GEORGE C. ARCENO, SAMSON C. ARCENO, ZALDY C. ARCENO, ROBERTO P. JINO-O, MARCELINO S. PALMA, JR. AND NOEL A. BANICO, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE HONORABLE …

Arceño versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Arceño versus People of the Philippines, a criminal appeal by several police and constabulary officers who were convicted of murder for the killing of Bernardito Vencer in Batad, Iloilo in April 1986. The petitioners were members of the Integrated National Police and the Philippine Constabulary who claimed they were on a legitimate mission to arrest a notorious criminal, while the prosecution insisted that they took an innocent man from his uncle's house, interrogated him, and then shot and stabbed him to death. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on the deference appellate courts give to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, on how physical evidence from the autopsy can corroborate or contradict eyewitness testimony, and on why the defenses of alibi and self-defense collapse when the accused's own account defies logic and reason.

Procedural History

The Information for murder was filed by the Special Prosecutor and the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan. The accused were arraigned and, with the assistance of their own counsel, each entered a plea of not guilty. After trial, the Sandiganbayan, First Division, rendered judgment on 15 April 1994, finding all the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by superior strength, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, ordering them to pay the heirs of the victim 50,000 pesos as indemnity for death, 20,000 pesos as actual or compensatory damages, and 218,000 pesos for loss of earning capacity, plus costs, cancelling their bonds, and ordering their confinement at the National Bureau of Prisons. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied. They then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, assigning several errors against the Sandiganbayan.

Facts

On 25 April 1986, Bernardito Vencer went to the house of his uncle, Bernardino Vencer, in Barangay Calangag, Batad, Iloilo, to get some rice. At around eleven or half past eleven in the evening, Bernardino was awakened by Alejandro Gullos, who told him that policemen were downstairs looking for his nephew. When Bernardino opened the windows, he saw a group of policemen, constabulary soldiers, and civilians. They told him they were taking Bernardito for investigation at the headquarters, but they showed him no warrant of arrest. Despite his plea that the investigation be done in the morning, the group took Bernardito with them. Bernardino and a visitor, Fernando Aguasa, later heard a single shot followed by successive shots coming from the direction the group had taken.

Edmundo Evangelio, a farmer who was watching his harvested rice from a small hut, hid behind the tall talahib grass when he heard the group approaching. From his hiding place, he saw Bernardito seated on the floor of the hut, facing George Arceño, who interrogated him. He then saw George shoot Bernardito, who fell but stood up and pleaded for mercy. George ordered him to run, but Bernardito remained standing. George, Samson, and Zaldy Arceño, who were crowding the victim, aimed their firearms at him, and several shots followed. Bernardito struggled to his knees and embraced the legs of Samson Arceño, still pleading for mercy, and another gunshot was heard. The group then blamed Igmedio Ecoy for firing the shot that hit Samson. George ordered Pablo Bernales to stab Bernardito, and Bernales stabbed the victim as he lay prostrate on the ground. The medical report showed that Bernardito died of irreversible shock due to profuse hemorrhage from massive lacerations of the lungs and big blood vessels of the neck due to multiple gunshot and stab wounds. The National Bureau of Investigation autopsy confirmed the cause of death as massive hemorrhage secondary to multiple gunshot and stab wounds.

The defense claimed that the team was acting under a mission order to verify a report and arrest Bernardo Vencer, alias Bernardito or Odong, a notorious criminal, and that they had two warrants of arrest against him. They claimed that as they approached the hut, Samson Arceño was fired upon and hit on the thigh, prompting them to return fire in an exchange that lasted about five minutes. They said they recovered a pistolized shotgun and a double-bladed weapon from the victim's body. Zaldy Arceño put up alibi, claiming he was on guard duty at their headquarters in Sara, Iloilo during the material period.

Issues

• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Fernando Aguasa and Edmundo Evangelio despite alleged inconsistencies.
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in not accepting the justifying circumstances relied upon by the petitioners, except Zaldy Arceño.
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in finding that the petitioners conspired to kill Bernardito Vencer.
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in not accepting the defense of alibi put up by Zaldy Arceño.
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioners.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as referred to in the Information and the judgment, defines and penalizes the crime of murder:

Article 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise; 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin; 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity; 5. With evident premeditation; 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

This provision supplies the definition and the qualifying circumstance of superior strength under which the petitioners were convicted, and it fixes the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the Sandiganbayan.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of Aguasa and Evangelio were minor in character. While Aguasa testified that it was drizzling and cloudy, and Evangelio testified that the moon was brightly shining, the evidence established that while there was a drizzle in the evening, the moon had already come out before midnight. The Court reiterated that minor inconsistencies or contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not destroy their credibility but even enhance their truthfulness, as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. The Court also stressed that the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts of weight and substance. It added that the fact that the judge who heard the evidence was not the one who rendered the judgment does not render the judgment erroneous, and that no evil motive was attributed to Evangelio, a simple farmer whose detailed account could not have been concocted.

The Court found that Evangelio's account was compatible with the necropsy findings of seven gunshot wounds and three stab wounds. The single gunshot wound at the front coincided with his declaration that George Arceño shot Bernardito while the latter faced him, and the six gunshot wounds at the back were sustained when Bernardito stood up after the first shot. The location of the stab wounds on the shoulders, rather than the head as Evangelio described, did not invalidate his testimony, because from his squatting position behind the talahib grass, and with the victim lying on the ground and the other accused crowding him, it would appear that Bernales was stabbing the victim on the head.

On the justifying circumstances, the Court found the petitioners' story incredible, absurd, and repulsive to logic and reason. The hut could hardly be a hideout, being small, unwalled, and open on all sides, located at the edge of a promontory overlooking a wide ricefield. The claim of self-defense was self-defeating, as it was hard to believe that a person in a lower elevation could be shot on the thigh by another in a higher elevation in a prone position less than a meter away. It was incredible that five military men, four armed with armalites and one with a revolver, surrounding a hut with four persons inside, would hit only one person while the others fled unharmed. It was absurd that Palma, at a distance of about two meters from his assailant, could exchange fire for five minutes without being hit or even scratched. And the Court doubted the existence of the recovered items, which the defense failed to present in evidence.

On conspiracy, the Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's finding that the petitioners conspired and confederated to kill the victim, as shown by their concerted acts in taking him from the house, bringing him to the hut, interrogating him, and shooting and stabbing him.

On Zaldy Arceño's alibi, the Court rejected it, as the evidence showed that he was among those who took the victim and participated in the killing, and his claim of guard duty could not overcome the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses.

On the final issue, the Court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the judgment of the Sandiganbayan.

Doctrine

First, minor inconsistencies or contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not destroy their credibility but even enhance their truthfulness, as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. Second, the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts of weight and substance. Third, the fact that the judge who heard the evidence is not the one who rendered the judgment but merely relied on the records does not render the judgment erroneous. Fourth, the defenses of alibi and self-defense cannot prevail over positive identification and physical evidence, especially where the accused's own account is incredible, absurd, and repulsive to logic and reason. These rules tie directly to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, under which murder is qualified by superior strength, and to the settled principle that the prosecution's evidence, when corroborated by the autopsy findings, prevails over the accused's denials.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Sandiganbayan convicting the petitioners of murder and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, with the corresponding civil liabilities and costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that minor inconsistencies in witness testimony enhance rather than destroy credibility, and that the trial court's findings on credibility are entitled to the highest degree of respect. Examiners like to use this case to test the rules on the credibility of witnesses, the deference given to trial court findings, and the rejection of alibi and self-defense where the accused's account is absurd and contradicted by physical evidence.