G.R. No. 56268. October 13, 1989
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GREGORIO ARANJA Y ARAÑA AND MAGDALENA ARANJA Y RAMIREZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
CRUZ, J.:
The spouses Gregorio and Magdalena
Aranja were both convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.[1] They questioned the judgment before this
Court, but Magdalena later withdrew her appeal and the case was considered
“closed and terminated” as to her.[2] This decision deals only with Gregorio, who
continues to protest his innocence and insists he had
nothing to do with the killing of Joseph Tan.
The Aranjas and the Tans
were neighbors, but they
apparently did not believe in the Biblical injunction to love one another. In fact, there was bad blood between the two
families. Earlier, Joseph Tan’s wife, Adelaida, had filed an
action in court against Magdalena Aranja for allegedly hacking her.[3] On another occasion, according to a witness,
Joseph Tan had himself assaulted Raul Nuñez, a nephew of the Aranjas with whom he was living. Another witness testified that he overheard
Gregorio Aranja say on that very night Joseph Tan was killed: “Kung galit ka sa tao, huwag nang maraming daldal. Patayin na.”[4] Shortly
thereafter, the scuffle ensued
that was to lead to Tan’s death.
That encounter occurred
at about nine o’clock in the evening of July 2, 1978, at Tomas Mapua street in
Sta. Cruz, Manila. Joseph Tan and his
friend, Lucilo Amora, were on their way to the compound where the Aranjas were also
living when without provocation Roberto
Aranja approached Amora and boxed him in the eye, causing him to fall. Roberto and his father, for their part,
pinioned Tan’s arms, and Magdalena, who was standing nearby, shouted,
“Saksakin mo na, Raul!” Nuñez then stabbed Tan in the stomach with a
bolo, and a fifth companion, Prado Azurpado, hit Tan in the head with a piece
of wood.[5] Roberto,
Raul and Prado fled after inflicting more injuries on Tan, leaving their victim
helpless and bleeding on the ground. The spouses Aranja remained in their house, where they were subsequently
arrested.
The incident created a
great deal of commotion in the compound. Adelaida added to the general confusion with her agitated cries for help
when she saw her husband being attacked. Several persons assisted Lucilo Amora in bringing Tan to the Philippine
General Hospital, and one of them declared that Tan identified his assailants
to him as Nuñez, the Aranja spouses, their son Roberto,
and the fifth person named Prado. Tan
expired three days later. The autopsy
revealed that he had sustained several stab and incised wounds, abrasions and
contusions, among many other injuries all over his body.[6]
The principal witness for
the prosecution was Lucilo Amora, who testified on the details of the attack on
Tan and the individual participation of each of the five assailants.[7] Ricardo Pretal was the witness who overheard
Gregorio Aranja’s meaningful remark that if one hated somebody, he should kill him without further talk.[8] Bernabe Andres declared that it was to him that Joseph Tan identified his five attackers shortly after
they had ganged up on him.[9] Adelaida Tan described how she shouted for
help when she saw her husband being killed and testified on the monetary loss she suffered as a result
of his death.[10]
The spouses Aranja denied
they had any part in the attack on Tan. While Magdalena admitted that she was at the scene of the crime when it
occurred, she maintained she merely saw the incident and did not participate in
it in any way.[11] Gregorio’s
defense was that he was sleeping in his house at the time of the incident and
did not learn about it until later.[12] Zenaida, their daughter, supported her
parents, adding that her mother even tried to pacify Amora and Roberto
Aranja. She saw Tan himself box Nuñez,
but at that precise moment she shut her eyes out of fear and when she opened
them again Tan was already slumped on the ground. She says she heard him call out the name of
Nuñez three times.[13] A fourth witness, Benjamin Garcia, swore he
saw Gregorio Aranja peacefully sleeping on the floor of his house at the time
the encounter was taking place at the gate of the compound.[14]
After assessing the
evidence of the parties, Judge Augusto M. Amores of the Court of First Instance
of Manila found the Aranja spouses guilty as charged. The court was satisfied that the prosecution had established the
complicity of the two in the concerted attack made by all the five
assailants against Joseph Tan. Gregorio’s defense of alibi was rejected as against the direct testimony
that he and his son Roberto held Joseph’s arms as Nuñez stabbed him with a
bolo. Magdalena’s sharp command,
“Saksakin mo na, Raul!” revealed all too clearly her own involvement
in the conspiracy.
As the trial court saw it, there was a sufficient showing that
the five assailants, including the Aranja spouses, had acted in concert in
carrying out the aggression against Tan, with each of them performing a
specific task. The motive was also
there: the hatred of the Aranjas for
the Tans because of their previous hostile encounters as earlier related.
The Court agrees with Judge Amores. The rule is that the factual findings of the trial judge are
entitled to great respect and should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of
a clear showing that they were arrived
at without any substantial basis.[15] We
see no reason at all for not applying this rule in the case at bar.
The defense complains that in the original and later the amended
informations against the Aranja spouses, the other alleged conspirators were
not included or even named although their identities and addresses were
known. While such omission may indicate
partiality or at least a lack of diligence on the part of the prosecution, such
a failing cannot affect the criminal responsibility of the accused-appellants themselves, who were being
prosecuted for their own individual parts in the killing of Joseph Tan. Surely, it cannot be seriously argued that
because the other attackers have not been indicted (possibly because they are
at large), the Aranja spouses should themselves not have been charged at all.
As for their alleged
irregular ex parte investigation,
what the defense should have done was to ask for a re-investigation before the
trial of the case.
We have held time and
again that minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of the
witness do not necessarily impair his credibility as long as his testimony is
believable as a whole.[16] This is especially true when the incident in
question is attended with such commotion as is likely to cause not a
little confusion among the persons at
the scene whose recollection of the incident cannot be expected to be perfect
in every single detail. So it was in
the case before us.
On the question of
conspiracy, this Court also agrees that the Aranja spouses acted in concert
with the other assailants in committing the aggression against Tan, as shown by Gregorio’s act in pinioning Tan
while Nuñez stabbed him upon the direct command of Magdalena. The common involvement of the five as
revealed by Tan to Bernabe Andres was, if not a dying declaration, validly admitted as part of the res gestae,
and is further proof of the conspiracy.
We note with
gratification the de oficio counsel’s spirited defense of the
accused-appellants that speaks well, indeed, of their conscientiousness and
sense of duty. The fact that the Court
cannot agree with their submissions does not detract from the commendation they
deserve for having acted, without expectation of monetary reward, in the
highest interests of their indigent client. These worthy members of the bar are Attys. Enrico R. Castro, Jose P.
Villamor, Jr. and Simeon M. Magdamit.
The crime committed was
murder, qualified by treachery. The
assailants insured the commission of the offense without risk to
themselves because two of them held Tan’s arms and rendered him defenseless as
another stabbed him with a bolo and a fourth person hit him in the head with a
piece of wood. The applicable penalty,
there being no generic
aggravating or mitigating circumstances, is reclusion perpetua,
together with all accessory penalties. The monetary awards of the trial court are also correct except for the
civil indemnity, which is increased from P12,000.00 to P30,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED as above
modified, with costs against the accused-appellant. It is so ordered.
Narvasa, (Chairman), Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
[1]
Decision penned by Judge Augusto
M. Amores, Court of First Instance of Manila (now Regional Trial Court), Branch
XXIV. The penalty included the payment
of the sum of P12,000.00 for the death of the victim, the sum of P72,000.00 for
the loss of earnings, the sum of P6,000.00 for moral damages and the sum of
P967.20 for hospital expenses.
[2]
Resolution dated March 2, 1988; Entry
of Judgment of even date.
[3]
Decision, p. 4.
[4]
Ibid., p. 3.
[5]
Id., p. 2.
[6]
Exhibit “G.”
[7]
TSN, October 23, 1978, pp. 7, 12, 15-17; TSN, November 14, 1978, pp. 4-9.
[8]
TSN, January 15, 1979, p. 46.
[9]
TSN, January 30, 1979, p. 6.
[10]
TSN, April 2, 1979, pp. 3-5.
[11]
TSN, August 27, 1979, pp. 22-24; TSN,
December 11, 1979, pp. 10-17.
[12]
TSN, February 4, 1980, pp. 6-8.
[13]
TSN, January 7, 1980, p. 14.
[14]
TSN, May 19, 1980, p. 5.
[15]
People vs. Alvarez y Soriano, 163 SCRA 745; People vs.
Salcedo, 151 SCRA 220; People vs. Ligon, 152 SCRA 419; People vs. Berame, 72 SCRA 184; People vs. Velasco, 73 SCRA 574.
[16]
People vs. De las Piñas, 141 SCRA 379; People vs. Dava, 149 SCRA
582; People vs. Datahan, 157 SCRA
215; People vs. Salufrania, 159 SCRA 401; People vs.
Cabato, 160 SCRA 98.