PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JONATHAN ANACAN Y JALANDONI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Anacan

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Jonathan Anacan y Jalandoni for the killing of Henry Villanueva y Oriasa outside a beerhouse in Manila. The trial court convicted him of murder qualified by treachery; on appeal the Supreme Court was asked to review both the identification of the accused and the appreciation of treachery. The case matters for two reasons: it states the rule that no law requires a police line-up for a valid identification, and it demonstrates that treachery, like the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt — failing which the conviction is for homicide only, not murder.

Procedural History

An Information for murder was filed against Jonathan Anacan before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. A separate Information for murder was later filed against Randy Pacolba, and the two cases were consolidated; however, only Anacan was arraigned and tried, because Pacolba remained at large. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Anacan guilty of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the heirs of the victim 89,019.15 pesos as actual damages, 300,000 pesos as moral damages, and 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity. Anacan appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the dubious identification made by the prosecution eyewitness and the trial court's refusal to give probative value to his defense of alibi.

Facts

At midnight of 13 April 1997, Henry Villanueva and his cousin Ricky Lejano went to the Batik Restaurant along Rizal Avenue, Manila, to have some drinks. Later, they invited a lady guest relations officer, who happened to be the girlfriend of Randy Pacolba, the restaurant's disc jockey, to join them. Villanueva and Lejano stayed until 4:30 the following morning.

When the two were about to leave, Randy Pacolba, Jonathan Anacan, and a certain Galman mauled Villanueva. Villanueva rushed out of the restaurant but was pursued by Anacan. Because he was drunk, Villanueva could not run fast and was immediately overtaken by Anacan, who repeatedly stabbed him with a knife. Seeing his cousin stabbed, Lejano also ran for his life. A bystander brought Villanueva to the Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital; he was transferred to the Metropolitan Hospital, where he died on 16 April 1997 due to multiple stab wounds.

Anacan denied the charge. He claimed that on 13 April 1997, at around 11:45 in the evening, he was at the Batik Restaurant having a few drinks when a commotion arose; he dashed out and went to the WMC Carton Factory in Tondo, Manila, where he was a stay-in helper. He was arrested at his place of work on 3 May 1997. Lejano positively identified Anacan as the assailant, and the trial court lent credence to his eyewitness account, finding no ill motive on his part, while giving scant consideration to Anacan's denial and alibi.

Issues

• Whether or not the absence of a police line-up renders the eyewitness identification of the accused dubious and insufficient for conviction.
• Whether or not the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony, such as the number of stab wounds and the exact date of death, destroy his credibility.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi should be credited.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery was proved beyond reasonable doubt so as to raise the killing from homicide to murder.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which the trial court applied in convicting the accused of murder, 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 held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery under this article was not proved, so the killing was homicide only.

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines the crime of homicide, provides:

Article 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

This is the provision under which the accused was ultimately convicted, the killing being attended by no qualifying circumstance.

Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, on the rules for applying penalties, provides:

Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. — In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances: 1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.

Because there was neither an aggravating nor a mitigating circumstance, the Court imposed the penalty for homicide in its medium period, subject to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that no law requires the accused to be placed in a police line-up for proper identification. Lejano's identification was clear and positive: he and the victim were regulars at the restaurant; Anacan had worked there before; Lejano had seen Anacan there several times before the incident and again a few hours prior to it; Anacan himself admitted being at the place at the time of the crime; the mauling began inside the eatery and ended in front of Wendy's Restaurant along Avenida Rizal, which was well-lighted; and the distance between Lejano and his cousin when the latter was stabbed was about twelve meters. No questionable motive was ascribed to Lejano.

On the second issue, the Court held that the alleged inconsistencies referred only to collateral matters. Just because Lejano did not correctly count the number of wounds did not mean he did not witness the stabbing; the incident happened so fast that he could not be expected to keep count of the thrusts, and it was understandable for him to run for safety. The Court quoted with approval the rule that:

Inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declarations nor the veracity or weight of their testimony. In fact, these minor inconsistencies enhance the credibility of the witnesses for they remove any suspicion that their testimonies were contrived or rehearsed.

On the third issue, the Court held that for alibi to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear, and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that the accused was somewhere else. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was and the place where the crime was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. Here, Anacan himself admitted he was at the Batik Restaurant when the crime was committed; there was no attempt, not even a lame one, to prove he was elsewhere.

On the fourth issue, the Court disagreed with the trial court that treachery qualified the killing. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim by the assailant, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself or repel the aggression, thereby insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim. Just like the crime itself, treachery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Two elements must concur: the means of execution employed gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. There was no proof of the means of execution or that it was deliberately resorted to; the records were devoid of detail on how the attack was done. Treachery not having been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the accused could only be convicted of homicide.

Doctrine

First, no law requires a police line-up for a valid identification of an accused; positive identification by a witness with no ill motive, under well-lighted conditions and with prior familiarity with the accused, suffices.

Second, inconsistencies in a witness's testimony on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of the declaration; they even enhance credibility by negating rehearsal.

Third, alibi prospers only upon positive, clear, and satisfactory proof of physical impossibility of presence at the scene, measured by distance and facility of access; it collapses against positive identification and the accused's own admission of presence.

Fourth, treachery as a qualifying circumstance under Article 248 must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, with its two elements — no opportunity to defend or retaliate, and deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution. Absent such proof, the killing is homicide under Article 249, penalized by reclusion temporal, imposed in its medium period under Article 64 when no modifying circumstances attend, and subject to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Disposition

The Court modified the trial court's decision, finding Jonathan Anacan guilty of homicide rather than murder, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of six years, eight months, and ten days of prision mayor minimum as minimum to fourteen years, ten months, and twenty days of reclusion temporal medium as maximum, and ordering him to pay the heirs 97,782.55 pesos as actual damages, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize this line: no law requires a police line-up, and treachery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt with its two elements. Examiners use this case to test identification without a line-up, the treatment of minor inconsistencies, the strict requirements of alibi, and the downgrade from murder to homicide when treachery is not established.