PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO HAPA Y EBASCO, CLARO FERATERO Y ENCINARES, AMADOR ESPAÑO Y OFALSA AND CONRADO ENTERESO Y HAPA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Hapa

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted four men for the killing of a young farmer after a barrio fiesta dance. The accused, Francisco Hapa, Claro Feratero, Amador Españo and Conrado Entereso, were charged with murder and convicted by the trial court. The case matters to a reviewee because the Supreme Court uses it to settle several recurring procedural and evidentiary questions: whether the grant of bail weakens the charge, whether a judge who did not hear the witnesses may validly decide, whether an accused who jumps bail may later claim denial of due process, and how treachery and conspiracy are established. It is a compact lesson in how the Court weighs the record on appeal.

Procedural History

An information for murder was filed with the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, and the case was eventually heard by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Sorsogon, Sorsogon. All four accused entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment, and trial followed. On May 3, 1995, the trial court rendered its decision finding all four guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance. Each was sentenced to reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties, and all were ordered to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the victim in the sum of 50,000 pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs. The accused filed a joint notice of appeal, and the case reached the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal from the conviction.

Facts

On the night of June 13, 1977, the people of Trece Martirez, Casiguran, Sorsogon celebrated their town fiesta, which ended in a dance at the barangay hall. The four accused, who were not natives of the place, attended the dance. At about two thirty in the morning of June 14, 1977, the crowd began to thin out and head home. Delfina Gratil, a prosecution witness, went to her house about fifteen meters from the dance hall, opened her kitchen window for fresh air, and from there witnessed the events that followed.

From her window, Delfina saw Leoniso Hermo being held by the arms by two persons. A third person, whom she identified as Francisco Hapa, stood in front of the victim wearing a jacket, while a fourth stood guard behind him. The scene was dark, but a nearby lamppost illuminated it. Delfina heard a voice say, "Where is your house, you are our target?" The victim answered, "What is my fault?" and the same voice repeated, "you are our target." She identified the voice as that of Francisco. The group dragged the victim toward the fence of her house, and Francisco pulled a bladed instrument from his jacket and made downward and forward thrusts against Leoniso. She thought it was a joke until she saw blood dripping from the blade. The victim clutched his breast in pain, and the assailants fled. Delfina watched from about two meters away.

Benerando Hitosis, a farmer on his way home from the dance, corroborated her account. He had walked about fifteen meters when he heard the victim's voice behind him. Turning, he saw Francisco, Amador and Conrado running toward the house of Conrado Hadap, armed respectively with a bladed instrument, a fork and a dagger, while Claro was also armed with a bladed instrument. The victim tried to walk toward his own house but died before reaching it. The barrio people surrounded the Hadap residence, and all four accused were apprehended and turned over to the authorities. The autopsy showed a stab wound on the right anterior chest, laceration of the upper lobe of the right lung, and death from shock secondary to severe hemorrhage. The accused denied the killing and claimed they were merely at the fiesta and were themselves mauled that night.

Issues

• Whether or not the fact that the accused were allowed to post bail shows that the evidence of guilt for murder was not strong, so that they could be convicted only of homicide.
• Whether or not the decision is void because the judge who penned it was not the one who heard the testimonies of the witnesses.
• Whether or not accused Francisco Hapa was deprived of due process because he was not given the opportunity to testify in his own behalf.
• Whether or not the prosecution witnesses Delfina Gratil and Fidela Hermo were credible despite the inconsistencies in their testimonies.
• Whether or not the killing was attended by treachery and conspiracy, qualifying it to murder.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the accused were convicted, provides:

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.

The Court uses this provision to test whether the killing was qualified to murder by treachery, which the trial court found and the Court affirmed.

Rule 114, Section 9 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, governing bail in capital offenses, provides:

Section 9. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.

This provision frames the Court's answer to the bail argument: the summary hearing weighs the evidence, not the guilt of the accused.

Article 189 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, cited by the Court, provides:

Article 189. Release of the child on recognizance. The court may release the child on recognizance to his parents or guardians or to any suitable person willing to take custody of him, taking into account the recommendation of the social worker.

The Court invokes this provision to explain why three of the four accused, who were minors at the time of the crime, were released to the custody of their parents pending trial.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the argument is manifestly flawed and has no basis in law or jurisprudence. In a summary hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong for purposes of bail, the court determines the weight of the evidence, not the guilt or innocence of the accused. It does not try the merits, nor speculate on the outcome of the trial. The Court added that three of the four accused were minors at the time of the crime, and their release to the custody of their parents was pursuant to Article 189 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, upon the social worker's recommendation that, being first offenders, they be released on recognizance.

On the second issue, the Court held that the fact that the judge who decided the case was not the one who heard the witnesses does not automatically warrant a reversal and does not per se render the decision void. The judge may rely on the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the trial, and such reliance violates neither substantive nor procedural due process. After meticulously poring over the records, the Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings.

On the third issue, the Court held that there was nothing to support the claim of denial of due process. The right to be heard by himself and counsel, and the right to present evidence, are guaranteed, and a decision is void for lack of due process only if a party is deprived of the opportunity to be heard. Here, the last defense witness testified in February 1985, and the defense rested only in October 1987, giving ample time and opportunity to present further evidence. Yet Francisco Hapa never appeared despite due notice, and because he jumped bail, his counsel had to rest the case.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the inconsistencies dwelt on immaterial and insignificant details and did not affect credibility, since the testimonies jibed on material points. Minor inconsistencies are not earmarks of falsehood; they show the testimonies are unrehearsed. Delfina's testimony was straightforward, categorical and definite, and the light from the nearby lamppost enabled her to recognize the assailants. The testimony of a lone eyewitness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction, for witnesses are weighed, not numbered. As to Fidela Hermo, the Court found no inconsistency with Benerando Hitosis, since her testimony confirmed that the victim died before reaching his house.

On the fifth issue, the Court affirmed that the crime was murder, qualified by treachery, and that conspiracy was clearly established. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, without the slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked. The victim was caught off guard, alone and innocently walking while carrying a bench, when the four armed accused appeared, held his arms, and stabbed him, so that he could not ward off any attack.

Doctrine

First, the grant of bail does not diminish the charge. A summary hearing on bail determines the weight of the evidence, not the guilt or innocence of the accused, and the court does not speculate on the outcome of trial. Second, a judge who did not hear the witnesses may validly decide on the basis of the transcript of stenographic notes, without violating due process. Third, the right to be heard is satisfied by the opportunity to present evidence; an accused who jumps bail and causes the defense to rest cannot later claim denial of due process. Fourth, minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on immaterial details do not destroy credibility, and the positive and credible testimony of a single eyewitness suffices for conviction. Fifth, treachery qualifies a killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code when the attack is sudden and unexpected, without the slightest provocation, employing means that insure its execution so that the offender faces no risk from the defense the victim might make.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court in all respects, finding all four accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing each to reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties, and to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of Leoniso Hermo in the sum of 50,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize this line: bail is about the weight of the evidence, not guilt, and a judge who did not hear the witnesses may decide on the transcript. Examiners like to use this case on the bail hearing for capital offenses, on the validity of a decision by a judge who did not try the case, and on the rule that witnesses are weighed, not numbered.