PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NOEL LITA AND ROMULO MALINIS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Lita

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Noel Lita and Romulo Malinis, together with several others, for the killing of Hipolito Rementilla, a barangay councilman of Paagahan, Mabitac, Laguna, on the night of the barangay Christmas party in December 1998. The Information charged the accused with murder, committed with treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime, and use of superior strength. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the working rules on the credibility of eyewitnesses, the proof of conspiracy by inference from overt acts, the treatment of minor inconsistencies between a witness and the medical findings, the requisites of alibi, and the essence of voluntary surrender.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Manila tried the case. In its Decision of April 10, 2013, it found Noel Lita and Romulo Malinis guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in view of the law proscribing capital punishment. It acquitted Benigno Obrador, Sebastian Requitud, and Inosencio Pondano. Several other accused died pending trial, and Barangay Chair Benito Moncada was at large.

Lita and Malinis appealed their conviction to the Court of Appeals, questioning the finding of conspiracy, the credibility of the eyewitness, the supposed inconsistencies with the postmortem findings, and the rejection of their defenses. In its Decision of December 10, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision in its entirety. Lita and Malinis then filed a Notice of Appeal, which the Court of Appeals gave due course to, and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court, which resolved the appeal in this Decision.

Facts

On the night of December 20, 1998, Barangay Paagahan in Mabitac, Laguna held its Christmas party. Earlier that afternoon, a witness saw Felicisimo Amada, Barangay Chair Moncada, and Sebastian Requitud standing on the road leading to Hipolito's house, pointing at it while talking. Another witness testified that at around ten in the evening, the accused gathered at the barangay chair's house, where a plan to kill Hipolito on his way home from the party was discussed and weapons were distributed.

At about midnight, Hipolito walked home from the party. His nephew Nonilon offered to accompany him, and when the offer was refused, Nonilon followed anyway, fearing for his uncle's safety. Nonilon saw Julian Consul come from the rear right side of his uncle and shoot him twice. He then saw Amada emerge from the left rear side and fire another shot, and five more shots as Hipolito lay supine on the pavement. Nearby, Nonilon saw Lita and Malinis holding their guns, seemingly acting as lookouts. When he realized he had been spotted, he ran toward the highway. Returning to his uncle's side after the assailants fled, he heard Hipolito utter words that he understood to name Amada and Lita, whose nickname was Puti. Hipolito was brought to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.

The physician who conducted the postmortem examination found eight gunshot wounds, three on the front and five on the back of the body. The defense interposed denials and alibis. Malinis claimed he was home sleeping when the police came looking for his brother, and that he was charged after refusing to point to the barangay chair as the mastermind. Lita claimed he was watching the Christmas party and later drinking with companions until past three in the morning. Both admitted that their homes were within walking distance of the victim's house.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the conviction of Noel Lita and Romulo Malinis for murder.
• Whether or not the testimony of the eyewitness, Nonilon Rementilla, was credible despite its inconsistencies with the medical findings on the location and number of gunshot wounds.
• Whether or not conspiracy was established among the accused.
• Whether or not the defenses of denial and alibi could prevail over the positive testimony of the eyewitness.
• Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender attended the arrest of the accused.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines and penalizes murder, and 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. 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 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 is the provision under which the accused were convicted and sentenced, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation having been appreciated.

Republic Act No. 9346 proscribes the imposition of capital punishment, and the Court applied it in fixing the penalty:

Section 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed: (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

This is why the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua rather than death.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court dismissed the appeal. The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were affirmed. The trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses personally, and its assignment of probative value to testimonial evidence will not be disturbed except when significant matters were overlooked. A reversal becomes even less likely when the findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

On the second issue, the Court held that the inconsistencies between the eyewitness and the physician did not disprove that Hipolito was shot eight times. Minor inconsistencies may indicate a lack of coaching and thus spontaneity and truthfulness. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

It is axiomatic that slight variations in the testimony of a witness as to minor details or collateral matters do not affect his or her credibility as these variations are in fact indicative of truth and show that the witness was not coached to fabricate or dissemble. An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the finding of conspiracy. The trial court inferred concerted action from the eyewitness account: two shots from one assailant, then another shot and five more from the second, while Lita and Malinis stood nearby holding guns as lookouts, ready to assist should anyone stand in the way. These acts were complementary and geared toward the common objective of taking the victim's life.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the alibis and denials, while not automatically unmeritorious, were not corroborated, and both accused admitted being reasonably within the vicinity of the killing. They failed to satisfy the requirements for a valid alibi.

On the fifth issue, the Court rejected voluntary surrender. The essence of the mitigating circumstance was stated thus:

The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture.

Here, the accused appeared at the municipal hall after Malinis was informed that Lita was a suspect, but upon arraignment they pleaded not guilty and maintained their innocence. There was no acknowledgment of guilt, so the surrender was not spontaneous.

Doctrine

First, the factual findings of the trial court on witness credibility are binding on appeal, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, absent a showing that significant matters were overlooked.

Second, minor inconsistencies between an eyewitness and the medical findings on collateral matters do not destroy credibility; they may even indicate spontaneity and lack of coaching.

Third, conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, showing a unity of purpose and design, as where armed men act as lookouts while others shoot the victim.

Fourth, alibi fails where the accused admits being within the vicinity of the crime scene and the defense is uncorroborated.

Fifth, voluntary surrender requires spontaneity and an intent to submit unconditionally to the authorities out of acknowledgment of guilt; a plea of not guilty negates it.

Sixth, under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, killing with treachery and evident premeditation is murder, and under Republic Act No. 9346 the penalty is reclusion perpetua.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, found Noel Lita and Romulo Malinis guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua with all accessory penalties provided by law.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent to submit unconditionally to the authorities out of acknowledgment of guilt. Examiners use this case to test credibility review on appeal, conspiracy by inference from overt acts, and the requisites of voluntary surrender.