Reyes because the latter
thereafter executed a sworn statement of what he saw and implicating
appellant therein as the assailant of victim Mirasol;(5) Appellant was the one who possessed and later pledged his .45
caliber pistol to Ruben Espelita, which pistol was positively and
scientifically identified as having fired the slug extracted from the
body of the deceased; and(6) The getaway bicycle and the black jacket worn by the assailant
at the time of the incident were recovered from the house of appellant.
This catenation of circumstances, taken together with and drawn from
appellant’s antecedent possession of the gun which was the instrument of
the crime, form an unbroken chain which inevitably leads to a logical
conclusion that herein appellant is guilty of killing Cresencia Mirasol.
Appellant’s strained argument based on the absence of any
documentary evidence on the pledge of said gun does not negate the fact
that he owned or was in effective control of it, as clearly and
satisfactorily explained by Espelita in his testimony,[32] Also, as ratiocinated by the Solicitor General:
Besides, the absence of such documentary proof does not necessarily
mean that no such transaction ever took place between accused-appellant
and Espelita, for it is of common knowledge that some people enter into
such transaction(s) verbally or without the benefit of any document.At any rate, given the trial court’s finding that accused-appellant
“never denied possession or ownership of said pistol” (p. 3, Decision),
it is too late in the day for accused-appellant to refute (the)
prosecution’s theory of pledge in his desperate bid to deny ownership of
the subject firearm, the use of which in the killing of the victim,
accused-appellant admits, has been established by the prosecution.[33]
The incriminating collage of facts against appellant, it should be
noted, was created by circumstantial evidence anchored on the credible
and unbiased testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses. Consequently,
this Court will not disturb but shall accord the highest respect to the
trial court’s findings on the issue of credibility of the witnesses and
their testimonies, it having had the opportunity to observe their
deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[34]
The attempt of herein appellant to discredit the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses is unavailing. In fact, appellant himself
admitted that he had no quarrel or differences with Pat. Alberto
Modesto, and that witness Arnulfo Reyes is even his relative.[35]
There is no showing whatsoever that these prosecution witnesses were
actuated by any improper motive to perjuriously impute to him such a
serious charge. Thus, their forthright testimonies, are jointly and
altogether, worthy of full faith and credit.[36]
Appellant’s ascription of existing bad blood between him and
Arnulfo Reyes, which supposedly impelled the latter to falsely testify
against him, is both tenuous and untenable. It is noteworthy that Reyes
had already executed a sworn statement and implicated him as the
assailant of Cresencia Mirasol even before his aborted assault against
Reyes in the February 11, 1990 shooting incident. Moreover, herein
appellant’s attempt to kill Reyes was an obvious act of desperation on
his part to prevent the latter from testifying against him. As held in People vs. Cabel,[37]
the prior, contemporaneous and subsequent acts or conduct of the
accused indicative of his guilt or tending to show that he committed the
crime charged may be received as evidence against him.
Appellant’s defense of alibi must necessarily be rejected. He
failed to prove that he was at some other place such that it was
physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime.[38]
Instead, the prosecution established that the house of the victim,
Cresencia Mirasol, and appellants alleged whereabouts at the time she
was killed, were both in the same locality in Tacloban City; and the
houses of defense witness Reginaldo Rosalio and the victim were both
located at V&G Subdivision, more or less one kilometer distant from
each other. Evidently, it was physically possible for appellant to have
been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. His alibi
becomes further implausible since it was attested to mainly by appellant
and the aforesaid Reginaldo Rosalio, who is his relative and principal
witness, thereby revealing its inherent unreliability and the facility
of its concoction.[39]
There is no need to belabor the conclusion that, from the facts
of this case as hereinbefore discussed, the crime committed was murder
qualified by treachery. There was insufficient evidence, however, of the
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation alleged in the
indictment. Neither was this case attended by any other modifying
circumstance which would further affect appellant’s criminal liability.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 6-A, of Palo, Leyte is hereby AFFIRMED in toto,
with costs against accused-appellant Gabriel Cipriano.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, Puno, Mendoza, and Martinez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, 41-44; penned by Judge Ruben A. Mendiola on August 23, 1993.
[2] Ibid., 15.
[3] Ibid., 16.
[*] An expression of pain, like “ouch.”
[4] TSN, February 27, 1991, 23-30.
[5] Ibid., January 16, 1991, 5-11.
[6] Ibid., October 17, 1990, 5-11.
[7] Ibid., October 17, 1990, 5-11.
[8] Ibid., id., 17-21.
[9] Ibid., id., 21-22.
[10] Chief Inspector
and Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory Services, Regional
Unit No. 8 at Camp Kangleon, Palo, Leyte.
[11] TSN, June 5, 1991, 2-7.
[12] Ibid., id., 9-15.
[13] Ibid., February 27, 1991, 6-9.
[14] Ibid., March 20, 1991, 4-13.
[15] Ibid., May 2, 1991, 16-18.
[16] Ibid., October 17, 1990, 38-43.
[17] Ibid., id., 44-48.
[18] Ibid., id., 53-56.
[19] Original Record, 37-38; Exhibit E.
[20] TSN, April 5, 1991, 5-9.
[21] Ibid., id., 10.
[22] Ibid., id., 14-16.
[23] Ibid., October 12, 1990, 5-9.
[24] Ibid., June 3, 1991, 8-19.
[25] Original Record, 396.
[26] Ibid., March 15, 1993, 6-13.
[27] Ibid., June 4, 1992, 12-13.
[28] Rollo, 44.
[29] Appellant’s Brief, 5-6.
[30] People vs. Danao, G.R. No. 116058, February 1, 1996, 253 SCRA 146.
[31] Section 4, Rule 133, Rules of Court.
[32] Supra, Fn.18.
[33] Brief for the Appellee, 12-13; Rollo, 179, 192.
[34] Lim vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 102784, February 28, 1996, 254 SCRA 170.
[35] TSN, May 24, 1993, 23-24.
[36] People vs. Pajaro, G.R. Nos. 93026-27, December 17, 1996, 265 SCRA 668.
[37] G.R. No. 121508, December 4, 1997, citing 75 C.J.S., Conduct of Accused, § 52, p. 523.
[38] People vs. Umali,
G.R. No. 76530, March 1, 1995, 242 SCRA 17; People vs. Rivera, et al.,
G.R. Nos. 88298-99, March 1, 1995, 242 SCRA 26.
[39] People vs.
Ocsimar, G.R. No. 104630, February 20, 1996, 253 SCRA 689; People vs.
Caguioa, Sr., G.R. Nos. 105690-91, July 26, 1996, 259 SCRA 403.