G.R. No. 147671. November 21, 2002
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RENANTE MENDEZ AND BABY CABAGTONG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision[1] of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, Laoang, Northern Samar, finding
accused-appellants Renante Mendez and Rene “Baby” Cabagtong guilty of the crime
of rape with homicide and sentencing each of them to death and to indemnify the
heirs of victim Candy Dolim in the amount of P100,000.00 as
damages. Because the record of this
case is replete with numerous instances of procedural and evidentiary lapses,
we are constrained to reverse the judgment of the trial court and acquit
accused-appellants on the basis of reasonable doubt.
The prosecution in this case began with the filing of an
information by Prosecutor Napoleon C. Lagrimas on March 5, 1997. The information alleged Âľ
That on or about the 8th day of December, 1996, at about
7:30 in the evening, more or less, at Sitio Tinotogasan, Brgy. Burabud, Gamay,
Northern Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one
another, by means of force and intimidation, and with lewd design did, then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the
private offended party named CANDY DOLIM, which is against her will and
consent; and that on the occasion of said incident, the above-named accused
with intent to kill and without any justifiable cause, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab said CANDY
DOLIM, on the different parts of her body, which wounds caused the
instantaneous death of the latter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Accused-appellants, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to
the crime charged, whereupon trial ensued.
The prosecution presented six witnesses: Rico Dolim, Aurea
Cabagtong, Ronnie Cabagtong, SPO2 Noli Cernio, Zosimo “Mager” Mejica and Dr.
Santiago M. Engo, Medical Officer III of Gamay District Hospital, Gamay,
Northern Samar.
Rico Dolim is the father of the victim. (It appears that he and his wife, Erma Ada, were estranged.) He testified that, in the morning of
December 8, 1996, Candy Dolim, then 13 years old, left their house to collect
bets on the PBA ending games from the local residents. When she did not return home that evening,
Rico asked his father Ambrosio and his daughter Jinky to look for Candy, but
they did not find her. Information that
Candy was in Mapanas with her mother proved wrong. On December 12, 1996, word reached Rico that a young girl was
found dead in Sitio Tinotogasan. Rico
immediately went to the place and found the lifeless body of Candy. Her panty and shorts were hanging from an
ankle, while her shirt was rolled up to her throat. She had wounds in different parts of her body.
Rico sought the help of the police and Barangay Captain Pedro
Gomba.[3]
Having heard that a certain Ronnie Cabagtong[4] was
involved in the killing of his daughter, Rico filed a complaint against Ronnie,
who was then investigated by the police. While Ronnie was under investigation at the police headquarters, his
mother, Aurea Cabagtong, came to the station. She told Rico Dolim that she knew what actually happened to Candy and
offered to be a witness.[5] Aurea
Cabagtong pointed to accused-appellants Baby Cabagtong[6] and
Renante Mendez as the perpetrators of the crime.
Rico Dolim’s statement, as well as that of his father, was taken
by the police, as were those of Aurea Cabagtong, Dimas Pugnit, and Ronnie
Cabagtong. Rico said he knew
accused-appellant Renante Mendez because he was their neighbor. He was acquainted with accused-appellant
Baby Cabagtong because the latter was also from Barangay Burabud.[7]
Rico Dolim claimed he had suffered unbearable loss as a result of his
daughter’s death and that he had incurred burial and other incidental expenses
which he estimated to be P7,000.00.
For her part, Aurea Cabagtong claimed that, on the night of
December 8, 1996, accused-appellants Renante Mendez and Baby Cabagtong went to
her house. They were soaked from the
rain. She said that her son Ronnie, who
was already about to sleep, asked her to let the two inside. She said her son talked with
accused-appellants, but she did not understand what they had been
discussing. Aurea Cabagtong said she
saw accused-appellants washing their clothes to remove bloodstains on
them. The two spent the night in her
house with her son Ronnie. When she
woke up the following morning, she found they had already left.[8]
Aurea said she was able to talk to her son about
accused-appellants’ visit only when she went to the police headquarters while
Ronnie was being investigated. She gave
a statement, which was reduced in writing, before SPO2 Noli Cernio.[9]
On cross-examination, Aurea said that Ambrosio Dolim had asked her to testify
in this case. According to her,
Ambrosio went to her house and paid for her expenses in attending court
sessions.[10]
Ronnie Cabagtong, the third witness for the prosecution, claimed
to be an eyewitness to the crime. He
said that, on the night of December 8, 1996, he watched a Betamax show in
Kagawad Tesoro’s house in Occidental II, poblacion of Gamay. Several people
were there, including accused-appellants Renante Mendez and Baby Cabagtong and
the victim Candy Dolim. He said that
Candy Dolim left after the first show to solicit bets for the PBA ending
games. Accused-appellants Renante
Mendez and Baby Cabagtong followed. Ronnie said he left Kagawad Tesoro’s house five minutes later and met
Dimas, who told him that he had seen accused-appellants with a girl. According to Ronnie, he was about three
meters away when he later saw accused-appellants. Renante Mendez was on top of Candy, having sexual intercourse
with her, while Baby Cabagtong was holding the victim’s hands. It was raining and there was no moonlight,
but Ronnie said he recognized Renante and Baby because of a lantern which
illuminated the place. According to
Ronnie, he proceeded home and, at about 9 o’clock that night, he heard someone
calling from the outside. It was
accused-appellants Renante Mendez and Baby Cabagtong. Ronnie said he asked his mother to let the two inside their
house. He noticed that they had
bloodstains on their shirts. He said
the two washed their clothes to remove the stains and later slept in his
room. They warned Ronnie not to tell
anyone about what he saw or else they would kill him and his family. Ronnie said that he and accused-appellants
then went to sleep. The next morning,
accused-appellants left.[11]
Ronnie said he later learned that Candy had been killed and she was buried on
December 12, 1996.
That same day, December 12, 1996, Ronnie, together with Renante
Mendez, was apprehended by SPO2 Noli Cernio. Ronnie testified that he did not immediately tell the police or SPO2
Cernio what he knew about the case because Renante had a cousin who was a
policeman. SPO2 Cernio did not put his
statement in writing. Ronnie was later
released by the police. In February
1997, he went to Manila to avoid involvement in this case and to look for a
job.[12]
He was fetched from Manila by his mother on April 29, 1997 and was later taken
to Catbalogan, where he was investigated by the NBI.[13]
According to Ronnie, he finally decided to talk about this case because he was
bothered by his conscience. He said he
had been acquainted with accused-appellants for a long time, particularly
Renante Mendez, whom he had known since he was a boy. He denied any relation to Baby Cabagtong and claimed that he had
no grudge against accused-appellants.[14]
On cross-examination, Ronnie reiterated that, at around 8 o’clock
in the evening of December 8, 1996, he saw accused-appellant Renante Mendez
raping Candy. He recognized Renante
because of the light from a lantern. He
did not stay long in the area because it was drizzling. Ronnie could not remember what Candy and
Renante were wearing at that time. Neither did he hear cries from the victim. He said he did not tell his mother about the incident because he
went to sleep immediately after eating dinner. When Renante and Baby went to his house at around 10 o’clock in the
evening, Ronnie asked his mother to let them in because they were his
acquaintances. He claimed he agreed to
testify in this case because Candy was his cousin.[15]
Dr. Santiago M. Engo performed the autopsy on Candy Dolim. He found the body of Candy in a state of
decomposition. In his report,[16]
he stated he found five (5) wounds on different parts of Candy’s body: (1) a
hack wound on the neck, which, according to him, was fatal; (2) an incised
wound, 5 inches long, gaping and 1 1/2 inches deep,
located at the anterior upper third of the left arm; (3) an incised wound, 3
inches long, gaping and 2 inches deep, located at the lateral 3rd of
the right forearm; (4) an incised wound, 7 inches long, gaping and 2 inches
deep, located at the anterior upper 3rd of the right forearm
extending up to the lower 3rd of the arm of said side; and (5) a
lacerated vaginal wound, 2 inches long, located at the 6 o’clock position of
the vaginal orifice.[17]
Dr. Engo stated that wounds no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were caused by a
sharp bladed instrument, with the victim facing his assailant, and that wound
no. 4, the vaginal laceration, was caused by a blunt instrument. Only wound no. 1 (the hack wound in the
neck) was serious and could have caused the instantaneous death of the
victim. It was possible that the
assailant was on top of the victim and that he was right-handed. By Dr. Engo’s estimate, Candy Dolim could
have died either on December 7 or December 8, 1996. Due to the decomposition of the body, Dr. Engo was not able to
extract or take any semen samples from the vagina, although he was able to
examine the wound found on it. He said
he could not be certain if the victim had been sexually assaulted.[18]
Farvesio Banawis, also testifying for the prosecution, declared
that he owned a coconut plantation in Barangay Bato, Gamay, Northern
Samar. On December 8, 1996, while he
was on his way home to Barangay Burabud from Barangay Bato, where his
plantation was situated, he met three persons, one of whom was Candy
Dolim. He knew her to be the
granddaughter of a certain “Bokoy.” He
identified accused-appellants in court as the persons in the company of Candy
that night. He said he even talked with
Candy Dolim. He asked her what she was
doing, and she answered she was looking for the winner of the PBA ending
games. He did not talk with
accused-appellants Renante Mendez and Baby Cabagtong.[19]
The following day, Farvesio said, he left for Manila. A week later, he learned from his townmates,
who had come from the province, that a little girl had been found dead in
Gamay. He thought it might be the girl
he had met near his property. But he
stayed long in Manila and only went home to Gamay in May. After he had verified the news about Candy
Dolim, he went to Ambrosio Dolim and told him that he was willing to testify in
this case.
Farvesio was investigated by SPO2 Noli Cernio. He executed a sworn affidavit[20]
before the clerk of court of the Municipal Court of Gamay, Gil Ada. He said that it was possible that
accused-appellants raped and killed Candy because they were the ones following
her. He claimed he had no grudge
against accused-appellants. He
volunteered to be a witness in this case, but, according to him, his affidavit
was executed only when this case was already filed in court because he stayed
in Manila for a long time.[21]
The next witness for the prosecution, SPO2 Noli Cernio, testified
that he was a member of the PNP of Gamay assigned as an investigator in the
Intelligence Section. In the morning of
December 8, 1996, he was informed that a dead body had been found in Sitio
Tinotogasan. For this reason, he went
to Barangay Burabud with Chief of Police Peter Longcop and Dr. Santiago Engo to
conduct an investigation. When they
arrived in Sitio Tinotogasan, Barangay Burabud, they found the lifeless body of
Candy Dolim. Candy’s grandfather
identified her body.[22]
SPO2 Cernio found the victim to have been stabbed several
times. She was lying on a grassy area
with her panty pulled down to her feet and her upper dress raised up to her
neck. Her body was already in a state
of decomposition. The right side of
Candy’s face was unrecognizable. SPO2
Cernio took pictures of the dead body, which were marked as Exhibits G, G-1 and
G-2.
SPO2 Cernio said he questioned Ronnie Cabagtong and
accused-appellant Renante Mendez. Ronnie told him that accused-appellants Renante Mendez and Baby
Cabagtong went to his house at around 10 o’clock in the evening on the day of
the incident. SPO2 Cernio said he did
not take the sworn affidavit of Ronnie Cabagtong because the latter denied
involvement in the case and claimed that he was in their house on the night of
the incident.[23]
SPO2 Cernio said that Ronnie Cabagtong was released from custody
after he had informed the Chief of Police that he was innocent. Accused-appellant Renante Mendez remained in
custody for investigation, while the Chief of Police ordered accused-appellant
Baby Cabagtong to be arrested. SPO2 Cernio investigated accused-appellant Baby
Cabagtong, who denied participation in the incident. The investigation was not put in writing. Cernio said he also investigated Aurea
Cabagtong, Rico Dolim and Ambrosio Dolim. He testified that he knew accused-appellant Renante Mendez because there
were several cases filed against the latter, including a rape charge which was
dismissed after Renante married the complainant. With respect to accused-appellant Baby Cabagtong, SPO2 Cernio
said he too had several complaints against him, but not all were filed in
court. SPO2 Cernio claimed that
accused-appellant Baby Cabagtong was a trouble-maker. He also said that Ronnie Cabagtong and accused-appellants Renante
Mendez and Baby Cabagtong were always seen together.[24]
On cross-examination, SPO2 Noli Cernio testified that he filed
the case against accused-appellants Renante Mendez and Rene “Baby” Cabagtong
because he had been informed that they had watched a Betamax show together with
the victim. From other sources, he had
learned that the victim and accused-appellants were in Barangay Burabud on the
date and time in question. He
investigated Ronnie Cabagtong, but he did not take down the latter’s affidavit
because he believed his claim that he was at home at the time of the incident.[25]
The defense then presented its evidence. Its theory is that the
crime was committed by one Randy Gomba, and not by accused-appellants, as
charged by the prosecution. The first
witness, Josefina Bernas, testified that, on the day of the crime, she and her
husband were in Sitio Tinotogasan making copra. While they were working, they heard a woman crying. When Josefina went to see what it was, she
saw a girl being raped by a man. Josefina recognized the assailant to be Randy Gomba. The girl was lying on her back with her legs
raised, her shorts were at her ankle and her blouse was around her neck. She saw Randy Gomba holding the girl in his
arms. She was bleeding profusely. Randy warned her: “No such story would come
out, otherwise, [I will] kill [you].” Frightened, Josefina ran fast until she reached her husband. After she had told her husband what she had
witnessed, they hurriedly went home, passing through another route because they
were afraid they might encounter Randy Gomba.[26]
Upon reaching home, Josefina wrote the date and time of the
incident and told her husband to watch out as Randy Gomba might come to their
house. Randy in fact went to their
house and threatened to harm them if they told anybody about the incident. Josefina
said Randy even asked P20.00 from them for his fare, but they had no
money at that time.[27]
After Randy had left their house, Josefina and her husband went
to the house of her in-laws. A few days
later, they asked a neighbor to seek the help of the barangay captain. It was the barangay captain’s son, July
Gobatana, who came and brought them to his house. They stayed there for almost three weeks, and left the barangay
captain’s house only when they were informed that Randy had gone to Manila.[28]
Josefina said she gave the note she had made to Eladio Cabagtong. She then sought the help of Isabelo Lucero,
a barangay captain in Laoang and a godfather of the victim. Isabelo Lucero wrote a letter to Erma Ada,
the victim’s mother. Josefina went with
Isabelo Lucero to deliver the letter to Erma, but she did not know its
contents. Josefina said she knew accused-appellants Renante Mendez and Rene
Cabagtong and that she did not see either of them near the area where the
incident took place at any time during that day.[29]
On cross-examination, Josefina said that she came forward because
she was bothered by her conscience. She
decided to tell what she knew about the case so that “justice [would] be
[done]” to the victim as well as to accused-appellants, who would suffer
imprisonment even though they were innocent. She said that she blamed herself for not reporting the matter to the
authorities until February 1997.[30]
Isabelo Lucero, barangay captain of Barangay Guilaoangi, Laoang,
Northern Samar, confirmed that Josefina Bernas had told him that she had seen a
girl raped and killed. The girl was
Isabelo Lucero’s goddaughter, Candy Dolim. He said that Josefina told him that the assailant was a certain Gomba,
whose first name she could not remember. Josefina Bernas and Isabelo Lucero did
not discuss whether accused-appellant Renante Mendez or Baby Cabagtong were
involved in the crime. Isabelo Lucero
wrote a letter to the Chief of Police of Gamay, informing the latter what
Josefina had told him and recommending that Gomba be arrested. However, the Chief of Police did not heed
his advice.[31]
Accused-appellant Rene “Baby” Cabagtong testified in his
defense. He said that he was arrested
on December 13, 1996 in his farm in Sitio Pinamihagan, Gamay, Northern Samar,
by barangay tanod Mano Mejica.[32]
Accused-appellant Baby Cabagtong was on his way home to take his meal when he
met Mejica, who asked him to go with him. When Baby demanded to know why he should do so, Mejica pointed a gun at
him. Baby was taken to the municipal
hall of Gamay, where he was investigated by policeman SPO2 Noli Cernio. A certain Peter Longcop was the sole
companion of SPO2 Cernio during the investigation. Cernio asked him his whereabouts on that particular Sunday when
the crime occurred, and Baby answered that he was at his farm for it was customarily
a working day. According to Baby, SPO2
Cernio asked him only one question. Peter Longcop, on the other hand, asked Baby to testify against
accused-appellant Renante Mendez because they wanted Baby to implicate him, but
he refused.[33]
He claimed he was told to go downstairs and was then placed in jail. There were other prisoners inside the jail
cell, including accused-appellant Renante Mendez.
Accused-appellant Baby Cabagtong said everything Ronnie Cabagtong
had said was a lie and that SPO2 Noli Cernio convinced Ronnie to testify
against them as a condition for the latter’s release. Baby claimed that at the time of the incident, he was with his
parents and siblings in his house at the outskirts of Barangay Burabud, more
than one kilometer, from the scene of the crime.[34]
On cross-examination, accused-appellant Baby Cabagtong testified
that he was not aware of an order of the MCTC of Gamay (Exhibit H), requiring
him and Mendez to submit their counter-affidavits. Baby Cabagtong told the court that he harbored no grudge against
Farvesio Banawis, with whom he was acquainted, and Aurea Cabagtong, who was his
aunt, although a distant relative. He
also knew Gil Ada, the Clerk of Court of MCTC of Gamay, and he even appeared in
court before him. Gil Ada had required
them to sign a waiver which they did not sign.[35]
Accused-appellant Renante Mendez also took the witness
stand. He claimed that in December
1996, he was in Gamay, helping his father make copra. He was arrested on December 12, 1996 as a suspect in this case,
together with Ronnie Cabagtong, by SPO2 Noli Cernio, Peter Longcop, Gejada and
Barredo, all of whom were members of the PNP of Gamay. He was not shown any
warrant when they were arrested.[36]
Accused-appellant Renante Mendez and Ronnie Cabagtong were
brought to the municipal hall, where their pictures were taken. After they were investigated, Renante was
locked up in jail and brought downstairs, while Ronnie Cabagtong was taken
upstairs. Renante overheard the police
asking Ronnie to testify against him in this case. Because he agreed, Ronnie was released and later utilized as a
witness.[37]
Upon cross-examination, accused-appellant Renante Mendez
testified that he was not aware that the municipal court of Gamay had ordered
him to submit counter-affidavits nor was he furnished with a copy of the
charges filed against him. He denied participation in the crime, saying he did
not leave his house that evening of December 8, 1996 because he was sick. He knew the mother of Ronnie, Aurea
Cabagtong, as well as Farvesio Banawis. According to accused-appellant Renante Mendez, he did not harbor any ill
will against Farvesio Banawis, Aurea Cabagtong or Ronnie Cabagtong.[38]
On October 5, 1999, Gil Ada, the Clerk of Court of MCTC of Gamay,
Northern Samar, was presented as a defense witness. Ada said that, as Clerk of Court of MCTC of Gamay, he had issued
an order requiring accused-appellants Mendez and Cabagtong to appear and submit
their counter-affidavits, together with those of their witnesses, in connection
with the criminal complaint filed against them. Ada said he had issued the order on the authority of Judge
Espina, now retired, and upon the order of the present judge, Judge Lagrimas,
who conducted the preliminary examination in this case.[39]
On cross-examination, Gil Ada said that it was usual for the
court to issue an order for the submission of counter-affidavits. Ada did not know, however, if
accused-appellants submitted their counter-affidavits. On re-direct examination, he testified that
his purpose in issuing the order was to let accused-appellants answer the
complaint, but he could not say if it was also for the issuance of the warrants
of arrest.[40]
The prosecution presented SPO2 Noli Cernio as a rebuttal
witness. SPO2 Cernio denied that he
taught Ronnie Cabagtong what to say in court. According to him, Ronnie was not arrested but only “invited” to the
police headquarters. Aurea Cabagtong
informed them that Ronnie was not involved in the case and that Ronnie would be
willing to testify against the perpetrators. He said that accused-appellant Renante Mendez could not have overheard
him promising liberty to Ronnie if the latter agreed to testify. SPO2 Cernio said that the Chief of Police
had ordered the arrest of accused-appellants on the basis of information given
by Aurea Cabagtong. SPO2 Cernio said no
pictures were taken of accused-appellants.[41]
On cross-examination, SPO2 Cernio told the court that the arrest
of accused-appellant Renante Mendez without a warrant was based on their
knowledge of his guilt. He claimed that
they had released accused-appellant Renante Mendez from custody, but he did not
want to leave because he was afraid of getting involved in the case. On the other hand, Magno Mejica arrested
Rene “Baby” Cabagtong, also without a warrant, based on the citizens’ arrest
law. Mejica knew about the case because
he was from Barangay Burabud and a member of the Citizens’ Crime Watch and an
NPA surrenderee.[42]
Zosimo Mejica, resident of Gamay, Northern Samar, also
testified. Mejica declared that he knew
accused-appellant Baby Cabagtong because Baby’s mother was his second
cousin. When he learned that Candy
Dolim had been raped and killed, he went to the place where Candy’s body had
been found. There were no houses near
the crime scene, the nearest being, in his estimate, 100 meters away. When he arrived at the scene, he saw Candy
lying face up, with her panty on her ankles and her T-shirt raised up to her
neck. Several people were present at
the scene, including SPO2 Noli Cernio. Candy’s body was taken to her grandfather’s house. Mejica knew that the police conducted an
investigation, which, according to him, pointed to accused-appellants as the
ones responsible for the crime.[43]
Mejica recalled that, on December 13, 1996, while he was on his
way to Sitio Pinamihagan, he met accused-appellant Baby Cabagtong. He said he collared accused-appellant and
told him that he was being arrested as one of the suspects in the rape-slay of
Candy Dolim. According to Mejica, Baby
tried to escape but failed. He took
Baby to the headquarters and turned him over to the police. Mejica stated that he did not use a gun in
arresting Baby Cabagtong, but a small bolo belonging to Baby, which he
pretended to borrow from the latter. He
turned over the small bolo (tinogon) to the police. Mejica said he was present when the police
and the mayor investigated accused-appellant Baby Cabagtong. According to
Mejica, he based his arrest of Baby from the statement of Aurea Cabagtong. This was not the first time, he said, that
he had arrested a suspect in a case.[44]
The trial court found the evidence for the prosecution,
particularly the testimonies of Ronnie Cabagtong and his mother, credible and
rendered judgment for the prosecution. The dispositive portion of its decision dated December 22, 2000, reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby finds both accused
Renante Mendez and Baby Cabagtong guilty of the offense of Rape with Homicide
beyond all reasonable doubt and hereby sentences them to the supreme penalty of
DEATH. The accused are further
condemned to indemnify the heirs of the victim the amount of P100,000.00 each
as damages.
SO ORDERED.[45]
Assailing the decision of the trial court, accused-appellants
argue that Âľ
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES
OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES RONNIE CABAGTONG AND AUREA CABAGTONG.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
NOT FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WERE MERELY FALL GUYS TO THE RAPE-SLAY OF
CANDY DOLIM.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME
CHARGED.[46]
We find the appeal to be meritorious.
I.
First. As already noted, the prosecution is anchored mainly on the testimonies
of Ronnie Cabagtong and his mother, Aurea Cabagtong. Upon closer examination, however, certain circumstances make
these testimonies suspect. It is doubtful whether Ronnie really saw
accused-appellant Renante Mendez raping Candy, with the latter’s hands being
held by the other accused-appellant, Baby Cabagtong. Ronnie admitted that it was raining that evening and that it was
dark as there was no moonlight. He
claimed, however, that he was nevertheless able to recognize accused-appellant
Renante Mendez and Baby Cabagtong because of a light from a lantern (parol)
hanging about five meters away from the trail where the crime had been
committed.[47]
His testimony is contrary to the testimony of another prosecution witness,
Zosimo Mejica, who categorically stated that there were no houses near the area
where Candy’s body was found and that it was surrounded by trees. Mejica
testified:[48]
FISCAL LAGRIMAS:
Q: That place where Candy
Dolim was discovered dead, is it near a trail or street?
A: It is about 50 meters
[from] the trail.
Q: Are there bushes?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Tall bushes?
A: Yes, sir, taller than a
man standing.
Q: What kind of grass is
that?
A: There were trees and some vines.
Q: So it is not grass, is it
a tree?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Is that a forest?
A: There are plenty of
trees.
Q: Are there houses
nearby?
A: None.
Q: The nearest house from
the place where the body of Candy Dolim was discovered is about how far?
A: More than 100 meters.
If there were no houses near the crime scene, it is cause for
wonder how the parol, where the light allegedly came from, could have
been hanged within a distance of five meters from the place where Ronnie
claimed he witnessed the incident. Even
if the crime was committed near the trail, and not on the exact spot where
Candy’s body was found, the nearest house would have to be at least 50 meters
away. Ronnie even embellished his story
by claiming that the parol was “made of wood with a wick, inside a
bottle.”[49]
Second. Ronnie’s behavior after allegedly witnessing the
incident belied his pretension. He was
supposed to have witnessed a crime. Yet
he went home, took his supper and went to sleep as if nothing had
happened. When accused-appellants went
to his house, Ronnie did not show any apprehension but matter of factly asked
his mother to let them in. This is not
the normal reaction of a person who supposedly has just seen a crime
committed. Ronnie’s claim that the
victim was his cousin all the more makes his story incredible. For if this was true, why did he show no
concern for her at all? Instead, he
showed sympathy for the assailants. Thus, Ronnie testified:[50]
ATTY. SARMIENTO:
Q: After witnessing this
act, you went directly home?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You did not tell your
mother what you saw?
A: No, sir.
Q: Why not?
A: Because I immediately
went to sleep.
Q: You were able to sleep
at once after having witnessed that lustful act?
A: I ate first then I
went to sleep.
Q: You mean you were able
to eat and sleep after having witnessed this [dastardly] act and this involved
your friends?
A: Of course because I
was hungry.
Q: Before December 8, 1996,
Renante Mendez and Baby Cabagtong used to go to your house?
A: No, sir.
Q: They are not your
friends?
A: No, sir.
Q: Are you sure?
A: They are not my friends.
Q: They are your enemies?
A: No, sir.
Q: But they are your
acquaintances?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And also Candy Dolim?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Especially so that Candy
Dolim is your cousin?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: That is why you are a
witness in this case?
A: Yes, sir.
The fact is that another key prosecution witness, SPO2 Noli
Cernio, testified that Ronnie and accused-appellants, Renante and Baby, were
often seen together. In fact, Ronnie
and Renante were picked up and investigated together by the police.[51]
If Ronnie was later released, while Renante was detained at the municipal jail,
it was only because his mother, Aurea, went to the police station and pointed
to accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. As Rico Dolim, the father of the victim,
testified:[52]
FISCAL LAGRIMAS
Q: Did you finally know the
persons or perpetrators responsible for the death of your daughter?
A: Yes, I finally [knew]
the perpetrators who committed the crime against my daughter from somebody who
told me that [she] would be a witness.
Q: Who is this person who
told you about the persons responsible for the death of your daughter?
A: She is Mrs. Aurea
Cabagtong.
Q: When did she tell you?
A: After the funeral of my
daughter.
Q: Where did she tell you?
A: At the police
headquarters.
Q: Why was she in the police
headquarters?
A: Because she was there to
look after her son because I made [a] complain[t] against him, Ron[nie], the
son of Aurea.
Q: Why did you have Ron[nie]
Cabagtong [investigated] in relation to the death of your daughter?
A: Because of the rumors
circulating around that I must have to [pin] the person the fact that he is
“Bogoy-bogoy”, he may be involved.
Q: Was he investigated by
the police?
A: He was investigated by
the police.
Ronnie Cabagtong was released upon the recommendation of SPO2
Cernio to the Chief of Police. When
asked why he did not take Ronnie’s statement during the investigation, SPO2
Cernio testified:[53]
ATTY. SARMIENTO:
Q: You likewise investigated
Ron[nie] Cabagtong?
A: Yes, sir, I investigated
[him].
Q: All of these witnesses
you have mentioned except Ron[nie] Cabagtong executed affidavit[s] which you
took, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why did you not take the
affidavit or statement of Ron[nie] Cabagtong?
A: I made an affidavit for
his mother instead.
Q: But Ron[n]ie gave his
statement to you, but you did not reduce [it] into writing?
A: Yes, I did not.
Q: Why did you not reduce
into writing the statement of Ron[nie]. . . ?
A: Because Ron[nie] was not
present during the incident, He was at
home.
Q: Why, [were] these other
witnesses present, these witnesses you have listed in the Complaint, [whose
affidavits you have taken], were they present?
A: No, they were not.
Q: Not [one] of them was
present during the incident, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir. Nobody was
there.
Q: So that the only reason
why you did not take the statement of Ron[nie] was that he was not present
during the incident?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Ron[nie] actually told
you that he was not [at] the scene of the incident as he was in his house?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You will not change that
statement?
A: Yes, sir.
Thus, SPO2 Cernio took at face value Ronnie’s word that he was
innocent. Ronnie and his mother were
only too willing to testify against accused-appellants in exchange for his
liberty. From the time of Ronnie’s
release until the time he gave his statement, Ronnie and his mother had
sufficient time to iron out the details of their testimonies.
It has been held time and again that, to be credible, testimonial
evidence should come not only from the mouth of a credible witness but it
should itself be also credible, reasonable and in accord with human experience.[54]
The testimonies of Ronnie Cabagtong and his mother Aurea simply do not meet
these standards.
If for any reason there is a possibility that a witness might
have been prompted to testify falsely, courts should be on guard in assessing
the witness’ credibility.[55]
While we do not want to speculate on Ronnie’s participation in the crime, we
cannot overlook the ulterior motive that he and his mother had in pointing to
accused-appellants as the culprits. For
this reason, we cannot accord full faith and credit to their testimonies.
II.
The only evidence left against accused-appellants is
circumstantial evidence. Such evidence, to pass muster, must meet the
following criteria: (a) there is more
than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proved; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Such circumstances must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to
the fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused is guilty. The combination of evidence must leave no
room for doubt as to the guilt of the accused.[56]
In this case, Farvesio Banawis said that he met the victim Candy
Dolim while he was on his way home. According to him, he saw accused-appellants following Candy.[57]
His testimony merely establishes the fact that, at one point during the day of
the incident, Candy Dolim was in the company of accused-appellants. However, this fact alone does not warrant
the conclusion that accused-appellants raped and killed Candy. It is too dangerous a conclusion to be
bridged by this singular event. Farvesio himself admitted that he was merely “thinking that maybe the
two guys (referring to accused-appellants) who were following the girl (Candy)
were the [ones] responsible.”[58]
On the other hand, the defense presented Josefina Bernas, who
claimed to have actually witnessed the crime. It puzzles the Court why no investigation was conducted to follow up
this lead, considering the persistent efforts shown by the police of Gamay in
pursuing accused-appellants. The
information was not insignificant. It
was an alleged eyewitness account identifying the perpetrator as a certain
Randy Gomba. It was even reported
through Isabelo Lucero, a barangay captain and a godfather to the victim. It would seem, however, that the police were
keen on pinning the blame on accused-appellants, who made for easy targets
because of their reputation in their community. But while SPO2 Cernio testified as to the troublesome nature of
accused-appellants, he offered no proof for his assertion. There is no record of any case previously
filed against them.
Accused-appellants’ defense is alibi. But it is settled that where the evidence of the prosecution is
itself feeble, particularly as to the identity of the accused as the author of
the crime, alibi assumes importance and acquires commensurate strength. The rule that alibi must be satisfactorily
proven was never intended to change the burden of proof in criminal cases;
otherwise, the accused would be put in the difficult position of having to
prove his innocence even where the prosecution’s evidence is vague and
weak. The prosecution cannot profit
from the weakness of accused-appellants’ alibi. It must rely on the strength of
its own evidence and establish the guilt of accused-appellants beyond
reasonable doubt.[59]
Indeed, unless his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, an
accused is entitled to an acquittal.[60] Only
when the conscience is satisfied that the crime has been committed by the
person on trial should the sentence be for conviction.[61]
We find that the prosecution in this case failed to establish the guilt of
accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence presented against them failed to prove that they were
responsible for the crime. While we
deplore this gruesome incident and commiserate with the victim’s family, we
cannot sustain accused-appellants’ conviction on the wretched testimony of an
alleged eyewitness presented by the prosecution.
Nor can we close our eyes to the palpable violations of the
rights of accused-appellants during the period of their detention. The record shows that accused-appellants
were arrested without any warrants from the courts. Contrary to his claim, SPO2 Cernio did not have personal
knowledge of the commission of the crime so as to justify the warrantless
arrest of Renante Mendez. Personal
knowledge of facts in arrests without warrant under §5(b) of Rule 113 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure must be based upon “probable cause,” which means
“an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.” The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when
it is based on actual facts, i.e., when it is supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the
person to be arrested.[62]
There is also an inconsistency between Ronnie’s testimony and
that of SPO2 Cernio. SPO2 Cernio
testified that Ronnie told him the day he was arrested that accused-appellants
Renante Mendez and Baby Cabagtong went to Ronnie’s house at around 10 o’clock
on the night of the incident. But
Ronnie denied that he told the police what he knew of the incident when he was
investigated because he feared for his life. The police failed to record the investigation, and so it is not now
possible to determine who was actually telling the truth. It is clear from the records, however, that
accused-appellant Renante Mendez was arrested together with Ronnie Cabagtong. On the other hand, the only time the police
had evidence against accused-appellant Renante Mendez was when Aurea Cabagtong
came forward after her son’s arrest and pointed to him (Renante Mendez) and
Baby Cabagtong as the perpetrators. But
that was only on December 12, 1996, four days after the commission of the
crime, and it could not justify the arrest of accused-appellants without a
judicial warrant.
Accused-appellant Baby Cabagtong, on the other hand, was arrested
by Zosimo Mejica, a member of the Citizens’ Crime Watch, on the basis of the
citizens’ arrest law. Mejica was
neither a police officer nor a witness to the incident. He was not a member of the investigating
team. He did not have any personal
knowledge of the incident. He admitted
during cross-examination that he merely based his arrest on the information
supplied by Aurea Cabagtong to the police.[63] This
does not constitute personal knowledge to warrant a citizens’ arrest.
Finally, the records do not show that accused-appellants were
assisted by counsel in the course of the investigation. During their questioning at the
headquarters, only the police investigators were present. Nowhere in the records was it shown that
they were apprised of their rights under the Constitution. While no confession was obtained from them,
their interrogation at that time could nonetheless have given the police
valuable leads into the unsolved crime. Accused-appellants also insist that they did not receive a copy of the order
requiring them to submit counter-affidavits. The Clerk of Court of the MCTC of Gamay merely testified as to the
issuance of said order, but testimony does not confirm that such it was
received by accused-appellants.
The fact that these irregularities were never raised before
arraignment, and were therefore considered waived when accused-appellants
entered their pleas, does not justify the short cuts. These procedural lapses clearly indicate that the police had shut
its mind off to the possibility that other parties might have committed the
crime.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 22, Laoang, Northern Samar, dated December 22, 2000, is REVERSED and
accused-appellants Renante Mendez and Rene “Baby” Cabagtong are ACQUITTED of
the crime of rape with homicide on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Director of Prisons is hereby directed to forthwith cause the
release of accused-appellants unless the latter are being lawfully held for
another cause and to inform the Court accordingly within ten (10) days from
notice of the action taken herein.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Corona, J., on official leave.
[1]
Per Judge Jose H. Mijares.
[2]
Rollo, p. 5.
[3]
TSN (Rico Dolim), pp. 3-9, July 21, 1997.
[4]
Also known as “Bogoy-bogoy” and referred to in the records as “Rony” or
“Ronie.”
[5]
TSN (Rico Dolim), pp. 10-11, July 21, 1997.
[6]
Also known as Rene Cabagtong.
[7]
TSN (Rico Dolim), pp. 12-13, July 21, 1997.
[8]
TSN (Aurea Cabagtong), pp. 22- 25, July 21, 1997.
[9]
Exhs. A, A-1 and translation.
[10]
TSN (Aurea Cabagtong), pp. 30-31, July 21, 1997.
[11]
TSN (Ronnie Cabagtong), pp. 3-9, Sept. 24, 1997.
[12] Id., pp. 15-18.
[13]
Exh. B and translation.
[14]
TSN (Ronnie Cabagtong), pp. 19-22, Sept. 24, 1997.
[15]
TSN (Ronnie Cabagtong), pp. 4-8, Sept. 25, 1997.
[16]
Exh. C.
[17]
TSN (Dr. Santiago Engo), pp. 5-10, Oct. 17, 1997.
[18] Id., pp. 12-13, 16-17.
[19]
TSN (Farvesio Banawis), pp. 17-18, 21-25, Nov. 3, 1997.
[20]
Exh. F and the translation.
[21]
TSN (Farvesio Banawis), pp. 26-30, Nov. 3, 1997.
[22]
TSN (SPO2 Nilo Cernio), pp. 3-6, Dec. 8, 1997.
[23] Id.
[24] Id., pp. 7-10.
[25] Id., pp. 13-15.
[26]
TSN (Josefina Bernas), pp. 4-7, Oct. 14, 1998.
[27] Id., pp. 8-9.
[28] Id., pp. 9-12.
[29] Id.
[30] Id., pp. 15-20.
[31]
TSN (Brgy. Capt. Isabelo Lucero), pp. 3-8, Jan. 11, 1999.
[32]
Also referred to in the records as “Mager” or “Magno” Mejica.
[33]
TSN (Rene “Baby” Cabagtong), pp. 2-6, March 12, 1999.
[34] Id., pp. 6-9.
[35] Id., pp. 11-14.
[36]
TSN (Renante Mendez), pp. 2-4, Sept. 10, 1999.
[37] Id.,
pp. 6-9.
[38] Id., pp. 11-18.
[39]
TSN (Gil Ada), pp. 2-5, October 5, 1999.
[40] Id., pp. 5-7.
[41]
TSN (SPO3 Nilo Cernio), pp. 3-7, June 30, 2000.
[42] Id., pp. 7-13.
[43]
TSN (Zosimo Mejica), pp. 2-5, July 26, 2000.
[44] Id., pp. 5-10.
[45]
Rollo, p. 39.
[46]
Brief for Accused-Appellants, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 55-56.
[47]
TSN (Ronnie Cabagtong), pp. 11-12, Sept. 24, 1997.
[48]
TSN (Zosimo Mejica), pp. 3-4, July 26, 2000.
[49]
TSN (Ronnie Cabagtong), p. 12, Sept. 24, 1997.
[50] Id., pp. 31-32.
[51]
TSN (SPO2 Noli Cernio), p. 6, Dec. 8, 1997.
[52]
TSN (Rico Dolim), pp. 10-11, July 21, 1997.
[53]
TSN (SPO2 Cernio), pp. 14-15, Dec. 8, 1997.
[54]
People v. Larapie, 354 SCRA
351 (2001); People v. Sinco,
355 SCRA 713 (2001).
[55]
People v. Leonardo, 332
SCRA 717 (2000); People v. Manambit, 271 SCRA 344 (1997).
[56]
People v. Tapales, 313 SCRA
610 (1999).
[57]
TSN (Farvesio Banawis), pp. 21-22, Nov. 13, 1997.
[58] Id., p. 38.
[59]
People v. Giganto, Sr., 336 SCRA 294 (2000).
[60]
People v. Sananon, Nov. 19, 2001; People
v. Patriarca, G.R. No. 137891, July 11, 2001; People v. Matyaong, G.R. No. 140206,
June 21, 2001; People v.
Leonardo, 332 SCRA 717 (2000).
[61]
People v. Frago, 232 SCRA 653 (1994).
[62]
People v. Escordial, G.R. Nos.
138934-35, Jan. 16, 2002.
[63]
TSN (Zosimo Mejica), pp. 8-9, July 26, 2000.